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)

FactCheck Week 43 - - 38 Days To Go

DOWNLOAD the script(pdf)
.
The link to the FactCheck homepage
GOP Convention Spin Part 1
GOP Convention Spin Part 2
.

Stopping a Financial Crisis Swedish Way

By CARTER DOUGHERTY
A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic. Sound familiar?
It does to Sweden. The country was so far in the hole in 1992 — after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom — that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.
But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.
Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.
That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.
“If I go into a bank,” said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden’s finance minister at the time, “I’d rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer.”
Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today’s dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.
But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.
The tumultuous events of the last few weeks have produced a lot of tight-lipped nods in Stockholm. Mr. Lundgren even made the rounds in New York in early September, explaining what the country did in the early 1990s.
A few American commentators have proposed that the United States government extract equity from banks as a price for their rescue. But it does not seem to be under serious consideration yet in the Bush administration or Congress.
The reason is not quite clear. The government has already swapped its sovereign guarantee for equity in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance institutions, and the American International Group, the global insurance giant.
Putting taxpayers on the hook without anything in return could be a mistake, said Urban Backstrom, a senior Swedish finance ministry official at the time. “The public will not support a plan if you leave the former shareholders with anything,” he said.
The Swedish crisis had strikingly similar origins to the American one, and its neighbors, Norway and Finland, were hobbled to the point of needing a government bailout to escape the morass as well.
Financial deregulation in the 1980s fed a frenzy of real estate lending by Sweden’s banks, which did not worry enough about whether the value of their collateral might evaporate in tougher times.
Property prices imploded. The bubble deflated fast in 1991 and 1992. A vain effort to defend Sweden’s currency, the krona, caused overnight interest rates to spike at one point to 500 percent. The Swedish economy contracted for two consecutive years after a long expansion, and unemployment, at 3 percent in 1990, quadrupled in three years.
After a series of bank failures and ad hoc solutions, the moment of truth arrived in September 1992, when the government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt decided it was time to clear the decks.
Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the opposition center-left, Mr. Bildt’s conservative government announced that the Swedish state would guarantee all bank deposits and creditors of the nation’s 114 banks. Sweden formed a new agency to supervise institutions that needed recapitalization, and another that sold off the assets, mainly real estate, that the banks held as collateral. Sweden told its banks to write down their losses promptly before coming to the state for recapitalization. Facing its own problem later in the decade, Japan made the mistake of dragging this process out, delaying a solution for years.
Then came the imperative to bleed shareholders. Mr. Lundgren recalls a conversation with Peter Wallenberg, at the time chairman of SEB, Sweden’s largest bank. Mr. Wallenberg, the scion of the country’s most famous family and steward of large chunks of its economy, heard that there would be no sacred cows.
The Wallenbergs turned around and arranged a recapitalization on their own, obviating the need for a bailout. SEB turned a profit the following year, 1993.
“For every krona we put into the bank, we wanted the same influence,” Mr. Lundgren said. “That ensured that we did not have to go into certain banks at all.”
By the end of the crisis, the Swedish government had seized a vast portion of the banking sector, and the agency had mostly fulfilled its hard-nosed mandate to drain share capital before injecting cash. When markets stabilized, the Swedish state then reaped the benefits by taking the banks public again.
More money may yet come into official coffers. The government still owns 19.9 percent of Nordea, a Stockholm bank that was fully nationalized and is now a highly regarded giant in Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea region.
The politics of Sweden’s crisis management were similarly tough-minded, though much quieter. Soon after the plan was announced, the Swedish government found that international confidence returned more quickly than expected, easing pressure on its currency and bringing money back into the country. The center-left opposition, while wary that the government might yet let the banks off the hook, made its points about penalizing shareholders privately.
“The only thing that held back an avalanche was the hope that the system was holding,” said Leif Pagrotzky, a senior member of the opposition at the time. “In public we stuck together 100 percent, but we fought behind the scenes.”

The Lying King

A musical contribution from the "liberal fascist communists" in Europe

The Holy Virgin Says: Another Depression Possible

During a series of sit-ins with world leaders Afghanistan's President Karzai sat down for a while and told the future (Vice-)President of the USA that he recently became father of a son. Palin congratulated him and closed the session.
By SARA KUGLER / The Associated Press
NEW YORK - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said today that the United States could be headed for another Great Depression if Congress doesn't act on the financial crisis.
Palin made the comment in an interview with CBS evening news anchor Katie Couric while visiting New York to meet foreign leaders for the first time in her political career.
As Palin sought to establish her credentials in world affairs, first lady Laura Bush said Palin lacked sufficient foreign policy experience but was "a quick study."
Now we know who can safe this world’s economy and other problems. She has still 40 days of study to go and she’ll manage the issues.
Palin has been in New York this week for a series of meetings with foreign leaders, part of an effort by Republican John McCain's presidential campaign to counter criticism that the former small-town mayor lacks the experience to be vice president, let alone president in an emergency.
The CBS interview was just her third major interview in nearly four weeks on the GOP presidential ticket. Asked whether there's a risk of another Great Depression if Congress doesn't approve a $700 billion bailout package, Palin said, "Unfortunately, that is the road that America may find itself on."
Palin said the answer to the financial crisis doesn't necessarily have to be the bailout plan that the Bush administration has proposed, but that it should be some form of bipartisan action to reform Wall Street.
Laura Bush told CNN that she thought Palin had "a lot of really good common sense" and commended her executive experience. Asked if she thought Palin had sufficient foreign policy experience, the first lady said: "Of course she doesn't have that. You know, that's not been her role, but I think she is a very quick study, and fortunately John McCain does have that sort of experience." […] The McCain campaign set up the sessions with the leaders, who were among those in town for the United Nations General Assembly.[…] At the start of her meeting with Talabani at a downtown hotel, the governor was overheard saying: "There's plenty to do here, isn't there? Plenty to see."
CBS Interview Part 1:

Watch CBS Videos Online
CBS Interview Part 2:

Watch CBS Videos Online
Obama campaign quiet since Palin announcement
JUNEAU - Hardly a day went by this summer in Alaska without Barack Obama's campaign producing a news release or calling reporters.
Press secretary Jeff Giertz was a fixture on local news. State politicians touted Obama's energy plan. A national campaign aide suggested this traditionally Republican state's three electoral votes were up for grabs.
Then came Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, who has delivered a blow to Obama's slim hopes of capturing Alaska on Nov. 4.
Obama's high profile in Alaska has taken a precipitous slide since Aug. 29, when Palin joined Sen. John McCain on the Republican presidential ticket.
Since then we never heard the Obama campaign again.
.
.

McCain once again tries to tar Obama with the controversies of others.

– by Viveca Novak and Justin Bank - FactCheck

Summary
A McCain-Palin ad says that Obama was "born of the corrupt Chicago political machine" and implies that the candidate himself is corrupt by association with four local political figures. But the ad's implication and many of its supporting details are false. In fact, this is a particularly egregious example of ricochet sliming:
William Daley, the first figure mentioned in the ad, is indeed related to the other famous Chicago Daleys, but he's never been accused of any wrongdoing. And the former commerce secretary isn't Obama's only economic adviser, as the ad implies.
Emil Jones, Illinois state Senate leader, may indeed have been Obama's "political godfather." But he, too, hasn't been charged with or even seriously accused of misdeeds despite the ad's claim of an "ethical cloud."
Obama did have a past relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko, but he is no longer Obama's "money man." Obama hasn't been associated with him since his indictment for wire fraud, bribery, money laundering and attempted extortion, and Obama donated all of the disgraced businessman's previous campaign contributions to charity.
Rod Blagojevich has been touched by plenty of scandal but his relationship with Obama doesn't extend much beyond being "his governor." In fact, Obama has worked on ethics legislation triggered by some of the Blagojevich's questionable moves.
Most important, the ad offers no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama himself in connection with any of these relationships, however close or distant.
Analysis
The McCain-Palin campaign's new ad, "Chicago Machine," tries to tie Barack Obama to four Illinois powerbrokers. The campaign says it will air nationally. We'll take a look at the merits of each individual's "corrupt" status as well as their connection to Obama in turn.
Daley and Nightly
The ad begins with a statement that Obama was "born of the corrupt Chicago political machine," then shows Obama saying that Chicago toughened him up. The announcer returns, saying, "His economic adviser: William Daley. Lobbyist. Mayor's brother."
First off, Obama wasn't born in Chicago and didn't grow up there. He didn't arrive in the city until 1985, after he finished college. As a community organizer, he often fought City Hall. His rise in politics there wasn't a product of grooming by the Chicago machine, though he made allies of some machine politicians along the way.

Second, William Daley isn't "his economic adviser." He may be one of his advisers in that area, but look at some of the others: Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, former National Economic Adviser Gene Sperling, former chairpersons of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura Tyson and Joseph Stiglitz, former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, and Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett.

Not that Daley is without qualifications himself. He's a former secretary of commerce. But the ad's likely intent here is to remind viewers of the mayoral administration of Daley's father, Richard J., which, though the elder Daley himself was never indicted, was riddled with corruption and patronage politics. The Boss died in office in 1976, almost a decade before Obama arrived in Chicago.

William Daley's brother, Richard M., is the current mayor of Chicago. He hasn't been charged with any wrongdoing, though some members of his administration have been.

But William Daley, the Daley mentioned in this ad, has had no such scandal or corruption allegations leveled against him. The implication to the contrary is false.
Rezko Redux
The ad lists convicted Illinois businessman Tony Rezko as Obama's "money man," "client" and "patron." Rezko was convicted on 16 counts of wire fraud and mail fraud in June. But Obama has not been seen with Rezko for some time, and he donated the former businessman's $11,500 in campaign contributions to charity in 2007.

As we concluded back in December 2007, "Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper."
The Godfather
The ad then turns to Obama's "political godfather" Emil Jones, who the ad says is "under ethical cloud." Jones certainly has been a close confidant of Obama and has used the "godfather" verbiage himself – though the relationship wasn't always so cozy. Obama described him as an "old ward heeler" in his memoir.

But the ethics charge could use a bit more explanation.

The words "under an ethical cloud" do appear in a June 16 Associated Press story about Jones. The full quote is:
AP: Another Obama mentor, state Senate President Emil Jones, serves under an ethical cloud. He has several family members on the state payroll and uses his clout to aid their business interests.
Another AP report said: "Jones has relatives on the state payroll, steers state grants to favorite organizations and uses his clout to punish enemies and bury GOP legislation." But there have been no indictments, investigations or serious inquiries into any improper behavior by Jones.
O Governor, My Governor
Finally, the ad turns to "his governor, Rod Blagojevich" and his "legacy of state and federal investigations." His governor? Ooooh. (Cue scary organ music.)

The Democratic governor certainly has been besieged by investigations, controversy and other charges of impropriety. But his connections to Obama are not substantial. Obama is just one of more than 13 million Illinois residents of whom it could also be said that Blagojevich is "their governor."

In a July 2008 New Yorker article, Illinois Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel did tell a reporter that "he and Obama 'participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod [Blagojevich] was running for governor.' " But there hasn't been evidence of much contact since then. In fact, the ethics bill that Obama spearheaded while in the Illinois Legislature was a response to some of Blagojevich's transgressions. And the Chicago Tribune reported that:
Chicago Tribune (Sept. 19): The embattled Illinois governor was shunned by the Obama camp at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last month while several potential opponents to a possible Blagojevich third-term bid were showcased with floor speeches.
Hardly favorable actions from Obama toward "his governor." And no less an authority than Karl Rove said on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" yesterday, "Blagojevich only has the most tenuous ties to Obama."

New False Claims in McCain's Cascade of Lies

Keeping Quiet?
By Lori Robertson - FactCheck September 24, 2008
A McCain-Palin ad claims Obama has been "mum" on the economic crisis. That's false.

Summary
A new McCain-Palin ad says that "McCain and his congressional allies led" on the financial crisis while Obama was "mum." That's simply not true:
* Obama has in fact made several statements about the crisis on Wall Street in recent days, delivering his most specific remarks on how government regulations should be changed on Sept. 22, a day before this ad was released.
* McCain gave his most detailed speech on a response to the crisis on Sept. 19, a few days before Obama did. Obama, however, had been pushing for what he called a “21st century regulatory system” back in March.
* The "mum" quote is from a Sept. 20 Washington Times story, which went on to say Obama did "not to divulge details of his recovery plan ... fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters." The ad falsely says that Obama stayed quiet because "no one knows what to do."
* The ad ends by saying: "More taxes. No leadership. A risk your family can’t afford." Actually, most "families" would pay less taxes under Obama's tax plan. An independent analysis shows 95.5 percent of households with children would get a tax cut under his tax proposals.

Analysis
The McCain-Palin campaign released a new ad Sept. 23 that claims McCain has done all sorts of things to stem the economic crisis while Obama has said nothing about it. That's false.

Not So "Mum" After All
The ad says Obama has been “mum on the market crisis,” as that quote appears on screen. But on Sept. 22 (that’s a day before the ad was released) Obama gave a speech in Green Bay, Wisc., laying out a six-point plan for expanding oversight of financial institutions, streamlining government regulatory agencies, investigating and punishing market manipulation, and establishing a “financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the president, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face.” These are the same six points Obama was pushing back in March when he called for a “21st century regulatory system.”
Earlier last week, on Sept. 18, Obama was certainly less specific but still proposed a Homeowner and Financial Support Act that he said would give capital to the financial system and mortgage adjustment assistance to homeowners. (A news article mentioning that proposal was even included in the McCain campaign support for its ad.)
On Sept. 19, he said that “given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I have asked my economic team to refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have had an opportunity to present their proposal,” adding that their work should be “unimpeded by partisan wrangling.” Yet he talked about aspects he would like to see in such a plan, saying that it shouldn't reward "particular companies or the imprudent decisions of borrowers or lenders" and that it shouldn't "enhance the personal gain of CEOs." He also said it should be a temporary plan with new regulations on financial institutions and one that is “a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
On Sept. 21, he made another statement saying that the plan should protect taxpayers’ investment and homeowners and that over time the regulatory structure should be changed. All of these comments led up to his lengthier Sept. 22 speech.

That doesn’t sound like Obama being “mum” to us.

The actual “mum” quote comes from a Sept. 20 Washington Times article that went on to say Obama “opted Friday not to divulge details of his recovery plan for the financial crisis after a morning meeting with his top economic advisers — fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters.”

The McCain ad also claims Obama was silent “because ‘no one knows what to do.’ ”

But those weren't his words. They came from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who is pictured in the ad) in an article saying that Congress may not take action on the financial crisis before it adjourns for the election. The Bloomberg article said, “While they haven’t ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.”
It's true that McCain gave a speech outlining his six-point economic plan on Sept. 19, while Obama's most specific speech came a few days later, on Sept. 22. But, as we said, the regulatory principles Obama laid out in that talk were the same ones he had espoused for nearly six months. A few of the two candidates' proposals are similar.
In its support for this ad, the McCain-Palin campaign also points to press reports noting that Obama wouldn’t say whether or not he agreed with the federal government’s decision to bail out insurance company AIG. But is silence any worse than flip-flopping? It should be noted McCain himself said he opposed a bail out one day, then softened his position the next day and said he "didn't want to do that" but millions of people "were at risk." Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, also initially said he opposed the idea. Obama told NBC’s “Today”: “I think Joe should have waited as well.”

Leading on the Issue
The McCain-Palin ad says “McCain and his Congressional allies led” and lists a few measures they led on – “Tough rules on Wall Street. Stop CEO rip-offs.” The wording may give some viewers the impression that these are examples of legislation McCain already has introduced or pushed through Congress. But these are proposals McCain made Sept. 19 in a speech in Green Bay (a popular spot, it appears, for big economic speeches).
The “stop CEO rip-offs” claim, for example, is a reference to this line in McCain’s speech: “And corporate governance rules will be reformed so that shareholders have a clear say in determining the pay of CEOs and other senior executives. On my watch, the consequences for corporate abuse will not be more enrichment, but more likely an indictment.”
We make no judgment as to which candidate offers better or more effective solutions to the financial crisis or limiting corporate CEOs pay checks. But the record shows that Obama has not been quiet on such issues and indeed has proposed measures for some time on the same topics the ad claims McCain has "led" on.
The Obama campaign points out that its candidate has called for controls on executive compensation much earlier, sponsoring “say-on-pay” legislation in April 2007 that would have required public companies to hold a nonbinding shareholders vote on CEO pay. McCain hadn’t signed on to the bill, and a senior adviser told the Wall Street Journal that McCain opposed government regulations aiming to fix executive-pay issues:

Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2008): Democrats support a Senate bill that would require public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on top officers’ compensation. Sen. Obama, of Illinois, introduced the measure, similar to one that passed the House last year. ... Obama staffers recently renewed his request for Senate hearings on the measure. If the ‘say-on-pay’ bill doesn’t pass this year, it ‘will be a priority for Sen. Obama as president,’ campaign policy director Heather Higginbottom says. … Sen. McCain hasn’t taken a stance on the say-on-pay bill, and opposes legislative or regulatory cures for executive-pay problems, says senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. ... He adds that the senator believes the private sector could take steps "to end the cozy relationships that surround these pay packages."

In his Sept. 19 speech, McCain also called for the creation of a “Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust — the MFI,” which would “keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets.” Sounds awfully similar to the pronouncements of another presidential candidate.

More on Taxes
The ad ends with a familiar refrain from the McCain camp — “more taxes.” It’s true that Obama says he won’t extend the Bush tax cuts for couples earning more than $250,000 a year. But the ad implies that many more families would be affected by the Obama plan by saying: “More taxes. No leadership. A risk your family can’t afford.”
The vast majority of "families," however, wouldn't be affected by a tax increase on those making more than $250k. In fact, an analysis of the candidates’ tax plans by the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that 95.5 percent of households with children would get a tax cut under Obama’s plan. And overall, 81.3 percent of all households would see a tax cut.
.
.