Princeton Economics professor and former Fed Vice Chair Alan Blinder concludes his Sunday op-ed this way:
. . . if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?
☞ So if prosperity is your issue, you can skip all the rest. Vote Obama.
THE REAL McCAIN
Buy it for everyone you know – lest we make another colossal error and choose the wrong man.
AS FOR THE VP . . .
Warren Kaplan: ‘I think we must conclude that one or the other of the following two alternatives is true: Either (1) McCain truly believes that Palin is the person best qualified to succeed him as president and commander in chief in the War on Terror if he becomes disabled or dies while in office, or (2) the choice of Palin was a transparent play for the disgruntled Hillary supporters, and a shameless appeal to the far right Republican fundamentalist base, made in reckless disregard for the welfare of the country. Take your pick. Either way, McCain has irrevocably disqualifed himself from serious consideration for the presidency by any rational standard.‘
☞ If presidents were elected ‘by any rational standard,’ Gore would be stepping down after eight years; Bin Laden would be dead; there’d have been no trillion-dollar war in Iraq; and we would lead the world in stem cell research.
Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post:
Experience? Never Mind
By Michael Kinsley
Monday, September 1, 2008;
. . . It seems like only yesterday that the Republican Party was complaining about Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy “experience.” (As a matter of fact, when I started writing this, it actually was yesterday.) . . . The contrast in experience, especially foreign policy experience, between John McCain and Obama was supposed to be the central focus of McCain’s campaign.
But that’s so five minutes ago, before Sarah Palin. Already, conservative pundits have come up with creative explanations for McCain’s choice of a vice presidential running mate with essentially no foreign policy experience. First prize (so far) goes to Michael Barone, who notes that “Alaska is the only state with a border with Russia. And it is the only state with territory, in the Aleutian Islands, occupied by the enemy in World War II.” . . .
. . . the important point about Palin’s lack of experience isn’t about Palin. It’s about McCain. And the question is not how his choice of Palin might complicate his ability to use the “experience” issue or whether he will have to drop experience as an issue. It’s not about the proper role of experience as an issue. It’s not about experience at all. It’s about honesty. The question should be whether McCain — and all the other Republicans who have been going on for months about Obama’s dangerous lack of foreign policy experience — ever meant a word of it. And the answer is apparently not. Many conservative pundits woke up this morning fully prepared to harp on Obama’s alleged lack of experience for months more. Now they face the choice of either executing a Communist-style U-turn (“Experience? Feh! Who needs it?”) or trying to keep a straight face while touting the importance of having been mayor of a town of 9,000 if you later find yourself president of a nation of 300 million.
. . . How could anyone truly believe that Barack Obama’s background and job history are inadequate experience for a president and simultaneously believe that Sarah Palin’s background and job history are adequate? It’s possible to believe one or the other. But both? Simply not possible. John McCain has been — what’s the word? — lying. And so have all the pundits who rushed to defend McCain’s choice.
This is especially damning to McCain because his case for himself (besides not being Obama, a standard under which many of us might qualify) has rested on his honor and integrity. The North Vietnamese couldn’t break him, and neither could the Brahmins of his own party in the Senate. He was a maverick who always told it straight.
So much for that.
☞ If Daily Kos readers have it right, she may not even be the V.P. nominee after all, so we can save a lot of ink.
Quote of the Day
Years ago, in the Carter term, a stockbroker tried to explain what Schlumberger did. 'It goes to 100,' the broker said, exaggerating only a little bit. 'Then it splits three-for-two and goes back to 100 again.'~GRANT'S Interest Rate Observer
Request email delivery
- May 21:
- May 20:
Best Podcast Ever
- May 17:
Do Average Republicans Think This Is Right Or Fair?
- May 16:
Kentucky Derby, Redux
- May 15:
James Comey With Anderson Cooper
- May 14:
The Ag Dept’s Air Force
- May 13:
- May 10:
Lindsay Graham On Impeachment
- May 8:
The Artichoke That Got Away
- May 7:
For Your Consideration
- May 21: