Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OBAMA ON THE CRISIS.
This morning, I heard Obama's statement on the financial crisis read out on CNBC:
This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have consistently called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market – rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I've called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together. That is the change I am calling for in this campaign, and that is the change I will bring as President.That's some windy crap, I thought. But it turns out they just read the useless part of the statement. The whole thing is actually quite good, particularly the bits I've italicized:
This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street.That's basically spot-on. Washington has been dominated by an ideology that is proudly, publicly, explicitly allergic to regulation. John McCain has endorsed that ideology. He campaigned for it. He confirmed its appointees. He voted for its bills. The Obama campaign needs to decide on one or two concrete measures McCain supported and Obama opposed that demonstrate the difference in philosophy here, and they need to pound on them relentlessly. There is a difference here. Make it tangible.The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.
The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store. Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.
I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise, and one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.
Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.
This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have consistently called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market – rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I've called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together. That is the change I am calling for in this campaign, and that is the change I will bring as President.
COMMENTS (13)
And play the quote of him saying he doesn't know much about economics over and over and over and over ....
Posted by: Adolphus | September 15, 2008 11:23 AM
Right on. I like framing the argument as "economic philosophy." That is really the key difference, IMHO. It's a variation on the theme that McCain has had and will continue to have bad judgment.
Posted by: Bob Oso | September 15, 2008 11:25 AM
You should be ashamed! Stop blogging! Stop blogging right now!
Posted by: Martin | September 15, 2008 11:35 AM
We'll see what McSame says. It should be noted that Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Clinton's legacy isn't looking so great, the farther he gets from his tenure.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | September 15, 2008 11:44 AM
I agree, but he should focus on the idea of common sense regulation, and propose some common sense regulations soon to get ahead of this issue. Don the libertarian Democrat
Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 11:51 AM
What absolute crap. Is there one word of that critique that isn't a lie? There was no relevant "shredding of consumer proteections", no relevant "loosening of oversight and regulation" and no relevant encouragement of bonuses to CEOs. No policy change in any of these areas. Does Obama know that? Probably. Does he care? No. Dishonorable? Of course.
It's not surprising that Obama would say these things. What's surprising is that Ezra has attached his credibility to them. Ezra, you don't know what you're talking about.
The idea that we should elect Obama--the guy who's friend and adviser helped run Fannie Mae into the ground, the guy who's party resisted oversight of the GSEs--to fix this problem is laughable. They'll just shovel the cash to their friends. See, e.g., Johnson, Raines, Gorelick, etc.
Posted by: Thomas | September 15, 2008 12:00 PM
So I suppose Freddie and Fannie made Obama their 2nd-highest beneficiary of political contributions because he favored tougher regulation of them and they were trying to change his mind. And presumably the same thing goes for their contributions to Democrats in general.
Posted by: ostap | September 15, 2008 12:34 PM
i'd help if he personified the philosophy (republicans), or gave it a name (conservatism)
Posted by: matt | September 15, 2008 1:27 PM
Good stuff from the Obama camp right there.
Posted by: Adrock | September 15, 2008 2:43 PM
obama's response is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't drive explicitly drive home the point that I'd argue will win the election for him: that john mccain, POW and all, will make this (and most other crises) worse.
not his economic philosophy, not just his record of voting with bush, but mccain himself. john mccain is a threat to voters.
I'm all for a critique of conservatism, but keeping economic philosophy and pro-bush voting records front and center forces voters to connect the dots themselves to figure out what a john mccain admin would look like.
big mistake to expect swing voters to do the heavy lifting. this might have worked back in august, but with 7 weeks before election day, and mccain's mavericky image set in the minds of way too many voters, the obama campaign's going to need to spoon feed their arguments.
Posted by: mencken | September 15, 2008 2:55 PM
In rebuttal to Thomas's last claim about "the guy who ran Fannie May into the ground," I would point to a recent televised interview with Treasury Secretary Paulson, who explicitly stated that Fannie and Freddie were doomed from the start through a series of "structural ambiguities and flaws" created by Congress "a long time ago" and represented "a system that should not have existed." No one person ran anything to the ground, and thinking so is false.
If you're interested, Thomas, you can watch your argument crumble before your very eyes right here:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=902d6174bb463329bcd1b8f89df981e73627bba7
Posted by: David | September 15, 2008 3:03 PM
BLAME JOHN MCCAIN! BLAME JOHN MCCAIN!
Jesus Christ why can't Democrats do it? "I don't blame John McCain" Why not? He sure as hell would blame YOU.
Posted by: Will | September 15, 2008 3:07 PM
David, Yes, they were a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the Dems in Congress resisted changes and were unwilling to conduct oversight while their friends (Johnson, Raines, Gorelick, et al) were making tens of millions based on fraud.
Posted by: Thomas | September 15, 2008 4:23 PM