The party is over

Party is over – our elected officials need to be cut off.

I had the privilege of attending the first presidential race debate in Oxford, Miss., last week. I woke up the morning of the debate not knowing if it Sen. McCain was going to show up. He was threatening to back down, claiming the financial bailout deadlock in the Senate needed his attention.

McCain ultimately showed up, but as I was watching the debate in Oxford, I remembered a story one of my correspondents told me after the 2004 presidential debate between Bush and Kerry. The correspondent was on a rental car bus with one of Bush's senior economic advisers and asked him, not as a reporter, but as a concerned American, just what was the Bush economic plan for America.

My reporter asked, "We went from agrarian, to industrial to tech, but now even tech is threatened by overseas workers, so what is it that is going to guarantee the American standard of living moving forward?"

The smooth-talking, attractive economist said, "You see this is why we need President Bush, why it matters, because the president appoints the Fed chairman and we need a Fed who makes money cheap. Credit is the engine of our economy."

If credit is the engine, I think this engine has seized. I've written before about our standard of living being financed with credit, refinancing, interest-only loans and home equity lines of credit to pay down credit card debt.

This bailout package may get the motor of the engine called America turning at a few RPMs, but it's not going to be driving anywhere anytime soon. I've asked members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and many presidential surrogates and talking heads the same question, "What is going to grow our economy?" And to my surprise, not one of them has a specific answer.

This debate seemed more like two men arranging deck chairs on the Titanic than a debate of plans and ideas. Given the price tag of $700 billion for the financial sector, and a trillion in Iraq, coupled with the weight of social security debt, what investment will the government be able to make?

The credit party is over.

It's time to clean up the mess, get sober and get back to work. The Bush administration and the two candidates to date have offered nothing substantial to grow the economy – to get over that hangover. Their answers are more spending and more weapons. This is sort of like an alcoholic trying to cure a hangover with a Bloody Mary.

It's time to cut them off.

Where's a real leader when you need one?

After more than a year of campaigning, contentious primaries, two conventions, a couple of hurricanes, Russia's invasion of the Republic of Georgia and a historic financial meltdown and subsequent federal bailout, I'm convinced more than ever that when people go into that voting booth and punch that ballot or touch that screen, they will be basing their decision on their personal pet wedge issue or the candidate they like the most.

I've often said Americans pick their presidents based on which candidate they prefer to see in their living rooms for the next four to eight years. This year is no different. Apart from some social-wedge issues, there are not many substantial differences in the candidates, as they are in the home stretch and playing this game of high stakes politics exceptionally safe.

The mainstream news and blogosphere are completely focused/borderline obsessed with the personality and image of the candidates, particularly on the Republican ticket.

Sen. Obama is a change agent, a breath of fresh air, someone who inspires. Sen. Biden is the "senior statesman."

Sen. McCain is back to being maverick in chief and has successfully shed the nickname for his campaign mobile, "Double Talk Express." He has his trusty mini-maverick in Sarah Palin. Together, they will transform Washington. It all seems a bit like the front page of an unsuccessful comic book series.

But this week's financial crisis is anything but comical. I had hoped the reaction of the candidates might provide voters with some substance upon which to base that decision they will be making the first Tuesday of November. No such luck. The candidates reacted the same to the crisis (color me surprised), on the trail initially by saying we aren't going to reward fat cat Wall Street and sell out Main Street.

McCain additionally called for the head of the SEC. But after he got thumped in the Wall Street Journal for not knowing what he was talking about and told the SEC head was not responsible, the senator seems to have put his sword back in its sheath and instead offered to create a new government entity: the Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust. The MFI will hand out liquidity loans to troubled financial institutions and advise them. Great, so instead of massive bailouts, McCain suggests we create a government entity for baby bailouts in the future.

Most of the campaign trail talk, however, is focused on the "seriousness" of the crisis and how Wall Street, ah, I mean, the economy must be saved. Guess who is going to save it? That's right, you and me, the ones who did not speculate, the ones who did not buy homes beyond our means, the ones who will be paying between $4,000 and $7,000 dollars each, depending on how you do the math.

Between the Iraq war and now the bailout, the U.S. taxpayer will add almost $2 trillion in unexpected expenses. Remember, Iraq was supposed to have paid for itself after an initial investment
of $50 billion. Now it's somewhere between $700 billion and $3 trillion, depending on whose numbers you believe.

I don't argue that something needs to be done to address the economic meltdown, but what worries me is that not only are the candidates like scared children running from the boogie man on this one, but the so-called deal is being penned in secrecy, which usually means the rich get richer and the rest get a bill.

I'm hoping against hope that the pending debates will illuminate some differences between the candidates and that the American people get real transparency before we have to shell out more money from our wallets.

The Execution of José Medellin

Tonight Texas put José Medellin to death. Medellin, a Mexican national, was arrested in 1993 and charged with the rape and murder of two 14- and 16-year-old girls. Normally a foreign national would at this point be given an opportunity to speak with his home country's consulate, pursuant to the Vienna Convention, but Medellin was never informed of this right. Instead, he was convicted and sentenced to death. Only then did he learn of his Vienna Convention rights. He took his case to the International Court of Justice, who ruled that Texas should reconsider his case and that of 50 other Mexican nationals on death row. Texas refused, even though the Bush administration ordered it to reconsider.

That's right: even the death-penalty-friendly, international-law-ignoring Bush administration disagreed with Texas on this one.

Medellin took his case to the Supreme Court, asking it to enforce the ICJ's decision. On March 25 of this year, the Supreme Court refused, saying that Congress hadn't passed legislation making ICJ rulings binding on states. In July of this year, Congressman Berman (D-Calif.) introduced a bill that would have allowed people to go to court to have their Vienna Convention rights enforced. It never even got a committee hearing.

Last week and today, Medellin's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay of execution. Normally the Supreme Court summarily rejects these requests, but tonight it issued an unsigned opinion saying Congress and the Department of Justice had had a chance to act and didn't, so the execution could continue. Four Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) wrote dissents. Justice Stevens's dissent is particularly notable, since he had agreed with the majority of the Court when they heard the case. In his dissent tonight, Stevens wrote that there are serious foreign policy implications of this action, so he'd like to delay the execution and hear the federal government's opinion on that. Justices Souter and Ginsburg said largely the same thing, and Justice Breyer wrote a longer dissent, giving 6 other reasons the execution should be delayed.

According to the Houston Chronicle, "Medellin was pronounced dead at 9:57 p.m. [Central time], nine minutes after the lethal dose was administered."

Energy on the House Floor

I've never seen members of Congress quite so energized. On Friday August 1, 2008 at 11:23am, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) adjourned and Congress went into recess. However, certain Republicans were not happy with Pelosi's decision, and stayed on the House floor Friday to continue talking. They met again Monday, August 4th, to continue talking in the dark.

Although not technically dark (the base lights in the ceiling were on, creating a dim glow), the floor itself, with no microphones, cameras, or recording equipment that was broadcasting, was technologically dark, save for Blackberries.

Certain members of Congress, such as John Culberson (http://twitter.com/JohnCulberson), have been utilizing Twitter while on the House floor. Via the live-blogging platform, he has been "tweeting" messages of his own thoughts while tourists stream in and out of the floor itself.

I sat in the press balcony, watching. Nearly every seat was occupied-not by members of Congress- and the audience clapped and whistled. When Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) stood and demanded that Pelosi come back and let them vote, the audience gave him a standing ovation.

Recording devices, not normally allowed in the chamber, were present in nearly every reporter's hand. The reporters pretended they weren't holding them, and the Capitol Police pretended not to see. At one point, I saw a member of Congress on the floor wave up at those of us in the balcony, and when I turned to see to whom he was waving at, I discovered Congressmen in the press balcony, standing behind me. "Hey, what's up," one of them said. I was speechless.

Congressman Mike Pence, (R-IN) summed it up nicely: Americans are not getting a vacation from high gas prices, and so Congress shouldn't be on vacation either. The audience cheered.

Bird's Eye View: Empty Senate Chamber

A decidedly empty chamber awaited each Senator as they came in at their appointed time and stood near their desk, waiting for the podium to be brought to them so they could have a chance to speak. I watched as a lone Senator addressed no one in particular and CSPAN observed. A stenographer stood six feet to the Senator’s left with a typewriter like apparatus strapped to a board. It hung from his neck much like an archaic technology-albatross from yesteryear.

From the press box, I looked down, surveying the floor from directly above the presiding member’s desk. All of the balcony areas were empty, save for the area to my right, which was stuffed with eager tourists. The floor of the Senate within the Capitol was eerily silent, as no electronic devices are allowed in and therefore not even the sound of a vibrating Blackberry was to be heard.

From the camera view, the average American will see only shots back and forth as the camera switches from the view of a member of Congress, to the presiding member, and back. They cannot see staffers wandering in and out of the double doors, the lack of people in the balcony, or the odd hollowness that sound creates in such a large, empty room.

Congress frequently puts out the call for a debate on an issue. But heated debate rarely seems to actually occur on the floor itself, since, as is apparent, they are almost never on the floor at the same time.

The Senator from New Mexico put a large, colorful posterboard up on a easel and gestured emphatically at it to no one in particular. The stenographer typed rapidly. The audience, which now included quite a few high school students, strained to see the tiny words printed on the board as the Senator waved his hands around and jabbed a finger into his notes.

All the passion that may or may not accompany a speech is no longer evident once it’s in a transcript. It is likely that a lot of information is going to be passed that way, via a paper or electronic copy of what was said.

It is much more effective, I would think, for someone to actually be seen in person as they give their speech, since the stenographer isn’t likely to point out elements of composure, such as saying that a Senator was ‘so excited that his hair was shaking and his face was beet red,’ or ‘as Senator so-and-so spoke, he was so into it that he spit on the guy in front of him.’

Since most members of Congress are only going to read what was said, the all important element of passion in a speech will be missed.

Pity.