Flogging a Fellow Blogger...as public service

The following are my responses to a post by another blogger, who also happens to be "right wing" radio talk show host, Jay Severin.


ON POLITICS (in which I am expert)

-Perhaps, but the following statements do not buttress your claim.


1. KEY THEMES OF THIS ELECTION: The appalling absence of ultimate choice.

-False choice has been the norm in national politics for decades due to the longstanding republicrat duoply. Neither party operates substantially differently from the other as they are both bought and paid for by the same powerful interests. Having said that, the Bush administration is easily the most corrupt executive in modern times and possibly in the nation's history.


2. THE AFFECT OF A CLOSE RACE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: As of May 1, Ralph Nader - whom everybody dismissed, but on my show we recognized as prospectively lethal - is polling at 5%!! That is likely a wider margin than the ultimate general election margin of victory/defeat. Political ignoramus believe Nader's impact is "unpredictable" or "hurts both major candidates". Demonstrable Twaddle. 99% of Nader's vote would otherwise go Dem. Thus, so long as Nader support runs at even 1%, he can be huge (i.e. decisive, Dem-killer) factor. Run Ralphie! Run!!

-That should be effect, not affect, affect has to do with emotions, as in, did Mr. Bush display any affect when he said he grieved over every soldier's death? For someone who decries the lack of choice in national elections, you ought to be encouraging Nader to run so as to broaden the debate, as it were, instead of cheering on his candidacy in the service of tawdry partisanship.


3. WHO WILL WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION??? I predicted in national print, radio, TV in 1998 and with somewhat obnoxious regularity ever since HRC's exact route/timing/location of her Pres ambitions. I was right in 1998 and since - but now, owing to her deeply flawed campaign and understandable negatives, I place her nomination prospects at 1-10. Which is a pity for Dems, because she could beat McCain. Obama, who CANNOT BE ELECTED will win Dem nomination and lose to McCain. And there will be riots.

-Let me see if I understand you, are you saying there will be riots if/when Obama loses to McCain? Riots under any circumstances?

4. WILL CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS WARM UP TO SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN? No.

-What's a "conservative" Republican? Please exclude
questionable criteria, such as favoring secure borders, as definitive of conservatism, since the desire for secure borders doesn't ipso facto define a political creed.

5. WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER AND WHY? Contrary to conventional wisdom (always conventional, rarely wise) America IS prepared to elect an African-American (see: Condi Rice, Colin Powell, et. al.) but Not a Leftist African American, period. The combination of (1) backlash by Dems who refuse to vote if their candidate loses nomination, hence Dem under-voting (2) Dems who vote for McCain (3) underperformance (vis population % of eligible voters) by African-Americans (4) underperformance of young 'voters' (5) attraction by McCain of exceptional numbers of Independents and Dems (5) Ralph Nader..will elect John McCain.

-We'll see. Part of the agony of this interminable election season, which among other things, is a massive waste of money and an equally enormous distraction from the real work of governing, is that because the entire process is so absurdly drawn out, there are many unexpected twists and turns-as we have already seen- before the drama concludes.

ON THE ECONOMY (in which I am, decidedly, Not an expert)

-Here you vastly overstate your credentials.

1. HOW DO YOU COPE WITH RISING EVERYDAY COSTS? Vote against all Democrats.

-That is beyond ignorant. The exploding price of energy and commodities in general has vanishingly little to do with anything Democrats have done, and they are no more likely to exacerbate the situation than Republicans who have shown a general fiscal and financial idiocy over the years that is unsurpassed.


3. HOW COULD A BANKING INDUSTRY COLLAPSE AFFECT WORKING PEOPLE? I recall in the 1980s first seeing/hearing "we are an equal-opportunity lender". I and many of us, instantly recognized there has never been, and is not, and can never be, any such thing. Some people are qualified buyers (i.e. they can pay loan back), some less so - and the difference is discernable, even obvious. "Equal opportunity lender" meant/means "we will substitute political judgement for fiscal judgment and lend lots of money to people we know in advance cannot possibly re-pay it...and pass the burden onto the gov't (i.e. all the other people who are re-paying their own loans). The banking/mortgage collapse is not complicated it is welfare write large.

-This is more than a little silly. Bankers, mortgage lenders, and their ilk are in the business of earning a fat profit like any other going concern. They do not, as you so blithely suggest, plan to become insolvent so that they can be "rescued" by government. No, to the extent they even thought that far ahead, what they had in mind was that the inevitable collapse would not be nearly so nasty as it has become, and they would be able to foreclose on some percentage of insolvent borrowers and subsequently repossess and resell the homes for a respectable profit.

-Parenthetically I will add that had the financial services industry been properly regulated, had longstanding and worthy legislation like Glass Steagall not been eviscerated with glee by the likes of Republican Phil Graham, much of the multi-generational carnage in the financial services industry, carnage that now threatens the general economy to a degree equal to or greater than The Great Depression, would not have occurred. And by the way you never really answered the question you posed. Hint: One major bank failure, we have not had one yet, would (now that The FED is stretched tighter than the strings in Roger Federer's racket) likely be the straw that broke the camel's back.


4. IS THE WORST OF ECONOMIC TIMES BEHIND US OR YET TO COME? As we are evidently unwilling to apply standards that are strictly Fiscal - as opposed to Politically Correct, "Humanitarian" - i.e. fantastic), so long as we pretend, and actually practice as policy, that "everybody" "deserves" (X) - e.g. big car(s), a bigger house than they can possibly afford, etc. - we are yet to have even a Taste of how devastating this could be.

-Putting aside the fact that our present predicament has nothing to do with "PC", but rather with unchecked and unbridled greed synergizing with a sense of entitlement on the part of a majority of the citizenry, I agree. But even that analysis is superficial, at best. These are complex matters that can not be reduced in the manner you
choose.