Repudiating the Bush Era

The Washington Post reported Saturday that it's going to get ugly. 

Gov. Sarah Palin didn't waste any time that day. According to ABC News:

At a private fundraiser in Englewood, Colo., this morning, and later at a rally in Carson, Calif., this afternoon, Palin for the first time raised Obama’s connection to Ayers, one of the founding members of the Weather Underground, a '60s radical group that took credit for bombing attacks around the country, including explosions set off at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

"Our opponent, though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," Palin told supporters at a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser in Englewood. "Americans need to know this."

Palin cited a front-page article in today’s New York Times that explored the ties between Obama and Ayers. Obama had served on a charity board with Ayers in Chicago during the mid-90s, and Ayers was present at an organizing meeting in 1995 to kick off Obama's first election campaign for the Illinois State Senate.

More incoming fire today. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's team is pushing back against U.S. Sen. John McCain's "guilt by association" campaign.

According to a 6:30 a.m. ET report by Politico's Mike Allen:

Pushing back against what it calls McCain's “guilt-by-association” tactics, the Obama campaign overnight began e-mailing millions of supporters a link to a website, KeatingEconomics.com, which will have a 13-minute documentary on the scandal beginning at noon Eastern time on Monday. The e-mails urge recipients to pass the link on to friends.

The Obama campaign, including its surrogates appearing on radio and television, will argue that the deregulatory fervor that caused massive, cascading savings-and-loan collapses in the late ‘80s was pursued by McCain throughout his career, and helped cause the current credit crisis.

The 13-minute Web video documentary is now live:

Update at 3:41 p.m. ET: Politico's Ben Smith reports that Obama's Keating campaign may be paying off:  

Obama apparently had today's Charles Keating attack in the can, ready to deploy against an attempt to revive Bill Ayers, and it seems to be working.

A glance at Google Trends finds "keating economics" the second-most-popular search term right now. Numbers 8, 11, 12, and 21 are terms like "keating five" and "charles keating."

Bill Ayers shows up at 36, just after "mccain keating."

The first term is Neal Kashkari, newly tapped to head the bailout. Voter registration terms also rank high.

Two major articles in today's Washington Post and New York Times focus in-depth on how the nation's worsening economy is presenting new opportunities -- and new challenges -- for the campaigns of U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain.

It looks like things were going McCain's way after the GOP convention -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had electrified the base, Obama was losing ground and the Arizona senator took a slim lead.

Then the nation's finanical markets crashed, Palin-mania has subsided as many Americans didn't like what they've seen post-St. Paul and Democrats traditionally do better with pocketbook issues.

Now McCain has pulled out of Michigan and Obama is competitive in traditionally red states like Florida where foreclosures are epidemic; nationally, the economic news just keeps getting worse.

Amidst all of this, yesterday, I picked up a book, "Deer Hunting with Jesus" by Joe Bageant. It is in turn fascinating, frightening and depressing. The book addresses a question that has always bothered me: why do people who are so clearly hurt by the GOP's economic policies keep voting for them again and again and again? Another article in today's Washington Post highlights the economic struggles of a suburban Michigan enclave and focues on why, while some people there may vote for Obama, others struggling to make ends meet are still planning to vote for McCain, despite the fact that his economic proposals do nothing to help them or their children.

Until progressives find a way to reach the voters written about in "Deer Hunting with Jesus" and the Washington Post article, we will continue to lose their votes because they will continue to vote, not on economic issues, but social "hot button issues" such as abortion, guns and sex education. And, sadly, as many of them admitted, they simply will not vote for an African-American candidate. All in all, it is not their failure, but our failure, to explain to them how we will not allow globalization to leave them behind; how we will invest in their education; how we will ready them as we accelerate toward a 21st century economy.

In 2007, NDN conducted a series of polls on the how Americans view the economy. They are well worth reading here and here. I know I will be looking at them for answers.

Lastly, in what can be at best called a sophmoric effort to change the subject, the McCain campaign said yesterday that:

We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days," said Greg Strimple, one of McCain's top advisers. "We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans." "We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity. [Washington Post, 10/04/08]

In response, the Obama campaign has launched a new ad on the economy, highlighting what has happened over the last eight years during the Bush-Cheney reign.

Watch it here:

For the last several years NDN has been making an argument that a "new politics" of the 21st century is emerging.  Driven by vast changes in demography, media and technology, and the a whole new set of very 21st century challenges (and one could add the utter collapse of modern conservatism) a new politics was emerging in America that would be very different from the century just past.  

Reflecting on the morning papers 3 stories stuck out as interesting examples of how the world is changing around us.  1st up is how the Army is starting to see nation building and the shoring up of "fragile states" as a primary area of responsibility.  2nd is a fascinating piece by Eve Fairbanks on the sensibility of the next generation of Congressional Republicans.  Finally, a wide ranging and important piece by our friend David Rothkopf, who argues: 

The current economic debacle is far more likely to be seen by historians as a true global watershed: the end of one period and the beginning of another. The financial chaos has brought down the curtain on a wide range of basic and enduring tenets also closely linked with the Reagan era, those associated with neoliberal economics, the system that the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has called "that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently and serve the public interest well." Already this crisis has seen not just our enemies but even some of our closest allies wondering whether we are at the beginning of the end of both American-style capitalism and of American supremacy.  

Change is indeed coming to Washington.  And this next Presidency will without doubt be among the most important in American history. 

When I first learned that U.S. Sen. John McCain had drafted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, I remember calling friends and saying, "Stick a fork in it. It's over. McCain is crazy. Obama's in."

Then came Palin's Oscar-worthy convention speech, the re-energized GOP base, the media frenzy. Suddenly, McCain wasn't so stupid. Or at least his advisers weren't.

Fast forward to now, five weeks later, the day of the first vice presidential debate. And what am I now? I am obsessed with Sarah Palin.

I am obsessed with Sarah because she's gotten this far on so little. To some, she has become a national joke. But to others, she has become a national hope. How can people in the same country looking at the same person feel so differently?

Apparently, even Palin's limited exposure has started to give pause to more and more Americans. According to a new Pew poll, "...opinions about Sarah Palin have become increasingly negative, with a majority of the public (51%) now saying that the Alaska governor is not qualified to become president if necessary; just 37% say she is qualified to serve as president. That represents a reversal of opinion since early September, shortly after the GOP convention. At that time, 52% said Palin was qualified to step in as president, if necessary."

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll had similar bad news for Sarah Barracuda: "Though she initially transformed the race with her energizing presence and a fiery convention speech, Palin is now a much less positive force: Six in 10 voters see her as lacking the experience to be an effective president, and a third are now less likely to vote for McCain because of her."

Ouch.

The more she opens her mouth (or just shuts it and smiles and smirks), the more her poll numbers drag her and McCain toward the abyss. In a column yesterday in the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus asked how McCain could be dismissive of Obama's alleged inexperience when McCain had chosen Palin. Marcus noted that Palin said she has been educated about the world -- and thus is ready to lead -- by having read extensively. And what did she read?

This would be more reassuring if Palin had demonstrated more evidence of having read extensively about history or world affairs. Asked in an interview for PBS's Charlie Rose show last year about her favorite authors, Palin cited C.S. Lewis -- "very, very deep" -- and Dr. George Sheehan, a now-deceased writer for Runner's  magazine whose columns Palin still keeps on hand.

"Very inspiring and very motivating," she said. "He was an athlete and I think so much of what you learn in athletics about competition and healthy living that he was really able to encapsulate, has stayed with me all these years."

Also, she got a Garfield desk calendar for Christmas 1987 that made a big impression.

While I saw the whole series of Katie Couric interviews with Palin , I was most horrified by the installment in which Couric asks the Alaska governor about Roe v. Wade. While I am very strongly pro-choice, I accept that other people may feel very differently. I didn't have a problem with Palin's answer that she wanted to encourage a "culture" of life.

My problem, then? When Couric asked her if she could name another U.S. Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, she couldn't name one. Nothing. Nada. Zero. She just kept repeating the same words over and over -- buzz words about states' rights -- in a pathetic attempt to let the clock run out:

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

I was embarrassed for Palin and embarassed by the fact that she has come this far based on the ability of the GOP to continually market their inferior products in a superior way.

Let tonight's debate begin.

In yet another episode of the Sarah Palin-Katie Couric serial interview saga, Palin talked to the CBS anchorwoman about issues ranging from what newspapers she reads (she didn't name a specific one) to whether a 15-year-old girl raped by her father should have access to an abortion (she would encourage the child not to).

The interview aired last night and follows previous Palin-Couric interviews, which have been seen as disastrous for Palin, as she stumbled her way through them or just stopped talking and started smiling. I haven't yet been able to find the rumored segment of a portion of a Palin-Couric interview in which the Alaska governor can name only one U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roe V. Wade). If anyone unearths it, please let me know. 

Notably, the Couric interviews have prompted criticism not only from Democrats, but also from prominent conservatives, including George Will.

One interesting tidbit: making small talk between different segments of the interview, Palin did make a candid admission to Couric that, "Sweat is my sanity." Seems moose hunting has taken a backseat for the time being.   

With a few exceptions here and there (like not being able to name a single newspaper), Palin seems a bit surer of herself in this interview.

You can judge for yourself here:

Palin also found time to do a radio interview that involved decidedly more softballs (and decidely more six-packs).

According to ABC News:

In a radio interview with conservative blogger and columnist Hugh Hewitt, Palin says she’s not concerned by criticisms of her performance in recent network interviews with ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric, which many -- including some former conservative supporters -- have said showed her unprepared to be vice president.

"Oh, I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it," Palin told Hewitt.

Palin, who has complained this week about “gotcha journalism” on the campaign trail, told Hewitt that she invites the scrutiny, and that her recent media appearances have helped her better articulate her positions and prepare for her upcoming vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday.

“I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago,” Palin said when asked by Hewitt whether the Gibson and Couric interviews felt like “pop quizzes designed to embarrass” her. "I’m going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that’s okay, those are good testing grounds. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I don’t fight it. I invite it.”

And more from ABC News on Palin's new Joe Six-Pack gambit:

As the political world braces for Wednesday's Wall Street bailout vote in the U.S. Senate, Sarah Palin is stepping up her "Joe-Six Pack" pitch.

"It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they're out of sorts, and they're ticked off about it," Palin said Tuesday on the Hugh Hewitt show. "But it's motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe Six-Pack like me."

U.S. Sen. John McCain is out on the campaign trail today in Des Moines. In an effort to sound presidential, he said, "Bipartisanship is a tough thing; never more so when you're trying to take necessary but publicly unpopular action. But inaction is not an option," according to CNN.

I guess bipartisanship doesn't include TV ads.

McCain has a new ad up today, and in the Arizona senator's new spirit of reaching across the aisle, the ad blames the Democrats and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to deteriorate to the point that the U.S. government had to take them over (thus sparking one of the flames that has set Wall Street ablaze).

Funny. McCain's ad doesn't mention that Fannie Mae paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 until just last month to a company owned by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis before it went under. Nor does it mention that McCain said recently that Davis had no involvement with the company for several years. Wrong.

The new McCain ad includes a special cameo (probably not willingly) by former President Bill Clinton. You can watch it here.

Milton Friedman once said that "only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around."

Now, I'm not usually one to quote Mr. Friedman, but in this case he is fundamentally correct (as Naomi Klein shows definitively in her fantastic book, The Shock Doctrine). And what we have on our hands right now is a genuine crisis; in fact, a new Washington Post - ABC News poll shows that a majority of Americans view the current financial situation as a "crisis." But that's not all:

"...the poll also revealed significant public concern with the bill Congress rejected yesterday, as few voters said the package did enough to protect 'ordinary Americans,' and nearly half said it did not go far enough to shore up the nation's economy."

What this information should tell progressive lawmakers is that, in the midst of this crisis, there is also a real opportunity to do something important. If they can conjure up the political nerve to seize this moment, they have a chance to help secure the financial (and moral) future of the country. We have offered some suggestions about how this can be accomplished, but the key is keeping people in their homes. The general public is looking for an idea to solve this crisis; they want a measure that protects ordinary Americans and shores up our economy. This is that idea, and now is the time to make it happen.

Huffington Post's Nico Pitney reports that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has just released his "Worst People" list and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has made the cut! Obama's sin? In a statement, the Illinois senator mentioned that he and wife Michelle were preparing to celebrate their 15th wedding anniversary. Not so fast, said Michelle. It's actually the 16th anniversary. While Barack may have won new votes from forgetful husbands everywhere, his misstep earned him a bronze on Olbermann's list.

Taking the silver is Sean Hannity, who took pundit Dick Morris to task for saying something intelligent about Obama's debate performance. Not much to elaborate on here.

And the Worst Person? No surprises here: it's Karl Rove. Seems like the Dark Prince is worried Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may be overprepared -- you heard me right -- for the vice presidential debate this Thursday (an issue I pondered last night).

Rove says Palin is much better when she's talking "one-on-one" with average folks -- like she did when McCain announced her vice presidential status in Dayton and during her convention speech. As Olbermann points out, she was hardly speaking one-on-one, unless a teleprompter is the other "one."

Check out Olbermann's hilarious awards ceremony here:

According to a very interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal, the pre-debate game plan for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been changed, and in lieu of whatever she was planning to do to prep, she's now been sent to debate boot camp at U.S. Sen. John McCain's luxurious retreat in Sedona, Arizona (Which house is this? Seven or eight?).

According to Sedona's official Web site, the town has a spiritual side; it is "...a mecca for alternative healers," and its "...body-temples are complex multi-dimensional organisms, and Sedona healers apply their gifts to every level of the body/mind/spirit spectrum. You will benefit from their intuitive skills and compassionate hearts as well as their intellectual training and hands-on experience."

But I digress.

Two camps seem to have developed regarding Palin's abilities prior to her debate with U.S. Sen. Joe Biden this Thursday night (a murky third -- let's call it the conspiracy camp -- thinks the debate will never happen due to some kind of state emergency in Alaska or another McCain campaign suspension). The first camp believes that Palin is utterly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. First populated by Democrats, this group has grown now to include conservatives and others such as Fareed Zakaria who are appalled at Palin's recent performances, particularly her series of interviews with CBS' Katie Couric.

Then there is the "Let Sarah Be Sarah" camp, which includes former Massachusetts Gov. and GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who, according to the New York Times political blog said:

On the "Today" show this morning, Mr. Romney also talked about how the McCain campaign could use Ms. Palin more effectively. Citing her bad reviews after the broadcasts last week of interviews with Ms. Couric, the host Matt Lauer asked Mr. Romney whether something deeper was going on than just the fact that “the honeymoon was over,” and whether the former presidential candidate wondered if she should drop out of the race.

Mr. Romney dismissed that notion, saying Ms. Palin had executive experience as a governor and showed “great capacity.”

“And you know she’s not a lifelong politician,” he said. “She’s not the master of words that Joe Biden is. And as a result she’s going to come across like an ordinary citizen, a person of great capacity and that’s what John McCain wanted.”

Mr. Lauer also asked Mr. Romney his take on sentiments uttered earlier by Republican strategist Ed Rollins, who suggested that the McCain campaign’s decision to “put her in storage” — meaning limiting access to her through few media interviews or daily give-and-take — had broken her confidence. (That’s something Christopher Orr wrote about last week, at The New Republic: whether Ms. Palin has been so coached, and so constrained by advisers, that she had lost her own sense of self.)

Mr. Lauer’s question allowed Mr. Romney to offer advice to the McCain campaign for the next and final stage of the campaign:

“I think it’s going to be better for her to be out talking to more reporters and just being herself,” he said. “I think if you have only one or two interviews the focus goes on those and any mistake is going to be amplified dramatically. So let her get out there and be herself. And I think people will say you know, I like what I see. She’s a person who understands the needs of the American people.”

Unfortunately for those in the "Let Sarah Be Sarah" camp, Palin has been delivered right into the hands of McCain's two top campaign advisers: Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis. There is no chance that these Rovian proteges won't "drill, baby, drill" talking points into Palin's head until she collapses from exhaustion at her exclusive barracks. 

But Palin seems to be taking it all in stride. According to her, she's been preparing for this debate since she was eight years old or so -- she started listening to Biden's speeches when she was in second grade:

Just now, in some serious high-drama action usually reserved for reality TV, the U.S. House of Representatives just rejected (OK, Simon, you called it) the proposed $700 billion proposal to bail out the nation's financial markets. 

And more bad financial news keeps rolling in: the New York Times reported earlier today that, "Citigroup has reached an agreement early today to acquire the banking operations of the Wachovia Corporation after making a daring bid that pulled the deeply troubled company from the brink of collapse."

Whether Congress ultimately passes the bailout or not, NDN strongly believes that Congress' work has just begun.

Nearly two weeks ago, NDN launched an effort to ensure that the actual cause -- the massive destabilization of the U.S. housing market -- was addressed. Michael, Rob, Simon and Jake have said it much more eloquently, but the bottom line is that faulty financial products were at the bottom of the financial cave-in. An excellent article in yesterday's Washington Post explains why you and I now own millions of properties across America.

For that reason, and because lawmakers should make every effort to help homeowners as much as they are helping Wall Street, Simon, Rob and Michael today issued the following statement:  

While we applaud the bipartisan effort by Congress and the White House to craft a response to the turmoil in the American financial markets, we are concerned that this package does not address critical issues causing the current problems and will not be effective unless additional steps are taken. 

First, Congress and the President must do much more to stabilize the housing market by helping people keep their homes. This crisis began when the home mortgages that had been securitized with massive leverage began a precipitous decline. As housing prices fell and more mortgages defaulted, the decline in the value of the only real assets in this financial house of cards began to pull down the highly leveraged securities and their derivatives. The financial crisis will continue so long as the housing market declines. 

A real solution to this crisis, therefore, must include far-reaching measures to break this vicious cycle and end waves of foreclosures. Last week Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, NDN and others argued that an effective response to the financial crisis must include a mechanism for rapidly renegotiating the mortgages of Americans facing imminent foreclosure, or a direct federal loan facility to help those Americans stay in their homes. 

After Congress finishes with this bill, it should turn immediately to legislation designed to keep people in their homes. Further, if the new legislation fails to restore confidence in financial institutions, as we believe may well be the case, Congress and the Administration should also come together to consider approaches other than a massive bailout to provide stability to the financial sector.