As they say “..those that can’t remember history are doomed to repeat it.”

That’s a good warning for developing democracies, third-world nations.

New democracies tend only to survive for a limited period anyway.

But what difference does that change make…

Who cares if democracy thrives – somewhere, around the world ?

Who cares if citizens overlook history only to repeat it to their own demise?

Who cares if their statesmen succumb to merely personal gain and politics?

Who cares if politicians use political correctness to spin truth, gain status?

Who cares if leaders take their country into shambles and citizens into panic?

Who cares if in panic, citizens cast their fate into the hands of those traitors?

Who cares if that happens in developing democracies or third-world nations?

Certainly not those in developed countries, who don’t recognize it – at home?

Certainly not those who aren’t clear on what has changed, or still might!

CHANGE doesn’t have to be beneficial
- but benefits can come from REFORM.

I note that none of the major causes was any kind of deregulation. You’ve got the CRA, Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, the Fed lowering interest rates, you have reduced capital requirements for investment banks, and CDOs. These are all politicial policy errors, not removal of oversight. Oops. Can we ask the government to fix what they broke? Is that at all wise?

I still say that we’ve done pretty well with freedom of religion. Let’s try freedom of markets: Congress shall pass no law restricting trade between individuals or nations. But why do we need to wait until all sorts of regulations fail to finally try freedom?

I was also thinking about what Reagan would have done. He would have gone on TV and taken his case to the American people with the manner and conviction of a true leader. Which Reagan was. Even if you disagreed with him, you had to give the guy that much.

McCain doesn’t have it. We don’t know if Obama has it, but now we know McCain doesn’t.

By the way, this post comes straight out of a conversation with a McCain sympathizer who thinks Obama is a lightweight gasbag who will surely raise taxes and spending no matter what he says. This person did not want McCain to provide a convincing reason to vote for Obama. But that’s exactly what McCain did in this case. He became the devil we know.

I am surprised at your credulousness regarding the “straight talker”. Reading between the lines on McCain’s record reveals that John McCain has lately been more about show – smoke and mirrors – rather than real accomplishment. Many of us who have been following McCain closely were perhaps as concerned as you were when he suspended his campaign – but for a different reason: based on his record, we had no expectation that he might actually do anything presidential or useful, but rather, we feared that he might successfully convey the impression of doing so to undecided voters!

A combination of press analysis and interviews of “just plain folks” on the right confirms that this something close to this is what happened:

1. The media has reported widely – as you noted above – that McCain did approximately nothing.

2. Scads of “low information voters” happily told their interviewers how pleased they were with the commanding and decisive role that the “Maverick” took in the bailout process – first, selflessly suspending his campaign; then flying to Washington; and finally, corralling all those ornery, uncooperative Republican senators and congressman and reading them the riot act!

The ultimate cynical question is, did he help or hurt his campaign? I think it’s clear that he further solidified opinions of him on the right and left – where it makes no difference – but I can’t speak for the puzzlingly undecided folks in the middle. Hopefully the majority of them are equipped with first-rate bullshit detectors.