John McCain: Naive, Lousy Campaigner

"She is the CHANGE . . . He just talks about."

Yes, John McCain spent 5 1/2 years in the "Hanoi Hilton," but somehow he never fully understood Sarah Palin's toughness, indomitable spirit, and loyalty to , , , him. In all his years as a Washington Insider, he apparently had never met anyone quite like her.

John McCain is now speaking out against the Obama Omnibus Spending Bill, but his words demonstrate the same naivete that has characterized him for decades. In recent days, he's sent a new fundraising letter, which is what he did best in his campaign. In those days, I contributed approximately $500 to McCain and organizations backing him. In gratitude, I guess, the McCain Campaign sent me approximately 50 fundraising appeals.

For my contributions, I got two pictures of Cindy and John. She looked great; he looked old tired, and generally clueless.

Don't get me wrong: I love John McCain as a man and revere his service as an American hero, but the fact that he now is surprised by Obama's actions -- ones The Anointed One has engaged in his entire poitical career -- establishes that John is hopelessly naive. Of course, he won't go so far as to call Obama a "socialist." He wouldn't do so if BHO started wearing whiteface, donning a Karl Marx wig, and carrying around a copy of "The Communist Manifesto."

John will go to his grave disbelieving that "going across the aisle" isn't necessarily a good thing. In practice, it's a one-way street, with Democrats -- the daffy Joe Lieberman doesn't count -- never doing any such thing. John continues to talk of Joe Biden as his "friend," although Biden portrayed McCain as erratic and even dangerous during the campaign. That doesn't seem to have registered with John, alas. Clearly, he has very low standards when it comes to choosing friends.

When McCain staffers like Mark Salter (and, apparently, John's daughter, Meghan) came out with nasty and made-up rumors about Sarah Palin, it demonstrated that, for all his life experience, McCain isn't a good judge of character. John adores Meghan -- even though she generally deserves a spanking and a sharply reduced allowance.

For months, Gov. Palin ferociously and consistently defended Senator McCain. However, when he had opportunities to reciprocate and defend Sarah, he decided to go on "Letterman" instead. The general hostility in McCain quarters for the heroic Gov. Palin was that she drew huge crowds . . . while McCain couldn't draw flies if he was buried up to his head in a landfill.

He has chronically exaggerated the character of Barack Obama. When John told the woman in Wisconsin that we "have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency," he was -- as we've learned -- just plain wrong. People fear Obama because he has greater allegiance to the Democratic Party and its electability than to his country. Hey, he's from Chicago, right?

In the primary season, McCain regularly said that he "would rather lose the presidency than lose a war [in Iraq]." With his dismal, lackluster campaign he apparently succeeded in losing both.

I'll always believe that if Sen. McCain had run a more forceful campaign, a few GOP Senators might have come through with victories. Perhaps there would have been enough to defeat the omnibus bill that now concerns him.

Instead, he chose to wage a "gentleman's campaign," while his opponents trashed him and his V-P choice at every opportunity. He never knew what hit him. He smiled a lot, almost oblivious to the political thrashing he was receiving. When he lost -- badly -- he refused to let Gov. Palin speak to the nation, perhaps fearful she would upstage him one last time.

And oh, by the way, no more requests for money, John. I'm giving it all to your former running mate.

Online Survey Gives Obama "F"

MSNBC, also known as "the National Barack Channel," is conducting a survey where people get to give The Anointed One a letter grade. As for 2 p.m. ET on Thursday, 60% of the 212,000-plus people who had voted gave Obama either a D or an F. My friend Jacquerie of WAMToday (http://wam08.org/) sent me the following information.

Hi, Know you're great at spreading things around. Pass this on please:

MSNBC is conducting a poll of voters: What grade you would give the new President? To participate and see results go here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/

Jacquerie's Comment: WND reported Obama at a 60% F score on March 11. His score has risen on March 12 to 27% A and 51% F.

Did he do something right yesterday of which we were not informed?

Steve's disclaimer: I gave the man an "F." Why? Because that was the lowest grade allowed. What about the people who are giving him an "A?" There's a persistent rumor that almost all of them are either descendants of Karl Marx or supporters of Hugo Chavez.

Is Obama Our Era's FDR?

"The Great Depression wasn't too bad -- as long as you had a job." (Unforunately, at any given time in the 1930s, one-out-of-four to one-out-of-five workers didn't have jobs.)

In his endless efforts at "experimentation," Franklin Delano Roosevelt did many bad things, including his "court-packing" efforts to manipulate the judiciary. Barack Obama seems destined to recapitulate all Roosevelt's worst initiatives.

Redistribution of wealth, which Obama told Joe the Plumber (Wurzelbacher) he supported, is the essence of socialism. FDR was a fervent redistributor. Why? He had discovered poorer people were more likely to vote Democratic.

Government control is another key aspect of the socialist agenda. However, the key component for socialist-inclined politicians, from FDR to Obama, is choosing what groups to favor in order to win elections.

In Roosevelt's era, the favored groups were: (1) recipients of government welfare (called "relief" in those days); (2) trade unions inclined to vote Democratic; (3) consumers of products (as opposed to producers); (4) college-age young people and high school students; and (5) Black citizens. Roosevelt's own version of an "enemies list" included: big companies; employers generally and the wealthy. Obama's "list" would be roughly the same.

FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) was a make-work organization designed to reduce unemployment, which, except for very brief periods, it didn't accomplish. Beyond that, it created ten thousand pages of regulations to exert government control over nearly every aspect of the economy.

To paraphrase Amity Shlaes (author of The Forgotten Man), under the NRA, government bureaucrats had the authority to curtail the production of goods (supply) in order to drive up prices. Of course, with so many people impoverished by the Depression, higher prices were not an unmixed blessing.

Also, NRA regulations determined the precise components in macaroni. Moreover, the organization determined what tailors could and could not sew. In the poultry industry, regulations barred consumers from choosing what chickens they wanted to buy.

An institution like the NRA illustrated the main assumptions of socialism: that government bureaucrats know better than producers or consumers. It emphasized consumers because there are more of them -- as voters -- than there are producers

NY Times: Is Obama Socialist?

The NY Times recently did the unthinkable: it asked Barack Obama if he was a "socialist." Obama bridled at the question. Is he a socialist? Of course he is. The man has surrounded himself with Marxists, including his childhood mentor "Frank" (Frank Moore) and self-described "communist" (small "c') Bill Ayers. Obama's political hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was surrounded by socialists and a few Stalin-adoring Communists.

Roosevelt believed that the government was better able to create jobs -- and "redistribute wealth" -- than private industry. That belief dovetailed with FDR's desire to win perpetual re-election -- a desire Obama obviously shares. FDR, like Obama, had a marvelous gift-of-gab. Unfortunately, in both cases, rhetorical skills have functioned as a substitute for real accomplishments. [Note: If you visit this blog with any frequency, please join the followers group, which you can go by clicking on the sidebar -- top-right. Thanks.]

What went wrong during both the Great Depression and the first decade of the 21st century?

Consider Chicago-based electric power magnate Samuel Insull, who became fabulously wealthy -- on paper -- during the boom times of the 1920s. A few years after the Depression commenced, Insull had lost his fortune, largely because of (1) deflation; (2) FDR's hatred of private power companies. Insull had believed in the future of electric power, that demand for it would keep on growing – and over the long term he was right.

However, Insull's philosophy of growth was based on leverage -- on borrowing money. He once said, “Take on debt as fast as you can.” Unfortunately, when a businessperson – or a homeowner – does that, he or she had better hope that the market never takes an extended dive. Of course, such a sustained downturn is exactly what happened in the 1930s – and what we’re experiencing now. As long as markets keep going up and up, every investor looks like a genius.

In our time, the big commercial banks and the big investment houses took on massive amounts of debts, assuming that sustained growth would allow them to pay it back. They never contemplated a period of deflation.

Consider Lehman Brothers, a once seemingly invincible merchant bank, which was one of the first Wall Street dominoes to fall. Previously, it had been extremely profitable – on paper. However, it took on an almost unimaginable load of debt. In fact, its ratio of debt to capital was 30 to 1. When all of a sudden, its debts came due – in a time of deflation – it was unable to pay them. And its days as an independent business were over.

Although its actions apparently weren't criminal – just stupid and selfish -- Lehman's approach was somewhat similar to Bernard Madoff’s. Unlike Lehman, Madoff had an all-out Ponzi scheme, where he paid off yesterday's investors with new investors’ money – taking out enough cash to get rich himself. As new investors became scarcer, Madoff was no long taking in enough in to pay off the older investors. At that point, he may have had nightmares of wearing not $6,000 business attire, but rather an orange jump suit.

In both the 1920s and our own recent times, the approach was to borrow, borrow, and then borrow some more. The assumption was that markets – as well as housing prices – would continue to go up almost forever. When they ceased going up, the mighty fell – fast and hard.

As regular readers have seen, MotleyFool.com had a piece called “Who Should Go to Jail?”

That's a harder question than it seems. Should the people formerly known as “The Smartest Guys on Wall Street” end up in the hoosegow? That depends on whether being extremely stupid qualifies as a crime. Should the man down the street go to jail, the one who fibbed about his income so he could buy a million dollar house because he “knew” it would go to a million-five and he would then sell it at a big profit? (Note: That house is now worth, say, about $700,000 and change . . . and the foreclosure notices have started arriving.)

I used to have people look at me with straight faces and say, “Look, they’re not making any more land, right? So, housing prices are never going to go down, right? Or at least they won't go down for a long period of time, right?" Well, no, wrong!

Remember, before “toxic assets” were known as, well, toxic assets, a lot of them were seen as “good investments.” Who knew what they were really worth was -- theoretically -- a good question, but in practice, nobody cared.

Everybody was buying, right? Not anymore. “Those were the days my friend; we thought they’d never end.” Another saying has prevailed: "All good things come to an end."

[More to follow tomorrow on what FDR did that hurt the economy -- and how Obama is doing the same things in our time.]

Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

Urkel Hussein celebrates his latest economic achievements.

Who caused the economic crisis that now grips our nation? The correct answer, one we really don't want to hear, is: We did. He (The Anointed One featured in the graphics above) also did his part.

Later today (Monday), I'll be writing the first of several pieces about similarities between the current economic downturn and the 1930s. If your parents or grandparents were admirers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, I regret to inform you that most of the things they told you about FDR were false. In fact, he probably did more harm than good. Scroll down to the bottom to see an example. I hope you'll return late this afternoon or this evening to see the new column.

How? By taking on (high) levels of debt that we're now finding harder and harder to pay off. We believed that something called "inflation" would allow us to pay off debts with ever-cheaper dollars. Instead, we have something called "deflation," which is having just the opposite effect, making dollars harder and harder to come by. There's no more inflation to bail you out.

On the political front, the short -- but incomplete -- answer to who caused the problem is: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats, as well as the self-aggrandizing people at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the above insisted that lenders offer loans to people who now can't afford them.

The longer answer is that the crisis traces back to all those people -- in the public, in the government, and in the urban caverns of Wall Street -- who engaged in, or encouraged, very risky borrowing.

One such individual is a man named Tim Geithner. In the run-up to the crisis, he headed the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. He strove to keep interest rates at extremely low levels, which of course encouraged people -- from Main Street individuals to Wall Street speculators -- to go into heavy debt. Of course, low interest levels are fine, but only as long as borrowers don't over-use them.

There used to be an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes.

Let's be clear: It's certainly okay to borrow modest amounts of money, as long as the recipient has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan. However, if the person doing the borrowing can't survive an economic downturn, even a severe one, big loans are a bad idea.

As people try to put their arms around our dismal economic situation, they should start reading an important financial web site: MotleyFool.com. The writers there avoid financial jargon and "WallStreetspeak."

One MotleyFool piece I urge everyone to read is Matt Koppenheffer's provocatively titled essay: "Who Should Go to Jail?" You can find it at the following link: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/06/who-should-go-to-jail.aspx?source=iflfollnk0000001

As you read the following material from Koppenheffer's piece, think of a line from an old song: "Those were the days my friend; we thought they'd never end." Of course, everything comes to an end.

Relatedly, as Sir Isaac Newton taught the world long ago, "What goes up must (eventually) come down." That's as true of economic rises and falls as it is of roller-coaster rides.

But who should we punish for economic malfeasance? In the words of Koppenheffer: "As the nation’s collective temper flares, we’re all beginning to consider tossing the people responsible for today's financial mess in the slammer and throwing away -- no, melting -- the key. And with our economy in disarray and major banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) potentially on the brink of collapse, it's tough to fight that sentiment. . . .
.
"Sometimes it just doesn't matter what your IQ is, what school you went to, or what position you hold -- idiocy can creep up and slide into bed with you. Even more irresistible is an idiocy that is supported by seemingly everyone around you. 'What? Home prices never go down?' That sounds fishy, but everyone else seems to think it's true.

"Remember when your mother asked whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else did it? Some people, even smart ones, have been jumping off that bridge their entire lives."

Koppenheffer's point is that, in financial matters, there are some crooks -- like Bernie Madoff -- and many fools, a group that includes nearly all of us (including me). As a nation, we jumped off bridges -- by making risky investments and buying houses that are now worth less than we ever imagined.

Can Obama bail us out? Surely you jest. He isn't going to hand over his own fortune to the American people. Remember, he's living rent free in a $100 million home. The only one who can bail us out is . . . us, the taxpayers, and, of course, the foreign lenders from whom we're borrowing trillions. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that a problem generated by over-borrowing is going to be solved by . . . massive borrowing.

Why oh why did we buy a $500,000 house when we could only afford one for $400,000 or less? We did so because the "smart people" (now known as the "dumb people") told us it was a good investment. After all, in a few years wouldn't our half-million house be worth $600,000 or $700,000?

Right now, however, our $500,000 home may be worth $390,000 -- or less. The notion that home prices would not -- could not -- go down turned out to be a foolish notion. The "housing market" ended up pricing itself out of the market.

On that $500,000 home, suppose you put down $100,000 -- one-fifth of the price. Then, suppose, you took out a home equity loan (perhaps to pay off credit card debt) of $60,000. In that case, you owe a total of $460,000 on a home that's worth $390,000 (minus the real estate commission of more than $20,000). You are out a ton of money.

With economics, the word "never" (as in, "House prices will never go down") doesn't apply. It doesn't apply if you're Citigroup, or Merrill-Lynch, or AIG. It also doesn't apply if you're you, sitting nervously in a home that you can no longer afford. You're up the creek, and your creditors are holding the "paddle."

(Note: I'll be writing the rest of the week on the economy, with emphasis on what the Obama Administration should do -- but probably won't.]

More from MotleyFool.com: "My guess is that a heck of a lot of the problems that we're facing today were born of people doing dumb things. Building a financial model that assumes housing prices will never fall? Dumb. Buying a $500,000 house with 2% down and a three-year interest-only loan? Dumb. Giving a mortgage loan to somebody putting nothing down? Yup, that's dumb too."

Did FDR really lift America out of the Depression. No, he didn't.

Barack Obama talks regularly about the inspiration he receives from the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However, when it comes to bringing the country out of an economic crisis, FDR is a very poor model. He succeeded at getting large segments of the population to revere him. He failed at solving the country's economic disaster. Consider . . .

In November , 1933, a year after FDR's election, unemployment in the U.S. was above 23%, nearly one-in-four workers. The Dow Jones Industrial average, which had gone over 380 in fall, 1929, was at a miserable 90.

What about November, 1934, two years after Roosevelt's election? Unemployment remained exactly where it had been a year earlier -- at 23%, and the Dow had moved us a measly three points -- to 93.

By July, 1935, two-and-a-half years after his election, FDR had barely put a dent in unemployment, which remained about 21%. The Dow had moved up some -- to 119 -- but it was still at a level less than one-third the high in 1929.

Frankly, much of what we learned about FDR from old family members -- and from our history books -- was incorrect. FDR remained a dashing and popular figure, but the Depression lasted all the way through Roosevelt's first two terms.

Obama Voters Swallow Stupid Pills

NOTE: ON SUNDAY, MONDAY, AND TUESDAY, I'LL HAVE COLUMNS THAT I HOPE WILL BE THE SIMPLEST, MOST HELPFUL PIECES AVAILABLE ON THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS -- AND HOW TO GET OUT OF IT. PLEASE VISIT. There was an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes. Prior to his current high position, Geithner was head of the Federal Reserve's New York branch, an institution with heavy responsibile for the financial crisis.


There's abundant survey evidence that most Obama voters in 2008 were not exactly valedictorian material. It may have something to do with all those homeless types and convicts registered by ACORN. As the material below (in smaller print, scroll down) from yesterday's column illustrates, tens of millions of Americans are uninformed about some of the most basic realities of life in America. They are dumber than doorknobs. [Note: If you come here often, please sign up with other "followers" on the sidebar to your right.]

As frequent readers know, this blog is not to be confused with The Complaint Department. In fact, its purpose to come up with solutions rather than to whine about the outrages of any particular day.

As you know, I'm an optimist. I believe "Low-knowledge" voters, the kind who flocked to the polls for Obama, are a problem, but perhaps not an insoluble one.

We need to figure out ways to get some basic knowledge to people who curiosity is extremely limited. Such individuals aren't going to read books about economic declines -- and they're unlikely to tune into Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. In whatever way we can we must get our message across -- or they'll continue voting for Obama types until the country is totally bankrupt and devoid of individual liberty.

During the past election, I made a lot of phone calls on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Like any good caller, I didn't argue with people hell-bent on voting for Obama. However, in one case, I violated that rule. The person I called let me know he was "totally in favor of universal health care."

I couldn't help myself. I said, "Universal health care . . . does that mean I pay for your care . . . or that you pay for mine?" The man didn't hang up, but there was an extremely long pause on his end of the line. Heretofore, he had been under the impression that he would take -- and someone else would give.

II was making a simple point, one I probably knew about age 5 or 6 The point was that nothing in life is free, NOTHING. Somebody pays for the things we receive, and usually that somebody is us.

A political slogan like "universal health care" is not a solution to problem that a service -- like health care -- is costly. In short, I may have taught the man a simple truth that he hadn't encountered in his many years on earth. Was it the beginning of wisdom for him? Probably not, but it was better than nothing, which is what he knew previously.




Above: Obama Supporters chanting "Yes We Can!" as they march confidently into a bottomless pit labeled "Hope" and "Change."

Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses.

Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."

Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.

I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.

Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgeable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.

The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are.

As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't. A majority of Obama knew that Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house." In fact, Sarah never said any such thing. The remark was made by comedienne Tina Fey.

It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Democrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority

.In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.

Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.

America's Most Hilarious Opinion Survey

“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly – and for the most part sincerely – assured of their greatness.” President Calvin Coolidge, shortly after leaving office -- and he never even knew Barack Hussein Obama.

Above: Obama Supporters chanting "Yes We Can!" as they march confidently into a bottomless pit.

Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses.

Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."

Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know. I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.

Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.

The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.

How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are. As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't.

It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Demcocrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority.

In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.

Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.