The opening in London, Paris and Frankfurt markets has been ugly, just like Asia. Where are the Republican presidential candidates during this collapse? They're still talking about tax cuts instead of addressing real world problems that their party created. It's incredible to even imagine that we're heading into a recession - if we're not already there - and this group is debating issues that were laid to rest a few years ago.
Outside of extreme right wing circles, people know that tax cuts do not "pay for themselves" as the right likes to say. Never have, never will. They can provide benefits but as a long term solution to the current economic problems, not at all. Giuliani may not have a chance to mingle with people outside of his million dollar plus salary circles but people in the real world are fed up with tax cuts for the elite and the middle class squeeze. Times have changed, but the GOP is still stuck in the past. Why is it so hard for them to understand that most of the country has been left behind while only the select few have profited?
Despite the changing story with the "incident" in the Strait of Hormuz, the Republican candidates are all doing their best to out-macho one another with the exception of Ron Paul, who suggested caution and further review. The others are ready to throw fire and brimstone to kill 'em all and ask questions later. Great. Just what the country is demanding after WMD in Iraq and too-many-to-count "terrorism" threats in the US conveniently announced during troubled times for the Bush administration. (Think, Miami Seven, for example.)
The Guardian picked up the faltering story today and we will probably hear an update after 4PM on Friday or over the weekend to make sure the story is as buried as possible when it contradicts the war-lust of Dear Leader. Are Americans really begging for another war in the Middle East? Do the Republican candidates honestly think that's what the people are screaming for? Out of touch and out of office.
Just weeks ago, the right wing media couldn't stop talking about Sarkozy. Yes, even the GOP presidential candidates all chimed in, talking about how Sarkozy was moving France in the direction of the US. Hmm. It's true, Sarkozy would fit in well with the religious right in America and the GOP presidential candidates. He's about to leap into his third marriage so indeed, he would fit in well with the GOP crowd.
Last summer, Sarkozy was enjoying support in the mid 60's though a more recent poll has him down to 48%. The circus-like atmosphere of his love life being played out in the tabloid media might be tolerated if there were results. The problem is, the big agenda has been put aside and replaced with The Sarko Show. The only real change is that now, like in America, every personal detail of the president is openly displayed in the press. The theater, like in America, is often just what they want people to see and believe. (Remember Bush, the CEO president?) Without a quick turnaround and serious focus, he's going to be as ineffective as Chirac. The Socialists - left for dead only months ago - could not have asked for anything better.
The Dupont neighborhood is crawling with religious right fanatics attending the Values Voters summit. Haven't managed to get over to the festivities.
The media are all over the place too. Seems they are finding that there is not a lot of affection brewing for the GOP candidates today at the right wing hatefest:
Religious and cultural conservatives, a political force skeptical of the leading Republican presidential candidates, are caught in a tug of war between pragmatism and ideology.
"My head and my heart are fighting with each other," said Phil Burress, an Ohioan who has lobbied hard for federal and state bans on gay marriage.
The vexing choices facing these voters:
-Rudy Giuliani, a thrice-married New Yorker who differs with them on abortion, gays and guns but who polls show offers a strong chance to beat a Democrat next fall.
-Mitt Romney, a Mormon from Massachusetts who didn't entirely share their views in the past but who insists he now does.
-Fred Thompson, a Tennessean who hasn't been a vocal champion of their core issues but who had a right-leaning Senate voting record.
-John McCain, an Arizona senator who has a clear socially conservative resume but who dismissed their leaders "agents of intolerance" in 2000.
-Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister and true believer who has an extraordinary hill to climb for the nomination.
Tough times for the fundies. They've got no one to love.
But what about Duncan Hunter, who is possibly the biggest buffoon in Congress? Don't hear much about his campaign, but I did see what appears to be THE entire Duncan Hunter campaign parked on my street today:
Big weekend in DC for the ultra-right wingers. They're having their "Values Voters Summit" at the Washington Hilton, conveniently located in the gayest neighborhood in the city.
All the GOP presidential candidates are going to be here to kiss the butts of the religious right. The religious right types aren't so enamored with the GOP candidates as the Washington Post reminds us:
For months, Republican presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain have courted evangelical Christians, meeting with religious leaders throughout the Midwest and the South.
Today, thousands of Christian conservatives will gather in Washington to confront the fact that none of the candidates has won them over.
So big test for all those Republican wannabes. Can they win over the fringe James Dobson-types of the GOP?
They've already started tripping over themselves to be the most right-wing of the right-wing according to the Associated Press preview:
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's argument to woo restive religious and social conservatives comes down to this: "I have a record that can be trusted." GOP rival Mitt Romney's goes like this: "I am pro-family on every level, from personal to political."
The two are among the Republican presidential hopefuls speaking to a gathering of "values voters" in Washington. This influential part of the party's base has not coalesced around a Republican candidate, and all the major competitors are auditioning for the part in speeches this weekend.
In remarks prepared for delivery Friday and made available to The Associated Press, McCain and Romney separately challenge the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, although neither names the former New York mayor who backs abortion rights and gay rights.
"We're not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton," Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, says. Adds McCain, the Arizona senator: "This is not the time to turn our back on the progress we've made on the issues that matter most."
The Hilton is across the street from me so I'll probably swing by this event today to see it for myself. I just wish Pam Spaulding was here to enjoy it with me.
Republican presidential candidates can spin it however they like and perhaps their supporters are too thick to look around and see the truth, but the rest of the world is quickly losing faith in the US economy. In August, foreign investors unloaded $163 billion of US securities. It is no wonder that since the world started this most recent round of dumping US assets, the US dollar has fallen against most of the leading global currencies. The last time the dollar fell so broadly was in the early 1970s.
Between a weak dollar, soaring oil costs, a collapsing real estate market (which had been the motor keeping the economy moving) and a severe lack of faith in the US market by the rest of the world, there are so many warning signs for a troubled economy and probably inflation pressure in 2008. Instead of being grounded in reality, Guiliani, Thompson, McCain and the rest all want to brag about how this is the greatest economy we've ever had. How can any of them be trusted to help fix the problem if they can't even admit that there's a problem? Just how out of touch are these guys?
The richest one percent of Americans earned a postwar record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent a year earlier, reflecting a widening income disparity among different classes in the nation, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing new Internal Revenue Service data.
The data showed that the fortunes of the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening, with that group earning 12.8 percent of all income in 2005, down from 13.4 percent the year before, the paper said.
It said that while the IRS data goes back only to 1986, academic research suggests that the last time wealthy Americans had such a high percentage of the national income pie was in the 1920s.
Foreclosure filings double in September from last years results. In September 2007 there were 223,538 filings across the US. This is what McCain and the other GOP candidates think represents a booming economy. If you are unable to recognize a problem - and Americans definitely see problems with the economy - how are you supposed to fix it? Could this group of nitwits be any more removed from the concerns of the American middle class? They just yuck it up, talking about how wonderful everything is and saying "USA #1" instead of seeing the problems that Americans see and offering a plan. Keep it up guys and run with that in the election. I'm sure it will be a real winner.
Not so surprisingly Countrywide Financial, the largest mortgage lender in the US, just announced a 44% decline in mortgage loans in September.
What an impressive display of Republican economics. At least we all still have eBay. Hooray! We'll all be rich!
Yesterday, the Washington Post first reported that former Bush aide-de-camp/spinmeister Dan Bartlett trashed the GOP presidential candidates. It was the first time we've seen anything resembling clarity from a Bush staffer. And, Bartlett was always one of the worst of the Bush team's liars:
One of President Bush's closest advisers has a brutally candid analysis of the Republican nomination battle: Fred Thompson is the campaign's "biggest dud," Mitt Romney has "a real problem in the South" because people will not vote for a Mormon, Mike Huckabee's last name is too hick and John McCain could end up repeating 2000 by winning New Hampshire but losing the nomination.
Dan Bartlett, who stepped down as White House counselor in July after working nearly his entire adult life for Bush, gave those frank assessments of the Republican presidential candidates during a recent appearance before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that went unnoticed outside the room. Never before has Bartlett opened up in a public setting with such an unvarnished analysis of the race. And while he no longer formally speaks for the president, Bartlett spent 14 years channeling Bush and remains virtually his alter ego, so his views could be seen as a revealing look into the thinking within the president's inner circle.
That didn't last long. This morning, Bartlett was on the Today Show flip-flopping -- and singing the praises of those same candidates he was trashing earlier this week. Now he says "we've got a strong, deep field." Bartlett had the audacity to deny he was "back-pedaling." Bartlett learned well from George Bush that he can just say anything. So which Dan Bartlett do we believe?
George Bush makes decisions for the GOP. And, he's got the Republican candidates following right behind him -- even on the really stupid political decisions. Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney think Bush was right to veto health care for kids:
The four leading Republican presidential candidates have aligned themselves with President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of an expanded health insurance program for children, once again testing the political risk of appearing in lock step with a president who has low approval ratings and some critics of the veto within their party.
It is yet another issue — like the Iraq war, North Korea’s nuclear program and the management of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — where the Republican contenders are treading delicately as they gauge how to position themselves with an unpopular president on contentious issues. While all four are defending the veto, some in full-throated language, the candidates are at the same time forgoing praise of Mr. Bush’s judgment on the issue or of his leadership in general.
Doesn't matter what the GOP candidates say about Bush's judgment or leadership. Their actions show their fealty to Bush.
An empty podium for each of the top Republican candidates said everything. Well, not quite everything. Money was more important than minority issues:
As the candidates debated for 90 minutes on PBS, those who didn't were scattered around the country.
Thompson had three fundraising events in Tennessee, his home state. Romney was in California, wrapping up the day in Rancho Santa Fe. Giuliani also was in California, concluding his day with a fundraising event at the Antelope Valley Fairgrounds in Lancaster. McCain began his day with a speech at the Hudson Institute in New York and spent the rest of the day in meetings and fundraising activities.
I think Newt is exactly what the GOP needs in this presidential campaign. It's just not crazy enough or far-right enough nor has it properly alienated enough people so it's about time they find a serious divider who can push the party over the edge and into a ravine. With all of the leading candidates doing their best to talk about the successful war in Iraq, Gingrich would spice up the debates with his criticism, dividing the party faithful even more. Run, Newt, run.
Republican Newt Gingrich is so unimpressed with his own party's 'chaotic' line-up of candidates to replace President Bush in the 2008 elections that he has threatened to make a dramatic late entry into the race.
The 64-year-old former Speaker of the House spent last week making speeches attacking Bush's handling of Iraq and the 'war on terror' and calling for 'big ideas' that would unite a disillusioned America behind a strong rival to Clinton.
He called General David Petraeus's report to Congress on the military surge in Iraq 'wholly inadequate', adding: 'The gap between where we are and where we should be is so large it seems almost impossible to explain.'
I did not watch the Republican debate last night. I attribute this to the fact that there have already been several debates, that I pretty much know the bullshit each Republican will spout and that if the debate wasn't important enough for 'Ol Fred Thomspon attend, then it wasn't important enough for me to watch. I was going to be snarky and say I missed the debate because I have a life, but I'm married with kids, so no one would really buy that, would they?
The morning after, I am surprised by the near unanimity of opinion - McCain won, Huckabee had a strong showing, and Romney didn't fare well. Here's the view of from the right-wing media forum, Human Events.
McCain was certainly the pleasant surprise of the evening. Just when his political obituary has been written he turns in a good natured, sober and informed performance. On foreign policy he essentially put Governor Mitt Romney in his place -- telling him the surge was working, not just apparently so” -- giving the most authoritative answer on Iran of the contenders. His problems however are clear -- with each moment spent on rehashing the immigration debate he loses votes and momentum and his refusal to sign the tax pledge and “stand on his record” reminds voters he opposed the Bush tax cuts. But on this night viewers could be gratified he is in the Senate and in the race for he raises the level of debate and reminds voters of the benefits of experience.
Romney’s performance raised two key question marks for his candidacy: he lacks a personal touch and is shaky on foreign policy. As to the first, when the military dad in the diner asked for an apology from Romney for comparing his son’s work on the campaign to his own son’s service Romney not only failed to offer his apology but seemed indifferent to the questioner. We like smart presidents but we also like empathetic ones who relate to people as people and Romney needs to show he has a heart and not just a brain. As for foreign policy, the week before the great surge debate, he seemed oddly focused on the Democrats’ goal --how quickly to get out -- without the same dogged concern shown by McCain for getting it “right” -- as best we can -- before we leave. Romney has been on quite a roll in the polls lately but he did not help himself in this outing.
One other item really caught my eye. Ross Douthat, over at The Atlantic, takes his conservative brethren to task for being more interested in attacks than substance. He noted some folks took Sam Brownback to task for not hitting Ron Paul on his plan to leave Iraq. Instead, Brownback, gasp, gave an actual plan (a "soft Partition") on Iraq, rather than just giving the usual Patriotic rhetoric and parroting the Bush talking points.
Look, I get where they're coming from: It's good when the candidates mix it up and actually address what one another are saying, and Brownback generally seems lost in the crowd during these debates, and from a tactical perspective he ought to be throwing more punches. (Or getting out of the race entirely.) But - but - what Brownback did, in his non-response to Paul, was offer an actual strategy for moving forward politically in Iraq, addressing the central problem of our occupation head-on in a way that almost nobody else did during tonight's debate. His plan for partition may be a terrible plan (or at best, a plausible endpoint of a "stay till it burns out" strategy), but it's an infinitely more substantive contribution to the argument over Iraq than, say, Rudy Giuliani's famous slam of Paul a few months back, and Brownback deserved better - as do we all - than to have his response scored a failure because he didn't use it to score cheap points against a fellow also-ran.
Ross ought to save his breath - conservatives are far more interested in scoring cheap political points than they are in finding actual solutions. But I admire his efforts.
Pretty much everyone with a brain agrees that the Administration's approach to Iraq was disastrous (this excludes both Cheney and Lieberman). So you would think the architects of Bush's war, neoconservatives, would be banished to the political wilderness. Somehow, these guys are still around, and now they are giving the '08 candidates advice:
Most Americans disapprove of the Iraq war and of exporting democracy by force, yet neoconservative proponents of those policies advise the leading Republican presidential hopefuls.
"There is an overwhelming presence of neoconservatives and absence of traditional conservatives that I don't know what to make of," said Richard V. Allen, former Reagan White House national security adviser.
Advisers to Sen. John McCain of Arizona include Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), while former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's policy team includes Norman Podhoretz, a founder of the neoconservative movement, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gets advice from Dan Senor, who counseled L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator in Iraq.
I cannot believe that candidates would listen to an individual with a history of terrible advice. But I guess this explains Bob Shrum, right?
The pro-Iraq war GOP candidates, who vowed to stay George Bush's course in Iraq, also debated attacking terrorists earlier today:
Republican presidential contenders waded into a Democratic foreign policy row on Sunday, and argued over how far the United States should go in striking terrorist targets abroad.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, running for the Democratic presidential nomination, said last week he would be willing to launch strikes against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Islamabad took no action.
This discussion has captivated the foreign policy experts. But the rest of us need to keep in mind one thing: The only reason there is even a discussion about capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan is that our current president, George Bush, never captured or killed Osama Bin Laden. In the 2008 election, the candidates are still discussing how far they would go to get the mastermind of the plot that killed three thousand Americans -- on American soil -- almost six years ago. Every single time someone says the terms "Bin Laden" or "Al Qaeda," it highlights Bush's failed policies. Those terms should be history by now.
The GOP candidates support Bush's Iraq war strategy -- the very strategy that let Bin Laden not only stay free, but it's the strategy that's reinvigorated Al Qaeda. At the debate, in a Bush-like moment, Mitt Romney linked 9/11 to the Iraq war. There is now a connection. Except, the terrorists who masterminded 9/11 have become the beneficiaries of Bush's Iraq war.
