Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« He's Baaaaaack | What He Said »

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The Morning News

posted by on September 16 at 7:00 AM

Wall Street losses: Worst since 2001.

The big bet: Hank Paulson plays poker with the economy.

Hard times: For London and New York.

How the candidates would approach the problem: Very differently.

Dissed but not dismissed: See if you can spot the missing conclusion in this David Brooks column about Sarah Palin.

Believers for Barack: Um.

Melting Arctic ice: Catastrophic trends.

And Obama keeps trying to get undecideds to vote their financial interests. Anyone have a theory on why this is not more of a winning argument?

RSS icon Comments


Why won't that ad work? Because American's are fucking racist. This election is not about change or anything else. It is about race and most of the country is redneck, hateful and racist. Sorry to say it but we all know it is true.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 16, 2008 7:51 AM

#1 Represents that attitude of Barack Obama, the Democrat Party and all Seattle Leftists.

It is an arrogant viewpoint that America is so ignorant we needs the brilliant Democrats and their trillion dollar taxation to save us.

Please, take your egghead ideas, Al Gore and all the rest and go run for President -- of the European Union.

Posted by John Bailo | September 16, 2008 7:58 AM

Couple interesting bits of world news, Pakistan orders its troops to fire on US troops if US troops cross their border in a raid again. And, the Ukraine's governing coalition fell apart.

Posted by PopTart | September 16, 2008 8:04 AM

Who says it's not a winning argument? Eli Sanders? John Bailo?

Posted by ivan | September 16, 2008 8:07 AM

David Brooks is still pissed that he got caught pretending he knows what the inside of an Applebee's looks like. Smug little bastards.

Does he seem like a guy that the booze is starting to take its toll on, sort of like Hitchens in is later years?

...Oh, hey. Check how the Obama ad hits McCain for saying women just need more education. Education is one of the nicest luxuries you can buy for yourself if you have more money than you need, but it doesn't cure inequality.

Posted by elenchos | September 16, 2008 8:09 AM

John Bailo, you're an idiot. Please visit most of the South, where I'm from, and tell me how the GOP is good for those folks. Sure, NC and VA are doing well, but they are under Democratic leadership.

I'm sure McCain/Palin, with Palin taking over when McCain dies, will be good for you religious zealots. May you all reap the consequences of your stupidity.

Posted by Fitz | September 16, 2008 8:11 AM

Economic dominoes!
See them fall.
Too bad the windows on Wall St. don't open!
See them fall.

Posted by NecktieNoose | September 16, 2008 8:15 AM

Wasn't there another post with a video up..? Where'd it go? I was going to watch that.

Posted by Mr Fuzzy | September 16, 2008 8:15 AM

"Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman."

Oh, David Brooks. Do you ever tire of being completely wrong-headed?

Posted by laterite | September 16, 2008 8:16 AM

@4 lately the polls, unfortunately

Posted by mickey in AR | September 16, 2008 8:18 AM

It's worth remembering that the United States is a democracy, and most (51%) people don't know, don't care, or in fact approve of the deranged actions of the lying psychopaths that run our nation. Shades of Germany circa 1938; we're a right-wing country governed by our worst citizens.

Maybe most Americans want to see Sarah Palin on a Deal or No Deal-style show where, upon losing, she screams "we're coming home, Jeezus!!!" then slams her fist down on the big red button--instant incineration with no more gawdam liburals to worry about!

Posted by Original Andrew | September 16, 2008 8:19 AM

But seriously, this excellent article at perfectly captures our national insanity and answers your question: It's the politics of white-trash resentment.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 16, 2008 8:23 AM

Brooks commentary is thoughtful and well written, although it makes some mistakes in historical perspective with regard to what kind of politician the the framers of the constitution desired.

By in large, Brooks rightly dismisses the Palin choice in his commentary, and I am happy to see that Brooks has stood by the conservative philosophy tutored to him by Bill Buckley. It is interesting to see this kind commentary developing within conservative intellectual circles as they examine intellectual underpinnings of the GOP and its future. In many senses, the GOP has become a rudderless boat at sea.

Posted by Cranky Old Man | September 16, 2008 8:24 AM

@ 11 I believe you mean we are a republic.

Posted by mickey in AR | September 16, 2008 8:24 AM

if we were a democracy we would have had Al Gore as a president.

Posted by mickey in AR | September 16, 2008 8:25 AM

The reason why people vote against their own financial self-interest is FEAR. This is a big nation of fraidie cats. Michael Moore said it well in the animated segment in Fahrenheit 9/11, so no one gives this viewpoint much cred, but we are afraid as a people, which is why we tote guns, vote "conservative" (i.e. "not too much change all at once please"), keep a blind eye to reality, believe that if only we obey God's literal word we will be rescued from this scary world. FDR pointed this fear thing out, but we've forgotten that kind of leadership, and no Republican wants it otherwise.

Posted by Simac | September 16, 2008 8:38 AM

Good Morning Eli,
Regarding David Brooks' article, a fine piece. I believe Gov. Sarah Palin to be "inexperienced" to be VP. Unfortunately, one could and probably has made the same argument against Sen. Obama's "experience" to be President. He essentially has had three years in the Senate (with an unremarkable record according to the NYT). Let's face it, he's been campaigning full time the past year. He and Ms. Palin are peers at 47 y/o and 44 or 45 y/o respectively. They both have had state experience before their national campaigns. Consider this from the WSJ:

Many VPs were considered "inexperienced" heck, at least a few Presidents were. The Republic may not have flourished but it did survive.

Posted by lark | September 16, 2008 8:40 AM

John Bailo, do you really make enough money that your taxes will go up under Obama's plan? Or are you worried that your corporate masters might have to kick down a little more?

Posted by smade | September 16, 2008 8:48 AM

@ 1, 2 - in terms of elections, European countries are probably more racist than the US. See how many Indian or Pakistani or Caribbean faces you can find in any of the three British cabinets (the official Labour cabinet and the two shadow cabinets).
See how many Turks or Africans have political power in Germany or France.

Which is not say that racism isn't a factor, or that there are people who will refuse to vote for Obama solely on that basis, but reducing whatever problems Obama's having to racism is stupid and lazy, just like it was stupid and lazy for Clinton supporters to chalk up any and all of her problems to sexism.

And if people who vote Republican against their economic interests are craven and stupid, what about people who vote Democrat against their economic interests, e.g., wealthy Seattle liberals?

Posted by UnoriginalAndrew | September 16, 2008 8:51 AM

@8: Yes, but it was old, so it wasn't about what I thought it was about. Somebody on YouTube reposted a video of Romney criticizing McCain from the primaries. If you want, you can watch it DailyKos.

Posted by annie | September 16, 2008 8:57 AM

Hey, gay nerds, did I miss a post about George Takei's wedding?

I mean, I don't think I would've missed a story where the grooms entered to "One Singular Sensation" and guests got treats in boxes printed "May sweet equality live long and prosper." But, I might've so apologies if this is a repeat.

Posted by PopTart | September 16, 2008 9:03 AM

Bailo, your McCain administration is proposing a higher tax burden than Obama, and much more spending. You want smaller govt? At this point, hilariously, you better vote Dem.

Posted by feeding the troll | September 16, 2008 9:03 AM

You people disgust me.

Posted by Chalupa Alcatraz-Bailo | September 16, 2008 9:25 AM

John Bailo,

Just like all GOP supporters before you, you want a government that quite frankly the Neo-Cons don't want, or support.

You cling to this 1970's republicanism, just like my dad, and you are absolutely wrong. Neo-Cons expand government (Bush expanded the federal government more than FDR) and instead of 'raising taxes' they just borrow money from China.

They are not fiscally conservative, and they are restricting social life too (also against core republican ideals). I have yet to hear from you how exactly these people represent your ideals.

GO AHEAD, tell me.

Posted by Original Monique | September 16, 2008 9:51 AM

This is an excellent post about why pure economic arguments don't always sway voters:

Posted by Chip | September 16, 2008 9:54 AM

Economic arguments don't sway voters because voters are dumb.

I use the CNN polls to do an IQ test of people on the interent, reading news.

Question yesterday:
What do you worry about more-
a: gas prices
b: the problems on wall street

it was at 48/52. People don't get how wall street effects them, and how everything is tied together. Dumb people, John Bailo people. He's probably worrying about the OPEC cut in supply instead of WaMu collapsing.

Posted by Original Monique | September 16, 2008 10:11 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.