![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 3rd, 2008 09:49 pmI have been monitoring coverage of last night's VP debate here in the US. Yes, I have the debate on the TiVo but I have not cracked it open yet.
CNNs coverage of Undecided voters had them showing preference for Joe Biden. Lots of Democrats and a good number of Independants have stated they very much liked Biden's mastery of issues. Salon has lots of examples of this. Any time he was asked a question by moderator Ifill he answered it with a mastery of detail.
On the GOP side, the ones who have shown preference for Palin in almost every case seem to be saying she won it on personality. They approved of her folksy talk. David Brooks, known right-winger, was much happier with her but still critical. Peggy Noonan, on the other hand, has a severe girlcrush - not that I mind girlcrushes, but I thought the GOP preferred laws against them.
There's a few things I notice about Republicans. They like making their politics about personality and overwhelming attacks as a rule, using attacks, flagrant deliberate dishonesty and fear to win. If they spoke clearly about their issues they would get crushed in most states, which happened in a certain 2004 Senate race the GOP is still upset about.
I do not approve of many Democrats because I like their personalities, though to be honest I often do. I approve of many Democrats because I like how they stand on the issues.
Speaking of Peggy Noonan, I was listening to her on the radio today and had to shut it off after she spouted a rank falsehood. Specifically, she said that the reason for the current financial tsunami isn't the orgy of deregulation we've had in the past decade, including rules regarding who can be regulated and how much a bank needs in reserves; it was the regulation saying that banks had to provide service to the whole community, not just the rich parts.
I have at least one adult roomie who would splutter in initially-inarticulate rage at the suggestion, which is one reason she is not interested in being a politician. The regulation does not say the bank can't have standards, as the bank needs standards to stay in business. It just says that if a business is chartered in a community to serve a community, it should actually serve the whole community. This is akin to broadcast radio and television having certain community responsibilities in return for their licenses to operate - they have to serve the public interest at least a little.
If Peggy Noonan were correct those banks subject to those rules should have failed a few years into all of those bad loans, not around the time a mass of 30 year mortgages are due to be ritually burnt by homeowners who paid them faithfully for 360 months. I have studied economics a little and I also have a good idea of how long it takes to prove a law is bad when it is used a lot. In this instance she is, quite simply, either ignorant of how reality works or lying to provide cover for somebody.
I will watch the VP debate when the house is clear enough to do so. I will take each candidate on their merits.
More on this as I have time to write about it.
CNNs coverage of Undecided voters had them showing preference for Joe Biden. Lots of Democrats and a good number of Independants have stated they very much liked Biden's mastery of issues. Salon has lots of examples of this. Any time he was asked a question by moderator Ifill he answered it with a mastery of detail.
On the GOP side, the ones who have shown preference for Palin in almost every case seem to be saying she won it on personality. They approved of her folksy talk. David Brooks, known right-winger, was much happier with her but still critical. Peggy Noonan, on the other hand, has a severe girlcrush - not that I mind girlcrushes, but I thought the GOP preferred laws against them.
There's a few things I notice about Republicans. They like making their politics about personality and overwhelming attacks as a rule, using attacks, flagrant deliberate dishonesty and fear to win. If they spoke clearly about their issues they would get crushed in most states, which happened in a certain 2004 Senate race the GOP is still upset about.
I do not approve of many Democrats because I like their personalities, though to be honest I often do. I approve of many Democrats because I like how they stand on the issues.
Speaking of Peggy Noonan, I was listening to her on the radio today and had to shut it off after she spouted a rank falsehood. Specifically, she said that the reason for the current financial tsunami isn't the orgy of deregulation we've had in the past decade, including rules regarding who can be regulated and how much a bank needs in reserves; it was the regulation saying that banks had to provide service to the whole community, not just the rich parts.
I have at least one adult roomie who would splutter in initially-inarticulate rage at the suggestion, which is one reason she is not interested in being a politician. The regulation does not say the bank can't have standards, as the bank needs standards to stay in business. It just says that if a business is chartered in a community to serve a community, it should actually serve the whole community. This is akin to broadcast radio and television having certain community responsibilities in return for their licenses to operate - they have to serve the public interest at least a little.
If Peggy Noonan were correct those banks subject to those rules should have failed a few years into all of those bad loans, not around the time a mass of 30 year mortgages are due to be ritually burnt by homeowners who paid them faithfully for 360 months. I have studied economics a little and I also have a good idea of how long it takes to prove a law is bad when it is used a lot. In this instance she is, quite simply, either ignorant of how reality works or lying to provide cover for somebody.
I will watch the VP debate when the house is clear enough to do so. I will take each candidate on their merits.
More on this as I have time to write about it.
