Cross posted with a few minor modifications from race42008.com

In the primaries most of you know I was a huge Romney supporter (still am) who made the mistake of agreeing to be on his Faith and Values Steering Committee. I doubt I would agree to do something like that again. Why? Because it really removed my ability to call things as I saw them. Every time I wrote something that was at all criticizing of Mitt people who hated Mitt would talk as if the tables have turned on Mitt and those who like him immediately supposed my motives where to get some air time or something self-indulging.

It’s pretty silly really. When I wrote the post Romney’s Fork, I had a lot of responses, including the Wall Street Journal using my writing to fill up about two-thirds of one of their articles about Mitt supporters unhinged. Believe me, there was no joy in any of that. I didn’t want it publicized everywhere; I just wanted the people I write to and with to have some different angles to consider. There is always someone wanting to exploit I guess.

I sincerely doubt that most in our party who write negative posts about McCain or Palin do it to become noticed or because they want to throw and anchor to a drowning man. Sometimes criticism of those we support is the best thing they can hear. You disagree? Then why do we a have a first amendment? To allow us to cheer for our party’s leaders louder? No, it’s tell our leaders what we expect, whether we like them or not.

I am going to go out on a limb here, and extrapolate that our Founding Fathers saw criticism as a net positive. Call me crazy. Sometimes good people still are inclined to hand constituents and supporters crap sandwiches, which is apparently what a lot of the party think McCain was doing, both in his handling of Palin and bail out.

There are a lot of things I enjoy about the sport of Politics. But there are a lot of things I don’t. One of them is the constant impugning of peoples motives when they decide to take a popular idea to task within the party. Another would be the idea it’s bad to say our VP did so-so among the people whom we need to win over even though she threw the base more red meat than one could devour in a night. Maybe that’s because I don’t think the world is made solely of black and whites, but instead Black and White with huge amount of grays in between that Human’s will never (at least in this life) be able to authoritatively declare what is black and what is white. It’s a complex world with more angles than our own.

So to those who don’t like negative talk or criticism of our candidates, I say relax. If McCain and Palin are really that fantastic they will hold up and perhaps learn from their folleys…which all candidates have.

A four ways of considering this debate in different contexts:

1. In a vacuum: Biden wins hands down. Offered very substantive remarks that addreessed questions fully. I don't agree with most of his answers, but he is a good debater, very knowledgable and came off very strong. Palin seems to think voters don't want to hear her answers to what seemed to be fair questions from the moderator. I am guessing SNL will have some fun with that moment. Palin wasn't non-substantive, she had some good moments, but Biden proves more knowledgable and stronger.

2. In context of Palin's recent interviews: Palin wins. Much better performances in this different format. Thumbs up, as Matt Miller has said in the comments, she was under intense pressure and came through. Very outstanding.

3. In context of future career: Mildly helpful. Palin's main constituency, the evangelical working class, was reassured. The problem is in a future GOP primary (20xx- there will be one at some point) she will be running against other people who are stronger competitiors in that arena than Obama (see Huckabee). She won't be the lone conserative in the race, it won't be so clear cut and oppositionless from her home party. I doubt she will ever appeal strongly from the wonk/intellectual end, and she won't be the only pro-life candidate in the field. I am not saying she is a shoe-out for a future primary, but she is no shoe-in. This debate helped her keep a foot in, but will the leg follow?

4. In context of the 2008 election (oh yeah- nearly forgot!)- Biden wins. You see, Palin's answers are great for the base. But everytime Palin is seen arguing against income distribution and what not, Biden and Obama have effectively framed it as arguing against the middle class. And McCain and Palin seem to be suckers for it. Her principles are right without a doubt, but independents are un-idealogical by definition. They aren't interested in why free market principles work- or else biden wouldn't have been knocking it; and actually neither would she have with her Wall Street greed line. It's a bad year and a bad time in the cycle to be put in a position of arguing conservative principles.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Here (click where it says "video" under the Video)

The symbolism is daunting:

MILWAUKEE — Oprah Winfrey's mother says she shouldn't have to pay a nearly $156,000 debt to a high-end fashion store because store officials shouldn't have extended credit to her.

Valentina Inc. alleges that Vernita Lee of Milwaukee racked up $155,547 in purchases and interest as of July 1. The company sued, saying Lee fell behind in minimum monthly payments of $2,000.

Lee filed a counterclaim Friday contending that Valentina took advantage of her "lack of knowledge, ability, and-or capacity" when creating her credit account.

Court papers say Lee resolved a 2002 case with the company over a $175,000 bill. The resolution prohibited Valentina from extending further credit to her. Link

Timotheus has got it exactly right. This is the perfect storm of politics and problems - a recipe for wrongheaded government action. Like Timotheus, I have no doubt that the financial problems are real and will hurt the economy. I don't want to diminish the very real hurt that will likely come.


Still, it seems as though conservatives like us - defenders of the free market principles that have built and sustained this country for almost two and half centuries - should not so quickly abandon our principles in the face of adversity. Indeed, it is when the call for government action into markets is so strong that we need to be most resolute. I could cite numerous sources of economists and other market watchers who can place the blame squarely on bad government policy - government incentives to lend to undeserving borrowers. Yet politicians think that more government is the answer, while doing nothing to address the underlying bad government policies.


Unfortunately, many elected officials can only see the expediency of the next election. These are the same people that have allowed the budget to bloat beyond control. They see the vote for the "bail-out" as their ticket to re-election - a way to show constitutents that they were "doing something." That kind of "doing something" is the kind of good intentions that lead to one of those four letter words.

A thought about the "Financial Crisis." Don't get me wrong about the Quotes. I do think we are in a financial mess and calling it a crisis is probably appropriate. Unfortunately, a lot of the panic is being fueled by politics. Consider two, probably competing, interests. One: Bush and the Administration wanting to do anything they can do to avoid economic turmoil and the blame that goes with it. Two: The democrats wanting to harp on how bad Bush has ruined the economy. Together, they have convinced everyone that the world as we know it is coming to an end.

Now, the world may very well come to an end tomorrow. This may be the last you hear from me on My Man Mitt or anywhere else. But if it does, a lot of it will be because the "crisis" hit during prime time political season. Consider the stock market for a moment. People the country over who have any kind of money tied up therein are trying to find any other kind of investment vehicle that exists for their money because of the "crisis." Someone with more financial wisdom than me may dispute this, but aren't we talking primarily about financial institutions being in trouble? I was under the impression that many companies that are traded publicly have little to nothing to do with the credit derivatives and other gnarly schemes the JP Morgan types all conspire about at the cocktail parties. Even if there are problems with the insurance companies, do we realy think all of these other companies are going to default on their credit obligations for some reason?

The problem here is that the government lacks credibility and so they have to scream at the top of their lungs "crisis" to get attention and that doesn't reassure us, it just makes us want to pull money out of our banks. Oh yeah, and since the government wants to throw another 700 billion on the credit card to buy stupid loans, we have lingering doubts about the whole FDIC thingy. We're acutely aware that if all goes south as predicted, the FDIC is grossly undercapitalized.

So, where does this leave us? The Republicans are choking, many Democrats are gagging, and the whole country is turning blue as the administration, Pelosi and co. try to shove the package down our throat. If it doesn't pass and all goes bad, its the Republicans fault. If it passes, it is the Republicans fault for getting us into this mess. And if the world doesn't end tomorrow, it will be the Republicans fault we have to live to feel the hangover all of this "crisis" talk is giving me. So, I just want to thank the Democratic controlled Congress for the important work they have done the past two years to keep this from being worse than it could have been. I look forward to many more fine years with their steady hand at the helm.