Watching this Vice Presidential debate was definitely an eye-opener for the media. While Michelle Malkin and the right are ecstatic about her performance, I am actually surprised at what those in the MSM were saying. Watching CNN I saw a fair bit of shift in the opinions of many of the panelists on who Sarah Palin is. With the exception of Hillary Rosen, the angry Lesbian and leftist radical from the Huffington Post (how can you be balanced with a woman like her on your team?), it seems “the most trusted name in news” have turned their fire back to attacking John McCain following the realization that the Governor isn’t the bimbo they have been trying to paint her as for the last two weeks. I guess we can trust that John King at CNN is doing his best to balance the team out, but it really hurts their image when Paul Begala and Campbell Brown spin this and say that this doesn’t help, contrary to CNN viewer polls in which 84% said she exceeded their expectations.
UPDATE: It wasn’t just me who noticed CNN’s bias, but Megan McArdle over at The Atlantic pointed out that Soledad O’Brien doesn’t know how to count the audience vote. I don’t know Megan, this could be a side-effect of “drinking too much Kool-Aid” on Soledad’s part.
What about Joe Biden? My opinion is that he should have been the Democratic presidential nominee. The reason Barack Obama picked him is because of the strength he showed tonight, because he has the experience, the character, the integrity that “The One” doesn’t. This was more or less a flip on the Presidential Debate last Friday, in a placement of experience in the Democratic ticket rather then the Republican ticket, but Sarah Palin at least didn’t need the MSM to protect and shield criticism of her performance. While Biden was strong, I have to disagree with his points on the economy. I honestly don’t think he has done his research on that.
Firstly, what caught my eye was this idea of renegotiating the principle on a loan. For those who don’t understand this, it means that judges can change the amount owed by the person paying the loan. Sounds good in theory, but in practice it would be very damaging. If a bank is owed 100,000 from a number of loan recipients, and then they are renegotiated down to 50,000, that is 50,000 dollars a loan the bank loses. How can banks continue to operate when the debt they are in is deepened? This bailout package is to fix the mortgage crisis, to help financial institutions get back on their feet after having groups like ACORN force bad loans down their throats, to fix the mistakes of Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines of Fannie-Mae, and it seems the Obama campaign now wants to undo that. If what Biden said tonight is true (knowing his running mates ability to flip-flop), this hurts the economic situation, it creates an even greater problem. This could lead to the extreme case of loan forgiveness, something that would absolutely kill the financial market. In that situation, what bank or lending agency in its right mind would lend money knowing a judge could wipe away that loan with a simple ruling? Who are the economic advisers to that campaign, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? It just doesn’t make sense…
Next, this constant attack on business tax cuts by the Obama campaign is just stupid. We have seen his television advertisements which talk about the failures of the idea that “prosperity will tickle down” and that “we should stop giving tax cuts to businesses who send jobs overseas”, but this is all rhetoric, plain and simple. Firstly, prosperity DOES “trickle down” from the big companies to the working class, this isn’t up for debate, this is economic theory which has been tried and tested to the point where it is pretty much law in our minds. What does that mean? Well simply put, it all goes back to operating costs. I believe McCain pointed this out rather clearly in the previous debate, that the cost of running a business in America is too high. This also goes for “big business” who send jobs abroad. Ask yourself, why do American companies need to find workers elsewhere? It isn’t just unions driving up the cost of labour, but an unnaturally high corporate tax in America which forces companies to either higher less workers or find markets where labour is cheaper.
What does this say about Obama’s claim that we can’t give these companies tax breaks? I think it is clear that he is “putting the cart before the horse”, that these companies wouldn’t have to look elsewhere if they had tax cuts to help them operate competitively in the domestic market. If they can afford it, they will create jobs in America, but they haven’t been given the ability to do so. How can they even remain competitive in the market if they have to not only pay these high taxes, but also high wages to American workers? Is it a real surprise when they go to Mexico and set up a factory at almost half the cost? This is what was mentioned in the McCain advertisement “Overseas”, and I think people should really sit down and think about it. Tax cuts allow companies to hire domestically, this means more jobs for Americans, which means that prosperity DOES trickle down. This isn’t rocket science, and I think all those people touting the strength of the Obama campaign on the economy should really do their homework, especially on this issue.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt says it best in his blog entry this morning, that America needs tax cuts on business to “jump start a flat economy and invigorate employment”. I forgot to mention this in this entry last night, but this discussion of tax increases on anyone making $250,000 or more, including big business is going to cause problems. Yes, the middle class is going to feel the pinch, whether it be indirectly through the companies the majority of them work for, or directly as many small business owners earn over the “magic number” Obama and Biden are quoting. The thing is this, you don’t, and I repeat, DON’T raise taxes, especially when no one these days can afford to pay them. After their performance Monday, the Democrats pretty much eliminated all of “The One’s” campaign promises. The trillion dollar loss on Wall Street places many of the “Enron’s” (as Biden put them last night) into financial trouble, and any further pinch will force them to go overseas to find workers. It is no surprise that there has been steady job loss when Congress refuses to renew the Bush tax cuts which have created jobs for the last four years.
Finally, I would like to address this rhetoric about them “working for the middle class”. I don’t honestly know how they can do that when on Monday they sunk the economy to win political points. As I stated in my previous post, Destroying the economy to win votes, this was clearly a political move to better position Barack on the economy. Watching CNN’s post-debate panel, I will have to say that Begala and Brown completely missed the fact that it was McCain who went back to Washington to fix the economic crisis, that it was McCain who had warned about the mortgage collapse, and that it was Obama who let the bill fail on Monday through inaction, that it was Obama who decided to stay away while the economy suffered and that it was Obama who wanted to take a hands-off approach to this issue and “let Congress figure it out” (we have the quotes CNN, no matter which way you want to spin the facts). I don’t care if he predicted a change in the subprime lending rates in 2006 (especially since he helped get those high-risk borrowers loans during his time with ACORN) doesn’t help, that is three years too late as President Bush in 2003 wanted supervision of these big mortgage lenders, two years too late as House Republicans wanted to reign in Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac when they it was clear that there were problems in their practices, and one too late as McCain tried to solve the same problem in 2005 but was shut down by Democrats who said that nothing was wrong. You don’t get points for stating the obvious after the fact. This man stood with ACORN when these bad loans were being made and he stood with Fannie-Mae’s two former CEOs and took their money, so don’t tell me that he is somehow the answer to the country’s economic woes, he created many of them through inaction, ignorance and simple greed.
UPDATE: Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic put out an article on ACORN today. A very interesting read, I suggest you look into it. While I would disagree with his assertion that Obama isn’t directly connected to the radical organization, especially after reading NewsBusters.org’s Seton Motley’s research on the subject which ties the Senator on three different levels to ACORN, I do think he paints a good picture of the group and their practice to push from high-risk loans.
With all this said I will repeat that I think Joe Biden would have been the better Democratic Presidential nominee. A ticket with him and Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman (I like him, he is a strong bipartisan candidate) would have had much more credibility and integrity, and it would have been one that I could have backed, but now I see the mess the Democrats have themselves in and it isn’t Barack Obama they are relying on, but Joe Biden to win this election. While he has put his foot in his mouth regularly lately, I would say that he is by far the strongest person on that ticket, mainly because he doesn’t need “skin colour” or media bias to protect him from Republican critics like Barack does (I stand by Geraldine Ferraro’s statements), but I still think his statements on economic policy tonight were dead wrong. Joe, I like you, but you honestly need to educate yourself. Don’t simply parrot Obama’s misguided platform, provide a stance that your running mate can’t flip-flop on and stick to it, especially on the economy. If you don’t, don’t be surprised that when your ticket loses, he turns around and blames you for his own stupidity.
UPDATE: It seems the Wall Street Journal caught something the MSM didn’t, or maybe refused to. Obama’s statement on refusing Columbia a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was based on bogus information. Hot Air is also covering this story, reporting that what Barack said were distortions of the facts by Columbian union members. It an FTA was given to the country, it could also for thousands of new jobs in America… While it isn’t Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi or even Raila Odinga, it is certaintly another example of Obama’s lack of judgment.