More Palin

(via Halperin) Man oh Man. Katie Couric, by splitting up her interview with Palin, has commanded a weeks worth of news cycles! I bet Couric can't believe the stuff Palin has spouted to her with a straight face!

Asked by CBS’ Katie Couric about the morning-after pill and abortion for rape/incest victims, the VP nominee refuses to lay out a clear policy stance.

She does say she supports “a culture of life” and opposes jailing women who have abortions.

Also declines to name any newspapers or magazines she read as governor, says she considers herself a feminist, and says she doesn’t think poorly of gays, stating that she has a close gay friend “who made a choice that isn’t the choice that I have made.”

Congress is Broken

I rarely read Friedman these days. But he's really good today!

I’ve always believed that America’s government was a unique political system — one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots. I was wrong. No system can be smart enough to survive this level of incompetence and recklessness by the people charged to run it.

Plus he explains in simple terms why Wall Street really does affect Main Street (how much do you hate that cliche by now!?)

Dowd Eulogizes Paul Newman

Nice touch. Here.

With a Butch Cassidy grin, he told me that he pictured his epitaph being: “Here lies Paul Newman, who died a failure because his eyes turned brown.”

R.I.P.

Boy, Palin is Well-Read!

(via Yglesias)

Katie Couric asks Sarah Palin which newspapers she reads and Palin replies “um, all of them.”:

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

Bizarre. I mostly read The New York Times and secondarily The Washington Post as well as individual articles that I find being recommended by others, with The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, USA Today, and The Guardian coming up frequently. But there are an awful lot of newspapers and even though reading stuff is a big part of my job I certainly don’t read “um, all of them.”

Thank God For Death

P.J. O'Rourke was just diagnosed with cancer - a curable one ... and he's still hilarious.

Conservative Alternative

This guy has some reasons on why the House GOPers did a great job. See if you think he makes sense. Even the Editors at NRO think it was bad to shoot it down!

Who Has Doubts?

So, the market hasn't crashed - some (on the left) thought this was all a big scare - others argue we can't make policy based on the market fluctuations. I know, I hear it. . . the world won't end, but for anyone who understands a little about the financial system (hello - we live in an interdependent world these days, trade, communication, economy, etc.) knows that something is awry and should be dealt with. . . if you need further proof - the Economist just re-printed its archived reporting of the Stock Market Crash of '29.

Meet the New Boss

...same as the old boss

Is It Really for Main Street?

Yglesias has a good point that may help bolster lefty skeptics of the bailout - where is the rest of corporate America? If they really thought Wall Street was going to take them down, they'd have the rank and file GOP in their hip pocket voting for this thing. Food for thought:

But especially on the right, normally when there’s an issue that’s perceived to be important to American business, corporate America makes its views known and conservative legislators, when asked to jump, say “how high?” I mean, when was the last time House conservatives bucked the interests of large oil companies? And wouldn’t a steep recession be much worse for large oil companies than an offshore drilling moratorium? It’s very difficult to get congress to act when the heavy hitters don’t want to put any skin in the game. I think that is in many ways the big story here. Meanwhile, the failure of this sort of effective lobbying scheme to materialize just feeds left-wing suspicions about the bailout deal — it looks and feels very funny to be saying this bailout serves interests beyond Wall Street when political leaders can’t produce concrete non-Wall Street interests clamoring for it.

UPDATE: Maybe the other businesses were just being too complacent - assuming it'd pass w/o their work.

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

(via a loyal reader)

We reap what we sow. In 1980, Americans voted for change. As a result, a trifecta of Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, and RR brought together a perfect storm that ended the cold war. Yet, two decades of trickle-down economics and rampant deregulation have painted a beautiful facade of happy Americans in beautiful houses and gas-guzzling SUVs while the nation’s infrastructure and real quality of life has crumbled. Profit incentives coaxed the “best and the brightest” to fill their pocketbooks rather than contribute to modernizing the electrical grid or teaching preschool. Greed-laden business practices focused on quick profits for interim CEOs and the stockholders of the week rather than solid, long-term planning strategies where individuals making the decision or writing the contracts would be responsible for failed risks. Tainted goods (often, mortgages) were sold off to unsuspecting buyers eager to sell them off again for even more money. For too many, the American dream is now a nightmare of credit card debt and mortgage foreclosures, not to mention the federal deficit we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. So, where are the true leaders who will tell us what we do not want to hear? True change can only come through true sacrifice – not just by out soldiers, but by shoppers too. Where are the leaders who will help us to rise above our greedy past, to spend less than we earn, to invest in one another - in real assets of human lives, not just in paper ones. We’ve asked the market to solve too many issues in which the models are incomplete. The markets of the last 25+ years have rewarded short-term transactions, not long-term commitments to the American family and the world at-large. I recently read, “Where have all the leaders gone?” by Lee Iacocca. In the book, Iacocca reflects on various lessons he has learned in life and challenges us to make our next decisions at the polls based on who we think fulfills his list of the 9C’s of leadership: Curiosity, Creativity, Communication skills, Character, Courage, Conviction, Charisma, and Common sense. Who has these? The Democrats have the strongest field of candidates who exhibit these qualities. We have heard a lot about “personal responsibility” in previous campaigns. However, the Republican version seems to have spoken to the introvert side of all of us. What ever happened to shared-sacrifice? The Democratic version today truly puts “Country First” rather than self. I believe we crave leadership that will cause us to rise above ourselves and rebuild this country into one that works for ALL of us and whose light shines bright again around the world.

Let Me One-Up David Brooks

David Brooks is pissed - and rightly so - by the failure of the "bailout" ... proving once again that he's a rare conservative (one with sensible views who lives in reality). Read it. But I don't write for the Times - and am not a Republican - so here's my take:

It's no wonder that the only politicians with a worse approval rating than Bush is the entire Congress. I've been no big fan of Pelosi and Reid, but they actually did what Congress is supposed to do - they took a bad bill and made it better. They insisted on bipartisanship and crafted a bill that, through compromise, addressed the centrists while leaving the left-right fringe out. Whenever you have Judd Gregg and Barney Frank agreeing on something you've got to take notice - the mortal enemies that ended up agreeing on the framework was (as it ended up) too good to be true. And yes - the Dems didn't whip their caucus perfectly, but they brought as many votes as they promised to bring. It really was the GOP that killed this. First, leadership was abysmal. Leave alone McCain's feigned heroism - Boehner's cajones were MIA. He wouldn't commit to anything publicly, but sent is surrogates (Blunt, Putnam, Spencer Baucus, etc.) to do the negotiating under the aegis of leadership - and they came through. Then, Boehner didn't do any heavy lifting (Blunt especially, as whip) to get his rank and file behind him. And the Mike Pence ideologues wrecked it. Mind you, his colleagues in the Republican Conference don't live in reality - their supply-side ideology leads them to run the economy off a cliff ... and then their supply-side ideology forbids them from doing anything about it! Congressman are elected to make decision - and actually learn about policy, we're a representative democracy - it's paternalistic - you don't rely on what "joe-six pack" has to say on Hannity when you cast a decisive vote like this. Nevermind we're 35 days from an election - its a severe cop-out - and no "profile in courage" to rely on novice opinion polls instead of learning and making an informed vote on this. And to top it off - it's not like they blame it on policy - or even offered their own alternative! In the end they thought Pelosi was too "mean" to them! The GOP at least know politics - which conforting in a way since they don't know anything about governing.

This is what Pelosi needs to do: The rules are such that, in the House, you can ram anything down the minority's throat- the majority determines the rules on how the bill is even voted on. It's time for the Dems to step up and show some leadership. They should go back to the board, draw up the best - most progressive - bill possible and ram it down Mike Pence's throat. If it works, you take credit. If it bombs, you take responsibility. Thats what we elect politicians to do. And I'm sick of the games.

Is The Joker Supposed to be Mike Pence?

(via Cody) If the bailout happened in Gotham - it'd start like this.

Is Porn Adultrery?

Taking a break from the non-bailout ... Ross Douthat in The Atlantic has pretty coherent piece on the implications of pornography on relationships, morals, and society. I will note one thing: he mentions Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin in passing but doesn't really address their argument (and even sort of throws them in with the fringe (which I guess by definition, they are)) ... that is that we should challenge the male-centered view of ... well, everything. Douthat's article doesn't explore this tension, but it's all there - the fact that "men have an insatiable libido and need an outlet" - but at the same time some porn may "devalue women or cause suffered relationships."

Just think - as you read - whether your opinion differs based on which gender you consider the baseline for the argument.

3 Alarm Fire

If It's Econ ...

... Read your Krugman.

Why McCain is on a Downturn

I agree with E.J.'s assessment of the debate, the past month, and how it now looks like Obama is the serious, steady candidate.

Why Not Blame Minorities for it.

Over the past week or so some conservatives (NRO, Fox, etc.) have suggested that lending to minorities with bad credit - for example under the Community Redevelopment Act - caused the Wall Street crisis.

Nuts. Cynthia Tucker de-bunks it.

Rove Politics

(via Halperin) Rove politics says you should take your weaknesses and attack the opponent on the same issues - it's like "projection" in psychology. Well, take a look at how McCain uses it:

Speaking at a McCain-Palin rally in Columbus, the Arizonan accuses his rival of misleading voters on taxes during Friday’s debate:

“Senator Obama is a fan of all that spending because he’s always cheering for higher taxes or against tax relief… My friends, we need a President who will always tell the American people the truth.”

Also slams Obama’s response to the economic crisis:

“Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn’t want to get involved. Then he was ‘monitoring the situation.’ That’s not leadership, that’s watching from the sidelines.”

As I Suspected

As far as I can tell the new plan is the exact same as the "broad outlines" agreed on last week before McCain screwed it all up. It sounds like they added in all the progressive measures - and now the House Republican Conference (led by Cantor) are behind it. So why did it take so long? Did McCain throw a monkey wrench in it all? I didn't see him at the conference mtg today trying to fix it!

Can anyone show me how this new bill is different? Or what the GOP got in return for their support?

Weekend Wrap-up

Frank Rich sums up nicely the McPain antics from last week - and gives a good perspective on what could have led the campaign to pull the stunts.

Also, Jack Cafferty can't hide his disdain for the Palin pick.

Looks like a deal's going through on Capitol Hill but I haven't seen any details. However, I wouldn't be shocked that this deal is essentially the same one that was broadly agreed to last week until McCain flew in and screwed it all up. . .

Crystal Ball

Funny remark from Gail Collins today:

One thing we now know for sure. Electing John McCain would be God’s gift to the profession of journalism. A story a minute.

Imagine what would happen if a new beetle infested the Iowa corn crop during the first year of a McCain administration. On Monday, we spray. On Tuesday, we firebomb. On Wednesday, the president marches barefoot through the prairie in a show of support for Iowa farmers. On Thursday, the White House reveals that Wiley Flum, a postal worker from Willimantic, Conn., has been named the new beetle eradication czar. McCain says that Flum had shown “the instincts of a maverick reformer” in personally buying a box of roach motels and scattering them around the post office locker room. “I can’t wait to introduce Wiley to those beetles in Iowa,” the president adds.

On Friday, McCain announces he’s canceling the weekend until Congress makes the beetles go away.

Barack Obama would just round up a whole roomful of experts and come up with a plan. Yawn.

Poor Taste

Living in a swing state, I get to see all the political commercials - and quite often. Well, I saw this one the other day from a liberal 527 - it had doctors talking about McCain's skin cancer, and explaining how deadly it is ... reminding voters he's had it 4 times, and mentioning how inexperienced Palin was. Then it asked "why won't Sen. McCain release his medical records."

Well, MSNBC is refusing to run it. I think that's fair - attack ads are attack ads - but talking about death goes too far.

Palin Backlash

Politico reports on a growing amount of GOPers who are worried about Palin's performances (although limited) with the press - and are scared about next week's debate.

Krugman is Right

Krugman has a really good article today (and he also thought the "principles" plan was a good one! nice.) - too bad spoilers are screwing things up.

Also - here's Yglesias's idea on how to break the deadlock - and I like it:

If conservatives won’t play ball, I think the smart move for progressives on the Hill is to come back to Bush and Paulson with a much less palatable plan — huge stimulus, big tax hikes on super-high earners, mortgage cramdowns, etc. Let Bush either cave 100 percent to a Nancy Pelosi dream deal or else let Bush bring McCain and John Boehner to the table. There’s no reason for progressives to be making concessions to the Bush administration and the financial industry if they can’t even get their lackeys to back their own plan.

The Old McCain

Today, Brooks has a really good column. . . reminding us of what we all loved about the old McCain, and our disappointments with the new one (even Brooks is feeling blue).

She Can't Possibly Be This Bad

...But she is. Here's Palin with Katie Couric Part 2. Try not to cringe. You know it's bad when Katie Couric looks like Mike Wallace.

Deal or No Deal

Ok - so now that it looks like there isn't going to be a deal - at least an easy one - I think it's fairly safe to say that a lot of the blame will be put at the feet of House Republicans and McCain ... which is good if they really were going to pass the good bill!

But - I know public opinion is growing against a "bailout of Wall Street fat cats" - and so there's a slight chance that they'll appreciate GOP and McCain monkey wrench.

Bill Kristol is one Guy Who Thinks McCain isn't Posturing

Kristol writes in the Weekly Standard that he thinks that McCain will solve the financial crisis - and the voters will reward him for being so action-based and presidential. I doubt it.

The Revised Paulson Plan

It sounds like today's negotiations were fruitful (thank you, John McCain) and from the general outlines disclosed I'm quite surprised (as a slowly reforming cynic) that Congress actually might be putting out a good, or at least better, bill -- as I understand it, they agree to try and include the proposals that I wanted to be included in the bail-out bill! And I'm happy Dodd's on it.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told reporters after the three-hour meeting, "We've reached fundamental agreement on a set of principles" to guide the financial rescue plan, and he said Congress could pass a bill within days. He said the principles include protection for taxpayers, effective oversight, help for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on the compensation of executives whose firms take bailout money.

Another participant in the meeting, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, later said Treasury would not be given $700 billion up front to fund the bailout plan but that the money would be "phased in" over time in installments.

He said the negotiators were "able to accommodate the bulk" of Democratic concerns about the plan "in very responsible ways" and that "we are on track, I believe, to pass this."

Noting that some lawmakers have been invited to a meeting at the White House today "to try to break a deadlock," Frank said, "I'm glad that we'll be able to go and tell them that there's not much of a deadlock to break. But I'm always glad to get to go to the White House."

UPDATE: I guess I'm not too oppossed to the GOP idea of making it a loan either, instead of a bail-out either. At least we're down to 2 palatable options

Fool Me Once, Shame on .... uh, ....

Yglesias has a good point on why Palin is become MORE incoherent after all her "briefing"

Real stumper here: “It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska.”

It’s very hard to say what this is supposed to mean. When I flew from Moscow to New York, my flight path didn’t take me anywhere near Alaska. Indeed, Moscow is closer to New York than it is to Anchorage. And yet nobody would say that David Paterson has extensive foreign policy experience thanks to his proximity to Russia. I think Palin may have gotten a briefing that told her that Alaska is in the flight-path for some Russian nuclear missiles that go over the arctic en route to destinations in the United States. That, I believe, is true though it’s certainly not what she said. It’s possible that all this cramming is causing Palin to become less coherent — instead of just parrying questions she knows she doesn’t have good answers to, she’s trying to remember canned lines but it’s too much all at once to actually get right.

Friday's Debate

(via Yglesias)

Not Sure There's a Connection

(via Gortyn)

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings on Wednesday warned two minority groups to beware of Sarah Palin because "anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks."

A Few Things

(via Halperin) First, I guess Palin Re-Iterates to Couric that seeing Russia from Alaska is foreign policy experience! Someone didn't tell her to stop saying that!

Second, it looks like there's a "fundamental agreement" on the bailout. Let's see the details. I'm sure McCain put it over the edge (especially since today he admitted he hadn't read Paulson's 3-page bill)

Third. MUST SEE TV: Sarah Silverman has a hilarious video out asking grandkids to go visit their Jewish Grandparents in Florida to tell them to vote for Obama.

Funny Men

Clinton - Again - Not Helpful

So, he's been dragging his feet on campaigning for Barack. He's praised Palin, he hosts a McCain-Palin speech for his Global Initiative, he "loves that little down syndrome kid", he talks about himself all the time, he thinks the "trends" will hand Obama the election - not his qualities. . . and NOW he thinks McCain's stunt is a great moment in bipartisanship:

I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted — I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don’t think we ought to overly parse that.

$700B

Did you all hear how when Forbes Magazine asked how Paulson came up with $700B, his aide said "we just wanted to choose a really big number." ?!?!? I've also heard that Paulson wanted $25B a month - which begs the question: why can't we provide some for a few months to install some confidence, and then provide the rest (if needed) or something else down the road once we've thought about it a little more?

Toles on Fire

(via Syd O)

Obama Pants + ?? = Profit

(via jBigglesworth) Maybe you can wear these while you eat your arugula. $120 slacks don't go over well in rural Penn.

American Exceptionalism

(via Syd O) Aren't you glad Roger Cohen joined the NYT op-ed page? Good column.

The damn-the-world, God-chose-us rage of that America has sharpened as U.S. exceptionalism has become harder to square with the 21st-century world’s interconnectedness. How exceptional can you be when every major problem you face, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to gas prices, requires joint action?

Better than Roids?

(via Syd O) A new contraption to cool the body from the inside out is helping athletes.

Science in the Next Administration

Nature has posted answers to a questionnaire it provided both campaigns on their views and priorities for science in the next administration ... Obama responded ... McPain did not (so Nature pieces together what he might think based on past actions/words). Good contrast (and similarities) on funding, evolution, stem cells, nuclear power, global warming etc.

This surprised me - McCain's cap-and-trade plan is pretty bad!

McCain has described his own vision of a cap-and-trade system, but with a different target; the McCain plan calls for reductions of emissions by 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain would initially give away emissions permits instead of auctioning them. McCain would also allow emissions allowances to be 'banked' or 'borrowed' for different time periods, as well as establish a national 'strategic carbon reserve' that could release permits during difficult economic times. He would also allow unlimited offsets, from both domestic and international sources, to ease into a newly set up cap-and-trade system.

Carbon Auction Starts Today

In the first of its kind (in the U.S.), 10 Northeast States will initiate their cap-and-trade program by auctioning off carbon allowances. A few other regions (midwest and western?) have some plans in the works too - and Congress has had several plans bouncing around for years. The good news is that this is an auction - making polluters pay - which gives industry incentive to cut their current pollution, allows them to pass on the costs, and generates a ton of revenue for the states. This is preferrable to how Europe did it by giving away allowances, causing a windfall for industry. All eyes are on how this goes.

A carbon tax is still probably the best way - environmentally, economically, and bureaucratically - but it's almost a political non-starter. Too bad.

Dowd on Everything

She talks about Kissinger, Palin, Clinton, etc. But I think this sums up the effect of the Republican Rule:

Republicans, who have won so many elections painting Democrats as socialists and pinkos, have now done so much irresponsible deregulating and deficit spending that they have to avoid fiscal Armageddon by turning America into a socialist, pinko society with nationalized financial institutions and a financial czar accountable to no one and no law.

What Would Keynes Do?

Ignatius speaks for John Maynard Keyes:

A truly Keynesian rescue plan should do more than bail out foolish investors. How might the pieces fit into a larger design? Well, if the taxpayers are going to acquire a stake in the nation's largest insurance company, perhaps that company can be the cornerstone of a new system of universal private health coverage. If the taxpayers are going to acquire $700 billion in real estate assets, perhaps the eventual profits can fund new investments in infrastructure or energy technology.

Vietnam John

For my readers who have time to read a full Atlantic article, this is a great piece (I've mentioned before) on how Vietnam informs McCain's view of Iraq. A great history refresher - and a nice insight into McCain's stubbornness on Iraq. Good informal quotes by McCain, and interesting Nam-Iraq parallels.

But because of the scope of the offensive and the number of American casualties it inflicted, Tet was widely interpreted by the American media as a strategic defeat for the United States, and prompted a crisis within the Johnson administration. In his writings, Admiral McCain never appears to acknowledge that Tet was understood that way. His son does acknowledge that Tet was seen as a loss, but nonetheless rejects what he terms the “defeatist” interpretation.

Can't Fight the Moonlight

(via Andrew Sullivan) Jon Chiat over at TNR has the most plausible reason why McCain is pulling the stunt:

... I wonder if it's a strategic ploy. The thinking: McCain is behind in the polls, largely because the economic crisis is dominating the campaign. The best weapon left in McCain's arsenal is the foreign policy debate, which could potentially turn the election back to McCain's stronger issue. If the debate's in the middle of an economic crisis, it won't have the impact they need. So: postpone the foreign policy debate until after the bailout has been passed, and then maybe you can change the conversation to foreign policy for an extended period.

Bill Clinton - Lousy Spokesman

(via VH!) Slate has some theories on why Clinton has been such a poor cheerleader for Obama recently. I think it's a combination of all the ones mentioned. Plus, I'd add that the Obama camp probably didn't want him out there that much!

Palin, Part 2

MUST SEE TV: The CBS Evening News Interview with Katie Couric can be found here. Again - she's still way over her head ... just string some big words and catch phrases together and no one will notice you haven't a clue. Several cringe (or LoL - depending on your level of disgust) moments.

"I'll try and find ya some and I'll bring 'em to ya" - it sounds so folksy.

Who Needs McCain?

(via TPM) It looks like there's a new Democratic plan circulating in Congress that includes practically all the progressive priorities - and the emerging wisdom is that it'll pass. This makes me happy.

I was going to write about how I've been pretty disappointed w/ Pelosi and Reid and the Dems because they've been posturing by trying to get as many republicans on board, so they can blame the bad deal on the republicans - and by saying it's a Bush problem and he needs to be part of the answer. All of that really seemed childish to me and is a great wasted opportunity for Dems to take the bull by the horns and do something productive. So, I'm hoping that this new Dem plan goes through and the Dems get credit for a good bill (which everyone agrees is needed) instead of passing a bad bill just to blame on the GOP. We can only blame them for so long before we are going to be held accountable, and when you control Congress, you're accountable ...

Why Kick the Tires

Spoken Like a True Beauty Queen

(via Yglesias) Does this even make sense? Does it remind you of this video?

CBS has leaked this bit of text:

Katie Couric: If this doesn’t pass, do you think there’s a risk of another Great Depression?

Sarah Palin: Unfortunately, that is the road that America may find itself on. Not necessarily this, as it’s been proposed, has to pass or we’re gonna find ourselves in another Great Depression. But there has to be action taken, bipartisan effort – Congress not pointing fingers at this point at … one another, but finding the solution to this, taking action and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.

It's a Bird, It's a Plane ... It's ... It's ... McCain!

(via Halperin) So the McPain campaign is suspending his campaign - and wants to postpone the debate - in order to go back to Washington and fix the Wall Street mess. This sounds like a stunt to me ... does he not want to debate? Does he think he can fix it? Can't he just weigh in on the campaign trail? Has he learned a lot about the economy since he last said "I don't know much about the economy?"

Obama's camp seems to think the debate is still on. And he wants to push for a bipartisan bill w/ McCain.

UPDATE: Great Historical Timeouts

Praise God and Pass the Solidarity

(via Halperin) Is this all it takes to have foreign policy experience these days? McPain met with the Presidents of Ukraine and Georgia at the UN. Neverminde that McCain made a rediculously chide remark about "we're all Georgians" which allowed him to not actually do anything about the crisis (And, remember that McCain's big advisor used to lobby for Georgia) - but now he gets credit for the platitude?

Yushchenko praises McCain's national security values while Saakashvilli expresses his thanks for the solidarity of the American people during the Georgia-Russia conflict.

Other Options Tossed Around

Here's a good description of 4 other alternatives to Paulson's plan. I think this one is the most important concesssion to push for if the Paulson plan goes forth:

The administration has said it is willing to negotiate key parts of its plan -- including a possible concession allowing the government to take equity stakes in financial firms in exchange for bailing them out

But - I also like the "government as lender" option, which would allow the Fed to loan money to the I-banks if they put up the mortgage securities as collateral. That way the banks have cash flow, and would have to pay back the loans ... or the Gov't eventually gets the securities if the bank cannot repay.

Again. What's important about the Hardball clip (below) is that these securities are not worthless - so once the market stabilizes the Gov't could make money (or at least not lose that much). Of course, it's all about risk ... what kind of risk should the Gov't accept? The Paulson plan? Or one of the others (like the "gov't as lender" plan).

The "Bail-out"

(via Medium) Hardball had a really good segment with Jim Cramer and Steven Pearlstein talking about what the Paulson plan really means. Watch it.

Here's Yglesias's take (which I think has some merit - I don't think we have to adopt the Paulson plan part and parcel ... but what do I know?)

I was watching Hardball early today and the always-idiotic Jim Cramer and the usually-reliable Steven Pearlstein were both completely eliding the distinction between the following propositions:

1. If we do absolutely nothing in response to the current situation, terrible things will happen.
2. Unless we do exactly what Hank Paulson proposed over the weekend, terrible things will happen.

These are, clearly, very different claims. And (1), while perhaps open to debate, is a lot more plausible than (2). But proponents of the Paulson Plan have an obligation to either make the case for (2), or else to canvass some alternative ways of doing (1) and explain in clear terms why the Paulson Plan is superior to other alternatives. Merely citing the urgent need for action is a transparent effort to foreclose debate.

I Can Hear a German Accent From My Couch!

... I guess that counts for foreign policy experience.

Panic of 1907

What would JP Morgan do?

Morgan rallied the great money men. John D. Rockefeller, when asked if he would put his securities in the pot, said yes, "and I have cords of them, gentlemen, cords of them."

As Long As It's Not Being Used

Easterbrook on the Bailout

(via VH!) The Gov't has given out, and added to the debt, $1.5 TRILLION to the national debt THIS YEAR ... we should be really mad:

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Last week, TMQ asked why no one was paying attention to the fact that the national debt ceiling was quietly raised by $800 billion during the summer. Well, toss that column: The White House just asked the national debt ceiling be raised another $700 billion, for the proposed financial-sector bailout. If that happens, in 2008 alone, $1.5 trillion will have been added to the national debt: every penny borrowed from your children and their children. Stated in today's dollars, in 1979 the entire national debt was $1.5 trillion. George W. Bush and Congress have in a single year added an amount equal to the entire national debt one generation ago. And the year's not over!

It took the United States 209 years, from the founding of the republic till 1998, to compile the first $5 trillion in national debt. In the decade since, $6 trillion in debt has been added. This means the United States has borrowed more money in the past decade than in all our previous history combined. Almost all the borrowing has been under the direction of George W. Bush -- at this point Bush makes Kenneth Lay seem like a paragon of fiscal caution. Democrats deserve ample blame, too. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leaders of the Senate and House, have never met a bailout they didn't like: Harry and Nancy just can't wait to spend your children's money. Six trillion dollars borrowed in a single decade and $1.5 trillion borrowed in 2008 alone. Charles Ponzi would be embarrassed.

If you borrowed, borrowed, borrowed, you could afford to live high for a while -- then there would be a reckoning. Hmmm … that sounds a little like what many Americans did with gimmick mortgages in 2005 and 2006. They were only imitating their political leadership! Why is it both parties in Washington think the United States can borrow, borrow, borrow without a reckoning ever coming? Bush, Reid and Pelosi seem poised to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed public money to political insiders on Wall Street and in banking, whose bonuses will now be tax-subsidized. The capitalist maxim is, "She who reaps the gains also bears the losses." Now Washington wants those who reaped the gains to shift the losses to those who lived humbly. The young will pay and pay for these cynical ploys to insure the luxury of the powerful old. Why aren't the young outraged?

TMQ's pal Isabel Sawhill, among the leading public-policy economists of our day, says Washington does indeed need to intervene in the financial system -- the harm to the average person of letting credit markets freeze would be greater, she thinks, than the harm caused by more public debt. Fair enough. But it doesn't inspire confidence that on Sept. 12, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the financial system had been fixed and "under no circumstances" would there be further bailouts; on Friday, Paulson said the system was collapsing and another $700 billion was needed. Suddenly Paulson is insisting the country has no choice other than immediately to hand over $700 billion to Wall Street fat cats, with barely any debate or even explanation of the plan. Why should anyone believe this guy, when just one week previously he said no further bailouts would occur? It seems clear Paulson had no idea what he was talking about then, while if the problem is really as bad as Paulson says now, his past delay in facing the problem has made the cost far higher. With such a poor track record, why is the treasury secretary suddenly viewed as a superbrilliant genius whose marching orders must be followed?

It is not public intervention that is objectionable. University of Chicago Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker, among the top conservative economists, just said, "I have reluctantly concluded that substantial intervention was justified." Rather it is size of the bailout, and the hurry-up-give-the-money-don't-stop-to-think aspect, that are troubling. Much of the $700 billion will flow to investment-community friends of Paulson, Bush and other administration figures. Average Americans who behaved irresponsibly by signing gimmick mortgages may get some taxpayer aid from the Paulson proposal, and maybe they should get none. But in the end, average Americans will still be liable for most of what they owe -- that is, will still be held responsible for their actions. Wealthy, politically connected insiders who run banks and companies such as American International Group will be exempt for responsibility for their actions, and will stuff taxpayer-subsidized millions into their pockets.

On Sunday, Paulson called the self-serving actions of top Wall Street figures "inexcusable" -- yet the plan is not only to excuse them, but to shower them with free money. Paulson said Wall Street pay levels were "excessive," but should be discussed later, after the bailout is done. Now is the moment of maximum leverage! Once they are holding the public's money and laughing about how easily they got it, financial executives will have no incentive to compromise on pay. Here's an idea: Any company that participates in the bailout agrees to limit its top-tier executives to the federal minimum wage. That is, after all, the amount Washington says is enough to live on. Meanwhile, of the two jokers who drove Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground, one was paid $19.8 million in 2007, the other $14 million; each will get nearly $5 million in taxpayer-funded "retirement" bennies.

Yet there's scant outrage. Maybe this is because in an era of fiscal irresponsibility by both parties, everybody wants a bailout. Wall Street, bankers, homeowners who lied on their mortgage applications, Detroit automakers, farmers -- gimme, gimme, gimme! Rather than asking whether the $700 billion giveaway is too large or being structured in a way that benefits the rich, numerous members of Congress are instead demanding more bailouts be appended: for seniors (see below), cities, states, more "stimulus" checks, you name it. Give money to whoever will fund my re-election! The money is being forcibly extracted from the pockets of our children and their children. Every dollar borrowed today by the irresponsible old of Washington will subtract two dollars from future economic growth, leaving our children and their children a legacy of stagnation.

The 1980 Chrysler bailout, which was nationally debated for months before happening, cost $3.2 billion, in present-value dollars, and was financed by revenue rather than by borrowing. Here is the borrowing that's happened in 2008 alone, with precious little public debate:

• $29 billion to bail out Bear Stearns.

• $40 billion in the first mortgage-holder bailout.

• $80 billion for an additional year of Iraq war operations. (Another $150-$200 billion in war costs such as future veterans' disability benefits were incurred but not funded.)

• Up to $85 billion to bail out AIG.

• $153 billion to households for "economic stimulus."

• $200 billion, and possibly more, to bail out Fannie and Freddie.

• $290 billion in farm subsidies, despite agricultural prices and grains profits being at record highs.

• $700 billion general bailout of securities backed by bad debt. (The International Monetary Fund estimates this figure will rise to at least $1 trillion.)

That comes to $1.6 trillion, explaining the debt-ceiling rise, and does not include roughly $300 billion in essentially interest-free cash issued to banks by the Federal Reserve on an emergency basis, which may or may not be repaid, but which in any case make all existing money somewhat less valuable. Why is the debt aspect of the splurge barely being remarked on by the mainstream media and by politicians? Why are the young not furious? And about that $700 billion about to the shoveled to the Wall Street elite -- in 2007, George W. Bush vetoed an increase of $7 billion per year in health care spending for the poor, saying the country couldn't afford it.

Bush Pressured Maliki to Move Back Withdraw ...

... to help McCain. (via Yglesias):

As you may recall, over the summer Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki embarrassed John McCain by endorsing Barack Obama’s call for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2010, thus rejecting the Bush/McCain position that such a timeline would constitute some form of surrender, appeasement, or other such disastrous measure. Maliki reiterated this stance several times, and then wound up in negotiations with the Bush administration. That process ended in a withdrawal timetable being set, thus essentially vindicating Obama, but Bush was able to save face by the fact that the end date was pushed back to 2011 — thus preventing it from being a complete ratification of what Obama had already proposed. But a source has alerted Think Progress to the fact that Maliki made the following statement (in Arabic, translation according to the Open Source Center) during an interview with Iraqi television:

Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change [in date] due to political circumstances related to the [U.S] domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date.

In other words, Bush successfully pressured Maliki to push the withdrawal date back specifically in order to aid John McCain’s presidential campaign. Matt Duss wonders “What did McCain know about this, and when did he know it?” Good questions.

Biden's Off Message, Finally

Biden told Katie Couric that he didn't like one of Obama's attack ads (the one mocking McCain for not being able to use a computer). Don't you wish someone high up in the McPain camp would rebuke THEIR ads! Maybe come out and say "you know, claiming Obama wants to teach kindergartners about sex is really just something we made up."

C'mon, Biden ... you're too lovable for your own good.

Progressive Coporatism?

David Brooks looks into the future, and sees the effect of the financial meltdown:

If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive Corporatism. We’re not entering a phase in which government stands back and lets the chips fall. We’re not entering an era when the government pounds the powerful on behalf of the people. We’re entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government acts to create a stable — and often oligarchic — framework for capitalist endeavor.

After a liberal era and then a conservative era, we’re getting a glimpse of what comes next

The Wire Gets Snubbed at the Emmys

Zero wins for The Wire.

“It’s like them never giving a Nobel Prize to Tolstoy,” said Jacob Weisberg, editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and a correspondent for Slate.com. “It doesn’t make Tolstoy look bad, it makes the Nobel Prize look bad.”

Weisberg, who has been an ardent supporter of “The Wire,” added, “It’s sort of proof if you needed any that the Emmys are not something that should be taken seriously.”

Not a Swing Voter

(from an email my mom received)

This will make you re-think : A Trivia question in Sunday School : How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations ? Guess the Answer? Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is. Almost a four-year term to a Presidency. All I can say is Lord Have Mercy on us.!!!!!! According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and w orld peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything .. Is it OBAMA?? I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it! I refuse to take a chance on this unknown candidate who came out of nowhere.

Playing Catch-Up

Back from out of town, so I'm trying to catch up. Here (via VH1) are some articles of the NYT op-ed page concerning the proposed bail-out. One by Kristol, the other by Krugman. Also, a toon (via TSM)

Northern Extorsion

(via VH1) Here's a small smattering of Palin's handouts, public/private ventures, and cronyism in AK

How Does This Work?

From the Congress Daily AM

Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told congressional leaders in an emergency meeting Thursday night that they were working to create a government mechanism to purchase the bad assets of firms teetering ...

Privatize Your Future

(via Yglesias) Remember back when the GOP thought that you should be in control of your retirement future, that you should be able shop around and throw your "nest egg" in the investment of your choice? "Choice" and "privatizing" your Social Security was the most autonomous thing you could do. Well, if your retirement had been put in the market, here's where it'd be today. (Granted, you might have done well if you retired a few months ago - but again, that's a counter-point - there's less to no security doing it this way)

The Annals of Wall Street

For those of you who really want to dig into the nitty gritty of the bank collapses on Wall Street, the NYT Freakanomics column is the place to start. They don't hold your hand (in fact, they lose you half the time - but hey, that's how you learn) - but it does make some sense.

Flailing

Joe Klein at Time says:

This is shaping up as a pretty bad week for the McCain campaign. First, the economic fundamentals are sound. Then we're in a major crisis. He talks about the excessive compensation that CEOs receive, but continues to have Carly Fiorina ($100 million for her failed stewardship of Hewlett Packard) as an economic spokesperson. He wants to have a vigorous new regulatory regime patrolling Wall Street--even though he has always opposed such a regime and his pal Phi Gramm was the guy in charge of dynamiting the regulations--and yet he is running this ad, warning against excessive federal power.

Endoresements

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) just endorsed Obama-Biden. (A DNC platform lady also endorsed McPain). However, Rice, Powell, Hagel and Paul have yet to endorse McPain .... is that telling? Maybe.

New Poll

(via TSM) When will the Palin bump settle and voters regain consciousness? May be starting - it also says voters think McCain is less likely to bring about change (duh!):

The poll suggested the urgency of Mr. McCain’s task: The percentage of Americans who disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is conducting his job, 68 percent, was as high as it has been for any sitting president in the history of New York Times polling. And 81 percent said the country was heading in the wrong direction.

Toons

(via TSM) They're all too good, I couldn't choose just one.

Dog Whistle

(via Syd O) Slate has a great article on how sex-education (i.e. the McPain attack on Obama) serves as a perfect microcosm for the conservative-liberal divide.

Anchorwoman

Must See: (via Yglesias, again) Palin as a sportscaster!

The More You Know ...

(via Yglesias) It's Palin's popularity over time.

Parody

Here's a parody on Palin w/ the Bush Doctrine.

Not a Pie Chart

(via Syd O). Here's a GREAT list of charts depicting Obama v. McCain tax plans ... who it affects, how much, the percent of the entire tax base, etc. The tax CUTS are to the left of the vertical line.

Off Shore Drilling Vote

(via Syd O) The House passed it. Essentially I hear this - Pelosi caved to the extent that they threw in a bunch of regs so that they could show the GOP wasn't reasonable on this and was really in Big Oil's hip pocket ... that GOP wanted it carte blanche. Also, there's no way the companies can actually drill in time.

McCain's Radical Health Care Plan

Bob Hebert in the NYT explains the McCain-Palin Health Care plan.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

Jokes

(via Yglesias)

—–Original Message—–
From: Bill Burton
Sent: Tue 9/16/2008 4:07 PM
To: Ben Smith
Subject:

[snip]
————————–
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld, a miracle made possible by John McCain.

Applies to His Other Policies Too

Why Did the Fed Draw the Line at Lehman?

This article sums it up pretty well. First off, the Fed was using powers granted to it after the Great Depression when it backed the Bear Stearns deal - and now when it's (effectively buying) AIG. So, why did they skip Lehman? It looks like the Fed was prepared for Lehman's demise and had been planning some contingencies, whereas it was completely taken off guard by AIG's problems. Also, AIG has short-term liability held by many small institutions and mutual funds, etc. that would hurt ordinary citizen's pocketbooks. The Gov't can - and probably will - sell off AIG stock in the future (stock that the taxpayers own), but the hope is that they can hold out for a higher price and maybe make some money.

Now, we're down to JP Morgan and Goldman as the only two independent investment banks left (and WaMu may be the next to go) (note: I'm not clear on the distinction btwn a "commercial" and "investment" banks - but there is a difference .... UPDATE: here is an explanation)

BUT - Consumer Prices fell .1 % and Oil was down. Does that mean things are going to look up? Doubt it.

Trying times.

Petraus to CENTCOM

Ignatius talks highly of what the General has done in Iraq.

Lehman Gets Bought - Sort Of

Barclays of England has reached a deal it seems to acquire the good half of Lehman Bros.

UPDATE: A good NYT piece on the big picture

over a year now, many Wall Streeters have complained about government efforts to forestall foreclosures, saying that it would create the expectation that everyone should be bailed out, and that consequently no one would learn important lessons about the dangers of taking more risk than they could handle. Besides, they added, the housing market was never going to improve until housing prices found their natural bottom. And that wouldn’t happen until the government stopped trying to prop up housing prices.

But in truth, you can say the same of Wall Street — it won’t learn any lessons, either, until firms that took foolhardy risks start to fail. One reason Lehman could not find a buyer over the weekend is because potential buyers were insisting on the same kind of taxpayer guarantees that the government had given JPMorgan when it bought Bear Stearns, or when it took over Fannie and Freddie. That’s the essence of moral hazard. When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to do so, the potential buyers went away.

Wall St. Shakes Up the Voters

E.J. thinks that the Wall Street collapse will help refocus voters on what really matters.

Beef Up That Foreign Policy Experience

I remember Palin telling Gibson that she'd never met a foreign head of state. Well - the McCain campaign will fix that! They're sending her to the UN to do a meet and greet with a bunch of em! That way, she can get her bona fides without even leaving the country!!

I Mean, I Wouldn't Want Her To Do MY Job

Carly Fiorina, a McCain spokesman and ex-HP CEO said this:

“Do you think [Sarah Palin] has the experience to run a major company, like Hewlett Packard?” asked the host.

“No, I don’t,” responded Fiorina. “But you know what? That’s not what she’s running for.”

Brooks Comes Out Against Palin

Brooks in the NYT. I disagree with how he characterizes the "liberal elite" skewing of Palin ... but he's right about how it's ridiculous to think that good governing can be done by any Josie Schmoe.

In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

Can't Stop

Palin claims she didn't use a teleprompter during her GOP speech.

"Drill, Baby, Drill"

Just watched McCain lead a chant of "drill, baby, drill" in Florida. [He then went on to say that drilling wasn't everything, it was a "bridge" to other source of energy. ] I guess it's easier to get excited about drilling (b/c it's what we know) than muster the courage to forge ahead on the necessary - but difficult - task of creating a new energy future.

Obama Will Let You Keep Your Guns

A new radio ad running in Colorado and other battlegrounds uses and ex-football player, current gun-rights advocate, to reassure gun owners.

Even Fox

(Via Yglesias) Fox's Megyn Kelly grills McCain's spokesman for lying about Obama's tax plan. To be honest - it's the first time I've seen a host call the surrogates on it. Even Chris Matthews doesn't call them out but just lets the other talking head respond. There are independent analysis out there - and Megyn cited them ... everyone else should too.

Down is Up and Up is Down - Again

(via Syd O) This is fantastic. From the Guardian UK ... you need to read this.

A Taste (but read it all - it's short):

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner-city community,
then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude," with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Put Lipstick on Biden and He's Still a Pit Bull

NPR had a nice segment on Biden stepping up his attacks today. He is an awesome surrogate - literally. Today he was all over McCain for his lies - and expressed his dismay at how McCain "approves" of these current ads after the he was hit with the same sort of slander in S. Carolina back in '00!!

My favorite quote was "We've seen this movie before, and we all know that the sequel is much worse than the original"

UPDATE: he also said:

“I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.”

“The same campaign that once called for a town hall a week is now launching a low blow a day.”

ALSO: There's actually a liberal 527 group with an ad out showing one of McCain's Vietnam buddies worrying about having McCain - with his temper - hovering over the "red button."

Bridge to Somewhere

"The Fundamentals of our Economy are Strong"

... Says McCain. Didn't Hoover say that too? And this is after Fannie/Freddie, Bear and Lehman, and AIG and Merrill go down or are bought out?! Of course, McCain thinks the "fundamentals" are the hardworking americans, entrepreneurship and small business ... not the de-regulatory state of Wall Street, tax breaks for the wealthy, and out of control CEO paychecks. I'm glad Obama's having a hey-day with this ... he should. It's good for him to keep harping on this. Even if McCain's right about our "fundamentals" being strong - and this thing was unavoidable - I doubt American's are going to believe it when he essentially tells them they're fears aren't warranted.

UPDATE: Obama responds:

Says at an event in Pueblo, Colorado: “We know you meant what you said the first time because you’ve said it before.”

“And your chief economic advisor – the man who wrote your economic plan – said that we’re in a ‘mental recession;’ that this is all in our heads; that we’re a nation of whiners.”

Born to Run

Great Read: (via Syd O) For all you evolutionary biologists, there's a great article in Discover about a new theory that our appearance and uniqueness as humans has a lot to do with our evolved ability to run - maybe to outrun animals while hunting! It turns out we can outrun almost any animal (think marathon runners) because animals eventually overheat (you can check the rectal thermometer) and collapse and then we kill them. Many of our features makes us good runners - Achilles' tendon, huge butts, long necks and tendons that allow our heads to stay steady focused on our target, and hairless bodies with many sweat glands to wick away heat so we don't overheat.

$66 Million

Is how much Obama raised this month ... a record.

3 Down and How Many to Go?

Well, it looks as though Lehman Brothers is finished. On top of that, Merrill Lynch has just been acquired by Bank of America (who passed on Lehman). Add this to the Bear Stearns takeover, and thats 3 HUGE Wall Street banks to go under since the spring. Again, add that to the Fannie/Freddie Federal takeover ...

Things are not good.

Dowd on Palin

Mo-Do's thoughts on the ABC interview.

The really scary part of the Palin interview was how much she seemed like W. in 2000, and not just the way she pronounced nu-cue-lar. She had the same flimsy but tenacious adeptness at saying nothing, the same generalities and platitudes, the same restrained resentment at being pressed to be specific, as though specific is the province of silly eggheads, not people who clear brush at the ranch or shoot moose on the tundra

Also, Frank Rich is damn good.

SNL - As Advertised

Tina Fey came back and did her SPOT-ON version of Sarah Palin last night. Here's the clip. Sometimes SNL is the best way to stereotypes out there ... and this one is REAL good for the Obama campaign.

A Slight Admission

(via Yglesias) National Review Editor Rich Lowry indicates that Palin isn't ready ... which shows that there's one person over there who has a passing relation with reality.

The fact still remains that she very likely didn’t know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can’t imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it. Palin seemed weak on economic and budgetary policy too, talking in the vaguest generalities. She was much better, and positively good, on the social issues—which are dear to her and she’s thought about—and anything having to do with her personally or with her record in Alaska. She was magnificent on the Iraq-prayer question. This tends to suggest she’ll be as strong on the national issues, once she’s truly conversant with them. I hope she got up from the foreign policy session and said to her aides, “Dammit. That wasn’t good enough and I’m not letting it happen again. I’m not going to allow myself to be so under-prepared for another high-profile interview again.” Of course, she has a tremendous amount of material to master in a short period of time.

Blissful Ignorance

The fact that the press (or some of it) has no problem giving Palin a pass for not knowing the Bush Doctrine is is ludicrous. Who cares it "regular Americans" don't know what it is - Sarah Palin isn't running for a "regular" job - she's running to be VP, and anyone who's followed our Foreign Policy over the last 7 years - at the level expected of someone who wants to guide that policy - should know what the Bush Doctrine is. We don't hire President's and VP's who have an "average" knowledge of policy! Here is a video compilation of intelligent press members who are writing it off! Candy Crowley, David Gergon, Juan Williams, etc! All of these people KNOW what it is - why do they not expect the VP to have a working knowledge of current/past events! I'm outraged.

Also, Yglesias sums up my views on:
(1) how her absolute support for anything Israel does is reckless, and
(2) how the "Bush Doctrine" really used Orwellian language to substitute definitions of unjust "preventive" war with the definition of just "pre-emptive" war.

UPDATE: Now, some "experts" think that there are actually Several Bush Doctrines! This is just flat out wrong. No one ever referred to it as the "freedom agenda" or any other of Bush's silly justifications.

The View

So I happened to be watching the View this morning - and McCain was on. I ended up watching it b/c I thought that the "View" crowd would probably be the ones deciding this election and I wanted to hear their take on Palin's interview and how they approached McCain. Also, people had said that McCain was taking it easy over the next few days, sharing BBQ recipies on Rachel Ray and chatting w/ the View.

Well - he got RIPPED ... Barbara Walters was kind of nice talking about Palin's interview but then she PRESSED McCain on EVERY issue ... he was turning a little red and squirming some.

Here's the MSM take from MSNBC.

What Palin Should Have Told Charlie

(via Syd O) When Gibson asked her if she was ready, Palin said "oh yes - not a doubt in my mind" (or something to that effect) - that in itself made me think that she was outright lying ... who in their right mind doesn't have doubts!? Well, I wasn't the only one thinking that. Here's what she should have said.

7 Years

(via Syd O)

Misleading Talk Express

(via KKP) The one good thing about this Palin pick is that it has somehow prompted McCain to start making multiple lies every single day - and allowed him to repeat them in the face of common knowledge. Yglesias was all over this theme today ... and Krugman has a good article on it - claiming if campaigns are any indicator of governing, McCain/Palin will be worse than Bush/Cheney!

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

Let's just hope that the American people are at least smart enough to recognize these tactics for what they are.

Satire

(via Medium) Again, sometimes comedy is the best way to make a point. Check out Jon Stewart showing the GOP say one thing about Hillary, and the exact opposite about Palin.

McCain's War Mentality

Jeff Goldberg has an article (that's on my to-do list) in the Atlantic on how, or if, McCain's Vietnam mentality will affect his Presidency.

Conservatives Love Hillary

Ok. Do you guys think Obama should have picked Hillary? I still think "hell no." Fred Barnes at NRO obviously thinks Obama should have picked her (as Chris Matthews describes the GOP "Hillary love": crocodile tears). Here's the thing - I skimmed his article - and he's wrong. There are always unintended consequences. Assuming HRC was the pick, the GOP would have been mobilized just as much as they currently are by the Palin pick. And I think that Biden does balance the ticket and will offer a heck of a contrast with the other VP. In any event - I love how the Republicans all of a sudden are huge Clinton fans.

The Virgin Interview

MUST SEE: Did you all see Palin's ABC interview? Here. First, she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. Second, when asked about foreign policy she said she brings "energy" to the table. Third, when confronted with her "God's will" (in Iraq) comment, she claimed it was Lincoln-esque after trying to wiggle out of her actual words (kudos, Charlie for not letting her do it - btw, he was pretty good, I know the campaign thought ABC would be the least-bad alternative ... but its still an extravaganza).

I hope she does these interviews all day - maybe she sounds smart to the American people - but I think she's coming off as totally over her head.

OH - how could I forget! She is thinking about going to war with Russia (who she thought was unprovoked) !! I wish I was kidding.

The Daily Show

MUST SEE: I just caught this on re-run tonight. It's the Daily Show's take on Palin's speech and the GOP convention. I was rolling. You've got to watch the first 10 minutes. The way he skewers the two-faced irony of that night is too good.

Reality Check

(via TSM). Gail Collins reminds us that there's plenty of time for Obama to win - the election doesn't take place THIS Tuesday.

If Palin had been a deer-hunting mom from New Jersey, John McCain would have gotten no post-convention bump whatsoever.

Who Is the Celebrity?

(via Yglesias) The Nation - and Rachel Maddow - report on McCain's 70th birthday party, spent on a yacht in Montenegro w/ Anne Hathaway, a crooked businessman boyfriend, and the lobbyist who runs McCain's campaign and put it all together. There's pictures!