Friday, October 03, 2008

Post-debate Palintology

How do you debate a vice-presidential candidate that is pretty and poised and seems to wear a coating of Teflon even while confusing generals’ names and contorting some fundamental facts.

You don’t.
You go after her running mate.

That seemed to be the strategy of Sen. Joe Biden in Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate, which critics and supporters initially scored as a win for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The debate was Gov. Palin’s to lose…most were pleasantly surprised at her spunkinesss…even Sen. Biden seemed a bit off balance until the second half of the session.

What does it change?
There was little in the way of meaningful content in the discussion, and more fodder for fact-checkers than food for thought.

It certainly will not be the defining moment upon which the tide of the Presidential election will turn, despite the desperate desires of the main stream media to portray it as such.

For the record, I watched the debate hoping that Sarah Palin would prove her mettle.
She did not disappoint.

What amazes me is how the liberal-leaning mainstream media watched the same debate you and I saw, and pooh-poohed her performance, instead chosing to illuminate the few, less-than momentous moments enjoyed by Joe Biden.
Go figure.

While we were watching the debate, the bean counters at Wells Fargo and Wachovia banks were igniting a real spark of optimism on the economic scene--something neither Vice-presidential candidate could address any deeper than honking about eliminating greed, and who knew things were going bad before anyone else.

(Snide aside: If you mensas knew about it then, why the flip didn't you do anything about it?)

Here is a glimmer of encouragement:
Wells Fargo presented Wachovia a $15-billion offer last night to be bought as an intact company --without government help.

The stock-for-stock deal clocked in at $7 a share, based on Wednesday's closing price of Wells Fargo stock. Wachovia had been discussing an FDIC-supervised deal with CitiGroup that would have included government aid and a lower price.
Wachovia approved the Wells Fargo offer last night.

Here’s why this is a good deal:
1.) It will bolster consumer confidence because it’s a straight-up merge of two companies at a time when other, less liquid businesses are whining for a government bailout;

2.) It shines a light on how the marketplace functions best during stress: Wells Fargo is stepping up to the plate as an example of how the marketplace should operate without government intervention, taking advantage of an opportunity to acquire an asset at a cheap price.

3.) It doesn’t cost or place at-risk tax payer dollars.

I hope others are taking notes.

CitiGroup now wants to sue Wachovia for deciding to go with Wells Fargo's offer.
CitiGroup was going to buy the bank for $2-billion and an FDIC guarantee.
Hey, Citi--the price just went up--and Wachovia wisely took the better deal.

The House voted today to pass the Wall Street Bail-out.
President Bush signed the legislation into law.
The Markets promptly tanked.
What are you going to do now, Mr. Paulson?

I am so sick of hearing and reading and seeing how our Representatives are mis-managing our future, I want to puke… The candidates are honking their horns about Change, and "change you can believe in…" while back in Washington, it’s just business as usual, as both parties maneuver to save their own backsides, and statesmanship and leadership is left on the sidelines.

The markets are a barometer of human behavior.
Main Street has not liked what it sees of the Wall Street Bailout…and that’s why you’re continuing to see cash being sucked out of the markets.

We need more companies to operate like Wells Fargo...or Governors of states separated from the contiguous narcotic of the lower-48--independantly and self-sufficiently--instead of the Citi way of looking for the government to be the safety net for a shakier deal.

Go figure.

No comments: