September 17, 2008

9/17: McCain Goes Populist

Liberal bloggers spent the early part of this week portraying John McCain as out of touch after he claimed that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". Now they're accusing McCain of flip-flopping after he called the current economic situation a "crisis" and blamed it on "the greed of Wall Street and the lack of federal oversight". Lefty bloggers are arguing that McCain's embrace of increased federal oversight is nothing more than a political ploy, noting that he has boasted about being a "deregulator" on multiple occasions in the past.

Liberal bloggers are also wondering how McCain reconciles his belief that Wall Street is in "crisis" with his support for diverting some Social Security dollars into private accounts. Oliver Willis writes: "Shorter John McCain: 'Wall Street is filled with robber barons and thieves, that's why I voted for us to put your social security in their hands!'"

Most conservative bloggers have been quiet about McCain's populist turn; perhaps they feel that McCain is simply doing what he needs to do to win. That said, a few righty bloggers have been vocal in their criticism of McCain's rhetoric. Ramesh Ponnuru writes that "McCain's embrace of 'regulation' as the answer to Wall Street's ills is vacuous," while John Hinderaker complains, "Is it too much to expect a Republican Presidential nominee to forgo demagoguery on the economy?"

MCCAIN: Now He's Supposed To Be A Populist?

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of flip-flopping after he gave a speech yesterday in which he "blam[ed] the greed of Wall Street and the lack of federal oversight for the current financial meltdown".

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "McCain has always supported the casual oversight he's now railing against. He's never lifted a finger to rein in Wall Street's excesses -- indeed, he's actively opposed anyone who tried."
• Willis: "'The Greatest Deregulator.' That's what John McCain called himself a little over a year ago. But you should totally totally totally believe him when he promises today to bring regulatory oversight to the collapsing financial system. Real believable."
• Think Progress' Ryan Powers: "With regard to the current economic crisis, the McCain campaign is now arguing for 'strong regulatory oversight of Wall Street.' McCain, however, has long held that he is 'fundamentally a deregulator.' As he told the Wall Street Journal in March: 'I'm always for less regulation...I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.'"
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "This is pretty laughable. [...] McCain has been running ads for weeks saying that he'll 'reform Wall Street and battle Big Oil' -- claims that usually prompt me to burst out laughing when they pop up on my TV. If there's a person in the entire country less likely than John McCain to reform Wall Street or battle Big Oil, I'm not sure who it is."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias thinks McCain's words are all bluster: "It's interesting how much weight McCain wants to put on greed as the causal factor here. [...] I suppose nobody's going to speak out in favor of 'greed,' but just like when McCain was bashing Mitt Romney in the primaries for having spent time in the private sector, this is pretty strange stuff. Does McCain really think it's that terrible for people in the business world to be motivated by self-interest? Does he really think that as president he's going to find a way to put a stop to greed? Unless this means nothing at all, then it's incredibly utopian. My suspicion is that it means nothing at all. Just like how McCain is against crazy CEO compensation packages but doesn't intend to do anything about it, he's also against greedy Wall Street types but doesn't intend to do anything about them, either. He's long on moralism, and short on practical policy solutions."

MCCAIN II: Enough With The Teddy Roosevelt Shtick!

While most conservative bloggers were quiet about McCain's populist turn, a few criticized his rhetoric about Wall Street:

• Hinderaker: "While I'm pretty sure that as President John McCain would do less damage to the economy than Obama, his response to the current crisis hasn't been inspiring, either. McCain sees the downfall of Lehman Brothers as a morality play. [...] When McCain is done eradicating greed, he's going to take on lust and gluttony. McCain's actual policy proposals, as far as I've studied them, don't seem too bad. But is it too much to expect a Republican Presidential nominee to forgo demagoguery on the economy?"
• Ponnuru: "Senator McCain's embrace of 'regulation' as the answer to Wall Street's ills is vacuous: He isn't telling us what rules he would put in place, let alone how those rules would have helped in the past or would help in the future. He is, so far, getting away with it because journalists treat 'regulation' in the same content-less way. [...] McCain has certainly talked about excessive regulation in the past and sponsored some deregulatory initiatives such as Gramm-Leach-Bliley. [...] But he has not in practice shown anything close to a generalized hostility to regulation. He has shown a penchant for regulation, often inspired by moralism. He has taken a leading role in promoting regulation of airlines, HMOs, campaign finance, stock options, and boxing, for example. His instinct seems to be to view our financial turmoil solely as a morality play: 'Greed' led to excess, and now we need 'regulation.' Bad idea."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "What I don't understand is why McCain is making this primarily about Wall Street (though I'm not saying Wall Street should get off scot free, rhetorically, politically or otherwise). Isn't this Wall Street crisis ultimately a byproduct of the mortgage crisis, and isn't the mortgage crisis ultimately more in Fannie and Freddie's column? And isn't that a much more natural target for McCain's wrath. Denouncing the 'greed' of investors strikes me as silly. Denouncing the greed of a Washington political class that allowed this to happen is not only fair game, but totally in McCain-the-reformer's wheelhouse."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "I understand that knee-jerk populism from the candidates probably focus groups better than 'stuff happens.' My big concern is that neither candidate has the private sector experience to understand the most basic facts of our economy. In a free market economy, some market players will inevitably make mistakes. Big ones. Those market mistakes will lead to corrections. Painful ones. [...] What's happening on Wall Street right now is actually quite complex and delicate -- simple slogans won't help, and knee-jerk demagoguery will hurt. Unless something more constructive occurs to them, I urge the campaigns to return to lipstick and pigs."

MCCAIN III: If Wall Street Is Broken, Then Why Does He Trust It With Our Social Security Dollars?

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain's harsh criticism of Wall Street is inconsistent with his support for partially privatizing Social Security:

• Ezra Klein: "Three years ago, John McCain signed on to George W. Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security. He surveyed Wall Street and decided that it was a stable enough institution to entrust with the nation's pension funds. Three years ago. And this wasn't just an attempt to cozy up to Bush: McCain was arguing for privatization in 1999. So McCain's argument is that Wall Street is built atop an unstable regulatory foundation and is shot through with most of the seven deadly sins. That the situation has been allowed to fester so long is evidence that 'people were asleep at the switch.' Even so, McCain has consistently argued that much of Social Security should be turned over to...Wall Street. Either he wanted to tank the nation's pensions funds or he was one of the people asleep at the switch. But those are really the only two options here."
• The Huffington Post's John Neffinger: "Plenty of people are losing plenty of their retirement savings as it is. But if we had let Bush and McCain privatize social security, some of those people would be losing a lot more. [...] This is something Americans understand: social security is secure, and the stock market is anything but. There are few more personal or dramatic ways to illustrate McCain's terrible judgment than to imagine the nightmare scenario so many Americans would face if McCain and Bush had gotten their way on this -- or if McCain were to get his way as President."
• Benen: "Maybe now would be a good time for the McCain campaign to clarify McCain's willingness to trust Wall Street when it comes to Social Security."
• Willis: "Shorter John McCain: 'Wall Street is filled with robber barons and thieves, that's why I voted for us to put your social security in their hands!'"
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "[This] brings us back to McCain's radical plan to send our Social Security money to Wall Street. Yes, the same Wall Street who just lost $700 billion yesterday. Imagine the consequences of an unchecked market controlling our Social Security money..."

MCCAIN IV: A Commission? A Friggin' Commission?

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain's call for "a high-level commission to study the current economic crisis".

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Yesterday, John McCain said 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong.' His campaign been trying to dig out from that statement since the words left the candidate's mouth. McCain has no economic agenda. He's just going to follow the [George W.] Bush path, which led us to where we are. But, knowing that Americans are freaking out, the McCain brain trust has been scrambling to come up with an economic plan. Their grand solution: McCain will form a commission. Yep, that's it. Pretty much the most inside-the-beltway answer to any problem is: Form a commission. McCain's been in Washington for a very long time."
• Benen: "Is it me, or is this message a little disjointed? McCain knows precisely why this crisis unfolded, and he wants a commission to help him determine precisely why this crisis unfolded. McCain saw this coming two years ago (for which we're supposed to give him credit), but as a policy maker and presidential hopeful, he didn't lift a finger to try to prevent or address it before it became a crisis (for which we're not supposed give him credit)."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "John McCain is desperately trying to spin his way out of the blunder of repeatedly insisting that the 'fundamentals of our economy are strong,' even as Americans watch Wall Street crash and hang on by its fingernails and their economic security disappear in a blizzard of bad economic news. [...] It's obvious that McCain doesn't have a clue about what's happening on Wall Street, nor how it might affect ordinary Americans. This morning, he first clamied that we need a '9/11 Commission' to find out what went wrong and how to fix it, and in the same breath bragged that he knows how to fix it without explaining how."
• dday: "If there was ever a do-nothing solution to a problem, it's to convene a commission of insiders to write a paper that'll sit on a shelf unread."

MCCAIN V: He's Taken On Tougher Guys Than This Before

Conservative bloggers are analyzing McCain's latest ad, "Foundation", in which McCain tells the audience:

"You, the American workers, are the best in the world. But your economic security has been put at risk by the greed of Wall Street. That's unacceptable. My opponent's only solutions are talk and taxes. I'll reform Wall Street and fix Washington. I've taken on tougher guys than this before."

Some righty bloggers like the ad:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Instead of offering fear and loathing, McCain exudes calm and confidence, and reminds people that he has faced tougher foes in the past. This may be one of McCain's best ads of the campaign. Direct, optimistic, forceful, and serious, he's making the case for tested leadership in a crisis."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "As Ed notes, it's pretty effective: it tries to talk to the viewer and is notably more optimistic than whatever his opponents are throwing at the wall today (mind you, it'd be hard for us to keep a straight face if Obama/...Biden, right...tried optimism, given that their entire campaign is based around how the universe will implode unless you give him five bucks). It should be interesting to see which approach works better. I'm trying to remember the last time that optimism didn't, but no doubt that's in the eye of the beholder."

AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain is a bit more critical of the ad: "Vague and calmly reassuring -- a positive message. But we're probably past the point in the campaign when positive messages have much impact. It's now a duel fought with chainsaws at close range, the object being to cut the other guy off at the knees. I suppose Team Maverick wants to leave that ugly business to the 527s."

MCCAIN VI: You're Looking At The Miracle John McCain Helped Create

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after his top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, claimed that the AZ senator helped create the BlackBerry:

"Move over, Al Gore. You may lay claim to the Internet, but John McCain helped create the BlackBerry.

At least that's the contention of a top McCain policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Waving his BlackBerry personal digital assistant and citing McCain's work as a senator, he told reporters Tuesday, 'You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create.'"

• Willis: "'The Miracle John McCain Helped Create'. BWAHAHAHAHA!"
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Isn't it awesome how McCain invented the Blackberry? I always thought it was some Canadian company..."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "After two weeks of being condemned in the media as a liar, the narrative of John McCain as a liar and serial exaggerator just got better."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "Here's the really funny part: Let's say that McCain's time on the Commerce Committee really did support industries that developed Blackberry-type technology, as Al Gore's time in the Senate really did support internet development. It still doesn't work! Why? Research-in-Motion, the company that invented the Blackberry, is Canadian. Whoops."
• TPMCafe's Reed Hundt: "John McCain is so out of touch that his economics adviser thinks he deserves credit for creating a Canadian company."
• Sudbay: "As one of our readers wrote, 'Not only did McCain invent the BlackBerry -- he outsourced it!'"
• Yglesias: "What on earth is Holtz-Eakin talking about here? I'm sure McCain's work on the Commerce Committee has had impact on the course of our telecom-related gadgets, but he's hardly been doing this stuff all alone, and the device in question was developed by a Canadian company so it's hard to see how it hinged crucially on any particular aspect of US telecom policy. More to the point -- how would John McCain's putative expertise in telecom regulation help him understand the turmoil in the financial markets?"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "This story perfectly fits into the meme that has been developing in recent days, namely that McCain and his campaign will say anything -- even lie through his teeth -- in order to win the Presidency."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Devilstower criticizes McCain's record on telecommunications issues: "With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Senate passed the first major revision to telecommunications law in 62 years which provided the foundation for much of the cell phone and Internet regulation over the next decade. The bill passed 81-18 and was signed into law by President [Bill] Clinton. McCain voted against the act. In 2002, McCain authored the 'Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act of 2002' which eliminated the requirement of the 1996 law that telecommunication companies provide access to competitors. It didn't pass. [...] So, McCain's 'guiding hand' seems to consist of opposing the legislation that laid the groundwork for the communications we have today, and authoring failed legislation designed to benefit big carriers."

PALIN: What Happened To Accountability?

Liberal bloggers are condemning the McCain camp's efforts to derail the pending ethics investigation known as "Troopergate." They are particularly annoyed by reports that Palin is "unlikely to speak with an investigator hired by the state legislature to look into the matter", even though she previously said that she welcomed an investigation:

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "The Troopergate investigation began with a unanimous vote in the Republican-controlled legislature in Alaska to proceed in this investigation of Palin's alleged abuse of power. And Palin repeatedly vowed to cooperate fully with the investigation back in July. Now? Not so much -- and not without a nudge from the McCain campaign to state GOP folks urging help with Palin's resistance efforts. [...] Welcome to politically motivated stall tactics 101, kids. And it looks like they are taking a page or two from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove's bag of tricks."
• AKMuckraker: "Palin refuses to cooperate with ethics probe. What a surprise. [...] I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a Republican dominated Legislature could have voted unanimously to proceed with the investigation by special investigator Stephen Branchflower, and have been 'hijacked by Democrats.' That story may cut it with [Palin's] new-found friends in the Lower 48, but it's not cutting it here in Alaska. [...] The only reason Palin was not issued a subpoena, is because the Legislature actually believed her when she said she would cooperate. They actually took her at her word."
• Benen: "When Sarah Palin's 'troopergate' scandal first broke, the investigation was supposed to go smoothly. Everyone involved emphasized the importance of 'transparency.' The governor told state lawmakers and the public that she welcomed the investigation, saying, 'Hold me accountable.' The support for the probe was bipartisan, the governor's office was anxious to cooperate and clear the air, and there wasn't even any need for subpoenas. So much for that idea."

PALIN II: Digging Deeper...

Many liberal bloggers aren't buying Palin's claim that she fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan "because he resisted Gov. Sarah Palin's budget policies":

• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "The latest line of defense for John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, on the Troopergate Scandal, simply doesn't hold up one millisecond for those who know the story so far. [...] The AP is reporting that Palin's administration has released a batch of emails supporting a claim that Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan was fired over budget disagreements, not because he refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten. [...] If it were true, there would have been no 'Troopergate' in the first place. The whole scandal began when Palin had a subordinate fire Monegan, without giving any reason. If this were truly why he was fired, then why didn't she just say so? Particularly since the failure to explain her actions caused an immediate stir in Alaska at the time."
• Cole: "The McCain campaign is firmly behind her defense now, and are trumping up charges of insubordination against Monegan after the fact, and then circulating the coverage, as this email to the Politico's Ben Smith from campaign flack Brian Rogers demonstrates. [...] They are scared to death of this, and you should ask yourself why."

Other bloggers are surprised that "the last straw" leading up to Monegan's firing -- according to Palin's lawyer -- was his effort "to seek funding for a new, multimillion-dollar sexual assault initiative the governor hadn't yet approved":

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "In her effort to 'protect her family' from domestic violence, [Palin] fired the state's leading advocate for domestic violence prevention. Because he wouldn't agree to fire her ex-brother in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, on her say-so. How she hoped to protect her family by making it more difficult for Wooten to pay his bills, nobody has yet figured out. But in the meantime, the victims of Alaska's absolutely scandalous rate of violence against women and children -- not to mention the one guy who actually cared -- are paying the price for a governor who puts her obsession with using the trappings of high office to settle personal scores ahead of protecting public safety."
• Firedoglake's Lindsay Beyerstein: "The possibility that Palin clashed with the public safety commissioner over sexual assault prevention funding is intriguing. We already know that while Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her administration rewrote the budget to charge rape victims for the processing of their own rape kits. [...] Why did Palin, who never seems to have encountered a D.C. dollar she didn't crave, object to Monega's trip to Washington?"
• Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz: "Sarah Palin is having trouble keeping her stories straight about why she fired her public safety director in Trooper-Gate. At one point, she went so far as to say she hadn't fired him at all: he'd quit. But now, with help from the McCain campaign, she's come up with a new justification for what is again being called a firing: insubordination. And what, you ask, did he do that was supposedly insubordinate? He was too aggressive in trying to go after sex offenders, specifically child molesters. Seriously."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The AIG Bailout

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks the $85 billion AIG bailout will have significant political repercussions:

"I don't think conservatives have truly grasped what these means for the big picture. The fact that federal authorities had to essentially nationalize the largest mortgage companies and the largest insurance company within weeks makes the government's role in our financial markets unprecedented. My former employer, Reuters, estimates that when you combine all of the bailouts and other rescue deals orchestrated in the past year, taxpayers could be on the hook for up to $900 billion. Now, all of those people who are always clamoring for more regulation of the free market can argue that if taxpayers are going to come to the rescue anyway, why don't we place more restrictions on private enterprise to protect taxpayers from huge market failures? On this, McCain and Obama both agree -- regulation needs to be overhauled -- there's no stopping it now. The only question is how intrusive.

Beyond that, liberals now can point to this huge rescue of Wall Street, and ask, what will we do for 'Main Street'? They'll argue that if we have hundreds of billions of dollars to dole out to Wall Street finance companies that mess up, how come hard working Americans can't get government health care? They can fill in the blank for any government program that choose."

LEST WE FORGET: Night Of Watching Game Show Network Leaves Man Concerned About Life Insurance

From The Onion:

"BRIDGEWATER, IA -- Shortly after watching back-to-back episodes of Love Connection, The Newlywed Game, and Lingo Monday night, local resident Fred Grossman, 26, began suddenly to worry about finding the life insurance policy that is right for him. 'Who is going to care for my loved ones when I am gone?' said the unemployed, unmarried Grossman, who also thinks he may have an enlarged prostate, and is wondering why he's been picking up his pet medication at the vet when he could have it delivered right to his door for just a small monthly fee. 'Isn't it about time I gave my family the peace of mind they deserve?' The following afternoon, after sitting through a three-hour block of daytime talk shows, Grossman announced an abrupt decision to pursue an exciting career in either criminal justice or air conditioning and refrigeration repair."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at September 17, 2008 01:33 PM