I'm out of pocket on Monday. Be back soon. Below is the most recent posting....
I do think we've encountered one of the funniest moments of the 2008 campaign, which so far has not been much of a laugh-fest. And who would have thought that Phil Gramm would be responsible for it?
The gag was set up when Gramm, a McCain campaign adviser and cochairman, set off a to-do by saying that Americans are "whiners" and that the economy is just fine. (He called all the fuss over the current economic woes a "mental recession.") The McCain campaign threw Gramm under the Straight Talk Express, disavowing his remarks.
"Phil Gramm doesn't speak for me," McCain declared on Thursday "I speak for me."
That same day, Gramm was meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Doing what? Appearing as a McCain campaign surrogate to explain McCain's economic policies. That is, speaking for McCain.
This really is a joke.
The attention Gramm has drawn for his comments is certainly warranted. And, of course, you can judge a candidate by the advisers he keeps by his side. But there's so much more about Gramm (who has been touted as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win) that deserves scrutiny. He was a crucial force in deregulating financial instruments that helped cause the subprime meltdown and that allowed Enron to run crazy and create the California energy crisis of 2001. And as I noted elsewhere, Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is a prominent adviser and surrogate for McCain, has suggested that the deregulation that was pushed by Gramm when he was the Republican chairman of the Senate banking committee is partly to blame for today's economic troubles.
So the joke runs deeper than McCain claiming that a man who literally speaks for him doesn't speak for him. It shows there's policy chaos in McCainland. After all, here's a campaign--led by a candidate who once said he didn't know much about the economy--that has one top economic adviser essentially blaming another top economic adviser for economic woes that the second top economic adviser won't acknowledge. Really makes one yearn for a McCain administration, doesn't it?
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
Great first week for the savior of Camp McBush, Sargent Schmidt. Working without a contract or a paycheck because he knows he might have to bailout of this fiasco, fast, before the convention.
Mike Murphy was way too smart to take the job of hearding the cats for McBush. I guess there is still one smart Republican. At least smart enough not to get on board this train wreck.
Posted by: artigiano
| July 11, 2008 11:24 AM
So,
It's all in my head.
Message to Phil:
"We don't need no thought control"
Just sayin.
Peace.
Posted by: mikeyd1963
| July 11, 2008 11:35 AM
Jesus, the idea of Phil Gramm becoming Treasury Secretary makes my blood run cold *shudder*
That would be like having whoever was chief of Union Carbide during the Bhopal tragedy running the Interior Department or the EPA.
Posted by: Mary Kitt-Neel
| July 11, 2008 11:55 AM
The GOP presidential compaign seems to be just an old fashioned clusterfuck.
Posted by: kalpal
| July 11, 2008 12:18 PM
DC,
Great piece, and very funny.
Is it just me or is the M$M trying to change the subject?
Thanks for all you do!
Posted by: capt
| July 11, 2008 12:31 PM
Your very last line is the whole key to leveraging this stuff past today's news cycle (although Gramm could be a gift that keeps on giving). Obama's management of his campaign, while no longer flawless, has certainly been impressive, while McCain's "operation" (charitably named) has been a slow motion disaster. Doesn't this speak to management abilities? The policy infighting, the willingness to play strategists off against each other, to keep personal channels operating to undercut staff (i.e. Murphy vs. Schmidt), this would be a disastrous McCain admininstration.
This is the narrative that the campaign should be putting forward, it ties all the gaffes and disarray into one untidy pile of ...ugh.
Posted by: brucek1102
| July 11, 2008 6:45 PM
Well, only about half of the polled (potential) voters see it that way.
DIIKW...
Posted by: David B. Benson
| July 12, 2008 8:11 PM
Charlie McCarthy, regarding Edgar Bergen:
"He doesn't speak for me."
Oops, I guess that example pre-dates the Baby Boomer consumer...
Posted by: Wahidiyya Kosmotikos
| July 13, 2008 2:12 PM
DC -
When you say "And, of course, you can judge a candidate by the advisers he keeps by his side.", you emphasize the word "KEEPS", right?
I mean, if you get a preferential loan rate from someone, then return the favor by appointing him to your election staff, then fire him when the facts come out ("that's not the" - fill in the name - "I knew!"), you never really KEPT him right?
At least thats the way MANY of us here in these 57 United States look at it!
Cheers.
Posted by: denmac
| July 13, 2008 3:35 PM
denmac --- 57?
Posted by: David B. Benson
| July 13, 2008 7:06 PM
David B. Benson -
Yeah, I know. And from a Harvard grad!!!
http://bumpshack.com/2008/05/09/barack-obama-claims-visits-to-57-states/
Posted by: denmac
| July 13, 2008 7:16 PM
Harvard isn't what it used to be...
Posted by: David B. Benson
| July 13, 2008 8:22 PM
A great cheat sheet for the McCain troubles for the week:
http://tinyurl.com/5c9ref
Posted by: capt
| July 13, 2008 11:04 PM
My sister and brother-in-law, two of those middle-class "whiners" gramm was talking about, lost all their savings at indymac two days after he made that comment. True, it was insured, but only the base amount. The point of banking your money is too earn interest. Now today stocks in the bank where I have my checking account dropped 31%. I"m pretty sure they're going down too.
This bunch seems to have tunnel vision. They're all about power and greed and the quick buck. They don't care who they hurt just as long as they get their way.
I really am mad as hell.
Posted by: ontheverge
| July 14, 2008 9:50 PM
Post A Comment