Baaaaand Monnnn-Taaaaaaage!

Take On Me: The Literal Version

Rumbles

Reading this was both heartening and amusing. Heartening because it is clear that McCain supporters are worried. Amusing because of how hapless they look in response. But the following passage is the one that probably seriously freaks out the GOP:

Next they started talking about policy positions.  This was quite amusing.  They were all upset that Obama had voted for the bailout.  Then, one of them said, "McCain supported it too."  Then they talked about how upset they were about McCain's proposal to buy mortgages directly from homeowners.  One of the gentlemen proclaimed, "McCain sounds like a socialist.  You'd think he were a Democrat".  At that point the other gentleman stated that he had thought of voting for Bob Barr.  He opened his lap top and pulled up Barr's website for the others to see.  They liked what they saw.  One woman said that Barr was the "conservative that McCain used to be." 

Consider what will happen if these "supporters" begin to think a McCain loss is inevitable. If McCain is going to lose, they might think to themselves, why bother voting for him anyway since they really don't like him. Why not vote for that nice Mr. Barr instead?

Is this the rumble that precedes a landslide?

McCain's motives

Todd Beeton brings up an important point:

As for McCain's motives for doing the right thing, they may not be entirely selfless in nature. Sure it could be out of a hidden store of decency, or it could simply be political expediency. Take a look at the new Newsweek poll of RVs and you see what his shameful attacks on Obama have gotten him: Obama leads McCain by 11 points, up from a tie a month ago.

I agree that McCain's motives are not entirely selfless in nature. I'm sure a big part of it has been calls from Republican leaders telling him, in no uncertain terms, that they were not willing to let him take the party down with him and that the recent incendiary turn in his campaign was doing just that.

But really, who cares? Even if McCain did it for selfish reasons it was still the right thing to do. And for those who worry that it might turn the campaign around for McCain I think they are ignoring the fundamentals. The wind is as strong at Obama's back as it has ever been in any campaign I have ever observed. There really is nothing that McCain can do to win this thing. His only remaining hope is in things that are outside his control: a monumental meltdown in the Obama campaign or a horrible act of God that completely changes the current dialog.

So McCain had a choice: lose badly or just lose. I think he has made the choice to just lose. I hope I am right.

McCain acting like a grownup?

A more complete report from Ann Marie Cox on McCain's attempt to calm the crowd.

Once the fire is started, how hard is it to put it out?

More calming

A more direct link on McCain's attempt to calm things down. Plus an additional quote:

A woman at the town hall asks softly: "I've heard that Sen. Obama is an
Arab."

McCain quickly cuts the woman off.

"No, maam. He's a decent family man and citizen," McCain says. "He's
not. Thank you."

Hate and Blame

I'm going to quibble with Greg Sargent on one point here. He makes the argument that McCain and Palin are "largely responsible" for the "pathologically-unhinged tone" of their supporters at their recent rallies. My quibble is that McCain and Palin are responsible for inflaming the passions at their rallies, but the unhinged nature of their supporters was already there.

At this point, life is pretty hard for partisan Republicans. Having lived through 2000, 2002 and 2004 I know exactly the feelings they are going through. As the campaign counts down to the final days, and it looks increasingly likely that you will lose, the frustration begins to boil over. People get angry. They start looking for someone to blame. It's a natural reaction. And sometimes it can lead to really stupid outbursts like the kind of things we have seen the last couple of days.

The guilt of McCain and Palin is not in instilling that anger and frustration. Their guilt is in encouraging it (or, at best, not discouraging it). And this is where the real gut check moment comes for a candidate. For McCain has to be as frustrated and angry as any of his most partisan supporters (a candidate is always his/her most partisan supporter). Do you let that frustration boil over and feed it to the crowds around you? Or do you call for calm even though doing so could be the closest you will ever come to publicly acknowledging the hopelessness of your situation?

It looks like McCain made at least an attempt to calm things today:

A man in the audience stood up and told McCain he's "scared" of an Obama presidency and who he'd select for the Supreme Court.

"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"

"If I didn't think I'd be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn't be running for president of the united states."

McCain's supporters aren't going to be happy with him if he says things like this. They may even reject him. But I guess it is encouraging that he at least made the attempt.

As I said above, my disagreement with Sargent is more in the nature of a quibble. Responsible for an action ultimately belongs with the actor. So those who scream "kill him" have only themselves to blame. McCain will be to blame only to the extent that he doesn't tell them to cool it.

video:

It's The Final Countdown!

Introducing the KazooKeylele!

When even ... votes for Obama ...

Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative spiritual grandfather William F. Buckley, is voting for Obama.

He says, "Sorry Dad", but I wonder if his father might have ended up doing the same.

Nostrobamus

Jed's right. Obama was criticized for it at the time, but when he clearly (and correctly) outlined the campaign that McCain was going to run against him, he was doing so with the goal of inoculating himself against the inevitable attacks. And it worked. No one takes any of the McCain attacks seriously (beyond the delusional).

I'm in love with Betty White

A failure of trust

James K. Galbraith:

On the morning that Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch fell,... the ... Dow Jones average fell 504 points... As stocks crashed, suddenly people remembered that modern markets cannot exist without a cop on the beat. Every important market out there, from fresh food and safe drugs to autos and air travel to housing and health care, depends on government to maintain trust, and without it, none of them would survive. Without regulation, predators take over, and when they do, trust eventually collapses. Every important market is in peril now, precisely because of the predators in power these past eight years. And none more immediately than finance.

Trust is the key word here. Without it, nothing which depends on the transfer of value between parties can ever function. Because if the parties involved in the transfer cannot trust that what they are paying is a fair reflection of the value of what they buying then they will just stop buying. The more trust breaks down, the more trade breaks down, until the only markets that operate are those that deal in the most essential goods (and those are sold at highly inflated prices).

Those who scoff at the idea that markets break down when you deregulate them focus to much on the question of direct cause and effect. If you can't identify the specific thing that deregulation caused that will lead to a breakdown then deregulation cannot be blamed for the breakdown.

But the breakdown is systemic. It isn't in a single type of transaction. It is a breakdown in the overall system of trust that is necessary for any market to function. And the cop on the beat, as Mr. Galbrath describes the government, provides an essential role in shoring up that sense of trust. People trust in the value of what they are buying because they trust that the cop on the beat will do what he can to make sure the crooks and charlatans won't get a dominating position in the market.

When that trust breaks down, it is very hard to get it back. That is why, I believe, that the $700 billion bailout, even if it was necessary, will not be sufficient to restore trust.

Now I believe that people want to trust the market. They want to get back into the flow of things because just hunkering down is a position that few can maintain for very long. So getting that trust back is really just a matter of effort. Cracking a few heads (figuratively). Establishing new stories of trust fulfilled. All of these things can entice people to come out of their shells and start working the markets again.

This will happen, regardless of government action. But if it isn't the government who does it then it will be a government like force that will arise within the market itself. Unfortunately, that kind of force is often of a more unsavory variety (its how organized crime can get a foothold).

So the question for us is not whether the trust will return. The question is who will return it and what will be the cost?