Joe v. Sarah!

Still not recovered from a nasty bug, so my brain isn't churning out sentences of any merit. I am, however, awake enough to weigh in on the much anticipated VP debate.

Of course Biden wins, because he actually merits the place at the podium, because he knows what he's talking about and his debate prep was surely limited to not appearing condescending to the right's delicate flower/pit bull. He did a fine job, was commanding and sure, and human.

Palin, for her part, didn't deliver any huge embarrassments. When she used the phrase "rears its head", she mercifully was not referring to Putin, at the very least. She did the hokey accent and vernacular, blah blah blah. I'm not the person to sell with "I will be a great VP because I have children", but I suppose there are people who think that's a qualification, so she used it, repeatedly. I know when and where she stretched the truth or made outright misstatements, but I understand that a large portion of the country doesn't follow various details.

McCain needed a game changer, though, and she is not the one to deliver it. The campaign is working as though its base of wingnuts can really deliver this thing, but they can't. Not at this stage of the game.

The word all over the intertubes is pretty much the same, some saying it better than others, all in agreement that the race is still Obama's. So rather than delving deeper, I'll leave you with two bits that are off the main story.

Atrios was out last night, but preloaded discussion threads for users to discuss the debates live. Here are the titles for the threads, which cracked me up this morning:

20:15 Time to choose your debate drinking word.

20:55 If you chose "also" as your debate game drinking word, consider calling the ambulance right now.

21:15 "You know" was probably a bad choice, too.

Second item: Yesterday on Thom Hartman, guest Stephen Spoonamore gave a compelling interview on our voting systems, and how very insecure they are. Spoonamore's a life long republican, and a major architect of security systems for Mastercard and various other things you use every day. Last month, he testified under oath that the Ohio vote was probably hacked and flipped for W. In fact, he believes with certainty that Kerry won Ohio. Coverage of the case can be found at Bradblog.

This item is just here to remind you to remind every single person you know of voting age that their vote counts. If it isn't close, they can't steal it and get away with it. For every single point win, there's an opportunity for a stolen state. If you know any voters in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, or any of the light blue to trending red states, remind them of this.

"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?