DOW up 500 points in the last two days. That's 4.7%. Surely, this proves that all worries about the economy are overblown and that Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke - with their various statements this week - have saved the day.
Former White House aide Karl Rove denied on Monday that his close ties with Republican politics and John McCain's presidential campaign undermine his credibility as an election analyst for the Fox News Channel.
Appearing at a gathering of television critics in Beverly Hills, Rove and network executive John Moody brushed aside suggestions that Rove's continued involvement in the presidential race, informal or not, might pose a conflict in his capacity as a Fox News contributor. ...
Asked whether Rove was on "the honor system" regarding his contacts with top McCain campaign operatives such as Steve Schmidt, Moody replied: "He's always on the honor system. All of our employees are."
"We get most of our information about the McCain campaign from our correspondents," Moody added. "I don't think Karl would cross an ethical line like that."
Rove also dismissed the notion that his refusal to answer congressional subpoenas to testify in a probe of the Bush administration's firing of federal prosecutors amounted to too much political baggage for a network news analyst to carry.
Anybody who thinks Rove is giving dispassionate evaluations of the races is kidding themselves. But then, viewers of Fox News Channel know that they don't want reality, but a "news" outfit that gives them what they'd like to believe. And it probably makes them feel better until the election returns roll in.
That New Yorkercover of Barack and Michelle Obama:
Rancid.
That's the kind of thing the folks at the New Yorker would do, since they're (on average) economically insulated from hard times and live in places where they don't chafe under restrictive social laws (e.g. abortion). So who cares about amplifying the most outrageous charges made by the far right? Better to be hip than care a whit about the impact on Obama's political fortunes.
The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.” ...
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.” “I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.
There are rumors of Joe Lieberman being an agent for Israel. When can we look forward to a cover that makes fun of that? Is the McCain Manchurian Candidate cover set for next week?
Here's what's going to happen. Fox News is going to have a whole day where they talk about nothing but this and repeatedly show the image just like they did with Wright. Then Limbaugh will be saying "Well look, these liberals can make drawing like this and we call it harmless satire, so why did they give me so much grief when I played the song Obama the Magic Negro on my show. It's liberal hypocrisy I tell you!".
Michelle Obama is depicted as an Afro-coiffed blaxiploitation heroine with a rifle, Obama is depicted as a Muslim, an American flag is burning in the Oval Office fireplace and above the fireplace? A portrait of Osama bin Laden.
They should seriously consider pulping the cover, because they are likely to lose a lot of their left-wing readership.
Also, can we expect “ironic” covers with McCain being tortured? Or maybe Bush drinking up a storm? Or perhaps an ironic and anti-Semitic cover of Joe Lieberman? Or would someone on staff have put a stop to that?
... no Upper East Side liberal -- no matter how superior they feel their intellect is -- should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing.
"This is as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish," says a high-profile Obama supporter, "and I suspect that other Obama supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or buying a magazine that trafficks in such trash."
[With this right-wing comment. emp add]
Whatever their original intentions, whatever their motivation, whether ironical or not, this caricature hits the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. No single illustration could more perfectly convey the legitimate -- I repeat, legitimate -- fears and concerns that so many of us have about the prospects of an Obama Presidency. An Islamophile and a racist. What a great prospect for America's future.
UPDATE: Next week's cover has just been leaked. Here it is:
As the New Yorker helpfully explained:
The cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature that believers in Jewish international banking conspiracies have tried to create.
Almost everyone except for the people who work at The New Yorker seems to have grasped that, whether intended as satire or not, the effect of the cover image is disastrous for the Obama campaign. The timing might have been worse, but not by much, since Obama is getting ready to go on his trip out of the country. The image is the most complete expression of the inexplicable desire of Obama supporters to “help” the candidate by portraying him in what are actually the most unflattering and politically damaging ways possible while simultaneously believing that they are pre-emptively defending and praising the things they are describing. This cover image is slightly different, in that it is trying to undermine the worst attacks by revealing them to be nonsensical caricatures, but nonetheless the artist seems incapable of imagining that there are many voters, particularly those who don’t know that much about Obama, who will see this image flashed on their television screens or attached to chain e-mails and think, “I knew there was something about that Obama I didn’t like, and now I see what it is!” ...
In an era of instant, mass communication, the image will be, indeed already has been, circulated widely and will gradually lose whatever “ironic” edge it once had. That the image derived from a New Yorker cover and was intended for an audience of high-information, predominantly left-leaning voters who already support Obama will be irrelevant or will add to the “credibility” of what the image conveys. Then the word will go forth in forwarded emails everywhere: “Even The New Yorker thinks Obama is a secret Muslim, etc…”
UPDATE 3: David Remnick, the clueless editor of the New Yorker sez: (emp add)
... people always read things the way they're going to read them. In this case ... some people have misinterpreted it very quickly ...
This cover ... uses the language of political satire and cartooning, not of reporting and essays, and sometimes not everyone likes that or gets what's intended.
UPDATE 4: Some defenders of the cartoon say that it won't change anybody's preference. That is probably correct (at least for the short term, and for a limited number of people), but what it has a good shot at doing fairly well is inhibit people from switching their preference to Obama. That's where it's most potent. Keeping those wavering and still-uncertain-about-Obama, from gravitating towards him.
UPDATE 5: The reason for this post isn't the cartoon per se. It could run on the Weekly Standard and not be as bothersome. The amazing thing here is that the New Yorker is, presumably, on Obama's side. Yet their blinkered outlook allows them to produce something that's definitely going to hurt him politically.
UPDATE 6: If the cartoon wanted to have a chance at being seen as satire, it could have portrayed Michelle and Barack as uncomfortable or out-of-place in their garb. But it doesn't. The facial expressions and body language are those of people that support Black Panther style politics or anti-American Jihadism - to the extent that such things are discernable.
... whatever the merits of the New Yorker it's more "elite chattering classes of New York" than "good liberal." Not quite the same thing, even if there's some overlap. ...
The New Yorker cover could have worked if had made more clear who it was satirizing (Fox news, the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, whatever), or by being clever enough to provide the actual funny. As it is it's just a reflection of the Right's view of Obama, but there's nothing clever or funny about it.
... one way to deal with supply problems is to increase supply here in America. And one of the things we just went through was a briefing from Secretary Bodman and Secretary Kempthorne about the vast potential of crude oil reserves on offshore lands, as well as in Alaska, as well as in the oil shale in the western part of our country. And yet the Democratic leaders of Congress have consistently blocked opening up these lands for exploration.
Those were part of Bush's brief remarks on the current state of the economy - which is hurting because of high oil prices. he made no mention of alternate energy sources. There was some talk about how extracting oil is less polluting than in years past, but the essence of Bush's remarks are that he's promoting burning of hydrocarbons - and dismissing any other course of action over the long haul..
It's hard to know what's going on in Bush's mind (and maybe Cheney's is the more relevant), but reading between the lines, it appears that Bush has totally accepted the claims of the global warming skeptics. Bush is a Limbaugh dittohead in that regard. In a way, it makes sense. If you don't believe global warming is real then you don't have to (a) worry about it, or (b) work hard to deal with it. Bush doesn't like to be bothered with problems, and he hates work, so his (personal) denying global warming makes sense, even if he has to say otherwise on occasion.
There's been some talk about McCain being bad on the stump, technologically illiterate, mistaken on basic facts (Iraq, economy), and frequently nonplussed when asked about his positions.
Some have explained this as being the result of McCain having an easy time winning elections in Arizona, and he's therefore rusty on the campaign trail. Some are saying it's because he's old and unprepared for a 21st Century campaign (as are others, e.g. Bill Clinton). Some are saying that's he's more interested in military issues and never studied hard on other policy areas.
Maybe.
Or maybe it's simply that John McCain isn't up to the job of president. That he doesn't have the sharpness of mind or knowledge of facts to tackle critical policy areas. These days, mere professions of good intentions are not enough. Some basic competence is needed, and McCain isn't convincing on that score.
There is a good chance that an emerging theme this year will be McCain's dependence on advisors and his inability to hold his own in a substantial discussion on the issues.
TIPS Flunk Inflation Test as Fuel, Food Overtake CPI
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Inflation Protected Securities aren't living up to their name for bond investors who say they can't trust the way the U.S. government calculates the rising cost of consumer goods.
Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest securities firm, and FTN Financial, a unit of Tennessee's largest bank, are telling clients to pare holdings of TIPS, whose principal amount rises with the Labor Department's consumer price index. Morgan Stanley says derivatives tied to inflation expectations are a better bet, while FTN recommends corporate and agency bonds because the index doesn't reflect the actual rate of U.S. inflation. ...
"The consumer price index underestimates inflation," said Jeremy Wolfson, who oversees $8.5 billion as chief investment officer at the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Pension Fund. ...
... Thomas Atteberry, a partner at Los Angeles-based First Pacific Advisors, who manages $3.5 billion in bonds [said] "CPI understates what's really going on in the economy from an inflation standpoint" ...
William Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital Inc. in Seattle and co-author of ``Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve,'' [said] "One reason why I've never owned TIPS is because I knew the CPI was a cheat" ...
Criticisms of the CPI center on the practice of understating price increases to account for quality improvements in goods like cars and computers. The government also changes the basket of goods it uses to calculate CPI, replacing more expensive products with cheaper ones.
In Time's The Page, dedicated to evaluating this week's action vis-a-vis Obama and McCain, Mark Halperin scores a win for McCain.
He had four categories for grading:
Public Image
Iraq
Economy
Arrival of the Cavalry [campaign nuts and bolts + finance]
McCain/Republicans win on all except The Economy, which is given a tie.
He're the entirety of Halperin on Public Image:
Barack Obama's apparent move to the center on a range of issues has Republicans and many commentators questioning his credibility and integrity. If he loses in November, this will be remembered as a turning point in the race - just as the launch of the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry marked the beginning of the end of his presidential bid in 2004.
Republicans questioning Obama's integrity? Say it ain't so!
As to this week's moves by Obama being compared in any way to the organized Swift Boat attacks on Kerry, well, let's just say that's ridiculous.
As to McCain's stumblebum performance this week, Halperin has absolutely nothing to say.
Here's Halperin on Economy:
After a week in which both candidates presented their policies and attacked the other guy's record and ideas, neither McCain nor Obama has broken out as the leader on this issue. For a question that should give a huge advantage to the Deomcrats, the answere still sound like "yada, yada, yada" - on both sides.
Halperin must be extremely bored, or inattentive. This week has been a mess for McCain (see this Weekly Standard entry). McCain's economic advisor Phil Gramm hasn't been in the news for several days for nothing ("mental recession"). And to say the economic talk is "yada, yada, yada" when the reality is that both candidates have reiterated their basic - and wildly different - policy positions, shows how out of touch Halperin is, or maybe he's enraptured with a particular Seinfeld episode.
There is a very interesting article at Salon by Michael Lind, Jesse Helms is not dead, which basically says the former Confederacy was essentially a third-world entity - politically and economically - in the early 20th century (if not also before), run by a small white elite, and deeply anti-progressive.
Of interest is this comment, made in reaction to a passing mention by Lind about about cheap immigrant labor:
As a libertarian with progressive tendencies who hangs out mostly with people who would classify themselves as "liberals", I see a paradoxical attitude toward immigration in their beliefs. On the one hand they give a great deal of vocal support to unions and on the other hand label as a "racist" anyone who points out that the tide of illegal immigrants undercuts the value of labor for native-born American citizens.
E. J. Dionne Jr. goes after Brad DeLong's "free trade is good" argument:
Brad DeLong, who many mistake for a liberal, loves free trade. Says it's great because it helps people in other countries. But wait! Dionne has just penned an op-ed where he tackles various capitalist orthodoxies:
Regulation is the problem and deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to "grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy is "protectionism."
On free trade specifically, he quotes Barney Frank:
Frank also calls for new thinking on the impact of free trade. He argues it can no longer be denied that globalization "is a contributor to the stagnation of wages and it has produced large pools of highly mobile capital." Mobile capital and the threat of moving a plant abroad give employers a huge advantage in negotiations with employees. "If you're dealing with someone and you can pick up and leave and he can't, you have the advantage."
"Free trade has increased wealth, but it's been monopolized by a very small number of people," Frank said. The coming debate will focus not on shutting globalization down but rather on managing its effects with an eye toward the interests of "the most vulnerable people in the country."
Whoa! How can that be? It's true that free trade has advantaged employers, reduced the power of labor, held down wages, and made a few people rich. But DeLong says free trade is great, so the facts must be ignored. Especially by a highly-paid university professor safely ensconced at Berkeley who enjoys cheap consumer goods, or something. C'mon Brad, admit you are wrong! Admit it!
Democrats: 32 for stripping immunity, 16 against, 1 not voting (Kennedy, almost surely for stripping immunity). Republicans: 0 for stripping immunity, 48 against, 1 not voting (McCain, almost surely against stripping immunity). Lieberman against.
In the Senate, more Democrats are against immunity. In the House, more Democrats were against the bill as a whole. Yet the leadership in both chambers pushes forward a bill that is supported by all Republicans except one: Tim Johnson of Illinois).
