Final Bailout Bill was a dereliction of duty

We know Republicans are the major culprits in this mess as they had majority . I expect that. What I am not shocked by, but disappointed nonetheless  are the DEmocrats in general. The Kucinichs and Testers stayed strong. The rest can go to hell.

Here is where I find dereliction of duty:
1) Democrats failed to take signs seriously enough that the Republicans were running the economy to the ground. If they did, they would be holding up senate , house sessions until contingency plans for any future bailouts were discussed and broad parameters assessed. They were simply not proactive. Dont insult my intelligence that this impending disaster was so sudden. They had to know about this for months but were content to wait for Obama to win. When you spend a mere week going over a shamelessly "at gunpoint" bill proposed to them, and then use that as an excuse not to add not nearly enough meaningful reofrms, but you have time to include pork in the bill, that is DERELICTION OF DUTY.

People fell for this bullshit that "something must be done now". So explain to me in simple language anyone can understand.
IF THERE WAS NO TIME TO ASSESS THE BILL TO ADD ALL THE NEEDED REFORMS, WHY WAS TIME WASTED ON PORK??

I thought DEmocrats didn't have time to put in more checks and balances because something had to be done NOW. BUT THEY HAD TIME TO ADD PORK?? Do you seriously think Paulson and Bush's buddies would have tolerated a meltdown? If the situation was really that catastrophic for the country, it would have been even worse for them. Dont you think they would have settled for some compromises if FORCED TO DO SO WITH THE PASSAGE OF PRECIOUS TIME?

I am done with the cowards who voted for this bill and did little to get rid of the pork and instead force the republicans to add something more useful in the precious little time we supposedly have. People who fall for this mature bullshit should remember we went through this same exact bullshit when the Democrats fell in line to vote for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, surrender the 2000 Fl vote. it was supposedly the mature thing to do every single one of those times.

Also, I have not seen a good rebuttal by the Democrats for the FANNIE MAE mess. Were some Democrats as culpable as the Republicans allege? If not, why aren't they coming up with a good rebuttal? Biden didn't say a single word when that twit Palin brought up mcCain's supposed warnings about Fannie Mae.  Even Alec Baldwin blasted the Dems on that issue on Real Time With Bill Maher.

The DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY is not living in the past. If you do not enforce accountability, then you are DOOMED to repeat failures in the future. There hasn't been a SINGLE resignation in a scandal that has cost us so many billions and this is on top of the Trillion plus money spent on the war and other bailouts.

Even in my parents' country of India, ministers would be forced to resign for such dereliction of duty.

There hasn't been many heads rolled over Katrina, Iraq war's corrupt contracts, and now this bailout being inexplicably done as a last minute rush job. Fuck the power.

I have finally understood what all those rebels in South America feel. When you create such inequities in the system, you are asking for trouble at a social level. Here is the weird thing: doing all this will actually help the Democrats electorally? So what is the problem?

I am going to end this diary on this note. If you think obama will enact many reforms, ask yourselves this. if the Congress and Senate been unable to enact any meaningful reforms despite possessing the leverage of enacting more than a few bailouts in recent years, what makes you think Private Industry will cooperate with the politician to reform themselves when there is no more government money to give out as bailouts? Do you think there are enough politicians with integrity to thumb their noses at powerful interests to pass some reforms?

There's more...

The case against Palin

Well, this is a "duh" diary for MYDD readers.  What I find annoying is the defense of her by right wing apologists. No wonder the George Will types are getting a lot of heat. This is addressed to any right wing people who read this blog out of curiosity.

Yes, she is no Quayle. Quayle was more knowledgable even if he wasn't the brightest bulb in the business. I do not know how dumb Palin is, but she is definitely an ignoramus of the highest order for someone aspiring to be in national office. But she has one thing over Quayle. Quayle possessed a mediocre intellect with no real accomplishment. Palin's strong attribute is her singleminded drive. That is a good trait that can take an average person far in life.

OK, I am going to start my case against her to be discussed with your right wing friends who will be pooh poohing her treatment by the media elite. Feel free to offer your own suggestions or any fact checks of my criticisms of her . Here are some points I came up with after noticing her in interviews.

1) The Bush Doctrine question: Well, I thought Charlie Gibson was too insistent on that term. But nothing stopped palin from saying "hey, I do not care what it really means.  but I will say what I would do the same as Bush and what I would do differently" . She could not even articulate that. And you know why? She has no thoughts on it. Not too long ago, she openly mentioned she had no thoughts on the Iraq war other than maybe we should have some kind of exit plan. That is pretty much proof she doesn't have any interest in such matters to come up with her own doctrine or follow someone else's.

2) The Newspaper question by Couric: I have heard people defend her on this saying answering trivia like that doesnt mean anything. Say what? She is a journalism major. Even if she is no longer a "journalist", wouldn't anything she deals with in that line of work be ingrained in her brain at some level? The fact that she can't even name a SINGLE newspaper source (hell, just say  FOX NEWS) on the spot shows me that she doesn't give a crap about any newssource. Not even the Washington Times, you right wing freak? How about the Wall Street Journal - a paper that combines excellent reporting with a right wing biased editorial. Not even that? How does an "executive" get by without reading that?

3)Her ignorance of history. Once again, people will mock this criticism as "who cares about historical trivia.". Well if you fail to know the mistakes and successes of the past, how are you going to govern well in the future? You do not govern by reinventing the wheel. So when she doesn't even know when the Under God phrase was tacked on to the Pledge Of Allegiance, that shows an ignorance not becoming of a possible leader of the country. how is she going to assess controversies when she doesn't know the context of how certain things started? if she never bothered to learn about her own country, does she really care about it? Who shows more interest in their country? Someone who blindly recites the Pledge of Allegiance? Or someone who takes the trouble to read up on the history of their own country?

4) A leader who condones a secessionist element: If Obama associated with anyone advocating secession from the US, he would have been crucified. Country First? How about Alaska First. Palin attended a convention of the Alaska Independence Party. Her husband was a member. She has a right to do so. But then do not pretend to care about the country as a whole.

5) International Travel and the Russia question: True, while it would be preferable to have a leader who traveled a lot, it is not a mandatory qualification. The "trade missions with Russia" claim has already been exposed as iffy. And even if they did happen, she showed with her response that she didn't really learn anything from those missions because she just recited them like it was some school outing. She then belittled college backpackers who travel by saying she had to work and did not have that luxury. Well, in the movie "The namesake", the father tells his son that books can take you to places where the body can't travel to" or something like that. She exhibits no sense of that kind of alternative experience. She could have easily said "I keep up with them. I read this book XYZ. Or watch this series of documentaries. Or I check out international sites on the web out of curiosity". NOTHING. TOTAL BLANK. Hell, she could have said that she has had conversations with immigrant students while in college and got to learn more about their countries that way.  If she was Alaska governor, that's fine. But not fine when you run for national office.

6) She mocked the Democrats attention to torture in Guantanamo during the convention. Gained a lot of applause. But doesn't that show she is so stupid that she didn't realize that it clashes with mcCain's policy on torture?

7) Small Town Values and A leader who excludes: She looks down on a segment of Americans while she acts like her small town values are the only good values. Is that something a national leader should do? She has put down east coasters.Also if her small town values are so great, why is Wasilla the meth capital of the US? For as polarizing as Republicans think Clinton is, he NEVER made fun of a segment of Americans who did not agree with him. He may have clashed with political leaders, but he never insulted the voters who supported his opponents. Kerry didn't when he campaigned for President. So why is it OK for Sarah to do so while she gets defensive over people making fun of small town Americans as she believes? Dare your right wing friends to come up with a single instance of Clinton bashing ordinary americans from the mountain states when he was President. A person is free to say what they want when they are not running for national office. Is it more acceptable to bash NYers and Los Angeles residents? Aren't they real Americans too? And is any liberal pundit more elite than the likes of Peggy Noonan or Dinesh D Souza?

8) Do we really want someone who thinks humans coexisted with dinosaurs to really set the new education agenda during such a crucial time of decline of America's dominance in the world? OK, on second thoughts, this point might actually work in her favor with the idiots on the right.

9) The Supreme Court question about cases she did not agree with. Well, I can condone her if she cant remember case names. That is no big deal. But she showed a total lack of interest other than Roe vs Wade by not even using regular common language to hint at cases she did not agree with. Or she could have just said "i am happy with the way our SC has operated over the years. No complaints."

When people make excuses for her that many people put on the spot won't come up with the right answers on gotcha questions, I want to scream at them what is so gotcha about some basic knowledge we expect from national leaders. The key words being NATIONAL and LEADER, not local and average joe.

We do not care that she lacks enough experience. We care that she does nothing to substitute for that experience with a natural interest in things on a national scale over the years. Since such matters do not interest her, why let her do a job she is not interested truly interested in but for the power of the position?

There's more...

The Terrorists Win If We Obsess over War on Terror

This is what Obama should not say, but needs to convey indirectly by blaming the Bushies and his supporters for derailing the overall national agenda because of fear mongering over Iraq. The terrorists may have wanted to create a sensationalist statement against the financial center of the US symbolizing vibrant American capitalism and power. They probably could not forsee transforming a country's agenda so drastically. We would have been better off sending some early missions to Afghanistan complemented by some Mossad like assassins to get Osama.

It is not just the money and lives lost in the war on terror that are high opportunity costs that deprived us of money and human assets to be used in other areas. We could have been spending more time on creating contingency plans for bailouts instead of last minute measures if we did not waste the last 6 years over national security.

Obama had a good start in the first debate where unless you are a right wing nut, you begin to see the connection between the money spent on iraq to money not spent on domestic concerns. Democrats have already touched upon liberties lost. I would lay off Guantanomo as that has been beaten to death and start focussing on visceral anecdotes on liberties lost in the USA. Connect with the NRA libertarians by comparing gun rights to rights to travel without feeling like a criminal.

Common citizens spent more time buying into a culture of fear by obsessing over security measures to an unhealthy degree to the point where people fall in line like sheep surrendering contact lens solution bottles in the land where the NRA and  unqualified gun owners enjoy more protection. This is time and stress people could have used to handle other more pressing concerns - such as how to become a nation with better fiscal responsibility. The whole fiscal situation should have been the topic of national conversation years ago instead of the 90% obsession with the war on terror.

All that time Democrats(at least the more courageous ones) used to fight the conservatives on Iraq could have been used to fight them on deregulation or health care or education. One has only so much time to fight such ridiculous battles. it is like the Bushies had this masterstroke of tiring their opponents by coming up with so many hair brained schemes and they used the Iraq war to tire them out. We wasted eight years fretting over terrorism and we still can't escape it.

We got three priorities greater than terrorism - financial health, health care, education. If we fail at these three, terrorists won't even bother to attack the US as they will consider us too irrelevant to make a statement.

People try to classify themselves as isolationists or not. I am not an isolationist. But there is something to be said for reassessing priorities on a temporary basis. The US needs to become at least semiisolationist militarily until we clear up this mess. Being isolationist will also take some of the heat off of us temporarily leading to less money spent on this stupid war on terror. I would slash military funding covertly (frame it as funding the soldiers benefits but cutting off Halliburton) and raise intelligence funding which is what we really need in not only in the war on terrorism but we could use some intelligence on strategic financial stuff.

I liked the cause and effect Obama tried to get people to understand in the first debate when he mentioned why Iraq war was a money pit. But it will take a lot of message focus and repetitiveness to get this to sink into the heads of the masses who are not used to thinking outside the box militarily. Obama has a tough task ahead of him. But this is the time to show America how the culture of fear has trumped other more pressing priorities. When you die due to inadequate infrastructure or healthcare, a terrorist is the furthest thing from your mind.

There's more...

Why the Democratic Primary was a joke

Update [2008-10-1 21:22:7 by Pravin]: Katrina V of The Nation was just on Larry King blasting the Clinton administration's Bob Rubin and others for playing a role in deregulation in addition to the worse people (the Bushies) who followed that administraton. Something is wrong when I hear more REpublicans bash Paulson on national TV . How is a guy who one was mr Goldman Sachs and still has assets to affected by this bailout plan be allowed to be the central figure in this bailout? The guy should resign. Democrats did a pisspoor job in highlighting that massive conflict of interest. Update [2008-10-1 16:1:24 by Pravin]: I realize this to be a rant. So excuse the ranting. I have a point in here somewhere. But I don't have the time to put out a well researched diary. Sorry.

You heard a lot of comparison of policies during the Democratic Primary. People were comparing minutia of each policy as if every single one of them was going to be enacted. How many times have Hillary and Obama mentioned that the economy was headed for a free fall if government didn't have to spend massive amount of money to bail out banks? And what kind of effect that could have on the policies they propose?

Are you seriously telling me they did not see something like this coming? I have read about our credit crunch for ages. If not the housing lendin

g, one could read about the Chinese threat if they decide to trade in dollars for euros. How many times did Hillary, Obama and the others talk about the need to be stricter about loans. How many times did they chastise banks for giving loans to people who had no business owning a house of whatever size they preferred.

Yet If Hillary proposed A, B,C, D and Obama proposed A, B, F, G people went on and on about how C was so superior to F despite the fact they had no clue if Hillary would even have enough money to fund C.

I do not see much leadership from either Hillary or Obama on this crisis now. They rarely gave us enough warnings about the impending disaster during the campaign. There were some mentions during the campaign, but more as one of many points.

Let's face it. Both parties fucked this up. Republicans should take the most blame as they were in absolute power for 6 years, and DEmocrats should take the blame because other than tougher regulations, they still do not have an answer for America's propensity to live beyond its means. They served as a weak opposition for 6 years and we never saw good enough effort from them in the last two years to proactively stall this upcoming meltdown. The Democrats havent shown enough guts to cut off Iraq spending.

There's more...

Where are the resignations???

Sometimes, in times like this, you wouldn't mind if some of these Bushies and rich execs who do not answer to anyone have a smidgen of decency and commit harakiri. I would gladly donate a Hattari Hanzo if it helps them make it as clean as possible.

What I did not see from Democrats is a unified well organized call for resignations following a demand for accountability from the Bushies who created this mess. If I am the exec of a company and I cost the company a lot of money because of my blunders, I would accept responsibiity, and I would resign.

In fact, even in countries like India, sometimes ministers resign following a scandal or a blowup of some issue mishandled. I realize we are not  a parliamentary democracy, but come on. We seemed to have lost the sense of accountability as a nation.

I have heard talk that calls for indictments for the Iraq war misinformation will only backfire on the DEmocrats. I disagree. But let's assume that has some merit. What about persistent calls for responsibility and accountabilty? That word resonates among voters. That is not only an ethical obligation, but it is a great campaigning strategy to improve the brand of the party. Why can't the Democrats name names of people opposed to certain regulations over the years even if it means it indicts some of their own? when you combine the iraq war waste and a host of bailouts over the years, we spent more than a trillion even if we recoup half of that 700B.

Democrats need to name names and ask why they are not resigning. Make corporate analogies to disarm the conservatives. Use conservative lingo to sell what is good for liberal voters.

HOw does Bush have the balls to go on air, say the country is in a huge mess, demand we support his bailout, but at the same time, doesnt even apologize for bringing the country into this mess?

Be accountable, accept responsbility and resign.  That is all we ask of these people who got us into this mess. It is upto the DEmocrats to identify some of the key players in government and bombard the public with clear cut ads.

The people who need to resign first. Those responsible for not bringing up for review a bailout plan a couple of months ago. Why is this made available to congress for review in the last minute? Are they really serious that the possibility was not predictable even if they were not 100% sure about this mess? In fact, there are reports that they have been drawing this up for months. The scandal is the representativs do not seem to have been consulted for months to get feedback. The other scandal is that the Democrats did not take their own initiative to press the Bushies if they have a tentative bailout plan in mind a few months ago. Hell, make baseball analogies since politicians like to overuse sports analogies. Would the manager of the Yanks last even a day with this kind of mismanagement? Let me end with this one. WHY DIDN"T THE DEMOCRATS DEMAND SOME PEOPLE RESIGN IN EXCHANGE FOR A BAILOUT TO TEACH ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS as one of their conditions? Someone is to blame for delaying discussing a bailout. Poiticially, what has changed in terms of who is overseeing what needs to be overseen?

There's more...

Did Democrats wuss out on the bailout?

What a fucking disgrace. OK, it's not all bad. But my patience has run out. If this occurred before they caved into disasters like the Iraq war, i probably would just be disappointed . But after all these years, I expect more. They fell for the sales pitch by the Bushies again. It's like a salesman selling you a 30K car for 40K by saying he cant get this car anywhere else for less than 45K. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/congress-white-house-reac_n_129964.html


The legislation would place limits on severance packages for executives of companies that benefit from the rescue plan, but details were sketchy.

Say what? Just severance packages? What about ongoing salaries? Details being sketchy probably means based on past experience with our wussy politicians is that there is nothing to brag about in terms of limiting their compensation. Probably some nominal limits.

You know what I did not hear all week from any prominent democrat? The conflict of interest. Even if you limit salaries and severance packages(and they are not even doing that totally), isnt this bailout going to help many powerful people who have access to these politicians and the politicians themselves who have assets which depend heavily on the financial situation related to the bailout? How the hell did the DEmocrats in the house get to be on equal standing with the Republican members when it was the Republicans who are chiefly responsible for this mess? They keep repeating Fannie Mae shit to taunt the DEmocrats while the DEmocrats kind of look too cooperative with the President compared to his own party politicians. Now Republicans will fall in line too, but it looks like the Democrats are more willing to work on this issue compared to Iraq because they are ideologically not opposed to bailouts as long as their constituents are covered too.

We have waited years in vain for education and healthcare reform. But a bailout? The dems jump in and iron it out with some republican morons in a week.Wow, when it comes to the impact on powerful people, they are in a rush to fix problems that affect them. Does anyone here ever wonder why a 700B measure was compromised so easily when less costly measures have been in endless debate for decades? Because this affects these people on a personal level. It is plain self interest.

Remember when Bush said that this agreement had to be done IMMEDIATELY? And even some so called experts did the same thing. Did the economy fall further down because of a week's delay? No. So why the fuck should I trust these bastards? There is a giant mess and I doubt this welfare measure for undeserving rich people and even some dumb homeowners will help much. The republicans liked to deny the economy was in trouble when they needed to sell a good economy to sell a McCain Presidency. But now they go to the other extreme and act like the economy is in such dire straits that the world will come to an end tomorrow if this is not settled today.

Where is the reward for people who lived their lives right?

When Enron happened, people said lessons were learned. And in that case, there wasnt even a bailout to soften the blow. I guess we will never learn lessons as a country thanks to the government bailing out these bastards. We will be a land of dumb people who do not comprehend simple financial concepts and they elect people who are just as big morons as they are.

There's more...

Nader hitting it out of the park on Maher's show

I guess I have to make a disclosure as it seems to be mandatory for any Nader diary. I never voted for Nader. I will definitely vote for Obama in the GE. I supported Obama in the primary. I ran to be his delegate. And I want him to win badly. What this diary is about is talking points. The DEmocrats are getting better, but still play needless defense at times. I have not seen the debate yet. Just some clips and Obama seems to have done fine and he looked pretty confident in what I saw. That's a nice improvement. But i have higher hopes for him. But come on, McCain has exposed himself so badly in recent days, this should not even be close by any measure. Obama is clearly a better choice than the two morons he is running against. I think Obama has better consultants than the typical Dem presidential candidate. But they need to take some chances.

Democrats had 8 years to prove Nader wrong. They could have done the best they could to oppose Bush and say "hey look, if you voted for us, we could have done so much more." Instead, they just let Bush fuck up the nation and told us "look, because of Nader, you got saddled with a terrible guy. Yes we could have done so much more by just sitting on our asses as we wont cause any damage". That is why I couldnt vote for Nader because I certainly did not want Bush again. not because I had confidence in the Democrats. Anyway. The Dems are usually on the defense instead of trying to coopt the mainstream part of Nader's message and as much as I consider myself a fiscal guy who spans both left and right(I am one of the few with little sympathy for the common man who stupidly mortgaged themselves into bankruptcy), I find it refreshing to hear someone shell out talking points with utmost clarity and logic as Nader does. I may not agree with everything he says. But he really connects on the issues when you listen to him. Unfortunately, Nader has gotten himself too much baggage over the years, some of it his own making. So people will disregard the messenger at the expense of the message. But Obama is the perfect messenger. He is better off risking sound like a leftist than sounding like effete elitist as the right wing nut jobs like to portray him.  

I challenge any of you Nader bashers here to watch Maher's show as I am doing right now and pick a statement of his and prove to me that he uttered some fringe left wing nonsense. I honestly believe if Obama marches forward with a lot of clarity and passion, he will vanquish McCain regardless of the racists inthe country. People will respect that even if they do not agree with everything he says.

This is the essential truth. People really, on the average, do not give a shit about a list of policies. So do not be afraid if your agenda has one too many liberal ideas or conservative ideas. They have one or two major ideological points and then they go after who they feel leads them. You can MAINSTREAM so called ultra liberal talking points if you back it up with conviction and passion. A lot of people are sheep. They just need someone to lead them somewhere.

By the way, I have not lost hope. Biden had a great appearance on CNN after the debate. But Maher, Tim Daly and Nader really made better arguments than some high paid democratic consultants in recent weeks. They made that National Review woman look like the idiot she is when she brought up the surge talking points. Obama, as much as I like him, totally fucked up the whole surge argument thing with McCain when he went on o Reilly. I hope he did better in the debate because I saw Biden use better talking points against the surge in the post debate show. He should take lessons from Michael Ware who decimated the myth that the surge somehow is great. Why isnt Obama talking to people like Ware? The guy does not mince words and is able to clearly explain better than so called foreign policy experts what is going on there? Instead, he goes on O Reilly and stupidly says 'Surge worked beyond our wildest dreams without going into detail and explaining why Surge is just a tiny subset of what is going on there and that gong there in the first place was stupid." He mentioned some of that stuff, but not in a direct enough way that right wingers are able to use that against him. Update [2008-9-27 0:7:5 by Pravin]: The fact that dems inexplicably have been portrayed as more willing to work with Bush on a hastily drawn bailout is proof enough for me that they need to get some balls and fight harder. Only the DEms can take a slam dunk winning position and have the REpublicans muddy the water by claiming they are out to protect the taxpayers. Say what? the same Republicans who deregulated this mess? Anyway, the point of this diary is how effective Nader's talking points were on Maher. The initial reaction to Nader seemed loud but mixed. But they were agreeing with his every point. He did not back down on anything. He did not let the Republican twit on the show get away with a single talking point.

There's more...

How about Income Tax Amnesty?

Seriously, it riles me up that Democrats are willing to compromise with the Bushies just because they can get some concessions on homeowners who bungled their way to home ownership. It's like we both can serve our own voting base.

Plus, even if it doesnt serve their base, Democrats can't help but try their best to look "mature" by always coming to a deal with their opponents. But talk about reducing taxes or not paying taxes and Democrats get riled up. Why not? What is different between a deadbeat or maybe deluded homeowner being bailed out versus a financially irresponsible taxpayer who did not file his taxes properly more out of carelessness than malice. Some families get indebted to the IRS big time over time as things pile up and they ignore it thinking their troubles will go away. Why shouldn't we bail them out by giving them a tax amnesty? No?? Why not?

Not all tax evaders are greedy corporate execs. Some just get into a giant hole they can never escape because of bad advice and denial. IRS is one entity that refuses any kind of compromise. They must be paid regardless at some point.

OK, I was just playing devil's advocate to make this point. If it's OK for the IRS to be ruthless, why not we be ruthless to the fuckups in this latest mess?

There's more...

BAILOUT related politicians: Conflict of Interest?

One of the many reasons why I am against going for a costly bailout is this . Why should we leave it up to people, our representatives, who are probably going to financially benefit from this bailout to sell us the benefits of this bailout? Is it possible that while common people are also going to be affected by the lack of a bailout due to some retirement funds going under, many politicians stand to lose a lot of the value of their assets?

What are Paulsen's net assets?
What about the average senators? What are those assets tied in?

Even if there is no conscious action in favor of self interest by some polilticians of either party, isn't it possible that   they and their network of friends stand to lose so much that the crucial aspect gets magnified in their minds?

Something to think about before we fall in line for this stuff.

Also is it possible the administration is acting like a used car salesman? Give us a totally unreasonable bailout offer so that when the senators compromise, it is still a sweet deal for the administration's friends on wall street.

Yes, this bailout will definitely help in the short term. But I doubt it has any effect long term. Any negative effect it has will be countered by the fact people will be more careful in the future in their decision making.

There's more...

Bailout is Obama's first real test

McCain has already failed it. Obama can finish McCain if he really works hard at being president from now and articulating what needs to be done to fix this mess. Obama is treading water. He is saying some of the right things. But I still do not see him leading on this issue. He needs to have a 24/7 war room with his finance people and come up with some specific counterproposals or enough talking points to lambast the current bailout proposal. Just a good campaign speech, while a good start, is not good enough. He needs to go into FULL PRESIDENTIAL MODE because he will be President in 3 months anyway. He will be inheriting this mess.

He can't hide behind hypothetical situations. This is real. He is a senator now. Campaigning should take a back seat this week.He needs to get his ass back to DC and come up with some definitive ideas. He needs to work with other senators and act as their point man on this issue. Any less urgency on this issue, then he is merely the lesser of two evils instead of the better of two great candidates. This is a great opportunity for him to prove he can be President and not merely PRESIDENTIAL.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads