Bailout

The problem with the Bailout Issue is that so few of us have the tools to understand the issue. I consulted Brownsville's resident Marxist economist and although he generally opposed the principles of the bill, he would not render an opinion because he lacked the information. And he has a PhD or some such degree in economics from a school in France, where, he tells me, all the economics teachers are Marxists. But if he lacks the information to give me advice, how can I come to a conclusion?

I have not read the three page version, much less the 450 page version, nor am likely to do so. Nevertheless, I'm going to take a position against it. The only candidate I can find who opposes the bill who I can vote for is Noriega, but I would have voted for him anyway. Cornyn, Hutchinson, McCain and Obama all voted for the bill.

Solomon Ortiz first voted against the Bailout and then voted for it. Four who voted against the Bailout in the final version were Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Lloyd Doggett and Russ Feingold.

On this issue, I trust Kucinich, Sanders, Doggett and Feingold more than I do McCain, Obama, Clinton, Cornyn and Ortiz.

I have been receiving e-mails telling me the Bailout is Marxist and socialist. However, all my socialist blogs and magazines are against it. Acorn and Jesse Jackson are against it. My question is, if it is socialism, why is the only socialist in Congress, Sanders, against it? Why is the Socialist Worker against it? Why are all the crypto-socialists against it?

So I join the Republican Congressmen and Uncle Tiger in opposing the Bailout bill. It's too late now, of course, we have lost. But this issue will raise it's head again.

I am as afraid of depression, soup kitchens and bread lines as anyone. The problem is, on this issue, I don't trust our party leaders, Democrat or Republican.

Will President Obama End the War?

I just heard Obama on a 60 Minutes interview avow that his first executive action would be to call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and develop a plan to end the war in Iraq. He used plenty of qualifiers like "safely" to describe how the war would be ended. I hope he means to end the war and the qualifiers don't stretch the war out another four or eight years.

I plan to vote for Obama if I'm still above ground in November. The first reason I voted for him in the primary election was that I thought he was the candidate most likely to end the war, at least after it was clear Dennis Kucinich would not be on the ballot.

But I think we must be clear that voting is not a substitute for anti-war organizing, argument, protest or war resistance. There is profit in war and, therefore, almost never can there be a political solution. Public opposition to war can bring a Republican war to an end. Without opposition, the Democrats may well wage war without end. The structural incentives for war are too tempting for any party in power to resist.

If popular opinion really mattered in policy to end war, the 2006 elections should have made a difference, but they didn't.

This is the first time in two years I have thought the Democrats might win the 2008 election. I have dreading, but predicting, a McCain victory since last summer when he was still in the tank in the polls. I thought he would beat Hillary in November. The main factor I misjudged was Obama's internet fund raising. I thought by now a Republican propaganda machine would have dumped a half a billion dollars smearing anyone who had the misfortune to get the Democratic nomination. If Obama ends October spending more money than McCain the smearing is neutralized, or at least equalized. The other factor appears to be the timing of the collapse of capitalism for this September. I am not sure that is what is happening, but whatever is going on, it can't be good for Republicans. Even with McCain now making noises like Paul Sweeney, it seems incredible that anyone would believe him.

Back to Obama and the war. With a McCain presidency the need for an anti-war movement was clear (if the war is ever to end). With an Obama presidency, we should know by the end of January if the war will end. If not, the anti-war community should not give him a break because he is a Democrat.

Sarah Palin--We've Done Worse

I  like this Sarah Palin choice.  Of course, I won't vote for her.  After all, she has confessed publicly to being a Republican.  But that aside, she rests well with me.

All those things McCain says about himself like "maverick" and "independent" that were probably true about him long, long ago, before he married into all that money and then got caught up in the Keating Five mess, may still be true about Palin.

First, is experience really necessary for the presidency or any other position of power?   I think choosing Congressmen based on who last won a multimillion dollar lottery in the district would be a good idea.  I think judges should be chosen randomly, a big drawing, say on the courthouse steps with ping ping balls, among the lawyers qualified to serve.  One big national drawing, with many, many ping pong balls, to choose the president based on all eligible voters would work for me.

Sarah Palin is about as close to a randomly selected candidate as we could get without throwing 250 million ping pong balls in a giant hamster cage.  She far more represents our demographics that the traditional rich, white, male, Yale, Skull and Bones vs. rich, white, male, Yale, Skull and Bones that was inflicted upon us in 2004.

She is a woman.  This is good.  The six years, six colleges including a junior college is endearing to me as well.  I like the basketball playing, the moose hunting, the beauty pageants and the marihuana sampling.  I like this messy bundle of kids of all ages and the Eskimo husband.  I also like that she drove everybody nuts when she got elected Governor.  I feel like I could be related to her or maybe she was the type of girl who could have had a thing with Uncle Tiger when he was a football star in high school.  

I see her as a wild, loose cannon who is too new and too little connected to be controlled.  I saw Huckabee much the same way.  If she can become president quickly rather than waiting until the lobbyists have an opportunity to give her some "experience," she could prove to be a surprising treat and a nightmare for the oligarchy.

I know she presents herself as an anti-environmentalist and a war-monger, but we seem to get those characteristics no matter who we elect.  

There are the only a couple of things that give me pause:

1.  I fear she doesn't believe in dinosaurs.  There are ways to reconcile dinosaurs with creationism and she may have decided upon one, but so far I cannot find it on the internet.   This should be her first major policy statement.  I would like a president who believes in dinosaurs.

2.  I still haven't heard if she has read Shakespeare and the Bible.  I understand that you can get a degree in journalism and miss these things.  Also, I don't mean reading the Bible in that "verse for a day" sort of way that you get at Sunday School.  I would like to think she has struggled with people like Lot, Onan and sick, crazy old David.  If she has not, rather than wasting a bunch of time with Joe Lieberman being "briefed," I urge she head out to the tundra with the Collected Works and that big Bible on the coffee table.

We could do, and usually have done, worse.

The Bundlers and Predicting Presidential Elections

Last summer when McCain's star had fallen, I had a feeling he would still win the presidency based on articles I was reading about his campaign support.   Early in Bush's second term, I began to read McCain had lined up the "Bush Bundlers."   The three best sources I have found for following the money are The Economist, The Financial Times, both conservative London newspapers filled with ads for expensive wristwatches and the International Socialist Review (no wristwatch ads at all).  The ISR quotes the Economist and the Financial Times often.   All three magazines seem to focus on the same information and believe the same subjects to be important.  I don't know why this amuses me so much, but it does.

At any rate, last summer, because these three sources assumed the race would be between McCain and Clinton and that McCain would ultimately win, I accepted this view.  And I have discovered the more I ignore issues, personalities, polls and the like and just watch the money, the better are my predictions.  Of course issues, personalities and polls can influence how much money a candidate receives, but the flurry of daily excitement about who has photos in drag and who has used cocaine and whose teenager is pregnant may impact polls, but money straightens all of that out.

I don't think McCain won the primaries because of his extraordinary personal story.  He had this same extraordinary story when he ran in the primaries against George W. (whose personal story is like Prince Hal's, but without the heroic ending) and it did him little good then.

Also, it is not nearly as important how much money you have as how much you know you will get.  That is why, when McCain was broke last summer, if he really had lined up the bush bundlers, we knew he would pull through.

So how did we go wrong on Clinton and why is Obama still alive even after the traditional August mauling designed by Lee Atwater?  My feeling is that bundlers are less of the picture this time around.   

For now, the bundler contributions to Obama and McCain are about even-- $75 million for McCain and $63 million for Obama.  Obama though has raised a total of $390 million to McCain's $175 million.   This Obama tally is a huge number.  Bush spent $367 million in 2004. The difference is Obama has received half of his money in contributions of $200 or less and McCain has received only 25%.  And Obama has twice as many small contributors, 187,000 to McCain's 94,000.

I suspect McCain will get a big contribution boost in these last two months before the election.  I still think McCain will be able to spend more in 2008 than Bush did in 2004.  Also, "independent groups" will muddy the waters and the RNC had about $70 million to spend at the beginning of July.  Some of the more disgusting campaign contributors will time the money for the last month so it does less damage to their candidate by being disclosed after the election.  Look for a couple of hundred million being spent to remind us that Obama is part Negro (not in those words, of course, but the message will be clear) in the next two months.

John McCain: The Perquisites of Power

I yam what I yam

The straight talk express runs on cash.

What to think of John McCain? Before beginning, may I say, I have never voted for a Republican, so if I were to do so now it would be more a sign of senescence than a reasoned choice.

I read a recent editorial that described him as an "antinomian." I think it was in the Nation. The reference then was to medieval clerics who thought they had license to live any way they wanted because their virtue had already been established. Hence, riches, wine, women and song.

This sent me to the Oxford English Dictionary. Even though I have the twenty volume version, I can hardly read the small print. I can make out that Milton used to talk about antinomians, but whether he liked them or not, I don't know.

One usage of "Antinomianism" seems to be a doctrinal position. Another looks like an insult. The Nation (if that is who it was) apparently intends it as an insult that sounds more erudite than "hypocrite."

I doubt McCain has considered whether he is a doctrinal antinomian or anti-antinomian. (The opposite of antinomian you would think would be nomian, but this does not appear to be the case. Just like the opposite of agnostic is not gnostic. Neither is antidisestablishmentarian more simply called establishmentarianism, although it appears it could be. Tristram asks you pardon the digression, Uncle Toby.)

In essence, an antinomian believes grace replaces the law. An antinomian dispute is recorded in Acts 15 regarding whether circumcision is mandated. As excited as Republicans get about gay marriage, I don't know how we have avoided a national debate about circumcision.

If you have seen law applied up close and personal, the temptation to throw it all out for a little grace makes a great deal of sense. Somehow I doubt this describes McCain, either.

McCain rose like a Phoenix from the ashes of the Keating Five. Part of the McCain much-vaunted bipartsanship may stem from these days when he joined with four Democratic Senators to take money and favors from Lincoln Savings and Loan before it collapsed and cost the public purse $3.4 billion. All the Democrats fell into ruin, retirement and disgrace. Democrats are supposed to get caught with women, not lobbyist money. Republicans get caught with boys and money, but they can be forgiven for the money. (This Spitzer guy seems to be a Republican who likes women, but New York Republicans have always been different.)

The problem is that McCain seems to need to dip into the ashes again from time to time when the cash runs short. I can understand that; sometimes when a guy wants to get somewhere in the world, he does what he has to do.