Matt Yglesias

The Governing to Come

Paul Krugman writes:

A magnificent victory for Barack Obama. And bear in mind that the campaign, in its final stages, was really about different philosophies of governing. This wasn’t like the 2004 campaign, which was essentially fought over fake issues — Bush running on national security and social issues, then claiming that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security. In this election, Obama proudly stood up for progressive values and the superiority of progressive policies; John McCain, in return, denounced him as a socialist, a redistributor. And the American people rendered their verdict.

Now the work begins.

I think that’s right and it’s part of what I had in mind when I disputed the notion that John McCain’s campaign was somehow even more slimy than previous conservative efforts. The whole socialism, welfare, redistributionist, appeaser schtick certainly had its ugly side, but it did also have some real ideological content. A high-tone policy argument? No. But it wasn’t just a series of random insults directed at Barack Obama, it was a clear claim that Obama’s political views were too liberal whereas Obama argued that McCain offered a continuation of Bush’s conservatism. And the voters chose the liberal path.

Ezra Klein thinks back to late 2004 and early 2005:

I do remember that. I also remember how Democrats had to get religion if they ever wanted to be competitive again. I also remember how they had to appeal to the white heartland by nominating candidates more culturally recognizable to rural voters. Instead, they went in the opposite direction, running a candidate who was recognizable to the majority coalition Democrats hoped to have in 10 years. It seems to have worked out pretty well. It’s almost as if pundits don’t really know what they’re talking about.

Mostly I think it’s a reminder that events matter. By 2006, the consequences of conservative governance were clear to a majority of the public, who registered their displeasure at the polls. But the lame-duck conservative president and a filibuster-happy conservative minority in the Senate blocked efforts to take the country in a substantially new direction. Two years later, the consequences of conservative governance and of conservative obstruction were even worse. So the public has once again expressed its displeasure at the polls. The vehicle — an unlikely candidate with an uncanny talent for political oratory and organizing who didn’t fundamentally rethink the nature of the progressive agenda but did help sharpen public demand for change into an effective political movement for change.

That gets you . . . an opportunity. If progressive ideas, when put into practice, work as we think they will work — which is to say, if they work well — then we should expect to see that reflected in future election results. But if our ideas fail, as conservative ideas have failed, then victory can turn into defeat incredibly quickly, just as Karl Rove’s dreams of an enduring Republican majority have now melted away into nothing.

56 Responses to “The Governing to Come”

1. scythia Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 12:43 am

   YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!

2. Mixner Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 12:53 am

   YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!

   Or……NO YOU CAN’T!!!!!! Economic and political reality is going to intrude rather quickly, I suspect. The LA Times is already busy lowering expectations:

   What priorities are likely to be downsized or delayed?

   A prime candidate is Obama’s plan for near-universal healthcare, which his aides acknowledge would cost at least $50 billion a year to implement, with independent estimates much higher. Instead of moving forward with a comprehensive plan, an approach that led Clinton into a major setback in his first term, Obama may try to take smaller bites.

   As early as last summer, former Sen. Tom Daschle, an Obama advisor often mentioned as a potential White House chief of staff, said healthcare reform would be easier to pass “if we take it a piece at a time,” instead of as a single, giant-size reform. Rep.

   Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), another Obama advisor, said healthcare remained a top priority — but added that he’d be satisfied with passing “a down payment” in Obama’s first term.

   A “down payment” on health care. Doesn’t sound too promising. And it wasn’t a terribly ambitious plan to begin with. Obama’s energy plan may also be in trouble:

   The president-elect’s ambitious energy proposals may also be tackled piecemeal, advisors said. Some elements, such as the job-creating investments in alternative energy that Obama emphasized last week, are broadly popular.

   But proposals for tough limits on greenhouse gas emissions from energy-generating plants and other facilities, a program known as “cap and trade,” will be harder to pass because they impose new costs on energy producers.

   “This is going to be a tremendously heavy lift to get passed,” acknowledged Heather Higginbottom, Obama’s chief domestic policy advisor in the campaign.

3. DonBoy Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 12:53 am

   Obama — excuse me, President-Fucking-Elect Obama — is the first one since Reagan to be elected after running as an up-front example of his party and its philosophy. Bush I had “kinder and gentler”, meaning not-Reagan, and Bush 43 was a “compassionate conservative”. Clinton didn’t have such a slogan but he let it be know that he was a “New Democrat”, willing to execute and cut back on the welfare. But here’s Obama, a real live no-kidding Democrat, and hey! he just won.

4. flounder Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 12:56 am

   FWIW Chuck Todd just started the mandate talk.

5. Donald A. Coffin Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 1:00 am

   And now it’s only 77 more days before we get a new resident of the White House…Somehow that feels like all too long.

6. DTM Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 1:03 am

   I also remember how they had to appeal to the white heartland by nominating candidates more culturally recognizable to rural voters. Instead, they went in the opposite direction . . . .

   Well, see, that’s just wrong. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand, but Obama learned how to appeal to the “white heartland” in the form of Downstate Illinois under the mentorship of the late Paul Simon. His ability to package that “heartland” appeal with a pragmatic version of progressive policies (and, admittedly, some excellent timing) is why he crushed McCain in the Upper Midwest, and generally ran strong (for a Democrat) in rural areas.

7. AlanC9 Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 1:06 am

   I suspect Obama’s going to get about as much of his agenda through as Reagan did. The question is whether he’ll be able to spin partial fulfillment into a myth of total victory.

8. Thomas Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 1:10 am

   Matt, tell us what it means for them to work well? What unemployment rate will be a success for Obama? What kind of growth in median wages? What kind of poverty rate? What budget deficit? What level of public debt? Put some markers out here, so we know what you mean by success, won’t you? If the numbers look like the first Bush administration, will you admit that Obama’s a failure?

9. AlanC9 Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 1:13 am

   First Bush administration numbers would represent a substantial improvement from the current situation, wouldn’t they?

10. Thomas Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:16 am

    Alan, Matt believes the first Bush administration was a failure on economic policy, so why would those levels of performance be acceptable now?

11. Mixner Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:19 am

    First Bush administration numbers would represent a substantial improvement from the current situation, wouldn’t they?

    Would they? Do you have the numbers?

12. Jimm Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:22 am

    Indeed, Obama and his organization have given us an opportunity, let’s help him turn the opportunity into reality. We don’t need to be utopians, but we do need to be creative, passionate and believe in the progressive imagination, because in a way the story of freedom and America IS the progressive imagination, and this could be an epic new chapter in that legacy, if we do everything we can to apply the tools available to us, network the available intelligence, engage fully our creative imaginations in navigating through these turbulent waters, while never forgetting that compassion must always accompany reason, or what is it all for?

13. JMitzman Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:23 am

    If Obama really was anywhere near as progressive as the Republicans made him out to be I would be quite enthusiastic at his winning. However, I suspect far from enacting a progressive agenda Obama will simply put forward more conservative ideas, which, thanks to the extremely radical nutsos we laughingly refer to as the Republican party will be implemented as more welfare for the wealthy, if they are implemented at all. Granted, I am relived McCain did not win as that would have been utter disaster, but with the direction I expect Obama to take the country in all I am really expecting is disaster delayed for a while more. That’s just not something I find I can get very enthusiastic about.

14. guy Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:35 am

    I just want to point out:

    At Matt’s old site, fuckwads like Tim K and Cal spent god knows how much time and bandwidth putting forth “arguments” that Obama was “unelectable” because he couldn’t win working-class white voters, or whatever. Well, fuck the fuck out of you fucking fucks. You were wrong. WRONG. Eat it.

15. Mixner Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:43 am

    The New York Times is on the expectations-deflating trail now too:

    [Obama] promised on the campaign trail to close the detention facility at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but analysts in both parties expect that to be more difficult than he imagines. He will inherit a deficit that could approach $1 trillion next year, which could curtail his ambitions, like expanding health care coverage.

    As a result, the shift from campaign trail rhetoric to halls-of-governance reality could prove turbulent. And Mr. Obama’s soaring speeches have created such a well of anticipation that there is a deep danger of letdown. He talked during the campaign of a “new politics” bringing Republicans and Democrats together. But if he really works with Republicans to find common ground on issues like Iraq, terrorism and climate change, he risks alienating his liberal base.

    “You tend to campaign in black and white. You tend to govern in gray,” said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who has worked for four presidents, most recently Mr. Bush.

16. Jimm Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:44 am

    Walter Brueggemann:

    How can we have enough freedom to imagine and articulate a real historical newness in our situation? That is not to ask…if this freedom is realistic or politically practical or economically viable. To begin with such questions is to concede everything to the royal consciousness before we begin. We need to ask not whether it is realistic or practical or viable but whether it is imaginable. We need to ask if our consciousness and imagination have been so assaulted and coopted by the royal consciousness that we have been robbed of the courage or power to think an alternative thought.

17. Thomas Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:49 am

    There’s nothing hard about closing Guatanamo. It takes an order.

    He voted for the budget he’s “inheriting”, so I don’t see where he can complain about it. And if one thinks $1 trillion is a big deficit, wait til year 2.

18. Dan Kervick Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:57 am

    A progressive agenda? Sure. But that’s in part because the entire country has shifted to the left on economic policy, and even though Obama’s disposition is to build consensus, the new center is further left than it was four years ago, or even one year ago.

    The political center of the country, including much of the business and investment community, wants economic stimulus. The political center of the country wants infrastructure investment. The political center of the country wants an energy plan. Those are the priorities, and I expect to see Obama get to work on them right away by getting an economic team in place quickly. I agree with others that we are likely to see a more piecemeal approach on health care until the overall fiscal and macroeconomic pictures are stabilized, and set on a more promising course with action on the large public investment projects that will build jobs and wealth, and stimulate a sick economy.

    Given that the economy was by far and away the dominant issue on voters’ minds today, I thought it was notable that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the first policy issues Obama mentioned tonight, especially since the war issue was de-emphasized in the closing weeks of the campaign. My conjecture is that Obama has recently developed a renewed appreciation of the importance of winding down Iraq, as he has huddled with transition advisers over the past several days. And the main reason? We needs the money! To achieve the level of short and long term public investment and stimulus that will be called for without raising taxes on those to whom a tax cut was promised, and without blowing up an already huge deficit, we’ve got to stop flushing money away in Iraq.

    The Rahm Emmanuel talk isn’t making me too happy. Obama needs to build consensus and invite broad discussion, and I don’t think a noted vindictive bastard and partisan hatchet man is the way to go.

19. Mark Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 1:59 am

    Matt, where is your prop 1 thread? It is at 51-49 with 35% reporting.

    http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm

20. Thomas Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:04 am

    Dan, the idea that our decisions about Iraq have important consequences for the budget is just fanciful. I mean, I know it’s a good applause line on the campaign trail, but it’s stupid. We’re going to spend, what? $3.3 trillion next year, and you think the $120 billion in Iraq is the difference maker?

    That $3.3 trillion in spending is going to come on a revenue base of a little over $2 trillion, by the way. And now that our income inequality problems have been solved, the idea that we can find lots of money by taxing the rich must disappear too. (You have noticed that folks on Wall Street are losing their jobs haven’t you?)

21. Mixner Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:05 am

    Here’s a recent New York Times piece describing some of the issues with closing Guantanamo. Quote:

    An administration official who favors closing the prison suggested that the next president might reconsider after having access to the classified evidence that the Bush administration believes justifies the indefinite detention of dozens of detainees.

    “The new president will gnash his teeth and beat his head against the wall when he realizes how complicated it is to close Guantánamo,” the official said.

22. bob mcmanus Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:13 am

    Tom DeLay said tonight the Nancy Pelosi will be running the country next year. I certainly hope so. Congress will likely be much more progressive than Obama.

    We have some really sweet majorities on Capital Hill, who aren’t as committed to bipartisanship as Barack Obama. Reid won’t need to please Chambliss and Cornyn to satisfy his self-image as conciliator.

    Clinton got his head handed to him by a Democratic Congress. I hope Obama has the sense to take his orders in private.

23. Mixner's New Public Transit Overlords Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:13 am

    Get your lard-ass, fact-deprived, perma-troll, basement dwelling-exurbian no-life shit-stain self on the motherfucking bus, motherfucker.

24. Public Transit's Budget Director Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:18 am

    There is no motherfucking bus, you illiterate, toothless, shit-pantsed pisshead.

25. Vermando Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:25 am

    As you had blogged about it before, just wanted to draw your attention to the exit poll numbers from the Deep South.

    Regarding the allegations from the Right that whites don’t vote on race:
    Louisiana, President-elect Obama earned 95% of the Black vote, Senator McCain 85% of the White vote, this in a state that reelected Democrat Mary Landrieu.
    Alabama: 98% of Blacks forPresident-elect Obama, 88% for Senator McCain
    Mississippi: 98% and 88% again
    Georgia: 98% and 74%
    Texas: 98% v. 73%
    South Carolina: 96% and 73%

    Outside of these states you get numbers more in line with non-race based voting.

    I encourage you to bring this to Ross’ attention the next time ya’ll are discussing the contours of the conservative coalition.

    Congratulations and have a great night!

26. raft Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:25 am

    PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR.!!!!!!!

    I’m so happy today; but also deeply aware of the burdens which we must carry now. This is not an end, but only a beginning. This is our moment to reclaim the American Promise–or to lose it forever.

    May god grant us the wisdom and the strength to do the work that needs to be done.

27. Mixner Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:38 am

    Matt, where is your prop 1 thread? It is at 51-49 with 35% reporting.

    Looks like it’s going to squeak through. Now all you have to do is get the legislature to appropriate the $10 billion, raise another $30 billion from the feds and the private sector, satisfy all the other conditions laid down in the proposition, get environmental approval, win all the lawsuits that will be filed against the project, and you can start building the thing.

28. Mixner's New Public Transit Overlords Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:56 am

    The bus is waiting for you. Every assertion you’ve ever made has been refuted. Every lump of shit you’ve pulled from your ass has been laughed at.

    You are nothing. Get on the bus, motherfucker. Even worthless shitstains can ride.

29. Jimm Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 2:58 am

    We’ve been on a long, winding road since 1776, and a new leg has begun. Hard, hard work is ahead. Too many forces are still arrayed against us, seeking to hold the human heart, mind, hope down. Yet tonight we feel a surge of momentum, a push from the roots, for new growth, for transformation, for liberation on a more inclusive and complete scale.

    These are the grand ideals, the continuing story, the beautiful manifestation of reality that is the emergence of humanity, of the liberation of humanity, of America, the dream of freedom, love, trust, security, creativity - yet right here, right now, we have the struggle closer to our time and place, the immense challenges before us that have become even more immense with the inattention and negligence of those who came immediately before us, challenges we should have no fear to face and overcome.

    We are in the midst of another renaissance, born from the chaotic and ominous conditions facing our nation and world today. We have an explosion in connectivity, information sharing, knowledge, and awareness, developments that have no precedent in the life of humanity, along with fresh insights into physics, complexity, psychology, and learning, new avenues of political participation and financing resulting in the beginning of actual universal political enfranchisement, partially reflected in these electoral results tonight.

    I want to congratulate Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and their campaign team, and embrace Obama, Biden and their administration to come. In these storied times, with these storied changes, amidst these immense movements in place, time and mind, I am confident that we have leadership that is up to the challenge, that is willing to embrace all the tools that are available for leadership and governance, that will openly and passionately embrace the application of intelligence, honor, reason, and compassion to address the great challenges of today, and the trajectory of these challenges into tomorrow, and to do so with full transparency and accountability to those who have elected them.

    And let us not forget there are malignant forces throughout the world operating to injure us, to intimidate us, to commit violence upon us. We must defeat these forces, and without hesitation put them on the retreat, not only with our powers of imagination and positive example, in terms of liberty and freedom, reason and compassion, productivity and wealth creation, but through the rule of law and application of justice, such that there will be no sanctuary for those who would prey upon another, who would commit violence for the achievement of any aim short of imminent self-defense, who would extinguish hope, imagination and creativity in the human heart, because this is our destiny on this long road we’ve tread, as this torch has been passed, to protect and cultivate that which is most dear to us.

    We must also not lose focus on the work we need to do at home, to perfect our union here, to root out corruption and cronyism, to return the government of Americans to Americans, to open the way wider for innovation and entrepreneurialism, to make essential services for the well-being of citizens more widely accessible - health care, education, transportation - and finally get down to the most serious task that science and ecology have laid before us, the ultimate task - to be stewards of the earth not only in our time for our generation, but in respectfully considering the generations ahead, the environment and beauty that will be present for our children, and their children, for only as sound ecological citizens will we continue to be gifted the resources to accomplish all the great things we are accustomed to accomplishing, as well as all the great things we can accomplish in the future, some we cannot even imagine, that will be left for our children and their children to dream and realize.

    Please forgive me for my indulgence.

    Mahalo.

30. Public Transit's Budget Director Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 3:01 am

    The bus ain’t there, you shit-for-brains hillbilly. You killed it.

31. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 3:42 am

    “And now it’s only 77 more days before we get a new resident of the White House…Somehow that feels like all too long.”

    It might be.

    The impending strike on Iran
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JK01Ak02.html

    Fact. We are in the beginning of a worldwide recession that will last until at least late 2009. This recession will be worse than the “light” recession of 2001-2002, and the “serious” recession of 1990-1991. In scope, it will be a “severe” recession like the one in 1982.

    Fact. People will start saving for the first time in a generation. The savings rate will go from a negative 1% to 8-9%.

    Fact. Without increases in consumer spending, the government
    will have to spend trillions of dollars to restart the economy. The United States is experiencing unprecedented levels of government, corporate, and individual debt. It cannot go through a period of inflation without its economy collapsing. Policymakers know this and they will do anything in their power to prevent deflation and re-inflate the economy. The Treasury and Federal Reserve have literally been
    printing money in order to float us out of the current crisis in an ocean of liquidity.

    This policy has been working for over two decades. However, to inject this much liquidity into the system will create tremendous downward pressure on the dollar. If the dollar falls apart, the United States will no longer have the ability to fix its problems with the printing press.

    How will we know if we will be able to get out of this recession in one piece? We will need to know if, a) we are experiencing deflation or inflation, and b) if the dollar is strong enough to keep reproducing itself at this rate.

    The price of gold will tell us what type of monetary environment we are in. If gold stays put at $700, or begins to go down from here, then we are in a deflationary period. For the United States to be going through deflation when everybody in this country is over their heads in debt is dangerous. For these two problems to occur during an economic downturn where unemployment could hit 10% is potentially catastrophic. Over the past month, major downturns in the stock market indices have been preceded by huge drops in the price of gold.

    The US dollar index will tell us if we can still use the same medicine traditionally prescribed by Alan Greenspan. If the dollar index holds above 70, we can print our way out of this recession. If the index breaks 70, then the dollar could be in trouble. Look for higher interest rates, inflation, and the government’s ability to raise debt will be hampered - this could kill future growth.

    Gold and the US dollar index have become the two vital signs of the global economy.

    If there is a run on the dollar, the US will not be able to borrow enough money to fight two wars, bail out the whole financial system, and initiate a spending program that will end the current recession. Policymakers will have to make difficult choices. This presents a once-in-a-lifetime “opportunity” for President George W Bush.

    The smart money has chosen Senator Barack Obama as our next president.

    If we don’t have a currency strong enough to borrow the necessary funds to do everything, I think Obama will try to pull out of Iraq. Given that we are winning the war in Iraq and have pledged to significantly draw down troop numbers in the next couple of years, how hard would it be for Obama to declare victory and pull out now? Politically, this would
    signal a message to the rest of the world that America has changed course and is ready to work with everybody else.

    But that’s not why Obama would pull out.

    He won’t do it for political reasons - he will do it for economical ones. A beaten-down dollar means that spending in one place will mean less money somewhere else. Up until now, Americans have been able to spend in one area, and borrow to finance another one. If president Obama doesn’t end the war, monies that are needed at home will not materialize. We will hear stories about how the everyday American can’t afford basic health care while we are still fighting in Iraq.

    The popularity Obama has enjoyed as a candidate will soon turn to hostility if the average American family had to suffer because he didn’t keep his promise to end the war. His decision will be due to economic reality - but it will have very dangerous political, military, and national security implications. Most of all, George W Bush’s entire legacy will be wiped away.

    Don’t you think the Bush administration is pondering this possibility?

    A president is definitely most powerful when he is a lame duck who is ceding power to an opposing party. If you are the outgoing president, or a member of the outgoing administration, you are thinking one thing: if Obama wins, November and December would be ideal time to attack Iran.

    Consider this:

    # Bush is a lame duck. He won’t be around to have to deal with any fallout from such a move.

    # Obama will never attack Iran. Four years from now, we will not be able to stop Iran from completing work on their bomb. Bush has always had a big sense of destiny in his leadership. If he believes that he is the only one who can save the world, he may decide to do it.

    # Obama can fix the damage. The Arab world loves Obama. They view him as a fellow Muslim. After Bush protects the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar and half of Europe from nuclear disaster, and these nations openly proclaim their hatred for him, Obama can come to power and spend his first 100 days in office “apologizing” for Bush’s “mistakes”. The US will literally get a “free pass” for this
    in the eyes of the world.

    # When oil was at $147 a barrel, there was no way the Bush
    administration was going to risk spiking it to $250 - especially with a presidential election coming up. Come November, oil will be trading at $70 per barrel. A strike on Iran may raise the price temporarily to its 52-week high of $150 per barrel. The election will be over and politically, the Bush administration will have nothing to lose.

    # An attack on Iran will force the American military to stay in Iraq for a longer period of time. The immediate Iranian response to an American attack will be to escalate the war. They will “green light” Shi’ite groups in Southern Iraq to go back to war with American forces. They will finance and encourage terrorist groups around the world to hit America wherever and whenever. They will broaden the war in the region
    by inciting Syria, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel - assuming they don’t fire on Israel themselves. America will have to stay at least an extra 2-3 years until things “quiet down” again. This new situation will also insure that the national security infrastructure created after September 11, and nurtured throughout the Bush administration, will not lose any of its powers during the new administration.

    # Members of the Bush administration, who left their jobs in the private sector, will soon be returning to the private sector. They all came from the oil industry and they want to make sure that they will be taken care of. Those 433,000 stock options in Halliburton outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney put in a trust before he assumed office - he gets them back January 20. It would be in his best interests if the shares of these companies were trading higher. That goes for the rest of the Bush administration - they will all want to make sure that the heads of the oil industry - their next employers - are happy. Obama has promised to tax the oil industry next year. An attack on Iran will drive oil prices up so that the additional revenue generated by these companies will, at
    a least, make up for any new tax obligations.

    # The aftershocks of the US attack will keep oil prices in triple digits and reinitiate the debate about drilling for offshore oil. A higher price will give big oil new political clout in developing oil fields in areas considered environmentally unsound. A heightened global tension
    means that the next administration will be forced to maintain current government outlays to the defense industry.

    The final three points will force Obama to continue the core policies of the Bush administration whether he likes it or not. If you are viewing the world from the point of view of the Bush administration, you see a lot of very big arguments for attacking Iran now.

    >From this we can come to a very simple conclusion: America will either attack Iran in the next two and a half months, or it never will.

    David Fink is the editor-in-chief of the daily investment newsletter http://www.realwealthrecon.com. Throughout 2008, his RWR Investment Portfolio has outperformed the market indices by 20%, and the average hedge fund by 3%.

    Guy has a point - except that he’s totally wrong about “Obama will never attack Iran.” Obama has already said that he WILL if Iran does not give ALL enrichment and centrifuges.

    And more:

    Brace yourselves - George Bush will soon be free to do just what he wants
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/29/usa-bush-syria-elections

    We are about to enter the twilight zone, that strange black hole in political time and space that appears no more than once every four years. It is known as the period of transition, and it starts a week from today, the time when the United States has not one president but two. One will be the president-elect, the other George Bush, in power for 12 more weeks in which he can do pretty much whatever he likes. Not
    only will he never again have to face voters, he won’t even have to worry about damaging the prospects of his own party and its standard bearer (as if he has not damaged those enough already). From November 5 to January 20, he will exercise the freest, most unaccountable form of power the democratic world has to offer.

    How Bush might use it is a question that gained new force at the weekend, when US forces crossed the Iraqi border into Syria to kill Abu Ghadiya, a man they said had been funnelling “foreign fighters” allied to al-Qaida into Iraq. That American move has touched off a round of intense head-scratching around the world, as foreign ministers and analysts ask each other the time-honoured diplomatic query: what did they mean by that? To which they add the post-Nov 4 question: and what
    does it tell us about how Bush plans to use his final days in the White House?

    You can choose from two versions. Call the first the “no big deal” theory. It holds that the Sunday raid was no more than standard operational procedure in the war on terror. Sure, it meant violating the sovereignty of an independent nation state, but that’s not so new: there was a similar incursion into Pakistan in September. Indeed, there may be more relevant precedents. A former official in the Bush administration
    confirmed to me yesterday that the US has lunged into Syrian territory several times before: it’s just that Damascus chose to keep quiet. In which case, the interesting question is why the Syrians went public this time.

    In this “no big deal” version, Abu Ghadiya was simply too irresistible a high-value target to let slip away. “They saw something they wanted to hit and they hit it,” says one European diplomat resignedly. The most extreme version of this shoulder-shrugging account holds that the decision may not even have been taken at the political level, but in the
    field, by General David Petraeus. Not so implausible, since Bush in effect ceded command of the Iraq war to Petraeus a long while ago.

    Nonsense, says the other school of thought. It is a massive deal to strike at a sovereign state in this way: in an earlier era, before 2001, we would have called it an act of war. Pakistan is no precedent, because in that case there was a degree of cooperation. Not now.

    This was a deliberate act, calculated to send a series of messages.

    First, to the Syrians, reminding them who’s boss in the region and strong-arming them to do more to crack down on al-Qaida.

    Second, to the Europeans who have been moving towards a rapprochement with Damascus. Nicolas Sarkozy may have invited President Assad to Paris and David Miliband may have been hosting the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Muallem, in London this very Monday, 24 hours after the raid -
    but no matter. Bush gets to remind both these uppity Europeans who’s in charge.

    Third, the president could have been sending a message to his own administration. Perhaps this was a memo to his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, who had dared meet Muallem at the UN just last month in a meeting that apparently she requested. If so, it would fit with the pattern of wildly mixed signals that has emanated from the administration in recent months. Two days before Rice sat down with Muallem, for instance, Bush had used his UN address to denounce Syria as a state sponsor of terror. Might Sunday’s raid have been the president’s
    attempt to reassert himself against a senior staff all but denuded of its hawks? Rumsfeld, Bolton and Wolfowitz are long gone; the more emollient Robert Gates is at defence, widely tipped to continue under a President Obama. In these last days, Dick Cheney has only himself for company.

    However we are meant to read it, the attack on Syria looks a lot like a parting shot from Bush, an end-of-the-movie reminder of what this long and bloody saga has been about. A small operation, causing eight deaths, it nevertheless captures much of the Bush ethos that has ruled the globe
    these past eight years. It was unilateral; it trampled on state sovereignty; and it relied on force as a first, not last, resort. As a souvenir of the Bush era, it would be hard to top.

    But it may not be the final act. For we have not yet entered the twilight zone proper. That will come only when polls close next Tuesday. When the transition begins, all kinds of surprises are possible.

    Spool back 20 years, to the dying days of the Reagan administration. In January 1989, the president officially recognised the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people. It was a farewell gift to Reagan’s successor, George HW Bush: the old man took the flak so that the new president would not have to.

    In December 1992, Bush himself proved rather less helpful to his replacement, saddling Bill Clinton with the deployment of US forces in Somalia, an episode whose humiliating conclusion badly hobbled Clinton thereafter.

    Eight years ago, it was Clinton’s turn. He sweated until his final hours in office trying to close a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, who seemed then to be just inches apart. The legacy was the Clinton parameters, still regarded as marking the basic contours of any future agreement for Israel-Palestine.

    So what will emerge from the twilight of George W Bush? Most diplomats are bracing themselves. “They’re not going to sleep,” says one senior British official. The optimists hope for a repeat of Reagan and Clinton, something that helps Middle East peace. It’s true that Rice and Bush have been eager for a breakthrough, if only to have a presidential
    legacy untainted by Iraq. Perhaps Israel and the Palestinians might initial a provisional document, proof that their labours since Bush’s Annapolis summit of 2007 have not been entirely fruitless.

    But the bad timing that has cursed the Middle East so often has struck once again. Israel is entering an interregnum of its own, following Tzipi Livni’s failure to form a coalition. It’s hard to believe an interim, caretaker administration could forge a peace deal.

    That leaves other options. Bush could ape Reagan and decide to speak to Hamas. More likely would be a shift in policy that helps future peacemaking efforts: he might, for instance, declare that any changes to the 1967 borders must be equal, with Palestinians compensated inch for inch for any West Bank land conceded to Israel. Or he could look further afield in the region, contradicting himself and Sunday’s raid, by
    reaching out to Syria. Or, as some hawks fear, he could step up the tentative dialogue with Iran. A symbolic gesture would be to open a US visa section in Tehran.

    Of course, Bush may be thinking of a parting gift more in keeping with the record of the last eight years. He and Cheney might decide, what the hell, we have one last chance to whack Iran - and let the new guy clear up the mess. Not likely, but possible. For in the twilight zone, anything can happen.

32. Jimm Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 3:58 am

    Fink has his head up his butt, Bush’s balls are already in the cabinet with the nuclear buttons, he can’t unilaterally do jack anymore, except in direct self-defense.

33. Glaivester Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 4:00 am

    Richard, a correction in the ink article:

    It cannot go through a period of inflation without its economy collapsing.

    I think that Fink meant to say deflation here, considering the context.

34. Mixner's Public Transit Overlords Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 4:08 am

    The bus is rolling over your whale-blubber belly, Mixy no-friends, it’s just that you won’t feel it for another few hours.

    So when it finally registers in your subatomic brain that everything you hold precious has been exposed as lies, you’ll be getting on the fucking bus, motherfucker.

35. MNPundit Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 4:35 am

    Hey MY, re: Coleman/Franken, what do you think about third party votes NOW?

36. cmholm Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 4:51 am

    Y’know what I used to enjoy? When comments included hyperlinks to point us to articles that expanded on a commenter’s point.

    I think it’s the sort of technology that would increase the odds of a comment being read, rather [geez,] than [how] quickly [long] scrolled [is] over [this?].

37. James Robertson Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 6:45 am

    “But it wasn’t just a series of random insults directed at Barack Obama, it was a clear claim that Obama’s political views were too liberal whereas Obama argued that McCain offered a continuation of Bush’s conservatism. And the voters chose the liberal path.”

    Which is why he - and the Democrats - will have no excuses as their theories run into reality. The failure of Bush was his tendency towards big statism - we’ll now see that tendency taken to heart by Obama and the Democrats. When it doesn’t work out very well, the blame will be pretty clear.

    Oh, and on cap and trade - when the price of electricity under that scheme sky-rockets, the swing voters who were angry at Republicans will be directing their anger at Democrats.

38. rapier Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 6:56 am

    Bush’s plan for GOP dominance was based upon winning a war. Iraq was the chosen venue. A clear cut victory would cement the ideal of a muscular US sitting on top of the world. It would have worked politically in the US. The weak wavering pacifist Democratic

    All of Rove’s machinations were secondary. Bush went for the home run, if he knew it or not.

    Historians will argue if the US could really have won Iraq in the sense of it being a real state that was relatively stable and not hostile to the US. What is inarguable is that the way it was done was doomed to failure.

39. El Cid Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 6:59 am

    Clearly this massive electoral victory by one of the most liberal Democratic candidates in our nation’s history represents a dramatic embrace of conservatism by our nation’s voters.

40. JonF Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Re: I suspect Obama’s going to get about as much of his agenda through as Reagan did.

    Reagan got the lion’s share of his agenda (tax cuts, more deregulation, a defense build-up) accomplished– just about everything he was truly serious about. I’ll be quite happy if Obama enjoys that much success.

41. Joel Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 8:30 am

    Two, maybe three, SCOTUS appointments.
    Ending the US military occupation of Iraq.
    Overturning Bush administration environmental policy.
    Raising the marginal income tax rate on incomes over $250,000.
    More federal investment in science, alternative and clean energy.
    Replacing cronies with competent federal employees.

    Obama will accomplish the lion’s share of that agenda.

42. James Robertson Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am

    I suggest that the left in general will end up disappointed in Obama, for the simple reason that the expectations set for him are ridiculous. Those who look for salvation in politics end up being disappointed, and way, way too many people on the left seem to be expecting miracles.

43. iinvest Says:
    March 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    i dont usually comment, but after reading through so much info i had to say thanks

44. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am

    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

45. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
    tramadol

46. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am

    tramadol
    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

47. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
    buy cheap viagra

48. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 6:25 am

    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra