Scoop Election 08: edited by Gordon Campbell

Gordon Campbell on Palin’s bad week, and the bailout plan

September 29th, 2008

Luckily for Sarah Palin, the focus on the presidential debates and the $700 million bailout plan helped to bury a horrific series of news events for her last week. First, Palin kept stonewalling her way through the investigation into her role in the attempted firing of trooper Mike Wooten, and in the actual firing of Alaska’ s former public safety commissioner.

Then came her appalling performance in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News – which by week’s end had caused nationally syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker to withdraw her support for Palin and call on her to resign as John McCain’s running mate.

To top things off, the New York Times then ran a demonstrably false story
alleging that when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin and her police chief required rape victims to pay for the cost of the evidence kits and forensic lab time needed to process their complaints. Shame on the New York Times. That urban myth had already been thoroughly debunked before : and has been further debunked here

Unfortunately for Palin though, much of her bad news last week was entirely genuine. She did give an awesomely terrible performance in her interview with Couric,. If you thought Palin’s first interview with Charlie Gibson was bad, then this was a train wreck. Watching Couric take Palin apart, over and over again is a bit like….well, seeing Palin shoot a baby moose, and it verges on cruelty The debacle can be watched here and here and for the final terrifying segment, of Palin on US foreign policy you can watch here Couric, by the way, is in quietly brilliant form throughout. She gives a lesson in interviewing skills.

While watching the Couric interview you can only wonder – how on earth can Palin survive the 90 minute ordeal of the vice=presidential debate scheduled for this Friday afternoon ( our time) against Democratic vice-presidential contender Joe Biden ? But then, the debates are structured to favour the kind of programmed soapbox sloganeering that is Palin’s only verbal skill. The remorseless follow up questions that Couric used to such deadly effect will not be possible on Friday.

The Bailout Plan for Wall St.

Meanwhile, the bailout plan tottered towards completion yesterday – despite an earlier rebellion by a conservative faction of House Republicans that had sunk the original Bush/Paulson plan, even as John McCain rushed to Washington to save it, and the nation. Bush at least, got to deliver the best soundbite of the entire week : “If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down.”

The bailout plan still has very few friends. Wildly unpopular with the American public who will have to foot the bill, the plan has been denounced by conservative Republicans as a violation of free market capitalist principles, while liberal Democrats have slammed it as a reward for greed, and as a handout to Wall Street. McCain’s rush to Washington landed him squarely in the crossfire. From the outset, he looked like one of those cartoon lumberjacks with one foot on one log ( the Bush/Paulson plan) while the foot on the other log ( the House Republican plan) went off somewhere else entirely.

Late last night, a compromise was finally reached just in time before the markets re-opened. The plan should receive final Senate approval on Wednesday. The main details, with a list of the improvements to the original proposal can be found here

In essence, the plan halves the amount of money available, no questions asked, to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. He will now be required to seek Congressional approval for the rest. Also, taxpayers will gain some equity in the firms they assist, and will not simply own their toxic debt. As well as bailing out Wall St, the plan will also ‘encourage’ banks to re-structure the debts on family homes that are now facing foreclosure. In sum, the bailout plan :
— Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review
— Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies
— Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails
— Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full — if other protections have not actually produced a profit
— extends the support given, from Wall St onto Main St, USA. It allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

Supposedly, the cliché has been that the US financial collapse has launched us into uncharted waters, unknown territory etc etc. In fact, the current version of the bailout plan seems to have drawn heavily upon Sweden’s financial meltdown in 1992, and on that country’s subsequent recovery plan, The similarities are detailed here by the New York Times :
and check out also this comparison between the banking crises in Sweden and Japan :

The prime causes of the Swedish disaster were similar to the current meltdown on Wall Street : namely, a rash of prior de-regulation and the end of a property bubble triggered a credit crunch that left the banking system virtually insolvent. The Swedish solution though was quite different from the ‘name your price for the toxic financial waste and we’ll pay it, while expecting nothing in return’ response originally touted by Bush/Paulson.

First, the Swedes required the banks to take a write-down of the toxic debts and financial instruments at the heart of the crisis. Then, the infusion of taxpayer money bought a stake in the firms themselves – and these holdings were later re-sold at a price that earned back for taxpayers much of the original bailout money they had put in. The Swedish government for instance, still holds a 20% stake in the Nordea Bank. The focus in Sweden has been on taxpayer protection and on corporate responsibility – and not on the sort of Wall St welfarism that we’ve seen so far. Unfortunately though, the global economy is now facing a recession, not the boom times of the 1990s that quickly helped Sweden to get back onto the road to solvency.

Palin and women voters

McCain of course, will seek to take credit for the final bailout plan – even though many Republican candidates have said they will campaign against the bailout in the November elections. Currently, Palin is looming as a far more pressing liability for the Republicans, now that the initial gloss has faded from her sudden celebrity. Among women voters in particular, the McCain/Palin ticket looks to be in trouble.

The initial reactions for instance, to the presidential debate between McCain and Obama were sharply divided along gender lines – with CNN reporting that males narrowly gave McCain the edge, but women called Obama the winner by a whopping 59/41 per cent margin. Women also happen to be over-represented among the undecideds for the election, and can thus be expected to tilt the polls even further in Obama’s direction as election day nears.

Ironically in Friday’s debate Palin will be up against Biden, who actually drafted the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. This protective legislation was opposed by McCain, whose name has never appeared among the long list of co-sponsors for this law, when it has been up for renewal.

Leaving aside the bogus rape kits issue, there many gender issues on which the Republicans are vulnerable – so long as Biden takes a leaf from Couric’s book, and allows Palin to self destruct without appearing to bully her. As the actor and poverty activist Ashley Judd put it recently, any woman voting for the McCain/Palin ticket is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.


Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Scoopit
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
  • Print this post Print this post
    1. 6 Responses to “Gordon Campbell on Palin’s bad week, and the bailout plan”

    2. By simon on Sep 29, 2008 | Reply

      “She gives a lesson in interviewing skills.”

      You mean she was well informed, and just calmly persisted, not rudely but effectively, neither getting into a slanging match nor offering free hits? No job for her on New Zealand TV then.

    3. By matt on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

      Sarah Palin:

      “Our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of.”

      “It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.”

      And we all thought it couldn’t get any worse after George W Bush…

    4. By Henry on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

      If you want to read what Matt Taibbi, a writer for Rolling Stone, thinks about Sarah Palin have a look at:

      This should give those like Deborah Hill Cone and Rosemary McLeod pause for thought in their enthusiastic endorsement of Sarah.

    5. By Cristi on Oct 5, 2008 | Reply

      On Palin:

      What exactly are you afraid of concerning Palin? Both the Couric and Gibson interviews were heavily edited hatchet jobs conducted by journalists whose political leanings are far left of Sarah Palin, and who have purposely set up a line of questioning purposely meant to disarm, to anger, and to intimidate. These interviews were aired by networks that have repeatedly demonstrated a complete contempt for objectivity and journalistic ethics. It is true, Palin can come across “folksy” at times because of her ability to be very personable. Her guard is not up, she has nothing to hide, and she is comfortable being a real person. I am not exactly certain why you would fault her for that. Does having a relaxed personality make a person unintelligent? Certainly Not! Just look at her record of accomplishments in public office and compare them to the people who criticize her. Who is she?….an ordinary woman (who did not have to go to the East Coast to be indoctrinated in Harvard). She is in a stable, happy marriage with four children (and now five) with a stable, has a happy family…with a few problems of course, just like all of us. She takes on corruption, government waste and overspending, and powerful oil companies in her home state….and in a VERY short time, prevails over all of them! And she remains honest and confident and happy and likeable and not at all full of herself ( ahem…Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton). It would appear a person does not have to be from the East Coast and be educated at Harvard and suck up to those who have to become a force to be reckoned with in this country. Are the corrupt, Ivy League indoctrinated, embittered, capitalist hating, America loathing, socialist loving elitists now afraid the rest of us will be as successful as she, and take back our country from them? They should be!

      By the way, I am not certain who submitted the above comments on these situations in America, but I would not dream of thinking I could accurately opine concerning the intricacies in politics of other countries, and would not be so presumptively rude as to do so…If you’re not from here, perhaps you should not have such strong opinions about our political leaders and should ask more questions and remain objective.

      —submitted by a regular American Mom…just like Sarah Palin

    6. By millsy on Oct 7, 2008 | Reply

      I’m not afraid of Sarah Palin, what she says is pretty mucb been said by most US presidential candidates over the past 50-60 years, especially right-leaning ones. Only this time at least this person is nicer to look at. I said before, we shouldnt judge America or americans by our own standards. They are different from us. We may be Anglo-Saxons and we may have Judeo-Christian belief system, but NZer and Americans are different.

    7. By James on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply

      Cristi, I feel you need to read a little more and find out a few more facts about what is really going on. If you did you would realise how little grasp on reality Palin actually has, and how much of what she says is little more than a sequence of well-memorised slogans.

      Palin is “not at all full of herself”? Yet Pelosi and Clinon are? Because they are Democrats and she is Republican? Because they are competent, well qualified, experienced, knowledgeable and well-spoken? Please.

      In her interview with Couric, Palin went to pieces, and just as she did in the debates, she completely avoided not only direct questions but entire topics altogether. Topics such as foreign policy. Topics such as the economy.

      You should be very worried indeed if Palin gets any closer to the Whitehouse.

    Post a Comment