Sunday, October 19, 2008
McCain in North Carolina and Virginia
On Saturday, Barack Obama drew an estimated 100,000 supporters at the Gateway Arch in St. Louis Missouri. Meanwhile, John McCain campaigned in North Carolina and Virginia; both traditionally Republican states but currently classified as "swing states". While McCain drew fewer crowds (around 7,000 in N.C.), he gave his opponent no mercy. McCain criticized Obama's tax plan, calling it "socialism" and declared that under an Obama administration the IRS will be turned into "a giant welfare agency". In just over two weeks we will see whether the "Bradley Effect" will decide the winner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It's interesting how typically "Democratic" or "Republican" states are becoming swing states. This election is a big event in our history. When it's over we may even have different defenitions of what a democrat or republican is according to some groups. It may be a start of new trends in voting among states.
You make a good point, Kelly. If McCain loses, how will the Republicans seek to rebrand what their party is all about. Though if Obama loses, the Dems might just throw their hands in the air and give up!
I believe that the definitions of Republican and Democrat will change after this election because the parties are now faced with issues that haven't always been as important or viewed the same as they are now. For instance energy conservation and offshore drilling are more relevant now than they ever have been. And after being in Iraq and Afghanistan for so long without results, many Republicans are becoming upset and have a more "Democratic" outlook on the war. I think that after this election the term Republican will become more liberal than it is now.
bdaws said: "I think that after this election the term Republican will become more liberal than it is now." I disagree, I think that the republican party will have to pursue a free market philosophy in order to have a chance at recovering the legislature and presidency. The Republican party has, in recent years, abandoned a policy of limited government eroding trust with many voters. There is a reason that Reagan was so popular.
"I think that the republican party will have to pursue a free market philosophy in order to have a chance at recovering the legislature and presidency."
How did we get into the subprime mortgage crisis in the first place? Lack of oversight and an aura of free market speculation pushed by Pres. Bush and former Fed chief Greenspan. Bush had to freeze credit because the risk of financial failure was too great. Conversely, the belief that the "market will fix itself" is untimely given the situation the economy is in now.
The question can be posed though, would McCain have been better off opposing the bailout and keeping the faith of conservative voters or was he better off pushing for bipartisanship?
Matt said the financial crisis was caused by a "Lack of oversight and an aura of free market speculation pushed by Pres. Bush and former Fed chief Greenspan." It is not a free market that failed or lack of regulation. The reason for the financial crisis is primarily the actions of the government supported duopoly called Fannie and Freddie. If the Republican Party had supported a policy of limited government intervention in the economy Fannie and Freddie would not exist and the majority of the subprime mortgages would not have either. However because the legislature had the delusion that affordable housing could be created through government supported loans Fannie and Freddie purchased subprime mortgages from the banks allowing an ever increasing tide of terrible loans. Without the ability for individuals to purchase property that they cannot afford there would have been a reduced demand for homes and prices would never have become so inflated. Thus the housing crash, if it occurred would have been extremely minor. This problem will not be solved with more regulation but rather through the government limiting its distortion of the market.
In response to Cameron's post, "If the Republican Party had supported a policy of limited government intervention in the economy Fannie and Freddie would not exist and the majority of the subprime mortgages would not have either."
Here is the latest headline news story in the media. It pretty much speaks for itself:
"But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.
He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.
Critics, including many economists, now blame the former Fed chairman for the financial crisis that is tipping the economy into a potentially deep recession. Mr. Greenspan’s critics say that he encouraged the bubble in housing prices by keeping interest rates too low for too long and that he failed to rein in the explosive growth of risky and often fraudulent mortgage lending."
NYTimes - Greenspan concedes error on regulation
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?hp
Post a Comment