The other day, the Bloomberg News channel reported that the futures market favored Barack Obama over John McCain by 63% to 33%. This represented the opinions, of course, of people who have actually put their money where their mouths are.
However, McCain may have an ace up his sleeve, although he has denied it and will continue to do so. Nevertheless, that "ace" has been clearly shown by polling numbers, also reported by Bloomberg, to be the one area where he has a strong advantage over Obama. And that is the issue of terrorism.
The potential significance of this "ace" was brought home in dramatic style recently when it was revealed that Charlie Black, one of McCain's senior advisers, was quoted in Fortune magazine as saying that a terrorist attack on American soil between now and the election in November would be a "big advantage" for McCain.
Before commenting further on this most inappropriate of statements, I want to say something about the election cycle itself. I've seen many of these come and go over the sixty years that they've captured my interest and in most, if not all cases, based on the issues involved, they have seemed to be healthy campaigns.
I don't know if you've noticed it but this election appears to me to be different. There is far too much power and way too much money involved. And by money, I don't mean just the billion dollars or so in campaign donations. It goes way, way beyond that.
The issues that have been brought out into the open during the campaign are themselves of great importance. Obviously the economy, which is in a downward spiral of unknown depth and duration, is one. Incidentally, Chapman University economists announced today that California is officially in a recession and they predicted it would last two years.
And then there are the other well know issues, such as foreign policy, energy costs, healthcare, the environment and immigration, to name a few.
But it's what isn't being discussed that elevates this election to what I fear may be an unhealthy level.
For example, it is not unrealistic to conclude that tens of billions of dollars of profits in industries such as those involved in oil and defense are very likely perceived to be at stake in November.
Indeed, it might be said that many within the circle of greed surrounding the administration of the past seven years may be in jeopardy of being tossed out in the cold. The trillions of dollars that this government has spent did not simply disappear. It is well to keep in mind that every penny ended up in someone's pocket or in the account of some corporation.
Secondly, hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes for the very wealthy may also be considered to be at stake. The Bush tax cuts will be preserved by McCain, according to his latest position on the subject, but the same cannot be said for Obama.
And finally, we cannot overlook the fact that the State of Israel may consider that its future security is on the line as well.
So again, I must say that all this and more gives me a very uncomfortable feeling that we have come to a point in our political process where there is simply too much riding on this election. There almost seems to me to be an overwhelming likelihood that some will be tempted to influence the results illegally and, in that event, it is not clear that we have either the will or the ability to protect ourselves adequately.
And now, along comes Charlie Black with a message which, whether intended or not - and despite the apologies and regrets that now are flying around - provides what appears to be one potential roadmap to victory - victory for McCain, victory for the Republican Party, victory for the energy and defense industries, victory for America's wealthy, and victory for those concerned with the security of the State of Israel.
Not surprisingly, everyone now agrees that Black's comment should never have been made, which leaves us with a situation not unlike a courtroom scene in which an objection is sustained and the members of the jury are told to disregard what has been said.
What we all know, of course, is that they don't.
Shame on Charlie Black.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Friday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally appear on another day of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of an eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development
You can find all of Dave's "The Contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network - just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You'll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
Cindi McCain has done a lot of good things, as noticed in the current Newsweek article but living in Washington makes her itchy and witchy.
I am of the distinct opinion that if a terrorist attack occurs on our soil it will be a catastrophic commentary on the ability of Republicans to protect us. In other words, it would hurt John McCain's chances, not help.
After all, the Republicans in power have been spending billions of our tax collected dollars and red-lining our constitutional and humanitarian rights supposedly to protect us. If, after all of that, we are still not kept safe, then it would seem an even surer bet that Americans will vote for a different course.
These folks are so cold-blooded. They make Hillary look like the queen of considerateness.
Was mentioning a terrorist attack speculaltion, a slip of the tongue, or deliberate? Maybe this man know something is in the works?
It makes no real difference which candidate get the job we still wind up with the best of the worst and a government that ignores the Constitution. In spite of the fact that one of them taught Constitutional Lay in college.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone_File
Politicians don't have to have any direct connection to those who use insidious means to benefit them. Those who predict a politicians actions -- perhaps by knowing who pulls that politician's strings -- need merely influence the environment to which that politician reacts.
Lots of conspiracies happen; those in government constantly conspire and connive to further their own interests or sometimes the interests of the populaces they supposedly lead. Only idiots think that other countries don't try to meddle in the affairs of the most powerful nation in the world.
I also believe the American peopl are a lot wiser about the performance of the Republicans regarding the terrorism issue. And more and more that judgement is FAILURE! So, I'm with Bill on this one in that I think a new terrorist attack will leave the Republican's with egg on their faces.
The Bush tax cuts WILL expire and even if by some twist of fate McCain does become president it won't make any difference because an assuredly Democratically dominated congress will not renew them.
I don't always see eye-to-eye with Bill's Spirit, but this time I couldn't agree more.
I believe Charlie Black's message was intentional and McCain was in the coup. I would not be shocked by an October surprise either. At least a Bin Laden timely tape by October 30th.
An administration (and its backers) willing to either orchestrate or allow the deaths of thousands of Americans in order to gain support for their agenda is capable of anything.
I'm surprised, Dave, to read this comment from you: " I've seen many [elections] come and go over the sixty years that they've captured my interest and in most, if not all cases, based on the issues involved, they have seemed to be healthy campaigns."
I suppose you did put in the qualifier of "most, if not all", but still. The voter irregularities that happened in both 2000 and 2004 with thousands of voters (especially blacks) being left off of voters lists, too few voting machines supplied in Democratic districts creating long lines that discouraged voters from waiting to vote, questionable results from electronic voting machines (at least three Republican senators won by 18,181 votes exactly (a number that appears to be more the result of a calculation than an addition or straight count), Supreme Court skullduggery not to mention the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry suggests, to me, that healthy campaigns are a thing of the past.
To go back even further, I have read where members of Reagan's campaign team met clandestinely with Iranian representatives in the Watergate hotel during the 1980 presidential campaign and arranged to have the hostages held until after the election to ensure that Carter would lose. That amount to high treason and the usurping the presidency.
From a Canadian perspective, your campaigns also seem to raise mudslinging to a level we never really see in our own campaigns, and this is true every election.
But you are dead on with your suggestion that vested interests have too much at stake here to allow the great unwashed masses to determine the outcome. Whether a new version of 'Swiftboating' (focusing on alleged Muslim connection for Obama, using his middle name Hussein to delude the gullible, and playing the race card in the most divisive way possible --- much of which has already begun) or further voting fraud at polls and with electronic voting machines or something more draconian like an assassination or staged terrorist attack... it is just hard to imagine this one getting to November as a straight forward campaign.
I'm wondering how much manipulation and suppression of their democratic rights Americans are willing to take. If your founding fathers were alive today the tea would already be in Boston Harbor and King George would be facing his uprising.
But if half the people on both sides of the debate meant what they said when they talked about supporting our troops and either "finishing the job" or bringing the troops home, then the war would still be the number one issue.
As it is the preoccupation with the economy reveals exactly how concerned most are about the war: it's a topic for heated debate but not their primary concern.
Just as "bad news from Iraq" was said to "help the democrats," win in 2006, so too it can be said a terrorist attack would result in people leaning toward McCain in 08.
This political reality might be ugly when stated outloud, but the ugliness of the statement doesn't make it false.
It is unhealthy, politics is alive and well with big money...
As for the concerns for the continuing viability of corporations, have we ever seen anything more than mere incremental changes in anything coming out of government? Pretty much, no.
Business will continue as usual. Sure, there may be changes if one candidate wins (and none if the other one wins), but the companies will adapt and they will continue to make profits if they are well-run viable companies. Frankly, the government doesn't have that much control over the economy (good or bad), though they certainly are quick to take credit for the good and point their finger for the bad.
Try reading Invisible Hand for the solutions you don't see above.
They clearly have not gotten the message yet: IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE!
Mary M. Let's hear some specifics about this "change." Also if you want to make changes make them with a trusted politician, not a new comer.
Well, here's the thing, this war won't be over as soon as anyone takes office. The first thing either new president will have to do is assess all the fine points of the situation; the ones which the current administration has kept cloaked.
It will be months before either candidate could start making wise changes on the Iraq situation that 43 created.
So, the issue is effectively stalemated; which leads to folks pressing on issues that can be hammered out to some detail during this election cycle.
In case you hadn't noticed, health care also seems to have been a hot button issue that is now not touched; immigration, too. Again, it seems that trying to hammer out too many details breaks down the discussions.
So, election buzz is currently mostly about the economy.
Barack gave a speech today. I only caught parts of it. I thought I heard him say something about fixing our sub-prime mortgage crisis and stopping the off-shoring of American jobs. I really need to go listen to all of it.
Peace --
I am so sick of the same old, same old. Look at what has happened to this country since Bush became President. It makes me sick and McCain to me seems like Bush, Jr.
I hope Obama wins. I'm looking forward to someone new and exciting. My fear for him is the closer he gets to winning, the more the racists, the neo-cons, et al will feel like Judi J. mentioned above - cornered animals. How will they react?
Something is going to give. I hope it is the apathy of the American citizen.
I know this is off topic, but I couldn't let that comment slide. But then again, I don't know you, and maybe you are kidding.
Thanks for another thought provoking article!
First, is the futures market really that reliable?
And secondly, with regard to this statement: " this election appears to me to be different. There is far too much power and way too much money involved..."
Yes, this is a noticeable and unprecedented differentiating aspect of this election cycle. It's up to citizens to enforce the lessons tomorrow that we will inevitably learn today.
a theory needs more than "widespread support" to be valid sweetie.....
"It happened "AGAIN!" under his [Bush] watch. But, as stated, this is a country full of brilliant ppl. Well, it is, too bad many are stupid. "
Tony (lol) S,
You are not in a position to call other people stupid.
Dave, funny thing about economics in this race is that despite this Bloomberg article, most financial advisors are telling people to hold fast until Dec/Jan instead of selling or readjusting in any major way later this fall. This is the first bit of news I've seen that any financial people are optimistic other than those advising on muni stocks. Neither candidate is generating optimism though one sees a slight preference for McCain because of his plans not to raise or allow a lapse in current tax rates. That in itself is worthy of an article, a general election where the Repub candidate is NOT garnering much more support than the Dem.