No Runny Eggs

Investors Business Daily is now putting out a daily tracking poll of the Presidential race.   They were the most accurate poll of the 2004 race.   As of today, IBD has McCain down just 1.1 points.   The poll has McCain having closed from a 7 point deficit just since last weekend.   As interesting as that gap close is, I’m more interested in another stat.

I thought the MSM has been telling us about all of the excited, first time to vote college students.   People  who were part of the millions that were newly registered Democrats.   People  that were already standing outside of polling places to make sure they would get a chance to vote for “The One.”   Isn’t that what the great wildcard is for Barack; whether the youth, who have never come out in droves before, will turn off their Wiis, put down their beers and vote?    

If the youth are the great hope for Barack, can someone explain how the IBD poll shows 18-24 year olds breaking for John McCain 74% to 22% for Barack Obama?

Watch the next 10 days folks.   The MSM story lines don’t seem to always be aligned with the poll internals.   There is something that just isn’t smelling right across most of these polls.   It could be a wild 10 days.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Be wery wery qwiat! I’m hunting PUMAs!

Do you remember back to the end of the primary season? That wonderful, wistful time when we had coalesced behind our candidate and were watching Hillary and Barack clawing at each other?

Do you remember towards the end, before the conventions, after it was clear that Barack was going to be the Dem’s nominee? Do you remember how many of the Hillary supporters, after her shabby and sexist treatment by the DNC and Obama, vowed that they would never vote for Obama? Do you remember how they formed a little group and became known as PUMAs?

With apologies to Pete Seeger:

Where have all the PUMAs gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the PUMAS gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the PUMAS gone?
Became conforming everyone?
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have the PUMAs gone? In late August there were polls  showing that 21% of Hillary supporters were committed to vote for McCain, 52% would vote for Obama and 27% were still undecided. Hillary and Barack pretty much split the primary vote. If 21% of Hillary supporters were committed to McCain, that should translate to at least 10.5% of Democrat support for McCain. With 21% still uncommitted, it wouldn’t be too hard to imagine that if the PUMAs held together, the Democrat support for McCain could be around 15%. If those numbers make sense, why does the most recent Gallup poll only show 7% of Democrats support McCain?

I wrote at the end of August, during the height of Republican PUMA giddiness, that the PUMA’s disgust with Obama was entirely based on emotion with no substance; the policy differences between Hillary and Obama were “Change you could Xerox!” I was concerned then, that once some time elapsed, the emotion would wane and the PUMAs who had vowed fidelity to John McCain would regain their senses and return to feast at the table of “Hope and Change.”

It appears that while the PUMAs entered the final phase of the election season as lions, they will exit as lambs. Unless of course, they’ve managed to pull off a brilliant deception on all of the pollsters. In that case the adage “Revenge is a dish best served cold,” comes to mind. I can’t imagine anything colder than allowing Obama to believe he has the Democrat vote sown up, only to find that the “Bradley effect” will forever more be known as the “PUMA effect!”

I saw Colin Powell’s endorsement on “Meet the Press” as I waited for a flight home on Sunday. I had other focuses yesterday so didn’t get a chance to put my comments up on the endorsement.

After reading the transcript, I note that Powell did not address any policy issues that he liked of Obama’s. Rather, his entire endorsement appeared to come from a drinking of the “Hope and Change” kool-aid.

Powell tried to use his observations of how the two candidates addressed the last few weeks of economic debate as his deciding factor:

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

Now I know that Powell has always been at best, a moderate Republican. He firmly believes in abortion and affirmative action. However, what is Powell referring to when he says that Obama is “not just jumping in and changing every day?” Is Powell really that obtuse not to see the numerous position changes that Obama has taken in the past two years? For example, I’ll bet that Colin Powell would label the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization but Obama has been on both sides of the issue in June alone.

What is Powell thinking when he says that Obama “has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.” If he ever held Republican views, Powell would have aligned on fiscal values. Can Powell actually believe that Obama’s admitted redistribution of wealth aligns in anyway with what “would serve us well?” Can Powell believe that spending an additional $1 trillion each year “serve us well?”

I’m sorry. I had a great deal of respect for Colin Powell. I believe him to be an honorable man. However, is endorsement of Obama leads me to conclude that Powell never was a Republican and registered as such only for personal attention or gain or, he is now being intellectually dishonest about his reason for endorsing Barack.

I will continue to honor Colin Powell’s service. However, from this day forward, this blogger will view all of what Mr Powell says with an enormous amount of skepticism.

In case you missed it:

Obama Camp Scraps National Anthem

According to Newsmax.com, the Obama Campaign scratched the National Anthem at one of their rallies:

to make room for another speaker.

Let’s see, this is the guy who quit wearing the flag lapel pin because:

it has become a substitute for “true patriotism” since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Later he began wearing it when it made the political statement he felt was appropriate for the moment….like when he visited US car manufacturers or military bases.

Looks like just one more example of where Barack comes first, Country comes second. Maybe we should start getting used to it.

Dean Reynolds from CBS news writes an interesting article. In it he provides comparisons between working and traveling with the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. Under normal circumstances this wouldn’t be material worth a post but then, this isn’t a normal Presidential race.

After painting Obama as the campaign master with a full, aggressive schedule, he goes on to the comparisons.

Reynolds complains that the Obama campaign is so full that it has a tough time making and sticking to schedules:

Obama’s campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it’s all for security reasons.

If so, I would love to have someone from Obama’s campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.

About McCain’s scheduling he says:

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who’ve been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.

Reynolds makes specific examples of how the campaigns work to accommodate and make best use of the press traveling with them. About Obama:

Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” is broadcast.

In comparison, regarding McCain:

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama’s past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

Even the plane environment is different between the two campaigns:

The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama’s, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

Some may dismiss this as the whining of a broadcast ego having to do actual work. While I can’t rule that out, it doesn’t really matter to the larger issue I note in his writing.

In Reynolds description I see the definition of the two men that Reynolds has been following. Knowingly or not, of Barack Obama Reynolds writes that he is:

• Egotistic – He sees no reason to keep the folks responsible for supporting him informed.   People appear to be required just to assume that “The One” has a good reason without need for explanation.
• Self Centered – yea I know running for President is important but don’t you think a could at least let people know what the plan is for the day?
• Insensitive to other people’s needs and issues – unwilling to let the people who are trying to get him elected attend to the jobs that will help that cause?   Can’t even provide for common cleaning and

Reynolds’ article describes McCain as, well, the exact opposite.

There’s nothing really new in what Reynolds describes of Obama.   The traits that come to the forefront are traits that we’ve known about him for awhile.  

If Reynolds’ assessment is typical of other reporters who have traveled with both campaigns, I find it odd that while the MSM wants Obama to be President, they find no qualities in him that would make him a friend.

To paraphrase an old adage:   Character is what people see in you when the camera lights are off!  

If only people saw more of Obama without the Hollywood wrapping.   If they did, this would be a far different race.

The “News agency who shall not be named,” along with others, is reporting that the last few weeks of the campaign could get VERY personal.

On Saturday, Sarah Palin finally led the campaign in whacking Obama with his Bill Ayers connection:

“This is not a man who sees America as you see it and as I see America,” Palin said today. “We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy and can live in a country that would allow intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for, for all of us.”

She then continued, “Our opponent though is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Of course, the MSM quickly ran to Obama’s aid with retorts along the line of the following:

But as the New York Times reported today, Obama was never “palling around” with Ayers. “A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called ‘somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'”

Those vapidity of that retort has been covered time and again so no need to rehash that. Now that Palin has taken up the line of attacking Obama about the company he keeps, the Obama campaign, responding as if this is a second grade playground fight says: “Oh yeah, well, so are you!” The Obama campaign threatens to drag out the Keating 5 history as their retort of “bad associations.”

Bring it on!

No one of the MSM outlets have spent ANY time investigating Obama’s links and involvement with Ayers, Rezko or the Chicago Political machine. On the other hand, they have spent inordinate time trying to dig up dirt on Palin, to no avail, creating false scandals for McCain….and, they’ve looked into the Keating 5 and have already tried to do McCain in with an attachment to McCain!

In case you forgot, the New York Times tried to resurrect McCain’s involvement to the Keating 5 back during the primaries, February, 2008 to be exact. They tried to derail McCain’s primary run. Not for a lack of effort, they were unable to make the charges stick. In fact, Bob Bennett (Bill Bennett’s brother) came to McCain’s defense, both during the original Keating 5 investigation and again in February:

ROBERT BENNETT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Senator McCain did not want a repeat of what occurred years ago in South Carolina, namely a real smear campaign, and asked me to assist them, and I have been assisting him. And this — I’m just — I think what the “New York Times” did here was shameless, just shameless. As you pointed out in the lead, it’s almost entirely unsourced.

You know, I’m in a pretty unique position to talk about John McCain. First, I should tell your listeners I’m a registered Democrat, so I’m not on his side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five, which, by the way, this “New York Times” article goes back to and discusses, goes back years and years.

And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest and honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him, and I think for the “New York Times” to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain’s public statement about this is correct. It’s a smear job. I’m sorry.

and

BENNETT: Well, you know, maybe I was prophetic. I wrote that chapter a long time ago. If your listeners want to know about the Keating Five case, I have a whole chapter on it. What happened was that I had recommended that John McCain be cut out of it and not go forward. And, you know, I call it the way I see it. As I said, I’m a Democrat. And I recommended they go forward against Senators DeConcini, Senator Cranston and Senator Riegle.

But if you cut out John McCain, you would have had 28 days of public hearings with just Democrats in the dock. So, it’s probably the first time in the history of the Senate that they rejected the advice of their counsel to exonerate a senator.

Obama has shown time and again a lack of understanding about history. That’s a trait that should be a concern to many people. However, in this case, I’m happy that Obama has no awareness of history. If he had, he would know that Keatin 5 has been beat to a pulp by all of his best historical corrupters. Despite their best efforts they haven’t been able to twist the facts far enough to indict McCain.

If “associations” become the issue during the last 4 weeks, expect the Obama bus to be hitting a lot of road bumps!

The bill previously referred to as “The Bailout” but appropriately classified as a “workout” (I’ll explain more later) looks to be heading for another vote.   While the timing is still to be determined, some sources are suggesting that the Senate may vote first and do so as early as Wednesday evening.

Folks have been working to figure out what adjustments need to be made to pick up the additional 12 votes that the first vote lost by.   While there were rumors, and frankly I thought the likely path, that SanFranNan was going to load up more socialism into the bill to get her more liberal folks on board, it now looks like there are a combination of items that are being considered.

Included in the “let’s get more libs on board” are these items:   my comments in italics

1. Banning some forms of short selling – I’d have to see more details but I can’t imagine a situation that I would support long term.   We have seen in the current short selling curb, numerous examples where the removal of short selling has actually hurt the price of the stock.   How can that be?   Turns out that folks who buy long on companies use short selling to help protect themselves from unexpected down turns in the stock.   If they can’t protect their downside, especially in situations of high volatility, they won’t play on the long side.
2. Extending Unemployment Benefits – No and hell no!   This is the kind of stuff that would allow the Republicans to sit out another vote.   This bill needs to stay focused on restarting the credit markets.   This issue does nothing in that area!
3. Double the Property Tax Deduction for People Who do not Itemize Deductions – Again, no and hell no for the same reasons as #2
4. More Spending on Transportation and Infrastructure – Ditto 2 and 3.   The argument is that this is putting money into the economy.   If Paulson is right, there is no money needed in the economy.   In fact, Billions of dollars have already been pumped into the economy.   We don’t need the Govt. borrowing more especially when we don’t know where the next fire is that we may need to fight.

Other ideas being proposed:

1. Increase FDIC insurance to $250K for each depositor – OK, sleeves out of your vest on this one.   It may provide some help in stemming runs on banks but I don’t know that it addresses the credit issues.   My understanding is that during the RTC days, and even today, FDIC uses some pretty broad authorities to determine the amount that actually gets covered by each depositor.   I believe many depositors with balances over the current $100K mark, were fully covered by the FDIC.
2. Remove/Adjust Mark to Market requirements – As I understand it, the SEC could do this on their own.   In fact, there are rumors that they may do that even if not in the bill.   This absolutely needs to happen.   Mark to Market  works when their are fluid markets for the assets you are valuing.   When the market become illiquid or worse, functions essentially as multiple fire sales, mark to market can actually mis price assets.   Many people will debate  the level, or if mark to market has impacted our current financial situation.   Trust me, Mark to Market has not caused this mess but it has surely exacerbated and accelerated  the deterioration of balance sheets.

Where does that leave us?   it looks like for the most part, the bill will come back as it was on Monday.   I don’t expect any changes that do more than allow some group of Representatives to change their minds.   After rereading Monday’s bill again, my biggest concerns remain that Paulson can buy assets from pensions and (and I just picked this up in my last rereading) no where in the bill do I see that he must specifically buy only the mortgage backed securities.  

In short,  this bill  leaves me feeling like the guy who has a bomb ticking down from :30 and he needs to decide which of 50 wires to cut.   I know we have to cut a wire.   If we’re right, we live.   If we’re wrong, well, stay tuned for tomorrow’s show!

Postlude:   I referred to this as a “workout” earlier.   This bill has been badly sold…that is if it is as many are selling it i.e. a situation where Paulson will buy assets, hold them for a while and place them in the hands of a healthier institution later, hopefully without a loss.   If the program works as that, this looks much more like a typical financial system workout i.e. at the end of the day we get our money although we may have to adjust the terms or payment amounts along the way.   If this really is a “workout” (as I believe it is intended to be) than Paulson and others should be making that point and selling it as such.   If it is a bailout, buyer be ware!

If you think that representation from San Francisco could not get any more leftist than San Fran Nan, take a look at this video of Cindy Sheehan’s discussion of her economic platform.

Gurgle, Gurgle, Gurgle!