Wall Street Woes, Media Meltdown & More – UPDATED

:::Scroll Down for some very cranky updates:::

Reducing everything down to base politics: it’s what we do! James Pethokoukis, at US News and World Report wonders who Wall Street’s woes helps and hurts. I say hurts McCain. Obama is “blaming the government” which is vague and easy for him to do, and also vague and easy for everyone to believe. It’s not the smart answer, but it’s the savvy one, especially if you’ve been in DC for only 4 years and have managed to acquire $126,000 from Fan & Fred. (Yes, misdirection can be a strategy.) McCain needs to come out with serious solutions, not just blame.

This thing has been brewing since the 1990′s – there is lots of blame to go around. Whoever can articulate something that sounds like a real solution, offering real change, will win. Blame – and the usual media-hysterics – will not travel very well, I don’t think, except to the fringes. The sane center wants responsible restructuring, responsible oversight and a few heads to roll. (Listen to the crowd in that video of Palin, but specifics are still needed). I also suspect the majority of Americans do not want to see taxpayers stuck footing the bill for this mismanagement. Although, seriously, how we’ll avoid that will take some creative thinking. What it will not take – what we cannot allow to continue, anymore – is creative law-writing that sounds like something but is actually NOTHING.

Fausta is serving up some
straight up “snap out of it” on the importance of an economic lesson being learned.

Completely anecdotal and unmeasurable, but interesting, nonetheless: I was just chatting with one of my MIL’s best friends, a retired lady who keeps abreast of current events and is pretty well read. She’s a lifelong Democrat, and a Hillary supporter who was looking askance at Obama, but not quite ready to jump to McCain. Had a chat with her today and she said, “the press is deplorable. I’ve never seen anything like what they did to that woman, Sarah Palin. They need to get out of the way and let the candidates sink or swim on their own, and stop all this garbage and mud-flinging.”

I included this lady among those I wrote about, anecdotally, here, in describing how much trust the older population still had in the mainstream media.

If the Mainstream press has lost the confidence of the over-70 crowd for Obama, and it seems they may well be doing just that, then they’ve really, really destroyed their credibility. 3:20 PM

Victor Davis Hanson has a good piece up at PJM about the whole top-of-the-ticket and disproportionate-media issue. You’ll like. 3:22 PM

Interesting piece on Palin and her hairdresser by Rod Dreher. My Li’l Bro Thom found the last few graphs, quoting Ezra Klein, pretty interesting, too. 3:50 PM

Um…help me out here. Is this guy spectacularly out of touch and misreading things, or am I? 3:59 PM

And can we finally, finally get someone, somewhere to ask Obama a penetrating question (and maybe a followup question) about his long association with Bill Ayers? And no, the dialogue can’t go like this:

Talent: So, you’re not good friends with Bill Ayers, right?

Obama:
No, not at all, sat on a few meetings with him but nothing like real association. That’s just another lie.

Talent:
So, to followup, that’s just a filthy lie and you and Bill Ayers would barely recognise each other if you passed in the street, right?

Obama: Yes, that’s right.

Talent: There, now we’ve covered Ayers, and no one can say we didn’t! Let’s talk about different aspects of the Bush Doctrine, and how it can mean both pre-emption and the holding of our allies to certain understandings about how we will respond to the harboring of terrorists…you do understand the Bush Doctrine, right?

Obama: Yes, in every respect. The Bush Doctrine can mean both pre-emption and the holding of our allies to certain understandings about how we will respond to the harboring of terrorists. I don’t like it because it’s called the Bush Doctrine. When I am president, I will rename it the Obama Doctrine and we’ll all love it much more.

Talent: Good, moving on…how’d you get to be so great? 4:10 PM

Via Ann Althouse:What’s Happened to John McCain! He used to be so nice and agreeable!”

What’s happened to McCain is simple: he dared to actually start fighting back. When he was being all “honorable” and “noble,” lecturing his campaign to not use Obama’s middle name, telling local campaigns not to run “negative” ads against Obama, no one was paying attention; he was simply laying down and letting himself get steamrollered by the pansy-press and their prince. Now he’s playing the game the way it must be played if you’re serious about winning while the media is literally carrying the opposition nominee on their shoulders. The press asking “what’s happened to McCain” is the equivalent of Tweedledee crying that Tweedledum had broken his nice, new rattle. It’s a waaah-tantrum; he’s not just letting things happen around him! He’s actually going to try to win this thing! That’s not the John McCain we loved in 2000! Pathetic. 4:35 PM

And speaking of tantrums: As we see, John McCain is no longer “the maverick.” That only applied when he was their Boy-against-Bush. Now…hate, hate, hate. Welcome to Adolescent Tantrum City, where everyone sounds like a 14 year old on the latest cell phone, prone on the bed, gazing at a halo’d poster of their boyfriend and bitching savagely, and immaturely, about the girl who is getting all his attention:

Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama’s mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt.

I hate that she makes Joe Biden look like John McCain and John McCain look like the maverick he is not.

[Palin is not a feminist, either, according to this lady. She's not. She's just not! -admin]

I hate that Palin reminds me of Susan Sarandon’s feisty character in “Thelma & Louise.” I loved Sarandon in that movie, yet I couldn’t stand Palin’s feistiness at the Republican National Convention.

Sarah Palin makes me sick — not because she may speak in tongues — but because she is a fast talker.

Frankly, Sarah Palin scares me.

Can you imagine the uproar if anyone had written something so infantile, so childish, spiteful and spittley-harridan as this about Barack Obama? (Yes, I made up my own word, I like it.)
And this woman gets paid to write this stuff! Someone pays her to vomit on her keyboard, stamp her feet in the mess and call it a column. If someone would pay me to do it, I would gladly put my finger down my throat and heave one lung and a pancreas onto my keyboard and call it a column. But I must get paid. I want to be at least as respectable a big-time professional journalist as this woman, Mary Mitchell!

Mitchell – a lifelong feminist – concludes with a stunning confession that flies in the face of 40 years of feminist rhetoric:

After all, there’s no such thing as a superwoman, and children of driven moms make their own sacrifices. [emphasis mine -admin]

Sarah Palin makes me sick because although black Democrats have been responsible for giving white candidates the boost they needed to beat their Republican opponents in tight races, these voters are now being insulted by feminists who say they will cross over into the McCain camp because of her.

How can that be?

Palin’s extreme views on abortion (she once said she would be against her daughter having an abortion even in the case of incest or rape) and her support of abstinence-only programs should make her a laughingstock to feminists.

Instead, she’s a star.

That ought to be enough to make any true feminist sick.

Or, more likely, the feminist establishment of “Official Women” mouthing the “Official Woman’s Position” on abortion have never been fully in sync with the majority of American women, who likely do find Palin’s “no exceptions” position too extreme for them, but who also recognise that partial-birth abortion is the other extreme end of “no exception.” Likely they understand that since Democrats hold both houses in congress, the next president will be as unable to do much about restricting abortion as the last president was- even with his party in power – and so they’re willing to roll the dice. Perhaps, finally, the long-held fear-mongering about women losing “all of their rights to abortion” is being seen for the money-making manipulator that it has long been.4:55 PM

H/T on the Mitchell piece
to Vanderleun, who dares to suggest that the writer is suffering from PMS (Palin Mania Syndrome) and risk being denounced for a sexist. Clearly PMS is not just for women, anymore. Although, the women really are disgracing themselves and discrediting professional women with their utter whackdoodle shrieking.

Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m just in a really cranky mood today!

One last observation: Gov. Palin will not have a voice much longer if she does not get a voice coach to teach her how to use her diaphragm and save her vocal chords. Otherwise…she really is an astonishing natural.

Check back for running updates!

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Klaire

    If you check the records, you will find that at least twice, in 05 and I think 07, when it came to BUSH/Cheny corporate welfare (Big energy bill for starters), Obama voted WITH BUSH, McCain voted, AGAINST BUSH. I for one am much opppsed to big corporate welfare, especoally when, despite bailouts, greed never seems to be the needed lesson learned. I say, take the big hit, nip it in the bud. Pay now or pay MUCH MORE latter.

    McCain was the one on top of this. Had we done it his way, American most likely would not be, or at least lessened, in this financial fallout.

  • http://karig.net/ Aitch748

    Is this guy spectacularly out of touch and misreading things, or am I?

    He claims that the press will eventually just get bored with Sarah Palin — presumably in the seven weeks left before the election. I doubt it. The press HATES her and hated her from the moment that her name became known, and they’ve been picking at her and picking at her and picking at her for two weeks now. Sarah Palin is like an itch they can’t seem to scratch. And the media have pretty much thrown off the pretense of evenhandedness and are now clearly fighting for Obama (or at least to keep the hated Palin from winning).

    I think it’s this guy who’s misreading things.

  • http://americandigest.org vanderleun

    “Yes, I made up my own word, I like it.”

    I liked it so much I stole it.

    [THANK YOU - you reminded me where I found the piece, so I can give a H/T. Once I read it my brains blew out my ears and I couldn't do anything but sit back in slack-jawed wonder! admin]

  • Acer Palmatum

    Even my very Democratic Party Obama loving co-worker admits that this economic situation is way beyond Bush, going back to Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin. This is absolutely a bi partisan problem and anyone the least bit objective knows it. So just blaming each other is definitely not the solution (I appreciate that Mac’s ad today did not blame Dems but just putforward a plan of action–although granted it was vague). The truth is Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin are not economists or terribly business savy. They should be explaining to us the right way to go forward. Plus regluation and change means nothing–it has to be change that is creates positive results.

    So if you were picking McCain’s or Obama’s economic fantasy team right now who would it be?

    I see Bob Rubin out there for Obama (he was on Charlie Rose the other day). Kudlow and Forbes are pulling for McCain. I am looking long and hard on how these candidates react to this and how they go forward.

    [Yes, in my chat with my MIL's friend today, I was surprised to hear her say that today's economic news was BOTH party's fault, and she specifically said, "this goes back to 1997..." - so yes, thinking people will admit this is not one person's fault. Still, Bush had better give a sense that he's leading here. - admin]

  • http://karig.net/ Aitch748

    Ummm, by the way — DOES Sarah Palin really have an extreme “no abortion, no exceptions EVER” position, or is that something else that somebody made up to try to paint her as an extreme rightwing lunatic? (Because I don’t remember reading about her actually discussing abortion.)

  • Acer Palmatum

    Aitch748–

    Sarah Palin’s personal position on abortion mirrors that of the Catholic Church, it is wrong unless the life of the mother is in danger. However, Palin also said (during the Alaska Governor’s debate) that she believes the people as a collective whole through the legislative process should decide on abortion laws and that all parties should work in good faith to reduce abortion.

    And as for Obama issues today, this seems like a potentially biggie.

    [Edited to admit link. Acer, I'd already linked to and discussed that in the post below. - admin]

  • Acer Palmatum

    Here is Althouse on why Sarah Palin is great for feminism (in response to Aitch748). And you already have Althouse on McCain and the Press.

    And I missed the Obama Troopergate link already there until I saw the prompter at the bottom of the screen for the post.

    [edited to admit link - admin]

  • biscuiteater

    Soon to appear,
    MSM out of context quote of the day:

    “Gov. Palin will not have a voice much longer if she does not get a voice coach to teach her how to use her diaphragm and save her vocal chords. Otherwise…she really is an astonishing natural.”

  • Bob Devine

    I don`t Know if this is how to send a link or not I have never tried to do it before whether it works or you have to type it in your search it is worth reading. It is on the ProWomanProLife.org site. http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=654 It really explains the consequences of feminism as practiced by to many on the left. If I`m not supposed to send info about other sites I`m sorry won`t happen again.

  • Pingback: Lehman Bros et al. What Went Wrong? « Grand Rants

  • Terrye

    I thought the press was just going to bust a gut over the Lehman meltdown. Not since Katrina have I seen such eyeball popping hysterics. It is almost as if they want it to be bad, very bad.

    I used to have a real estate license and I can remember my broker saying that some day someone would pay for all that cheap money floating around out there. And that was a decade ago.

    The Democrats, who control Congress, did not do the oversight. The Fed was pushing a lot of easy money around. There is definitely enough blame to go around on this. Obama can bleat all he wants, but his party gave birth to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and have resisted any efforts over the years to keep it honest. They are ass deep in this.

    So, yes, people need reassurance and solutions. They also need to start buying smaller and more affordable homes with traditional home loans. Back to basics.

    [Terrye of course they want it to be as bad as can be. In their very small minds, "bad" = "Obama wins.". They're not thinking that people want leadership not simple blaming. And yes, this stuff has been threatening us for a long time...and it's a bi-partisan thing. in 1997 the GOP had control of the Congress, now the Dems do. Back to basics is the key. - admin]

  • Gayle Miller

    Back in the day – when feminism actually started becoming an issue – it was all about women having CHOICES. And now that Sarah Palin is living HER CHOICE, these harpies are dissing her for it? But then, the women’s movement has never been about consistency. Or logic.

  • culperjr.

    The indecent, deranged reaction of the left to Sarah Palin brings up one of the great surprises of life. A somewhat sheltered, idealistic upbringing always inclined me to believe that sick, rage-filled people KNEW their true natures. I mean, where’s the fun of spewing crude, malicious lies if you don’t get to appreciate your own creativity?

    Boy, was I wrong! Instead, these seething cauldrons of twisted resentment have nary a clue as to their essential character.

    In fact, I find that this fundamental blindness leads many leftists to mischaracterize others. My wife is quiet, gentle, kind and loving. She plants flowers, loves our children and volunteers at church. This has caused many liberals to assume that she simply MUST be “one of them”, since no conservative could possibly be anything but a racist plutocrat.

    I never thought I would write these words, but I miss Bill Clinton. I don’t think for an instance that he ever saw himself as anything but a scheming grifter. How refreshing!

  • pbuchta

    The financial meltdown happened on Bush’s watch and was due to the failed policies of the GOP.

    McCain/Palin will offer you more of the same.

    [Happened on Bush's watch, that's true, but it is part-and-parcel of the failed policies put in place by both parties over the last dozen years. I'm not hearing any sensible person "blaming Bush" for this one, because it's really congress' baby. I AM hearing Robert Reich talk about how Greenspan and conservative Democrats in Congress had a hand in it. But I'm sure if you want to "blame Bush" you will do that. After all, there are many still "blaming Bush" for 9/11, even though that operation took over two years of planning and was designed and put into action during the 'peaceful' 1990's when AlQaeda was blowing up American interests, holdings and Naval Vessels about once every two years. Hate can make memory convenient, I understand. But it's the truth, nevertheless. -admin]

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    Back to basics.

    Can we also say this about health care? Back to when health insurance was actually and truly insurance and not the current system where “they” will pay for everything, including sending a nurse over to wipe your nose if you get the sniffles. Our socialist (Medicare, Medicaid) and quasi-socialist (HMOs, PPOs, etc.) healthcare payment system is just ripe for imploding on itself.

    A little reality though. Much of our financial system is based on myth. Much of so-called wealth is nothing more than paper wealth, with little relevance to actual wealth unless you actually try to get rid of it. As long as I’m living in my home, it is of the exact same value to me today as it was when I bought it, even though the “market value” has more than doubled. I’m not twice as rich. My actual standard of living is exactly the same. Unless I sell, the added “wealth” is all on paper, and the loss of market value over the last few months is also all on paper. No real wealth is being lost.

    Now, it is true that the entire system runs on this fiction, and the psychology of panic often sets in when “losses” are seen, and it is this that one must guard against. Back to basic economics, not Ponzi economics.

    This is made all the worse when, like the healthcare payment system, you have quasi-socialist elements in play — when CEOs, etc. know that there is no real element of risk involved because the government will bail them out if they are reckless and drive the company into the ground. Once again, government is the problem. Take away the guaranteed safety net, and CEOs act with more prudence and less abandon. What needs to be done here is that the homes and other assets of these CEOs ought to be seized and sold off to help pay for the mess they created. Give them a $500,000 exemption to keep a modest middle-class home and a small retirement fund and take everything else.

    Moreover, basic economics also shows that really, really, really big companies are bad for the economy, in that they not only restrain trade and stifle competition (monopolization), but now we see that when they get “too big to fail,” when they do fail, they bring everyone else crashing down with them, either in the failure or in the attempt to save them. The World Trade Center was a set of buildings, not a business model, and if you use it as a business model, making your company bigger and bigger and bigger, there just may come a day when some “unexpected” (but foreseeable) event may cause it all to come crumbling down.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    Meanwhile, perhaps we need to move beyond political ad basics? Or, more specifically, move beyond the same ad format that has been used for the last 20 zillion years? The one with a picture montage, with words flashing, and the exact same grim voice-overs? The one that takes days, if not weeks, to produce such advertising junk?

    At times, they are doing better, but they need to dump the companies that specialize in political ads, dump the bad picture/voice-over format, and hire regular ad companies who produce regular commercials. And who can create a high-quality ad in a matter of hours.

    Which gets me to my point — McCain needs to be able to instantaneously put up ads saying what he would do, while at the same time asking what Obama is doing with his $126,000 from Fan/Fred and pointing out that the same team that ran them into the ground is advising Obama on economic matters. And that Biden has all sorts of cushy lobbying ties to Bank of America, which is seeking to take over the financial world. McCain needs to get these high-quality ads, from normal ad agencies, up at the snap of a finger whenever some issue arises.

  • http://reflectionsbykris.squarespace.com KrisinNewEngland

    But Palin isn’t running against Barack Obama. McCain is, and the media seem to have forgotten that.

    That’s my fave line from that story. Because someone ought to tell Obama that he’s not running against McCain.

    As for the Lehman thing – Bush tried several years ago to bring regulation to Fannie & Freddie, acknowledging that what is happening today, was going to happen. Congress vetoed it, with Dems at the front of the line basically saying “nothing to see here, move along”.

  • http://reflectionsbykris.squarespace.com KrisinNewEngland

    Edit: that sentence above should read:

    Someone ought to tell Obama that he’s not running against Palin.

    Sorry.

  • Pingback: The financial crisis we face… « The Emotional Cripple

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    That damn Bush and McSame!! Is there nothing that they won’t destroy? Is there no part of the economy that they won’t ruin? Is there no one that they do not want to see in rags?

    Now those who have invested in oil companies are in trouble — the cost of a barrel of oil is plummeting — down below $91 now, from its high of nearly $150. The oil industry is going to be ruined by those bastards!! We need to bail out the industry. They are too big to fail!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X