Tuesday, September 30, 2008

One wild political ride

David Broder was republished in the Spokesman-Review and literally spinning Senator McCain post debate as some sort of "Alpha male" next to Senator Obama by implication as subservient. I guess that Broder forgot to mention the fact that Jim Lehrer, moderator of last Friday's debate, informed the two presidential candidates that they needed to engage one another. This Senator McCain chose not to do. Instead, he addressed his audience as though he stood in front of a campaign rally, talked about his opponent as though he were not in fact in the same room, and delivered attack lines and campaign ads. If this is how he is prepared to treat his opponent in a debate, consider how he would regard the rest of the nation, with the same level of contempt. That isn't "alpha male." And no, this is not what we want in a president. Considering that this is what we got from a fellow who treated the U.S. Constitution with contempt, the little guy with contempt, etc. Too bad that Broder could not bring himself to call a spade a spade.

So, come Monday morning, McCain is out on the hustings patting himself on the back at how he had rode in like some white knight and literally rescued the bailout package from the jaws of death. Actually, when he rode in on his white horse, the deal that was in the works fell apart. He hammered Obama as a guy who "monitored everything" and sat on the sidelines and did nothing. »Roland Martin appearing in "The Situation Room" hammered back at McCain as inserting himself into a situation where he was neither wanted or needed (and making a fool of himself) and trying to "do the job that was actually up to the House leadership to take care of. Senator Obama did the right thing by only picking up the phone and calling in to find out how the bail out plan was progressing, he did not "insert himself" into the political process because he had far more respect for his fellow members of Congress than apparently Senator McCain did. They were doing their jobs, McCain did not. And while McCain was out on the hustings busting loose on Obama, the bail out package was being brought to a floor vote. When the final tally was over, House GOP over 130 odd against and McCain: 0. Tuesday. I was at work this morning and so did not have the occasion to have some clue about where we stood today after a day of panic hit Wall Street yesterday. The DOW had plunged some 777 points. Today it had rallied some 500 points. Which I thought was good. But for McCain, he was facing the ultimate embarrassment. Which of course, failure of accountability here, he took some vicious swipes at Obama and afterwards, engaged in a furious attack on the entire Congress. It was postulated that McCain was trying to draw independent voters. However, it looked more like McCain was spitting fire because his own party had not of course conceded to his wishes. And publicly made the man look like a fool. If this is how he is going to act on the campaign trail, trying to exploit a bad situation for scoring political points, then getting served up a heaping helping of s$#t from his own party. Then I would have to say, the man got exactly what he deserved. But, he doesn't deserve to be president. So the press love to laugh at Biden's gaffes, but McCain is a gaffe. Too reckless by half. He is a decade older than GW who engaged in some utterly reckless behavior. McCain should be regarded as old enough to know better. Given how much he hammered that point home during the debate. Uh huh, and acting if possible, more irresponsible than GW himself. So, do we want McCain's itchy trigger finger too near the nuke buttons? GOP critics of McCain, (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/hbo re a commentary thread) felt otherwise. As of today, 30 September 2008, not only do we know that McCain is running away from his own history, he is running against his own party. You really can't blame the Democrats for a political cover your own ass in an election year decision by the House GOP. Who for the sake of keeping their Congressional seats, started spouting an anti-business as a special interest mantra. That is just the most comedic situation of the last 2 days to add at least some graveyard levity to what could otherwise be a catastrophic situation.

Watching "The Situation Room" hosted by John King, Alli Velcci (sic?) was describing for the viewing audience just how much the financial industry now suffering a melt down was intricately connected to your company and your job. I also saw spin from an apologist that no, no, no this was not a Wall Street bail out. Aren't financial institutions part of Wall Street? Yes, yes, yes. Didn't Congress give them plenty of rope to run amok, make what would become toxic loans and mortgages? Yes, yes, yes. Did the investors during trading days start flipping out when banks and investment firms started collapsing? Yes, yes, yes. And when the bail out package went down on a House floor vote, who was it who flipped out and caused the Dow to plunge over 700 points? Wall Street investors. So, let me get this straight; banks and other lending and financial institutions make some screwy deals because they want to get rich. The CEOs aren't satisfied with being multimillionaires, they want to be really rich. Then the house of cards starts collapsing under this weight of greed, there is no question whom the GW administration wants to protect: Wall Street. As the financial guru of CNN was prepared to put it, no bail out means the credit spigot just dries up. There goes the loans for your payroll, loans for your inventory, etc. Okay, since the biggest chunk of the payroll goes to those CEOs, here's a suggestion:
  • They should immediately take out all monies that they have squirreled away in off-shore accounts.
  • Beyond what they immediately need for keeping a car on the road, a modest house to live in, a stipend to send their kids to the local community college, a cheap car to drive, groceries bought at bargain stores, clothes perfectly useful bought at thrift shops.
  • And return the vast majority of their wealth to their struggling businesses in order to meet the payroll, secure loans, etc.
Why not?

No comments: