WSJ Editorial Page Skewers McLame: Calls him "un-Presidential"

[jefferson_dem]

McCain's Scapegoat

John McCain has made it clear this week he doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does. But on Thursday, he took his populist riffing up a notch and found his scapegoat for financial panic -- Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox.

To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him."

Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.

<SNIP>

In case Mr. McCain is interested, overall short interest in financial companies actually declined by 20% between July and the end of August. That's right: Far from driving this crisis, shorts were net buyers of financial stocks this summer, as they must buy stocks back to close their positions and realize their gains (or losses).

In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

[madaboutharry]

1. Notice how it was necessary to put down both

Obama and Gore?

[Demeter]

2. Yeah, I Noticed

Giving cover for KoolAid Drinkers to vote for McCain anyway (since there's not a dime's worth of diference betweeen them--more like who many of Cindy's millions?).

[regnaD kciN]

4. Hey, what do you expect? It's a Murdoch publication!

The very fact that they're not praising the Republican nominee to the skies is what's significant.

[jefferson_dem]

6. I know. But what did you expect?

The WSJ Ed Page is the bible of the gilded class. Nobody expects them to celebrate truth or Democratic candidates. But this does signify cracks in McLames conservative coalition, which is good. ...As if The Nation had published an editorial calling Obama "un-Presidential."

[lapfog_1]

3. Cox is the referee on the field

McCain and his chief economic adviser Phil Graham sat on the NFL rules committee that just allowed face masking and late hits on the quarterback.

[4lbs]

5. I don't know why the WSJ decided to take a shot at Gore.

In 2000, Gore's "angry populist" speak was of items that history will end up making him nearly completely right. For example, global warming/climate change that we all pretty much accept as real. Also, the "lockbox" for Social Security that is looking pretty damn good right now versus "privatization" that would allow the ignorant masses to gamble with their retirement in the "casino-like" stock market. Then there was the alternative fuel sources that seems to be co-opted by BOTH SIDES, instead of just by Gore in 2000.