"Breathtakingly Hairbrained"

Yglesias:

There are very few members of congress with whom I’ve ever had the opportunity to discuss a substantive matter of public policy. But as it happens, one of them — the one with whom I’ve had the second-longest exchange — is Mike Pence (R-IN) who I’ve seen on television today repeatedly discussing the Republican Study Group’s “plan” for the financial crisis. And I can tell you this about Mike Pence: he has no idea what he’s talking about. The man is a fool, who deserves to be laughed at. He’s almost stupid enough to work in cable television.

Ah, but not only is not working for cable, he's proposing "crisis" legislation. Let's see what Wonk Room has to say:

The phrase “breathtakingly hairbrained” comes to mind when considering the apparent tax cut proposal. We know that for the group authoring this proposal, tax cuts for the rich and corporations are the answer to every problem. But even the administration, which has relentlessly imposed that agenda for eight years, has recognized that the well was dry on that front for this crisis. But it gets worse. Not only is this another tax cut for the rich, it appears to be one that is dead-aimed at doing much more harm than good — abolishing the tax on capital gains.
[snip]
The idea of insuring mortgage backed securities almost seems like a cynical ploy to pretend to be doing something when actually doing nothing. The idea is that the government would sell holders of mortgage backed securities insurance against losses—and that it would charge such premiums that the government wouldn’t lose money on the deal. That’s akin to selling homeowners insurance in New Orleans after the dikes broke.
[snip]
What they propose on deregulation isn’t clear, but the fact that they’re even still talking about “deregulation” when it was slipshod regulatory oversight that got us into this mess shows a profound misunderstanding of what’s going on. One rumored target is the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations which, in fact, impose accountability on Wall Street — not something we want to do away with right now.

The whole thing is well worth a read.

I can't decide what the stupid to evil ratio is here. I suppose it depends on the member. Boehner, for instance, is 99% evil, with a touch of stupid to get him through the door.

Party before Country

Krugman: "Demolition Accomplished"

From his NYT blog:

How did we get to this point? It’s the culmination of many past betrayals.

First of all, we have the Republican Study Committee blowing things up with a complete nonsense proposal — solving the crisis with a holiday on capital gains taxes. How is that possible? Well, if a party runs on economic nonsense for 25 years, eventually many of its foot soldiers will be people who actually believe the nonsense.

More specifically, though, the failure to get a deal reflects the betrayals of the Bush years. Democrats weren’t going to trust Henry Paulson, because behind him they see the ghost of Colin Powell (and Paulson’s “all your bailout are belong to me” proposal, aside from being bad economics, showed an incredible tone-deafness.)

And after the way the Bushies and their allies double-crossed the Democrats again and again in the aftermath of 9/11 — demand national unity, then accuse you of being soft on terrorists anyway — there’s no way Pelosi and Reed will do the responsible but unpopular thing unless the Republicans agree to share ownership.

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.

As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes.

Now that's egotiscal posturing we can believe in, my friends

Yesterday morning, principles for the Wall Street bail out seemed to have been agreed upon, by both parties and the White House.

Early yesterday afternoon, Superman John McCain flew mightily snuck onto Capitol Hill, before proceeding to a White House meeting that he had requested.

Late yesterday afternoon, everyone was fighting, Paulson was on one knee before Pelosi. Boehner, who earlier in the week was demanding the congress pass a "clean" bill (GOP shorthand for give Paulson what he wants) was circulating a secret new plan to Blue Dog Dems and rank and file Republicans.

McCain was mostly quiet on the events of the day, humbly saying that America could determine for itself what his role had been.

Ok, so I've determined that McCain has devolved into a small, angry, sneaky, obstructionist fuck.

It's not that I love the bailout plan- even the tidbits of improvement over the original that've been trickling out. It's that you know damn well that Boehner and Shelby should've been pushing their ideas all week, at the bargaining table. If they were good-faith actors, that's what they'd have done.

Instead, they blew up the talks because of what Frank correctly assessed as "a rescue plan for John McCain".

I don't trust these motherfuckers to offer anything helpful- they're talking about insurance instead of cash, but all they're going to want to do is suspend capital gains tax and ensure that consumers get nothing out of the deal, let's be honest- I have no idea if resolution has to happen today to stave off world-wide depression, or if the immediate threat is greatly overblown, or if doing nothing is an option.

I do know that this bomb was a political stunt, that it's bullshit, and that John McCain set it off because his polling numbers are- rightly- diving.

I don't know what will happen today, but I really hope this explodes in fucking Boehner's face. And McCain's.

The bailout, even with strings, is not enough

So they keep telling us that we have to invest in junk debt to the tune of a few hundred billion or maybe a trillion dollars, because the whole financial system is on the verge of collapse. President Bush explained to us yesterday that the infusion of public wealth into private enterprise is necessary to keep lines of credit open for business, otherwise many of them will cease to exist, and for citizens, who otherwise will not be able to get loans for homes, cars, college.

Everyone and their brother has screamed for oversight, and it looks like that will be part of the package (though having the mechanism does not mean oversight will occur- look at Iraq for a sobering example). Equity stake? Maybe, though that's still opposed by the administration. Limits on executive compensation may be the big "win", if anything in this can be properly called a win.

My laundry list of adds includes things that will, apparently, not gain ground: The ability of bankruptcy judges to reset loan terms, moratorium on Wall Street lobbying, these things will be tossed. Most importantly, I am not hearing anything about investment in the much mourned Main Street.

I think it's important to remember something about the Great Depression: in addition to a needed regulatory regime and insurance structures, the Depression was addressed with substantial investment in the country's Main Street. Infrastructure projects and even humanities projects put people to work, creating wealth at the bottom, which in turn created the need and means for businesses to grow.

The idea that Main Street will recover this time with simply the ability to take on more debt is, I think, deplorable.

Another thing: while the New Deal helped stop the bleeding and enabled the slow healing of wounds, the wealth of the country really only picked up after we entered WWII and commenced massive war spending.

This time around, I think we'd all like to avoid a world war, so we should probably figure out what our government's investing priorities should be outside of the Pentagon and Wall Street.

Apparently, Wall Street does have a suitcase bomb

Because what else could drag John McCain back to the Senate at breakneck speed (after a Couric interview and a stump speech, that is), when we know because President Bush has told us repeatedly that really, really important work can be done from almost anywhere?

I'm looking forward to Obama showing up for the debate, and telling the assembled press, "I don't know, I've been on the phone with Republican Senator Coburn and Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi and Hank Paulson, and they tell me they have it under control, so I really don't know what John's doing."

Maybe Wall Street has a suitcase bomb

Via TPM:

Cheney Heads to Hill to Quell Republicans

By Kate Klonick - September 23, 2008, 12:58PM

The White House dispatched Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to help shore up support for the financial bailout of Wall Street.

Wonder what Cheney will tell them this time?

Economists For Obama

I keep forgetting how much I love Economists For Obama.

You wanna know who either candidate's economic advisors are? Check here. You wanna know how their numbers really play out? Check here. You wanna know what your taxes would look like under Obama's plan?

Check Here.

Good signs- but don't let up yet

Looks as if Paulson's ready to play, and the Democrats are pushing. Via Calculated Risk, WSJ is reporting that the administration will accept executive compensation limits, and Bloomberg says they're ready to ok an equity stake.

Light 'em up

I've sent emails to my rep, Speaker Pelosi, and my two senators. I will spend some time calling congress, too, as soon as I finish this post.

Don't think for a minute that staff isn't tallying calls and emails from taxpayers, and calculating the political consequences of their next move. Start here to find your rep's contact info.

I am so deeply angered by this situation. Talking the other night about what this means about our government, some of the terms tossed around and weighed were Communism, Fascism, Oligarchy, Hegemony.

Maybe it's because I've been reading Reformation history, but I keep coming back to Feudalism. You know, the princes (Wall Street) deplete the royal stores with their building cathedrals or fighting wars or whatever, and the Monarchy digs the country out of a hole by raising taxes on the serfs (you and me).

And yes, Senator McCain and my Republican friends, you better damn well believe that I want taxes raised on the Masters of the Universe that got us into this disaster. If I have to pay for their malfeasance, I want their responsibility to be substantially larger.

Some bright chatter from various corners this morning:
Brad at SN! shares his congressional talking points.
Matt Stoller has been communicating with members, and hopefully they fight as hard as they email. This one is my favorite:

I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

Krugman calls shenanigans.
Josh Marshall has questions about Phil Gramm's once and future role in all of this.
Robert Reich has a pretty good list of conditions.

Get on the phone.

The New Market emerging- guest post

I'll be back to posting just as soon as I can get my outrage formed into coherent sentences and without a Sweeney Todd reference. Until then, I give you the very reasonable Mack.

The largest financial bailout in United States history, which some traders are starting to call the ‘Securitized Housing Investment Trust’ (hint: think acronym), is causing an existential crisis amongst those who hold to purest free market ideology. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, echoed this sentiment when he said, “The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America.” These ideologues doth protest too much, methinks.

Since the 1929 crash, the last time the nation faced an economic train-wreck of this magnitude, the U.S. Government has effectively been in the insurance business and it has generally served us well. The vast majority of laws and regulations are designed to mitigate risk. Drunk driving laws minimize the number of car wrecks, and the short-tick rule (until recently eliminated) prevented unfettered short-selling from forcing solvent companies into insolvency.

Government institutions enforce these policies. What is the purpose of the military but an insurance policy against attack from other nations? What is the key purpose of a central bank other than insurance against a run on banks?

In fact, the present-day capital market system, which has been responsible for raising living standards to the highest in world history, relies upon laws and regulations: the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Although not perfect (and definitely requiring an overhaul), these laws have served Wall Street and LaSalle Street very well over time.

The problem with fundamentalist free market ideology is that it is only theoretical, and ultimately not pragmatic. Truth is, without government establishing the premise of private property enforced through law and justice, contract markets would soon devolve and be quickly replaced by gangster capitalism akin to Putin’s Russia. There is a term for the unfettered combination of concentrated power, ideological adherence and capitalistic greed, it is called “fascism.”

There is another term “beta,” which defines the systematic return/risk of assets. This concept is related to Modern Portfolio Theory and underlies the oft-stated investment strategy of buy-and-hold. What is not well-understood, even by many sophisticated investors, is that this theory is flawed. The issue is portfolio construction. Accordingly, the definition of “true beta” or “true market portfolio” must be extended to encompass other economic factors.

What academics came to recognize was that approximately one-third of non-governmental tangible assets in the U.S. are owned by the corporate sector, and only one-third of these corporate assets are financed by equity. As a result, Jagannathan and Wang concluded that assumptions underlying the concept of beta must be altered in order to resolve anomalies in the model. In other words, “true beta” or the “true market portfolio” must include the “aggregate wealth portfolio of all agents in the economy.” This is a revolutionary view with both political and economic ramifications.

Business balance sheets do not in practice reflect public infrastructure assets which businesses are dependent on. For example, a trucking company’s greatest asset is not its fleet of trucks, but the U.S. Highway system. Likewise, public liabilities such as the cost of pollution are also not reflected on balance sheets. This is beginning to change with the idea of integrating regulations into “cap-and-trade” contract markets involving emission allowances.

It is time for a new economic ideology to take hold which adheres to a progressive view. Government and free enterprise are actually joint partners in promoting economic growth and well-being. Certainly, political will effects a constant tug-of-war between interests, but this is not unlike the struggle between a sales-trading desk which drive revenues for an investment bank, and internal compliance managers who ensure balance between risk and reward.

The problem with the prevalent populist stream of conversation regarding free markets versus socialism is that such dialogue is anachronistic. Rather, the conversation needs to shift to good versus bad governance, and public policy which enhances the value of the aggregate wealth portfolio of all agents in the economy.

Mack Frankfurter

Mack and I have done a lot of arguing about the state of the capitalist system. His "new beta" gives me faith, because it comes not from a liberal suburbanite like me, nor a liberal economist. It comes from a guy who loves capitalism, loves the markets, and makes his living there.

Thanks, Mack.

Bad Religion

This article in WaPo comes to me on the morning after a day full of what, for a Unitarian Universalist like myself, passes for religious ecstasy.

CHICAGO -- Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.
The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.
"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Although I could argue the constitutional merits of the separation of church and state all day long, after a day like yesterday, I'm ruminating more on the very negative implications for religion in pursuing the weakening of that wall.

The tax code that the ADF has a problem with is very simple: to maintain tax exempt status, a church cannot engage in partisan political activity. We can, and do, and always have, organize issues-based advocacy. My church, for instance, has "No on 8" signs prominently displayed, because as a denomination we are passionate about marriage equality, which stems from our most basic and essential shared values.

Yesterday afternoon I attended the long-awaited dedication of our new church buildings. One of our former teens came up from college to attend with my family, it was a packed house with some overflow (we set up a simulcast in the social hall). Visitors from all over, including many clergy, UU and others from the local interfaith alliance, resplendent in robes and mantles. Powerful drums and the African Alleluia set hearts on high, and clergy from local and distant congregations congratulated us and charged us to remember who we are.

Tears streamed down my face as a local rabbi recited Hebraic verse and then exclaimed, "You are my people, my people are your people!" The minister from our sister United Church of Christ congregation recalled our long road together, and the battles we've fought and continue to fight, side by side. And then a luminary from Boston rose and gave a 15 minute old fashioned pacing rousing reminder, "We are the people who STAND UP!"

For those who don't do organized religion, it may be hard to understand, but this was one of those experiences that you want to relive over and over again.

We are the People Who Stand Up. This central part of our religious identity is what drew me to UU. Standing up together never fails to inspire in me a sense of what is divine. This means advocating for marriage equality. This means standing with the UCC in the work of the New Sanctuary Movement. This means that last week, Unitarian Universalist clergy and laity held a press conference in St. Paul calling for comprehensive sex education. This means that wherever I have marched or demonstrated, for peace, for women, for farm workers, UU clergy have always, always been at my side.

But we do not stand up beside a party or a candidate. If one polled my congregation, I think the democrats would probably hold a sizable majority, but one would also find republicans and libertarians and independents and greens. And while we are vocal and public on our issues, you will not find an Obama poster on our buildings, nor any other political candidate or partisan push. And that is as it should be.

Liberalism as a political philosophy is not the same as religious liberalism, something we try to remind our youth continually. Conflating the two cheapens religion, belies the depths that may be explored and the meaning that may be found.

The same is true for orthodox religion and conservative political philosophy. The two pollute each other, but religion comes out the big loser.

In religious terms, the larger issues of our world- war and peace and human dignity- must be examined and closely weighed against our stated values. If one is orthodox, one has sacred text and creed, and positions will be weighed against these sources, hopefully with honesty and openness. If one is religiously liberal, issues must be weighed against basic values, and one will examine the weaknesses and potholes carefully before coming to a conclusion.

What religion does not do: it does not give authority to an outside person for these considerations and conclusions.

An orthodox group may heed the word of their clergy, but supporting wholesale a political candidate or party would undermine entirely the authority of sacred text and creed. Wars were fought in Europe for hundreds of years over this: whose authority holds sway, prince's or pope's? The American answer was to give each responsibility for their own spheres, with final authority resting in the conscience (and action) of the individual.

For clergy to advocate support for a specific person or a political party means delegating to a secular body their responsibility to weigh carefully each issue through the lens of God's will. They risk, in other words, what the Hebrew Bible specifically prohibits:

Do not have any other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Understand idols, in this case, to mean princes or presidents or candidates or flags or posters of elephants.

For religious liberals, the responsibility for such judgment lies in each man and woman, and were our leaders exhort us to support a specific candidate or person for any secular office, that leader would be denying each of us the responsibility to think deeply and answer only to our own conscience.

Putting it another way: Clergy should cry loudly from the pulpit on issues of war. War means killing, it means inflicting inhumane conditions on many people, including the soldiers who fight. Taking a position from the pulpit on, say Iraq, and encouraging the congregation to pray for peace, or strength, or encouraging them to make their values known to decision-makers in government, this is what clergy do.

Crying from the pulpit that the flock should elect George Bush, or John McCain, or Barack Obama, because this is the man who knows best about this war: that is delegating moral authority to a single man, one that is responsible not for the conscience of the church, but for issues and actions of the secular world. That is bowing to a false god, that is removing the right of conscience from the faithful.

So, partisan political advocacy cheapens the experience of religion by delegating right and wrong to a secular body, relieving the clergy and laity from the responsibility of examining the world and our issues and how it all relates to what we say we most deeply believe. But there are practical problems for religion, too.

Take, for example, the Office of Faith Based Initiatives- which gave me shudders when Bush first announced his intention to open it. It is no secret now that the power and money of the office was, from its inception, directed to very specific religious organizations, those that would pass the muster of the "Mayberry Machiavellis" and the clerics who supported them. Only certain conservative religious groups got access and funding, liberal religious groups or those considered "weird" by traditionalist protestants did not.

Now consider election time. Is it not possible that a group who gives beds to the homeless and has funding from the office of faith based initiatives would want to keep the party that delivered this funding in power? Is the party's action on other important areas examined? Is it not possible to consider that another small group who houses the homeless but is denied access would want to oust those who run things, whether or not the party's other policies in other areas have been successful for the country?

How is religion strengthened, then, by being beholden to any political party or person?

I think these are problematic outcomes for religion, and they grow rapidly from a movement to mix private and public policy. More than one scholar has noted that the strength of religion in this country is most likely due to the very strong separation of church and state, which allows religion to flourish and deepen without state sponsorship or manipulation.

So I hope this little test case fails, and fails spectacularly. As a religious person, I resent- hugely resent- the framing of American political discourse in religious terms, and I resent the idea that it is in any way responsible for clergy to make their flocks beholden to a partisan body. As a citizen, I am as passionate about my secular government as I am about my freedom to practice my religion. Neither my government nor my religion is well served by the fundamentalist drive to conflate the two, in fact, both are threatened.

Oh, and by the way, congressman Westmoreland? Yeah, that's right, I quoted the 10 commandments, although I don't need to consult them to know how to treat people. Stupid cracker.

Updated post- stupid crackers

(sigh) I removed the previous quote and link, because until the source is verified in someway, I've decided I don't feel good about it.

h/t still goes to John Cole, who has been all over Palin's bullshit this week.

Instead of the unverified Palin allegations, I'll direct you to some hot hot Stephen Colbert.

This week, by the numbers

John McCain George W Bush's White House released a helpful Fact Sheet:

While these numbers are disappointing, what is most important is the overall direction the economy is headed. Last week, the economy posted a strong gain of 3.3 percent at an annual rate in the second quarter, led by growth in consumer spending, exports, and a well-timed and appropriately sized stimulus package. This level of growth demonstrates the resilience of the economy in the face of high energy prices, a weak housing market, and difficulties in the financial markets.

US unemployment rate now over 6%, worse than anticipated. 84,000 US jobs shed last month, 84,000 more men and women collecting unemployment.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are about to be taken over by the Fed.

Under a conservatorship, the common and preferred shares of Fannie and Freddie would be reduced to little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee could be paid by taxpayers. Shareholders have already lost billions of dollars as the stocks have plunged more than 80 percent this year.

FDIC just took over Silver State Bank- incidentally, until July Senator McCain's son, Andy was a director there. (h/t Atrios). This the 11th bank failure this year, if you're keeping track.

Foreclosures are at a 30 year high, and home loans 1 or more payments behind are at over 6% (though there are estimates as high as 9% ).

But the important thing to remember is that our economy is resilient!

The problem with John McCain the White House's analysis is, as always, that the Republican focus on "growth" ignores entirely that the growth has not translated to economic security or opportunity for American taxpayers.

That, my friends, is the straight talk.

This gets funnier by the minute

"It has been brought to the school's attention that a picture of the front of our school, Walter Reed Middle School, was used as a backdrop at the Republican National Convention. Permission to use the front of our school for the Republican National Convention was not given by our school nor is the use of our school's picture an endorsement of any political party or view."

- Donna Tobin, Principal, WR Middle School

Update:

By late afternoon, McCain's campaign was characterizing the use of the picture as a way of illustrating the candidate's call "for public education reforms that empower parents and students before bureaucrats and labor unions," as spokesman Tucker Bounds put it.

Yeah. That's what it was.

But Tamar Galatzan, who represents the North Hollywood area on the Los Angeles Board of Education, was having none of that. She said she was "flattered that Sen. McCain chose to use a school from my district as backdrop to his remarks" but that more federal resources for education seems "not a priority for the McCain/Palin ticket."

Alaska Trooper-gate

Anchorage Daily News:

Palin's lawyer has asked the Legislature to drop its investigation. He had the governor file an ethics complaint against herself, in a bid to turn the entire matter over to the state Personnel Board, which would hire an independent investigator.

This is not an open and transparent attempt to establish Gov. Palin's accountability. It is an attempt to drag out the investigation until after voters decide the fate of her vice-presidential bid.

Hey national media: does this one pass your muster? Or would you rather continue to self-obsess over whether you're allowed to talk about her family?

Hi, I'm a member of the "Hateful Left"

Over the course of the Bush administration, I've repeatedly started and repeatedly stopped an essay or a letter on a theme that feels so huge to me, I can't ever get it concisely into words. I'm not sure I can today, but speeches at the Republican National Convention have picked scab after scab, and so I think I'll try to get this theme out, let it be my summation of two weeks of conventions.

My theme has always started with the words George Bush doesn't want to be my president. This week I have come to the conclusion that John McCain doesn't, either. Once I would have thought that, as different as we are, he'd at least assume that "willing patriots" included people like me. At the end of a full week of speeches by his surrogates and supporters, I am left with the inescapable conclusion that that John McCain, if he existed, is now too beholden to the radical community organizers who get out the ideological vote. The rest of us, you moderates and faithful liberals, you whiners, you 70% of the American public, have been cast aside.

Once the campaign of 2000 ended, when George W Bush took the White House still promising to be "a uniter, not a divider", his method for unity was creative: all citizens who disagreed with anything he said or did simply ceased to exist. All decisions were explained with The American People want..., any challenge to a decision was met with, The American People want.... Each time he made a decision, he chose the path guaranteed to be met with the greatest controversy and opposition, and then sneered at any opposition for not trusting his judgement for the sake of The American People.

(Except in his first stem cell decision, summer of 2001. This time, he made a wishy-washy 50-50 call, because The American People had to include both Nancy Reagan and James Dobson.)

When the March For Women's Lives brought over a million people to the National Mall in support of a vast array of policies: comprehensive sex-ed, access to contraception, canceling the deadly global gag rule, and yes: protecting Roe v Wade, We didn't expect the president to acknowledge us, really. He was up at Camp David, anyway, and even though he always acknowledges the comparatively tiny annual anti-abortion demonstrations in DC, it would have been a stretch to think he'd give us a wave.

What we didn't expect was that the media would for the most part ignore the sheer massiveness of the March, or that Karen Hughes would be trotted out to respond. The American People, she said, understand since 9/11 that the US is different from terrorists because we value a Culture of Life.

When challenged her words later, she said she had never compared pro-choice citizens to terrorists- which is true, strictly and carefully speaking. What she did, and what she was not challenged on, was sweep our very citizenship out from under us by excluding us from The American People.

The Bush administration, with back up from the press, did this consistently throughout his first term. There was no thoughtful opposition to the invasion of Iraq: there were Anti-War groups and Pro-America groups. Meaning that my position was, by default, Anti-American. Dixie Chicks CD burning rallies? Pro-America! Get a camera out there! March on the White House by veteran's groups? Never happened, as far as the administration and the media were concerned. A recent analysis of guests on the major news outlets during this period found that opposition to the invasion was consistently presented by foreigners. That is, Americans presented to us by the news media almost uniformly supported the invasion.

It's like being in a dream, where you keep trying to scream, but no sound comes out. Is it any wonder so many of us took to the streets?

This rhetorical exclusion continued apace until finally, Bush redefined the terms. After the election of 2004, rather than attempting to pretend that The American People wanted anything in unanimity, he said he would work with everyone, if they supported his goals. Which meant not Goals, like dealing with Social Security in such a way that the government meets its responsibilities, but specific policies: private accounts for all.

At least this time he was honest.

After the summer of 2005 (Camp Casey, Katrina, and falling poll numbers- trifecta!) surrogates like Mary Matalin, rather than ignoring us entirely, went on the air to offer cheap analysis and faux pity. It's just so sad, these people. They're so angry. Bush began to at least acknowledge that some of The American People disagree with him, on a lot. But that does not mean his style of governing changed, nor has the rhetorical exile for most of us. The press continues to court the fiction that opposing Bush on anything is "leftist" or "extreme", even when poll data belies that.

The party George Bush leads enjoys this kind of with us/ against us bravado, and has no desire to change it. In fact, the party's strength has always been in hardening that rhetorical divide- there is no political gain, for them, in respect for differences, in bipartisanship, in synthesis of ideas.

The mythology of John McCain lies in his perceived rejection of such division. Working across the aisle, all of that. This week, however, a week when he presumably needed to both fire up the Base and make an appeal to moderates and independents, the convention has been about nothing except defining, once again, the The American People who attended his convention and debasing the rest of us.

President Bush, confined to a few minutes from a remote location, still managed to remind the delegates why the campaign mattered: The Hateful Left is obviously still a threat, and John McCain won't let them win.

(Which is interesting, because on what may be described as McCain's two signature issues over the past 4 years- immigration and torture- he capitulated not to any Hateful Left, but to the nationalist right and President Bush, respectively.)

Romney sneered at us. Guiliani made fun of us. Sarah Palin skinned us like a recent kill. The Senator from Arizona? He made some noise about respecting Obama for what he's accomplished, but it rang empty when followed up with the willing patriots line. Let's face it: Patriot means, to them, whatever they've decided it to mean this week. Willing Patriot means supporting whatever it is they want to do this week. If they win, we are headed straight to rhetorical and practical exile, once again.

McCain does not have the Rove-built get out the vote organization that Bush did. He's counting on those red meat delegates and the Focus on the Family email list to win this thing. They do not want to hear that the other side has a rightful seat at the table, nor will they work to elect anyone who won't harden the divide.

I look forward to packing away my giant Sharpies and giving up the need to march in the streets. I'm hoping that we can have an administration for all Americans, one that won't pretend that faithful opposition and valid counter arguments don't exist, that won't seek to define everything outside of their preferences as "fringe", "left", "hateful", "angry". I am hoping that under such a presidency, I would lose the scream stuck in my throat feeling, and actual work could be done in the federal government, for the betterment of our country.

John McCain, like George Bush before him, does not seek to be my president. To my way of thinking, he doesn't deserve the office.

Of Green Screens and Middle Schools

Aside from the fact that putting McCain in front of a massive, unidentified lawn brought the Green Screen speech to mind, the question arises: What is that picture? Why is it there?

Talking Points Memo, with help from readers, found that it is a picture of Walter Reed Middle School, North Hollywood.

In a speech that was not focused on education, in a week where the coastal "elite" has been demonized repeatedly, why a Southern California school? Especially on with the word "Hollywood" right there in its address?

I'm surprised this hadn't occurred to me. But several readers have suggested that perhaps one of the tech geeks charged with setting up the audio/visual bells and whistles for the evening was tasked with getting pictures of Walter Reed Army Medical Center but goofed and got this instead. At first I thought, No, that's ridiculous.

Maybe ridiculous, but what possible context could this picture provide?

Barack on O'Reilly

on Iran: O'Reilly just interrupted repeatedly and then changed the subject.

on Iraq: "We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqi's still haven't taken responsibility." O'Reilly changes the subject.

on Afghanistan/ Pakistan: O'Reilly says no one will send ground troops into Pakistan. Obama says if Pakistan wants military support, the support needs to have strings attached. O'Reilly basically saying he's full of shit.

O'Reilly's stretching this out over several days next week. Probably because MSNBC is kicking his ratings ass.

Watching MSNBC earlier and O'Reilly now, it occurs to me again why so many of us go to John Stewart every night for the daily, sort of, round up. The rest of these guys don't know how to be respectful and tough at the same time. Their interview styles are either total asshole (O'Reilly) or talking points pipeline (Matthews and Gregory).

John alwaqys knows how to cut to the heart, while respecting his guests and even, seemingly, enjoying them. Well, except Doug Feith, but no one could stand Doug Feith, right?

OMG, this is actually funny

I'm watching O'Reilly and a blonde, um, journalist FREAK OUT over unfair and biased reporting in People or Us or whatever the magazine is that put Palin on the cover this week.

Now, I haven't read the article because, maverick that I am, I don't read celebrity mags for POLITICAL NEWS.

But O'Reilly and the blonde are incensed- outraged- over the unfair biased reporting therein.

"You don't just throw out incendiary remarks!"

This, from the folks who brought you the madrassa scandal, the "baby mama" shit, endless memes about Ayers, etc.

I almost believe I'm watching Colbert.

Barack up now.

Who's more scary: the racist "base" or the guys at the top?

The other night at a barbecue, a man asked me, regarding Obama:

Do you really think he'll live through his first term?

I answered first, I certainly hope so. Second, and more importantly, I don't think fear is a rational basis for making such a decision, so I don't contemplate that question very much.

It is very likely true, as Dave Neiwert posits, that when Obama takes the office, there will be a far-right backlash, sort of the '90s on steroids. It is also possible that we will avoid another Oklahoma City, and that presidential security is strong enough to thwart assassination. After all: meth-heads plotting assassination last week were arrested before they could leave their hotel room.

But Neiwert has a frightening post today on those meth-heads: why, when the FBI wanted them charged with conspiracy to assassinate Senator Obama, the Rove appointed US attorney declined.

Amy Goodman was charged this week with Conspiracy to Commit Riot for the crime of stepping off the convention floor and into the street.

These men had a plan and the equipment to carry it out, the fed has weapons and testimony to convict with, and the US Attorney declined?

Another funny thing: When a black man in prison sent a threatening letter containing baby powder to John McCain, Troy Eid brought down the full force of the law, complete with press conferences and public declarations that "We won't stand for threats of this kind in Colorado."
But when it’s a claque of white men with rifles, disguises, and all the accoutrement of a conspiracy – as well as open admissions to it – Troy Eid isn’t worried. After all, they just a bunch of harmless, tweakers, right? … Just like little Timmy McVeigh.
But then, when you’re a Karl Rove operative promoted to deliver justice the Republican way, as Troy Eid is, that’s the way the scales fall. As Marcy reported at the time, Eid in fact nearly didn't get the Colorado job because of concerns about "improper lobbying."
His failure to take this matter seriously is itself a serious matter. When law-enforcement officials let this stuff slip by, they send a dangerous message to other would-be plotters out there. And next time, they may in fact be more competent.

I really don't know what else to say.

Media morning with Palin

Gloria Steinem gives one of the best rebuttals to the idea that Sarah's somehow a feminist pick over at the LA Times.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
[...]
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Over at Salon, I have to disagree when Shapiro says:

Palin is unquestionably the Republican vice-presidential nominee least likely to be confused with Dick Cheney, in either a duck blind or the Situation Room. Even as an angry "hockey mom," it is impossible to imagine her browbeating CIA analysts to concoct new rationales for invading Iraq. It seems equally implausible that in a McCain-Palin administration, the vice president's office would be an outside-the-law power center running its own foreign policy. Palin is not a traditional vice-presidential nominee, but if elected she is apt to mark a return to a modest conception of the office that had been the butt of jokes for nearly two centuries.

I can easily imagine Palin bullying people into line. Less capable women have been very successful bullies over the past 8 years- Monica Goodling, anyone?

D. Aristophanes gets serious for a moment with a straight-up assessment at Sadly, No! And while I'm not sure the majority of voters appreciate the nuance, he makes a good point:

- They overplayed the ‘community organizer’ slam. The party that wants to shrink government says service outside of government is worthless? The only service worth anything is as an agent of the state? The Dems need to start talking up community work, church work, charity work, volunteering to coach youth sports, etc. Palin and McCain say Little League coaches and scout leaders and food drive volunteers aren’t doing anything useful?

Meyerson on the golden oldie theme of the evening, at the WaPo blog:

This is Republican Chestnut Night. The speakers’ attacks on the Democratic Party thus far are the very same that Ronald Reagan made 28 years ago, or Richard Nixon 40 years ago. “It’s time to stop the spread of government dependency!” Mitt Romney just vowed -- as if welfare reform had yet to happen. Romney chastised the government in Washington -- even the Supreme Court -- for charting a liberal course, seemingly forgetting who’s on the Court and which president put them there. A more partisan view of history hasn’t been heard from since Stalin wrote Trotsky out of the history of the Russian Revolution.

Over at the local paper, I ventured into the comments thread where people are IN LOVE with Palin's support for abstinence-only sex ed, because it's THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY! And unwilling to question whether Sarah failed in her responsibility to teach her own daughter about birth control and the wisdom of waiting until you're an actual adult to become a parent.
Spoiler alert: if you support comprehensive sex-ed, you're obviously a nazi.

More than one webizen is wondering when teen pregnancy got so popular with the conservative base, by the way.

Sarah!

The writers devised some good, witty lines, and Palin, for her part, delivered them well. Much of the red-meat portion was lies and misrepresentations, of course, but it's a political speech, made at a rather desperate time.

The thing that nearly drove me over the edge was the cheering and screaming over her standard issue economic lines. Dems will tax you, Dems will make you lose your jobs, Dems will spend all kinds of crazy money.... and people eat that shit up.

I realize we are looking at THE Base here, the 27-30% of Americans who still think Bush is a GREAT president.

But my God, it is so obviously demonstrably patently WRONG to suggest that this country's economy is in better hands under Republicans.

Pop quiz: which two modern presidents have busted the biggest budgets and left office with the biggest deficits?

GWB and RONALD REAGAN

And under whose administrations does the middle class stand a chance at growth, while income inequality shrinks?

DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.

I mean jesus, you fools: it's numbers. Why are they so hard to understand?

Update: It is true that when I graded her delivery, I didn't consider presidential points. I do think that anyone who came away thinking she sounded in the least bit Presidential really needs to examine some deeply personal issues.

Brokaw is, mercifully, reminding us that Republicans have held the power of the government for the past 8 years, with Dems holding a meager obstruction advantage for the past 2, so it's a bit cheeky for McCain and Co to run on any kind of reform agenda.

And I can't resist this, from the site of the Great Orange Satan:

From emailed comments

The best way to save the Republican Party now is to destroy it. In the marketplace of ideas, social conservatism is a viral infection contaminating the GOP. It represents an evolutionary dead-end whose logical conclusion is fascism if not outright totalitarianism.

Is it not obvious that the imposition of the evangelical ideology--any fundamentalist ideology for that matter--lies in direct opposition to a free people in a democratic land? Our Constitution, specifically the separation of church and state, no longer serves as a bulwark against the morality police, who seek to impose faith-based notions such as creationism upon those of us with rational minds.

Social conservatives aim to constrain freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom to pursue happiness. These freedoms live at the heart of an entrepreneurial and economically strong America.

No doubt, the diktat the social conservative movement wishes to impose upon ALL us Americans is antithetical to a free market system, and therefore exists as hypocrisy within the Republican platform. Privatize profits, socialize losses, and make religion the opiate of the masses.

Indeed, this has been a dark eight years of Orwellian doubletalk. Enough! I’m voting for Libertarian Bob Barr.

Another Sarah! update

John Thune (R- echo chamber) is sharing with Brokaw right now that America will really get a sense of Sarah Palin when she gives her speech tonight.

Really? Even though the speech was written for Romney?

Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was "very masculine," according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and "we had to start from scratch."

On the other hand, every now and again they get caught on an open mic:
Hear that "moderates"? Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy think Palin's a cynical, unqualified, image pick.

Update: Noonan would like to make clear (go to WSJ, I don't have the link) that when she called Palin's nomination "bullshit politics", she was merely hurting for dear Kay Baily Hutchison. Also note: Noonan is a water-carrying wanker.

P.O.W.

Since this campaign is, apparently, not about issues, but about fashion and POW status, I felt the need to share.

Regarding Sarah

If you want to keep up on Palin news, Talking Points Memo is probably the best place to bookmark. Such news is slow in coming, because the campaign has decided that shielding her entirely from the mic is their best bet right now, but there are muckrakers around the country digging up bits. Bits which go entirely unanswered by the campaign, which may be as telling as the bits themselves.

I'm going to quote one of their posts at length here, because it's a very very good one. Submitted to Josh from a friend:

Campbell Brown isn't the story - people are underestimating her, as they always have. No, the story is that Tucker Bounds went on national television without material to answer what is maybe the simplest, most straightforward follow-up question any reporter can ask: "What's your evidence for that assertion?" And I suspect that the reason they canceled Larry King is not to punish CNN (it doesn't work that way) it's that they still couldn't come up with an answer to the question by the time his show aired.
Now look at this comment from McCain honcho Steve Schmidt to Katie Couric last night: "Members of this campaign went to off-the-record lunches with reporters today, and they were asked if she would do paternity tests to prove paternity for her last child. Smear after smear after smear, and it's disgraceful and it's wrong. And the American people are going to reject it overwhelmingly when they see her."
First of all, that's the first time I've heard anyone in the campaign/political press throw out the notion of paternity tests. So Schmidt is to blame for bringing that issue into the mainstream. If anyone is smearing the candidate, it's Schmidt. This is as cynical a tactic as I've ever seen in politics.

Update: I made the mistake of turning on the teevee and checking the web at the same time, and I'm about to vomit.

The teevee is giving me (predictably) a slew of surrogates explaining why American Women Will Love Sarah Palin, and the "journalists" are buying into the mommy-wars-blame-the-media shit.

Meanwhile: why the fuck aren't they asking whether she has a preacher problem? What about whether she has a fringe-freak secessionist problem?

It is the economy; now let's ditch the stupid

I had a very interesting task assigned me a couple of months ago, by our friend Mack. He was preparing a paper for a Senate hearing on the futures trading market and whether speculation was driving up prices. He asked me to read the paper and make sure it was in English, essentially. That a reasonably smart person uninvolved with the markets could actually read the thing.

(I should disclaim before I go further that the analysis below is from my brain, not Mack's. He may or may not agree with what I have taken from this experience.)

I think the single most surprising part of this exercise for me was learning how much of the market is unregulated- the parts of the market that have brought the most staggering returns for a few people at the tops of their pyramids. The few people whom Alan Greenspan lauded for the "creative" products they packaged and sold, the very products which now are the most threatening to the stability of our economy. As explained on today's NYT opinion page:

Today, regulatory authority is divided among the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, state banking regulators and state insurance regulators. That’s too many players.
What’s more, this balkanized system supervises only half of the relevant financial universe. It neglects investment banks, hedge funds and institutions like mortgage companies that issue asset-backed securities. The assets of these unregulated entities total about $10 trillion — which is the same amount we see on the regulated side.
The unregulated institutions pose particular risks because they are highly leveraged and financed primarily through short-term money markets rather than customer deposits. And unlike big banks, many of them do not disclose their finances to the public.

This is something I didn't understand until I delved into Mack's paper, and I'll wager that most Americans don't, either.
The second most impressive thing that I took from reading this paper was not a surprise, but an illumination. The markets don't hold my interest the way, say, politics does, so I hadn't ever thought about it, but securities markets and commodities markets do not operate on the same principles.

Duh, says you. Well, sure. But the reason I hadn't thought much about it is that I'm not a commodities investor. My family is the typical passive investor model: 401ks that are diversified according to our choices, and if we buy anything else it's with a sort of Motley Fool philosophy: the market always, eventually goes up, so buy what you know and don't be afraid to hold, etc.
What I failed to realize is that the market doesn't just mean traditional securities anymore, it also includes securitized risks and futures, packaged and moved over from the commodities market.
And make no mistake: the passive investor doesn't belong in commodities. The futures market is not a hold and wait game, it is not a place for long term investment. It is not a place for Motley Fool readers. Mack likens it to a Nascar track, and the new investors (large funds that end up in, say, my 401k) are like little Ford Focuses with untrained drivers, jumping into the race without regard for the danger they're causing.

Many pundits have noted that in this election season the GOP is, in effect, asking Americans to just give their failed policies another chance. Forget accountability, they mean well, and if you can just ignore the past few years and our current realities and remember that they're the party of pragmatic no-waste government and personal responsibility, you'll see the very need to continue down their broken and debris-strewn path. Nowhere do they make this case louder than on the broad and complex topic of the economy.

They continue to broadcast that rewarding entrepreneurship (and what is Andrew Mozillo, if not an entrepreneur of the highest order) and trusting the "free" market will mean that we all can get rich- just watch the money flow and the trades grow. They toss around the threat of socialism. What they want you to fear is a country where government takes care of, and controls, the decisions of every citizen- which isn't socialism, they're actually invoking communism, but whatever.

What they want you to forget is that in this country, right now, industry's major losses are socialized for the greater good, and almost no responsibility assigned to the major players whose wealth is almost unimaginable to most of us, and whose decisions lead directly to the loss and collapse you and I pay for.

And they fail to point out that almost none of us know the rules of the game, and that once our playing dollars are gone to the guys who invented the rules and benefit most from them, we will also have to bail out their failures. In this game of Monopoly, our losing turns replenish the bank, which buys up the properties that the winners ditch after they take the Free Parking money. If we pass Go again, we try to buy up the bank's properties again. But the Free Parking guys always return, buy us out according to rules we still don't understand, and erect a bunch of hotels.

Again: many eminently more qualified than me have explained this very clearly, over and over again. It's time for all of us to start talking about the costs to the country and society, and to what sensible reform might look like. Which is why this NYT editorial today caught my eye.

I know Americans for the most part don't enjoy wonkiness. I know that sloganeering is employed throughout campaigns because it largely works. But the fact is, we are going to have to ignore the slogans of both parties and understand what a pickle we've found ourselves in, and demand some real reform in the regulation of the markets. Again, from the Times:

The next president must first create a single framework for the major financial borrowers, administered by the Federal Reserve alone. This wider regulatory umbrella should be more conservative. In particular, the minimum levels of capital and liquidity that financial institutions are required to maintain should be higher than they have been in recent years. And the institutions should put in place better and more detailed systems for reporting — internally as well as to regulators and the public — on all the risks they are taking.
These steps, as they make institutions more stable, will also reduce their financial leverage and thus their ability to generate earnings. Their managements won’t like it, but the institutions — and, indeed, the entire financial system and the Fed itself — will be less exposed when severe turbulence hits the financial markets again.
For its part, the S.E.C. should require that publicly owned financial institutions provide more data in their quarterly reports. Any risks that the institutions retain, whether on or off their balance sheets, should be disclosed. And they should better explain the methods they use to determine the values of their own assets.
To fulfill its wider supervisory role, the Fed should also be given the authority to collect data from firms that are not publicly owned, including hedge funds and commodities trading firms.
Finally, much stronger restrictions should be imposed on the kinds of predatory mortgage-lending practices that preceded this crisis. The Fed recently proposed new rules for banks that would, for example, require better verification of borrowers’ income and reduce onerous prepayment penalties. These rules should be applied to all mortgage lenders. For those institutions not managed by the Fed, the rules should be enforced by other federal agencies or state banking regulators.

A key political factor is in the 2nd paragraph above. Tightening up regulation will mean that management at the top of these institutions will have a tougher time generating earnings. They will fight hard, should any reform package be placed on the table. We will be told that the proposed regulation "inhibits entrepreneurship" and is therefore Anti-American.

But we're going to need to ask ourselves, when we talk about entrepreneurship and the American Dream, are we talking about imagination and creativity and earned rewards, or carpet bagging?

It seems to me that any system that enriches the very, very few and then corrects their failures with public money is an example of the latter. And I hope this country is grown-up enough to ditch the slogans and face that.

End note: Mack was, ultimately, depressed by the results of the Senate hearing. The results, he said, were just shallow talking points and didn't address complex market realities at all. So if the hearing was any indication of our readiness to ditch the fluff and pursue reform, it didn't bode well.

Unsurprisingly, the hearing was chaired by neo-Republican hero, Joe Lieberman.

This party needs some cocktails

Or something. Or maybe they're all out at the cocktail bar right now. Dubya is speaking, he was introduced by Laura. The crowd looks thin and their enthusiasm lackluster. For every shot of a cheering loon in a cowboy hat, there's another of a yawn, or stillness.

And Cindy McCain didn't seem to like Laura's speech much, btw.

Raymond K Hessel

From our intrepid attorney, Aristodemus, posted on kos:

For those of you who aren't familiar with 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, it is the cornerstone of civil rights lawsuits under federal law (civil rights lawyers feel free to jump in -- I've only been on the wrong side of these actions). Paraphrasing the statute loosely, any governmental actor who, acting under color of govermental authority, deprives a person of their civil rights, is in deep, deep shit. If memory serves, Rodney King's $3.8 Million settlement with LAPD was pursuant to an action under Section 1983.
Can you imagine being a civil rights lawyer at this moment of history? Glorious. Every one of them woke up this morning feeling like Raymond K. Hessel. Imagine how they feel. Today is the most beautiful day of their lives. Their breakfast today tasted better than any meal you and I have ever tasted.
Amy’s breakfast probably tasted pretty good, too.

Told you so

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

They won't run on issues because they can't run on issues: all of their positions are proven failures. So they're hoping you'll like their outfits.

Rick Davis is on my teevee right now, reminding me how mavericky John McCain is. And if by "mavericky" you mean stubborn and irresponsible, sure. I'll give him that.

A Moment of Silence for the GOP

The party is over.

The party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, even Ronald Reagan, but most especially George Dubya Bush, is dead.

Let us bow our heads in a moment of silence.

Okay, moment's up.

Remember when we were afraid of them? Remember when Karl Rove was the most brilliant man ever conceived? Remember when Democrats voted for war, condemned Moveon.org, and made Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader for fear the almighty Karl Rove would smite them with his evil genius?

Remember the permanent Republican majority?

Well, that's all over now.

The GOP has been in critical condition for some time. Republican Congressman Tom Davis admitted as much, way back in May, when the traditional media was still distracting itself with concern that Democratic Party might disolve into an all-out Civil War because we had two extraordinary presidential candidates and a bit of option anxiety.

Said Davis:

The Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf.

No doubt today's Republican Party looks back fondly on those days, when the GOP brand was merely in the trash can instead of the coffin.

Last week, we witnessed the rebirth of the Democratic Party. It was a week of all-stars laying out a bright, bold vision for America's future.

Michelle Obama gave us the picture of the all-American family of the 21st century.

Hillary Clinton gave us a history lesson of women's suffrage and the Democratic Party, culminating in that moment when we could all celebrate 18 million cracks in a glass ceiling that surely will be shattered in my lifetime.

Bill Clinton reminded us of all that is possible when a Democrat who believes in science and education and civil rights and equal rights sits in the Oval Office.

And Barack Obama gave us a reason to be proud again, to hold our heads up high and say, "You're damn right I'm a Democrat."

And then, the next day, John McCain gave us Sarah Palin.

The jokes write themselves. In fact, it must be difficult to be a writer at The Onion or The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. What could you possibly say that's any funnier than the headlines?

The Republican Party is so desperate this week that President Bush would rather pay attention to a natural disaster than play politics at the Republican National Convention.

That's pretty damn desperate.

In one weekend, 100 issues surrounding Governor Palin emerged. Read Bobo2020's comprehensive list.

And that was just the weekend.

The Republicans have become so desperate they are now accusing the Democratic Party of sexism.

Carly Fiorina, the disgraced former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, had this to say:

[I am] appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin's experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life. Because of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.

She further condemned Obama for daring to compare his responsibilities as the head of a national presidential campaign with Palin's staff of 50 when she was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

In other words, the Democratic Party is sexist for telling the truth. The party that supports equal pay and reproductive freedom is sexist because it dared to suggest that Palin's "executive experience" as the mayor of a town of 8,000 -- a town that apparently she left in worse shape than she found it -- does not compare with the national and international experience of the Democratic ticket.

That's pretty desperate.

And, as noted by ksh01:

CNN is reporting that John McCain has canceled today's scheduled interview on Larry King due to Campbell Brown's interview with Tucker Bounds yesterday! Holy Shit. This is imploding.

Remember when John McCain called the media his "base"?

This is the end. This where the Republican Party dies. All that is left now is the small group who believes the earth is flat, global warming is a hoax, oil drilling will save our economy, and, oh yes, abstinence-only education works.

Or not.

There will be no permanent Republican majority. There will be no continuation of Reagan's legacy.

Even if Governor Palin removes her name from nomination to spend more time with her -lawyers- family, is there any Republican in the country who would volunteer to be the sacrifical lamb who was second choice to Governor Palin?

I think not.

Goodbye, Republican Party.

Rest in peace.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

The militarization of St Paul

The raids on DFHs from Food Not Bombs and the like was followed on Monday with tear gas and pepper spray, heavily armed cops marching in formation and herding what looks like anyone out-of-doors into impossible corners, arrests of journalists including Amy Goodman and at least one AP photographer, buzzing helicopters and big black humvees- a rather impressive show of force to bring out for a constitutionally protected display of assembly and speech. Greenwald has a ton of key links in his post: video and audio, local and web-wide coverage, so best to visit him for the particulars.

I've been at major marches, and I cannot imagine how I's have avoided trouble if police were lobbing tear gas and herding us into corners for arrest. But then, the police don't seem to have been there to keep people out of trouble. They seem to have been there to fight a preemptive war, on crazy dirty fucking hippies and the journalists who cover their presence.

While there is no accounting for crazy, and sure it's possible that a few people may have been drawn to St Paul to create some havoc, it is simply not believable that the city was under the kind of serious threat this kind of presence would warrant. I don't know much about St Paul's mayor or its police force, but I do know that the FBI was there, and so it seems obvious that the heightened state of alert was their doing. Perhaps the St Paul police were really convinced that there were large-scale plans for violence and anarchy. Perhaps the FBI is, once again, the president's private police force.

Is it me, or do the FBI's weekend raids remind anyone of Tom Delay calling out Homeland Security to track Texas legislators?

What is the advantage to the GOP from this kind of abuse of power? It's highly unlikely that any march would garner much national coverage, the media has been focused on hurricanes and Sarah Palin, why worry about a bunch of DFHs in the streets?

I think the lunatics at the head of the republican party, lacking any issue positions that would go over with the majority of Americans right now, are pushing more fear of change. They aren't getting enough traction with "Obama's black, and maybe his church is scary". So they're hoping for a scene that will recall the late '60s, and put the fear of hippie radicals in every middle-aged mind. That's why they keep dragging up Ayer's name, even though there is no there there. That's why surrogates were openly speculating about floor fights at the democratic convention, and whether the scene would be another Chicago '68 melee.

As it turns out, we on the dem/liberal side do conduct ourselves fairly well, and last week's convention was a hue success. But if they can still scare people with images of war in St Paul, well, why not give it a try?

I really hope that the sheer number and randomness of the gassing and arrests backfires. And I hope that if the '60s spring to the American voters minds, the images remembered will be of police dogs and water hoses, and bullets flying into crowds in Ohio.