Ron Reagan Endorses Barack Obama

Briefly noted, the son of revered conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, Ron Reagan has endorsed Barack Obama. I don't follow the younger Mr. Reagan's career, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's more of a Democrat anyway, seeing as how his endorsement came on Air America, where he has a show. He also spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention, where he gave an impassioned speech in support of stem cell research. Both he and his mother Nancy, who remains a loyal Republican, support stem cell research.

Here's Ron Reagan's own words (h/t to Huffington Post.

I assumed most people already knew that I had supported Obama. Anyone who has spent five minutes listening to my program would have known that. But if it helped to make it official, I'm happy to make it so.

While I'd say that Ron Reagan has left his father's and mother's political views behind, other scions of conservatism, like Christopher Buckley, who also have endorsed Obama, have not. They simply consider Obama the better candidate in this particular race.

Obama v. McCain: A Tale of Two Health Care Plans

The difference between Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s health care reform proposals couldn’t be starker. Obama’s plan is based on the reforms enacted under Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. McCain’s plan has some roots in existing plans in about 34 states, which have met with some degree of success. But a good deal of his proposal is untried and is based more on free market ideology and wishful thinking than proven remedies. Let’s start with Obama’s plan.

Under his proposal, most people would stay in their current employer-based health care plan. Large companies that didn’t offer a health benefit would have to pay penalties. That would encourage those businesses that can afford it to provide health coverage for their workers. But people who work for small businesses that can’t afford to pay for health benefits would be encouraged to buy their own insurance from the individual markets. In Massachusetts it’s mandatory to have health insurance – just as most states make car insurance mandatory. If you refuse to get coverage, you too could pay a penalty. But if you can’t afford coverage, the state would subsidize it for you.

In fact, that’s the one sharp difference between the existing plan and Obama’s idea. He wouldn’t make it mandatory. He caught flack for that from Hillary Clinton and even Paul Krugman, both of whom feel that making it required by all would be a better way to make sure it's truly universal. I think they’re right, but Obama is correct that politically it would be much harder to get such a bill passed. Even with a Democratic majority in Congress, you would still have the conservative Blue Dogs uniting with the remnant of GOPers to block its passage. So, if politics is the art of the possible, you go with what you can get. But back to the Massachusetts plan.

In addition, in Massachusetts the private insurance companies can’t deny coverage to those with pre-existing condition or charge them more for coverage.

So far, this plan is working well. It’s popular with citizens and has increased the number of insured. But it hasn’t been without drawbacks, as reported by this Washington Post article.

In the 31 months since the experiment here began, the share of working-age people without health insurance has plunged -- from 13 percent to 7 percent by one estimate -- more sharply and quickly than anyone expected, leaving Massachusetts with the lowest uninsured rate in the country. But the unexpected number of people also has translated into higher-than-expected costs. Massachusetts has been forced twice to scrounge for extra money, totaling more than $250 million this year and last, from state funds and other places.

But even its biggest supporters agree that it’s less than perfect.

"It isn't like you come up with a perfect plan and turn it on and see how it works," said Brian Rosman, research director at Health Care for All, the nonprofit that runs the state's largest private health help line. "Washington needs to understand that as well."

John McCain’s plan, however, could be so much worse. For starters, some believe that it would be more expensive than the Massachusetts plan. And the major part of it is completely untested. Here’s the run down of how McCain’s plan works.

Under his proposal, everybody would get a tax credit to buy their own insurance on the open market. To pay for that tax credit, McCain would tax the existing employer-based health insurance benefit. This is the first time this was ever done and even some of McCain’s own advisers admit it could discourage businesses from continuing to offer health coverage to their employees. In addition, McCain would allow people to buy their coverage in companies out of their own states ostensibly to increase competition.

But this would encourage many insurance companies to set up headquarters in states that have the least restrictions and leave customers with less protection from predatory and unfair industry practices. Some likely outcomes include insurance companies charging deceptively low premiums up front but with large deductibles, limits on coverage, refusal to pay out for many different types of conditions, and denial of coverage to large numbers of consumers. In fact, large private insurance companies would cherry pick the healthiest customers, dropping those who prove to be too expensive. Those are already common industry practices and allowing people to buy their insurance across state lines, practices like that would only exacerbate the problem.

Worse, even with a tax credit or subsidy, many people would be unable to afford insurance. The proposed tax credit is only $5,000 per person and decent insurance costs about $12,000. That would leave middle class families scrambling to pay an extra $7,000, much more than what they’d have to pay for an employer-based plan. Douglas Holtz-Eakin admits that many people who currently enjoy employer-based health care would be left out in the cold with no insurance.

And those who have health risks, such as being overweight or just being too old, would be thrown into high risk pools. It’s the high risk pools that the Washington Post examined in this article. And they found real problems with them.

First you deserve to know what is right with them. Thirty-four states already have these plans and some of them do their job fairly well for those covered. The oldest and best high risk pool is probably in Minnesota. And the treatment they provide is excellent.

Here in Minneapolis, Lynn R. Gruber, MCHA's president, said: "We treat them like gold. It's all we do, focus on these chronically ill members, what their needs are." Members get discounts on specialty drugs. Those who are particularly sick get letters or phone calls coaching them on how best to manage their ailments.

Despite that the drawbacks to high risk pools are significant. Most importantly, they cost more than Obama’s plan. They cost the state more and they cost the consumer more too. Here are some quotes.

The Maryland Health Insurance Plan, the only high-risk pool in the Washington area, has been growing so fast that it needed to raise the fees on hospitals that help pay for the program and require new members to wait longer for coverage of existing illnesses -- or pay extra for it.

And referring to Minnesota:

Its finances are strained and getting worse, but less so than in other states. California's high-risk pool is so strapped that it put a limit on enrollment this year and lowered the maximum it would spend on anyone's treatment. Tennessee's pool has had to eliminate low-income subsidies for new members. Florida's pool has not let in anyone since 1991.

And the burden of high costs are also borne by those enrolled in the pool.

No one in Minnesota can say for certain how many people who need MCHA stay away because of the price or the waiting period. But the American Cancer Society says that only a tiny fraction of the more than 100 Minnesotans it has referred to the program because they were rejected by insurance companies ever signed up, according to Stephen Finan, the society's associate director of policy.
As another sign of the financial burden, an increasing number of MCHA's members lately have been choosing to pay more out of their pockets -- deductibles as high as $10,000 -- in order to have less expensive monthly premiums.

So, higher costs for the state and the consumer and also higher deductibles and less coverage. It is, of course, better than nothing. But as even one of its own top administrators admits, this is a stopgap measure, not a solution to the health care crisis.

Still, even MCHA's most ardent supporters believe a risk pool is not the best solution for those who are hard to insure. "It is not a panacea. . . . We need to be moving in the direction of universal coverage," said Gruber, who has run MCHA for 18 years. "No one should be rejected because of their health conditions. Our federal government has failed us . . . if we are still here in five or 10 years."

As I said at the beginning, the contrasts in these two different approaches couldn’t’ be more different. Nor could the response of those most intimately involved with them. On the one hand, there’s the Massachusetts approach that Obama favors. Both citizens of that state and those who work with the program are enthusiastic about it. Its main drawback is higher than anticipated cost.

McCain’s proposal, the high risk pool, also higher costs but less service and its own administrators admit it’s a stopgap not a solution. And then there’s the rest of the McCain program, which is untried and based on faulty free market, anti-regulatory ideology that is rapidly becoming discredited in every other enterprise where it has been tried.

Here I have to add that the free market proponents keep claiming that one of the advantages of their approach is that if people have to purchase their own health care on an open market, they will make better, more cost conscious decisions.

The truth is choosing medical care is not like shopping for a new Chevy van or a new dress. It is not elitist to state that most patients are not in a position to make a clear headed decision about the best course of treatment for a catastrophic illness when they are in the throes of it. Even most doctors admit that once they are patients with conditions outside their specialties, they are as daunted and confused as any other patient. The amount of knowledge, technology and treatment options are dizzying. The cheapest option may not in the long run be the best option and asking people to make a decision based upon their pocket book at such a time is ridiculous.

A patient may well be able to shop around for the cheapest place to get treatment for a strep throat and the best price on the antibiotics with which to cure it. But give that person a Stage IV throat cancer and he shouldn’t be wasting his time consulting his banker before choosing between treatment plans.

So, there you have the choice. Two very different approaches to health care. Next Tuesday, vote as if your life depends on it – because it very well may.

It's Your Choice Too - Vote November 4th

I'll certainly have more to say before then. But this new ad illustrates just what the stakes are.



If you need a reason to consider the consequences of sitting this one out, regardless of how long the lines or cold the weather, just remember this is the choice.

General Powell's Patriotic Grace

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama today was so measured, so diplomatic, so graceful that I hope it gets played on many blogs and gets seen by Americans - and the rest of the world - over and over again. It is a beautiful example of what Peggy Noonan has labeled "patriotic grace."

Without ever insulting John McCain, a man for whom General Powell obviously has a great deal of respect and admiration, he managed to make a strong and stirring endorsement of Senator Obama. I am sure that General Powell has seen a great deal in the Republican Party during this election cycle that has disappointed him deeply. Yet with great dignity he stayed on the high road and spoke about what he admired in John McCain and gave well thought out reasons why at this juncture in history he is endorsing Barack Obama instead.

I'll let the video speak for itself.



This is what political involvment at its best looks like. This is what patriotism looks like. And I'm sure this is why most of us got involved to start with. But somewhere along the way our idealism got replaced with ideology and the desire to win at all costs. I think that is true of both sides. General Colin Powell's endorsement is a call to get back to what is the best in us regardless of party affiliation or ideological belief. It's a call to concentrate on what unites us rather than what divides us.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have spirited debates on policy or that we should shrink from airing honest differences. But where did the basic respect go? There once was the concept of "the loyal opposition" which is very different from the hated enemy. We need to get back to that basic if we want to keep a democracy.

Joe The Plumber Unmasked

The media has gone gaga over Joe the Plumber. Katie Couric interviewed him. He’s appeared on CNN, ABC-TV, Fox News and every major news outlet. The Washington Post has written about him. So has the New York Times. Everybody is discussing the mysterious and iconic Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber. The problem is that not everybody has done the basic research. Folks, this isn’t difficult – it’s Google 101.

According to Martin Eisenstadt, a conservative strategist, consultant and analyst with ties to the McCain campaign, Joe the Plumber is not just some disinterested Joe Sixpack undecided about who he will vote for. Nor is he some ordinary guy just saving his money to buy a business.

Wurzelbacher, in fact, is a close relative of the son-in-law of Charles Keating. Here from Eisenstadt’s blog.

John McCain did great tonight in the debate. But every time John mentioned “Joe the Plumber,” some of us in the campaign banged our heads against the wall. If Steve Schmidt had any hair left, I hear he would have been pulling it out tonight. He reportedly screamed at John’s debate prep team tonight (out of earshot of reporters, of course). “You idiots - he’s related to Charles Keating… of the Keating Five scandal!” They thought they had a real live Joe Six-Pack who’s spurned Barack Obama’s tax plan. But what they forgot to do was check on Joe Wurzelbacher’s background.

Turns out that Joe Wurzelbacher from the Toledo event is a close relative of Robert Wurzelbacher of Milford, Ohio. Who’s Robert Wurzelbacher?Only Charles Keating’s son-in-law and the former senior vice president of American Continental, the parent company of the infamous Lincoln Savings and Loan. The now retired elder Wurzelbacher is also a major contributor to Republican causes giving well over $10,000 in the last few years.

It looks like reporters aren't the only ones who lack basic research skills. Here's a helpful suggestion: Clicking on Google. It's all the in wrist action.

Christopher Buckley Endorses Obama

A number of moderate Republicans have been unhappy with the conduct of the McCain campaign and have been jumping ship. Now even conservatives are bailing but the rudest shock of all is Christopher Buckley endorsing Barack Obama. Yes, that Christopher Buckley, the one whose father founded the National Review and Young Americans for Freedom. William F. Buckley was called the father of the modern conservative movement.

But his off spring just resigned from the National Review. Here's how he describes it, in this Wall Street Journal report.

In a column today entitled “Sorry, Dad, I was Sacked”on http://www.thedailybeast.com/, Christopher Buckley, a well-known author who also who wrote the back page column for National Review magazine, writes that the uproar over his endorsement last week of Obama over Republican John McCain prompted so much backlash that he offered his resignation—and the magazine accepted.

“This offer was accepted—rather briskly! —by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal,” Buckley writes, although the title of the column suggesting he was “sacked” is a little misleading since he did offer his resignation.

Buckley endorsed Obama last Friday on www.TheDailyBeast.com–not in the National Review’s editorial pages–in a column called, “Sorry, Dad, I’m Voting for Obama” he praised the Illinois senator for “having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect” while opining that McCain has taken “a once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget ‘by the end of my first term.’ Who, really, believes that?”

Buckley remains a conservative and is criticizing McCain from the right. But it's not an ideological criticism. He's not saying that McCain isn't ideologically pure enough. Just the opposite. In his criticism, Buckley points out that his father endorsed liberals such as the late Allard Lowenstein, a liberal congressman from New York, and Joe Lieberman, when Buckley senior felt they were the better candidates.

Looks like the son is following in some pretty principled foot steps. He basically enumerates his unhappiness with John McCain and explains why he believes Barack Obama is the better man for the job.

GOP Top Worst Hits - Hatred on Parade

Today, Brave New Films and The Color of Change unveiled this new video, a compilation of the GOP's worst hits. It's a collage of the collected anger currently appearing at Republican rallies, especially when Sarah Palin speaks. It's sad to see the depths of hatred and anger to which the Republican Party is sinking these days. H/t to Huffington Post for the video and for more commentary on it.

With Friends Like These, McCain Doesn't Need Democrats To Ridicule Him

When The Old Reliables Fail The GOP

According to Tim Egan, who writes a New York Times blog, the evangelical vote is still somewhat up for grabs - and in Colorado Springs, which he dubs the "Vatican of evangelical political power," no less. According to Egan, some evangelical voters are thinking of doing the unthinkable and what once would have been considered heretical. Some are planning to break party ranks and vote for Barack Obama.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — I didn’t hook up people to electronic monitoring devices, nothing to measure leg trickles and blood-sugar spikes in response to off-key talking points.

I had no magic maps, no demographic weighting formulas. I simply went to the heart of one of the fastest-growing, most Republican counties in the land — as red as rib-eye steak on the e-coli side of raw — and wandered aimlessly, like John McCain in Tuesday’s debate.

Here in Colorado Springs — the Vatican of evangelical political power, home to the Air Force Academy and a community where optimism usually matches the sunrise glow at the base of Pikes Peak – you can see what will happen in less than a month.

My friends: it’s not good for Senator McCain.

Among those Egan has spoken to who are thinking of crossing party lines in this election are Jan Martin, a small business owner, city council member, and lifelong Republican. She just can't sit by and watch the business she devoted her lifetime to build and her personal savings melt away in the economic downturn.

But even more telling is that a few pastors of conservative churches are toning down the partisanship this year and simply encouraging their parishoners to vote - without recommending which party they should vote for.

“The financial crisis is point number one,” said Pastor Brady Boyd, head of New Life Church, 250,000 square feet of concentrated Christianity. “These attacks against the candidates are just irrelevant right now. Why are you all attacking one another when we’re dying out here?”

And here

“The only advice I give is pray, fast and vote, and that can be for any political party,” he said.

This year, the church hasn’t even heard from the McCain campaign. “What’s happening to us is less allegiance to the Republican party, and more to our core principles,” he said.

Which gets us to the second message to come from Colorado Springs: on election day, there will be no repeat of 2004, when people woke up to the surprise that “moral values” was the leading issue of the campaign, according to exit polls.

Down the road, Focus on the Family is still in a bit a of dither over what to do about John McCain. James Dobson, the founder of what is essentially a political action committee for evangelicals, had said earlier this year he would never vote for McCain. Never. Not under any circumstances.

Now he’s changed his mind. Sort of.

“While I said I will not endorse either candidate this year, I can say I’m now supporting John McCain,” he said in his October newsletter. However, “the senator continues to embrace issues that concern me.”

Dobson, to be sure, won't vote for or recommend Obama or remain even vaguely neutral. But he's boxed himself in by his earlier statement so now he has to sound lukewarm. And that may depress his flock from voting in the numbers he has delivered in the past.

Still, I remain skeptical about the evangelical vote. I doubt Democrats will ever truly win it because there just are too many hurdles, in terms of social wedge issues to overcome. No party can be all things to all people. But there seems to be a small movement of young evangelicals away from those divisive social issues. And among that group, concern for the environment and social justice are at least as important as abortion and homosexuality.

Here's Egan's summary.

Abortion? Homosexuals? Bill Ayers?

“To be focused on those things at a time when people are hurting would really be to the detriment of families,” said Boyd.

Obama will not win Colorado Springs. John Kerry got just 32 percent of the vote in this county in 2004. But if Obama gets 40 percent – which is what Democrats expect based on the surge of newly registered voters and independents who are following Jan Martin’s path – he will win this state, and the election.

That leaves the circus of Sarah Palin and the sad specter of a snarling John McCain fading as they embrace the slippery bonds of the last century.

How frustrating it must be that the right's old reliables of guns, gays and God might be neutralized and failing them now.

Presidential Temperment

UPDATE: More on John McCain's temper from Huffington Post. And the original article on this incident from Michael Kinsley. Yes, that's the same Michael Kinsley who was literally taken to the woodshed by bloggers earlier this year for an article he wrote for Time Magazine on why liberals love McCain. Kinsley seemed to practically have a crush on the former straight talker because he was allowed to be one of the kewl kids on the bus. My how Michael Kinsley has changed his tune - more MSM buyer's remorse about McCain?

Just as there is something called a "judicial temperment," which is one of the major characteristics mentioned when the Senate confirms a Supreme Court nominee, or even when a member of one of the lower courts is picked, it's important to consider the presidential temperment. After all, the person we choose will be leader of the free world and the only true world power left. This person will be called upon to meet with foreign leaders and conduct diplomacy. And he will also be the person with his finger "on the button."

John McCain's famous temper and his erratic behavior have been on public display throughout the campaign. But here's an explicit video that demonstrates what others who know him have to say about his lack of presidential temperment.



For more videos on John McCain's temper go to RK.

Don't Know Much About the Economy

Well, the rest of Barack Obama's response to John McCain's politics of distraction, where his top strategists admit that if they actually talk about the economy, McCain would lose, is here. To learn more about McCain's role in the Keating scandal and how it impacts his understanding of the current mortage industry and banking meltdown, check it out.

Oops, They Are Mentioning the Keating Five Scandal

Hmm, apparently I spoke too soon in my previous post - somebody is mentioning the Keating Five and not a moment too soon. It's actually more relevant than whether Obama had a passing political acquaintance with a former sixties radical, whose reprensible actions occurred when Obama was only eight years old. McCain actually was involved in the Keating Five scandal that led to a meltdown of the Savings and Loan industry. This wasn't guilt by association but an example of McCain's lack of judgment, recklessness and commitment to extreme deregulation. And although he was sorry that his actions crossed the border into corruption, the truth is that the poor judgment, lack of understanding of economic policy and same dedication to fighting sensible regulations hasn't changed a bit.

Barack Obama Fires Back

I'm not sure it's strong enough. But Barack Obama has always favored the steady, calm approach rather than full throated attack. So far, he's ahead, so who am I to argue? But me, I'd explore more about McCain's association to John Singlaub and the World Anti-Communist League. Oh and has anybody mentioned Keating Five lately? But like I said, that's just me. Maybe Obama is right about not doing overkill :)



Like I asked yesteday, does McCain actually want to go down this road of smears, guilt by association, and character assassination?

Adventures in Guilt by Association

Just yesterday the Washington Post reported that the McCain campaign planned to go sharply negative and attack Obama's character by reviving tales about his supposed associations with former Weatherman radical William Ayres and corrupt Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. Of course, Obama's associations with both those men were casual and passing at best. Quite frankly there is nobody at that level who hasn't made mistakes or doesn't have a skeleton or two in their closet, yes, including Mr. McCain.

In fact, both the the charges of connections between Obama and either Rezko or Ayres have been widely reported as being over blown. But desperate times call for desperate moves and since John McCain can't come up with a coherent and credible economic plan that would reassure voters, all his campaign can do is hope to change the conversation by silly and diversionary attacks. At a time when the public is looking for answers to real problems that are affecting their pocket books, their homes, their dreams, all McCain can do is sling mud and hope it diverts people's attention from their real difficulties. But given his own shaky associations is this really the route he wants to take?



For more information and a great discussion on the World Anti-Communist League, the neo-Nazi organization that Paul Begala mentioned, go here.

And here is more from Paul Begala:

And I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back, I have written a book about McCain, I had a dozen researchers go through him, I didn't even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization, it was the U.S. Council for World Freedom, it was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran contra scandal. It was an ultra conservative, right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League - the parent organization - which ADL said "has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites."

In addition, even Douglas K. Daniel, a writer and editor with the Washington bureau of Associated Press, dressed down Sarah Palin, on Huffington Post, for her remarks acusing Barack Obama of "palling around with a terrorist." Daniel even called Palin out for the subtly racist subtext of her remarks.

Like I said, does the McCain campaign actually want to go this route when that is merely the tip of the iceberg for their own candidates?

When Is A Campaign Not Really Suspended?

When is the suspension of a presidential campaign not a real suspension at all? When serial flip flopper John McCain declares to the nation that he's suspending his campaign and wants to postpone the upcoming debate. But at the same time, the campaign keeps right on rolling along, with McCain himself continuing to do interviews, like the one he did with Katie Couric last night, while stiffing a scheduled appearance with David Letterman and meeting with former Hillary Clinton supporter and embittered PUMA Lady Lynne Forrester de Rothschild (yes, that Rothschild) and when his campaign still remains open and active. Huffington Post has a run down of all the campaign activity that has taken place during this campaign suspension.

Across the country, McCain campaign offices are up and running, accepting volunteers, conducting phone banking, literature dropping and other GOTV activities. This held true on a local, state, and even regional level. The Huffington Post called up 15 McCain-Palin and McCain Victory Committee headquarters in various battleground states. Not one said that it was temporarily halting operations because of the supposed "suspension" in the campaign. Several, in fact, enthusiastically declared the continuation of their work. Others hadn't even heard that the candidate for whom they were devoting their time had officially stopped campaigning.

In Ohio, Brenda Lewis of the Greene County Victory Office seemed surprised there was any doubt that the office would be open. "Suspension of the campaign?" she asked out loud, before saying that her colleagues would be phone banking, going door to door, and could use some front desk help as well as assistance getting signs together. Similar level of activities were taking place in the state's Franklin County and Clark County offices.

And closer to home, Lowell reports that the McCain campaign is still robustly working away on GOTV efforts in Virginia. A reader emailed him that the McCain headquarters in Arlington is definitely open for business and encouraging volunteers to come in. And McCain himself is scheduled to do three major television interviews tonight according to Politico's Jonathan Martin.

Excuse me but McCain's latest ploy to be a "game changer" is looking stupider and more cynical by the minute. Unfortunately, the only people being fooled are loyal Republican bloggers and pundits, who, I think, really know in their hearts that they are being played. There are some Republicans in the blogosphere I genuinely admire, but I think they've been dealt a bum hand in having to defend this guy. He's just not the old John McCain of 1999 and 2000.

Palin Not Ready For Primetime So McCain Seeks Debate Delay

Update II: Wonkette chimes in with this.

Here is a brilliant switcheroo! John McCain proposes delaying his debate if he has not singlehandedly resolved America’s financial crisis by tomorrow, so that way he and Barack Obama can debate next Thursday — the night when Sarah Palin and Joe Biden were set to debate. And then once they’ve rescheduled the Palin/Biden debate, John McCain can pull another crazy stunt — announcing his own daughter is fake pregnant, maybe, or firing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or refusing to appear in public in anything but a glittering leotard — and everyone will forget all about this Palin nut and how she withers under intense questioning by Katie freaking Couric. John McCain will personally bomb North Korea in an ancient fighter plane with a Muppet as his co-pilot before he allows Sarah Palin to debate anything besides a goldfish. A dead goldfish.

UPDATE: The Anonymous Liberal pretty much came to the same conclusion as me and does a brilliant job of explaining his line of reasoning. As he points out, Palin's statement that without the bailout this country is headed into another Great Depression might be true but was something no politician should have said publicly. It could become self-fulfilling prophecy and further panic skitterish markets. Also, it practically forces McCain into having to vote for the bailout package. And Palin also should have been better prepped about her running mate's record on the the Commerce Committee. Instead, we now have a sound byte from her where the take home message is that McCain did little to support any regulatory action that might have prevented the meltdown. All this would have received far more airplay had McCain not made a dramatic move to deflect attention from it. BTW, it appears Andrew Sullivan agrees with Anonymous Liberal's analyis.

The chattering class pretty much agrees that John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and postpone the Friday night debate is a desperate political ploy because his poll numbers are falling and he is not prepared to debate the economy one to one with Barack Obama.

But I suspect the real reason for John McCain's grandstanding about suspending his campaign and postponing the debate has less to do with his own unreadiness or inability than with his running mate simply not being up to speed yet. It's actually her debate they are trying move off the radar. Let's face it, every time they take Sarah Palin even slightly outside the bubble and let her talk to a real journalist, she proves she's just not ready for prime time.

Even in her one on one with Katie Couric, in which Couric promised to eschew gotcha questions, Palin was not up to muster. Just watch.



Palin is perky, she's cute as a button, and about as dumb as one. She couldn't find one example of her running mate having supported any regulation of the financial markets in his 26 year career. Surely the reformer and well known maverick stood up to banking interests at least once or twice. But Palin wasn't even prepared to defend his record. So, the McCain campaign knows it can't let her go up against Joe Biden who is brilliant and a master debater.

ABC has confirmed that the McCain campaign is now suggesting that his debate with Barack Obama be moved to the October 2 time slot in which Palin and Biden were to go head to head. And the vice presidential debate would then be postponed to an unspecified time. I bet the McCain camp is hoping to get lucky and run the clock down without Palin ever having to meet Joe Biden.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and because of McCain's reckless judgment in picking this particular running mate, his campaign is pretty desperate now. The dominoes keep falling.

John McCain Cancels on Dave Letterman

H/t to Huffington Post. This is funny!



Also, claims that the McCain campaign is actually cancelled have been greatly exaggerated, as RK shows with this post. John McCain may be racing back to Washington (ok with a slight detour to the Katie Couric show, as the video shows) but his ground game in Virginia certainly has not been suspended. As Dave Letterman said, "this smells."

McCain Suspends Campaign and Asks for Postponement of Debate: Obama Refuses

UPDATE: The public is not buying McCain's use of the economic crisis to postpone the debate. According to SurveyUSA, 50 percent want to see the debate go on as scheduled, 36 percent believe the debate should occur but the focus should change from foreign policy to the economy, and only 10 percent want to see it postponed.

John McCain has sent shock waves across the media with his announcement that he is suspending his campaign to focus on finding a legislative solution to the economic crisis. He has also asked for this Friday's debate to be canceled. Republicans across the blogosphere, of course, are marching it lock step with McCain's campaign and citing this as evidence that John McCain puts country before politics. It's a brilliant gamble.

It's also not so brilliant horse hockey as skeptical Democrats are pointing out (here, here, here, and here).

One of the salient points, according to TPM, is that Obama actually approached McCain and made the first gesture.

From Obama spokesperson Bill Burton:

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

The truth is that if John McCain were serious and if this were anything more than a political stunt, he would have issued a joint statement with Barack Obama suspending both campaigns. This is one more desperate Hail Mary pass. The man can read a poll. Once again, when he's down in the numbers, McCain will make an erratic decision.

More troubling is why you need to suspend your campaign to take a vote? In an age of blackberries, computers, 24/7 news cycles, and electronic communication why can't he multi-task? Does McCain actually think that once he's in the White House he'll get to deal with one crisis at a time in a leisurely fashion? Actually, the crises come fast and furious and you don't get to pick and choose which one to deal with and when. But more important than all this is the fact that Americans really deserve a full debate on the issues precisely because there is a crisis. Voters - no make that citizens - deserve to see each candidate, to hear what each one has to say, to take the measure of each one to see which is the more presidential in demeanor and temperament. CNN once again nails it:

The Unkindest Cut to McCain

I always knew the McCain campaign would not implode and consume itself in a fiery blast and go down to smoking ruin but would die a slow death of a thousand cuts. Still, George Will just inflicted a pretty big wound on McCain’s campaign today with this column.

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

Ok, I don’t agree with Mr. Will or the WSJ about that last sentence. In fact, I believe Obama has a far better grasp of the Street than McCain ever will because the Arizona senator has chosen to insulate himself in a bubble with advisers whose anti-regulatory, free market ideology is largely responsible for this mess to begin with.

Nevertheless, one thing Will and other thoughtful, mainstream conservatives are starting to see, and this is where I agree with them, McCain is temperamentally unsuited to be president.

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending.

In addition:

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

McCain’s hot headedness has long been documented and it’s raised questions in the past among his Senate colleagues. Here’s the danger.

John McCain has been given a free ride on national security. The press and public both have assumed that he’s the stronger candidate on those issues and if the economy hadn’t so dramatically grabbed center stage, Americans would be giving their trust to a McCain presidency, especially if the crisis had been a military or national security emergency rather than an economic one. But McCain is no more worthy of trust in the area of national security and for much the same basic reason.

Experience and knowledge aside, does anybody want somebody with John McCain's explosive temper and unpredictable decision-making abilities having his hand so near the button? Would anybody even trust him to the serious job of negotiation with a foreign power? Let's face it, at 3 a.m., the last thing you need in the White House is a hot head having a temper tantrum because somebody he already considers evil has woken him up. What's needed in crisis, whether economic or military is a calm, cool and logical mind not somebody given to quirky bursts of temper.

As Will so aptly points out, experience can be gained. A temperament like John McCain’s cannot be corrected, especially in a 72 year old man so set in his ways. And frankly, his running mate, Sarah Palin, should inspire no greater faith than he does. She lacks experience and temperament. Like McCain, she is incurious, sees the world in black and white, and during her tenure as governor has lashed out and persecuted her enemies, both personal and political – that’s what Troopergate is all about.

So not by a thousand cuts, but George Will may have delivered the mortal wound to McCain’s candidacy, at least among serious, mainstream conservatives who still value their nation’s well being above shallow partisan triumphalism.

When The Rising Tide Drowns You

No doubt it's the economy that's causing the uptick in support for Barack Obama and a sudden wave of anxiety about John McCain's candidacy. Here's some recent results from a couple of polls that illustrate the changing fortunes caused by the economic shocks of the last few days.

Recent polls are looking modestly better for Barack Obama, who appears to have regained a slim lead over John McCain. According to both RK and NLS, Survey USA is reporting that Obama is up by 51 to 45 percent over McCain in Virginia. Women are now breaking for Obama by 55 percent and McCain only has 39 percent. Men in Virginia still support McCain by 50 to 46 percent. And young people go for Obama by 55 percent. Those over 65 favor McCain by 49 percent over 47 percent for Obama. So Virginia remains a battleground state.

An even more encouraging poll was just reported (h/t to Huffington Post) by CNN. According to their results, Americans blame the Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin for the economic crisis and believe that Democrats would be better at handling it than Republicans. Specifically, they trust Obama more than McCain.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll suggests that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks — one factor that may have contributed to an apparent increase in Barack Obama’s edge over John McCain in the race for the White House.

In the new survey, released Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned say Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market, with 24 percent saying Democrats are more responsible. One in five of those polled blame both parties equally, and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.

The poll also indicates that more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Forty-nine percent of those questioned say Obama would display good judgment in an economic crisis, 6 points higher than the number who said the same about McCain. And Obama has a 10 point lead over McCain on the question of who would better handle the economy overall.

Even better, listen to where Obama has made his recent gains.

Where did Obama make his gains?

"In two core McCain constituencies: Men, who now narrowly favor Obama. And seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

When including only those people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same: Among likely voters, Obama has a 4 point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent.


The new CNN poll of polls also shows Obama with a similar advantage — 49 percent for Obama to 44 percent for John McCain.

"The economy has always been considered John McCain's Achilles’ heel, and the CNN poll of polls started to show an Obama edge in the middle of last week — just as the financial crisis began to hit home for many Americans," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

And the Sarah Palin effect may be dimming too.

Another factor could be McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Thirty-five percent of those questioned have an unfavorable opinion of her, up 8 points from our previous survey. And two-thirds believe she and her husband should testify in the Alaska investigation into her firing of a state official.

"Change has always been Obama's strong suit, but McCain and Palin clearly made inroads into that issue during the GOP convention," said Holland. "Palin, in particular, was seen as an agent of change when she made her first appearance on the national stage. That may be changing now."

Palin may well turn out to be what the music industry calls a one hit wonder. The choice of her as a running mate seemed so startling, it indeed was a game changer - temporarily. And in a time of peace and prosperity, the ploy of picking an attractive, young, unknown female as a running mate might have worked. They might even have gotten away with the "two mavericks" theme. Certainly, the media was prepared to be entranced by Palin, and McCain for choosing her.

Then reality threw a bucket of cold water in everybody's faces. In a nation still running up a deficit from a poorly chosen war of choice in Iraq, the federal government is now being called upon to bail out the fat cats, who got so greedy with their tricky and complicated investments, their predatory loans and mortages, their creative and complicated derivates which nobody can decipher, and their lack of liquidity. And the public is downright sour about it.

The poll also sheds more light on how Americans feel about the financial crisis. Twenty-two percent say they are scared about the crisis, with two-thirds concerned. Eleven percent say they are not worried.

Most Americans think that the programs to deal with the financial crisis currently being worked on by Congress and the Bush administration will be unfair to U.S. Taxpayers — but they think those programs will ultimately help the economy.

In general, six in ten believe that federal government should step in and address the financial crisis; 37 percent say the government should stay out. But when it comes to last week's bailouts, support slips to 55 percent — and given the concerns about how future programs will affect taxpayers, it conceivable that public support for the plans that Congress and the administration are working on could fall even lower.

For what it's worth, I think the plan will be both necessary to keep us from total economic collapse and it will be as unfair as President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson can get away with. Otherwise, why would they try to ram through something like this.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable

In addition, Bush and Paulson don't want to address CEO compensation packages or relief for ordinary citizens caught up in housing bubble. It appears that when it comes to bailouts, they want to protect the greedy robber barons who caused this, right up to protecting their golden parachutes, while leaving ordinary working people, as usual, on their own to sink or swim. And they don't mind tying a rock to that working stiff's feet to make sure floating isn't an option for him. The rising tide not only isn't lifting all ships, it's drowning the American Dream for ordinary people.

This time, though, I'm not sure it's going to work for the Republicans and their cronies. I believe we can say about Reaganomics, "stick a fork in it - it's done!