The one thing McCain really did do tonight for himself is introduce the proposal he should be selling hard for the rest of the campaign — the plan, originally floated by Larry Lindsey, to reset rates of adjustable-rate mortgages at a lower housing valuation in order to keep people in their houses, prevent foreclosures, and help the housing market find its floor so that the securities pegged to them can be properly valued. Ordinarily this notion of interposing the government into already-signed private contracts would seem unthinkable, but we are in unthinkable territory, and the plan itself, conceived by conservative economists, has the advantage of being a core approach instead of an ancillary approach.
Now McCain has to sell it. If he can. At least it gives him something to talk about.
Wilson kept us out of war.
FDR was going to balance the budget, and then maintain neutrality.
W was against nation-building and for a modest foreign policy.
Nothing new here.
And GHW Bush promised no new taxes, the thing is that at least the Bushes can claim: “circumstances changed,”
Heck, even Wilson has to be credited with Clintonian nuance, after all up to Nov. 1916, he had kept us out of war… And FDR, sure seemed enthused about raising taxes, I think the thing about Obama is that it seems very doubtful that he in any way ever intended to keep his campaign pledges. This is a magical level of cynicism.
jennifer’s last sentence is the most important…
…but it is remarkable that it is (far) harder to find the campaign commitments that obama has honored than the one’s he’s tossed under the bus…
…that doesn’t make the man a cynic or dishonest but it surely calls into question the honesty and cynicism of the folks who swore he was the very antithesis of W
#1, I’m pretty sure if 9/11 didn’t happen, Bush would not have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, 9/11 doesn’t exist in the minds of the Left.
On to my comment with the post. People must learn that when politicians promise something it must always be taken with a grain of salt. However, this is even more true for Democratic politicians who NEVER run as their true selves. They always will hide their true intentions or true beliefs in order to be elected and then when they get in office will become something else entirely. Case in point:
“”This is fun for the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign,” President Obama said during his Transition in early December, when a reporter asked him about criticisms he and now-Secretary of State Clinton had made about each other’s foreign policy views.
“They’re your quotes, sir,” said the reporter, Peter Baker of the New York Times.
“No, I understand. And you’re having fun,” Obama continued. “And there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not faulting it.” ”
Clinton couldn’t have done it any better.
Three cheers for hypocrisy! During the primaries, I was cheering for Hillary, because we’d be better off with the practical pol, rather than the Lefty, Obama. Phew! Obama’s a practical pol too.
It is not just the hypocrisy of the Politicians.
Listening to Special Report on FNC this evening with the panel and their attitude specifically toward his campaign statement on NAFTA vs his assurances to Canada today was —ho hum.
Rich Lowery, self proclaimed voice of Conservatism (Eastern elite branch), said he admired the cold bloodedness that Obama demonstrated by saying whatever it took to get elected. Krauthammer shrugged it off as “campaign rhetoric”. Mara Liasson actually came the closest to expressing criticism.
No wonder politicians lie when everyone excuses it as “campaign rhetoric”.
GOM misses the point Jennifer was making. I will repeat it: “It is not the hypocrisy that is so grating, so much as the sanctimoniousness.” Neither Wilson, FDR or W made such a goddam fetish about how different they were than every other politicians that walked the face of the earth. No, only one guy did that, and so there is something new here, contrary to GOM.
I think we can pretty generally figure that anything a politician says during primaries that is then contradicted by something else he says during primaries is indeed meaningless.
Obama’s campaign b.s. re. redoing NAFTA was widely reported at the time but no journalist ever questioned him or his staff on the particulars of what would have been, and is, a major policy shift. It’s easy to get away with that sort of thing when the fourth estate treats you like teen-age girls treated Paul McCartney.
You guys have to be kidding! How can you write “Well, we could at least give up the pretense of there even being any New Politics?”
Ever hear of Ecclesiastes? How ’bout Shakespeare?
This whole thing is such a delightful con that I don’t really know who to thank for the entertainment. Certainly not the O’ster. He’s so obviously NOT the one calling the shots that ordinarily one might wonder who was, but it’s so much fun that who cares?
#10: You’re right, in that this is the most insane time I’ve experienced since the “end of the world” days of the late 60s.
But the problem is that Obama and his buddies are going to actually DESTROY our economy and our republic.
I think that’s taking a joke a bit too far.
Our social compact:
The politicians agree to lie
The voters agree to be lied to