GOP concerns about Palin grow

A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven — and sometimes downright awkward — performances in her limited media appearances.
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”
Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”
“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s—t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.”
There is no doubt that Palin retains a tremendous amount of support among rank-and-file Republicans. She draws huge crowds, continues to raise a lot of money for the McCain campaign, and state parties report she has sparked an uptick in the number of volunteers.
Asked about Palin's performance in the CBS interview, a McCain official briefing reporters on condition of anonymity said: "She did fine. She's a tremendous asset and a fantastic candidate."
But there is also no doubt many Republican insiders are worried she could blow next week’s debate, based on her unexpectedly weak and unsteady media appearances, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does.
What follows is a viewer’s guide to some of Palin’s toughest moments on camera so far.
Speaking this week with CBS’s Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off-guard by a very predictable question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused by several news outlets of retaining ties — and profiting from — the companies despite his denials.
Where a more experienced politician might have been able to brush off Couric’s follow-up question, Palin seemed genuinely stumped, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to boilerplate language about the “undue influence of lobbyists.”



Panic:

There must be something wrong with the landlines. I was speaking to my sister and our lines got crossed with someone from the GOP. Here's what we heard (no joke):
"We got to get her off the ticket"
"We may need to wait until the debate is over, if not we're done!"
"**** that! we need to get her off now. We need to figure how to do this with little damage to our ticket. Call Romney and tell him to get ready to stand in for Thursday's debate. We'll run it as her daughter is ill or something then we can roll her off the ticket on Friday evening"
"John really screwed us this time"

.

Reality Check: MacCain About Iraq in the Near Past

.

FactChecking First Presidential Debate

Summary

McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out:
• Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.
• Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.
• McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.
• McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.
• Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.
• McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.
• Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.
• Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
• McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.
• McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.
For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, please read our full Analysis section.


Analysis

The first of three scheduled debates between Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama took place Sept. 26 on the campus of the University of Mississippi at Oxford. It was sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It was carried live on national television networks and was moderated by Jim Lehrer, executive editor and anchor of the PBS "NewsHour" program.

We noted these factual misstatements:
Did Kissinger Back Obama?
McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
McCain rejected Obama's claim:
McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: Nobody's talking about that.

So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...
CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview."
After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting:

Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.

Score 0-1

$42,000 per year?
McCain said – and Obama denied – that Obama had voted to increase taxes on "people who make as low as $42,000 a year." McCain was correct – with qualification.

McCain: But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.
Obama: That's not true, John. That's not true.
McCain: And that's just a fact. Again, you can look it up.
Obama: Look, it's just not true.

Yes, as we’ve said before, Obama did in fact vote for a budget resolution that called for higher federal income tax rates on a single, non-homeowner who earned as little as $42,000 per year. A couple filing jointly, however, would have had to earn at least $83,000 per year to be affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.
The resolution actually would not have altered taxes without additional legislation. It called generally for allowing most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire. McCain is referring to the provision that would have allowed the 25 percent tax bracket to return to 28 percent. The tax plan Obama now proposes, however, would not raise the rate on that tax bracket.
Score 1-1

Timetable Tiff
Obama contradicted McCain about what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen's said regarding "Obama's plan" for troop withdrawals.

McCain: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America.
Obama: That's not the case.
McCain: That's what ...
Obama: What he said was a precipitous...
McCain: That's what Admiral Mullen said.
Obama: ... withdrawal would be dangerous. He did not say that. That's not true.

Admiral Mullen did say in a Fox News interview that having a time line for withdrawal would be dangerous.

Mullen (July 20): I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I'm convinced at this point in time that coming – making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.

However, interviewer Chris Wallace had just told Mullen to take Obama out of the equation.

Wallace (July 20): But I'm asking you in the absence – forget about Obama. Forget about the politics. If I were to say to you, "Let's set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years," what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?

So strictly speaking Mullen was not talking specifically about "Obama's plan." He did say a rigid timetable could have dangerous consequences.
Score 1.5 – 1.5

Earmarks Down, Not Up
McCain was way off the mark when he said that earmarks in federal appropriations bills had tripled in the last five years.

McCain: But the point is that – you see, I hear this all the time. "It's only $18 billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years?

In fact, earmarks have actually gone down. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003. By 2008, that figure had come down to $17.2 billion. That's a decrease of 24 percent.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, another watchdog group, said in 2008 that "Congress has cut earmarks by 23 percent from the record 2005 levels," according to its analysis.
Score 2.5 – 1.5

$3 million to study the DNA of bears?
And while we're on the subject of earmarks, McCain repeated a misleading line we've heard before.

McCain: You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.

McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.
Score 3.5 – 1.5

Iraqi Surplus Exaggerated
Obama was out of date in saying the Iraqi government has "79 billion dollars," when he argued that the U.S. should stop spending money on the war in Iraq.

Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.

As we've said before, there was a time when the country could have had as much as $79 billion, but that time has passed. What the Iraqis actually “have” is $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill, which was omitted from the GAO’s surplus tally since it was still under consideration. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus. So the range of what the Iraqi’s could have at year’s end is actually $47 billion to $59 billion. The $79 billion figure is outdated and incorrect.
Score 3.5 – 2

$700 billion for oil?
McCain repeated an exaggerated claim that the U.S. is sending $700 billion per year to hostile countries.

McCain: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

That's not accurate. McCain also made this claim in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. He's referring to the amount of money the U.S. spends in importing oil. But the number is inflated. In fact, we actually pay more like $536 billion for the oil we need. And one-third of those payments go to Canada, Mexico and the U.K.
(Note: A few of our readers messaged us, after we first noted McCain's mistake, with the thought that he was referring to foreign aid and not to oil. If so he's even farther off than we supposed: The entire budget for the State Department and International Programs works out to just $51.3 million.)
Score 4.5 – 2

Tax Cut Recipients
Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition – here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.
Score 4.5 – 2.5

Health Care Hyperbole
Obama and McCain traded incorrect statements on each other's health care plan.

Obama: So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer.

As we said before, McCain’s plan doesn’t call for taxing employers on health care benefits; it would instead tax employees. As the law stands now, employees don’t pay taxes on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain’s plan, they would.
McCain also misrepresented Obama's plan when he said that his opponent favored "handing the health care system over to the federal government."

McCain: Well, I want to make sure we're not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama's health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government.

McCain made a similar claim in his acceptance speech, when he said that Obama's plans would "force families into a government run health care system." We called it false then and we stand by that. Obama's plan mandates coverage for children, but not for adults, and it does not require anyone to be covered by a nationalized system. Obama's plan expands the insurance coverage offered by the government, but allows people to keep their own plans or choose from private plans as well.
Score 5.5 – 3

Ike Was No Quitter
McCain mangled his military history:

McCain: President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.
One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.
And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

The story is widely circulated in military circles but not entirely true. Eisenhower (then a general, not yet a president) did in fact write a letter taking responsibility should the D-Day invasion fail. But Eisenhower's letter does not mention resigning. Here's the full text:

Eisenhower (June 5, 1944): Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

No mention of quitting the Army, or his command.
Score 6.5 – 3

A Longer Timetable
Obama stretched out his schedule for withdrawing troops from Iraq. During the debate, Obama said we could "reduce" the number of combat troops in 16 months:

Obama: Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put – provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

But in Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months:

Obama (Oct. 2007): I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.

The quote appears in "Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Defense Issues" – a position paper that was still available on the campaign's Web site as Obama spoke.
Score 6.5 – 4

Still Soft on Iran?
McCain repeated the false insinuation that Obama opposed naming Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

McCain: There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative...
Obama: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

Obama has in fact said that the IRGC should be named a terrorist group. He was a cosponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which, among other things, named the IRGC a terrorist organization. What he voted against was the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which also called for the terrorist group distinction. But Obama said that he opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was "saber-rattling."

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

Score 7.5 – 4

Who's Naive on Georgia?
McCain called Obama's initial statement on the conflict in Georgia "naive." It's worth noting Obama's words echoed those of the White House.

McCain: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."
Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.

It's true, as McCain said, that during the conflict between Georgia and Russia, Obama said, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war" in his first statement on the conflict. But so did the White House. Press secretary Dana Perino said on Aug. 8, “We urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.” We pointed this out when New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani mischaracterized Obama's response to the crisis during the GOP convention.
Score 8.5 – 4


Boeing Boasts
McCain was went too far when he said, "I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it."
McCain certainly did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. But the contract isn't exactly "fixed" yet. In fact, questions have been raised about the role McCain has played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.
After the original Boeing contract to supply refueling airliners was nixed in 2003, the bidding process was reopened. And in early 2007, Boeing rival EADS/Airbus won the bid the second time around. But Boeing filed a protest about the way the bids were processed, and the Government Accountability Office released a report that found in Boeing's favor. In the summary of GAO's investigation, the organization said there were "significant errors" with the bid process and that the directions given to Boeing were "misleading."
Further, the New York Times reported that "McCain’s top advisers, including a cochairman of his presidential campaign, were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies." A liberal campaign finance group ran an ad hitting McCain on the connections back in July and our colleagues at PolitiFact found their attacks to be true, saying: "Center for Responsive Politics prepared a report for PolitiFact that backs [the charge] up. U.S. employees of EADS/Airbus have contributed $15,700 in this election cycle to McCain’s campaign."
Score 10 – 4

Nuclear Charges
McCain said Obama was against storing nuclear waste. That's not exactly his position.

McCain: And Senator Obama says he's for nuclear, but he's against reprocessing and he's against storing.
Obama: I -- I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I've said is that we have to store it safely.

Obama's official position is that he does support safe storage of nuclear waste:
Obama fact sheet: Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.
But the McCain campaign has attacked Obama before on this issue, going as far as to claim Obama did not support nuclear energy at all, which was false. Obama has said he supports nuclear as long as it is "clean and safe."
Score 11 – 4

Against Alternative Energy
Obama said that McCain had voted 23 times against alternative energy:

Obama: Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.

Here's the Obama campaign's list of the 23 votes. We find they're overstating the case. In many instances, McCain voted not against alternative energy but against mandatory use of alternative energy, or he voted in favor of allowing exemptions from these mandates. Only 11 of the 23 votes cited by the Obama campaign involve reducing or eliminating incentives for renewable energy.
Meanwhile, McCain was indignant at the suggestion that he'd voted against alternative energy at all.

McCain: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time... No one can be opposed to alternate energy.

But McCain's record says differently. As we say above, he has voted against funding for alternative energy on 11 occasions. He may be in favor of alternative energy in theory, but he has declined opportunities to support it.
In McCain's energy plan, he supports nuclear power and "clean" coal, which are alternative energies. But they don't qualify as renewable energy, such as hydro, solar and wind power. McCain's plan makes a vague promise to "rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility." The experts we talked to weren't sure what exactly that meant.
Score 12 – 4

Committee Oversight
Both candidates were right in talking about Obama’s NATO subcommittee.

McCain: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO, that's in Afghanistan. To this day he's never had a hearing…
Obama: Look, the - I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And as he explains and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole.

As we've already reported Obama's subcommittee on Afghanistan does have jurisdiction over NATO, which is supplying about half of the troops in Afghanistan. His subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over Afghanistan proper.
Score 13 – 4

Getting the Dates Wrong
We also caught McCain getting his congressional history a little wrong.

McCain: Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman, the one - the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon. And I saw that, and I saw the situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that because I was afraid that they couldn't make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly 300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.

This isn’t quite right. Marines were initially deployed to Lebanon in August 1982. McCain, however, was not elected to the U.S. House until November 1982, more than three months after Marines had already landed.
McCain is referring to a 1983 vote to invoke the War Powers Act. That bill, which Ronald Reagan signed into law on October 12, 1983, authorized an 18-month deployment for the Marines. On October 13, a suicide bomber destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut. McCain did in fact break with most Republicans to vote against the bill.
End-score 14 – 4

.

The First Presidential Debate

.

Kathleen Parker: How to solve this Palin problem?

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream – away from Sarah Palin.
To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president – and possibly president – is to risk being labeled anti-woman.
Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.
Some of the passionately feminist critics of Ms. Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Ms. Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick – what a difference a financial crisis makes – and a more complicated picture has emerged.
As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that she is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.
Yes, she recently met several heads of state as the U.N. General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan's president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)
And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she's had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).
Finally, Ms. Palin's narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Ms. Palin first emerged as Mr. McCain's running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood – a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.
Ms. Palin didn't make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Ms. Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Ms. Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Ms. Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage, and there's not much content there. Here's but one example from her interview with Mr. Hannity:
"Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this."
When Ms. Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Barack Obama's numbers, Ms. Palin blustered wordily: "I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?"

If b*ll-sh*t were currency, Ms. Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Ms. Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman – and the first on a Republican presidential ticket – we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

Mr. McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP's unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Mr. Obama faces the same problem with Mr. Biden.
Only Ms. Palin can save Mr. McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.
.
.

‘The market tried to tell us something and no one listened’

Mohamed A. El-Erian is the co-ceo of the world's largest asset management company Pimco. An interview about the ins and outs of the credit crunch.
Mohamed El-Erian has worked through the weekend again, just like he has every other weekend over the past weeks. When the American government announced the comprehensive bail out plan for banks, he wrote a ten page investment instruction for his employees at Pimco, the largest asset manager in the world.
During an interview with El-Erian on the 49th floor of the Allianz Tower, with a view on Central Park, he looks exhausted. As Pimco’s co-ceo is responsible for Pimco’s 830 billion dollars in assets.
He says the American bailout plan is “a necessary step because the situation had to be stabilized”. But he doubts it will be sufficient. “My sense is you need to do more. We are going to look back and 700 billion will not be the final number.”
He tells how he and his people at Pimco saw the markets stumble.
"Last week the only market that still functioned was that of short term US treasuries. Suddenly the money market funds were contaminated. So something that was viewed as a very arcane Wall Street matter suddenly became a Main Street problem. Losses were imposed on the biggest money market fund, a 62 billion dollar fund. As people realized that they started pulling their money out. For the fund to get liquidity, it had to sell. But the market was dislocated. Had the authorities not acted on Friday, you would have had a very big run on the money market funds and on the banks. You would have had cascading gates where those investors would have been told: come back tomorrow, or next week, to get your money out.”
In a crisis, when one is infected anyone can get infected?
"In August last year I was trying to take a holiday, I was back in the office - at Harvard at the time - the first day, because we started sensing difficulties. I asked our people: where is our cash? And they answered by telling me how much cash we had. But that wasn’t the answer to my question. ’It is in money market funds, with the best counter parties on Wall Street', they said, after I asked again. I asked what was in the money market funds, but they didn’t know. I told them at the time: take the money out and put it in treasuries and then let’s see. That was the reaction you saw last week, multiplied a million times. That made people question the integrity of the money market segment.”
The authorities have been trying to calm down the markets for a year now. But they haven’t succeeded.
"After Lehman and AIG, the US authorities shifted from targeting institutions to targeting the system as a whole. The authorities moved from piece meal measures to a package deal. If you go back to remarks of officials you find the words 'comprehensive package' only to appear last week. Before that it was like fighting isolated fires. The next step is happening very quietly, but I think it will accelerate. We are moving from a domestic response to an international response. The ban on short selling in different countries is a first example of that.”
Did the authorities worsen the situation?
"I worked at the IMF for fifteen years, so I’ve seen crises. This is exactly what happened in the Asian crisis [in the 1990s]. The first reaction is either policymakers do not recognize the crisis, or they do not believe there is a crisis. The US is not used to crisis management, particularly in what is seen as the most sophisticated financial system in the world. There is not enough information about the crisis. And when the authorities do have information, they realize their instruments are blunt. That they are creating collateral damage. This let to rational paralysis. The central question is: how are we going to get this stabilized? Gordon Brown gave the answer this weekend: 'Three words. Whatever it takes.' And that will lead to overreaction.”
But do the authorities know what they are doing?
"They are not doing it according to some master plan. Nobody decided at the beginning of the year that investment banks would no longer exist, that they were going to nationalize Fanny and Freddy. Nobody decided that they were going to intervene in an insurance company [AIG]. But it all happened. There is a reason for this. The system was undertaking activities that the infrastructure on the policy side and on the market side could not support. The amount of activities taking place in global finance far exceeded the capability of the system. I use the metaphor of the plumbing system where you are forcing very strong new flows into a plumbing system that is too old. So it is going to blow up and then you have to clean it up. And it is not going to be nice.”
What needs to be done?
"The authorities have tried to take three steps. The first is to reliquify the system, to get things flowing again, I suspect they have to cut interest rates in a globally coordinated fashion in order to make that happen. The second is this indiscriminate selling of assets. So they provided a balance sheet which is up to 700 billion to buy assets. I suspect they have to put capital directly into some of the institutions. The third step, which is causing the biggest anxiety in the markets, is a regulatory response. It is to try and enforce circuit breakers to the system. One of course is the banning of short selling. It was necessary, but not elegant.”
Regulators did not see this crisis coming?
"The blame game has yet to begin. The government, the regulators, the credit raters, the private sector, they were all at fault at some point. The central question will be: who lost the American financial system? If you want hear a big mistake that was made on the government side, look at the off balance activities, the conduits and the SIVs [structured investment vehicles], that were completely unregulated. There were no capital requirements. Those activities were the first to go down in the crisis. And they contaminated everything else.”
Will this crisis be a turning point for regulators?
"We are going to overreact on the regulatory part now. When this is all finished, we are going to end up with a much smaller, slimmer and less risky financial system. The good news is that the likelihood of a future crisis can be reduced. The bad news is that we are going to lower the speed limit for the growth of the economy. That is a cold shower for people in this country.
"A very well-paid industry, which is what finance is, was living in a system that privatized the gains and socialized the losses. Society will not accept that. Keep in mind, the 700 billion is more than the whole social service budget of the United States."
Who, after the investment banks, are going to be the next victims?
"The fall of the investment banks was inevitable after the Fed opened up the liquidity window, with the rescue of Bear Stearns. That dissolved the difference between commercial banks and investment banks. It was only a matter of time before the other investment banks would disappear, either through bankruptcy, acquisition or a change in their business model. The next businesses under pressure are the hedge funds.
"The keyword here is leverage. Investment banks used a leverage over 30. On every dollar they owned, they borrowed over 30 to invest. When the market goes up, the profits are enormous, but the losses are as big when markets come down. The market for investing with borrowed money has dried up completely. Hedge funds work the same way, with a little less leverage.
"Further down the line you have the non-financial institutions, the AIGs of this world,. And the commercial banks, which have a 10 to 1 leverage. And there is us, without any leverage. Last year everyone said we were boring. We avoided risks, so we didn’t have high returns. But now the fact that we’re not levered is really important.”
Is this the end for leverage?
"No, the system cannot handle that. If you deleverage too quickly, you’ll shock the real economy. The 700 billion help deleverage investment banks and investors. I think the line will be drawn at the commercial banks. They invest every dollar they have ten times, but that is an acceptable risk.”
After the 1929 Great Depression it was decided to separate commercial banks and investment banks. Clinton changed that. What will happen next?
"Creative destruction is part of capitalism. Capitalism destroys parts of itself and recreates itself stronger. By its very nature has a tendency to run ahead of what the system can accommodate. But it is very significant when this happens in the financial system, because that ties everything together. We will go through this cycle again every 30 or 40 years.
"Politicians will have to make the decisions. Do we want a Wild West financial system? One that innovates, produces many things, allows homeownership to go up - which is good for society, but that will fall down once in a while. Or do we want a very regulated system? One that is safer, but doesn’t allow all these innovations. The economist [Hyman P.] Minsky wrote: stability leads to instability in a capitalistic system. And instability leads to stability.
How do you see the role of the sovereign wealth funds. They can offer the liquidity the West needs. Do you feel SWFs can balance the system?
"SWFs have what is most needed right now, and that is pure capital. They are long term investors. The bulk of them are only interested in ownership, not control. They stepped up in the last quarter of 2007 and put 60 billion dollars of pure capital in the western financial system. And they got criticized for it. Now they are sitting on losses.
"They are on the sidelines, watching the game. They don’t quite understand the rules anymore, nobody does. They won’t get involved again until the air clears. They will be part of the solution, but they are not going to be the leaders of the solution, they are going to be reactive. The speed with which the original credit crunch has changed into a global confidence crisis was unthinkable. But all the unthinkable has become thinkable in the last few months.”
What is the main characteristic of this crisis?
"The main characteristic is what you don’t see. It is happening behind the scenes: the confidence crisis between banks, the end of the market for loans, the disappearance of liquidity."
Did central banks created too much liquidity, did they over-fuel the system?
"I think that is unfair. Greenspan [Former Fed chairman] first, and after him Bernanke raised interest rates from 1 percent to 5.25. As they were raising short term interest rates, long term interest rates where coming down. This is one of the many signals that the system was sending out. But the marketplace said: these are not signals, this is noise. The market tried to tell us something and no one listened.”.
How big will the damage be?
"Let me leave you with a thought that scares me the most. So far the world is deleveraging three balance sheets. First that of US housing, which peaked in the summer of 2006. Secondly the financial sector, which peaked in the summer of 2007. The third one , which peaked this summer and now starts to deleverage, is the US consumer. The good news about all of these three things is there is a stock of wealth underneath them, to dampen the consequences.
"But there is one balance sheet out there that so far has avoided all this, but is now coming under pressure. That is the growth in emerging markets. It is slowing down. If that balance sheet is forced in contraction, the welfare implications are huge. Because those markets do not have a wealth cushion. It will mean poverty, much more pain, and much more human suffering. That’s my major concern: if this doesn’t get stopped and the tidal wave is going to hit people that are least able to survive it."
.
.

Zbigniew Brzezinski The Grand Chess-board

The_Shah_with_Atherton,_Sullivan,_Vance,_Carter_and_Brzezinski,_1977
American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives

Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book
• "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)
• "... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
• "In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
• “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
• “The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
• "In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)
• "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
More Quotes
• "...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power...” (p. xiii)
• "... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
• "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)
• "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)
• "America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)
• "In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
• “It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
• "Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
• "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
• "Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)
• "Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
• [Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)
• "The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
• "Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)
• "Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)
• "In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
• "For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)
• "Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)
• "It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
• "China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)
• "America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)
• "Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)
• "With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)
• "That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
• "The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)
• "In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)
• "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)