Terry Everett Brown's Weblog

Facts about Financial Deregualtion and Fiscal Policy

It seems in the flurry to create some drama behind what is essentially a bad dry, boring, complex story about bad policy initiated by the Clinton Administration, the mass media have been allowing politicians of all flavors to distort and mislead the puiblic about what has really caused the financial meltdown on Wall Street.  Fisrt of all Obama and Pelosi are flat out wrong when she says the liquidity is caused by deregulation.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  The reason there is no liquidity available today is because the Clinton administration pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make subprime loans in underqualified demographies, which, surprise surprise, have defaulted in masss numbers. These bad loans were purchased  by the now-failed Lehman Brothers and other now defunct banks.  That type of naive 'managed economic policy' is a big government program, like they used in the now bankrupt communist and socialist states of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and it is, in fact, the opposite of deregulation.

These facts are demonstrated in the following 2 pieces from the New York Times and the other from Bllomberg.  If you can read them and still believe the ridiculous assertions from the left, you are either insane or you have an understanding of economics so wildly sophistocated that you have an obligation to explain it to the rest of the world IMMEDIATELY in a comment on this blog.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Deregulation Not to Blame for Financial Woes: Peter J. Wallison
2008-09-30 04:02:00.0 GMT

Commentary by Peter J. Wallison
    Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- In the debate on Sept. 26,
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama argued that the
current crisis in the financial markets is the result of
Republican deregulation.
    The advertising from his campaign has been saying the same
thing, and this claim is becoming a fixed element in the talking
points of Democratic candidates this year.
    The credibility of the charge depends on ignoring several
important facts:

    -- There has been a great deal of deregulation in our
economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the
financial sector or has had anything to do with the current
crisis. Almost all financial legislation, such as the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991, adopted after
the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s, significantly
tightened the regulation of banks.

    -- The repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999
-- often cited by people who know nothing about that law -- has
no relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis, with one major
exception: it permitted banks to be affiliated with firms that
underwrite securities, and thus allowed Bank of America Corp. to
acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy Bear
Stearns Cos. Both transactions saved the government the costs of
a rescue and spared the market substantial additional turmoil.
    None of the investment banks that got into financial
trouble, specifically Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group
Inc., were affiliated with commercial banks, and none were
affected in any way by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
    It is correct to say that there has been significant
deregulation in the U.S. over the last 30 years, most of it under
Republican auspices. But this deregulation -- in long-distance
telephone rates, air fares, securities-brokerage commissions, and
trucking, to name just a few sectors of the economy where it
occurred -- has produced substantial competition and innovation,
driving down consumer costs and producing vast improvements and
efficiencies in our economy.
    The Internet, for example, wouldn't have been economically
possible without the deregulation of data-transfer rates.
Amazon.com Inc., one of the most popular Internet vendors,
wouldn't have been viable without trucking deregulation.

    -- Republicans have favored financial regulation where it
was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking
Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough
regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous
opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the
Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its
enactment impossible.
    Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a
speech on the Senate floor.

    -- The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and
Freddie bought -- and the market in these mortgages that their
buying spawned -- are the underlying cause of the financial
crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is
asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had
allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law
in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.

    Policies that center on deregulation are probably hard for
the voting public to grasp, and that has allowed Democratic
candidates to spread the idea that there is a connection between
deregulation and the current crisis. But an Obama victory, based
in part on the claim that deregulation has caused the financial
crisis, will create a mandate for new regulation where it isn't
necessary and will do harm to our economy.

    (Peter J. Wallison is the Arthur F. Burns Fellow in
Financial Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
The opinions expressed are his own.)

For Related News: STNI PAULSONPLAN <GO>

--Editors: James Greiff, Laurence Arnold.

To contact the writer of this column:
Peter J. Wallison at pwallison@aei.org

To contact the editor responsible for this column:
James Greiff at +1-2122-617-5801 or
jgreiff@bloomberg.net

September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities
and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the
credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other
lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage
those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure
from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are
not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans
from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates --
anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional
loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the
1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines,
Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain
too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our
underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying
significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one
study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went
to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional
loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae
is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any
difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized
corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a
government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in
the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another
thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the
government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up
and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a
mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a
conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a
rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes
his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage
point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not
lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks
make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of
loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more
loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to
all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add
that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and
low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than
non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the
economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to
Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according
to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that
same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a
home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by
46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for
homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag
behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in
particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that
by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio
be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44
percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is
investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated
underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the
credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
--------------------------------------------------------

Its really simple...

My lumberjack friend told me last week ‘I need some ammo’ about McCain.  Obviously I’ve been spinning- with so many staggeringly obvious reasons- where to start? where to focus? how to frame the obvious comparisons and contrasts-- and where to end?/how to close?

At one moment, I thought- it substance over style:  the American Hero over the pop-culture candidate.

At another I thought- its experience over youthful ambition:  An accomplished statesman over a naive lawyer.

And further I thought-  its integrity and sincerity over false hopes and slick marketing.

But today- a moment of clarity: It’s not complicated-  It’s a one-two punch.  My friend need simply answer the following questions:

1.       What are the 2 most important  issues facing the country today?

Terrorism and and Economics

2.        Who has the most logical approach to the above, McCain’s proactive anti-terrorism vs. Obama’s retreat and McCain’s cutting taxes or Obama’s raising them?

No ammo needed.

Obama Jumps the Couch

Yesterday Barrack Obama did exactly what I claimed he would do on March 14th – he made a mistake that marks the tipping point of his candidacy, and he sealed his own destiny as anything but the candidate of destiny he was so wistfully referred to just 5 days ago. No longer is he the unifying candidate who transcends racial and ethnic divides, but rather he has become an ethnic candidate who tried to explain away racial hate speech and to bury his own contradictions in a heaping pile of patronizing rhetoric. Sure he gave an interesting analysis of the state of race relations in America today, but he did nothing to make voters feel like he has done or would be able to do anything to improve the status quo if he were elected President. Even had he accomplished that task, the fact remains that race relations is not an issue that compels many voters, especially those beyond his well established base of far left and black voters. In the speech, Obama did more to remind the American public of the long and painful decade of Clintonian scandals and semantically parsed statements of denial than he did to resolve the glaring questions about his association with the controversial Reverend and his 20-year membership in his church. The Senator made matters worse by directly contradicting his prior statements about the controversy: he said succinctly that he did hear Reverend Wright make controversial statements that only 4 days prior he flatly denied having heard. What’s worse, he then attempted to explain away the anti-American rhetoric by likening the Reverend’s behavior to that of the entire black community.

The Senator took a bad situation and made it much worse. Instead of playing it straight- and admitting that he made a mistake by not challenging the Reverend or leaving the church, which might have actually gained him some support among voters, he tried to explain it away in a wildly complex, if eloquent, series of moral equivalencies and victocratic justifications. This type of political double-speak is never a favorite of the American people- particularly in explaining away a scandal. Not only did it not stop the bleeding (his poll numbers have dropped as much as 12 points in seven days in national head to head contests against Clinton) but it made it worse. And not only did it make it worse, but it made it worse in the very demographic that Obama will need to win over in the general election – white independents.

A CBS poll on Tuesday, the day of the speech, said that of all voters, 30% now have a less favorable view of Obama, 15% of democratic voters and 47% of republican voters now have a less favorable view of the candidate. Most importantly, 36% of independents have a less favorable view of the embattled Senator. A Fox poll says 35% of all voters now have doubts about Obama, including 26% of democratic voters, 27% of independent voters, 40% of white voters and 2% of black voters. In fact, his 10 point lead in the North Carolina primary has nearly evaporated and Clinton’s lead in the Pennsylvania primary has extended up to 26 points in The Public Policy poll, and 16+ points in the Real Clear Politics average of polls. Obama now trails McCain by 1.4 % in the RCP average, a loss of 8.5 points since the scandal broke less than two weeks ago.

Despite his freefall in the polls, and his failure to adequately address the scandal, I am not convinced that Obama will succeed at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the democratic primary. Clinton is likely to sweep 7 of the next 10 primaries and close the gap in both delegates and popular votes, and she will further bolster her argument to the superdelegates that she should get their support. But unless she can take the lead, she is not likely to wrangle away Obama’s nomination. But he has destroyed his stature on the very issue that was the pillar of his strength until now – his credibility as a unifying figure in America. And by setting off alarm bells even among those formerly in his camp, he is now likely to start facing some tougher questions from the once misty-eyed mainstream media. The big story here is that he has now become the easier candidate for McCain to beat, and while he is still likely to get his party’s nomination, his road to the White House just got a lot longer and bumpier.

The Rise and Fall of the Prius Voter

The Obama campaign is about to jump the couch. It hasn’t happened yet, but the Illinois Senator is on the brink, poised for a sudden downturn in popularity. He will, of course, maintain his base of far left, youth and black support, but the media’s love affair with the candidate, coupled with his unusually strong support amongst upscale white voters has peaked and will continue to wane. I can’t predict exactly when his Tom Cruise moment will come, but I get the sense it will happen soon. This is what we do in America. We build people up- we inflate them with an irrational sense of invincibility and then, when we get just a little too much of them or they annoy us just a wee bit, we turn on them like a bunch of spoiled children ready for the next new toy.

Call it overexposure. In this media culture we’ve created for ourselves we have entire industries built on exposing our celebrities and their flaws. We overconsume them and then we get sick to our stomachs- again with the childlike behavior. Be it Ben Affleck, Britney or even the oversized SUV. We, as a culture, would not make good equities traders- we buy too much of the same thing and then we just dump it.

Our latest overindulgence is Barack Obama. The smooth talking senator has the mass media panting on all fours. Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ famously gushed that he felt ‘a tingle up his leg’ when he saw Obama soothsaying to a crowd of enraptured supporters. It is widely reported that his supporters are more than casually energized by his silver-tongued rhetoric of hope and change. Indeed, what the press has labeled ‘Obamamania’ reminds me of the Toyota Prius- the hybrid car, which enjoys disproportionate popularity among wealthy white Americans. The psychology behind the success of both ‘products’ in this ‘Whole Foods demographic’ is the latest fad in limousine liberalism: stop global warming by purchasing a $30,000 toy to park next to your SUV and drive between flights on your private jet, and/or solve the world’s problems by electing a young, inexperienced and radically liberal Senator who promises to change everything but offers no plausible explanation how. In both cases, mind you, the classic, quick fix, throw-money-at-the-problem mentality may be as well intentioned as it is naïve. It is well-intentioned because many Americans believe that America needs a message of hope and change for the future, and what better way to manifest our open-minded values to the rest of the world than by electing a successful young black man who was born to Muslim parents. All very well and good, but also naïve in that there is more to the Presidency than the color and creed of the candidate, and the kind of change actually proposed in Obama’s boilerplate liberal policy platform is simply changing back to the same old leftist policies that Jimmy Carter crystallized as comprehensive failures 30 years ago.

You can’t solve global warming by buying a prius any more than you can fight global terrorism by withdrawing troops and pledging ‘open dialogue.’ As much as we all wish it were that simple, the extended spotlight of the protracted democratic primary battle is reminding us that it isn’t. While Clinton’s negatives have always been high, she has little to lose from the extended exposure, but this unplanned encore is offering closer examination of an Obama wave that has already crested.

In fact, his campaign has significantly curtailed his media availability and is even considering some overseas travel during the gap before his inevitable defeat in Pennsylvania next month. His poll numbers are slipping – just today his national head-to-head lead over McCain in the Real Clear Politics average has slipped from seven points to one and a half points, marking the fist time he has not held a larger lead than Clinton over McCain (she is also at +1.5). He is still the hands down favorite to win his party’s nomination, barring a legal miracle enabling Clinton to steal Florida and Michigan’s delegates, but his veneer is fading and he appears poised to jump the proverbial couch. There will be a moment in the next eight weeks, when the young Senator misspeaks or overreaches in some small way. The reaction will be big, and ugly, and irrational, and people will be driving around, bewildered, in their Priuses, wondering if they should have given Clinton- or should give McCain- a second look.

"If you can't run with the Big Dogs...

...You'd better stay chained to the back porch."

That was the slogan for our ski team at the Carrabassett Valley Academy in Maine, a competitive ski training academy I attended from age 13-16. There were only 11 students our first year, but we still mounted a fierce ski and soccer team. We called ourselves the BIG DOGS.

Gotta love it.

Today's clever and amusing quote from Mitt Romney, who I have repeatedly said is a smooth talker and a smart man but is a bit too slick for my tastes, reminded me of the CVA BIG DOGS:

"Listening to Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama talk about experience in a national security crisis is like listening to two chihuahuas arguing about which is the biggest dog. When it comes to national security, John McCain is the big dog, and they're the chihuahuas."

WORDS MATTER

I’ll never forget sitting at my Grandfather’s bedside in the hospital in 1991 while he scoffed at then Governor Bill Clinton on the TV “I don’t like him. He just tells everyone exactly what they want to hear” Papa said to me. Expert political analysis this was not- Papa was a retired Beatrice Foods salesman, who worked his way through night school at Columbia University. And it’s fair to argue that’s what all politicians do, to some extent- tell people what they want to hear. But there’s something to this worth examining more closely. I think what Papa meant was that he expects more from a leader than simple platitudes.

A few years later, I had an economics professor in Business School who was wise enough to realize that ten years into the future I’d remember very little of that which he was teaching, and he consistently repeated to the class “words matter” – a simple truth that rears its enduring wisdom repeatedly in most areas of life. Most people tune politicians out entirely- and with good reason. There seems to be little reason to listen as they all do tend to, as my Papa complained about Clinton, ‘tell us what we want to hear.’ But if we take a minute and look at what’s being said- if we remember that ‘words matter’ there is much to be learned.

Dan Heninger of the Wall Street Journal points out in his column “Obama at the Top” (WSJ 2/16) that the junior senator from Illinois is selling victimhood compared to McCain’s heroism: “Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar. It's a downer.”
Heninger follows with excerpts from Obama’s Feb 12th victory speech:
"Our road will not be easy . . . the cynics. . . where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits . . . That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda. . . It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart . . . It's a game . . . CEO bonuses . . . while another mother goes without health care for her sick child . . . We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace . . . even if they're not rich . . ."
Heninger continues, “here's his America: ‘lies awake at night wondering how he's going to pay the bills . . . she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill . . . the senior I met who lost his pension when the company he gave his life to went bankrupt . . . the teacher who works at Dunkin' Donuts after school just to make ends meet . . . I was not born into money or status . . . I've fought to bring jobs to the jobless in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant . . . to make sure people weren't denied their rights because of what they looked like or where they came from . . . Now we carry our message to farms and factories.’"
It ends: "We can cast off our doubts and fears and cynicism because our dream will not be deferred; our future will not be denied; and our time for change has come."
Heninger’s point is that this is a message of populist revolution rather than optimism, and he notes that many elections are won with optimism. He adds, “In late December, Gallup released a poll in which 84% of respondents said they were satisfied with their own lives. At some point in the next 10 months, people will have to square Sen. Obama's Grapes of Wrath message with the reality of their lives.” His point is valid, but it does it overlook the psycholitical behavior of voters? Perhaps the Gallup poll is accurate and people are somewhat satisfied with their own lives, but that may not reflect how they vote. Contemporary conservatives believe that may Americans, driven by subconscious guilt and shame resulting from a high standard of living and a disproportionately negative, liberal media culture, will vote not as a reflection of their own lives, but as a protest to the injustice apparently being suffered by others. This is the same irrational discontent we see when year after year, over the last two decades of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity- where joblessness shrank and home ownership grew at record paces under eight years of a democrat then eight under a republican, yet a majority of people say the country is on the wrong track. People feel satisfied with their own lives, yet they are concerned that too many around them are not enjoying the benefits of free market capitalism as they are. People feel guilty about being successful- or comfortable- or satisfied. Perhaps this is a sign of compassion- that people can relate to- or identify with- this brand of revolutionary populism that vows to protect the unprotected. Or perhaps many people are not listening to the words- but getting caught up in a media culture and populist rhetoric that tells us what we want to hear.

McCain/Rice 2008 !!

With Romney out and McCain very likely to win the nomination, McCain's next big move is to pick a veep. It should be Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Many are suggesting it should be Romney, but that would be a mistake.

The main effect of the veepstakes is to gird relative weaknesses of the Presidential nomination:

Geography: It is very clear that a southerner would have the best geographical impact on the ticket. Rice’s Alabama heritage would be a great fit. Mississippi’s Haley Barbor and Texan Phil Gramm are other viable options. Romney would not be as much help in this area since McCain already has an unusually strong base of support amongst independent-minded northeasterners.

Ideology: McCain’s attractiveness to independents, moderates and “Reagan democrats” is precisely what weakens his conservative support. Rice is a strong conservative, who would likely appeal to some far right conservatives, yet she would also fit well with McCain’s contemporary conservative style. Barbor and Graham may turn off as many moderates as they activate conservatives.

Demography: The idea of a black female Vice President would certainly turn off a few hard-core right-wingers, but it is more than likely to energize and mobilize many voters who may otherwise have stayed home. And I dare say that Condy is easily as well spoken and inspiring a leader as OBama- and certainly far more experienced. Her presence on the ticket could help bridge the enthusiasm gap between the democrats and republicans in the current race.

Coming Home from Fallujah...

My cousin Mike is coming home from Fallujah next week- here is his latest post and my comment below. For more info., or to thank him directly, visit his blog: http://web.mac.com/michaeldnoble/michaeldnoble/Welcome.html

Thursday, February 7, 2008

This is my last entry from Fallujah. Now the pain begins with the journey home. People cramped in like cargo with only on thought on their mind, just getting home. It makes the whole trip seem surreal. Everyone with big smiles seemingly linked from ear to ear. Because no matter how long it takes or the pain involved with the long hours waiting for our ride, nothing can detract from the fact. We are coming home.

For many this deployment has not been their first, not will it be their last. Some may be getting ready to do this again in what would seem, overnight. But that is a inevitable consequence of our current occupation. They do this without second thought, this is what they do. No political or party lines here. Just a job, and they must do that job well. But the Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Civilians over here have done nothing but their best. Anbar has seen significant change in the last year, and only can see a better future for the people here. This must happen. You cannot explain what it’s like being here in words, but as I have said before... Words are all I have.

So that’s pretty much is all I have, I am limited by time right now. I have somewhere I don’t have to be. So on that note I hope that I will be able to see everyone in the coming months. But there is only one person that I will be sharing my time with when I come home. Because after all Julie has had to endure this separation as much as I have. And my family is what comes first. With that being said.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Michael

Cousin Mike-
I am glad you are coming home. I am proud that you have served your country and mine with such honor. I thank you very sincerely for doing what many of us have not been willing or able to do on our country's behalf.

I am grateful that our military and political leaders were able to find a way to make your efforts count toward 'significant change in the last year' and 'a better future for the people' there. Had you and the other servicemen all come home a year ago, when the majority of the public and the politicians were pushing for that, your efforts would still have been as noble, but the results would not have been as positive- for the people in Iraq or in the U.S. So I extend my thanks to President Bush and the politicians like John McCain who supported him, and to General Patreus and the many soldiers like you who gave 'nothing but their best' on behalf of our country's freedom and security.

HATS OFF TO YOU!!
Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 05:34 PM

Get out the Vote??

You’ve probably consumed more than a few political advertisements in recent weeks, pushing this candidate or that state ballot initiative- and when you do vote you’ll likely don a sticker saying “I voted.” If you’re like me, you may have even received a missive or two from friends reminding you to ‘get out and vote,’ whatever your choice.

The anti-Obama direct mailing from a former first lady claiming to be the ‘only candidate with the experience to lead’ was enough to make me smirk. And I laughed out loud at the voicemail on my cell phone from “a neighbor” asking me to vote for ‘the good Doctor’ Ron Paul “because he is a strict constructionist.” But the one that’s got me wondering this Super Tuesday is the ‘just get out and vote’ campaign. Is that really a worthy effort, to encourage people to vote whether or not they have done their homework, or are even in agreement with your choices? How is that a wise idea?

The assumption must be something like this: If people are encouraged to vote, then they will want to learn about the choices at hand in order to make the best choices for themselves. By more people exploring the options and exercising their opinions, the results will reflect a more current and accurate state of public opinion, and ‘better’ choices will be made- for the people, by the people.

OK. But what if more people voting because they feel like they should, rather than because they are motivated by information they have garnered relating to the questions at hand, leads to results reflecting a less-informed electorate? Is that a good thing?

Certainly, to suggest that people NOT vote wouldn’t seem right- and to discourage people from voting seems flat out un-American. But what if part of the above assumption isn’t valid? What if people just get out and vote, but they don’t understand the ballot initiatives they are voting on, and the candidate’s positions on the issues? I am a politically active writer with a BA in government, a master’s in economics and a career including various jobs spanning across three presidential administrations. I wouldn’t call myself a genius, but my disposition must be significantly more informed than that of most other voters who are not awake before 5am writing political blogs. Yet, I am often uninformed on the details of the ballot initiatives and the policy objectives of many of the local candidates, so I shudder to think how little others might know about the choices they are making as well. What would the election results be like if we voters were more educated about our choices?

Dare we wonder aloud that if more people knew more about the choices they were making, more of them would think like we do? That is a psycholitical question I do not have enough empirical evidence to answer. And so, like I do so many times in the voting booth when confronted with a question I am not sure about, I’ll go with a little bit of faith- that more people getting involved will cause more people to think about the choices. And I’ll close my eyes and hope- that at least in general- the economic principle of ‘more is better than less’ might just apply here.

IDENTITY CRISIS

The Clinton’s are back in action again- smearing their distinct brand of shameful calumny all over the democratic primaries. Don’t take it from me, a life-long republican who has been decrying these sleazy creatures since they started lowering the bar for public discourse by publicly destroying Gennifer Flowers in 1991. Consider Vanity Fair’s Bruce Feirstein’s characterization of Clinton as a ‘nasty man: …Bill trots around South Carolina like some kind of thuggish company hit-man, attacking Obama’s character, provoking him on race, dissembling about his record, and attempting to diminish—and dismiss—the appeal of Obama’s candidacy by predicting that he’ll win because of the black vote. Ergo, he’s a single-constituency candidate. And the goal is to triangulate him into oblivion. It’s the same old Clinton game, over and over: …There is no yesterday that can’t be rewritten; there is no consideration about the blowback from all this tomorrow. The only thing that matters is winning, or appearing to win, at no matter what cost, today.” Watching Clinton disgrace himself, his presidency’s legacy and his party all over again reminds me just how much of a disgrace he and Hilary are to our country –and how they tend to embody the worst in our culture. They are the Paris Hiltons of politics- debauched scandal-mongers who stop at nothing to ‘succeed’ in this media driven culture of celebrity and slander.

It strikes me as unfortunate and so typically human that the tables have turned squarely against so many of the very liberals who bought into the Clintons’ politics of personal destruction in the ‘90s, when it was directed at Clinton’s ex-girlfriends, sexually harassed whistleblowers and other republicans and ‘obstacles to power.’ Now that millions of liberals are interested in supporting a new star in the democratic party- one whose name is not Clinton- they are feeling Bill Clinton’s pain in ways they never imagined.

Consider the Washington Post’s proudly liberal E.J. Dionne: “Doesn't calling in Bill Clinton as the lead attacker merely underscore Obama's central theme, that it's time to "turn the page" on our Bush-Clinton-Bush political past? And with both Clintons on record saying kind things about Reagan, why go after Obama on the point? Honestly: If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander. Yet there was Hillary Clinton's campaign, unveiling a radio ad on Wednesday implying that Obama bought into such ideas as ‘refusing to raise the minimum wage.’ Come on, guys.”

The Clinton attack machine is working, perhaps too well. Its success at dismantling Obama’s campaign ‘at any cost’ may come with a higher price tag than even Hilary can cover- awakening a sense of moral indignation in the hearts and minds of many liberal, former-Clinton turned Obama supporters. Many members of the democratic base that for years cheered the Clinton attack machine, as it destroyed the lives of many members of ‘the vast right wing conspiracy’, are now seeing the truly dark nature behind the Clinton curtain.

A similar sense of shameful reflection and disappointing self-discovery is happening to republicans as well. It is appropriate to distinguish between the personal and dirty nature of the attacks from the Clinton camp and the more broad and political nature of the fire on the right. With the emergence of John McCain as a valid contender for the nomination, the voices of extremism and distortion on the far right have come haunting into the ears of so many who cheered them for so long when they were attacking the ‘real’ enemies in the democratic party. But now their ire has shifted to John McCain for his transgressions on immigration, campaign finance and taxes.

Everybody’s favorite voice of reason, Rush Limbaugh, said this week that McCain’s nomination would ‘ruin the republican party.’ Stephen Hayes of the National Review writes “Other conservative politicians--or former politicians--have taken their anti-McCain arguments to absurd lengths. Take Tom DeLay, for instance, whose K Street pandering led to numerous indictments and contributed greatly to the Republican losses in 2006. The former House majority leader said, without a trace of irony in his voice, that John McCain ‘has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of’.”

Malevolent race-bating this is not, but it is unreasonable and unsavory- "That's just so preposterous," said conservative supply-sider Jack Kemp. "I don't agree with McCain on several things. He's gotten right on the economy. He's right on foreign policy. And he's right on the war on terror."

As a champion of contemporary conservatism, and a former employee of Jack Kemp’s, I too support John McCain -on the issues and on his character. I do not support Barrack Obama on policy, and don’t honestly know how to assess his character other than to appreciate his inspiring rhetoric and to respect his efforts to define himself as an American leader, rather than an African-American candidate. I have more disdain for the despicable tactics of his opponent than I do respect for his policy positions. But the real clarion call here is for all partisans to taste the poison we may have previously savored when it was being spat not at us but onto our opponents. Friendly fire kills. And it costs, despite what the Clintons may think.