Infinite Wisdom

About That Bailout

The public has every right to be outraged.  The government has shown its indifference to the plight of ordinary Americans as the ranks of the unemployed swell, and yet the federal government refuses to extend unemployment benefits.  But the minute there is panic on Wall Street, the US government springs to action.  This is a story of a whole industry replete with charlatans and con artists that now is looking to the government to rescue it from itself.  The financial industry that the government is planning to rescue is the same industry which had worked hard to get a more draconian bankruptcy law enacted to really screw the little guy.  It also deplorably developed mortgage products that simultaneously promoted great wealth on Wall Street and hurt the weak and vulnerable.  It is revolting an industry that had gotten much of its riches through chicanery will now be saved ultimately by the taxpayers that it has been screwing for years.

The calamity on Wall Street reveals the perils of deregulation.  Wall Street wriggled away from regulation by steering the agenda of Congress with sizable campaign contributions.  And our politicians merrily went along by enacting legislation that gave Wall Street almost anything and everything it desired.  And look what it has led to.  Our politicians did worse than not lead;  they enthusiastically abetted an industry that checked morality at the door while it employed increasingly shrewd and reckless means to secure more profits.  This translated into obscene salaries and bonuses that only encouraged more reckless behavior.  For awhile things went along swimmingly, but things came crashing down after the housing bubble burst.   Given the unscrupulous practices of more than a few financial firms, a slew of jail sentences seems far more appropriate than a government bailout that involves money the treasury doesn't have.

Lost amid the fiery debate about the bailout is the sobering fact that the government doesn't actually have the money.  So, future generations will be saddled with debt seemingly ensuring that future generations will be materially poorer than those that preceded them.  And that might not be the worst news.  Since the country will have to borrow more money to implement the bailout of the financial industry when it is already laden with debt, any bailout will almost certainly exert downward pressure on the nation's currency.  This would suggest that the poor and middle class already preyed on by the teetering financial industry will now suffer the woes of higher prices due to inflationary pressure caused by the government borrowing money it doesn't have.  Moreover, a bailout which diverts funds into propping up enterprises that have engaged in economic activity of questionable value means other more productive uses of the money can't be pursued. One could argue it is imperative the country make a serious effort to lessen its dependency on fossil fuels, but how can we make much progress on this front with ongoing military engagements, a bloated military budget, an aging population that will tax Medicare and Social Security, and now a bailout of the financial industry sucking up money we don't even have?   Long after Bush leaves the scene, the mess he left behind will still be plaguing the nation.

Contrary to the recent bewildering statement by John McCain that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong, the economy has been less than robust for most of this decade.  Yes, there has been a rise in GDP during recent years, but the rewards haven't been broadly distributed.  It has been consumers' insatiable desire for material things and their comfort in assuming large debt combined with a housing bubble that has kept the economy afloat.  When incomes don't keep pace with inflation, an economy can't continue roaring along because consumers will get ever deeper into debt and eventually be tapped out(and in some cases go bankrupt).   And with home prices falling, home equity loans aren't a viable option anymore for many Americans.  We need a revamping of the economy that doesn't overly rely on a housing bubble or rampant speculation.  And the way to create more wealth is not to have the nation's premiere financial institutions engaged in unproductive schemes, but to open up more productive avenues for investment such as improving the nation's infrastructure and pursuing alternatives to fossil fuels.   Saving Wall Street by itself won't lead to a more robust economy, because the malaise gripping the economy is more deeply rooted than Wall Street's woes.

It would seem a safe bet that Congress will eventually agree on a package to rescue Wall Street from its own excesses.  Bush, who has resisted any effort to help the poor, is now aiming to help his friends on Wall Street.  This exposes the small government philosophy championed by Bush and his cronies to be a fraud.   When business is booming, Bush's view is government ought to lay low and let business thrive.  Government regulation can't get in the way of the profits of private enterprises, according to the Bush philosophy.  Yet, this resistance to government intervention miraculously disappears now that Wall Street has fallen victim to its own unquenchable greed.  Apparently, Bush is in favor of fundamentalist market ideology unless some of his business buddies overreach.  This is a perverse approach that concentrates profits into a few hands, but socializes the risk to the many.      

Eventually, Congress will almost certainly approve a bailout plan for the beleaguered financial industry, even if it angers ordinary Americans.   This is yet one more example of how the government has become essentially a corporate subsidiary that caters to the business class, while it repeatedly ignores the general needs of most of the citizenry.  The country is broke, and the bailout will only add to the woes.  Even more troubling, the potential successors to Bush seem to be oblivious to the gravity of our current economic problems.   John McCain is imprudently pursuing more cuts taxes which will only exacerbate the current budget deficit, while Obama is advocating a rise in government spending that the country simply can't afford.   Though the politicians and the people don't seem to acknowledge it, our current practice of spending money we don't have is simply not sustainable.   

The Contrasting Styles of Obama and McCain

Last week's financial industry meltdown reoriented the Presidential race.  Prior to the meltdown, the trivial dominated the political debate.  The McCain campaign showed little interest in discussing important issues, while Obama made little headway steering the debate toward more substantive issues.  But with the advent of the financial industry crisis, the sputtering economy has rather suddenly crowded out the frivolous issues that had dominated the back and forth exchanges between the candidates.  This has given a much-needed boost to Obama after polls had shown him trailing McCain following the Republican convention.  As the crisis in the financial industry unfolded, it was fascinating to watch how Obama and McCain reacted which accentuated their contrasting styles.   McCain may have far more Washington experience than Obama, but he was the one who acted like a political neophyte as the crisis on Wall Street emerged.  McCain reassured just about no one with his response to the crisis, while Obama probably helped himself a bit by looking cool and composed. 

The McCain reaction to the Wall Street crisis was downright awful.  In what might be the most glaring gaffe of the general election season, McCain showed himself to be woefully out of touch by remarking that the fundamentals of the economy were strong just as things on Wall Street were unraveling.   Then to compound the problem, he came out against the rescue of AIG by the government before he reversed course and agreed that the AIG bailout was necessary.  Also, he suggested the SEC chairman, Christoper Cox, should be fired and then abruptly altered his position.  McCain's proclivity to be impulsive was prominently on display, and his erratic response to the crisis almost certainly didn't help him win the confidence of voters.  And if McCain can't maintain a calm demeanor during a domestic crisis, do we really want such an individual to assume the power to control America's vast military arsenal(which includes a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons)?

As McCain careened from position to position, Obama was his usual phlegmatic self in the midst of the unfolding crisis on Wall Street.   If there is a worry about Obama, it is that he seems to lack passion.  In contrast to the impetuousness of McCain, Obama is the epitome of calm.  Obama's dispassionate reaction to the Wall Street mess may not have shown him to be a decisive leader, but I will go out on a limb and say his reaction didn't make voters as uncomfortable as watching McCain lurch from position to position.

The general election features two candidates with strikingly different styles.  On balance, the less impetuous Obama would seem to be a more prudent choice in these dangerous times than a figure like McCain who relishes risk and isn't averse to taking big(and potentially unwise) gambles.

Has McCain Peaked Too Soon?

It really has been a pretty good summer for John McCain.  The good times for McCain started when war broke out between Russia and Georgia.  The advent of war between a US ally and Russia  briefly diverted the attention of the American public away from the creaky economy.   And when there is foreign matters making news, it is natural for the public to yearn for an experienced hand over a political neophyte.  As world events pivoted in McCain's direction, Obama went on vacation in Hawaii and lost the initiative.  Obama received a short-lived bounce from the Democratic convention which was immediately erased by the Republican convention.  What really shook up the race was McCain's surprise selection of Sarah Palin for VP.  It sparked immediate interest in the McCain campaign from the media while cementing the support of the Republican base.   It also provided McCain the opportunity to argue however implausibly that he will bring reform to Washington.  In recent days, McCain has nudged ahead of Obama in a majority of national polls elevating the spirits of Republicans while instilling dread among Democrats.  It is pretty clear McCain has had a rather solid eight weeks that have catapulted him into a near even race with Obama.  Is the rise in the polls by McCain permanent, or has he peaked too soon?

McCain's poll numbers rose after his selection of Palin for VP and her generally well-received speech at the convention.  Picking Palin resulted in a surge of publicity for the McCain campaign.  The public  also was understandably curious about McCain's little known VP candidate.  Yet, there is good reason to believe McCain's surge in the polls since his convention is transient.  First of all, most voters historically don't base their vote on the VP candidate regardless how fresh or exciting the VP candidate might be.  Also, Palin's appeal may wane as people learn she isn't a moderate.  Swing voters who will decide this election aren't rabid ideologues, and they might balk at supporting a VP candidate whose views aren't exactly mainstream.

Real bad news emanating from Wall Street has changed the political landscape, which could prove troubling for McCain.  The sudden demise of Lehman, absorption of Merrill Lynch by Bank America, and the government rescue of AIG are forcing the media and voters to again focus on the struggling US economy.  This is a bad development for McCain.   Though McCain has expressed outrage at the reckless behavior on Wall Street, it is hard to ignore he has been a staunch proponent of deregulation which has played a role in the current financial crisis.   Moreover, McCain has never been all that comfortable talking about the economy, and with recent developments McCain will presumably have to talk about it more than he would probably like.   McCain might plausibly win an election in which foreign policy eclipses the economy as the signature issue, but he is at a distinct disadvantage if when voters go to the polls, they are primarily concerned with domestic matters.

The debates will probably decide this election.  Though McCain is probably underestimated regarding his debating skills, he could be in trouble facing Obama.  Compared to the youthful Obama, McCain is going to look old.  And while foreign policy will be discussed in detail, the economy and other domestic concerns will be addressed.  On the domestic issues, Obama starts well-positioned before ever opening his mouth given he's not a Republican.  Also, the McCain candidacy has been much more about his impressive biography than the existence of an agenda that addresses the many challenges the next President will face.   McCain may be able to skate through the debates and convince voters he'll bring reform to Washington, however I think it is more likely he'll be exposed as a fraud, a man expressing an interest to change things but with little intention of doing so.

The summer has revitalized the McCain campaign.  Republicans for the first time really believe they can win the Presidential election despite the toxic political environment they are facing.  McCain may indeed pull this out, but the biggest challenges are still to come.  Republicans and McCain may learn the grim lesson that a sudden rush of excitement which elevates a campaign can rather suddenly dissipate when a candidate relies too heavily on his impressive biography, and his calls for reform are revealed to be nothing more than empty campaign slogans not supported by his very own agenda.

Trends Suggest Upcoming Election Won't Be Unconventional

This Presidential election year has been all about change.  The voters crave change, and the candidates are peddling it.  Obama has made change the central theme of his candidacy.   After having survived the primary battle in which the combatants all tried to demonstrate how deeply Conservative they were, McCain is touting his maverick reputation and asserting he will bring reform to Washington. And with Bush on his way out, new leadership offers the promise of change.  All the yammering about change and the diversity represented by the candidates suggest the upcoming election will be unconventional, but there are signs the election won't be all that much different than the past two.

Exuding optimism before brought down to earth a tad, Obama was hoping to broaden the electoral battlefield beyond the closely contested states of the past two elections.  Early on, there might have been reason to hope Obama could win states like North Carolina and Georgia.  As the race has worn on, it has become increasingly apparent that the reliably Republican states will most likely give the nod to the Republican candidate again.  Obama can plausibly win Virginia and Colorado, as these states have been trending Democratic in recent years, though an Obama win in these states are by no means certain or even likely.  Obama will almost certainly get Iowa's electoral votes after a narrow victory for Bush four years ago.  Swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire are up for grabs again this time.  The Midwest is again a battleground as it has been during this decade.  Barring a collapse by either campaign, I wouldn't bet on any substantial realignment of the electoral map this year. 

Though there was hope McCain and Obama would put forth positive messages, it hasn't really turned out that way.  Obama has been skewered for his lack of experience, while Obama has tried to tie McCain to the now unpopular sitting President.  There have been the usual attacks by Republicans that Obama is too liberal, and that all Americans will face higher taxes with Obama as President even though Obama has vowed not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.   Democrats ferociously went after McCain's surprising and little known VP pick hoping to tarnish her reputation before she acquired one, though the attacks only made the Democrats look petty and foolish.  Negative campaigning has been prominently featured since the nominations were secured, which demonstrates that the more things change, the more they stay the same.   Voters may have hoped that the well-liked candidates this year would have fostered a thoughtful discussion of the many challenges that will greet the next President, but instead gutter politics have reigned supreme. 

With the many twists and turns observed so far, this election year has been fascinating to watch.  Though the parties picked unconventional and surprising candidates, recent trends suggest the upcoming election won't be that unconventional after all.

What About the Issues?

Amid a tight contest for President, one would hope there would be a serious discussion of the issues facing the country especially given the shaky economy, the troubled financial sector, a weak housing market, and rising unemployment.  In addition to a myriad of domestic concerns, the next President will inherit two military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There is also the little matter of global warming to consider.   And yet with such a set of formidable challenges facing the nation, the current Presidential election has been dismayingly devoid of substance. 

There is little doubt which of the two campaigns has a vested interest in ducking the issues.  After eight years of Bush that is ending with a shaky economy on the brink of recession, McCain is smart to avoid the topic of the economy as much as possible.  Though McCain has declared himself a reformer, his plans don't deviate markedly from the Bush agenda.  Thus, McCain is wise to avoid detailing his plans, because they wouldn't on close examination sound like change. Ironically, McCain has now stolen the strategy Obama used during his fierce nomination battle with Clinton.  He has now transformed himself into a change candidate without feeling the need to discuss in detail what he will actually change and who will benefit.  And because the media is so entranced by the various aspects of the horse race, it is letting McCain get away with it. 

Because of the paucity of coverage of the issues, voters are bound to be confused.  Will the middle class get a better tax break under Obama or McCain?   And which of the candidates has a more comprehensive health care plan?  It is questions like these that should decide the upcoming election.  What does it say about this country that at a time when we are facing formidable challenges, we are stupidly focused on the inane and the inconsequential?  There are substantial ideological differences between the two major parties, but the press pretends that this is merely a contest among two likable guys.  Is it any wonder the polls are showing a very close race even though polls have consistently shown that Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the Bush administration?  Because the differences between McCain and Obama have been blurred by the fanatical interest in trivial matters, so far the race to determine who will succeed Bush has been much ado about nothing.   And guess who that benefits?  Here's a hint...it isn't Obama.

If the current Presidential campaign were a battle of ideas and ideology, one suspects Obama would streak ahead leaving McCain in the dust.   One would hope the debates will offer some illumination as to the plans of both major candidates, so the American people can make an informed choice.   This is what should happen.  In an ideal scenario, the positions of the candidates on the issues would decide the election.  Let's hope the media forces the candidates to reveal their plans and priorities for the nation's future.

 

Bush Tax Cuts an Utter Failure

Though the party in power isn't usually to blame for a recession, it gets blamed anyway.   Voters usually punish a party if it is unlucky enough to be the one in control when economic times turn rough.  If the upcoming election hinged solely on the state of the sputtering economy, Barack Obama would win going away.  The economic news through most of this year has been generally grim.  With the unemployment percentage inching up recently because of sizable layoffs, it is now  pretty clear the US is now in a recession regardless of whether the current malaise fully fits the exact definition of one.  Though the economy is worsening, for much of the middle class and poor the current rough patch doesn't look much different than the entirety of the Bush years.  And as much as Bush and the Republicans would want us to believe the Bush tax cuts propelled the county into a period of prosperity, the reality is more sobering.  During the Bush years, fabulous wealth has been amassed.  Unfortunately, most of that wealth has found its way to the most affluent of Americans.  Even during the best of the Bush years,  the economy never really fired on all cylinders.

The tepid performance of the economy throughout the Bush years has been underreported.  After a series of generous tax cuts, job creation has been decidedly mediocre.  The problem with the Bush approach is it had only one strategy...cutting taxes.  Yet with those tax cuts have come stagnant wages for most, increasing ranks of the impoverished, and fewer people with health insurance.  The Bush approach has been to slash taxes and stand aside and let the economy hum.   If the intention had been to foster a strong economy that promotes gains for most Americans, then the Bush plan must be considered an utter failure.  This exposes a sobering truth about the shaky premise of trickle down economics.  Money can be thrown at corporations and affluent people, but there is no guarantee the moneyed elite will do anything productive with it.   It would be wrong to say the Bush tax cuts haven't had any effect at all on the economy, but it would be equally wrong to suggest the tax cuts have spawned a robust economy that is working for most Americans.  What the tax cuts have done is send the federal budget deficit soaring and produce the most sizable wealth gap since right before the Great Depression. 

When the Bush tax cuts didn't trigger a rash of hiring and a surge of innovation, how did Bush react?   By doing nothing, of course.   Why didn't Bush try something else?  Because the point of the tax cuts were the cuts themselves.  I'm sure Bush wouldn't have minded if a booming economy had coincided with lower taxes.  But it didn't seem to bother him much that the results of his tax cuts didn't translate into a discernible improvement in the lives of most Americans.   There also is an argument to be made that the unimpressive economic conditions that have held sway during much of the Bush years would have been worse had it not been for aggressive moves by the Federal Reserve Board.   And guess what the Fed's bold slashing of interest rates led to?  That's right...the housing bubble that is now popping.   So let's dispense with the fallacy that the Bush tax cuts led to good economic times.  Economic activity during the reign of Bush was heightened somewhat because of bargain basement interest rates and rampant fraudulent practices in the mortgage industry(that have recently come to light), but even with that help the economy treaded water mostly without most Americans sharing in whatever gains were being realized.  The point of this is to argue the Bush years aren't just ending with an economic thud, they have been throughout something of an economic dud.  And with McCain proposing much of the same, why would anyone expect things to be any different if he were elected President?   

Change is Coming?

Last week, the Republicans congregated in Minnesota for their national convention.  McCain was saddled with the challenge of distancing himself from the deeply unpopular Bush, while not alienating Conservatives.  During his speech accepting the Republican nomination for President, McCain asserted "change is coming".  The McCain campaign realizes it must overcome a toxic political environment, so it must argue McCain will push for reform if he is elected President.  Thus, McCain is making the case he will bring change, but can he be believed?   What is the likelihood McCain will usher in much needed change when he has reliably voted for much of the Bush agenda, and hardly acknowledges the serious economic challenges facing the country?

The Republican convention was remarkable in at least one respect.  It plodded along seemingly oblivious to the worsening economic conditions in the country.  August was another bad month regarding employment with the unemployment rate edging up to 6.1%.   With the economy in a funk, the Republicans understandably didn't want to talk too much about the sagging economy.  So how is McCain planning to boost the economy if he wins the election?  I'm not sure he even knows, but I didn't get the impression the Republicans had a satisfying answer to the question.   Like an alcoholic who hasn't yet admitted he has a problem, the Republicans don't seem to be too alarmed about the shaky economy.  And if the Republicans are too blind to admit there is a serious problem, it stands to reason they won't be able to make things better.  Besides, the tired Republican leadership(and McCain) seem to think there is only one prescription for the economy regardless of what ails it and that is too further slash taxes.  I shouldn't have to tell anyone that more tax cuts don't make any sense when we are facing large budget deficits and are engaged in major military missions.  This is a road to nowhere that will further exacerbate the budget deficit, and put downward pressure on the dollar.  A better course in alleviating the current economic crisis would be to jump start the moribund economy by investing in the nation's infrastructure and committing more money to renewable energy sources.   During the next year or so, we will need a more active government that will extend unemployment benefits and increase funding for food stamps during rough economic times, and with McCain we will be stuck with another President obsessed with unwisely emptying the Federal treasury.

There is little doubt voters want change.  The McCain team understands that, so McCain is now positioning himself to be an agent for change just like Obama.   It was a bold stroke to pick little known Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, because it bolsters McCain's argument he is an agent for change.  Now that McCain has anointed himself the candidate for change, what change will he bring?  Here is where things get sticky.  McCain might give a tad more attention to the issue of global warming than Bush, but McCain isn't too serious about global warming given that he is pushing for more offshore drilling and picked a VP candidate who hasn't been bashful in showing her zeal to drill more.  McCain favors more tax cuts which isn't exactly revolutionary change.  And if McCain has seen anything to protest regarding Bush's reckless foreign policy, he isn't sharing.  One can't help but draw the conclusion McCain is being more than a bit disingenuous to portray himself as the man to change things, when his record in Congress reveals that he is a Senator who votes with his party much more reliably than a true maverick.

The growing angst in the populace necessitates that the Presidential candidates offer change.  McCain will spend the rest of the time before the election trying to convince Americans he will bring change to Washington.  Though it is possible McCain is suddenly committed to advancing change, it is more likely the change McCain will bring won't get much beyond his name not being Bush.

McCain's Odd Campaign

Leveraging a maverick image, John McCain somewhat surprisingly remains within striking distance of Barack Obama.  Though being able to stay close would suggest McCain is running a solid campaign, the campaign he is running is odd, and it doesn't have anything even remotely resembling an overarching theme.  McCain is as close as he is because of his past heroism and maybe because the media loves a tight contest.  It isn't because his candidacy makes sense or because he is running a world class campaign.

The selection of Sarah Palin as VP has generated excitement among hard core Conservatives.  Though it is undoubtedly important to energize a party's base so it dutifully comes out to vote, the choice of Palin is hard to fathom.  And it isn't simply because Palin is inexperienced.  There is a reason Conservatives adore Palin, and it isn't because she is a moderate.  So has McCain thrown any chance of winning the election away by choosing a right wing political neophyte, and in doing so jeopardizing his popularity with independents?   An important problem for McCain that was exposed during the nominating season is his shaky relationship with Social Conservatives.  Because of this, McCain obviously felt compelled to select a running mate that brings grins to the Republican faithful.  But at what price?  This election will be won by capturing independents and the apolitical, and it would seem McCain may have lost the middle while delighting the Republican base with this VP pick.

The Palin selection reeks of desperation.  It is a rather naked attempt to pluck media attention from Obama.  It is odd because it negates Obama's most obvious weakness.  How can McCain continue to attack Obama for his lack of experience when McCain chooses a VP candidate who possesses a very thin resume?  The other problem with the Palin selection is it is a blatantly political pick that overlooks the important need of a VP to be able to step in for the President if needed.  Though the electorate generally likes McCain, voters are understandably concerned because of McCain's advanced age.  Thus, it would have made sense for McCain to select a running mate who would be obviously ready to step in if something were to happen to McCain.  Despite the spin from Republicans, there is little doubt Sarah Palin is not at this moment ready to be President. 

It is clear Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate to bolster the case that McCain represents reform.  But beyond symbolism and a reputation as a maverick, the McCain plan is far closer to more of the same than a clean break from the Bush years.   McCain is advocating a continuation of Bush's tax cuts, which have helped to widen the budget deficit and have failed to produce a robust economy that works for the majority of Americans.  And though Iraq has happily taken a turn for the better, there is little doubt the US would have been far better off had the war never been launched, a fact McCain has failed to grasp.  After the military adventures of the Bush years, this country desperately needs a President who will look to find diplomatic solutions to international disputes, yet McCain instead seems poised to continue Bush's muscular and reckless foreign policy.  Though it is obvious to most the country needs to revamp its health care system, McCain's is proposing  a tax credit of up to $5,000 for individuals to purchase medical insurance, which is wholly inadequate.  The middle class is struggling and home foreclosures have risen dramatically, yet McCain hasn't talked much about the economy at all. For all the misguided hoopla about McCain representing reform, McCain's agenda, if it advocates reform at all, at best nibbles around the edges.

Though the media seems oblivious or indifferent, McCain has been waging a negative and nasty campaign.  The McCain campaign has been seemingly singularly interested in tarnishing Obama's image.  Instead of devoting considerable time to argue why he would be a better President, McCain has resorted to persistent attacks against Obama that while occasionally clever give the impression McCain would rather go negative than talk about substantive issues.  I don't think it is unfair to assert McCain is ducking issues, because he perceives that an election about issues is one he won't win.

Over the years, McCain has been described as a straight talker.  During this campaign, one wonders where that straight talk has disappeared to.  During the primary season, McCain supported the silly notion of a federal tax holiday for gasoline after the recent spike in gas prices.  This is gutless and shameful pandering.  Even worse, McCain recently threw his support behind repealing the ban on expanded offshore drilling.   This would suggest McCain isn't very serious about tackling global warming even if his rhetoric gives a different impression.  Even more troubling, McCain's campaign implied if the ban on more offshore drilling were repealed, gas prices would fall.  Though there isn't a scintilla of evidence to support this argument, this didn't stop McCain from linking the repeal of the ban on offshore drilling to lower gas prices.   Oh, it may be technically true the repeal of the ban would lower gas prices a tad, but most likely ten years from now.  Conservation and increased research into alternatives to fossil fuels is a far quicker route to lower prices than pursuing more drilling offshore.

McCain will presumably spend the rest of the campaign trying to convince voters he is a reasonable man aiming for a change of direction from the discredited Bush years.  It would be great if McCain seriously intended to move away from the incompetence, recklessness, and overreaching of the Bush years.   But there is scant reason to believe that is the case.

The VP Selections

After the summer doldrums that included the pageantry of the Olympic Games, we are now into September and the upcoming Presidential election looms.  After a wild primary season, the parties have settled on their candidates.  The Democrats have already held their convention last week, and this week the Republicans congregate up in Minnesota.  So let's delve into a short discussion of the VP selections.

Barack Obama has tapped longtime Delaware Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate.  Choosing the very experienced Biden probably won't hurt Obama, but it isn't a terribly exciting choice.  Having a reputation for being pugnacious, Biden should be able to hold his own in the one Vice Presidential Debate.  What is interesting about the Biden selection is that it is rather evident Biden has been picked to blunt the argument that Obama is too inexperienced, an argument that appeared to be gaining traction before the staging of the Democratic Convention.  The disadvantage in having Biden join the ticket is he has been in Washington seemingly forever which somewhat undercuts the central theme of Obama's campaign.   The Obama campaign obviously decided it was more important to add gravitas to the ticket than to accentuate the need for change.  If there had been some concern Obama represented radical change, picking Biden would seem to allay such fears.  Biden is a safe pick for VP  which makes sense given that Obama must feel he is the favorite to prevail in November.

While Obama's VP selection didn't surprise, the same can't be said about John McCain picking Sarah Palin, a little known Alaskan Governor.  At first glance, the Palin pick seems reckless and foolhardy especially given McCain's advanced age.  The obvious problem with the Palin selection is she most certainly isn't ready to be President regardless of what spin comes out of the McCain campaign.   Sarah Palin is in her first term as governor in a sparsely populated state.  This would suggest she hasn't spent much time thinking about world affairs.  That would seem to be a rather sticky problem, but McCain chose to overlook this glaring issue.   It seems to me the only reason McCain would throw caution to the wind and opt for a political neophyte like Palin is he felt compelled to shake the race up.   If McCain had tapped Romney or Pawlenty, the media would have reacted with ambivalence.  But by selecting the little known attractive woman governor of Alaska as his running mate, McCain's campaign has finally found a way to get media attention.  It would also be a safe bet to assume McCain wanted to counter the distaste voters have for the Republican Party by choosing a VP candidate far removed from the Washington scene and unaffiliated with the ineffective(and some would say corrupt) Republican leadership of recent years.  The other huge advantage Palin brings is she is adored by Social Conservatives.  Without Palin, McCain doesn't inspire much passion from Social Conservatives.  By joining forces with Palin, McCain has energized the Conservative base.  He also has injected some excitement into what otherwise would have been a rather stodgy campaign.  There might be some hope that by choosing a woman McCain may steal a few Hillary Clinton supporters, but Palin's strong anti-abortion stance would suggest she won't win too many converts. 

The Palin selection is a real throw of the dice by McCain.  Though it has successfully grabbed the attention of the media,  it might backfire big time.  On the one hand, Palin might skate through because of low expectations from the media, but she still will look woefully unprepared for the VP job as compared with the thirty five year veteran of the Washington wars, Joe Biden.  Maybe the media will treat Palin with kid gloves, but given her lack of true credentials the media won't be shy to point out an obvious gaffe.  It is pretty safe to say the Palin pick does reveal some insecurity within the McCain campaign.  The McCain team evidently concluded it couldn't win by playing it safe or doing the conventional thing.  In tapping Palin, McCain is trying to buttress his case he is running as a reformer.   The trouble is McCain's agenda that features muscular foreign policy and low taxes looks little different than the Bush agenda.

The VP selections now have been made.   Obama played it safe and picked Biden.  McCain made a more daring choice.  Interestingly, neither VP candidate hails from a major swing state.  Will Biden be an asset or will he be brought down by his tendency to be verbose?  Will Palin shine on the national stage or will she give the impression of being lost and not ready for the VP job?   These are among the many questions that will be answered in the next several weeks.