So far, the RNC hasn't asked for our assessment of yesterday's electoral defeat. Not that we expect it; from what we hear, the jockeying and back-biting has already begun; more urgent tasks--including a critical analysis of what went wrong and what should be done to re-build the party--will have to wait.
Toward that latter goal, we humbly offer our take on John McCain's defeat, and where the party should go from here. The good news is that conservatism is far from finished; in fact, where it actually appeared on the ballot, it flourished. Voters in California, Arizona and Florida approved referendums that banned gay marriage.
That's right, a majority in California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, rebuked liberal judges who had flaunted state law, and allowed gay couples to tie the knot. Did we mention that the leaders of Proposition 8 were mostly church pastors and other grass roots organizers? Or that supporters of gay marriage (including Hollywood) spent millions against the initiative? In the bluest of states, conservatives took on the liberal establishment and won.
Continued on Page 49
#1
"Never Nominate Another Inarticulate Candidate. ... Why does it matter? Because in an age of soundbites and an ill-educated electorate, coherence on the campaign trail is equated with competence as a leader."
I don't care how unfair you think this is.
I don't care how tawdry, unseemly, or grotesque, or any other word you choose to insert, you think this is.
Nothing - nothing! - is more important to the return to positions of power for conservatives than this concept.
Bush had the opportunity in his eight years to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to redefine politics for the next generation but couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag.
In an age of mass media, GOOD IDEAS AREN'T ENOUGH. Don't decry it. Get over it. It will be many generations before the human race evolves to be able to deal with the dangers of disinformation by mass media, if ever.
Get candidates who can use mass media and connect, or continue losing.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/06/2008 20:14 Comments ||
Top||
Christopher Beam, Slate Slate is not exactly friendly to conservatives, but I think this guy's advice is spot-on, so I've restrained myself to one minor bit of snark.
. . . as her former running mate would say, the fundamentals of Sarah Palin are strong. Her conservative detractorsColin Powell, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley among themwere put off not by her personality but rather by the fact that she didn't have an Ivy League degree and she had all those kids and she's just so freakin' normal like those blasted peasants in flyover country and besides all the other cool kids hate her too, and one wouldn't want to be uncool or stand out from the crowd her lack of knowledge about certain national and foreign-policy issues. Such deficiencies can be addressed easily. Meanwhile, to use another McCainism, Palin was a surge for the ticket. Rally attendance skyrocketed. Approval ratings went up. Palin's convention speech attracted more viewers than Obama's. "I'll take it," said McCain adviser Mark Salter, looking back.
Moreover, those who called Palin an embarrassment fail to consider the alternatives. If McCain had picked Mitt Romney, the narrative would have been how much they hated each other; (Well, that and the fact that Romney's a good guy but he's about as exciting as semi-gloss interior latex.)
Tim Pawlenty, and crowds would have remained in the low hundreds. (Again, a good guy, but not a thriller.)
"If we picked [Joe] Lieberman, that convention would have been a disaster," says McCain spokesman and blogger Michael Goldfarb. (It would have, shall we say, failed to engage the base.)
Once these alternate-reality scenarios become clear, aides say, Palin's candidacy will look better.
And anyhow, four years is plenty of time. Remember that Palin had all of two days' notice (if that) about her nomination, and less than a month to prepare for her first debate. Even the best politicians have trouble shifting gears that fast. "Take John McCain and put him into the last 60 days of a governor's race in Alaska," says Republican strategist Stuart Stevens. "He wouldn't know the nuances of the North Slope vs. the suburbs of Anchorage."
From that perspective, Palin's unpreparedness wasn't her faultif she really thought she was ready to be commander in chief, she could have run in the primaries. (Then again, she accepted McCain's offer.) Over the next four years, though, she'll have plenty of time to bone up on Russo-Georgian relations, missile defense, and her least favorite Supreme Court decisions.
But the best thing Palin can do is go home and get back to work. Stevens calls it the Hillary Clinton model: Take a big personality, dial it back, and roll up your sleeves. That means tackling Alaska-specific issuessee through to completion the pipeline she has been championing; fix the ailing state budget; and introduce other energy initiatives. Some suggest she might run for Senate once Republican Lisa Murkowski's term is up in 2010, or in a special election if Ted Stevens gets booted from the Senate in 2009. But she's probably better off running for re-election as governor in 2010, says Stuart Stevens (no relation to Ted). "If she's a wildly successful governor, she can claim credit for what she does, instead of being one of 100."
None of this will happen in a vacuum. Over the next four years, Palin will get more national scrutiny than any Alaska governor ever has. (She's already received more invitations to appear on SNL than any sitting governor.) Her best strategy may be to ignore it all and focus on the mundane, essential, and below-freezing details of her home state.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/06/2008 12:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Palin made it palatable for many Republicans to pull the R lever instead of just voting against Obama. McCain was the Republican that the independents and crossover Dems picked to run against. He never appealed to the base that he had made a career of opposing.
I would vote for Sarah Palin for president before I would vote for almost any of the Republicans and Democrats on the national stage.
#5
In June I disliked McCain (campaign finance, borders, etc.) and was very impressed by Palin (yes, in June) though I did not think she was ready for prime time.
Two years ago I thought Obama was a rising star, not ready for prime time, but he seemed like a reasonable guy, for a Democrat. Biden always seemed like a loser.
As the campaign progressed I quickly becamse concerned about Obama - too little substance and too much unknown about whoever's hand was up his butt moving his mouth. Biden unchanged.
More and more impressed with McCain - I think he always did what he thought was best for the USA, not what might be best for John McCain, and that is a rarity in politics. Not a good campaigner, and 'damaged goods' from years of real activity in the Senate, and maybe not real bright, but an ok pick.
Palin is a real quick study. A lot brighter than given any credit for (so is Bush, in his own way). So far seems reasonably honest for a politician, and to have that killer instinct McCain lacks. And a fantastic speaker - far better than the much-vaunted Obama when off teleprompter.
The next Republican candidate has to be free of scandal. She has to be able to convince people that her personal beliefs are separate from her professional practice (a big problem for Bush) in this secular humanist society. And she has to assemble a concise, clear alternative program for addrssing the key issues in national politics (like the Contract for America). No small order, but that's what it is going to take.
#6
I too am predisposed to support Palin in the future. But the advice here, as Mike notes, is good. Prepare. Do a good job as governor. Learn the issues. Find ways to remain visible without being obnoxious or cloying. Help Republicans in other states and build up some political IOUs. Become a leader in the National Governors Association. Continue being bipartisan without forsaking the base.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/06/2008 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
She should stay in Alaska and be governor. At least if these media assholes wanna do another hit piece on her, they'll have to go up there and freeze their asses off
#9
Her conservative detractorsColin Powell, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley among them
Except that Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, at least are neither Republican nor Conservative. General Powell, ret'd, is a political opportunist who'd apparently been quietly talking to Barack Obama since he left the State Department, and young Mr. Buckley is no more than a dinner party raconteur cruising on his father's coattails. I'm more Republican/Conservative than either one, and I freely admit to being ideologically neither R nor C.
The 2010 election will be very interesting,especially if there really are as many military retirements as is being speculated. Warmongers of America, unite! ;-)
#12
and Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, David Brooks, David Frum, and George Will can bite my ass. They are neither conservatives nor conservative supporters and I will not read nor distribute their fifth-column pablum. F*ck em
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/06/2008 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Her conservative detractorsColin Powell, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley among them
Not a true conservative among them. Sarah, I wouldn't worry too much about these pseudo conservatives. Powell ended up endorsing BO. Chris Buckley is not his dad and ended up writing an article about why he was voting for BO. Brooks works for the NYTs-enough said.
#16
OS is right. Moreover, any stupid son of a bitch who tries to lay this loss on Palin deserves a kick right in the balls. Palin is the ONLY reason there aren't twenty more Dems in the house and a 60+ Dem Senate.
McCain represented Republicans only slightly better than Obama did. It was PALIN who got the base excited and who gave the Trunks what little chance they had of winning. BTW, this election was lost because REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME.
Check the figures. The ONLY thing that got Republicans enthused this year was Palin. Without her it would have been the huge blowout all the Dems/MSM were hoping for.
Anyone blaming this on Palin would be wise to keep that opinion quiet in my presence.
#17
BTW, this election was lost because REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME.
I can't agree. While some did stay home, Obama was able to get a higher total vote than Bush in 2004. With 12 million more citizens, turnout was:
2004: 122 million, Bush 62 million, Kerry 59 million
2008: 123 million, Obama 65 million, McCain 57 million
The Dems were able to sway more female voters to their side. In addition, black and hispanic voter turnout increased significantly and were even more lopsided for Obama (95% B, 66% H)
Posted by: ed ||
11/06/2008 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
Obama Barack has been democratically elected President of the US. Quite an about face for the best democracy money can buy, in view of the Bush presidential se-lection.
But of course, corruption, collusion and nepotism is the sole monopoly of the Third World - or so the deluded denizens of the West repeat to themselves as they hug their knees, rocking back and forth - reminding themselves of how they uphold human rights equally across the board, entirely devoid of double-standards and totally oblivious to race, creed or religion.
Barrak Hussein Obama II was born to a white American Ann Dunhma and Kenyan Barrak Hussein Obama Snr, in Nyang'oma Kogelo now in Kenya.
Here the Indonesian link starts.
Ann Dunham married in 1967 Lolo Soetoro, a Javanese, whose own father, in 1946 was killed along with his eldest brother were killed, after which the Dutch army burned down the family's home. Soetoro fled with his mother into the countryside to survive.
Pak Lolo Soetoro was an army geologist then later a government relations consultant or Mobil Oil. Obama describes Soetoro as well-mannered, even-tempered, and easy with people
Barry Soetoro in Indonesia with mother Ann Dunham and step-father Lolo Soetoro.
From age 6 to 10, Obama lived in Jakarta. Age six, Obama attended the Catholic Primary St Francis di Assisi. Much was made of the lie he was educated in a Madrassa - or more accurately a pesantren - this of course was totally untrue. Obama Jnr later attended Model Primary School, Menteng and was registered as a Muslim - as his father was Muslim.
In Obama's own words:
In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. My mother wasn't overly concerned. 'Be respectful,' she'd say. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words.
One of "Berry's" childhood friends was Adi who often visited "Berry's" 16 Jalan Haji Ramli house. Speaking volumes of Dutch "development" at the time the road was of this established middle-class neighbourhood was a dirt lane where Obama used to wile away the hours kicking a soccer ball.
Adi recalled Obama and his friends wore plastic bags over their shoes to walk through the muddy street during the rainy seasons.
Neighborhood Muslims worshiped in a nearby house, which has since been replaced by a larger mosque. Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together, Adi said.
His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque," Adi said. "I remember him wearing a sarong."
Obama spent most his spare time hanging out with Adi and other friends at the home of Yunaldi Askiar, a classmate. They used to play a kind of fencing game using sticks, kick a ball up and down the narrow dirt lanes or go swimming in the river behind the school, said Askiar, 42, a car mechanic.
Obama was taller and better dressed than most kids in classes where shoes and socks were still luxuries, so he stood out from the start. As an African American, and the only foreigner, he suffered racial taunts and teasing but never turned to violence.
"At first, everybody felt it was weird to have him here," Israella Dharmawan, his first grade teacher said. "But also they were curious about him, so wherever he went, the kids were following him."
His friends enjoyed playing tricks on Berry: Harmon ASki recalled, "Sometimes we'd say, 'Barry, do you want a chocolate?' And we'd give him a chocolate. The next day we'd give him a chocolate again. The third time we'd give him terasi (fermented shrimp paste) wrapped up like chocolate. Obama didn't get mad. He would laugh it off."
Ann Soetoro moved to Yogyakarta, while Obama Jnr studied in Jakarta. She was inspired by Jogja village industries, which became the basis of her 1992 doctoral dissertation. "She loved living in Java," said Dr. Dewey, who recalled accompanying Ms. Soetoro to a metalworking village. "People said: 'Hi! How are you?' She said: 'How's your wife? Did your daughter have the baby?' They were friends. Then she'd whip out her notebook and she'd say: 'How many of you have electricity? Are you having trouble getting iron?' "
Dunham-Soetoro became a consultant for the United States Agency for International Development on setting up a village credit program, then a Ford Foundation program officer in Jakarta specializing in women's work. Later, she was a consultant in Pakistan, then joined Indonesia's oldest bank to work on what is described as the world's largest sustainable microfinance program, creating services like credit and savings for the poor.
Obama in Hawaii with mother and maternal grand-father, shortly after leaving Indonesia.
In his tellingly-titled Memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his Indonesian interlude as "one long adventure, the bounty of a young boy's life". But he also recalls being troubled by the poverty around him: "the empty look on the faces of farmers the year the rains never came," and the desperation of the disabled beggars who came to the family's door.
"The world was violent, I was learning, unpredictable and often cruel," he writes. Obama and his mother thus we were very well acquainted with the harsh realities of indigenous Indonesians.
Fermina Katarina Sinaga, recalled yojhng Obama in her class: in the common task of class to write an essay titled "My dream: What I want to be in the future." Obama "wrote 'I want to be a president,' " she said. During a later writing assignment on family, he wrote, "My father is my idol.
The Indonesian connection for Obama and all that shaped him proving once again all things Javanese and indigenous Indonesian the bedrock for the towering monuments built on the foundations of a great civilisation.
#6
I've been kind of steamed up about this for a while. The Birth Certificate he came up with is supposed to be a fake, and a poor fake at that says several forensic document inspectors. The ex-attorney general of pennsylvania filed a suit in federal court and it was just tossed out because he didn't have 'standing'? Judge said he couldn't show that it impacted him personally or something. So it was dodged on a technicality, no real resolution. They aren't going to swear him in if he's not a natural born citizen are they?
Or are they?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2008 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Constitution requires that to be eligible to be President of the U.S. a person must be a "natural born citizen." Does anyone really check for this requirement. There are more requirements to be a teacher or policeman.
#9
Birth certificate alongside statements by Hawaii officials that it's real: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Hawaii newspaper announcements about the birth of bouncing baby boy Barack: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
If this is a conspiracy it must have started at the very day of Obama's birth, it seems.
Is anyone surprised. The 'old guard' is what has been wrong with the republican party over the past several years. They lost big time in '06 - but just kept the same old leadershit - now they lost again in '08. And its looking to me like the 'old guard' is looking to still keep the same old broken team and flush any new blood.
Yeah, you anonymous McCain staffers. Sarah Palin is why your guy lost. Uh-huh.
Of course we believe you. It follows a well-established history.
Clearly, Americans were itching to sign on to for the hard-minded, resolute decisiveness of John Kerry and the concept of the "global test", but in the end they decided they couldn't abide John Edwards.
Clearly, Joe Lieberman was what held back the vibrant, down-to-earth and soulful Al Gore, particularly in Florida.
Clearly, Jack Kemp impeded the creative, fresh, and dynamic Bob Dole campaign in 1996.
But for Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush would have won a second term in 1992; the elder Bush had both Clinton and Perot on the ropes throughout that campaign until the potato gaffe.
And clearly, Lloyd Bentsen loused up the otherwise sure-fire victory of Michael Dukakis; if only his debate performance had been stronger.
And Joe Biden was the one carrying Obama to 349 electoral votes.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
You missed a couple, Jim: don't forget how Ginny Ferraro undermined the Mondale juggernaut in '84, or how Fritz himself threw the '80 election to Reagan!
Posted by: Mike ||
11/06/2008 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Alanc, see my comment on the "No One Asked Us, But... " thread under Opinion.
Just as the father missed the opportunity to do to socialism what Truman did to fascism after WWII, so too has W missed the opportunity to do in the multi-culti, cultural Marxist, cult of diversity left after 9/11.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/06/2008 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
it aint the left - its the McCain staffers. Bastards, every one of them.
The incoming US president, Barack Obama, has suggested in an interview that he might consider sending former president Bill Clinton as a special envoy to India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. He conceded that it was a diplomatic trap, yet wanted to devote serious diplomatic resources to send a special envoy. The purpose was to make the argument to us Indians that we are on the verge of becoming an economic superpower and it does not help us to keep the Kashmir issue burning. And, to ask Pakistanis why they would want to remain bogged down by Kashmir, particularly at a time when their biggest threat was coming from the Afghan border.
Bambi really is naïve, isn't he ...
The president-elect could not have selected a worse moment to air these thoughts.
Sure he could have, at least for him: last month, for example ...
Kashmir is due to go in for elections in the next few weeks. Such a suggestion will come in handy for secessionist elements.
It will compel the Indian government to declare that no special envoy will be acceptable. It will be difficult for Bill Clinton, who is popular and has a lot of friends in India, to come to this country as a special envoy without being greeted by demonstrators with black flags. When President Clinton offered to mediate in the Kargil war, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee politely declined.
Obviously, Obama had not been adequately briefed on the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Clinton years.
He hasn't been briefed about a lot of things, and he wasn't attending in the Senate often enough to hear what he needed to know. Then again, he has a 'team of 300 crack advisors on foreign policy', we're told. I guess no one got the Kashmir desk.
Otherwise he would not have missed that the Taliban was established by the Benazir Bhutto's government, with the help of the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) during 1994 when Clinton was in office. His administration tried to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban. Osama bin Laden came back to Afghanistan and hatched the 9/11 plot under Clinton's watch.
Don't expect the Dhimmicrats to remember any of that ...
As the Pakistanis point out, the jihadis were a joint creation of the CIA, the Saudis and the ISI. The present threat to Pakistan on its western border is an outcome of this joint blunder.
Don't expect the Dhimmicrats to remember any of that, either ...
India and Pakistan already have a no-war pact under the Simla agreement and there is a composite peace process going on between the two countries. Largely due to Indian initiative, cross-border trade has been initiated. All these steps have been taken without any third party help. Unlike Iran, Cuba and North Korea, India has never taken a stand against directly talking to another country with which it has problems.
Don't worry, Bambi wants to talk with everyone, he told us so ...
One of the problems that India may have to face at the start of the Obama administration is the likely return of many former officials tainted by the cultivation of jihadi forces, who are tolerant towards the Taliban and permissive of the China-Pakistan nuclear proliferation axis. While Obama himself may have a tough line towards the mixing of faith and politics, many of the traditional Democratic party ex-diplomats, ex-militarymen and ex-intelligence officials may not be able to shun the cronyism they have indulged in with their Pakistani Counterparts.
There is a history there, isn't there. Bambi could easily un-do all the good work George Bush has done to cultivate the Indians. Instead we'll cultivate the waki-Pakis. Bambi then will be at a loss when Pak-land goes kaboom and drags down Afghanistan with it.
This is likely to prove to be an albatross around Obama's neck in dealing with the Afghanistan-Pakistan issue. General Petraeus has been entrusted with formulating a new surge strategy for Afghanistan as the new chief of the central command. He has assembled a team of American, Pakistani and Afghan specialists. It will be useful to invite him for a comprehensive briefing to New Delhi.
This will provide Prime Minister Manmohan Singh an opportunity to prove that the Indo-US nuclear deal will not compromise India's strategic autonomy. Obama is a flexible intellectual with an acute sense of pragmatism.
So we're told, but we haven't seen the latter yet ...
Under the influence of non-proliferation ayatollahs during the deliberations on the Indo-US nuclear cooperation legislation, he did move a killer amendment. When he was outvoted, he went along with the majority and voted in favour of the Bill. Similarly, in this case it has to be explained to him that Pakistan's claim to Kashmir is based on the jihadi philosophy. His suggestion will only result in Pakistan continuing to evade its responsibility to act against both the Afghan and Pakistani sections of the Taliban.
The writer is a Delhi-based strategic affairs analyst.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/06/2008 15:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, I mean it, man. I mean, where else can Michelle get those swell sweaters?
Oh. It's not? Y'all be cool. Change. Hope. Peace out.
Posted by: Barry O. ||
11/06/2008 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This will provide Prime Minister Manmohan Singh an opportunity to prove that the Indo-US nuclear deal will not compromise India's strategic autonomy. Obama is a flexible intellectual with an acute sense of pragmatism.
How does the author know this? It's not as if Obama has an actual _record_ or anything. His _record_ will start in January.
#3
Tell India that the US will put every bit of pressure possible into getting them a permanent seat on the security council but that is not possible with the Kashmir problem ongoing (one of the UN's first crisis along with Palestine/Israel).
Then let India provide some options and see if anything seems remotely workable.
7. India will have no special reasons to be concerned over the possibility of any of the persons mentioned by Independent joining the Cabinet, except possibly Holbrooke, whose taking-over as the Secretary of State could lead to a re-hyphenation of Indo-Pakistan relations, bringing back the hyphen, which had been removed by President George Bush and his Secretary of State Condolleeza Rice.
8. Another person of concern to India would be Madeleine Albright, who was Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. Though Independent did not mention her, she was reportedly a member of the inner circle which was advising Obama on foreign policy matters during the campaign.
9. India will also put a question mark on Colin Powell, who was particularly not well disposed towards India during the first term of Bush when Powell was the Secretary of State. It was only after he was replaced by Rice as the Secretary of State that Indo-US relations really started moving forward with many initiatives to acknowledge the importance of India as a major power on par with China. Concerns over Pakistani sensitivities ceased to be an inhibiting factor in US policy-making with regard to India. Zinni is an unknown quantity in India. He has many friends in Pakistans Armed Forces.
...
13. But as the campaign reached its culmination, he started speaking of the Kashmir issue in a language, which reminded one of the language of the past from the officials of the Clinton Administration. Obamas entourage and Gen. David H.Petraeus, former Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, who took over as the Commander of the US Central Command on October 31 and is presently on a visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan, have one thing in common---- they listen a lot to the assessments and recommendations of Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistani analyst, who has written extensively on the Taliban and the war against terrorism. In fact, Petraeus has reportedly nominated Ahmed Rashid and Shuja Nawaz, the author of the recently published book on the Pakistan Army called Crossed Swords, as members of a brains trust to advise him on a new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.
14. Ahmed Rashid has been arguing for some months now that the Pakistan Army cannot be expected to co-operate wholeheartedly with the US Armed Forces in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban unless there is a forward movement in settling the Kashmir issue and India is pressured to cut down its presence in Afghanistan. There were not many takers for his arguments in the Bush Administration. But they have already started influencing the thinking of many who are close to Obama.
15. Will he exercise pressure on India on the Kashmir issue and its role in Afghanistan after he takes over or will he let his pre-election remarks remain without follow up action? This is a question which should worry Indian policy-makers.
...
19. Barring John F.Kennedy, other Democratic Presidents were not very positive towards India. They always thought of India tactically and not strategically. Many major initiatives towards India came from Republican Presidents, who held office after Richard Nixon, whose dislike of India---- and particularly Indira Gandhi--- was well-known. There was a new page in Indo-US relations under Bush. This was facilitated by the decline in the influence of some Washington-based think tanks and their academics on policy-making. With the return of a Democrat to the White House, these old academic warriors are already coming out of their eight-year-long hibernation and will try to influence the new President in his thinking and policies. Their views are no different from those of the like of Ahmed Rashid.
20. We should not hesitate to make it clear to the new administration that while we are as keen as before to strengthen our strategic relations with the US, this cannot be at the expense of our vital national interests in matters like Kashmir and Afghanistan.
The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies
Posted by: john frum ||
11/06/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Great, another Iraeli/Paleostain situation that 'warrants' our intervention.
#2
Perhaps, after Obama has lowered the oceans and healed the planet, he can reunite Gondwanaland. Then we can all sit around in a big-ass circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Or maybe that John Lennon song. "Imagine there's no hyphens..."
#3
We should not hesitate to make it clear to the new administration that while we are as keen as before to strengthen our strategic relations with the US, this cannot be at the expense of our vital national interests
In the Leninist Soviet Union, one line from Karl Marx was exceedingly unpopular: he predicted that socialism would take over the capitalist societies without the need for a revolution, so cherished by Leninists. Sadly, the history vindicates Marx.
Socialism signaled the end of many empires. Ancient Rome went down amid distribution of free grain and show tickets, and inflation. Europe, too old to bear itself, is to all practical purposes a socialist entity. Though the factories are not technically nationalized, they belong to myriad of investors, effectively the entire nation. Since the second Roosevelt, the United States also progressed down the road to serfdom. But the current nationalization of banks still came as a shock.
The bailout was completely unnecessary. In the similar circumstances, earlier governments imposed bank holidays. This administration, too, could impose moratorium on large withdrawals. Small depositors would be unaffected and the sharks who had profited from the junk mortgage boom will be duly punished.
Small investors as a group suffered comparable losses in the dot-com debacle, and the dot-com industry is more important for the American competitiveness than the subprime mortgage casino, but no one thought of bailing out the dot-com investors. In the current crisis, many other companies besides banks are doomed, and bailing out all of them is unrealistic.
A trillion-dollar bailout cannot possibly be helping the working Americans: they just don't hold that much in the affected bank and 401k pension accounts. By far, most of the government loans reimburse the investor sharks, including foreign ones. Why did the banks fail across the world? The only reason is that large investors fled mortgage markets, cached and withdrew their investments. Laden with CMO (collateralized mortgage obligations) investments, the banks appeared short on cash; well, don't speculate.
It is unrealistic to expect that the trillion dollars would save American banks. In the S&L default twenty years ago, the total cost of bailout exceeded original estimates by several times. American taxpayers will be left to repay trillions of dollars the administration borrows to cover the speculators' losses.
The moral dimension got lost in the bailout discourse, but realize how evil it is to tax the working class for the affair which led to manifold increase in their mortgage payments. The sharks created the real estate bubble which pushed up house prices and consequently mortgage payments. For years, working class was paying the inflated mortgages obediently while the investors realized staggering profits -- and now will compensate the investors for their losses which are actually only lost profits. Banks milked consumers, earned outrageous profits for their investors, and now consumers has to bail them out without even an attempt to charge back the fraudulent profits. Regardless of economic feasibility, the moral dimension should come first.
But there is no economic feasibility, either. Speculators withdraw large money from the real estate bubble to create other bubbles: in grain, oil, etc, further destabilizing the economy. Not only taxpayers bail out the sharks, but they also suffer from the resulting increase in food and gas prices.
The government claims that if it allows the mortgage industry to fail, common Americans won't be able to buy houses. What nonsense. If the people of moderate means are of any concern to the government, house prices must be allowed to fall to their 1995 level -- that is, three to five times. The return of house prices back to the pre-bubble levels is not only economically imperative, but also socially a must.
#3
There is a whole lot of debt in the world which can not be repaid. It must either be written off or inflated away. Either way the ultimate loser is the one who had saved up (invested) his excess productivity rather than consuming it some way. NO investments can be totally safe - either you'll lose to inflation, or to taxes, or to 'nationalization', or... the end result is the money can only come from those who have it.
#4
WORLD FORUM POSTER [China/paraph = Chinglish translation] > USA IS FACING US$1.0TRILLION NATIONAL DEFICIT PLUS USDOD US$600.0BILYUHN BUDGET PLUS COMPANY-INDUSTRY BAILOUTS PLUS MULTI-STATE DEFICITS AND STATES WELFARISM WHICH IT CANNOT OR IS HARD-PRESSED TO PAY FOR. PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA SHOULD JUST HAVE USA ADOPT COMMUNISM AND BE DONE WITH IT!
* ALso from SAME > POSTERS - US WON THE COLD WAR AGZ THE USSR BUT LOST THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM SOCIALISM;
#5
RUMORMILLNEWS > VOICE OF RUSSIA RADIO = claims RUSSIA HAS ENOUGH GOLD RESERVES EQUAL TO THE IMF [approxi 3000 = 30,000-plus Tonnes]!? Russia allegedly is also desirous of setting up a NEW RUSSO-EUROPE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ARRANGEMENT AND AGREEMENT, + NEW MOSCOW-BASED FINANCIAL-ECON HUB [read, anti-US]???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
. . . as her former running mate would say, the fundamentals of Sarah Palin are strong. Her conservative detractorsColin Powell, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley among themwere put off not by her personality but rather by 
McCain (Charlie Brown) reached across the aisle and got Obama's (Lucy) assurance he would use public campaign matching funds.
