MSNBC reports this man is whom Obama will tap to become perhaps the most important cabinet positions of ‘em all.

…

Yeah, I didn’t know who he was either.

Read on to find out (somewhat) more about him.

That’s Tim Geithner (pronounced, I think, GATE-ner), who’s been the NY Fed President since 2003.

MSNBC says Geithner

“..actually had worked at the Treasury in three administrations under five Secretaries — going back to 1988.

Geithner has been a key player in the current economic crisis — helping Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his team manage the wall street bailout.”

Wall Street certainly reacted positively to the news.

It’s also encouraging that this leak, unlike Rahm Emmanuel & Hillary Clinton, seemed to be specifically timed. That shows that at least by some measure the president-elect is in control of his own message.

His Wikipedia page is frustratingly slim. It shows he’s spent a lot of time living overseas.

For the record, I was rooting for Larry Summers.

(play the clip. then continue reading)

Another roller-coaster of a day for the Dow.

The levels we’ve seen today (in the 7500s) haven’t been seen since 2002.

As of today, the Dow is down about 43% for the year.

So how does 2008 compare to past years?

As of right now (& this could change either way), we’re in the #2 worst year of all time:

1931 -> -52.67%

2008 -> -43.00%

1907 -> -37.73%

1930 -> -33.77%

1920 -> -32.90%

1937 -> -32.82%

1914 -> -30.72%

(the 2008 #’s changed from this post’s original 28.78%, making it 7th.. I’ve since updated to make it where it is currently, at #2)

Much more on the topic here.

Yes, it’s depressing.

So here, watch a guy play Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 with roller skates:

Click here to view the embedded video.

UPDATE BEFORE YOU JUMP: After reading this transcript, Jackson, Tennessee blogger ‘Right at Home’ (which we’re adding to our blogroll) says, “I’ve been very critical of Senator Corker as a result of his vote for the $700B bailout package. Over the last couple of days, however, Senator Corker has shown the kind of thoughtful, responsible economic conservativism that we elected him for.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.  U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) on Tuesday attended a Senate Banking Committee hearing with testimony from the CEOs of the Big Three U.S. automakers, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

The Banking hearing entitled Examining the State of the Domestic Automobile Industry included testimony from U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), UAW (United Automobile Workers union) President Ron Gettelfinger, Ford Motor Company President and CEO Alan Mulally, Chrysler Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli, General Motors Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, and business professor Dr. Peter Morici of the University of Maryland.

A transcript of Corkers Q&A follows.

CORKER:

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and certainly the senator from Michigan.

In listening to the opening statements by many and just by reading the tea leaves, my sense is that probably nothing’s going to happen this week. And this is sort of the beginning of a loan application, if you will, or an application for equity injection. This is the beginning, and that in fact probably in January you’ll be back.

I know most of us have read the data on the companies and realized, by the way, that these companies are not homogenous. I mean these are three very different companies that have very different criteria that they are dealing with.

And I hope that today you will begin giving us a glimpse as to what each of the companies individually are doing. I realize that Ford may be in better shape because of some things they’ve done a few years ago. But I hope you’ll begin doing that.

And I would ask the witnesses, since in essence you’re asking the American public for a loan or equity or whatever it might end up being, I would ask you to be realistic with us.

I know that there’s been continual talk about how Chapter 11 just does not work. We realize there are lots of legacy issues that — that handicap these companies, and — and we understand that.

I’d like for each of you during your testimony to walk us through why that doesn’t work and why you wouldn’t be asking for money from the federal government for a prepackaged reorganization.

I actually wonder somewhat facetiously if in your boardrooms you aren’t hoping that we’ll turn down this — this, so that you have that as an option that you might emerge more strongly — and focus on those things that you do well.

So I hope you’ll talk about all those things. I realize that in all likelihood this is the beginning. I think each of you know that I’m fairly skeptical in looking at this, but I do thank you for being here, and I actually hope — I feel for you if — if — in the fact that hopefully you’re carrying the burden of responsibility of all the employees and the many distributors across the country that are involved in marketing your products.

Thank you for being here.

********************************************

CORKER:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this great hearing.

And I appreciate all of you being here. And I understand the tremendous problems this is creating in all of our states. We have one of our most respected business people here tonight, that’s one of your dealers, has 300 employees and we understand about all the — the many workers and much employment.

So I do have some tough questions, but I want you to know I do — I do understand the turmoil that this is creating throughout our country.

We’ve talked a lot about the TARP program. And we’ve talked about the fact that we were willing to, quote, “bail out” the financial institutions.

But one of the things that’s occurring in the TARP program that’s not happening here is that the OCC that regulates these banks or the FDIC, if that’s the case, has to certify to Treasury that these are strong institutions. And they actually make recommendations to Treasury as to which institutions are the strong banks, the good banks, and should succeed.

I find it really interesting that we, quote, “have the big three here,” if you will, because I know that all three of you are in different circumstances.

And my sense is, if the OCC was performing the same ordeal, if you will, on y’all, some of you would not be recommended to get credit. My sense is that Ford has done a better job and is in slightly stronger position, that G.M. has made some changes, but is spiraling downward and in serious trouble.

And my sense is — and I could be wrong. I know it’s a private company and results aren’t available, but that Chrysler is just — barely has a heartbeat.

And so I do wonder why we’re talking to three companies in very different situations about all being treated the same way. It seems to me that that premise to begin with is — is very flawed.

Now, obviously, you all have created a pact. You wouldn’t share with Senator Menendez how much each of you have asked. I know that one of you shared with us that you’ve given those numbers to Levin.

But I would like to know exactly what each of you has asked for. And I think that’s only fair. And I think dancing around that is incorrect.

And then I’d like Mr. Gettelfinger, if he would, since he says he went in and looked at these companies, to tell us which of these three should survive and which shouldn’t.

But I’d like to have the numbers first.

(UNKNOWN)

I’d be happy, again, to say…

CORKER:

I just want the numbers. Just give us the numbers that you gave to Mr. Levin to create the…

(UNKNOWN)

Seven billion dollars.

CORKER:

Seven billion dollars. What’s — what’s the number from G.M.?

NARDELLI:

Seven billion dollars.

CORKER:

And the number from G.M.?

WAGONER:

Senator, sir, I think you have to be fair and look at it.

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER:

I just want — of the $25 billion that you’ve asked for, how much of it have you guys decided are going to G.M.?

WAGONER:

We felt that, if we get our proportionate market share of that…

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER:

Well, just give me the number.

WAGONER:

… which would be in the $10 billion to $12 billion that — that we would have a…

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER:

And how much is Ford getting in this three-way pact?

MULALLY:

(OFF-MIKE) $7 billion to $8 billion.

CORKER:

Seven to eight billion? So it’s $7 billion, $7billion to $8 billion and $10 billion to $12 billion? Those are the numbers?

Mr. Gettelfinger, you’ve been into these three companies. They’re all in three and different positions. Some of them are stronger than others for lots of reasons. Rank them one, two, three.

GETTELFINGER:

Being in the best shape to the worst?

CORKER:

Yes.

GETTELFINGER:

I would rank them Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

CORKER:

OK, I have to say that we’ve gone to 10 million sales a year in our country, and there may not be a need for three automakers. And I just want to say that we’re — we’re going down this road in a really odd way and that, when we went through the financial mechanisms, we actually had the OCC go in and make sure these were going entities.

And I — I just want to say, if we’re going to try to do something this week, we’re bypassing something that to me is an incredibly important thing for us to do as it relates to the taxpayers.

We’ve mentioned section 136. And some people have said that maybe that’s the vehicle we ought to use to fund the automakers, if we do it.

There are two provisions there. One says that you have to be making alternative types of vehicles or alternative energy-type vehicles. The other is you have to show that you’re a going concern and that you’re going to survive.

I assume that, when you applied at 8:43 a.m., and the others of you the same day, that you put in place — there was a plan that was submitted that showed you to be going concerns, is that correct? Because that’s one of the stipulations of — of 136.

WAGONER:

That’s part of the process, yes. I’m not sure that all has to be submitted upfront, but, yes, we’re all aware of it and we’re all doing that analysis.

CORKER:

Now, I would just say to the committee that it seems to me that we would like to at least look at those prior to putting money into these firms.

DODD:

Look at what, Bob? What do you want?

CORKER:

Well, they’re going to have to submit for their 136 application…

DODD:

Yes, right.

CORKER:

… they have to submit something that lays out a business plan that shows that they are a going concern, that they can be successful, that they can pay this money back.

DODD:

A very good point.

CORKER:

And it seems like that, before we would rush to take action this week, we could at least see those, because it’s pretty evident, I think, to all of us in this committee that $25 billion was sort of thrown up on the wall and it stuck.

OK, there’s not been any real thinking behind that number. It’s what might be attained today, OK? I think we all know, if that occurs, they’re going to be back. I don’t think there’s anybody on this committee that believes otherwise.

So it seems to me that we’d be so much better off to actually see these submittals, that you’re going to have to submit to get the 136 money you’re already after. We should judge those, and we should see if you’re actually going concerns.

Now, I was just in Russia last week and noticed that General Motors was opening a plant there, I guess the next day after I was there. And I understand that you make money in Russia. You make money in other places. But you don’t make money here.

And I’d just like to — to ask a very blunt question, if it has something to do with your relationship with Mr. Gettelfinger or the UAW. I mean, what is it that allows you to make money in all these other countries, but not make money here?

WAGONER:

Well, each market, to be fair, has its own circumstances. But in general, we’ve done quite well in most markets outside the U.S. recently.

Part of the reason is a little bit of the issue we discussed earlier, very rapid growth. Frankly, it’s easier to make money when things are growing and when you have to shrink.

And it’s fair to say that, if you look back, you know, over the last 10 or 15 years I mentioned, we’ve had a fairly significant cost to restructure our business in the U.S. And so that’s a fair point.

I think the point we’re trying to make today in our earlier comments, that a lot of that is behind us now.

CORKER:

It’s a pretty big point. But let me just say, you all have been very careful — and I appreciate this — and, Mr. Gettelfinger, I want you to know I’ve been a card-carrying union member and been a trustee, and, you know, I don’t have a, you know, a major issue — I do with card check, of course.

But you — they keep saying that, by 2010, they’re going to be competitive. And I — it makes me think that what we’re doing is loaning these guys possibly money so that, at some point in the future, they’re going to be competitive because of agreements that they have with you.

And I would ask, why not 2009? Why not 2008? Why don’t you go ahead and make the changes you need to make to make them competitive now?

GETTELFINGER:

Well, as one example, Senator, the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, we had to go through a court process after the negotiations. That is a federal court-approved settlement.

Just transferring that over to the union, we have had two trustees meetings to this point in time. But this is major.

Because of the time that it’s going to take for everybody’s eligibility, we have to set up a complete structure, because what we’re doing is we’re creating the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, which has more independent trustees than it does UAW trustees. And we’re going to be responsible for everything. So just the magnitude — we’re on a push now to get this through to 2010.

CORKER:

Yes, Mr. Nardelli had a representative in our office earlier today that was sharing that, even when they’re operating, even when they’re not making cars, when there’s not a demand for cars, in their plants, they have to operate at 80 percent regardless. And I’d like for you to acknowledge whether that’s true or not. And then I’d like to ask you, Mr. Gettelfinger, why that would be the case.

NARDELLI:

Senator, I’m not sure when you say operate at 80 percent, if you’re suggesting that we have to…

CORKER:

I understand you have agreements in place. Mr. Jim Press was in my office earlier today and explaining that — that, in fact, even when your plants are not needed, they have to operate. And there — there have to be some issues that still cause you to lose money unnecessarily.

NARDELLI:

Maybe what he was referring to, Senator, is that there is a contractual obligation that, when we have to idle a facility, that we do have to continue to pay wages at about 95 percent. I think Ron could be more specific than that.

CORKER:

That seems kind of problematic to me — I mean just on the surface. And it seems to me that you’re asking us for $25 billion to support a clause that in no other business in this country would be tolerated.

And I understand the good job Mr. Gettelfinger is doing on behalf of the employees that are not working but still being paid, but I find it very difficult that you’d be in here asking us for $25 billion, which we know is just the beginning, when you have an agreement in place like that that causes you to have to pay 95 percent of the workers that are not working.

CORKER:

Could you elaborate? Or, Mr. Gettelfinger, could you all change that tomorrow before you make another application?

GETTELFINGER:

Senator, first of all, I gave some numbers here earlier on. I have General Motors 9/30/05 had 110,000…

CORKER:

I know what you’ve done. I’m talking about this…

GETTELFINGER:

But they’re not getting paid is the point. We were able to reduce that…

CORKER:

I know what you’re talking about about the bank, but this is a different issue. This is a different issue.

GETTELFINGER:

You’re talking about the sub-pay.

CORKER:

Mr. Nardelli, do you want to explain to him the issue?

NARDELLI:

I think what he may have been alluding to, Ron, is for example, if we have to idle a facility, that we have ongoing labor contractual obligations to pay those employees.

GETTELFINGER:

That’s their unemployment plus…

CORKER:

For — for how long?

NARDELLI:

Ron?

GETTELFINGER:

I’d have to look at the contract.

CORKER:

You got to be kidding me. I’d like to know, and I’d like to know at what expense that is to the companies, but it seems like things like that — let me go back to — to prepackaged bankruptcy.

I have to tell you I don’t understand the stigma that would come with prepackaged bankruptcy, where you knew that you know there was money coming in certain things happen. You lay out a plan, either in 136 or some other way, that laid out how that would happen.

And these changes that are so necessary to cause these companies to be competitive were put in place overnight, not in 2010 or 2011. And again, I got to believe that there is a piece of each of you as CEOs — which I respect, I really do, and I respect the challenges you’re going through — that would almost like to see that happen, but you can’t say it.

I don’t know how that could possibly be detrimental. You have 7,000 dealers across this country. People that sell the same amount of cars have like 1,200 dealers across the country.

It seems to me that that highly problematic and that state laws keep you from doing things that you feel like you really would like to do, but you can’t. It seems like those things are very, very important — and very tangible and things that we ought to be talking about today.

And I’d love a response.

WAGONER:

Well, if I could start, Senator, I’m not an expert in — in bankruptcy, but I have seen research by an independent party as recently this summer, which said that 80 percent of consumers — and it was broken out by brand, so maybe it was 60 for Honda and I think it was 90-plus for one of the brands here at it was about 80 percent for us — would not consider — would not consider buying a car from a company that was in bankruptcy — 80 percent.

If we had an 80 percent — if any of us had an 80 percent reduction in volume, then this idea of a prepack bankruptcy is pure fantasy. If you’re talking…

CORKER:

But the…

WAGONGER:

Excuse me. You’d be talking about a Chapter 7 liquidation…

CORKER:

No, no.

WAGONER:

… which would affect the supply base, affect the other two, and ripple across this economy like the tsunami that we haven’t seen, and it seems like to be a huge roll of the dice to — to weigh that — the risks of that, which I personally believe are very high, against the request we’re making here today, so…

CORKER:

Well, today, but you’re going to come back for more, and I think you all — let me ask you this, then. Would you all make the pledge that if you get the $25 billion, you’ll never be back to see us again?

WAGONER:

Well, I think…

CORKER:

I don’t think you’re under oath, but I’d love…

WAGONER:

Sir, if you could make the pledge to us that the U.S. economy will turn around on a certain point in time, then — and the financial markets will rejuvenate, then we would be glad, based on that data, to come back to you and give you…

CORKER:

You’re going to be back, aren’t you?

WAGONER:

Our exact best estimate of how much financing we think we need, sir. We’d be very glad to do that.

CORKER:

I thank you all.

NARDELLI:

Senator, may I answer your question?

CORKER:

Yes, sir.

NARDELLI:

We did look at two parts of your question, if I may, sir. We did look at prepackaged. We looked at pre-negotiated. We’ve looked at almost every alternative within Chrysler as a privately held company before we came here and ask for support to — to provide a bridge, if you will, through this economic trough.

And to a certain degree, all of these take an extensive amount of time. Certainly in a pre-negotiated we’d have to get all the — all the players, all of the suppliers, all of the vendors, all of the labor. And you can imagine, sir, that would take an extensive amount of time to be able to renegotiate that.

And in fact we are in a very fragile position — Chrysler is, point one.

Point two, I — I think I’d be remiss as being the newest guy in the auto industry, if I didn’t respond favorably to your challenge. Chrysler again has been looking for partnerships. We’re looking for alliances. We’re looking for opportunities to make the auto industry, either within the United States or globally, more efficient.

I don’t think there’s any question that there’s opportunities for more synergies.

There’s opportunities for more sharing, whether good knowledge in 136 — for example, to create a national science center where rather than paying each of us a dollar to develop the same technology, we’d pay $1. That technology would then be transferred over to the auto companies. It would make the $25 billion go further. It would be more cost-effective.

If it became a wholly-owned affiliate, you can get private equity to invest in it and then market that.

So there are many creative ideas I think to your point that the auto industry could look at, but the immediacy of why we are here today is to give us the chance to get through this, and then to look at those on how the U.S. auto industry can be more formidable, can be more competitive, not only to be profitable here in the U.S., but on a global basis.

CORKER:

Well, I know you’re alluding to the fact that you’d like to see a merger between GM and yourselves.

And I don’t know that again, Mr. Chairman, that things like that we shouldn’t force to happen, if they’re going to get this money.

But I’ll stop. I know I’ve taken my time. I thank you. And I thank. I — I asked tough questions. I respect the problems you’re going through, and I thank you for coming today.

David Broder:

“…there are signs in this year’s returns of voter shifts that could herald a new political era — and that certainly define the challenge facing the Republican Party.

Several of the most important are pointed up in memos I received this past week from Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, and Steve Lombardo, a Republican consultant. They were done independently, but there were significant overlaps.

Greenberg’s post-election survey for Democracy Corps found that the three most important reasons voters gave for supporting Obama concerned his promises to withdraw troops from Iraq, to cut middle-class taxes and to expand health insurance coverage.

In arguing that the returns spell the emergence of a “center-left” majority, replacing the “center-right” majority of Bush and the Republicans, Greenberg and his colleagues note that Obama won the debate on tax policy with John McCain by 51 percent to 42 percent.

If Democrats follow through by cutting taxes for most middle-class families, as Obama promised, then Republicans could lose one of their hard-rock advantages.”

President Bush, yesterday:

“History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much."

George Will, today:

"Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious — destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain’s health-care plan depended.

Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker’s intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious, people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g., sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.

In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking — bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become."

Do you find yourself hoping that the economy’s at or near the bottom?

Forbes magazine’s Noriel Roubini has a wake-up call.

This forecast is so depressing that it calls for a few pick-me-ups.

Read on to see what I mean.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“–The U.S. will experience its most severe recession since World War II,
much worse and longer and deeper than even the 1974-1975 and 1980-1982
recessions. The recession will continue until at least the end of 2009 for
a cumulative gross domestic product drop of over 4%; the unemployment rate
will likely reach 9%. The U.S. consumer is shopped-out, saving less and
debt-burdened: This will be the worst consumer recession in decades.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

“–The prospect of a short and shallow six- to eight-month V-shaped
recession is out of the window; a U-shaped 18- to 24-month recession is now
a certainty, and the probability of a worse, multi-year L-shaped recession
(as in Japan in the 1990s) is still small but rising. Even if the economy
were to exit a recession by the end of 2009, the recovery could be so weak
because of the impairment of the financial system and the credit mechanism
that it may feel like a recession even if the economy is technically out of
the recession.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

–Obama will inherit an economic and financial mess worse than anything the
U.S. has faced in decades: the most severe recession in 50 years; the worst
financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression; a ballooning
fiscal deficit that may be as high as a trillion dollars in 2009 and 2010;
a huge current account deficit; a financial system that is in a severe
crisis and where deleveraging is still occurring at a very rapid pace, thus
causing a worsening of the credit crunch; a household sector where millions
of households are insolvent, into negative equity territory and on the
verge of losing their homes; a serious risk of deflation as the slack in
goods, labor and commodity markets becomes deeper; the risk that we will
end in a deflationary liquidity trap as the Fed is fast approaching the
zero-bound constraint for the Fed funds rate; the risk of a severe debt
deflation as the real value of nominal liabilities will rise, given price
deflation, while the value of financial assets is still plunging.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“A reality check is needed to assess risks–and to take appropriate action.
And reality tells us that we barely avoided, only a week ago, a total
systemic financial meltdown; that the policy actions are now finally more
aggressive and systematic, and more appropriate; that it will take a long
while for interbank and credit markets to mend; that further important
policy actions are needed to avoid the meltdown and an even more severe
recession; that central banks, instead of being the lenders of last resort,
will be, for now, the lenders of first and only resort; that even if we
avoid a meltdown, we will experience a severe U.S., advanced economy and,
most likely, global recession, the worst in decades; that we are in the
middle of a severe global financial and banking crisis, the worst since the
Great Depression; and that the flow of macro, earnings and financial news
will significantly surprise (as during the last few weeks) on the downside
with significant further risks to financial markets.

I’ll stop now.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

From the LA Times:

“The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen,” Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. “Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression.”

Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.

But maybe that shouldn’t be so surprising, because radio’s Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes “economic chaos” because it gives him “greater opportunity for expanded government.” In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama’s party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.

“They’re going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is,” Limbaugh woofed. “Trust fund, my rear end.”

A slight problem with Limbaugh’s report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.

The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.

The president-elect has thus far shown as much interest in taking over your 401(k) as he has in moving the capital to Nairobi. (If you look hard, you might find that one somewhere out there in the blogosphere, too.)

To broadcast such a report — so drained of context as to constitute a lie — would be a shameless act at any time. But Limbaugh needlessly stirred the fears of the millions he holds in his thrall — making the 401(k) thievery sound like nearly a done deal. Shameless.

As any former addict will tell you, the 1st step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. When Rush starts recognizing the reasons his party - on its own - lost this year, rather than pointing the finger of blame, we’ll know his recovery has begun.

& not to worry - I’ll be listening.

[this post originally appeared on August 27th]

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has this helpful chart comparing the two candidate’s tax plans. Read more here .

FURTHER READING: Gallup poll results show more Americans prefer Obama’s tax plan.

[this post originally appeared July 24th, when Obama was on his 'world tour']

What’s on McCain’s schedule today that attempts to compete with Obama’s mega-headline-getting speech in Berlin?

He’s apparently meeting with business leaders in German Village, a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, at some German restaurant:

Know what he SHOULDA done?

Come to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where one of Germany’s biggest companies has just announced it’s setting up shop!

Think of it! He could have said "My friends, while my opponent is over in Germany making I-Love-Europe platitudes to adoring crowds, I’m here in the heart of America where German industry just made a decision to invest time & money in something that creates thousands of jobs & improves the economy, which by the way is what voters are telling me is their #1 issue this election."

(*sigh*)

Sometimes I think I’m in the wrong business.

UPDATE: Furthering my point.. here’s Obama yesterday…

..& here’s McCain yesterday:

"FUDGE HAUS ?" Come. On.

Also in the running for worst backdrop of the week to talk to the media: the cheese aisle :

"Mac & cheese?" Uh-uh. Shoulda come to the Scenic City, Senator.

(above: with his maternal grandfather)

Today’s Episode: Stumping in Virginia…the Libertarian case for Obama.. the Conservative case for Obama…Karl Rove’s Warning…(yet again) the birth certificate story

Click here to view the embedded video.

Above: in Richmond, Virginia, yesterday. Obama will have his wife Michelle sub for him over the next two days as he visits his ailing grandmother, who broke her hip.

.

The Libertarian Case for Obama

Radley Balko:

“…the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

If they do lose, the GOP would be wise to regroup and rebuild from scratch, scrap the current leadership, and, most importantly, purge the party of the “national greatness,” neoconservative influence. Big-government conservatism has bloated the federal government, bogged us down in what will ultimately be a trillion-dollar war, and set us down the road to European-style socialism. It’s hard to think of how Obama could be worse. He’ll just be bad in different ways.”

“Conservatives for Change”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Above: a new ad campaign is unveiled.

Rove: Obama’s Still Vulnerable on Taxes

Karl Rove, in the Wall Street Journal:

“Mr. Obama’s proposal to redistribute wealth is a warning of indifference or hostility to enterprise. Mr. Obama’s health-care plan is a warning that government will have more, not less, to say about your health care if he has his way. Mr. Obama’s dismissal of offshore drilling and opposition to nuclear power are warning signs for an economy whose growth depends on affordable energy. Mr. Obama’s commitment to withdraw our troops from Iraq without regard to conditions on the ground is a warning sign that Mr. Obama is dangerously wrong-headed and ideological on national security.

There’s more: The absence of a single significant instance in which Mr. Obama cooperated in a bipartisan manner in the Senate is a warning sign. So is his failure to dirty his hands by working hard on any major legislative challenge since entering Congress. And so is his refusal to break with his party or its interest groups on any issue of substance.

Mr. McCain has only one hope: to drive home doubts about Mr. Obama based on his record, and share as much as he can about his own values and vision to reassure voters.”

Birth Certificate Issue Still Bubbling (Among Obama’s Foes, That Is)

There is really only one issue that recent anti-Obama callers to NewsChannel 9 want us to focus on, & that’s the birth certificate question, which we dealt with in great detail here.

I need to say again: if this is a valid issue, why hasn’t John McCain mentioned it at all? He’d better do it now, or do it never. Take my advice & follow the GOP nominee’s lead on this one.

The era of Reagan is over.

No, it’s not.

Yes, it is.

No, it’s not.

What do you think?

Bring Back Machiavelli

Mikhail Emelianov writes a defense of the flip-flop:

“…if a politician changes his mind on the issue, then he is “for it before he was against it” and it’s a horrible thing. TV commercials are reciting a specific point of view over and over again, candidates give the same speech over and over again, proposals are made - repetition is the key.  One creates the illusion of certainty by constantly sticking to the point, even if it leads to some disastrous results. Whatever happened to the true political values of flexibility, politicking, negotiation, manipulation, and compromise? There is no need to bring up Machiavelli, but certainly politicians have always prided themselves on shrewdness, not naivete and dogmatism.  Certainly, there’s plenty of good old backstabbing and manipulative lying both in the public sphere and behind the closed political doors, but why aren’t those things popular with the people? Did American populism kill the true political activity? Is American politics basically a beauty pageant at this point?  Where is the strife?”

Amen. What do you think?

Above: Joe the Plumber & Barack Obama in Ohio, the exchange that started it all.

FURTHER READING: Long before there was a “Joe the Plumber,” there was a “Josephine the Plumber.”

&: Jake Tapper fact-checks some Joe the Plumber claims.

Joe the Plumber admits he doesn’t have a plumbing license.

Also, click here for Joe the Plumber’s connection to Charles Keating. I’ve since learned this is untrue.

Post-Debate Ad Links McCain & Bush

Take note of this ad’s devastating use of McCain’s body language last night, as I talked about here.

On NewsChannel9.com’s main page: a new web poll that asks “who would make a better president?”

Go vote!

Heading into Red-State Territory

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP) - Bolstered by surging poll numbers and after standing his ground in last night’s final debate, Barack Obama is boldly going where Democratic presidential candidates have not done so well in recent elections.
Two Democrats with knowledge of the strategy say he’s launching TV ads in West Virginia, which hadn’t been on the list of target states until recently.
Obama lost West Virginia in the Democratic primary to Hillary Rodham Clinton as he struggled to win over working-class whites. But Democrats say the economic turmoil in the hard-hit state and TV ads Obama has been running in neighboring states have made West Virginia competitive.
And they say Obama’s campaign also is considering pouring money into reliably Republican Kentucky, and may yet return to the airwaves in North Dakota and Georgia. Those are two states Obama had tried to put in play over the summer. He pulled out when they appeared out of reach.
Despite his rising fortunes, Obama offered a word of caution at a fundraiser this morning in New York. He said, for anyone getting cocky or giddy, “two words for you: New Hampshire.” That’s where he got smacked by voters right after he won the Iowa caucuses.
John McCain, meanwhile, is being forced to campaign in what had been solidly GOP territory.

Look at how Obama & McCain are currently doing in West Virginia here. Now that’s a battleground.

Rove: He Hasn’t Closed the Sale

“This week also brought a reminder that Sen. Obama hasn’t closed the sale. The Washington Post/ABC poll found 45% of voters still don’t think he’s qualified to be president, about the same number who doubted his qualifications in March.

This is seven points more than George W. Bush’s highest reading in 2000 and the worst since Michael Dukakis’s 56% unqualified rating in 1988.”

World Series Game 6 Pushed Back to Make Room for Obama Commercial

NEW YORK (AP) - Major League Baseball has agreed to push back the start time of a potential World Series Game 6 by eight minutes to allow Democrat Barack Obama to purchase a half-hour of air time on the Fox network.
Baseball spokesman Pat Courtney said Thursday that the game time would now be set for 8:35 p.m.
The Obama presidential campaign said Oct. 9 that it had bought the 8-8:30 p.m slot on CBS and NBC.
“Fox will accommodate Senator Obama’s desire to communicate with voters in this long-form format,” network spokesman Lou D’Ermilio said in a statement.
The World Series has not gone to a sixth game since 2003.
The decision was first reported by The Hollywood Reporter.

How Much Would Your Obama Tax Cut Be?

The campaign provides a calculator on its website.

Here Obama is in New Hampshire today:

]]> http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/16/barack-obama-october-16th/5073/feed/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/15/a-brief-conversation-with-bob-corker/5039/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/15/a-brief-conversation-with-bob-corker/5039/#comments Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:10:39 +0000 Dan Lehr http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/?p=5039

The Tennessee Senator & [former Chattanooga mayor] was at the NewsChannel9 studios Tuesday morning for a satellite interview with the Fox Business Channel; we interviewed him briefly after that, & though I was not the “main interviewer,” I did manage to get some questions in.

In your conversation with Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne back in May, you warned your party against making personal attacks against the Democratic presidential nominee, saying it actually hurt your 2006 Senate campaign. Do you still stand by that warning?

SENATOR CORKER: What I was warning against is these third-party groups that get involved, & they think they’re assisting you, OK? In our case it was the Republican National Committee that ran ads at the end of our race, uh, quote “trying to help us.” & instead over a 6-day period, they knocked us down by 10 points. & what I was saying is, that, you know, that in these campaigns you need to ask your friends not to run any kind of negative ads about your opponent, because they have unintended consequences. If the campaign itself wants to draw distinctions, I think that’s something the campaign should do, but again, these 3rd-party groups can do things that just totally adversely affect your campaign. It’s one of the results of McCain-Feingold. & I think it’s just totally out of control. I think certainly Tennessee’s not a battleground state, OK? & we’re not seeing a lot of ads here - it’d be a total waste of money in the state. But I’m sure that in the other states like Ohio & places that are battleground states, they’re having all kinds of 3rd-party ads run in those states, that have by the way all kinds of unintended consequences. & so, what I talked about to E.J. Dionne, & what I’ve talked about to others is the fact that these 3rd-party ads can be very detrimental.

Is free-market fundamentalism dead?

SENATOR CORKER: No, not at all. Look, you know, if you think about what happens every day in our banking system, the Federal Reserve opens the window if you will, & banks in essence put up collateral, & receive monies from the Fed, & so, every day there’s intervention, if you will, there’s a coordinated effort from central banks to keep our financial systems operating. This is a very exacerbated situation where excesses occurred, I don’t think people understood that there was potentially $55 trillion dollars of these derivatives that were getting ready to bring the system down. What we need to do is implement what happened properly & then come back in January & put in place reforms. I think most people understand there needs to be appropriate regulation. There was not appropriate regulation as it relates to these derivatives. I think we’ll get that straightened out over the course of this next year. I do not think that ‘free-market fundamentalism’ if you will is gone at all, I think we’ve always had it, whether it’s the airline industry, the fact that we have the F-A-A that coordinates people landing, there’s always a certain amount of government involvement. Hopefully it stays limited & as an advocate of limited government I certainly want to see that be the case. But today we had a very exacerbated problem that to me needed to be solved, our whole way of doing business was gonna come down. As you know I’ve supported that & have been very involved in negotiating taxpayer protections & oversight if you will that have come into play in this case & then I hope we can move very quickly away from this active involvement towards a regulatory regime that keeps this from happening again. But great question. Thank you.

George Bailey = the U.S. Government.

Uncle Billy = U.S. banks

Mr. Potter = China

On McCain’s New Economic Plans Announced Today

Read the Obama campaign’s response to this plan here.

Read Obama’s own plan to help the middle class here.

.

Above: a strategy update from Obama campaign staffer David Plouffe.

.

Letter from Pennsylvania

David Broder, reporting from Pennsylvania:

“Now, economic anxieties are pervasive and Obama, whose ads are seen far more frequently than McCain’s, is viewed as the candidate more seriously addressing those domestic problems.

Peter Wilde, a retired high school teacher who was working on his car on a sunny afternoon, said he has decided on Obama, but “I really like John McCain, and in any other election but this one, I’d vote for him. He’s a man of integrity and he speaks his mind.”

So, why Obama? “I think his tax plan is better for people like me, and after the last two weeks, my 401(k) is not in too good a shape.”"

See the latest Pennsylvania poll spread here.

.

Yes We Keynes?

David Brooks, warning against a surge of government spending in an Obama administration:

“Obama will try to straddle the two camps — he seems to sympathize with both sides — but the liberals will win…. Even if he’s so inclined, it’s difficult for a president to overrule the committee chairmen of his own party. It is more difficult to do that when the president is a Washington novice and the chairmen are skilled political hands. It is most difficult when the president has no record of confronting his own party elders. It’s completely impossible when the economy is in a steep recession, and an air of economic crisis pervades the nation.

What we’re going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids. There will be a big increase in spending and deficits. In normal times, moderates could have restrained the zeal on the left. In an economic crisis, not a chance. The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.

Nice to see a conservative wake up & realize the perils of too much government spending. Pity we didn’t hear more of these voices in the last 8 years.

ALSO: Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard also walks through a “worst-case scenario” for Republicans.

.

Neither Candidate Has Anything to Do with It

Above: the headline of the New York Post on Friday. I hear this often on Rush Limbaugh & Fox News - anytime the market tanks, the “reason” is that “investors are worried about an Obama administration.”

Trouble is, that story line conveniently goes away on days like yesterday, which saw the Dow’s biggest jump (900+!) ever.

If you talked to an investor in the heat of battle on Wall Street today & asked him to list 10 things that are affecting his current investing decisions, I suspect “who will become the president in three weeks” does not make the list.

Above: Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Boling

Obama calls for 90-day moratorium on foreclosures

Democratic Barack Obama on Monday called for more immediate steps to heal the nation’s ailing economy, proposing a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures at some banks and a two-year tax break for businesses that create new jobs.

The presidential candidate also proposed allowing people to withdraw up to $10,000 from their retirement accounts without any penalty for the remainder of the year and 2009.

Read more about it here.

Read prepared remarks here.

The Nashville Tennesseean newspaper has endorsed Obama:

“Obama has managed to put a tone of optimism in his campaign at a time it would be very easy to be downhearted, worried and pessimistic. That characteristic alone goes a long way in demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs.”

Dan Balz says Obama should face more (& tougher) questions from the media in these final days.

“The presidential race is not over, but at this point, Obama has a better chance of becoming president than McCain, and as a result, the questions ought to be going toward him as much or more than McCain — questions not of tactics but of substance.”

‘We’ve got them just where we want them’

On Monday McCain delivered a stirring speech - hands down the best one he’s given since the economic crisis began. Read the full remarks here

On the Bush Administration:

“We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: waiting for our luck to change.”

FURTHER READING “4 Ways McCain Could Still Win.” - Salon

ABC News:

“Registered voters by a 24-point margin, 59-35 percent, now say McCain is more focused on attacking his opponent rather than addressing the issues. That’s grown from a roughly even 48-45 percent split on this question in late August.”

GOP Strategist Says McCain Making the Same Mistakes Clinton Made Against Obama

Ed Rollins:

John McCain is saying one thing on the stump, his running mate another. But the worst sin is that his advertising campaign is incoherent and putting out multiple and inconsistent messages.

What McCain and his campaign need to understand is that whatever happened in the past is no longer relevant. James Carville’s famous slogan in Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory over the first Bush: “It’s the economy stupid!” can now be replaced with “You morons, what have you done with my money, my life and my kids’ future?”

If John McCain wants anyone to pay attention to him in the last three weeks of this campaign, he must address those concerns.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“We’ll get through this deal.” - President Bush, October 10th

After the jump.. thoughts on where the world’s economy is heading.

Former Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker:

“…rebuilding will be the job of another day — of a new administration here in the U.S., of finance ministries and central banks working together. It must draw upon the strength of the now chastened private sector. It will require more understanding of the risks embedded in so-called financial engineering and of the perverse compensation incentives that have exalted risk over prudence.”

Philip Stevens:

“…the big lesson is that the west can no longer assume the global order will be remade in its own image. For more than two centuries, the US and Europe have exercised an effortless economic, political and cultural hegemony. That era is ending.”

Casey Mulligan:

“It turns out that John McCain, who was widely mocked for saying that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” was actually right. We’re in a financial crisis, not an economic crisis. We’re not entering a second Great Depression.”

Paul Krugman:

“They’d better do something soon — in fact, they’d better announce a coordinated rescue plan this weekend — or the world economy may well experience its worst slump since the Great Depression.”

What do you think?

A Look at McCain’s Plan to Rescue Homes

At last night’s debate, John McCain unveiled a plan that would have the government provide $300 billion dollars to help keep people with shaky mortgages in their homes.

After the jump, his verbatim plan from his website, a stump speech by both McCain & his wife Cindy in Pennsylvania today, & an interview McCain & Palin gave to Sean Hannity of Fox News.

“John McCain will direct his Treasury Secretary to implement an American Homeownership Resurgence Plan (McCain Resurgence Plan) to keep families in their homes, avoid foreclosures, save failing neighborhoods, stabilize the housing market and attack the roots of our financial crisis. America’s families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage. The existing debts are too large compared to the value of housing. For those that cannot make payments, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages.

The McCain Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes. By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the McCain resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.

The McCain resurgence plan would be available to mortgage holders that:

• Live in the home (primary residence only)
• Can prove their creditworthiness at the time of the original loan (no falsifications and provided a down payment).

The new mortgage would be an FHA-guaranteed fixed-rate mortgage at terms manageable for the homeowner. The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of “negative equity” in some homes. Funds provided by Congress in recent financial market stabilization bill can be used for this purpose; indeed by stabilizing mortgages it will likely be possible to avoid some purposes previously assumed needed in that bill.

The plan could be implemented quickly as a result of the authorities provided in the stabilization bill, the recent housing bill, and the U.S. government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit.”

Read the very last sentence again. Now read it once more. Got it?

I have already spoken with one very staunch Republican here at NewsChannel 9 who says this deal is a very bad idea. “We are turning into the Roman Empire” he says. “All we care about is goodies from the government & staying entertained.” Frankly it’s hard for me to disagree with that sentiment. This person (rightly in my view) sees this plan as yet another reason for people to absolve themselves of personal responsibility.

This is not the only criticism of this plan on the right. Michelle Malkin was particularly vitriolic:

“He spent the entire debate assailing massive government spending — while his featured proposal of the night was to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership/retention at all costs. If Obama had proposed this, the Right would be screaming bloody murder about this socialist grab to have the Treasury Department renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation.”

What do you think about it? Post a comment!

McCain stumped in Pennsylvania today with his wife, daughter, & running mate (see excerpts of Palin’s speech here).

Here’s Cindy:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Unfortunately the only clip from this event I can find is this gaffe, in which McCain says “my fellow prisoners” instead of “my fellow Americans:”

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’m sorry, I can’t find more than that. But you can read his prepared remarks at this link.

Today McCain & Palin gave an interview to Fox News’ Sean Hannity:

The Economy: How Did We Get Here?

A great piece from the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle that runs through the problems that brought about the economic crisis, including:

Confirmation bias: The tendency to look for data that confirms your theory, rather than data that falsifies it. Yes, we all know how this works in politics, but it’s a much broader problem. People will repeatedly devise tests that give positive proofs of their theories, but much less often devise tests to falsify them

Optimistic bias: People tend to be overconfident about their own abilities and the outcome of their plans. Something like 90% of people think that they are above average drivers less likely to get into an accident than the average joe. This is so pervasive that there is actually a scientific name for the few people who accurately assess their own future, their abilities, and what other people think of them: clinically depressed.

]]> http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/08/issues-ideas-opinions-october-8th/4288/feed/