Monday, September 22, 2008
|
|
McCain Could Bail on the Bailout ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:45 AM
|
Over at the NYT today, Bill Kristol argues that John McCain might gain politically by opposing the proposed $700 billion bailout:
"Or McCain — more of a gambler than Obama — could take a big risk. While assuring the public and the financial markets that his administration will act forcefully and swiftly to deal with the crisis, he could decide that he must oppose the bailout as the panicked product of a discredited administration, an irresponsible Congress, and a feckless financial establishment, all of which got us into this fine mess.
Critics would charge that in opposing the bailout, in standing against an apparent bipartisan consensus, McCain was being irresponsible.
Or would this be an act of responsibility and courage?"
While conventional wisdom says that having the election fought over economic issues is tantamount to conceding the turf to Obama (since, ostensibly, Bush "created" this mess), it is possible McCain could once again turn the tables and defy conventional wisdom. Might this be another opportunity for McCain to put distance between himself and Bush?
|
|
|
I am sure the mention of Cuomo for the SEC was an attempt to distance himself from Bush and reach out to Clintonistas. I would still feel more comfortable if I knew who Sec of Treasury would be under McCain. |
|
ASTROTURF DIRTY TRICKS? Dr. Rusty Shackleford says that smear videos aimed at Sarah Palin look to come from a P.R. agency associated with the Obama Campaign. Dan Riehl comments: "Politics aside, if this was the professional manipulation that it appears to be, it is not good for blogs, Left or Right. It undermines their credibility and makes them no better than a propaganda tool become smear merchant for whatever candidate they happen to support." Stay tuned.
UPDATE: From the 2004 election, a warning about "black blog ops" that's seeming kinda prescient.
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/024721.ph p |
|
|
Just when you think McCain is on the right path he collides with the Liberal kook machine. Andrew Cuomo is not someone I would put in as chairman of the SEC. How absurd. He needs to abandon the Paulson train wreck, talk about saving free market capitalism, holding the CEOs of investment banks and bungling bureaucrats accountable, and unabashedly telling risktakers they are on their own. |
|
You pay the price.
What, exactly, is the massive bailout supposed to be saving? Is it saving risk takers from the risks they knowingly took? If so, count me out.
I'm willing to go through a temporary period of difficulty if that keeps the markets free and weeds out the bad decision makers.
We will be better off in the long run if we don't reward bad behavior.
|
|
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKS oiNbnQY0 |
|
Yes, McCain should do this for a few good reasons:
1) I don't think he really believes in bailouts like this
2) He could go against Bush AND the single-digit approval rated congress
3) He could attack Obama's Fannie /Freddie sleaze and do-nothingness
4) Let Obama defend the Bush Bailout and Washington status-quo
5) Reimind voters that REAL change will happen with McCain. McCain can do this. He brought us the fresh, exciting Palin. Obama brought us a stale Washington insider who has been in DC longer than McCain, and is almost as old. Obama looked to the past, McCain looks to the future, even with the economy.
Time to turn the tables. I think it's excellent advice. |
|
|
|