test

US exceptionalism

There's a certain satisfaction in the U.S. media these days when they point out that the U.S. financial crisis has hit the entire world. But there's an important point missing here. The financial crisis exists because banks are holding securities that all of a sudden aren't worth anything. That problem is world-wide. But there are two other parts that are concentrated in the U.S. -- the crash in the housing market, which has made ordinary people much less wealthy, and a large amount of government debt. Even if some sort of massive restructuring of mortgages goes on, this problem will not go away, because people's net worth has been hit hard. For example, municipal tax bases are going to shrink. Given this underlying problem with the fundamentals, there is no reason to expect the U.S. economy to recover soon, or even to stay in sync with the rest of the world. We may be able to avoid a Depression caused by illiquidity, but maybe not one caused by massive debt. And we may have to go it alone.

Greatest strength = greatest weakness?

McCain may be said to have two main strengths -- his POW status, and his image as a "reformer." Turning the latter strength into a weakness is easier than it might seem, because McCain hasn't always been a reformer -- as his membership in the Keating Five proves. Look at Obama's latest economics speech:

It happened in the 1980s, when we loosened restrictions on Savings and Loans and appointed regulators who ignored even these weaker rules. Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government
would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?

I wonder who constituted their "clout" in Washington? And then later in the speech:

We can’t have a situation like the old S&L scandal where its “heads” investors win, and “tails” taxpayers lose. That’s going to take ending the lobbyist-driven dominance of these institutions that we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.

It would be very daring on Obama's part, but attacking head-on McCain's membership in the Keating Five (which, by the way, is far more direct than Obama's connection to Bill Ayers) might be a very effective attack.

Lieberman's Grammar

The rules on this appear to be somewhat murky, but Lieberman really goes to town on this:

And in my opinion, the choice could not be more clear; between one candidate, John McCain, who has experience and has been tested in war and tried in peace, and another candidate that has not. Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put his country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate that has not. Between one candidate that's a talker and one candidate who's the leader America needs as our next president. [emphasis added]

I've never noticed this before, but maybe it's more common than I realize. Still, with Lieberman's construction, he has four pairs of "that" and "who," and it really looks glaring. Maybe no worse than "Democrat Congress" -- I wonder when Lieberman will fall into that.

Conspiracy Theory

I have no argument that this is true, I just think it would be diabolical: Through Randy Scheunemann, who was a lobbyist for Georgia, the McCain campaign, Bush government, and Georgian government have a ploy that buys Georgia sympathy in the eyes of the West, while simultaneously ratcheting up the foreign policy pressure/saber-rattling in the Presidential campaign. Why the hell did Georgia make the first move against Russia? Maybe there were back-channel direct promises of aid, as opposed to the public statements that have been made.

Guaranteed Loss for Obama

Israel's military training exercise brings up an easy way to defeat Obama. Bush may not have the leverage left to invade Iran, but Israel doesn't need to worry about U.S. approval ratings. If Israel bombs Iran, and Iran retaliates against Israel, who knows what happens. If what happens is a full-on war between Israel and Iran, the U.S., judging from the current full-throated defenses of Israel offered by both presidential candidates, may not find it too difficult to jump into the fray. And if that move doesn't turn off the American public, McCain will have a powerful argument to use against giving the reins to Obama. Other option -- capture Osama bin Laden and then repeatedly refer to him as "Obama."

Pardonable offenses

While other countries may eventually charge the architects of the Bush administration's torture policy, most people think that the U.S. is not going to go there. But how sure is the administration of that? Even if the odds are minuscule, there's still a chance that in a President Obama's second term, with a solid Democratic Congressional majority, the topic would be broached. Bush's power to pardon people involved in torture (there seems to be very little hard evidence that he was directly involved) could be used to great effect here, and the offenses wouldn't even have to be enumerated -- the parties involved could be pardoned for all offenses they committed against the United States, as Ford did to Nixon. Bush's confidence might well keep him from considering this at all. But if I were Alberto Gonzales, or maybe more relevantly, David Addington, I would be worried.