guy2k

a moving experience

2011-12-30T03:28:00.004-05:00

It's my blogaversary! My sixth, to be exact. Six elegant, swellegant years of blogging, writing and/or editing what we now like to call "online journalism" (actually, I like to call it the "New New (new?) Journalism").

But, you might ask, where have you been lately--and well you might. Well, after two-and-a-half years in the editor's chair at Firedoglake, I am back writing more regularly--but I have consolidated my work at capitoilette (the new capitoilette.com).

Follow me there, and follow me on Twitter here. And also look for some of my posts on Truthout.

And in honor of this sleepy journal of politics, popular culture and mixed drinks, one more mixed drink for the sixth anniversary: The After Six Cocktail.

1 part Cream Liqueur
1 part Kahlúa
1 part White Crème de Menthe

Add all ingredients into a chilled shot glass and serve.

Yes, it sounds disgusting to me, too. Better drink it fast, then zip on over to my new home to work it off.

(photo: Leo Reynolds)

my first post-post-9/11 9/11 post

2009-09-11T23:45:00.002-04:00

So, now it is eight years. Eight years since the sound and vibration of American Airlines flight 11 screaming over my building and slamming into the north tower of the World Trade Center a dozen blocks south sent me running downstairs and into the street. And it was there I stood with my neighbors and watched as all of the drama and horror of the day played out in very real time.

As I commented on a past anniversary, one of my earliest thoughts that day was that with George W. Bush in the White House, flanked by Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft, we had about as bad a collection of leaders for that moment in history as I could possibly imagine. And for the next six anniversaries, that team did nothing to make me doubt my initial instinct.

But now, with the seventh commemoration, the eighth anniversary, I am forced by the very Constitution the Bush gang sought to destroy to contemplate something else.

It seems mundane, but thinking or saying, “This is the first post-Bush 9/11” also feels wildly momentous. But should it?

This is not going to be one of those “meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” posts; in a thousand different ways, this September 11th is different—and better different, at that. The call to make this a national day of service instead of a day of national Grand Guignol, fear mongering, and political opportunism is a small thing, but very much welcome. And there are a thousand people in a thousand different government jobs that, no matter how much they piss me off, are still better than Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Chertoff, Paul Wolfowitz, Porter Goss, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, David Addington, John Yoo. . . I could go on and on before I ever needed to refer to Wikipedia.

But this is not strictly a “look at the bright side” post, either. How can it be? One can’t spend a day with emptywheel (the blog, not Marcy herself) and not grow tense and angry as Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, fail at the necessary job of rolling back the secrecy, Constitutional abuses, and mad usurpations of the previous “unitary” executive. One cannot have been working on the fight to actually reform health care without practically chewing through a lip as you watch the current wizards of Pennsylvania Avenue negotiate away any chance of actually helping the un- and underinsured, to instead benefit the Blue Dogs, the ConservaDems, and the balance sheets of Big Insurance.

Today, however, I am really wondering about something at least as troubling, and likely much more visceral. For it was on another anniversary that I wrote about something that intrudes on my thoughts on every 9/11, and on the large majority of the days in between—the blood. You can go back and read my thoughts on those lost in 2001 in the United States, and those lost in 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. . . in Iraq and Afghanistan, but since this is an administration that likes to constantly insist on looking forward instead of back, lets do just that.

OK, I’m looking; are you?

Take a look at Attackerman, and see where Spencer dutifully and honorably notes the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq practically every day. He will no doubt have to keep doing that through the next September 11. . . and I have to ask, to what end?

I am thinking today mostly about Afghanistan (though the needless debacle of Iraq that was sold to us as an adjunct to our “war on terror” should not be forgotten). Bush missed opportunities both before and after 9/11/01 to disrupt al Qaeda, to capture its leaders, to bind the world together in an effort to bring to justice the criminals that killed nearly 3,000 on US soil eight years ago—so I would assume that is still a goal. But now I also hear we are “at war” with the Taliban, that we are trying to help “stabilize” Afghanistan, train a security force, buttress a budding democracy, secure the border regions. . . again, I can go on, but I can’t tell you what we are doing. I can tell you what McChrystal says we are doing (sort of), but I can’t tell you what we are really doing.

I can tell you that military commanders are likely to ask for more—perhaps many more—troops. I can tell you that several in Congress are now saying that they will get no more troops. I can even tell you with a sort of gut surety that the end result will be more “trigger pullers” than we have deployed there now. . . and more military contractors, the miserable praetorian guard of the previous administration, will have to fill in where our support personnel have been traded out.

But I can’t tell you why. I can’t pinpoint the objective. I can’t say, we are doing “this,” so we can accomplish “this.” And I have a really bad feeling that our first post-Bush president can’t either.

And that is no way to honor our first post-Bush 9/11.

(cross-posted from Firedoglake)

so, what's a "conservadem" cost these days?

2009-03-25T01:12:00.005-04:00

Why is a Democratic Senator with a huge foreclosure problem in his state writing a bill to compete with House legislation designed to cram down mortgages and keep people in their homes? Might it have something to do with, um, money?

Just sayin’. . . .

Jane Hamsher went on The Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday night to explore why our Democratic president and a large Democratic majority in Congress has to worry more about a few Democratic Senators and their new coalition, led by the aforementioned Senator, one Even Bayh of Indiana.

Why is Bayh bucking his party—and, more importantly, his own state’s population—to go to the mat for the banks? Maybe this chart has something to do with it:

That’s a list of Bayh’s top campaign contributors from 2003 to 2008.

Just sayin’. . . .

(cross-posted on Firedoglake)

what dreams may come?

2009-03-17T01:59:00.003-04:00

Perhaps much of this has been said before, but some of the fallout from Stewart vs. Cramer—the calls for changes in the way business “news” is handled—puts some long-simmering arguments about media consolidation back on the front burner.

Media conglomerates do not exist to deliver news, they exist to deliver shareholder value. It is in their interest to fluff the stock market and to curry favor with government regulators so that they can continue to acquire, conglomerate, consolidate, profit, and pay dividends.

There are individual reporters that try to do their jobs, but increasingly with less staff and more demands for additional content. Reporters are rewarded and promoted more often these days not for their clips as much as they are for their rolodexes and their ability to serve the needs of the parent company as detailed above. It is natural for them to want to get ahead and ensure job security. Pissing off powerful contacts doesn't really meet any of these needs as the industry is currently structured.

Is there a fix for this? Yes, but it's a very heavy lift. Roll back media consolidation. Re-impose limits on ownership that existed prior to 1996. Take away special wavers for multiple major channels in single markets.

Yes, it's hard to get to that when the large and ever-growing media conglomerates lobby the heck out of the officials and electeds that would impose such reforms. . . so, we must then examine campaign finance reform as a way of taking the influence of the media conglomerates (and the telecoms that carry so much of our information) out of the regulatory process.

Getting real campaign finance reform is going to be difficult, as you know, since it needs to be approved by the folks that benefit from the status quo. The push is going to have to come from somewhere else. . . perhaps an aggressive Fourth Estate?

And there's the rub. . . .

(cross-posted on capitoilette and Firedoglake's Oxdown Gazette)

putting the racketeering back in the insurance racket

2009-03-16T19:35:00.002-04:00

So, late Saturday/early Sunday, we learn that AIG, already recipient of some $170 billion of US government coin, is set to pay out $165 million in something called “retention bonuses” to the people in the financial products unit, the very division that brought the insurance giant to its knees. Cue the righteous indignation.

Righteous, but also rightful—this dispersal is outrageous. But while most behind the microphones, on the opinion pages, and in the halls of Congress will declare this the height of hubris, or a simple “screw you” to the American people, they will be missing a slightly more nefarious conclusion:

These are not retention bonuses--this is protection money.

I had a drink with a friend last week--she works for the NYSE in Europe--and she commented that in her 15 years in the market, the march of "progress" has been about who can come up with the next gimmick, the next algorithm that is slightly more nuanced, complicated, and arcane than the previous. Anything that can give you an edge over your competitors. She said you can see similar growth curves repeated in each of the derivatives as they came along: a slow growth start, then a rapid, steep climb, and then a rapid leveling off, followed by everyone rearranging the deck chairs while they scramble for the next hot gimmick. CDOs, CDSs fall into this pattern.

Do not assume that Edward Liddy, the government appointed chairman of AIG, fully understands what went on within the financial products unit, do not assume he understands their "gimmick," but assume that he knows that something is up and that these bonus babies know what it is.

Many more expert than I believe these “smartest guys in the room (AIG edition)” cooked the books—I’d say that’s more than possible--but even if they didn't, Liddy likely fears that without these guys, it might be impossible to sort out what the hell they did.

Libby also worries that they will take this "expertise" somewhere else, and that Somewhere Else, inc., will then have a competitive advantage over AIG, since they will know not only the game last played, and how to play it better, they will know where AIG is on solid ground, and where it is not.

And, worst fear of all: the disgruntled AIG employees will not land a new job, and to make a little cash, or in order to boost their personal stock, or simply out of sheer vindictiveness they will start talking to friends, regulators, and/or the press.

AIG is paying to prevent this from happening. Retention = protection, pure and simple.

Obviously, this not a legal opinion on my part--just an opinion. I would assume that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner can read between the lines, and that he knows what Liddy is really saying here, and that the legalities (such as they are) are little more than window dressing. I assume Geithner has no interest in this all becoming a public bloodbath any more than Liddy does.

One heck of a racket, indeed.

[graphic by twolf1]

(cross-posted on Firedoglake's Oxdown Gazette and capitoilette)

FDL will be delivering a petition to Congress telling them to put a stop to this legalized racketeering on Wednesday morning when Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee holds a hearing on AIG at 10am ET. You can sign it here and leave your comments for Congress.

there's trying, and then there's doing

2009-03-16T17:50:00.001-04:00

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has issued a subpoena to American International Group Inc. seeking a list with the names of executives receiving bonuses.

"We had given AGI up to 4 o'clock today to provide the information on the latest round of bonuses that they paid out," Cuomo said. "Four o'clock has come and gone."

. . . .

In the letter to AIG's CEO Edward Liddy, Cuomo said he was disturbed to learn over the weekend of AIG’s plans to pay millions of dollars to members of the Financial Products subsidiary through it’s Financial Products Retention Plan.

President Obama has said he wants every legal angle pursued in stopping these bonuses from going out—do you think he had this in mind?

And, as noted by Jane, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was involved in negotiating the size and scope of the FP bonus package—might Cuomo want to talk with him, as well?

(cross-posted on Firedoglake)

battle of the network stars: street.com ceo quits; MSNBC told to downplay Stewart - Cramer interview

2009-03-13T18:06:00.001-04:00

Thomas Clarke, who has been CEO of financial news website The Street has announced his departure “effective immediately.”

Clarke’s abrupt departure comes less than a day after The Daily Show aired tape of The Street’s co-founder, Jim Cramer, explaining in a Street.com webcast how he, as a hedge fund manager, manipulated value to serve some publicly traded companies and investors at the expense of others.

If you have just crawled out from under a rock, Cramer was a guest on Jon Stewart’s show last night, and the general consensus is Stewart took Cramer, CNBC, and financial “journalism,” in general, to the cleaners.

Or, maybe you haven’t just crawled out from under a rock—maybe you have only been getting your news from MSNBC. The 24-hour news channel—and CNBC partner—was reportedly told by its corporate bosses that this was, you know, not of interest to its viewers:

A TVNewser tipster tells us MSNBC producers were asked not to incorporate the Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview into their shows today. In fact, the only time it came up on MSNBC was during the White House briefing, when a member of the press corps asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if Pres. Obama watched. Gibbs wasn't sure if the president had, but Gibbs did. "I enjoyed it thoroughly," the Press Secretary said.

Cramer will apparently talk about his Daily Show performance on his Friday show (6pm Eastern); no word yet on what MSNBC shows like Hardball, Countdown, and The Rachel Maddow Show will do.

A search of CNBC’s website this afternoon showed only AP and Reuters wire copy on the Stewart-Cramer interview/battle-of-the-century—no original reporting. But, then, why should today be any different for CNBC?

UPDATE: Of the three primetime MSNBC news hosts, only Maddow made reference to the Stewart-Cramer dust-up on Friday night.

(a version of this post previously appeared on Firedoglake)

[Miss me? Don't forget, I am now Managing Editor at Firedoglake, and I occasionally post over there, as well as on my other blog, capitoilette.]

coming soon to a post office near you: epic fail

2009-01-15T02:05:00.003-05:00

That’s it, the party’s over, turn out the lights. There is enough in this, the official White House photo of soon-to-be President Barack Obama, to tell you that all the hope you were hoping for is hopeless.

First off, note the center-right framing!

. . . and what’s with all that head-room?

Second, the contrast ratio: F-L-A-T. In other words: Bo-o-o-o-r-ri-i-i-ing! Look, I know you don’t want the first noir president to look all film noir, but really, couldn’t we spice this up a little? Lower the fill a bit? Give him a kicker maybe? Throw up a cookie on the background? At least break it up with a flag or finger?

Third, that tie! It looks like swag from an American Legion convention. Go back to that iridescent pale blue number you love so much—yeah, it’s a little Wedding/Bar Mitzvah guest-ie, but it was understated, classy even. Or, better yet, you’re young, you’re skinny, how about a tie to match?

. . . and that knot! I know PEBO can tie a better knot—if there is one thing I will take away from the 2008 election cycle, it is that Barack Obama knows how to tie a great half-windsor. . . but this, this is like Michelle tied it around her neck, then loosened it, then slipped it over Barack’s head and retightened it, all while checking her Blackberry. Sloppy, sloppy work.

. . . and, I’m not a big fan of seeing collar over the knot—especially when you have a stylist on hand. Uh, you did have a stylist on hand, right?

And, finally, not least of all, that fucking flag pin!!!!! Barack, baby, you are president now—you don’t have to sacrifice fashion for votes anymore! Ditch the lapel lesion. It doesn’t do anything for me—fashion-wise or politics-wise.

. . . and, guess what? It ain’t fooling the wingnuts, either. Laura Bush’s former press secretary (now LA times “blogger”) Andrew Malcolm is already giving you shit about it. Guys who care that much about a flag pin? These guys don’t like you! Never have, never will.

All of the above should obviously be taken to heart—trust me on this—but if you learn nothing else from this post, note the last point. This should be a lesson for ya’—and not just when it comes to your choice of cheap jewelry.

Bush: 30,000 rooftop rescues = success

2009-01-13T04:19:00.003-05:00

Still-President George W. Bush, looking on Monday morning like most of America now feels, stood before the White House press corps one last time to express his undying gratitude for their piss-poor performance during his eight-years in office. From groggy start to rambling finish, it was a jaw-dropping performance.

In keeping with a long-standing pattern, Bush repeatedly “admitted” that his “rhetoric” might not have been right (“Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.”). All the deeds were fine; he just didn’t sell them well. For the Boy King, this has always been the PR presidency; he is now just more loose-lipped about it. Like with so many crappy, Peter-Principled CEO types, he has made the strategy the tactic.

In that vain vein, the most startling moment to my ear and eye was Bush’s perception of his failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina with anything resembling appropriate gravity:

Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed.

You know, I remember going to see those helicopter drivers, Coast Guard drivers, to thank them. . .

Wait, hang on—I just have to interrupt for minute: “Helicopter drivers?” “Coast Guard Drivers?”

I think we call them “pilots.”

OK, carry on. . . .

three is a magic number

2008-12-30T04:52:00.003-05:00

Oh. My. God. Three simple words to celebrate the completion of my third year of words—that’s right, guy2k is three today!

Another year, another 300-plus posts, trips to Netroots Nation in Austin and the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and, to top it all off, my jump to the editor’s chair at Firedoglake just three—no, make that four—weeks ago. Quite the magical year. . . as personal/political blogger years go.

My only regret (OK, it is doubtful that this is my only regret, but it is the one to which I will limit myself today) is that since joining forces with FDL, I have neglected this little place where it all began. The editorial workload has surprised me a tad, so I have not found the rhythm that allows me to both do my new job and bang out posts that meet my absurdly strict standards. If I have a new year’s resolution, it would be to write more.

But, this month, alas, not so much. What started as “a journal of politics, popular culture and mixed drinks” has delivered precious little on all three fronts. . . until now.

In honor of my third anniversary, my move to Firedoglake, and my annual obligation to include at least one topical cocktail a year, I present to you the Flaming Fireman:

2 oz Goldschlager
2 oz 151 proof rum
2 oz triple sec

Three simple ingredients. Mix. Set aflame. Slam. Enjoy (or so I’m told).

Thank you all for making me part of your 2008. Here’s to a triple-good 2009.

Bush at Walter Reed:between chicken and egg, I'll go with chicken

2008-12-23T01:48:00.005-05:00

Yesterday’s headline news, in all its various establishment media permutations, was full of stories about Still-President George W. Bush paying a visit to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center this morning. A couple added that this was the site of one of his administration’s most serious scandals.

Those reports were talking about the appalling conditions at Walter Reed given broad attention after Dana Priest and Anne Hull published a front-page exposé last year in the Washington Post—they were not talking about the scandal that is the cause of so many of those wounds. That would be the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

When I heard the story, I smirked and shook my head in disgust, figuring it was just another lame, lame duck attempt at legacy burnishing.

Well, it was that, but it was so much more. . . or less.

It turns out, as was later reported, that Bush had an MRI on Monday morning at Walter Reed for a chronic pain in his left shoulder. Yes, that’s right. Bush went to WRAMC because he wasn’t feeling well.

I suppose it’s a chicken and egg thing. . . kind of. It certainly would have looked bad if word had gotten out that Bush was at the medical center and didn’t stop in to look after the men and women who owe their disability checks to his vainglorious boondoggle. But would George W. have gone out there at all if he hadn’t had his own needs to look after?

My guess is a certain “no.”

Bush, even at his most “engaged” was never big on confronting his mistakes—especially ones made so (pardon this) flesh. The man was, is, and will forever be a reality chicken.

Now, as anyone looking at an unemployment check will confirm, the decider has decided he’s decided enough. He’s over it, done his bit, given what he can give. You don’t like him being president any more? Fine, he just won’t be.

So, while it’s just me s’posin’, I’m going to say that if Bush hadn’t felt the need, there’s no way he goes to Reed.

Which might have been just fine with the brave men and women confronting reality every day. . . whether they choose to or not.

(cross-posted on Firedoglake, The Seminal, and capitoilette)

senator Dodd angered by republican desire to screw workers

2008-12-13T00:46:00.002-05:00

Senator Christopher Dodd spoke to the press Friday afternoon about last night’s Republican shenanigans and made some very important points:

Worker salaries make up a tiny fraction of the financial challenge facing the automakers.
The UAW had already agreed to achieve “compatibility and comparability” by March—a major concession.
We still have the opportunity to fix this and the obligation to try.
It is “incredible” that the one demand put above all others by Republicans during this negotiation is that workers, who have already been hurt badly by the declining economy, should take another hit.

Indeed, it is absolutely incredible. As Sen. Dodd told NPR on Friday, there was a part of the minority that was “set on having this deal blow up.”

Dodd’s complexion in this video might be an indication of just how furious he is over this Republican stunt, or it might be the result of bad lighting or a camera that wasn’t white balanced—either way, selfish and cynical Senate Republicans have left us all seeing red.

(cross-posted on Firedoglake)

big news

2008-12-01T02:53:00.006-05:00

Starting today, I join Jane Hamsher and all the other great folks at Firedoglake, where I’ll be serving as editor (I think that’s my official title) and posting under my actual, meatspace name. This is an exciting opportunity, and I am honored to now be among the smart, aggressively progressive voices at FDL.

What does that mean for my lil’ ol’ blogs, guy2k and capitoilette? Well, the short answer is: I don’t know. It’s going to take a few weeks for me to get my bearings, and until then, my own output might drop a bit (might. . . still not sure. . . we’ll see). Once I do have things better figured out, I expect that there will be posts that don’t necessarily fit on Firedoglake, which I will put up here; conversely, some of the things I will be responsible for over at FDL, like breaking news, have not typically been the stock and trade of my personal blogs.

Dare I suggest that you might want to look at all three places?

I was surprised to discover that The Jeffersons ran for 11 seasons—let’s hope that I can enjoy even a fraction of that success in my own move on up.

(PS I will continue to occasionally cross-post to The Seminal, where you can still find all kinds of good work. Over the last 16 months, The Seminal has been extremely supportive of me and my writing, for which I am very grateful, so don’t forget to show them some love.)

the pirates of pennsylvania avenue

2008-11-27T04:36:00.008-05:00

Last night, I was watching Rachel Maddow recount the dozens upon dozens of scandals that pock-marked the last eight years of the Bush Administration, and for some reason, I started hearing the "Major-General’s Song" in my head. I have no idea why a mind-bogglingly long list of greed and corruption made me think of The Pirates of Penzance—OK, it’s not that big a stretch—but anyway, my confusion is your, um, gain(?).

So how about a Thanksgiving sing-along. . . .

The Major Criminal’s Song

I am the very model of a modern major criminal
I’ve tortured everything in sight, turned animal to mineral
I’ve stripped men naked, chained them up, and blasted heavy meteral
I recognize no laws on me unless they’re extra-federal

My dad once ran the CIA, he told me it was just good fun
My veep will back me up on that—look out, he’s got a birding gun!
Those treaties of Geneva type should not be taken serious
The prohibitions there within are quaint if not mysterious

I lied the country into war to boost my numbers in a poll
Ignored advice of everyone from grunt to four star general
When Wilson tried to show me up, I said hey it’s your funeral
I’ve ruined oh so many lives, my staff assumes it’s protocol

I’ll hunt them down and smoke them out as long as I am vertical
You don’t have to take my word, just ask my old friend Richard Perle
No terrorist will walk this earth beneath my robot predators
So what if I kill innocents? (How’d that get past my editors?)

It’s the president who makes the laws, so I don’t need an alibi
I decide what’s right or wrong, that’s why I’m the decider guy
Don’t need to recognize the courts or documents historical
My explanation’s ironclad if not un-categorical

My attitudes about your rights are bold and unconventional
Don’t whine at me about the law, I don’t need you to concern troll
In short I am the president who won with RATS subliminal
I am the very model of a modern major criminal

I think it’s still a work in progress—for instance, I’m still trying to find a rhyme for “strategery.”

Funny enough, it was almost exactly two years ago that I was also looking at Bush and thinking Gilbert and Sullivan. Must be type casting.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

up and down with Brennan and Gates

2008-11-26T07:27:00.002-05:00

My thoughts on John Brennan withdrawing his name from consideration for DCI, and on the news that Robert Gates will stay on at Defense, got a little long. . . please pick up the conversation over on capitoilette.

GM’s “no plan” more of a plan than Citi’s “plan”

2008-11-25T06:33:00.006-05:00

Days after the Big Three automakers were sent home without any supper—told to come back after Thanksgiving with a “plan” that shows them to be deserving of $25 billion of ~~taxpayer~~ ~~congressional~~ Treasury largess—Super-sized financial institution Citibank was handed roughly that much cash in an attempt to prevent the bank’s complete collapse. (That is new money added to the estimated $25 billion Citi has already received under the Paulson TARP/injection/bailout extravaganza.)

But one of the big car manufacturers, General Motors, already seems to be ahead of Citibank as far as making plans for financial stability is concerned. GM’s Buick division announced that it has cancelled its five-year, $40 million endorsement deal with star golfer Tiger Woods, while Citibank has confirmed that its 20-year, $400 million deal for the naming rights to the new home of Major League Baseball’s New York Mets is still very much a “go.”

GM’s Chief Executive, Richard Wagoner, was lambasted for taking a private jet to last week’s congressional hearings (and that was bad form), but just a week earlier, the company had already decided to let go of two of its five private jets (all five are leased, not owned). General Motors has also made many other (arguably small) cuts in an effort to trim costs—from slashing worker uniform stipends and buying cheaper wipe-up towels, to trimming the size of test fleets and turning off escalators at corporate HQ after 7 p.m.

These cuts could fall under the “penny wise and pound foolish” category, but they stand in striking contrast to the kinds of cuts Citi has made:

At Citigroup, executives had announced more than 27,000 job cuts, including ones shed through the sale of the company’s Indian outsourcing operations and German banking franchise and prior layoffs. But the bank stepped up its efforts on Monday with plans to eliminate 17,000 workers in the coming months. It will also cut an additional 7,000 or so employees by divesting businesses in the future and could shed more jobs through attrition.

The job cuts would be in addition to about 23,000 layoffs already this year and leave the bank with about 300,000 employees, down from its peak of about 375,000 in the fourth quarter of 2008. And Citi executives said there could be more layoffs ahead as they moved forward with plans to reorganize the company next year.

Meanwhile, back at GM, failure to get a bridge loan this year could result in the direct loss of some 120,000 jobs—with an additional seven-and-a-half times as many spin-off jobs potentially lost as a ripple effect. That’s over a million jobs total from GM’s hardships—and that doesn’t figure in Ford or Chrysler.

Though the failure of another big financial institution is likely not in the country’s economic interests, either, based on recent history, it is hard to argue that Citi is more deserving of its backstop than America’s automakers.

(photo by me)

(cross-posted on The Seminal and capitoilette)

“at least one runner-up bird should also be protected”

2008-11-21T03:28:00.001-05:00

She said it, not me. . .

“Any state programs on the chopping block?” Oh, no she didn’t.

Oh, yes she did.

don’t make him angry. . .

2008-11-19T07:26:00.000-05:00

. . . because you won’t. . . oh, never mind. . . .

too late

2008-11-17T07:26:00.003-05:00

Over the next two months, Mr. Paulson must impose some coherence and clarity on the bailout. Otherwise he will only fan anxieties and mistrust, which will undermine the effectiveness of his good decisions and amplify the fallout of his bad ones. With markets gyrating wildly, and the economy deteriorating rapidly, the nation needs clear leadership and a sound plan.

After spending the entire length of today’s lead editorial demonstrating just how badly Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has handled the economic crisis and ensuing attempts at a “bailout,” the New York Times undermines its point with this half-hearted admonition. Honestly, if the Times editorial board knows of a good decision by Mr. Hanky, might they have shared it?

The nation does need clear leadership and a sound plan, but, to date, the nation has gotten neither. As pointed out in this very editorial, any “modest easing the bailout initially brought about in the credit markets is now being reversed over doubts about the Treasury’s stewardship of the plan.” Paulson’s actions have been reactive and woefully behind the curve; he lacks anything like a coherent strategy, and the moves he has taken seem less motivated by an interest in protecting wage-earning Americans than in protecting Paulson’s pals and ideological biases.

There is also zero transparency—something many econ-watchers consider of utmost importance to stabilizing credit markets. . . not to mention the stock market. Beyond the lack of oversight as to what the banks are doing with the billions in bailout cash that they have received (much will end up going to bonuses, balance sheets, and the buy-ups of competing banks), it has now been revealed that there was another $2 trillion (!) dispensed by the Fed that is completely opaque.

Paulson has refused to use any of the TARP cash to help homeowners facing foreclosure, even though that might slow the bleeding and even stimulate some local economies, and now he has also rejected using his precious kitty to help the auto industry. Though it’s true that an auto-industry bailout administered with a similar chaotic attitude and the same lack of rules and requirements would do little in the long run to fix systemic problems in this sector, deciding that Goldman Sachs was “too big to fail” but GM is not is as stupid as it is hypocritical.

Given that record, I have no need to extend the rhetorical lifeline the Times so generously offers. Clear leadership and a sound plan cannot come soon enough, and given the noted rapid deterioration of the economy and the number of Paulson’s remaining days, it probably won’t.

(cross-posted on capitoilette and The Seminal)

New York State budget: more regressive ideas from Gov. Paterson

2008-11-14T05:38:00.004-05:00

Two days ago I wrote about the proposal to jack up NYC transit fares by 28% and how that was in effect a regressive tax on the sort of New Yorkers whom could least afford it—and how this was being done at the same time New York State Governor David Paterson has refused to consider what’s come to be called the “millionaires’ tax.”

Well, just to add insult to injury, here’s another winner of an idea: New York State has started collecting a $25 child support enforcement fee from those that needed government help to recover child support payments.

To be fair, this insult was originally the brainchild of the Bush Administration and its rubberstamp Republican Congress. As part of the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,” the federal government started charging states a $25 fee for child support recovery. However, from then, till recently, New York had covered that fee for its needy residents.

But with the looming state budget crisis, no more. Governor Paterson has decided the state can no longer afford this level of generosity.

Millionaires, however, well, have no fear, the governor is looking out for you.

The “millionaires’ tax” is pretty simple as tax proposals go. Income over $1 million would be taxed an additional 1%, and income over $5 million would be taxed .75% more. New York has one of the highest concentrations of wealth in the country—just one-half of one percent earned 28% of the taxable income back in 2005. The proposed tax surcharge could bring in about $1.5 billion in the first year—or roughly three-quarters of the expected NY budget shortfall.

The millionaires that would have to pay this tax—or at least a few loud ones, like the ubiquitous, selfish, and inevitably wrong Donald Trump—argue that if you make them pay this increase, they just might leave New York. I say, as did the NY Daily News recently, call their bluff.

As the Daily News observed, New Jersey imposed a much larger increase on all incomes over half-a-million a few years back, and they got incredible bang for their buck—about $26 coming in for every $1 fleeing the state.

And they were fleeing New Jersey!

Even New York City’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg—who had previously been heard whining about a surcharge—now says this millionaire flight threat is a lot of hooey:

I can only tell you, among my friends, I've never heard one person say “I'm going to move out of the city because of taxes.” Not one. Not in all the years I've lived here. You know, they can complain, “Oh got my tax bill, it's heavy.” But they've not ever thought that. My friends all want to live here and understand the value.

He oughta know, right? That is his cohort.

As for the rest of us—that would be 99.5% of us—well, I’m guessing a lot of us have a little less mobility. And since Paterson knows he’s got a captive “audience,” I guess it’s up to this rest of us to pick up the slack, balance the budget, and so, look out for the Governor’s interests. . . whether we want to or not.

(PS The information on the child support fee comes from the office of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who has called on NY State to stop collecting this regressive tax, and has asked the Senate to increase funding to child support enforcement.)

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

prop 8: Nate Silver has my back

2008-11-13T03:38:00.005-05:00

Last week, I wrote this:

The implication [of the AP story] is clear, and has been said outright, first-time non-white voters brought into the system by the Obama campaign provided the margin necessary to pass Prop. 8.

Except that if you look at the data from the AP exit poll [now a pdf], that isn’t clear at all.

Unless there are cross-tabulations from this poll that have not been made publicly available, I cannot see how the numbers support the certitude of the claim. . . .

Democrats overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, first-time voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who are in accordance with Obama’s positions overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who supported Obama in the primary overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who voted for Obama on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8.

Five days later, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight wrote this:

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

There are few quantitative analysts I would trust more than Silver (and his presidential predictions were the best of the lot this cycle), so it is a real confidence builder for me to know that when he looks at the data he sees the same thing that I see—or, more accurately, he doesn’t see the same thing that I don’t see. There is nothing in the exit polling to support the narrative that the first-time African American voters brought to the polls by Barack Obama’s campaign provided Prop. 8 with its margin of victory—and, in fact, most evidence seems to point the other way.

Silver believes that the ballot measure owes its passage to older voters, noting that if no one over 65 had voted, Prop. 8 would have failed by “a point or two.” Silver suggests that as that demographic ages out of, um, life, bigoted efforts such as this one will eventually fail.

While I tend to agree overall—the younger you go, the more comfortable most seem with diversity—I think that Silver should take a look at the family factor. Those that are married and have children (31% of the sample) voted in favor of the measure 68% to 32%. All others voted against the gay marriage ban by a ten-point margin.

(I know what you’re thinking: “All others” includes most of the voting homosexual population. That’s probably true. Alas, there is no cross-tabulation for “married heterosexuals without children”—however, because the “all others” segment is so much larger than the “married with children” slice, even if you could subtract the gay vote, I suspect that this segment would still have rejected the proposition.)

The question becomes “Are beliefs about gay marriage static?” Will the young segments that voted against Prop. 8 continue to feel the same way, even as they age and/or have children? To ask it another way: Do those married with children tend to favor the ban more because they would tend to be older than those without kids, or did those that are younger reject Proposition 8 because they had yet to reproduce?

To my eye, the history of civil rights movements in the United States would favor Silver’s take on the numbers, but the numbers don’t confirm this, at least not with absolute certainty. I guess, as they—and the numbers—say, time will tell.

(cross-posted on Daily Kos, capitoilette, and The Seminal)

NYC subways: fare hikes, service cuts. . . is this the change we need?

2008-11-12T04:46:00.007-05:00

Tell me you didn’t see this one coming. MTA Chief Elliot Sander announced this week that economic times being what they are, the Transit Authority’s deficit was going to balloon to $1.2 billion, and so service cuts and substantial fare hikes were now inevitable.

The MTA had already slated eight percent fare increases for next year; they now say they will need an additional 20% to make up shortfalls caused by increased fuel costs and decreasing property values (the MTA gets a good chunk of its budget from property and property-related taxes). If an increase like that is approved, the price of a single ride on a New York City subway or bus would climb above $2.50.

Capital improvements and service expansion are already lagging far behind the needs of a city expecting to grow to a size of 10 million in the next decade, but even if Sander gets all of his fare boost, service and improvements will still have to be cut back to trim the deficit.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority is hardly the only state agency facing a budget crisis as the Bush economy and the Wall Street meltdown send shockwaves through the New York economy. (For those of you not familiar with NYS politics—yes, the city’s transit system is run by the state. It was taken from the city during the 1970s fiscal crisis, and NYC never got it back.) Governor David Paterson, who has already negotiated state budget cuts, is demanding the legislature return for another round—and for that round, Paterson is proposing a 25% haircut.

Still, Paterson has made it clear: there will be no state tax increases.

What Paterson means by that, of course, is that he will not countenance a state income tax increase. The ousted Spitzer Administration had floated the idea of a “millionaires’ tax”—a surcharge on the highest of highest incomes to help New York meet its obligations—but Paterson, formerly a state representative from Harlem and once considered a liberal, has thrown that baby out with Eliot’s bathwater.

Of course, a 28% fare increase—more than a dollar extra for every roundtrip commute—would effectively (if not officially) be a tax increase. . . except this one would primarily affect the other end of the economic ladder.

To reiterate: For millionaires, who don’t take the subway all that much—no new taxes; for working class New Yorkers, who do use the subway daily to get to and from work—how does paying an extra $260 per year sound? (That’s per person—if there are kids that use the subways and busses to get to school, multiply accordingly.)

NYC is the economic engine of New York State. (And city residents already pay a disproportionate amount to fill state coffers—they pay out more than they get back in services and benefits.) The fuel for that engine is the city’s workforce—and that workforce relies in large part on public transportation to get to work. Without a functioning and affordable public transit system, New York City’s commerce—the state’s engine—would grind to a halt.

So why is it that all anyone can think of when times get tough is to cut service and raise fares? Why take one of the great advantages that New York has over most other American cities and hobble it? Is it that hard to think of anything else to do?

Let me give it a try. . .

First off, it is high time that control of the city’s mass transit system is returned to the city. For far too long, income from the total of state transit systems has gone disproportionately to commuter rail; subway and bus riders have effectively been subsidizing suburban rail commuters. That has to stop. I’m not saying that commuter rail isn’t important—it is vital—but the subway system is more vital to the workings of New York City, and it deserves the full benefit of its income.

Second, how about some creative thinking?

New York City and State pay more in taxes to the federal government than either gets back—so it is in America’s best interest to keep the New York economy growing. So how about we integrate some of NYC’s financial problems into the national thinking on bailouts and stimulus?

If Washington is going to spend billions to bailout the auto industry, why not spend a couple billion to help out systems that are better for the economy and the environment than cars? Seriously, not only does the MTA itself provide good-paying jobs to thousands of New Yorkers, capital improvements would provide even more, and the service that the MTA provides increases the productivity of practically all city businesses. Backstopping automobile manufacturers will cost tens or hundreds of billions, and I can’t even begin to tell you how much of that will go to the credit divisions, or legacy costs, or executive compensation, or shareholder value. I can pretty much guarantee that one or two billion to the MTA will deliver much more bang for your buck.

Here’s another idea: The coming infrastructure bill. . . what says infrastructure more than subway and light rail? Why shouldn’t the New York congressional delegation insist that this promised investment in infrastructure pick up the tab for system upgrades and expansion? Let fares go to the day-to-day operating costs. For all the reasons cited above, I am pretty sure that few infrastructure investments will provide better ROI.

I got another: What say we reduce the burden of rising fuel costs by making the New York transit system one of the stars of the new green economy? Spur plug-in hybrid innovation by promising the best technology a crack at replacing all of NYC’s busses. Fund an initiative to find a self-sustaining way to generate all the electricity needed to run the subways. Yes, that’s dreaming big, but a) not that big, and b) isn’t that the change we need?

So there you go—in fifteen minutes, I just outlined three (or was that four?) possible alternatives to fare hikes and service cuts. And I am just doing this on my own, pro-bono. There are staffs of paid experts and consultants at the MTA’s and the government’s beck and call—where are their ideas?

Indeed, I’ll go a step further: where is the political leadership? Why is it that the best anyone can think of is to make the poor and working class suck it up, pay more, and make do with less? What makes that leadership? That’s the simpleton’s solution. That’s the coward’s way. Why should we reward that?

When I went to the polls here in Manhattan last week, I didn’t just vote for change at the federal level; I voted for my US Representative, and my state senator and assembly member, too. Two years from now, I’ll vote for all of them again, and a Senator. I expect them to be full participants in promoting the vision and the programs that were highlighted in the campaign of our president-elect. What better place to begin than right here at home?

(cross-posted on capitoilette, Daily Kos, and The Seminal)

goodbye—but why?

2008-11-11T06:51:00.001-05:00

Pollster Stanley Greenberg writes in Tuesday’s NYT that he is finally ready to say goodbye to his “Reagan Democrats.” Hallelujah. Democrats have paid the price for this ill-conceived frame for far too long.

Of course, I was singing “ding dong the frame is dead” last week. I’m glad Greenberg has joined in, but, to my ear, Stan is woefully off key. Here’s why. . . .

mourning Mama Afrika: Miriam Makeba dead at 76

2008-11-10T06:22:00.004-05:00

I no longer remember how to dance the Pata Pata; in fact, I am not sure I ever learned. I have strong memories of the song, however. My mother, a fan of African drumming and dance, almost certainly had the album and played it often, but it might have been a single of Pata Pata that my sister used to rehearse an elementary school routine that permanently carved the tune (whose words I still don’t really know) into my brain.

Hearing Pata Pata always takes me back—way back.

The woman who gave voice to this musical madeleine, Miriam Makeba, passed away this morning, apparently of a heart attack after giving a benefit concert in Italy. She was 76.

That Makeba used some of her final breaths to help another—in this case, investigative journalist Roberto Saviano, whose life has been threatened by the Camorra—is as fitting as it is predictable. Barred from her native South Africa after participating in the anti-apartheid documentary Come Back, Africa in 1959, Makeba used her music and the notoriety that came with it to keep her people and their oppression in the spotlight: “I kept my culture. I kept the music of my roots. Through my music I became this voice and image of Africa, and the people, without even realizing.”

Makeba, who earned the nickname “Mama Afrika” (or “Africa”—I’ve seen it both ways), testified against apartheid at the United Nations as a private citizen on multiple occasions. And, after her marriage to civil rights activist Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) caused US bookings to dry up and the couple moved to Guinea, Makeba would eventually return to the UN as that country’s delegate.

Makeba’s marriage to Carmichael ended in divorce, as did three other marriages, one of which was to South African trumpeter Hugh Masekela. She also survived an abusive first marriage, cervical cancer, and the deaths of her only daughter and grandson. Throughout all of this, Mama Afrika kept singing out and speaking out.

Makeba performed for President John F. Kennedy at his famous 1962 birthday concert at Madison Square Garden. She won a Grammy in 1966 for an album she recorded with Harry Belafonte.

My mama’s also got a great Harry Belafonte story, but that’s her memory—you’ll have to wait till she gets her own blog.

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

doubt, by the numbers

2008-11-07T06:49:00.002-05:00

A snippet of “analysis,” courtesy of the AP (here via the LA Times), seems to have dictated what fast became the received wisdom on the “be careful what you fish for” conundrum of the Obama campaign’s drive for increased minority turnout vis-à-vis the very unfortunate passage of Proposition 8 (eliminating marriage rights for same-sex couples):

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.

The sound of this report, what with it being grounded in a poll and all, makes it hard to refute—and, indeed, it seems few have tried. The language in the top paragraph, or some slight variant, appears in most of the major reports I’ve read or heard in the two days since the November 4th referendum. The implication is clear, and has been said outright, first-time non-white voters brought into the system by the Obama campaign provided the margin necessary to pass Prop. 8.

Except that if you look at the data from the AP exit poll, that isn’t clear at all.

Unless there are cross-tabulations from this poll that have not been made publicly available, I cannot see how the numbers support the certitude of the claim. The above narrative is a possibility, but so are many other stories—and I feel that other conclusions are likely just as viable.

First off, while it is true that African American voters in California did vote overwhelmingly for the marriage ban—70% YES to 30% NO—Latinos were more closely divided: 53% YES to 47% NO. That’s significant, but not in the same league as the margin from African American voters. It also should be noted that African Americans accounted for 10% of those polled; Latinos, 18%.

More to my point, however, is the missing cross-tab. There are a good number of sub-samples available in the published results (more on some of those in moment), but “African American first-time voters that voted for Obama-Biden” or even just “African American first-time voters” are not among them.

It is quite possible that with that many cuts, the sample size is too small to yield results that pass statistical muster, but without the ability to run my own cross-tabs, I can’t tell you.

Here’s what I can tell you (based on what is posted), and it is some of these numbers that make me at least harbor doubts about the “new Black voters are conservative on social issues” storyline.

(The first number in brackets is the % of the total sample, the second number is the % that voted YES, and the third is the % that voted NO.)

Democrats (42) 36 - 64
Republicans (29) 82 - 18
Independents (28) 46 - 54

Is this the first year you’ve ever voted?
Yes (14) 38 - 62
No (86) 56 - 44

Union Household (25) 56 - 44
Non-union Household (75) 50 - 50

Who did you want to win in the nomination?
Dems for Clinton (15) 39 - 61
Dems for Obama (23) 31 - 69

Suburban voters (51) 59 - 41
Large city voters (45) 45 - 55

Do you think Obama’s positions are:
Too liberal (32) 74 - 25
Too conservative (7) (sample too small)
About right (56) 31 - 69

Voted for Obama (60) 32 - 68
Voted for McCain (38) 84 - 16

Democrats overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, first-time voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who are in accordance with Obama’s positions overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who supported Obama in the primary overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who voted for Obama on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8.

Urban voters rejected the measure by a ten-point margin, while suburban voters supported it by eight. I don’t know what the racial breakdown is of California’s suburbs, but I would assume that large cities would have the larger African American populations.

The only category that could have been influenced by the “Obama effect” (for lack of a better name) is the union vote. It has been widely reported how active organized labor was in getting out the vote for Barack Obama, and, as you see above, union households favored the marriage ban by 12 points. However, and this is a big however, this number might also be deceptive because the “households” category, almost by definition, includes a lot of families. Married with children (31% of the sample) voted YES 68% of the time (all others—69% of the sample—rejected Prop. 8 by ten points).

While none of what I have just detailed rules out the hypothesis that first-time African American voters brought to the polls by the Obama candidacy proved the difference in the passage of Proposition 8, I think there is enough here to call that narrative into question. For all we know, most of the 70% of the African American population that voted YES on 8 would have come out and voted even if Obama wasn’t on the ballot. Conversely, it might be the case that the 30% of African Americans that rejected the measure are the ones voting for the first time. Might be—I just can’t tell.

And if I can’t tell, I am figuring that most of the establishment press parroting the AP’s narrative probably can’t tell either.

No doubt there is much to be done to combat the homophobic bias evidenced in this tally, and in similar outcomes in other states, but the discussion about what is to be done could be influenced by perceptions of which groups bear responsibility for the final outcome. Indeed, the way Obama governs could be shaped by the larger story about what kinds of voters provided the president-elect’s margin of victory. Without the ability to further analyze the exit poll data, we should not accept the center-right narrative or claims of any particular Obama effect.

(cross-posted on capitoilette and The Seminal)

yes we brand

2008-11-06T08:02:00.003-05:00

It’s been a long time coming.

The first time that I ever voted was the first time that I was eligible—the 1980 general election. And if that’s not enough of a humbling admission, I’ll go a step further: I voted for Barry Commoner. It was a protest vote in a non-competitive state, but the reasons for that protest formed the foundation of my complaints about Democrats—or, if not Democrats, Democratic strategy—for the rest of my political life.

At least until today (more on that in a minute).

I didn’t have a neat phrase in 1980, because the trend did not yet have a name, but I would eventually topline my criticism by saying, “Why vote for the ersatz Republican when you can vote for the real thing?”

The point of that flip and bitter but all too often prescient comment was that Democrats, by pursuing what came to be called “Reagan Democrats”—conservative or right-leaning voters who, by some freak of demographics or inertia, had failed to change their party affiliation even though their worldview had left the Democratic party with the creation of Medicare, the signing of the Voting Rights Act, or protests over the Vietnam War—had so muddied their brand that they turned off or failed to inspire their core audience while failing to convince the so-called center that a second-to-market mishmash was better than almost just-as-good as the original. And when Democrats did manage to tilt Reagan-ward enough to grab the odd brass ring, the result was even worse—for the party and the country—for, you see (and this quickly became the corollary to my first proclamation), in a contest between an old Republican and a new Republican, the victor is guaranteed to be a Republican.

By the 1990s, the Democratic elite had evolved enough to believe that they shouldn’t so much follow the voters as they should follow the money. The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton did manage to divert their way some of the rivers of cash that had been flooding GOP coffers, but, to my mind, they did so at the expense of the party’s natural reservoir of votes.

Flash forward another decade, and suddenly “values voters” were all the rage. Democrats, apparently, didn’t know how to talk about religion—apparently the font of all positive values—and so were losing white evangelicals. Until Democrats embraced the naturally conservative (some might say reactionary) beliefs of this highly organized voting bloc, they would never feel the electoral love. The dreadful results that befell Democrats for more than a decade, or, depending on how you evaluated, perhaps more than a generation, stood as some kind of unmistakable verification of this trope.

Chasing Reaganites, millionaires, or evangelicals all required the same tactic, however (and not surprisingly), and that was a full-throttle fudge to the right.

What the ever-shifting boundaries of this monotonous, mono-directional, and monumentally flawed brand strategy always failed to understand, though, was that the group of habitual voters that Democrats supposedly just had to win-over to win was so very much smaller than the group of natural constituents who had become disenchanted enough to disengage, or who had never been inspired enough to participate in electoral politics at all.

To again put it in a tidier package: Instead of chasing the money, Democrats should have been chasing the voters. There are so many of them naturally predisposed to love Democrats for who they are—or recently were—that if you could just get them excited and invested in the outcome, they would swamp any numbers you might be able to pick off from the Republican base.

Which brings us to the here-and-now.

Though I have some reservations about what type of president Barack Obama might be, I have never failed to praise him as a candidate. The genius of the Obama campaign, and what I have loved most about the last year, is the ability of Barack Obama to reach out to, excite, inspire, and organize a part of the Democratic base that had long been either taken for granted or left for dead. With the voter registration drives, the canvassing, the outreach, and the GOTV, Obama didn’t have to sweat the right—he had something bigger and better: a broader definition of the American electorate.

For, while Obama and his surrogates might talk of an America beyond partisanship, the values and, indeed, the proposals that drove the Obama campaign were solidly Democratic. The fairness he preached and the cool reason he seemed to embody contrast favorably with the selfishness and base emotion of the Bush years. Proposals like more equitable taxation, universal access to affordable, quality healthcare, and a belief in the importance of organized labor feel like the Democratic Party I remember from my pre-voting youth. And a pro-active, fact-based approach to combating global warming is a refreshing reproach to the reactive and reactionary anti-science stance that drives today’s GOP.

Embodied in all of that, too, is the inherently Democratic (and democratic) sentiment that we are all in this together, rather than the sad ethos of the right—that we are all in this for ourselves.

And, amazingly, in returning to Democrats’ core principles and best practices, and not pandering to the Reagan Democrats or values voters or whatever we will now decide to call them, Obama was able to win (win back?) some of their votes. Obama’s victory is a monument to good branding—and I mean that wholly as a statement of admiration (I am, after all, a brand strategist). Barack Obama and many other Democrats this cycle (and I would be remiss if I did not single out DNC Chair Howard Dean for special praise) have proven that crafting a strong brand, behaving as a distinct brand, and not being simply a “not” brand—and then selling the distinct benefits of that brand—is the best route to victory.

After a lifetime of railing and flailing, I feel, well, not vindicated, but, at least, validated. I hope that Obama and other Democrats see it the same way—even if not all will admit it in public. Candidate Obama preached hope while implementing a strong and identifiably Democratic brand strategy. My hope is that President Obama sees that this would be a solid strategy for governing, as well.

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

America hits "refresh"

2008-11-04T23:33:00.003-05:00

. . . here's my little part. . .

There is much still to do, but, for now, at this historic moment, all I feel is:

THANK YOU, AMERICA.

let’s just call this inspiration

2008-11-04T06:03:00.003-05:00

Funny/chilling. . .

. . . and just chilling. . .

And this bears repeating:

If you are a regular reader, then I expect that you can guess what I’m going to say when it comes to choosing the next president of the United States. If you call yourself a liberal, or a progressive, or a lover of individual liberty and reproductive choice; if you want quality, affordable healthcare to be accessible to all Americans, if you want to restore some modicum of equity to the tax code, and some degree of sanity to our foreign policy; if you want to approach energy independence and global warming with the seriousness and the urgency those matters deserve; if you want a government staffed with experts instead of ideologues that is led by a man who trusts his intellect enough to be intellectually curious—or even if you just want some portion of all this—then there is only one way to vote on Tuesday: Barack Obama for president.

If you vote on an electronic machine, check your paper receipt to verify your votes.
If you have any trouble voting, and want legal advice,
call 1-866-OUR VOTE.
And, trouble or no, you can be, like, your own election monitor: video your vote and post it at VideoTheVote.org.

Now get out there and vote!

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

more why we vote

2008-11-04T05:03:00.005-05:00

Whether you live in the swingin’est swing state or a solid party stronghold, there are many important reasons to vote on Tuesday beyond the crucial contest at the top of the ticket. Over at The Seminal, where I blog as “Red Wind,” I have been running a series highlighting some of these races.

Each post includes a little bit about the candidate and his or her positions, a brief synopsis of the contest, and a sample campaign ad. I’ll admit to putting in a fair amount of work on this little project, so I would greatly appreciate it if you click on over and take a look.

More importantly, if you live in one of these places or know someone who does, make sure to vote yourself and/or get out your friends’ votes.

I covered a passel of races yesterday (and there are a couple of updates), and here are a few more:

Alaska – Mark Begich for Senate

Nebraska – Scott Kleeb for Senate

New York – Alice Kryzan for Congress

Washington – Darcy Burner for Congress

In case you missed it, I urge New Yorkers to vote Row E (Working Families Party)—with the exception of the US House race in NY-26 (there, please vote for Kryzan on the Democratic line). New York is a fusion voting state, and a vote in Row E counts just as much as a Dem vote, but says you want to see our state and country move in a progressive direction.

And, just in case you just woke up from a 21-month nap, today is November 4th—aka ELECTION DAY! Get out there and vote. Call your friends—all of them—and make sure that they get out and vote.

Finally, and this is important, you can use the tools below to find your proper polling place, if you vote on an electronic machine, check your paper receipt to verify your votes, and if you have any trouble voting, and want legal advice, call 1-866-OUR VOTE.

And, trouble or no, you can be, like, your own election monitor: video your vote and post it at VideoTheVote.org

OK, that wasn’t quite “finally”. . . this is:

To everyone who has volunteered, donated, phone-banked, organized, or blogged this election cycle: Thank you and good luck!

(cross-posted on capitoilette)

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

why we vote

2008-11-03T06:59:00.011-05:00

Whether you live in the swingin’est swing state or a solid party stronghold, there are many important reasons to vote on Tuesday beyond the crucial contest at the top of the ticket. Over at The Seminal, where I blog as “Red Wind,” I have been running a series highlighting some of these races.

Each post includes a little bit about the candidate and his or her positions, a brief synopsis of the contest, and a sample campaign ad. I’ll admit to putting in a fair amount of work on this little project, so I would greatly appreciate it if you click on over and take a look.

More importantly, if you live in one of these places or know someone who does, make sure to vote yourself and/or get out your friends’ votes.

California – three House races and four ballot measures. (~~post will be up this afternoon~~ it's up)

Georgia – Jim Martin for Georgia.

Michigan – Mark Schauer for Congress.

Minnesota – Al Franken for Senate. (~~post will be up in a couple of hours~~ it's up)

New Mexico – Martin Heinrich for Congress.

North Carolina – Kay Hagan for Senate

Oregon – Jeff Merkley for Senate.

Virginia – Tom Perriello for Congress.

Washington – Reelect Governor Chris Gregoire

And, as I have mentioned before, if you live in New York, vote Working Families Party, Row E.

It’s been a long, hard road to get to this point, but we have to push on for one more day. If everyone who reads this could make a few extra phone calls, or volunteer to help get out the vote, we can all cross the finish line in style. . . and with a smile. . . or something like that.

(cross-posted on capitoilette)

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Palin punk’d—by a Canadian!

2008-11-02T05:00:00.003-05:00

Actually, they call it “pranked,” and you probably think I’m talking about famous Canadian-born SNL producer Lorne Michaels, but no, no, no. . . or should I say “non, non, non?”

Canadian radio host Marc Antoine Audette convinced Republican VP wannabe Sarah Palin that he was French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a six-minute conversation that aired on Montreal station CKOI.

The pretend président told a giggly Palin that they had much in common—like they both can see foreign countries from their homes (Sarkozy/Audette said he could see Belgium), and how both loved to hunt:

Mr Audette said he would be keen to join her on a helicopter hunting trip.

"I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun," he said in an exaggerated French accent.

"I'd really love to go, so long as we don't bring along Vice-President [Dick] Cheney."

In 2006, Mr Cheney infamously shot and injured a hunting partner while quail-hunting in Texas.

Mrs Palin responded: "I'll be a careful shot."

Audette throws out the wrong name for the Canadian PM, and another for the “Prime Minister of Quebec,” but the Alaskan governor, who often references the border that her state shares with Canada to claim foreign policy cred, not only doesn’t notice, she replies as if she knows these guys.

A star-struck Palin later attempts to compliment Sarkozy’s wife, Carla Bruni—Palin praises her beauty repeatedly, but clearly can’t remember Bruni’s name.

But the very best part for me is right up top when the pseudo Sarko says that he follows Palin’s campaign with his “special American advisor” Johnny Hallyday.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mesdames et Messieurs, I present to you, je me présente vous, Johnny Hallyday:

Insta-update: Just discovered that the BBC link above has an edited audio excerpt—the full interview is even more brutal:

. . .

A friend just sent in a suggestion for a different Johnny Hallyday number, and it is so much more, um, what’s that French word. . . apropos!

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

endorsement: vote row E for WFP

2008-10-31T06:24:00.008-04:00

If you are a regular reader, then I expect that you can guess what I’m going to say when it comes to choosing the next president of the United States. If you call yourself a liberal, or a progressive, or a lover of individual liberty and reproductive choice; if you want quality, affordable healthcare to be accessible to all Americans, if you want to restore some modicum of equity to the tax code, and some degree of sanity to our foreign policy; if you want to approach energy independence and global warming with the seriousness and the urgency those matters deserve; if you want a government staffed with experts instead of ideologues that is led by a man who trusts his intellect enough to be intellectually curious—or even if you just want some portion of all this—then there is only one way to vote on Tuesday: Barack Obama for president.

BUT, if you live in New York, there are actually two ways you can vote for Obama—you can go the old, stodgy, predictable route, and pull the lever or mark your box for Barack Obama (D), Democrat, or, if you really, really believe in all that I laid out above, you can vote for Barack Obama (WFP), Working Families Party.

As I have discussed in elections past, New York has something called “fusion” voting; this allows a candidate to receive the endorsement of more than one party, and to be listed on the ballot under multiple party lines. All the votes for a single candidate, however, are combined to count for the final total. A vote for Obama on Row E—the Working Families Party line—counts just as much as a vote on the Democratic line. . .

. . . and more.

More, because the Working Families Party is more than a social club or the vestigial organ of some moribund New York political machine, the WFP is an active and organized party that has been fighting for progressive ideals for better than a decade. They stand for universal healthcare, tax equity, and equal representation under the law. They have lead fights for a living wage, for green jobs and green homes, and affordable housing. They advocate for better-funded public schools so that every child gets a quality education, no matter where he or she lives, and the public financing of elections to get the corrupting corporate money out of the system.

Earlier this month, WFP teamed with organized labor and local activists to protest New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Speaker Chris “Quisling” Quinn’s naked power grab vis-à-vis term limit “extensions.” The effort did not prevent Bloomberg from buying enough influence on the City Council to win his rule change, but working together, the WFP and the people of NYC made a lot of noise and called a lot of attention to the undemocratic way that the mayor and speaker went about overriding the existing law. Because of this effort, the fight to unseat these arrogant plutocrats next year has a big head start.

By voting for Obama—and for other cross-endorsed candidates—on the Working Families line, you are showing candidate and country that you stand for these kinds of progressive ideals. A vote for BHO (WFP) Row E shows that you want our next president to embrace the progressive potential that has brought you to his side.

By voting for state candidates on the WFP line, you will help shape the next generation of New York politics. Democrats are poised to gain the majority in the state senate for the first time in over 40 years, and thus will control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion. It will present a tremendous opportunity to reform a dysfunctional state government; a vote for the Working Families Party will give the left better leverage in the battles that lay ahead.

The Nation, The Albany Project, Daily Gotham, and Democrats.com have all endorsed a Row E WFP vote because they all know that strengthening the role of the Working Families Party is a solid step toward building a statewide progressive movement. Voting for Obama on the same line brings that voice to the national dialogue.

Barack Obama has promised change, and I truly believe that his election will noticeably transform the style and substance of our national leadership. What kind of change, how much change, and how directly that difference will affect the lives of hard working Americans, however, still hangs in the balance. The progressive direction advocated by the Working Families Party is the kind of change Democrats have been fighting for lo these many months and years—it is change we can believe in.

Vote Row E.

UPDATE: Thanks to the courts, we have a late-breaking exception to this rule in Western New York—NY-26, to be specific. Please vote for Democrat Alice Kryzan on the Democratic line.

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

can he? can we?

2008-10-30T07:09:00.004-04:00

(Bowery & 4th • photo by me)

Who knew that the “B” on the sign for the Bowery Bar actually stood for Barack?

There were a handful of things I could quibble with in last night’s Obama infomercial (Barack’s word, not mine)—I thought several of the transitions went “bump,” his office setting was ambiguous to me, and I swear if I hear about “clean coal technology” one more freakin’ time, I’m gonna lose it—but I’m not in the hatin’ mood. . .

. . . and in part that is because of that infomercial.

You see, I can excuse the overly dramatic score and the unfortunate idea that the entirety of the “real America” seems to live outside of America’s biggest cities; I am not the target audience, after all. But, that said, at times, this thing still hit me. I mean it got me, I dunno, a little verklempt.

I’m not sure it was any one thing; it was more like the everything of it. The idea that just maybe this guy is smart enough to get it, if only a little—get that everything is sort of interrelated. If you want to stimulate the economy, you have to restore tax equity, and solve the healthcare crisis, and move away from hydrocarbon-based energy—and I’m hoping that he holds fast to this understanding when, come January, all the serious people in the village start telling him, “It’s too much,” and, “It’s too expensive,” and “America isn’t ready,” and “Just do a little test something first. . . then we’ll see,” because you know they will.

For me, I’m just trying to adjust to the idea that I might have a president, for the first time in my memory, that actually teases me with the idea that he might grow into a better leader once he gets to Washington. . .

. . . that is until he brings me right back down to earth with more “clean coal,” or more FISA “compromises,” or more reasons why we can’t completely leave Iraq or completely close Gitmo, or. . . no, no, no, not today, no. . . . Today: Yes we can!

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

it takes chutzpa to question Obama’s commitment to Israel

2008-10-29T07:27:00.006-04:00

Or, in lieu of chutzpa, an RNC-financed 15 minutes of fame will do.

Perhaps you’ve heard of this guy, he’s a plumber—OK, an unlicensed, non-union plumber—I think his name is Joe? Anyway, even though he’s a member of the Natural Law Party, and as low as a low-info voter can go, the McCain campaign has wrapped its arthritic arms around him. Yesterday was day one of the Joe the dumber plumber bus tour, and JtP decided to use the opportunity to say that an Obama presidency would mean “death to Israel.” It was so inane and so nakedly hatemongering that even Shepard Smith of FOX News had to speak up:

Smith's indignation deserves praise—it’s nice to see a FOX-er realize that he’s still got to live in the America that the McCain-Palin team is trying to rip apart.

But why just let Shep Smith speak for Israel? We’ve got actual Israelis (and in such a nicely made little film, too):

And, if the Israelis won’t do, how about Barack Obama:

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security...I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran.... Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it.

Need a little more, Joe? How about this (from the Obama-Biden campaign website):

Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

“Never” is a pretty strong word, there, hey Joe? (It’s probably a stronger word than I would use if I were running for president, but I’m not, so Joe shouldn’t worry his bald little head. . . .) I will personally add that Obama’s stated goals of opening a serious diplomatic channel with Iran and encouraging a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would do more to ensure the security of Israel than pretty much anything the Bush Administration has done in the last eight years. . . which means it would do more than anything proposed by John McCain.

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

landslide or no, we’ve got a lot of work to do

2008-10-28T06:45:00.004-04:00

In the last 48 hours, I have received a couple of interesting emails from a friend. My friend has been a supporter of Barack Obama since early on, and she has two siblings—one who stands outside McCain-Palin rallies with a sign that says “I AM a real American,” and then posts YouTubes of the experience:

And another who sends e-mails that say things like this (reproduced verbatim and unedited):

I can give you at least 5 reasons why working class people don't want Obama elected. Never once have I heard "secret Muslim" on that list, nor "black man" on that list. Not once. Here's what I have heard:

• Obama supports making union membrship mandatory vs. optional, taking away one's freedom to decide whether one wants to join the union - and making the $500 annual dues mandatory as well. Big deal for the working class.

• He further supports taking secret ballots away from unions, making all votes known - increasing the potential for manipulation and lobbying within unions.

• He voted against funding for the Iraq war when their friends, neighbors, and colleages were serving there - directly endangering their lives.

• His tax policies make the American dream of work-hard-become-successsful that much less attainable by making the marginal tax rate after $250K up to 70% by some projections (oh, and that $250 is per household - so it's $125K for a single person. Do you think that a single person living in Manhattan or LA is so filthy rich that they should give 70% of their taxes after $125K to the ineffective US Government?)

• When you live in a working class neighborhood, you know that the biggest problem with assistance for the needy is not the lack of it, but that it goes to the wrong places (like the family who lived across from us for 2 years when we first moved here. The stayed up partying with their friends- and their baby- every night until midnight or later, had cases of beer in their trash every trash day, had the smell of pot constantly wafting from their garage accross the street. And they were on food stamps. Nice.)

I don’t post either of these to make fun of these people or try to shame them. I feel I am better informed and perhaps less afraid than the folks that shout epithets or trade in absurd rumors, but I don’t feel superior. Instead, I post this for all the ‘sphere to see because I have question: Now what?

I have to admit that I pounced on the misperceptions and outright lies in the forwarded e-mail, and I sent a point-by-point refutation, replete with links, but I also thought, if this is what this voter believes this late in the election cycle, even a close relative will probably not succeed in winning the argument—or winning another vote for Obama. After writing my comprehensive reply, I had to add, if your sib doesn’t live in a swing state, you should probably save your breath.

At this stage of the race, that might or might not be good advice, but I am pretty sure that come November 5th, I should come up with a different answer.

I will need a different answer because, rest assured, an Obama victory, no matter how large, will not put an end to the arguments, will not silence all of the doubters, will not pacify all the haters, and will not convince all of the unconvinced.

Over time, I would hope that an Obama Administration could produce results that might ease some minds and even win some converts, but I am not a Pollyanna. Not only will there be people who, for whatever reason, will never accept Obama as president—not to mention, as a successful president—there will be political interests that will work overtime exploit those people and their beliefs, laying the groundwork for the next neoconservative and/or corporatist putsch.

So, what should we do? I can think of all kinds of small-bore things that might work here or there in a specific situation with a specific person, but I want to think in broader terms. We have to live with the people in that video—and I would even like to get some of them to help with tall task of undoing the disasters of the last decade—is there anything that can be said besides “let’s just agree to disagree”. . . or “stfu”. . . or “please stfu!”?

I don’t have a lot of good answers right now, do you?

(cross-posted to Daily Kos and The Seminal)

nyt endorses Obama; makes a mistake

2008-10-27T08:42:00.001-04:00

Easy, easy. . . there’s a semicolon up there. . . so, please, just read on.

the wages of sin: your wages, their sin

2008-10-24T06:49:00.004-04:00

Now that our great and glorious leader Michael Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine ~~Quinn~~ Quisling have succeeded in their power play, here’s a little question to consider this fine fall weekend: at what cost?

I am not asking about the political cost, which is, in many ways, immeasurable—at least as yet—I am talking about the real cost in New York City tax dollars that have already gone or will have to go quite literally to pay homage to our new born king. For along with the millions upon millions that have already been spent out of the mayor’s publicly financed slush fund to buy the votes he needed on the City Council (an impeachable offense, as best I can tell), NYC will now have to spend more taxpayer dollars to defend itself against the lawsuits that naturally had to arise from this extralegal end run around the city charter (two have already been filed, with the promise of more on the way).

It will certainly be in the millions of dollars—how many millions, I can’t say. I doubt anyone in the city government would dare give an estimate.

But, millions and millions of city dollars have been spent, and millions and millions of city dollars will be spent. . . all so that we can keep Mike Bloomberg and his supposedly irreplaceable expertise in place to guide the city through the dire fiscal crisis to come.

* * *

By the way, Mike and Chris caught the eye and ire of the national media on Thursday, making Keith Olbermann’s list of Worst Persons in the World.

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

liar, liar

2008-10-22T07:13:00.004-04:00

Sensing a groundswell of increasingly organized opposition to the Bloomberg-Quinn term limits override plan, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has rush-scheduled a vote on the proposal for tomorrow, Thursday, 10/23.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows a “dramatic swing” away from support for billionaire Bloomberg’s power grab: 51% of NYC voters now oppose a third term for Mayor Mike, up from 42% just two weeks ago. The same poll revealed that city residents prefer changing the term limits law through referendum by a whopping 89% to 7%.

Bloomberg could probably buy himself another election, but has continued to push his cheaper plan. As detailed yesterday, the mayor has used both public dollars from a previously secret slush fund, and donations from his philanthropies to buy what he thinks is enough support inside the City Council to avoid a less predictable plebiscite.

Democracy is messy. Bloomberg is famously phobic of messy.

You know what else can be messy? The facts. So, naturally, Hizzoner (his dishonor?) doesn’t like them, either:

Asked about the public’s preference that term limits be decided through referendum, Mr. Bloomberg said it was too late and too legally problematic to call for a special election or referendum. He also dismissed suggestions that he chose to work through the Council since he could be more confident of the result.

“I’m not trying to manipulate the system for an outcome,” he said, during an event at the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center. . . .

He then hightailed it back to City Hall. . . where he continued to meet in private with nominally wavering council members.

One of those who had been officially undecided, Peter Vallone Jr., decided—he’ll ~~stay bought~~ support the mayor.

“I’m doing what I think is right,” said Mr. Vallone, the son of a former City Council speaker who is also an avid supporter.

Vallone then said, “If you’ll excuse me, I have to go back to counting my money.”

Metaphorically, anyway. Vallone Jr. received $400,000 from Bloomberg’s slush fund (making him the third largest beneficiary), and has been granted a discretionary budget of $1.1 million—about twice the council average—for both 2008 and 2009.

I guess if you take the second-term councilman’s statement to mean that he is doing what he thinks is right for himself, then I guess that Vallone isn’t a liar. . . so I would still need a second liar to justify my headline. . . .

Well, there is billionaire Republican Ronald Lauder, who (as previously mentioned) bankrolled the previous two term limit referendums. Lauder has publicly decided that in Bloomberg’s case, his previous efforts shouldn’t count:

It was Mr. Lauder’s money and advocacy that originally paved the way for term limits, and it was only recently that Mr. Bloomberg convinced a reluctant Mr. Lauder that the economic crisis necessitated a third term for the mayor. In exchange for Mr. Lauder’s support, Mr. Bloomberg promised him a seat on a charter revision commission that would probably try to restore the two-term limit in a subsequent referendum, likely in 2010.

“I believe very strongly that the mayor should get the extra term and the City Council should get a third term,” Mr. Lauder said in an interview. “That is part of the deal. But I never spoke about the first-term council members.”

Well, actually, Lauder is being kind of honest there, isn’t he? He is publicly announcing to all the world that he cut a deal with Michael Bloomberg. Yes, that’s right, the laws can change because two billionaires made a deal.

But only for the mayor and some of the council members—not the first term-ers. Gosh, that’s not how the deal is being sold by Council Speaker Chris Quinn. As she ~~sells~~ tells it, the one time extension to three terms applies to the mayor, the whole council, and the city’s comptroller, public advocate, and five borough presidents. Could the City Council be voting Thursday on something other than what they’ve been told?

I think we’ve found our second liar.

(cross-posted on capitoilette and The Seminal)

impeach Bloomberg

2008-10-21T06:50:00.003-04:00

And, while you’re at it, impeach Quinn, Markowitz, Felder, Recchia, Valone, Dilan, and Sears, too.

I know I should learn more about the rules and bylaws that govern New York City’s impeachment process—and maybe I’ll get to that later—but right now I don’t care. All I know is that there is already a stack of stories on how Mayor Michael Bloomberg has used both personal and public funds in a covertly choreographed attempt to buy the support he needs to override the city’s term limits law, and he can no longer be trusted as an honest steward of our interests.

He has also used our tax dollars for his master plan, so, beyond being forced from office, he probably belongs in jail.

Someday. . . I’ll call upon you to do a service for me. . . .

It has now been reported that Bloomberg and/or Deputy Mayors Linda Gibbs, Edward Skyler, and Kevin Sheekey (all New York City employees, paid with tax dollars, in case that’s not obvious) placed calls to at least five community, arts, and neighborhood groups that had received city contracts and/or large donations from Bloomberg’s private philanthropies. The mayor and his deputies asked if those organizations might testify before the City Council on behalf of Bloomberg, or lobby council members behind he scenes to vote for the mayor’s position postponing term limits.

One leader of a civic group made it clear that it was an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Yet, when representatives from these organizations testified before the council late last week, none revealed their financial ties to Bloomberg.

It has also been revealed that money from the mayor’s previously secret slush fund (it was discovered in June after a similar, City Council Speaker slush fund was exposed) was disproportionately ferried to City Council members who sit on the committee that must first approve Bloomberg’s third term scheme before it can come to a vote before the entire council.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a close ally of the mayor who made her support known last week, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, a vocal advocate for the Bloomberg plan, were also recipients of supersized amounts of Mayor Mike’s munificence.

And, just to reiterate, this largess is public money. It is from a kitty funded by New York City taxpayers.

Does not pass the smell test

Not surprisingly, two mayoral hopefuls are not pleased:

“It is an abuse of power, and it must stop,” said the city’s top financial watchdog, the New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., who may run for mayor next year.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, another likely candidate for mayor, said that “if you rely on the mayor or the administration to fund your organization, saying no when the mayor calls is not an option.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s tactic, he said, “walks right up to the line of coercion, and it’s very corrosive.”

But there are plenty of others from many different sectors that find these abuses equally (or even more) untoward:

Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College, said it was inappropriate for the mayor to be asking the groups that are so dependent on his good graces to take a position on his legislation.

“It’s distasteful. And what’s distasteful about it is leaning on weak people — people who are vulnerable,” Mr. Sherrill said. “The problem is in the implicit threat that if you don’t help, we’re going to remember.”

….

Fred Siegel, a professor of history at Cooper Union who has studied New York City politics for decades, said Mr. Bloomberg had cynically “reversed the flow of money” in politics to build the illusion, if not the reality, of widespread support.

“The traditional politicians are bought by special interest groups, but Bloomberg buys special interest groups,” he said.

But wait, there’s more:

Mr. Bloomberg’s critics argue that changing term limits will not expand choice because it will all but guarantee his re-election, given his willingness, in two previous campaigns, to spend $80 million to win the office.

Gene Russianoff, a senior lawyer for the New York Public Interest Research Group, said that asking groups who receive city money to support the term limits bill “looks like an administration desperately abusing its power to stay in office. It just does not pass the smell test.”

Betsy Gotbaum, New York City’s public advocate, called the tactic “wrong.” She added, “You have the right to give all the money you want, but because you give support, you shouldn’t have to get support.”

Well, “you”—meaning Billionaire Bloomberg—might have the right to give all you/he wants. . . of his money! But if public funds are allocated on a quid pro quo, that would be not just smelly, but almost certainly illegal.

And, though not yet illegal, perhaps we need a law that requires full disclosure of financial ties from those testifying before public bodies. There needs to be some counter balance, some disincentive for this and future mayors and their client organizations.

Mike Bloomberg’s obscene wealth and the way he used it to pollute the electoral process has always been problematic (to say the least), but this current power play has crossed a new and more dangerous line. The use of personal funds to create the illusion of widespread support and to, let’s face it, bribe public officials should probably be made illegal. The use of taxpayer dollars to do the same sorts of things almost certainly already is.

Forget a third term; Mayor Bloomberg should not be allowed to finish his second.

(h/t DM)

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

counterpoint taken

2008-10-20T10:43:00.001-04:00

I agree with Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter:

The question for the new president then becomes not whether he's moving too fast but too slow. The test becomes whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of the American people. That is a fundamentally liberal idea.

This was offered as a “counterpoint,” as the magazine calls it, to Jon Meacham’s cover story—to which I say, point not taken.

what is the opposite of leadership? vol. II: NYC edition

2008-10-17T09:38:00.003-04:00

Just in case you were buying into this whole “continuity of government” argument:

Mr. Bloomberg, who usually delegates the details of the legislative process to aides, personally tried to corral the 26 votes needed in the 51-member Council to pass the measure. He has started calling wavering members to press his case, arguing that the economic trouble requires “continuity of government.” A person who was briefed on one of the conversations said the mayor told members fearful of a backlash that if they voted to allow themselves a third term, “people do forget about things like this.”

Councilman Peter F. Vallone, who said he had spoken with Mr. Bloomberg within the last 48 hours, said the mayor told him it would be too “distracting and time consuming” to hold a referendum on his plan.

Oh, you bet I have more to say. . . .

Hank Paulson earns his nickname

2008-10-15T08:08:00.001-04:00

Howdy-ho!

how cute. . .

2008-10-14T07:32:00.003-04:00

Hank is going to let Bush pretend he’s still in charge. . . .

The Treasury Department, in its boldest move yet, is expected to announce a plan on Tuesday to invest up to $250 billion in banks, according to officials. The United States is also expected to guarantee new debt issued by banks for three years — a measure meant to encourage the banks to resume lending to one another and to customers, officials said.

And the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will offer an unlimited guarantee on bank deposits in accounts that do not bear interest — typically those of businesses — bringing the United States in line with several European countries, which have adopted such blanket guarantees.

. . . .

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. outlined the plan to nine of the nation’s leading bankers at an afternoon meeting, officials said. He essentially told the participants that they would have to accept government investment for the good of the American financial system.

Of the $250 billion, which will come from the $700 billion bailout approved by Congress, half is to be injected into nine big banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, officials said. The other half is to go to smaller banks and thrifts. The investments will be structured so that the government can benefit from a rebound in the banks’ fortunes.

President Bush plans to announce the measures on Tuesday morning. . . .

Henry Paulson, who himself had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this equity injection plan, worked out the details in private with the biggest players on Monday. . . and then kept it on the QT so that Still President Bush could come out on Tuesday morning and make it seem like he had some role to play in all this.

He didn’t.

Truth is, Mr. Hanky didn’t much either. Democrats in Congress inserted the language (over Paulson’s objections) in the TARP bill that gave Treasury the authority to do this; Paulson then did nothing for ten days, until markets tanked, credit got tighter, and UK PM Gordon Brown got most of the Europe on board with a similar plan. Hank Paulson is just desperately trying to keep up.

Meanwhile, Hank’s old pals at Goldman Sachs have cut a deal with New York state to headquarter their newly configured full-service bank in New York City. So, they get more from the federal government, and a state tax break, too.

How cute.

(cross-posted on The Seminal and capitoilette. . . where you will also find something about a nasty "typo" on some New York ballots. . . .)

take that, Hank!

2008-10-13T07:50:00.005-04:00

Take that, Hank Paulson!

Take that, Alan Greenspan!

In fact, take that, whole freakin' conservative movement!

Paul Krugman wins Nobel prize.

UPDATE: a little more detail on the award.

(Of course, I just posted about Hank, and Paul, and me on Friday. . . and there is a follow-up today on cpaitoilette.)

Hank, if you’re reading this. . .

2008-10-10T07:23:00.001-04:00

It seems like the Treasury Secretary, after yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, is now watching everyone stampede out (trampling many on the way), and waiting until the fire gets big enough to justify his earlier histrionics.

And, really, if you’re reading this, Mr. Paulson, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do. . . .

But who do you really love?

2008-10-08T05:47:00.003-04:00

Just a quick observation:

Number of times John McCain mentioned Senator Joe Lieberman in the two presidential debates: 4

Number of times McCain mentioned his vice presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin: 0

. . . .

Bonus observation regarding McCain’s affinities:

Number of times John McCain said “My friends” in the first debate: 2

Number of times McCain said “My friends” in the second debate: 19

Olbermann puts the blame on Mame

2008-10-07T06:04:00.003-04:00

On last night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC host delivered one of his patented “Special Comments,” this time raking Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin over the coals for yet again cheapening the quality of debate in the presidential race, this time by accusing Senator Barack Obama of “pallin’ around with terrorists.”

While I don't disagree by-and-large with the substance of the segment, Olbermann failed to do what I think is most important when attacking Palin.

Palin is, to my eye, a horrible person, certainly unqualified, overtly corrupt, viciously ambitious—a joke, really (and a bad one)—but at the end of the day, no one votes for the Veep. The biggest problem with Palin is that John McCain picked her. McCain showed in this, like in so much else, his complete lack of sound judgment, his fascination with the maverick-ie gamble to buttress his bogus brand, and his track record of putting his own ambition above any other consideration.

Any attack on Palin has to remind voters that she was put in this position by a cynical candidate McCain. Keith came close to that point when he explained that he forgives Palin—because she is in a situation “beyond her ability to cope”—but he needed to make it explicit: You can't forgive Palin without blaming McCain.

. . .

As for the title, I think I’ll let Rita explain:

“ace” McCain

2008-10-06T09:12:00.004-04:00

The LA Times goes somewhere I have resisted going for a very long time:

Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator

Three crashes early in his career led Navy officials to question or fault his judgment.

Yup. It’s not like many didn’t know this, it’s just that we weren’t supposed to talk smack about a “hero.” Well, the LAT has the goods: John McCain was a shitty pilot, a “flat-hatter” or show-off, who was reckless and negligent in the cockpit. McCain’s actions were found to be suspect in four of the five planes that he lost—including when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967—and in at least three of the incidents, McCain lied about the circumstances of his crash.

Hmmm. . . inattentive, reckless, an inability to learn from his mistakes, a cavalier attitude about the safety and property of others, and ready to lie to cover his ass. . . sounds pretty much like campaign ’08. More evidence that McCain is the same asshole he’s always been.

bailout homework

2008-10-06T08:59:00.002-04:00

Adam Davidson, who reports on matters financial for NPR’s Planet Money and PRI’s This American Life tends to describe the credit hysteria of recent months in more dire terms than I would use (again, it’s not that I don’t think there are big problems with our economy, it’s just that I just don’t think that the way the problem has been framed promotes solutions that benefit the majority). However, oddly enough (or maybe this isn’t odd at all), Davidson also sees reason for some hope based on language he believes made its way into the final bailout, er, um, excuse me, rescue bill that passed the House and was signed into law by President Bush on Friday.

Continued on capitoilette. . . .

jeepers, veepers

2008-10-03T07:37:00.002-04:00

Well, bygollygosh, Sarah—is it OK if I call you Sarah?—ya’ didn’t stare blankly into the camera like a moose in headlights, or make sick allover that pretty jacket yer wearin’, so I guess you can be vice president now fershure.

. . .

And let me use this opportunity to add a line I forgot to work into my other post:

Joe Biden: the attack dog you’d actually want as a pet.

I’ve already got a shoebox in the back of my closet with your name on it

2008-10-02T19:21:00.003-04:00

Almost just in time for the debate:

Earlier this year, Topps issued a 12-card insert in its 2008 Topps Baseball product called “Campaign 2008” featuring Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden and nine other presidential hopefuls.

On Oct. 1, Topps announced that it has added an additional subject to the set: Republican VP hopeful Sarah Palin.

Palin will have 2 cards: Pictured as you see her today and pictured on a “rookie card” as an Alaskan Beauty Queen.

Topps says the Palin cards will be available the second week of October. . . about three weeks before most of us will resolve to forget about Sarah Palin forever.

I don’t think these will quite get up to, say, Nolan Ryan rookie card value, but, what with her flash-in-the-pan celebrity, maybe it will be a fun addition to your collection. In fact, that gives me an idea for tonight’s debate. . .

If anybody reading this can get the attention of Joe Biden, please forward him this guaranteed, sure fire, can’t miss zinger:

I knew Nolan Ryan, I saw Nolan Ryan play, and Sarah, you’re no Nolan Ryan.

(h/t LZ)

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

who you gonna call?

2008-10-02T07:57:00.004-04:00

From today’s NYT:

In a hastily convened meeting in the conference room of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the two men presented, in the starkest terms imaginable, the outline of the $700 billion plan to Congressional leaders. “If we don’t do this,” Mr. Bernanke said, according to several participants, “we may not have an economy on Monday.”

I don’t know about you, but I find this paragraph outrageous. Ben Bernanke’s hysterical proclamation—or threat, depending on how you read it—is in quotes, and it seems to have multiple sources confirming it, so I have to believe the Chairman of the Federal Reserve actually said this—and that just blows me away!

This is the man we have entrusted with setting US monetary policy, with keeping a hand on the rudder, with backstopping our entire economy, and the best he can offer at a time of “crisis”—a crisis that any casual observer could have seen coming at least a year ago—is essentially a slightly more serious rendition of the "Dogs and Cats" speech from Ghost Busters.

Honestly, if I’m Pelosi, I consider throwing him out of my offices and telling to come back with his resignation. (I know, Pelosi can’t fire the Fed Chair—but you get my drift, right?) This is a shock doctrine holdup, plain and simple, and if you didn’t suspect it before, this scene makes it imminently obvious now.

That any competent person in Bernanke’s position wouldn’t have started conversations before it got to this point, and that he wouldn’t have come in with multiple options, well in advance of a drop-dead date, is completely unconscionable. That the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader, the chairs of both houses’ Banking Committees, and, most of all, the President of the United States hasn’t come out and said as much is unacceptable.

And, worst of all, of course, is that the President, the Senate, and, soon, I expect, the House are all set to reward this pathetic performance.

I think all of America has been slimed.

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

what is up with these McTies?

2008-09-30T02:51:00.003-04:00

(M. Lyons, Getty)

Honestly, would you trust this guy to. . . well, to do much of anything? The eye rolling and sarcasm, the angry, whiny tone and manic behavior, that would be enough, but those ties! I previously decried Friday’s hypnotastic disaster, but I think Monday’s choice in neckwear may be worse. It looks like he forgot to pack a tie, so he just grabbed a tablecloth from that little Italian place on the corner and wrapped it around his throat.

The gingham check is bad, but the width is even worse. It is not completely obvious in this picture, but this tie is HUGE! It looked on TV like it’s five inches wide! Dare I suggest this was one he had leftover from his first campaign?

You know the joke “I’ve got neckties older than that”? Well, no one has ties older than John McCain, but, clearly, John McCain has ties older than many voters.

for whom the cow bell tolls. . .

2008-09-29T05:55:00.004-04:00

I grew up a Dodgers fan, and I still am, first and foremost, a Dodgers fan, but, having lived all of my adult life in New York City, I have seen many more games at Shea Stadium than at my beloved Chavez Ravine. I only came to this realization on Sunday as I took in one last game from Section 21, Row C, Seat 14—my summer Sunday home for the last decade. Here are a few random moments from my day.

McCain’s Gerald Ford moment

2008-09-27T03:10:00.003-04:00

Looking back on 1976, many historians and casual observers alike will tell you that if President Gerald Ford ever had a chance against challenger Jimmy Carter, that chance disappeared when, during a debate, the president forcefully declared, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.”

Ford was given a chance to correct his assertion in a follow-up, but he stuck to his guns, even underscoring the point by saying that Yugoslavia, Romania, and Poland were “independent” and “autonomous.”

Here’s what Time magazine had to say about what they called “The Blooper Heard Round the World” back in October of 1976:

Thus, in his second debate with Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford made what could well be the most damaging statement of his career. For any politician, calling Eastern Europe free would be an amazing gaffe. For a President, especially one who is running partly on a campaign theme of experience in foreign policy, the mistake reawakened many voters' suspicions that Ford is a bumbier [sic].

Fast-forward 32 years, and a candidate who is, yes, “running partly on a campaign theme of experience in foreign policy” makes a mistake that is possibly a bigger fo-pol faux pas than Ford’s.

You heard that right, John McCain called the Pakistan of the late 1990s a “failed state.” To quote Max Bergmann, that is simply “not true.”

McCain just badly misstated the history of Pakistan. For someone claiming extensive foreign policy knowledge, this is simply not acceptable.

[emphasis added]

Darn, if that don’t sound familiar. Here (again, courtesy of Bergmann) is what really happened:

Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999 when he deposed Nawaz Sharif - who recently participated in the latest election. The coup followed the 1999 war in Kashmir with India and was due to a power struggle with Sharif, not due to Pakistan being a "failed state." The United States did not welcome the Musharraf coup. Instead the government of the United States imposed sanctions against this action.

Remember Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1999. Did McCain believe that there was a failed state that possessed nuclear weapons? If he did he showed no concern at the time.

And I do think that McCain’s blunder is bigger than Ford’s. While Gerald Ford made the mistake of garbling his talking points on whether the Soviets had gotten the better of a 1975 trade pact—and then, rather than correcting his error, tried instead to look more sure and presidential—John McCain seemed to believe his contention that Pakistan was a failed state prior to the military coup that elevated General Pervez Musharraf.

Either that, or McCain was just vamping—which, given the import of the office he seeks and the delicate nature of US-Pakistani relations, is probably worse.

One might say that such behavior is erratic or unstable. To paraphrase Time: it might even have reawakened many voters’ suspicions that McCain is dangerous.

Will such a dangerous gaffe hurt McCain the way Ford’s big-league bumble derailed his campaign? Claiming that Poland was not under Soviet control is thought to have swung votes in crucial northern states with large Polish-American populations. Whether Pakistani-Americans in this cycle’s swing states will take similar offense at McCain’s slight (or whether voters of any stripe will be more basically appalled) remains to be seen.

(h/t Rachel Maddow)

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

and the winner of tonight’s presidential debate is. . .

2008-09-26T23:59:00.008-04:00

John McCain’s tie!

Not because I liked it, but because its not-safe-for-TV stripe pattern grabbed most of the attention.

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but it just amazes me that Team McCain keeps making TV production gaffs. From the primary night in front of the “green screen of death” to the Walter Reed Jr. High lawn and blue screen of death at the RNC—and now to his moiré triggering tie—the McCain campaign keeps staging things terribly for television.

I expect to have a more, shall we say, substantive set of observations later. . . tune in tomorrow.

* Again, the TIE won, not McCain.

McCain: still crazy after all these years

2008-09-26T06:17:00.003-04:00

Well, if I said once, I’ve said it a thousand times: once an asshole, always an asshole.

No wonder John McCain "suspended" his presidential campaign Wednesday to focus in a bipartisan manner on a grave national crisis -- he's been pulling the same stunt for nearly a decade now, boosting his poll ratings by pretending not to care about them.

You probably remember his suspension of the Republican National Convention's first day of business in order to raise funds and awareness for the victims of Hurricane Gustav (a move that, besides allowing umpteen convention speakers to praise McCain's selfless patriotism, neatly airbrushed the unpopular sitting president and vice president from the proceedings).

But McCain first used the tactic to spectacular effect way back in March 1999, when -- even though his White House run had been chugging along for five months -- he postponed the "official announcement" of his candidacy so that the nation could focus as one on the week-old war in Kosovo. "It's not appropriate at this time," the somber senator said then, "to launch a political campaign."

How did that play out? As McCain's sympathetic first biographer, Robert Timberg, wrote, "His decision amounted to a masterful political stroke."

This, of course, confirms a couple of things for us. First, it goes to show that this idea that there once lived a good and principled McCain that was replaced somewhere during the last eight years with this cynical, pandering model is nothing but another McMyth. The Arizona Republican was an angry, unstable, self-absorbed, preening asshole the day he landed in Washington, and he is just the same today. Second, the “suspension,” if not abundantly clear already, was never intended to be anything more than a campaign stunt.

But there is something different about this post—the above quote is from a column by Matt Welch, editor of Reason. It is not often that you are going to find me singing the praises of a prominent libertarian. Well, get your cameras ready; I am about to do it some more.

But if McCain's latest "country-first" outburst is a mostly empty symbol in terms of actual campaigning, it's a meaningful one in other ways. By taking what was originally Obama's behind-the-scenes initiative of cobbling together a joint candidate statement on the bailout package and opportunistically turning that into yet another chance to portray his patriotism as shinier than his opponent's, McCain is ripping what little facade remains over his campaign. This is not an election about ideas or policy; it's an election about a Great Man, facing down an interloper.

The upside to running a Great Man campaign against Obama is obvious: The Illinois senator is untested and comparatively unvetted at a time of war. . . .

And, in general, the more of the next few weeks that can be used up stressing vague issues of patriotism and "cleaning up Wall Street," the better McCain's chances of continuing to avoid any talk of the elements of his record that key parts of his GOP coalition despise. . . .

But as many Great Men come to learn, there is a colossal downside built into running a campaign on outsized personal virtue. The line between stoic, honorable service and showy moral vanity is oftentimes difficult to maintain.

And when a candidate confuses his own political ambitions with the fortunes of his country, that's when Great Men turn into self- parodies.

"I have craved distinction in my life," McCain wrote in his 2002 political memoir, "Worth the Fighting For." "I have wanted renown and influence for their own sake. That is, of course, the great temptation of public life. ... I have never been able to conquer it permanently, but I have tried."

Don't say he didn't warn us.

Welch has spent years chronicling the dick circus that McCain calls his career, and I think that perspective has paid off here. I am, myself, a little embarrassed at how much space I have expended on McSame’s shenanigans, rather than the real issues of the day. But McCain and Palin are like that proverbial car wreck—and you can’t help but rubberneck. The difference here is that rather than driving by that wreck, in the case of these characters, the wreck is heading straight at us—so, even if it’s hypnotizing to watch, it’s still probably a good idea to sound the horn.

Interested in more honking? Click on over to capitoilette. . . .

sounds like an asshole I used to know

2008-09-25T08:08:00.005-04:00

Senator Barack Obama quietly reaches out to Senator John McCain, McCain says "I’ll get back to you on that," Obama waits, and then McCain goes public with a self-serving, grandstanding statement.

Does that sound familiar? It sure did to me.

From a post I wrote on February 7, 2006:

On a weekend when his party was air-testing the “Hillary Clinton is too angry to be president” message, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain publicly rebuked Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in what Matt Stoller called “the single most bitter, nasty letter I have ever seen from any Senator.”

Obama had approached the Senator from Arizona about working together on ethics legislation, and then sent a letter asking if McCain would think about co-sponsoring a plan drafted by moderate Democrats.

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere," McCain writes.

When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. . . . I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.

And just to make sure Obama really, really understood how he felt, McCain closed with:

I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

And McCain’s motivation in breaking with the time-honored tradition of not publicly criticizing other members of the millionaire’s club? Atrios puts it this way:

The real subtext of this story is that McCain wants an opportunity to preen in front of the cameras and an adoring media as he waxes nonsensically about ‘reform’ for months as we head into the presidential primary season. Oh, and that McCain is pretty much an asshole.

Pretty much.

I had pretty much backed off using the McAsshole epithet in recent months in an effort to concentrate on the epic failures that are McCain’s policy positions, but when you read about the events of Wednesday—September 24, 2008—I really have to call a. . . well, I have to call an asshole an asshole.

It seems pretty clear now that the Obama campaign reached out to McCain first about issuing a joint statement on the economic crisis and bailout. While team Obama waited, either for a response from the McCain camp or for language to further negotiations, McCain unilaterally contacted the press to announce that he was “suspending” his campaign and returning to Washington to. . . actually, not sure what he plans to do except parachute into an institution that he hasn’t visited since April and, um, preen in front of the cameras.

That this move was anything but a political tactic, an attempt to reverse course on a really bad ten days on the Good Ship McCain, has been belied by the day’s events, the fact that nothing changed in the financial markets or on Capitol Hill between Monday and Wednesday, the 52% showing for Obama in Wednesday’s WaPo poll (along with many other bad numbers for McCain), the continued front-page focus on McCain’s lies about campaign manager/lobbyist Rick Davis’s ties to Freddie Mac, revelations that McCain hadn’t spent enough time prepping for Friday’s debate, Johnny Mac’s meeting with rich backer Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Chris Dodd’s comments to Rachel Maddow that the Connecticut Senator had heard from Obama “numerous times,” but had “never heard from McCain on the issue” of the economic crisis, the comedy-rich cancellation of McCain’s appearance on David Letterman (only to be caught using the time to sit down with Katie Couric), and the fact that McCain is, as of this writing, still in New York, likely on his way to shake a few hands at the meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, before he finds his way to DC for what has now become a White House photo op.

And, of course, there was that accidentally leaked memo telling McCain surrogates how to spin this “suspension” to the press.

One’s gotta ask, “Just what does ‘suspend the campaign’ mean?”

Oh, wait, let me rephrase that: “Just what does ‘suspend the campaign’ mean, asshole?

(cross-posted on The Seminal and Daily Kos)

country club first

2008-09-24T20:50:00.006-04:00

By now most of you know about McCain’s call to suspend the campaign, as well as Friday’s debate, in order to concentrate on fixing the Bush-McCain-Gramm financial crisis. That’s supposed to make him look all presidential, above the fray, putting, as they love to belabor, “country first.”

But the timing of this—and the timeline of McCain’s Wednesday behavior—tells quite a different story.

The day started with Team Obama contacting the McCain campaign to draft a joint statement detailing what both presidential candidates could agree upon moving forward on this week’s bailout debate. While Obama’s people were waiting for a response, however, McCain was exercising his leadership skills by taking a private meeting with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the superrich international financier who once supported the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, but recently tried to make a big deal of her switch to McCain because she believed that Barack Obama was. . . wait for it. . . “elitist.”

So, to recap: Obama takes the lead by trying to hammer out a joint statement, McCain leaves Obama hanging while he rubs elbows with a rich backer, and then McCain announces he is “suspending” his campaign.

The Obama folks are still waiting on McCain to get back to them about the statement.

(h/t Gem Spa)

Just Breaking: Still President Bush has now weighed in with a McCain bailout plan (that would be a plan to bailout Sen. McCain, not any actual plan to fix the crisis that could have been authored by the Arizona blowhard), inviting both presidential candidates to the a White House powwow with other congressional leaders on Thursday. Obama has already accepted.

And Now Breaking: The two campaigns have finally released that “Joint Statement.” ~~When I find the text, I will post a link.~~

The American people are facing a moment of economic crisis. No matter how this began, we all have a responsibility to work through it and restore confidence in our economy. The jobs, savings, and prosperity of the American people are at stake.  

“Now is a time to come together – Democrats and Republicans – in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people. The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail.  

This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

But, Obama wanted to say more. . . . Quoting the official Obama-Biden blog:

Speaking for himself, Senator Obama outlined the following principles that he calls on Senator McCain to support:

I believe that several core principles should guide this legislation.

First, there must be oversight. We should not hand over a blank check to the discretion of one man. We support an independent, bipartisan board to ensure accountability and complete transparency.

Second, we need to protect taxpayers. There should be a path for taxpayers to recover their money, and to turn a profit if Wall Street prospers.

Third, no Wall Street executive should profit from taxpayer dollars. This plan cannot be a welfare program for CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility has contributed to this crisis.

Fourth, we must help families who are struggling to stay in their homes. We cannot bail out Wall Street without helping millions of families facing foreclosure on Main Street.

Fifth, we both agree that this financial rescue package should move on its own without any earmarks or other measures. We have different views about the need for other action, but this must be a clean bill.

This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. This is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem – this is an American problem. Now, we must find an American solution.

To me, this reads as if the first paragraph was hammered out pretty easily, early in the day—it’s really hard to disagree with much there—but Sen. Obama wanted to go further, and was waiting for feedback from McCain. After a day of waiting while McCain suspended his campaign by talking to a wealthy campaign contributor, and later to CBS anchor Katie Couric, and then holing up in New York with his ~~soul~~ running mate, with events moving forward, the Obama team decided to just agree to release what they had and reiterate the additional points, the ones that the Illinois Democrat has been stressing all week.

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

MORE on Wednesday's campaign antics now up on capitoilette. . . .

damn yankees: Steinbrenner. . . and Paulson!

2008-09-22T18:01:00.003-04:00

Who would of thought that the connection between the end of Yankee Stadium and the end of capitalism as we know it was anything more than metaphorical?

I was surprised, too.

McCain attacks ally once floated as his possible vp

2008-09-19T00:44:00.006-04:00

Attempts to eat his own; winds up putting foot in mouth.

Republican presidential wannabe John McCain, desperate to find his footing on the US economic crisis, chose to attack Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox in a speech in Cedar Rapids, IA, today.

“The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission, kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino,” McCain said.

“The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president and in my view, has betrayed the public's trust. If I were president today, I would fire him.”

McCain has been trying to find a way to distance himself from the Bush-era deregulation that he has consistently supported, and Cox was likely seen as the low hanging fruit—problem is, he’s not low-hanging enough. As ABC News has noted (h/t Sam Stein), “while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.”

But that’s not the only absurd angle on McCain’s latest attempt to dance away from his record as a supporter of the system that has created the current economic crisis. McCain was part of the Senate that unanimously confirmed Cox in 2005, and the Arizona senator has said little about Cox since. And, as noted today by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), McCain has actually been to the right of Cox on regulatory issues.

How simpatico are Chris Cox and Johnny-Mac? Well, it was only this spring that Cox was considered one of the frontrunners for the Vice Presidential slot on the Republican ticket. Here’s Quin Hillyer writing for the uber-conservative American Spectator:

Chris Cox: The best choice [for VP], bar none. This thoughtful and reform-minded chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission made his name for 16 years as the brainiest and perhaps most principled Reaganite conservative in Congress, as well as one of the best on TV. In a brilliant column two weeks ago at this site, Lisa Fabrizio laid out the full argument in Cox's favor. Other columnists have also written that he would make a good Veep choice, among them Lisa Schiffren of National Review Online, Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics, and the reviewer for Exurbanleague.com, which is the top-ranked conservative blog in McCain's home state of Arizona. Ditto for an article yesterday in the Financial Times and a column yesterday by John Gizzi of Human Events.

Cox is well thought of by just about every conservative columnist around, and respected by the David Broder institutionalists for his brains, diligence, and decency. He could probably help at least a little in Minnesota, where he grew up, and of course he is a favorite of the Californians he represented in Congress. Of great significance, perhaps, McCain himself was asked two Fridays ago at a bloggers' briefing which states he thought he might be able to move from the Democratic to the Republican column, and his first answer, the one he focused most on, was California. And McCain is sure to appreciate Cox's grit in coming back from a horrendous off-road vehicle accident three decades ago that left him partially paralyzed for a while.

Two days ago, McCain proposed “a 9-11 style commission” to look into the causes of our economic crisis—I believe that was the same day that John Boy boasted that as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, he oversaw every aspect of the US economy (heckuva job, Johnny, btw). Today, the senator says that after he becomes president—in four months—he will fire a regulator he helped confirm (even though he can’t actually fire him and, as is being reported, Cox will likely step down at the end of the Bush Administration, anyway). The economic ship is taking on water and listing heavily, and McCain is still rearranging the deckchairs. Sad enough on its face, but infuriating (and the height of dishonesty, really) when you realize that John McCain was not only one of the builders of this boat, he helped drive it headlong into the iceberg.

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

More economic news and musings today over on capitoilette.

through the legal looking glass

2008-09-18T07:55:00.003-04:00

By this late date, it is not news that the Bush Administration has played fast and loose with the law—burying their wrongdoing in a mirror maze of official obfuscation, tortured logic, and secret legal opinions. What apparently is news is that flouting the law and not telling anyone isn’t technically illegal.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Brad Miller wants the Department of Justice to come out of the dark and embrace the sunlight.

Miller, a Raleigh Democrat, introduced legislation today that would force the Justice agency to give more information to Congress about what he calls “secret law.”

Such secrecy has been used in the past, as in a memo by legal counsel John Woo in 2003 that allowed for extreme interrogation techniques, according to Miller.

The bill would require the U.S. Attorney General to tell Congress whenever the executive branch decides it is not bound by federal law.

Coming as it did on Constitution Day—the 221st anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution—this one really has to make your head spin. We actually need to pass legislation to compel the Attorney General of the United States to report to the legislative branch when the executive branch plans to ~~ignore~~ violate federal law.

There is apparently some sort of loophole here? That’s what the very brief article tells us, but, seriously, folks, what are we talking about: is the loophole that the White House is allowed to violate the law, or just that they aren’t somehow required to tell anyone when they do?

While I certainly support any legislation that provides for more sunlight in such matters, when the President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, or any of a number of executive branch employees unilaterally decide that some laws were made to be broken, taking them to task for not telling you seems a terribly small first step.

By all means, make the executive declare openly which laws they plan to ~~ignore~~ violate—and then haul them before Congress when they do.

And then punish them for their crimes.

It’s a way of doing things best summed up by the phrase “A government of laws; not a government of men.” I don’t know how they roll in Wonderland, but that’s how we handle it in the United States. . . or at least used to.

(cross-posted on The Seminal and Daily Kos)

omg! it’s older than John McCain!

2008-09-17T09:48:00.001-04:00

But is it in any better shape?

wah tf?

2008-09-16T07:19:00.004-04:00

Walking on the always delightful Doyers Street this weekend, I was horrified to find yellow DOH stickers on the window of my favorite dim sum joint, Nom Wah Tea Parlor. It is my favorite not so much for the food, which is fine, but for the decor and atmosphere—seemingly unchanged in 50 years. . . or more. There is never a crowd, and there is pretty much always a card game in back.

On Saturday night, the card game was still going behind those citrine warnings; let's hope that the rest of us get to play again soon.

(Nom Wah almond cookies – photo by me, 2003)

the view to a kill?

2008-09-12T17:39:00.002-04:00

Is it possible that the women of The View are the members of the establishment media with enough credibility and independence to call out Mr. Straight Talk, John McCain, for his never-ending string of lies?

Just maybe. . . .

so, what, it’s 9/11 week now?

2008-09-11T03:58:00.002-04:00

I first noticed it on Sunday night. . . that would be Sunday, 9/7. . . and have seen it every following night this week. Here is my photo from September 10th, 2008.

I have generally been a supporter of this “Tribute in Light,” as it is called. I like the concept, even if the execution looks a bit half-assed (the columns are too thin and too close together, and they move around a bit from year to year, rather than consistently approximating the position of the World Trade Center in the New York skyline). And, questions about what kind of fuel is used to generate the electricity needed for that long night’s journey into day do leave me with an uneasy feeling about the lights being a symbol of some of the problems that lead to the attacks as much as it is a tribute to the victims. But, all that aside, I thought the lights were a relatively elegant and fairly solemn commemoration of the attacks and the lives lost on 9/11/2001.

Relatively elegant and fairly solemn compared to so much of the political opportunism and grand guignol that typically surround remembrances of the attacks; relatively elegant and fairly solemn if the columns of light appear on 9/11, on the exact anniversary, and are not trotted out every now and then, popping up here and there, until they become little more than Vegas-style spectacle, stripped of the majority of their meaning.

Which is why seeing the towers of light on September 7th. . . and 8th. . . and 9th. . . and 10th disturbs me.

It has, obviously, been the case that our country’s “leadership” has used the memory and images of the attacks for personal and political gain almost form the very second of impact, but it was somewhat heartening to believe that New York, and New Yorkers, having felt the impact of the attacks more personally, having lost friends and colleagues, having inhaled and tasted the dust of the collapsed towers, still considered the events of the day, and the day itself, basically sacrosanct.

But, living as I do in New York, I am beginning to see a shift. “Nine-eleven,” the event, and “ground zero,” the scene of the event, have become, for better or worse, a kind of tourist attraction—and I think that New York City, the government entity (rather than the community), has noticed.

Seven years removed from the carnage of 2001, people still come from every part of the country and every corner of the globe to catch a glimpse of “ground zero” (or, these days, to catch a glimpse of the fence around the construction site that used to be ground zero). I am sure that many of those that visit do so with the utmost respect, but one need only take a gander at the tee-shirts, crystal figurines, and snow globes sold all around lower Manhattan to know that something other than solemn tribute is also at play here.

As a resident, I shouldn’t complain about tourists coming to my city and spending money—and generally, I don’t—but ground zero isn’t the Statue of Liberty or the Bronx Zoo, and 9/11 isn’t President’s Day or the Fourth of July. There is nothing fun about gazing on the site where thousands died, and the anniversary of the attack is nothing to celebrate.

But the city has trotted out some extra World Trade Center artifacts this week, and a pair of rusted beams from the destroyed towers are on display today and tomorrow in Battery Park (visitors are being allowed to sign these beams or write their own tributes—make of that what you will)—and now the Tribute in Light is a weeklong feature in the night sky. Can it be long before “9/11 weekend” is a blackout day for the airlines, travel agents offer ground zero package tours, or Macy’s offers special September 11th savings?

Someday (someday, and I am not holding my breath, nor am I really in any hurry) New York will have a permanent 9/11 memorial structured around the original WTC footprint. And that memorial will be surrounded by overly tall and mostly ugly buildings that will likely require so much security as to render the entire area less a place of remembrance and quiet contemplation than a zone of tedious inconvenience and harried hurly-burly. Until then, especially in this electoral year where we have the chance to cast out the opportunistic leaders that have dishonored the memories of the 9/11 dead, perhaps we can use this day to contemplate how far we’ve come and all that we’ve managed to accomplish in seven years. . .

. . . uh, yeah, well, on second thought, those columns of light sure do look pretty cool out there.

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

hey, McCain, get the hell off my lawn!

2008-09-09T07:00:00.000-04:00

I’ll admit that I missed it, mesmerized as I was by the soaring rhetoric that Republican Senator John McCain used to inspire the thousands of mostly male white people assembled in the Xcell Energy Center last Thursday night; apparently, there was some talk about the background. . . .

what's in a name?

2008-09-05T07:31:00.004-04:00

Even in a misspelled one, the answer is: not much.

more of McSame

2008-09-04T06:42:00.001-04:00

Many suspected it, and Wednesday night served as proof; John McCain picked a running mate that is able to do something that he can’t: read a teleprompter.

The bar was set very low for the small-town mayor turned small-state governor turned last-minute Republican VP pick, so it should surprise no one that Sarah Palin was able to meet and in some ways exceed expectations. Still, Palin, who is reported to have practiced this speech for over six hours, was an impressive mouthpiece for a litany of Republican attacks—especially impressive when you consider that the McCain team wrote most of the speech for someone else.

And since the speech was supposedly drafted for another mouth, it is not surprising that Palin’s primetime coming out party did little to introduce the McVeep to American voters. (And why would you want to spend any more time talking about a woman, Palin, under investigation for possible abuse of gubernatorial power, a woman with close ties to oil lobbyists and to indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a woman who has fought hard for the boondoggle earmarks that McCain says he’s against, a woman that is opposed to reproductive choice, even in cases of rape and incest, a woman who has ties to a party that advocates Alaskan secession—through violence, if necessary—a woman who demanded personal loyalty oaths from public officials, tried to ban books from the public library, and raised taxes as mayor and as governor?) It did, however, remind all of us why the last decade of Republican domination has been such an abject failure.

For Sarah Palin chose neither to provide a substantive defense of the Bush-Cheney policies that she and McCain plan to continue, or offer any examples of what another four years of Republican “leadership” might do differently. Instead, Palin offered better than a half-hour of partisan, Karl Rove-style attacks—as rife with flat-out lies as they were with snide, cynical jokes.

Palin lied about her support for the “Bridge to Nowhere” (she was for it before she was against it). Palin lied about Obama’s record as a legislator (Obama has authored or helped pass ethics reform, healthcare expansion, aid for wounded vets, incentives for alternative energy, safeguards against “loose nukes,” and a system to put federal funding details in a searchable database). And Palin joined with other Republican speakers on Wednesday night to belittle the hard and important work of community organizers everywhere (community organizing is not only noble work, often for no or low pay, that requires a day-in-day-out connection with people not privileged enough to have private jets to sell on eBay, community organizing was hailed by none other than President George H.W. Bush).

Indeed, it was perhaps most stunning that a woman billed (ad nauseam) as a “Hockey Mom” and as “relate-able” spent so much time acting just like all the other millionaires and billionaires who took the Xcel Center stage before her. (The combined worth of Meg Whitman, Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, and Rudolph Giuliani currently tops $4 billion—more than the gross national product of any of over a third of the world’s countries.) For, while Palin’s choreographed sniping might have won her cheers from the diehard Republicans inside the hall, it only helped accentuate the distance between her and the America she hopes to help govern. Wednesday night thus served to demonstrate not that Sarah Palin is fit to lead us into the future, but that she, like her soul mate, John McCain, is closely aligned with the failed Bush-era politics of division and destruction. Sarah, like John, is more of McSame.

Perhaps, then, it should come as no surprise that Palin did such a good job mouthing Republican insiders’ boilerplate rhetoric. No surprise at all.

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

open mike night at the RNC: Murphy calls Palin pick cynical; Noonan declares race over for McCain

2008-09-03T18:06:00.003-04:00

Earlier today, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and Republican strategist Mark Murphy finished a segment with MSNBC host Chuck Todd. . . and then kept talking:

What the live mikes catch is truly something to behold. Noonan says of the presidential race, “It’s over,” as in it’s over for McCain. Murphy calls McCain’s pick of Palin “Cynical.” (transcript below)

Earlier today, Noonan’s Wall Street Journal column declared:

Gut: The Sarah Palin choice is really going to work, or really not going to work. It's not going to be a little successful or a little not; it's not going to be a wash. She is either going to be magic or one of history's accidents. She is either going to be brilliant and groundbreaking, or will soon be the target of unattributed quotes by bitter staffers shifting blame in all the Making of the President 2008 books.

Peggy plays it coy for the sake of journalistic “balance.” If we are to believe Noonan’s gut AND mouth, then her verdict is already clear: the Palin pick is NOT going to work.

And, it seems, we won’t have to wait till after the election to hear those sniping quotes—and, it seems that they won’t be “unattributed,” either.

Transcript (taken from the YouTube audio):

Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing-state governor world. Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all about how you win a Texas race. You know, just run it up. And it's not gonna work.

Noonan: It's over.

Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

Todd: Don’t you think that the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson?

Noonan: I saw Kay this morning

Todd: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about it.

Murphy: All bummed out.

Todd: I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.

Murphy: Yeah, but what's the narrative?

Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at and they blow it.

Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.

Todd: This is cynical, and, as you called it, “gimmicky.” Thanks guys.

UPDATE: Perhaps I was also being a little coy. C&L says what I feel:

Will the media start asking conservative scribes if they really feel like Murphy and Noonan do about McCain’s pick of Palin? Honesty is out in front right now as we just witnessed. Are they all just lying to our faces and not being called out about it by our talking heads sitting right next to them? We just witnessed the real deal and not the dog and pony show Republicans are so good at.

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

the change of cities I need

2008-08-29T07:00:00.003-04:00

(DNC Day 4 • photo by me)

In transit today (and exhausted from a week of conventioneering at high altitude). I will post some of my more general impressions of the DNC soon.

Clinton and Biden: topline thoughts

2008-08-27T23:56:00.001-04:00

I’ll admit it, I sold President Clinton a little short today.

When asked about my thoughts (biases, really) going in to the Wednesday night speech, I wrote this:

The Dem Party of Bill Clinton circa 1992,3,4,5,6 is not the Dem Party of BHO 2008. The Big Dawg may not love that, may even be bitter (imo) that he is not being given more credit (earned or not) for what he "accomplished" in the 90s, but both Clintons know that what is best for them is what's best for the Democratic Party this cycle--and that is the election of Obama-Biden this November.

Bill might not give the best speech of his career, but he will embrace BHO in word and spirit--at least for public consumption.

But Bill Clinton exceeded my expectations by a goodly amount. First, Clinton wholly embraced the Obama candidacy, with lots of full-throated “I support Barack Obama,” “Barack Obama is the man for this job,” and “Barack Obama is ready to be the president of the United States.”

Clinton neglected—wisely—to say that Obama would be ready on “day one.”

My favorite lines from the Big Dawg’s speech (transcribed from scratch-pad notes):

Barack Obama knows the world will be more impressed with the power of our example than the examples of our power.

and

America can do better, and Barack Obama will do better.

Joe Biden met my expectations, but maybe just barely.

I have often thought of Biden as an informed speaker, but not so much a great orator (I don’t think I am alone here). Tonight’s speech basically confirmed that belief. It had the “red meat” that every anchor and pundit told us that this speech must contain, but it didn’t soar rhetorically. It was a little long, and peppered with those much too over-used call and repetition lines, which have mostly failed (as they did here) ever since Al Gore trotted out “It’s time for him to go” back in 1992.

Joe Biden’s best moment—and, again, I am sure I am not alone here—was his “Freudian slip,” accidentally calling John McCain “George.”

Biden—along with so many at this convention—stressed that John McCain just represents a continuation of the failed Bush Administration. Polls show that this argument tracks very well with voters. In this case, I am happy that the Dems are poll-driven.

MSNBC gets the limo shot

2008-08-27T22:44:00.000-04:00

Here in Denver, many of us heard the “rumor” that Sen. Obama would be making a surprise appearance with Joe Biden on the podium tonight after Biden’s acceptance speech. But, officially, that was just a rumor.

MSNBC just confirmed that rumor by running a live shot of the Obama motorcade entering the Pepsi Center perimeter. This shot was not on either CNN or FoxNews.

Did the DNC or the Obama campaign feed the motorcade timing to MSNBC for a reason?

Personal opinion: it sends a message for the next four years—“be fair with us, and we’ll be square with you.”

every picture tells a story (don’t it?)

2008-08-27T05:42:00.001-04:00

(DNC day 2 • photo by me)

desperately seeking disunity

2008-08-25T20:16:00.002-04:00

Riding the 16th Street bus between venues this morning, I encountered a young woman, DNC delegate credentials slung around her neck, sporting two buttons on her shoulder bag—one said “Hillary ‘08” and the other “Obama ’08.”

And that, as best my impressions tell me so far, is the extent of party disunity at the Democratic National Convention.

Perhaps you have a different impression, and if you happen to be somewhere else this week, maybe a place where your best news options are USA TODAY or a cable news channel, I don’t blame you.

Just take a gander at the number one story on the cover of today’s USA TODAY:

Poll: More than half of Clinton backers still not sold on Obama

DENVER — Fewer than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters in the presidential primaries say they definitely will vote for Barack Obama in November, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, evidence of a formidable challenge facing Democrats as their national convention opens here today.

Sounds grim, right? But read past the first paragraph. . .

In the survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, 47% of Clinton supporters say they are solidly behind Obama, and 23% say they support him but may change their minds before the election.

Thirty percent say they will vote for Republican John McCain, someone else or no one at all.

The way I see it, that is an aggregate 70% strong or moderate support of Democratic nominee Barack Obama among former supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps this lead, from the New York Times, is more to your tastes:

Delegates for Clinton Back Obama, but Show Concerns

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention arrive in Denver having largely put aside the deep divisions of the primary fight between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, although some hold lingering concerns about Mr. Obama’s level of experience, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

More than half of the delegates that Mrs. Clinton won in the primaries now say they are enthusiastic supporters of Mr. Obama, and they also believe he will win the presidential election in November, the poll found. Three in 10 say they support Mr. Obama but have reservations about him or they support him only because he is the party’s nominee. Five percent say they do not support him yet.

The poll, which was taken before Mr. Obama selected Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware as his running mate, also suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s 1,640 pledged delegates are evenly split over whom they plan to vote for on the floor of the convention during the roll call vote on Wednesday evening.

A much more accurate read, as I’m seeing it here in Denver.

Of course, the two articles above are based on different polls, so you might assume that the given biases of Gallup/USA TODAY versus NYT/CBS might account for the different takes on the same story. Or maybe you’ve noticed that the USA TODAY survey is of registered voters, while the Times story focuses on DNC delegates. But my look at the numbers (as far as the two news organizations will let me look, anyway) tells me that the stories with the disparate headlines are based on very similar stories.

The campaign for the Democratic nomination was over-long (that’s the party’s fault, not the candidates’) and hard fought. A lot of time, money, energy, and self-esteem was invested, and with that much invested, it is hard for some to just flip a switch and sing Kumbaya.

But we do not elect presidents by group sing. We vote. And by the measures of both polls, an overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to vote for Barack Obama

So, why the fascination with the “schism” narrative?

Yes, in this giant sports metaphor we call American culture, conflict always seems like a sweeter story than unity. The “I belong to no organized political party—I’m a Democrat” narrative is older than the man that coined that phrase, Will Rodgers. And, if you buy into the idea that the establishment media has a vested interest in keeping the general election race (Obama vs. McCain) close, then stories about possible Democratic defections are a natural. But I can’t help but feel that there is something else, something, perhaps, much more insidious, at work here.

What does it say when you tell voters over and over that some people just can’t vote for an African American? What does it say when you repeat ad absurdum that Clinton supporters, mostly identified as women, are not team players? What does it do to paint well in advance of a possible victory a Democratic president with the taint of illegitimacy?

Besides reinforcing traditional biases, besides incubating distrust where there might have been none (or, at least, little), the repetition of these memes discourages participation in, and the evolution of, the system.

In sum, it breeds cynicism. And nothing kills hope like cynicism.

I don’t necessarily want to start singing Kumbaya myself. I have not been drinking the Kool-Aid inside the Pepsi Center (in fact, I have not been drinking ANYTHING—there is nothing besides a drinking fountain in the press center, and I am THIRSTY). I did see one man here passing out “Hillary ‘08” stickers. There are some divisions over issues inside the Democratic Party. And there are likely a few people here (and I think that is a very few) who will have an episode of blind cynicism themselves and vote for four more years of failed and corrupt Republican leadership. But all of that is so clearly outweighed here in Denver by a strong sense that in order to march the ball up the field (to use a sports metaphor myself), in order to move this country forward, in order to restore some modicum of responsibility and morality to the White House, Democrats of all stripes will be voting Obama-Biden come November.

But don’t take my word for it, read the papers—past the headlines if you must.

Can Democrats unite behind a single ticket this election cycle? From here in Denver, the word is (OK, words are): Yes we can!

UPDATE: Amy Sullivan of Time Magazine—who is here in Denver—gets it right:

Given all that buildup, it may come as a surprise that the Democrats who will gather around the gavel in Denver are actually more united than perhaps at any other point in the past 30 years. When Obama accepts the Democratic nomination on Thursday night, he will inherit a party focused on its determination to take back the White House, and that overarching goal should paper over any lingering resentments or policy differences, at least until after Election Day.

It’s a solid article all the way through. Does being in Denver give reporters a different perspective?

(h/t Ian Fried)

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal and Daily Kos. . . and, I hear, Air America, too! Welcome!)

Flyin’ with the Juniors

2008-08-24T13:50:00.005-04:00

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows—exhibit one: my flight to Denver.

Sorry for the quality of this hastily snapped photo—but yes, that is Rev. Al Sharpton Jr. and Harold Ford Jr. waiting together for their luggage at the Denver Airport. So much to talk about!

Actually not. After some pleasantries and a handshake or two for the assembled media, Sharpton and Ford seemed to have little to say to each other. Hey, I don’t know, maybe they talk all the time. . . .

(I will be blogging from Denver, the site of the Democratic National Convention all week. Stay tuned for more earth shattering revelations. . . and, who knows, maybe some high-minded analysis, as well.)

submitted without comment (almost)

2008-08-21T06:41:00.003-04:00

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

. . . .

The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

As the end of the Bush administration nears, the White House has been seeking to formalize in law and regulation some of the aggressive counterterrorism steps it has already taken in practice since the Sept. 11 attacks.

. . . .

The Democratic senators said the draft plan appeared to allow the F.B.I. to go even further in collecting information on Americans connected to “foreign intelligence” without any factual predicate. They also said there appeared to be few constraints on how the information would be shared with other agencies.

[emphasis added]

Of course, I said "almost." To get the few choice words I just couldn't suppress, please head on over to capitoilette.

Mrs. McCain’s sister act

2008-08-19T05:44:00.004-04:00

Leo Tolstoy famously wrote that “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” I have sometimes wondered whether Tolstoy had that quite right, and so, by way of explanation, I submit to you (and to Leo) Mr. and Mrs. McCain.

Last Tuesday, NPR did a story about Cindy McCain, second and current wife of presidential wannabe John McCain, and referred to her as the only child of wealthy beer baron Jim Hensley. It’s not surprising that they reported such:

McCain herself routinely uses the phrase "only child," as she did on CNN last month. "I grew up with my dad," she said then. "I'm an only child. My father was a cowboy, and he really loved me very much, but I think he wanted a son occasionally."

There’s a problem with that touching little anecdote, however—Cindy McCain has an older sister, and Cindy McCain knows it.

Documents show Kathleen Anne Hensley was born to Jim and Mary Jeanne Hensley on Feb. 23, 1943. They had been married for six years when Kathleen was born.

Jim Hensley was a bombardier on a B-17, flying over Europe during World War II.

He was injured and sent to a facility in West Virginia to recuperate. During that time, while still married to Mary Jeanne, Hensley met another woman — Marguerite Smith. Jim divorced Mary Jeanne and married Marguerite in 1945.

Cindy Lou Hensley was born nine years later, in 1954.

She may have grown up as an only child, but so did her half sister, Kathleen, who was raised by a single parent.

[Kathleen Hensley, now Kathleen] Portalski says she did see her father and her half sister from time to time.

"I saw him a few times a year," she says. "I saw him at Christmas and birthdays, and he provided money for school clothes, and he called occasionally."

Big Jim helped put Kathleen’s kids through college, and did give about $10,000 in gifts to their family, but when Jim Hensley died in 2000, he left all of his vast fortune to Cindy. Kathleen got $10,000; her children—Jim’s grandchildren—got nothing.

It is a slight that Cindy Hensley McCain has never attempted to redress.

While it is true that Cindy McCain is not the one running for president, I think there is still something here to explore.

My takeaway on this is that Cindy McCain is icky. I know that sounds a tad juvenile and reductive, but I mean it to be visceral, because that's how I think this story is relevant to the presidential election.

Had her husband chosen a less public line of work, Cindy's family schism would be her affair, but thinking about it in the context of the life and career of Arizona’s oh-so-senior senator, this revelation just adds a (OK, another) sleazy taint to the whole McCain clan. Yes, Pa Hensley made this mess, but Cindy could have gone a long way toward cleaning it up by first correcting the reports that billed her as an only child, and second by sharing some small part of her substantial fortune with the family her father chose to screw.

All families have past sins—it is what a person does to address those sins that matters.

According to campaign surrogates and a fawning press, we are to believe that one of John McCain's great strengths is his judgment. He himself harped on judgment Monday in a speech before the VFW. His camp loves to talk up the idea that you can judge how maverick-alicious he is by the company he keeps. Well, what does it say about McCain and his judgment that he chooses a life partner that is so, I'll say it again, icky?

Obviously, when attacking McCain, this wouldn't be the head of the spear—there are plenty unsavory alliances to fill an anti-McCain quiver—but I am all for letting McCain be judged by the company he keeps. The icky company.

And, I'll just add a nagging question that says so much, I think, simply as a nagging, unanswered, question: Why was it important to the McCain campaign to perpetuate the idea of Cindy as an only child?

Is it perhaps because the Hensley’s unhappiness is so similar to the unhappiness John McCain caused his first family?

What would Tolstoy think?

(cross-posted on capitoilette, Daily Kos, and The Seminal)

tell me again why we don’t want to ban handguns. . .

2008-08-14T07:24:00.004-04:00

Bill Gwatney, the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party, was fatally shot in his office in Little Rock on Wednesday morning, police officials said.

The officials said a gunman fired several shots at Mr. Gwatney, a former state legislator, in the party’s headquarters near the Capitol. After a long car chase, the suspect was fatally wounded in a shootout with the police, the authorities said.

Bill Sadler, a spokesman for the Arkansas State Police, identified the suspect as Timothy D. Johnson, 50, of Searcy, Ark. Mr. Gwatney, 48, was rushed to the medical center of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, but a family friend who asked not to be identified said doctors determined that he was too unstable to undergo surgery. He died several hours later, police officials confirmed.

This tragedy follows close on the heels of a fatal shooting at a Tennessee Unitarian church, and while the motives in the Arkansas event are not yet understood, it is just completely unacceptable in my eyes that those with violent urges—be they deranged, disgruntled, or distraught—can have such easy access to guns.

In the days after the April 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech, I posted my thoughts on America’s gun problem and the broader problem of gun violence in the context of Bush’s America. (I think that piece—and this one—are still relevant, so I ask you to click on over and take a look.) I closed with this quote from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich:

In [the] United States, many people who are seriously depressed can’t afford to see a doctor, let alone get a prescription. Unlike every other advanced nation, we do not provide universal health care, or ready access to mental health services. But unlike every other advanced nation, we do allow almost anyone [to] buy a handgun.

Much to my surprise, those thoughts (when cross-posted to Daily Kos) were met with a fusillade of negative comments from a broad swath of left-leaning gun lovers. I did not find it a productive discussion, and said so. That post was met with less derision, but no real exchange of ideas, so I then posted these questions:

To those that love their guns. . .

Please don’t resort to screaming about how I want to take away your guns. . . I don’t. Just tell me why you oppose:
gun registration,
better background checks,
additional licensing procedures for concealed weapons,
mandatory waiting periods,
restrictions on assault-style weapons, Saturday night specials, and extended clips,
mandatory safety training and periodic recertification,
closing so-called gun-show loopholes,
legal liability for gun manufacturers commensurate with other consumer product liability,
and limits on the number of guns and rounds of ammo you can purchase at any given time and over the course of a year.

At the time, I did not get anything close to a sufficient answer from any of the ammo-enamored. I still haven’t. Considering the fresh crop of fatherless children and grieving spouses, friends, and relatives, care to try it again?

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

celebrity: McCain doth protest too much

2008-08-13T06:11:00.003-04:00

With all the back and forth on “celebrity” in the presidential campaign ad wars, and with John McCain’s camp continuing to run ads calling Barack Obama “the biggest celebrity in the world” or some permutation thereof, I think you might find this interesting.

I stumbled across a post I had written just ten weeks ago titled “McCain ‘Smitten with the Celebrity of Power’” that takes on new meaning given the current ad cycle. In that piece, I include this excerpt from one of the stories in the New York Times’ series “The Long Run”:

Mr. McCain has often said he decided to run for office because he felt his war injuries would make attaining the same rank as his father and grandfather “impossible.” But Mr. Lehman, now an adviser to the McCain campaign, and two other top Navy officers familiar with Mr. McCain’s file insist that was not the case.

Instead, many who knew him say, Mr. McCain seemed bored by Navy life. “Sitting down with Anwar Sadat or Deng Xiaoping and being treated as an equal — that is pretty heady stuff,” said Rhett Dawson, a former aide to Mr. Tower who is now president of an electronics trade group. “It had opened his eyes to a much broader world.”

Mr. McCain was captivated, recalled Jeffrey Record, then an aide to former Senator Sam Nunn, the hawkish Georgia Democrat. “He thrives on competition, and he thrives on political combat,” Mr. Record said. “He saw the glamour of it. I think he really got smitten with the celebrity of power.”

[emphasis added]

McCain? Smitten with the celebrity? Gosh, ya’ think?

(cross-posted on The Seminal and Daily Kos)

as if you needed more evidence

2008-08-12T06:48:00.004-04:00

For all you scared, greedy, stupid, or cynical Representatives and Senators who voted for the FISA revisions last month, here’s a little something that got lost in the Friday Olympics-vs.-sex-scandal news dump:

WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation said Friday that it had improperly obtained the phone records of reporters for The New York Times and The Washington Post in the newspapers’ Indonesia bureaus in 2004.

Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I., disclosed the episode in a phone call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, and apologized for it. He also spoke with Leonard Downie Jr., the executive editor of The Washington Post, to apologize.

F.B.I. officials said the incident came to light as part of the continuing review by the Justice Department inspector general’s office into the bureau’s improper collection of telephone records through “emergency” records demands issued to phone providers.

The records were apparently sought as part of a terrorism investigation, but the F.B.I. did not explain what was being investigated or why the reporters’ phone records were considered relevant.

While these cases probably didn’t fall under the direct purview of FISA/FISC (though we really have no way of knowing), it is yet another example of Bush Administration spying on journalists (Lawrence Wright, Christiane Amanpour). And, it should serve as a yet another wake-up call to lawmakers and citizens alike, reminding them that the Bush/Cheney obsession with warrantless surveillance has little to do with the legal pursuit of terrorists, and a lot more to do with the suppression of information and dissent.

The FBI now says that they have corrected the problem that led to this latest known incidence of illegal spying, but as both the New York Times and the Washington Post make clear, the Department of Justice has continued to reenact the same sorts of abuses, just under a different name. Without aggressive congressional oversight and investigation, the arrest and prosecution of lawbreakers, and a rewriting of a decade’s worth of Constitution-eroding laws, there are simply no guarantees that this sort of abuse won’t happen again—indeed, there is no real guarantee (beyond the occasional and absurd “trust me”) that the abuse has ever stopped. Be it the Patriot Act (I & II), the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, or the recent FISA capitulation, Congress has repeatedly chosen the coward’s path—synonymous with the White House’s path—rather than exercise its rights as a coequal branch of government.

I have argued in the past that if we know of illegal administration spying on journalists and other non-suspects, and we know of pre-9/11 surveillance, then we for all intents and purposes know that these are not programs designed to fight some foreign terrorists threat. I have often wanted to ask Democratic leaders if they realize that their phone calls and e-mails are being swept up in Bush Administration dragnets—and then I want to ask them if they care.

You see, while the New York Times and the Washington Post have their lawyers to turn to when they are the victims of intelligence abuse (and the lawyers have been brought in for this current case), most of us only have our elected representatives to watch out for our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. If Congressional leaders can’t be convinced of the gravity of this situation, we’re all screwed.

And that’s a gold medal scandal.

there is no “right front” in the GWOT™

2008-08-11T08:48:00.000-04:00

“There is no battlefield solution to terrorism. Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended.”

nothing says “change” like 3,000 cops in riot gear

2008-08-06T02:37:00.005-04:00

Just a little taste of what awaits me in Denver.

Last month, under pressure from the A.C.L.U. lawsuit, the city released a list of expenses related to the convention showing that the police were preparing for large demonstrations and mass arrests and that the department had spent $2.1 million on protection equipment for its officers, $1.4 million for barricades and $850,000 for supplies related to the arrest and processing of suspects.

In disclosing the cost breakdown, city officials denied rumors that had circulated for weeks that they had contemplated buying exotic nonlethal weapons that fired an immobilizing goo, or that used radiation or sonic waves to incapacitate people or vehicles.

As the article makes clear, all of this over-the-top preparation is to contain political protestors—not to protect against a terrorist attack—even though authorities admit that there is no credible threat of either terrorism or violent protest.

The federal government is also sending Denver an additional $50 million for security, and while I’m not so naïve as to think that no additional security is required, my experience in New York in 2004 (coupled with the stories I have heard about Boston) tells me that all this extra muscle will encourage authorities to err on the side of imagined security while actively suppressing the First Amendment rights of many protesters and passers-by.

Just imagine what some of that money and organization could do to feed, house, or clothe some of the Denver-area needy. . . . Just sayin’.

And now, a wag of my finger at the New York Times. The photo above, which ran with the story under the headline “Denver Police Brace for Convention,” is not actually a picture of the Denver Police, or any auxiliary that might be in Denver, for that matter. As the half-tone caption informed me (and I only noticed the caption because I wanted to reproduce the image for this post), this photograph, by Bob Bukaty of the AP, is actually from Boston, from the day before the Democratic Convention of 2004. Running this picture under a headline about Denver reminds me of nothing so much as an “artist’s interpretation”—like those you might see of aliens in the Weekly World News—and can only serve to alarm readers about the violence that supposedly awaits the Democrats this year in Denver. Violence, as the story will tell you, that is not indicated by any pre-convention intelligence.

(cross-posted on Daily Kos and The Seminal)

Suskind: Bush misdeeds “the sort of thing taken up in impeachment hearings”

2008-08-05T08:19:00.002-04:00

Journalist and best-selling author Ron Suskind, appearing on Morining Edition in advance of his new book, The Way of the World, which comes out today, has accused the Bush Administration, and, indeed, President Bush, himself, of deliberately ignoring evidence that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction prior to the US invasion. Suskind also accuses Bush of continuing to make pronouncements to the contrary in the run up to the war—even though Bush knew what he was saying was untrue.

The Politico also interviewed Suskind:

Suskind writes that the White House had “ignored the Iraq intelligence chief’s accurate disclosure that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.

They secretly resettled him in Jordan, paid him $5 million – which one could argue was hush money – and then used his captive status to help deceive the world about one of the era’s most crushing truths: that America had gone to war under false pretenses,” the book says.

When challenged by ME host, Steve Inskeep, who asks repeatedly whether Suskind is accusing President Bush of lying, Suskind, while not using the “L” word, does not back down or qualify his accusation.

Suskind also accuses the White House of ordering the CIA to create a forged, backdated document linking 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta with Saddam Hussein.

Suskind writes that the forgery “operation created by the White House and passed to the CIA seems inconsistent with” a statute saying the CIA may not conduct covert operations “intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media.”

“It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time,” Suskind writes. “It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House’s knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.”

Suskind did not talk of impeachment on NPR as he did with The Politico, but the two interviews taken together are unflinchingly critical of the Bush Administration in a way that Suskind’s interviews in support of his previous two books were not.

Needless to say, the White House has rolled out the usual talking point: shoot the messenger, ignore the message.

Which, come to think of it, is exactly how they handled the prewar intel that Suskind has unearthed.

calling all economists: suppose you could solve the gas crisis. . .

2008-08-05T06:48:00.001-04:00

I am sick and tired of trying to argue about the price of gas within the frame of whether or not more offshore drilling is going to have an effect now, seven years from now, twelve years from now, or ever—that is just fucking lame. That is the Republican game plan, pure and simple, and we should be smarter than to play on their turf.

Further, a return to “cheap” gasoline may not be desirable. The increased consumption will force the price up, not to mention drive up pollution and greenhouse emissions and again undercut moves toward alternative energy options.

All that said, real people are feeling real pain every time they have to gas up—so what’s our answer? (And don’t you even start with trying to explain the windfall profits tax, it’s not only a political non-starter, and bloody hard to define, it probably doesn’t solve the immediate problem.)

I don’t claim to have all the answers—however, if you read what I have to say over on capitoilette, you might think that I do. . . claim, that is, claim to have the answers. . . . I don’t, really, but I give it the old college try, so go, read already. . . .

(And, if you are an economist or have similar skills, please help me with the numbers—I would appreciate your input.)

GWOT report card, summer school edition

2008-08-01T07:07:00.004-04:00

Is there a grade worse than “F”?

A top government scientist who helped the FBI analyze samples from the 2001 anthrax attacks has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the last 18 years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Md., had been informed of his impending prosecution, said people familiar with Ivins, his suspicious death and the FBI investigation.

. . . .

The extraordinary turn of events followed the government's payment in June of a settlement valued at $5.82 million to a former government scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, who was long targeted as the FBI's chief suspect despite a lack of any evidence that he had ever possessed anthrax.

The payout to Hatfill, a highly unusual development that all but exonerated him in the mailings, was an essential step to clear the way for prosecuting Ivins, according to lawyers familiar with the matter.

Except there now won’t be any prosecution. No testimony in open court. No hearing that might shed a little light on how the government chased the presumably wrong lead for five years before a shakeup at the FBI shifted focus to Ivins. Now we are to believe that the case is closed because the alleged suicide is somehow tantamount to a confession.

In Bush-Cheney terms, a dead “culprit” without having to go through open US courts is a BIG win.

* * * *

And then there’s the global part of the Global War on Terror™:

American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

. . . .

The information linking the ISI to the bombing of the Indian Embassy was described in interviews by several American officials with knowledge of the intelligence. Some of the officials expressed anger that elements of Pakistan’s government seemed to be directly aiding violence in Afghanistan that had included attacks on American troops.

Some American officials have begun to suggest that Pakistan is no longer a fully reliable American partner and to advocate some unilateral American action against militants based in the tribal areas.

Well, on its face, this would look like a complete failure for the Bush Administration: With the US no closer to capturing bin Laden or al Zawahiri, one of our chief allies in the hunt seems to be in league with the very folks that helped protect the al Qaeda leadership in the first place. But look at this again. The White House now has brand new excuse for why the US has failed to crush al Qaeda or the Taliban—we’re not just fighting a ragtag band of dead-enders or some such, we have to outwit a nuclear power, a country with a large and sophisticated intelligence apparatus and a well-stocked military (we should know, we stocked it). Why, that might require—wait, what is it? right—“unilateral American action.”

Really, when you’re looking at it through the Bush team’s binoculars, what more could you want?

* * * *

And speaking of unilateral action:

Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.
In Hersh’s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources.

. . . .

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

The team in Veep’s office apparently rejected the plan because “you can’t have Americans killing Americans.” Really? Sorry to sound the cynic here, but I can’t imagine Vice President Cankles getting all that upset about sending American troops to their death in order to accomplish his broader goals—“I mean, come on! This is the War on Terror, people! You gotta break some eggs to make an omelet! You saw Wanted—the ancient order must be preserved!”

Sorry, I got a little too into that. . . .

But, seriously, the team might have rejected that particular casus belli, but I can assure you there are plenty more where that came from. And, with the combination of a presidential directive allowing defensive fire from covert teams of US operatives already inside Iran, and the Congressional authorization that basically declared a large portion of the Iranian military a terrorist organization, the whizzing sound of shots fired in anger is only a heart-clogging breakfast away.

But there are some logistical matters to work out—namely, the US is woefully under-equipped for a third military incursion, the Secretary of Defense is not so hot to start a hot war, and Cheney’s favorite proxy warrior, Ehud Olmert, just had to step down from his PM post because he is an incompetent commander-in-chief and corrupt as the day is long.

Really, it’s like the Patty Duke Show of international affairs. . . .

But as far as a grade on this front in the GWOT™, because no Iranians are yet dying by America’s hand, we’ll have to give them an incomplete.

I know you are as excited as I am for the fall semester.

(cross-posted on The Seminal)