hatepalin.com

Entries categorized as ‘Bush’

McCain-Palin Try to Disenfranchise New Voters

October 18, 2008 · Leave a Comment

What’s all this about ACORN, Ohio database mismatches and the like?  It’s simply the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican party trying to intimidate new voters into either not voting, or making sure that their votes don’t count when they’re cast.

The campaign follows in a long line of disenfranchisement efforts that stretch back to Jim Crow laws, and includes the well-documented shenanigans that made the 2000 and 2004 US elections on par with third world rigged elections, and about which America should be ashamed.

The ultimate debacle of course happened in Florida – led by the embarrassing Katherine Harris (see my post on the parallels between Palin and Harris here).  There the Republican Secretary of State Harris, working in conjunction with George W. Bush lawyers and George’s brother Jeb, the Republican Governor of Florida, decided the outcome of the Presidential election by refusing to count votes made in support of the Democrat Al Gore, in addition to other procedural decisions that effectively disenfranchised the votes of those who did not support Bush.

McCain-Palin know that there has been a huge surge of new voter registrations, mostly by young and minority voters.  This surge helped Obama defeat the political machine of Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  These new voters remain energized and likely to vote in the upcoming election.  The problem is that Obama-Biden leads McCain-Palin by enormous margins.  So what’s a campaign to do?

The answer is simple:

  1. Keep voter turnout low.
  2. Don’t count votes for the opponent.

The Republicans have a long tradition of trying to scare voters they think will vote against them.  They’ve used “push polling” to give out bad advice to likely Democratic voters:  the wrong voting location, the wrong election day.  (They’ve also used “push polling” to spread lies like phantom illegitimate mixed race babies, like Bush did against McCain in the primaries, but I digress).  They’ve spread false information about the voting process or voting requirements intended to scare voters away from participation.  Yes, they’ve even starved areas of necessary resources in order to ensure long lines and more inconvenience in order to discourage voting.  Shameful, really.

Ohio matters:  perhaps you’ve read recently about the Supreme Court ruling against the Republicans.  The Supreme Court just ruled on Friday, October 17th, 2008, overturning a decision of a Federal Appeals Court.  The Republicans were trying to compel the Secretary of State of Ohio (a Democrat) to turn over to the Republicans a list of new voters for whom there were some database mismatches against other governmental lists, like the DMV record.  The Republicans were going to use this list to give to partisan poll workers who would then challenge voters individually when they came in to vote.  They would seek to either not allow the people to vote, or to have their ballots made “provisional” – meaning they’d be kept separate, not counted with the general votes, and only counted after long protracted legal wrangling if that might help the Republicans.  Think about it – the Republicans have a strategy of keeping voter turnout low and trying to prevent having people’s votes from counting.  Even if the information is faulty, or the mismatches something as simple as a change of address, or a misspelled name as the result of an error by a government worker (Sara instead of Sarah?  Palin instead of Palen?).  Most experts estimate that in excess of 80% of the mismatches are just these kinds of simple errors.  For a detailed report on the Ohio decision, read this New York Times article:  Justices Block Effort to Challenge Ohio Voters.

Who amongst you has never had a simple government data entry error with their name or address?

In addition to Ohio, McCain-Palin have made ACORN central rallying cry for their campaign recently (we can only hope this central message lasts as long as the previous 20).  ACORN is an organization that seeks to bring low income people into the political process, and to advocate for low income housing and the preservation of jobs for the low and unskilled.  As part of an effort to increase the appallingly low voter registration rates in this group, they paid canvassers to go out into these low income neighborhoods and get people to register.  Some of these 1,600 paid canvassers apparently made up names on their list.  But ACORN had a solution for this:  they themselves would segregate the names into three categories:  those that seemed to be OK, those that were probably not OK, and those that might not be OK – and they identified the names with these categories when they submitted them.  In fact, it would be illegal for the organization to “throw out” names they thought were bad.  Imagine, should an organization be able to decide what they submit and what they don’t when someone thinks they’ve signed up to vote?  I think not.  Should they be able to ask how the person will vote and then only register Democrats, or only register Republicans?  Of course not.  But the Republicans know that the efforts of ACORN are probably bringing more Democrats than Republicans to registration, so they are attempting to discredit the entire effort.  By the way, does “ACORN” sound scary to you?  If it does, it’s just an indication of how effective the right-wing scare machine is.  It stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  Liberal?  Yes.  A threat to the very existence of democracy?  Hardly.  And we saw at the Republican convention how icky and scary this batch of Republicans like Giuliani and Palin think “community organizing” is.  More cynical politics and more class warfare, courtesy of McCain-Palin.  It would be laughable if it didn’t have such serious consequences.

The Republicans want to win at all costs.

It galls me that Republicans would seek less participation in the electoral process.  But that’s exactly what’s happening.

That’s disenfranchisement.  And that’s just palin wrong.

Categories: Bush · McCain · Palin · Palintology · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Sarah's Future

October 18, 2008 · Leave a Comment

Sarah Palin may be the one person out of the four at the top of the ticket with the most at stake.  Win or lose McCain will be a senior leader in the Republican party.  Win or lose both Obama and Biden have increased their national stature and will figure in Democratic politics for a long time to come.  Sarah Palin, on the other hand, will either be vaulted into the heights of national leadership, or bundled off back to Alaska, largely blamed for the Republican loss, and shunned by the Republican party.

We need look no further than Katherine Harris of Florida for how the Republican party will treat Palin in the future when her usefulness is done.  She will go from being the toast of the party to being an embarrassing relative pushed to the background, and erased from memory.

Katherine Harris, of course, is the former Republican Secretary of State of Florida whose actions had an enormous impact on the outcome of the 2000 election.  Harris entered politics with her election to the Florida Senate in 1994.  As early as 1996 she was caught up in a scandal when a company called Riscorp made $400,000 in illegal political pay-to-play donations, including over $20,000 to Harris.  The CEO of Riscorp did prison time after confessing guilt; Harris was never charged.  In 1998 she won the race for Secretary of State of Florida, which would give her a pivotal role in the 2000 Presidential election.

Harris leveraged her new found recognition to a seat in the US Congress in 2002.  She then ran for the US Senate in 2006.  Unfortunately for Harris she had more political funding trouble, as she was involved in the MZM defense contractor scandal that had led to the conviction and resignation of California Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.  The Republican establishment which had come to power because of Harris now turned against her.  Jeb Bush publicly speculated that she couldn’t win and encouraged others to run against her.  Karl Rove soon followed suit.  The entire Republican establishment rushed to find a replacement candidate, and even recruited conservative commentator Joe Scarborough to step in.  The flow of Republican money soon dried up, and when her father left his sizable estate entirely to her mother, she was left without the money needed to compete.

In another eerie parallel to Sarah Palin, Harris was another evangelical Christian who apparently believed in Christian Reconstruction – the belief that Christians have a duty to God to make America a theocracy.  That’s right, they have the same approach to government as fundamentalist Muslims – just a different theology.

Here’s what Harris said to the Florida Baptist Witness on August 24, 2006.

“We have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected then we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. … we need to take back this country. … And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back? …If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.”

If the positions seem eerily familiar, it’s because Palin shares them lock, stock, barrel and “Jesus loves the NRA” bumper sticker.

In the Florida Senate race in 2006, the Republicans got their replacement candidate, Vern Buchanan, who eked out a victory by only a few hundred votes.

Sarah, I feel for you.  Right now you’re the toast of the Jesus and Guns circuit.  You’re being told that you not only have to try to help McCain overcome difficult odds to win the election, but you also have to think about your own future should the ticket lose.  You’re even thinking that you could become President one day.  I’d suggest you give Katherine a call, and see how solid and lasting that Republican embrace is.  If there’s one thing that Republicans hate more than a Democrat, it’s a loser.

Categories: Bush · McCain · Palin · Palintology
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

An Intelligent Election?

October 2, 2008 · Leave a Comment

I’ve got a modest proposal.  Rather than spending a gazillion dollars (OK, it’s only several hundred million dollars) on the election, and risking having the Treasury Secretary come swooping in to buy up all of the candidates, we settle it simply with a test.

I hope that we can all agree that intelligence matters.  We’ve suffered through 8 years of a guy who isn’t that bright (just ask his Harvard Business School classmates, as I have, off the record), but who some of us apparently wanted to have a beer with.  Funny, I think he’s a teetotaler now, having drunk and snorted his way to near oblivionn, but I digress.

OK, intelligence matters.

While not perfect, the IQ test has a lot going for it.  It’s been around a long time.  It’s rather the de facto standard.  It doesn’t put too much weight on accumulated knowledge, but rather attempts to get to some core traits that define intelligence.

Now the top of the ticket is definitely more important than the second slot.  So here’s what we do.  We pick a day, make all four candidates show up.  We have a stern looking teacher-type there to administer the test.  Then we calculate the IQ’s of the candidates.  The candidate for President’s score is at face value (remember 100 is average, 85 is the highest end of retarded).  The Vice Presidential candidate’s score is 50% of face value.

Whichever ticket has the highest calculated score wins.  We call it a day.

So what do you think?  McCain?  Palin?  Obama?

Categories: Bush · McCain · Palin · Palintology
Tagged: , , , ,

Lipstick on a Pig

October 2, 2008 · 1 Comment

Sarah Palin is lipstick…

… John McCain is the pig.

When the “controversy” first broke over Obama’s use of the old “lipstick on a pig – same old pig” statement, with the right wing blustering in fake outrage about the sexism of the statement, I didn’t think too much about it.  It seemed like more of the same ridiculousness at high volume you’d expect from the McCain campaign and O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck et al.

But at the gym this morning, it occurred to me why it’s stayed with me.  It’s true.  They just got the roles wrong.  You see they were trying to say that Obama called Palin a pig.

Obama should have said

“No, I wasn’t calling Sarah Palin a pig.  I was calling John McCain a pig.  You see, the saying refers to taking something that’s ugly (Bush’s failed policies) and dressing them up in different makeup and trying to sell them as something pretty.  And that’s what McCain is trying to do.  Remember when he was the ‘Experience candidate’?  Now it’s supposedly all about change.  Sorry, but McCain and his proposals are still pigs.”

But that would be too confrontational for the gentlemanly, cool, professorial Obama.

Now I suppose instead of saying that McCain is the pig, we could say that Bush’s policies are the pig, and McCain’s policies are the same pig with the lipstick of a McCain-Palin ticket, but that would lack the punch.  There’s something viscerally satisfying about saying that McCain is the pig, delicately sweetened with just the hint of guilty pleasure.  And anyway, if people couldn’t see the context of the Obama comment for what it was – a knock on the failed Bush policies, they’d miss the subtlety of the more refined argument anyway.

So Palin is the lipstick, McCain is the pig.  And you can put lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig.

So there.  I’ve said it.

Categories: Bush · McCain · Palin · Palintology
Tagged: , , , , , ,

McCain Caught In Bed With Freddie Mac

September 24, 2008 · Leave a Comment

So the breaking news now: the firm owned by Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, received payments from Freddie Mac as recently as last month.  Davis had claimed that the relationship ended three years ago.

The original Maverick?  Huh?!  An outsider?  Huh?!  The McCain-Palin campaign is being run by insider lobbyists, trying desperately to wrap themselves in a shawl of change, because they’ve figured out that’s what America is demanding.

Does McCain-Palin really believe that the public won’t see through their cynicism?  The candidate of change – after his party has controlled the presidency for the last eight years, after he was the most ardent of deregulation supporters (including oversight of Freddie Mac).

McCain admits he doesn’t know as much about the economy as he should.  Palin knows even less.  I wonder if she’s even had just one college-level class in economics given her school-jumping.  Now, apparently, McCain either didn’t know as much about his campaign manager as he should, or else he DID know, but was trying to keep that information out of the public’s view.

Check out the story in the Washington Post:  McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid Recently.

Categories: Bush · Finance · McCain · Palin · Palintology · Politics
Tagged: , , , ,

Financial Crisis

September 21, 2008 · Leave a Comment

McCain, as one of the chief Senate supporters of rampant deregulation, is very much to blame for today’s financial crisis.  Don’t let his scapegoating of Chris Cox fool you; he was right there every step of the way, dismantling regulatory agencies and programs, preaching an unfettered free market.

I like to think of myself as relatively sophisticated when it comes to financial matters. I’ve got a top-tier MBA, and track my investments closely. But the latest financial crises and bailouts are enough to make one’s head spin.

I alternate between extreme concern, and trying not to over-react or let fear mongering take over.

The extremes of deregulation led to both unprecedented profits on Wall Street, and now the near collapse of our financial system. Sound extreme? Maybe. But the systematic dismantling of regulation that has occurred mostly under Republican administrations allowed for both innovation in financial markets, but also the inability to accurately measure and report on risk, heightened leverage, and the creation of an inordinately complex relationship of investments and risk, whereby when stress and the reduction of liquidity has led to ripple effects that now threaten the entire network. The proponents of deregulation include Phil Graham, Chris Cox, George W. Bush, and yes John McCain.

See CNN’s story on McCain’s flip-flop on regulation:  McCain drifts away from a legacy of deregulation.

The first major stress on the system was revealed with the failure of Enron. Yes, that far back. Enron took all sorts of complex sources of risk, “productized” them, and then traded them. In essence they were a market maker. Before the collapse, they were said to be thinking about creating a weathers future market, where futures on the outcome of weather could be bought and sold. Yes, a weather futures market. A market can be created around anything that moves. Literally. Witness the 16th century Dutch tulip bulb investing craze. The problem is that sometimes the products become obscure, and the people trading don’t know what they represent. Can you figure out what an option straddle on only the interest portion of a bundle of mortgages is worth, especially when you can’t quickly figure out the default risk on the underlying mortgages? Add to this computer-driven trading to take advantage of risk and price spreads (arbitrage), and you have the recipe for interconnected poorly understood markets.

With deregulation, not only did new unique instruments pop up, but the traditional boundaries of what investments different kinds of institutions can invest in fell. Suddenly banks and insurance companies, investment banks and savings and loans, hedge funds and mutual funds could invest in all kinds on new instruments, most with huge leverage.

Leverage is the ratio of “actual” to borrowed money underlying an investment. If I have $100 and want to invest in something, that’s not leveraged. If the investment goes up 20%, I make $20 or 20%. But if I borrow another $1000 (a 10x leverage), and invest $1100, and it goes up by that same 20%, and I have to pay 4% on my borrowed money, I’ve just made $220 ($1100 x 20%), and had to pay $40 in interest, so net of costs I’ve made $180, on my original $100 – I’ve made 180% profit! Hugely profitable? Yes. Risky? Oh yeah. Why? Well, what if the investment goes down? Then I can lose even more than I’ve got invested! If the asset went down by 20%, I’d lose $220, more than I had to start, plus the interest on the borrowed money, so I’m $260 in the hole.  What if I don’t have it?  I default on the loan.  Then who owns the investment?  The person I borrowed from, probably, but they don’t want it, especially if it looks like it’s continuing to fall in value.  That’s leverage. Just like a physical lever lets you move more weight than you could do directly, financial leverage let’s you make (OR LOSE) more money than you could otherwise.  The biggest leverage most Americans have is when they take out a mortgage to buy a house.  But Wall Street bought those same mortgages, and sold them again, using leveraged money.  Now you start to get an idea for how dropping housing prices could ricochet through the economy, as it is now.

So, why are so many people mad at Alan Greenspan? Mostly because he followed a course of low, easy credit for a long period of time. He kept interest rates low to keep the economy expanding far beyond its “natural” capacity. Because interest was so low, and American culture has devalued saving in favor of current consumption, our already low saving rate went negative. The housing bubble developed. The economy expanded. But what was fueling this? China was buying up our Treasury Bills. We were borrowing money to fuel this orgy of consumption. As a result the value of the dollar against other currencies plummeted. The rest of the world could see that this was not sustainable, but the US, as the largest economy in the world, fueled a huge global expansion on the back of its borrowing and spending.

Add to this a disastrous Bush administration, who went into a foolish and costly war in Iraq, and choosing to fund the war not in the current budget, but – you guessed it – with more debt.

The economy is not set up for some very bad days ahead. We will either have to inflate or grow our way out of this mess. We inflated our way out of paying for the Viet Nam war, which we also funded from debt. Remember the ugly stagflation days of the 1970′s? Gas lines? High inflation? Low growth. That’s because we were inflating our way out of our war debt. Who won? Those who held debt, including a lot of Americans who’d bought homes with fixed mortgages. Who lost? Those who owned real assets – like stock, or companies, or retired people on an income that was fixed (and not tied to increases in inflation). I’d predict that you’d best look to the 1970′s and early 1980′s for a road map for the next decade.  We enjoyed the party a little too much, now we have to face up to the fact that our hangover will be with us for a while.

Now the Treasury Department and the Fed have stepped into the economy in ways that would historically have been unthinkable, guaranteeing instruments that did not have government backing, propping up companies about to go under and facilitating private sale (Bear Stearns), privatizing huge companies (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), injecting huge amounts of liquidity into the system by lending money to banks and investment banks, and now proposing to create a huge fund to buy up distressed assets, mostly bad mortgage packages and related securities.

I wish I’d moved everything to cash and gold a year ago. But I didn’t, so I’ve lost a chunk.

The decision from here, however, isn’t to cry over spilled milk, it’s to put your money where it has the best chance of growing for an acceptable, minimized risk profile. I did take my portfolio to “moderately conservative” from “moderately aggressive” about 6 months ago. Now it’s time to watch the news carefully, and decide what asset classes have the best chance to appreciate at the lowest risk – even to call a bottom in real estate and stock.

Here’s a great story from today’s New York Times about the latest Bush administration bailout plan:  The Wall Street Bailout, Explained.

Treasury Seeks Asset-Buying Power Unchecked by Courts, on Bloomberg.

Categories: Bush · Finance · McCain
Tagged: , , , , ,