Deja Vu All Over Again

Bush 2003: Bring them on.

McLame 2008: The gloves will come off tonight.

OK, whatever.

Dicky Morris

I got A Woman in Charge at some point towards the end of the primary season, read the first chapter or two and set it down, only to find myself picking it up again recently. When the book was released sometime last year I think, the perception was that it was critical of the junior senator from New York State. What I've read so far leads me to think it's a relatively straight-forward take of HRC, although Bernstein raises some points that had Clinton been nominated, certainly would have found their way into negative ads from Palin/McLame. It certainly is no hagiography, the type of which conservative sheep are used to reading of their illustrious leaders. But the book was causing me to regard HRC with a measure of grudging respect. Until I got to the part where--and I'm at the part of where she and Bill get together--where Bernstein finds a reason to quote Dicky Morris, the former but longtime consultant to the Clintons who now spends his days writing anti-liberal screeds for the neocon NY Post and being thrown the welcome mat on Teevee at Faux News. I have a hard time imagining how the Clintons took up with Morris, but Dicky's most recent prognosticating indicates he hasn't improved much.

Does Palin drink?

Is being a joe or jane six pack consistent with being a Christian?

CNN is replaying the Biden-Palin debate, but Faux News is not

I have no idea why* or if that's at all relevant to anything. Just puttin that out there for ya.

*Although Faux News' Fox & Friends hyped Palin's down-home, Joe-six pack performance, post-debate polls indicated Biden won the debate handlely.

Waaaahhhhambulance coming

Uh Oh. Bible Spice is Annoyed. And that Couric lady didn't ask enuff issue questions and stuff.

Palin also commented Friday on her widely-panned series of interviews with Katie Couric, telling Fox interviewer she did not think the CBS News anchor asked enough issue-based questions.

“I did feel there were a lot of things she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are that are represented in our ticket," Palin said. "I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but that’s also an indication about being outside that Washington elite, outside that media elite also, and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."

In two separate and lengthy interviews with Couric over the last week, Palin seemed to struggle with a number of answers, including a defense of McCain's record on regulation issues. She also appeared to stumble when relating her views on the financial bailout, her foreign policy credentials, her preferred news sources of news, and a Supreme Court case she disagrees with.

"Man, no matter what you say you are gonna get clobbered," Palin told Fox about her heavily-scrutinized performance. "You choose to answer you are going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to pivot and try to go onto another subject that you believe Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that too."

------

Life sure is hard and unfair, huh? All them filters and stuff.

Dissension in the ranks

This is a pretty interesting article on the politics of the bail-out, particularly as it pertains to the split in the Republican ranks between southern "populists" and mostly non-southern Republican moderates.

The Decider

If Obama goes on to win this thing, the key issue in most campaign post-mortems will be why a GOP administration declared an economic crisis whose solution was deemed to be a massive bailout of Wall Street six weeks prior to a general election. This was about the worse sort of development the McCain could have imagined, and it was for the most part, a crisis declared from above, not from the media, or talk radio, or from the public. I think there will be many a pundit and strategist who will look back from February to September and wonder why the administration didn't try to weasel out of taking any kind of responsibility for the economic state of affairs. Nobody in this crowd has been especially known as truth-telling straight-shooters after all.

Debate-a-thon

I'm not usually one to feel confident of anything politically, but I have a hard time seeing how anything Palin does tonight changes the current dynamic of the race. The simple fact is that if issues were major league baseball standings, the economic crisis would be leading the pack by about 30 games with 12 games to play. And while Biden's populist bonafides aren't much to get excited about, the usual tools available in the right-wing kit for selling their candidates don't much help here. And the other simple fact is that six weeks prior to an election for his successor, a Republican president has declared an economic crisis exists. I doubt the media or public will be much inclined to rally around a snarky one liner or two from a one-year governor of Alaska given the political and economic climate. The Republican specialty is identity politics, and the wedge-issue grievances they seek to exploit and the personality cult they seek to enhance is poorly suited for the current situation. Anyway, let's see how wrong I am.

Bible Spice

John Cole sums up how I'm feeling about the campaign:

Apparently there is a debate tonight. The funny thing about it is I really don’t even care. There is, quite honestly, nothing Obama could say that would make me not vote for him. His opening statement could be “My name is Barack Hussein Obama, and I am a muslim, and winning this election is all part of a plot to turn the United States into my own personal caliphate,” and I would shrug and vote for him anyway because at least he would go about it in a competent manner. Compared to the last eight years with C+ Augustus and Darth Cheney and the possibility of four more with Johnny Drama and Bible Spice, that would be preferable.

---------------------

At this point, after seeing the John McCain of September 2008 I'm having a hard time understanding why Obama isn't up by 30 points, even given his relative lack of experience and his race. Before the primaries ended I could imagine John McCain winning this election on the merits, that is to say, I assumed McCain could have won a straight up race based on his experience, Vietnam hero-hood, the success of the surge (and our paying off our Sunni insurgents) in shoving Iraq off the front page and cable network leads, with his picking a competent, respected, if however unglamorous, VP. But McCain September 2008 threw all that away, and has run a truly mind-boggling campaign. Of course, it remains highly possible, maybe even likely, that McCain will still pull it off. If he does, one wonders who will be minding the store in a McCain-Palin administration. The bloom is off the Palin-rose, if responses by ordinary folks to the Couric interview are any consideration. And McCain himself seems scarcely cognizant of where he is. Reports are he uttered nary a comment in the now infamous WH Pow Wow on the Bail Out he was supposedly so central in forcing. The McCain campaign itself seems the strangest sort of effort we've seen in many a year, maybe ever. Unlike VP Biden, VP Palin is nowhere on the teevee challenging the opposition. Once upon a time you could count on the Republicans to run well-organized, purposefully directed campaigns (even if they didn't govern so well), but GOP 2008 seems to be conducting an experiment in campaigning like the party governs. All sneers and hit jobs, based on, um, celebrity POW and Bible Spice candidates.

Has Everyone in Washington, D.C. and New York City gone insane?

From OpenLeft:

Deputy Press Secretary Ton Fratto tells us that the banks we are bailing out are actually good firms with a lot of profitable assets:

You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value. They were not necessarily irresponsible players, and so you have to be careful about how you deal with them.

Um, then why are we bailing them out? I thought there was a crisis. Now the government has to step in and help out hugely profitable firms just because one aspect of those banks is as profitable as the rest? Whenever rich people make a mistake, taxpayers have to plug the gap, even if those rich people are still making huge amounts of money?

This is all a lie. They are lying about how much trouble these firms are in. They are lying about their desire for oversight. It is just a big frakkin' lie. I doubt there is a crisis at all. They have done such a good job lying, however, that a majority of the country thinks a bailout is needed.

They are just lying, and looking to make the biggest single rip off in history. If there was a pitchfork and torch event taking place anywhere right now, I'd join in. This seems a helluva a lot like Louis the XVI demanding more money from the Estates General. When does the march on Versailles begin? It might seriously be time for a few hundred thousand people to start sleeping in two shanty towns, one surrounding the Capitol and the other surrounding the White House. If they can get away with this, then they can get away with anything.

Media: Still Not Deferential

More of this please.

Just Give Us The Money

Establishment econopundit Megan McArdle chimes in with the demand that Congress fork over the big cash NOW and act grateful for being allowed to do so.

Punk'D

John Cole notices the latest word verbiage spin for the Wall Street bailout.

The fix is in, and the bailout is going to be passed in one form or another in the near future.

How do I know?

Because it is now being marketed as a “Rescue plan.”

Bailout was apparently too unpalatable for main street. So take solace that when you, as a taxpayer, take part in this ginormous game of kick the shitpile down the road until after 20 January 2009, you aren’t really “bailing out” greedy Wall Street types, you are rescuing America. Don’t you feel patriotic? Maybe we can put green ribbons on our car next to the yellow support our troops ribbons that are beginning to fade.

-------------

There's a lot that's alarming about all of this, among which is no real sign from either party that what is essential here is to prevent the same problems from happening again. Buying up the garbage debt or injecting financial institutions with new capital could very well, absent other significant structural changes, result in the same dangerous things happening all over again.

The conversion of the two remaining investment banks to commercial bank status (and the bankruptcy or selling of the others) may provide this essential recalibration. But financial institutions and big money players are going to, by nature, seek the biggests profits in the shortest amount of time by the easiest means possible. The bailout doesn't appear to address these concerns at all. There's no certainty that the $700 bill will be enough or the end of it.

Update: Kos sums up my thinking pretty well.

Reality

Sullivan:

It feels as if we are hitting several walls at once. For me, it's frighening, but also in some ways, a relief. We have less to fear from reality than from denial of that reality. The market correction, the morass in Iraq, and the exposure of American debt are all good things in the long run. If we have not recognized the damage of the last eight years we cannot repair it.

------------

The party's over.

We are governed by children

The NYT, via Glenn Greenwald:

It was a room full of people who rarely hold their tongues. But as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first.

Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill, and they were gathered around a conference table in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"When you listened to him describe it you gulped," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

As Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program "Good Morning America," the congressional leaders were told "that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally."

Mr. Schumer added, "History was sort of hanging over it, like this was a moment."

When Mr. Schumer described the meeting as "somber," Mr. Dodd cut in. "Somber doesn't begin to justify the words," he said. "We have never heard language like this."

"What you heard last evening," he added, "is one of those rare moments, certainly rare in my experience here, is Democrats and Republicans deciding we need to work together quickly."

What's the crisis?

$700 bill is a pretty hefty chunk of change. Is it too much to ask for bail out advocates to provide some quantitative data spelling out the extent of the need?

All we're hearing so far, as a reason to shell out the $700 bill, is that the markets are jittery. Seems we're due a better, more concrete explanation than that.

Doubling down on crazy. And stupid.

From the Washington Monthly:

GOLDEN PARACHUTES.... The only consistent element of John McCain's recent rhetoric on economic issues is that he's just not thinking things true. In the latest example, McCain has been, in true populist style, railing against "golden parachutes" for CEOs.

The more lavish compensation packages are part of McCain's economic pitch, the more likely he'll face questions about former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's golden parachute. And yet, as of this morning, he was apparently caught completely off guard.

On NBC's "Today," Meredith Vieira told McCain, "You have said, senator, that there are a lot of reasons for this financial crisis, but you have said, bottom line, it's those fat cats. It's the greed of Wall Street. And you said, you promised ... to crack down on CEOs who walk away with huge severance packages. And yet the person that up until recently was your public face really on your economic policies was Carly Fiorina.... She was fired in 2005. But she left with what I think was a $45 million golden parachute while 20,000 of her employees were laid off. She's an example of exactly the type of person you say is at the root of the problem."

McCain replied, "I don't think so." When pressed, he added, "I think she did a good job as CEO in many respects. I don't know the details of her compensation package."

Reminded that Fiorina received a $45 million golden parachute after being fired while 20,000 of her employees were laid off, McCain stumbled a bit before concluding, "I don't know the details of what happened."

Hewlett-Packard didn't exactly excel under Fiorina's leadership. The company's stock fell 55% during her tenure, and as Vieira emphasized, she was fired. As "punishment," she walked out the door with $45 million and, soon after, became an advisor to a leading Republican presidential campaign.

This certainly seems like the kind of greed and mismanagement the new McCain should disapprove of, doesn't it?

-------------------------

It's hard to believe the country is on the verge of putting this man, let alone his second in command, anywhere near the gear shifts of political and economic power.

It's the money, stupid

I don't have a lot of confidence that any oversight provisions and the like will ultimately provide much of a safeguard as to how the bailout money is distributed. Congress hasn't shown any real inclination to provide oversight on the war or much of anything else these past eight years. Democratic calls for greater oversight and executive compensation caps sound like fig-leafs to me, largely symbolic gestures to cover behinds for what will or should be a highly unpopular scheme.

If they end up handing over $700 bill or more they will have forefeited their control. It's as simple as that.

Center Shifting Left

Politico:

A senior aide to John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, told Politico Sunday that the Arizona senator also favored compensation limits as part of the package, as does the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, according to a campaign spokesman for the Illinois senator.

Blog Recant

OK, I've had a bit more time to digest Bush/Paulson's proposed-demanded $700 bill Wall Street bail-out. And I've read people smarter than I is.

And what in the world is that crazy liberal big-gubmit terrorist-loving pinko Bill Kristol doing saying this:

Comments by McCain on Sunday suggest he might propose an amendment along the lines of one I received in an e-mail message from a fellow semi-populist conservative: “Any institution selling securities under this legislation to the Treasury Department shall not be allowed to compensate any officer or employee with a higher salary next year than that paid the president of the United States.” This would punish overpaid Wall Streeters and, more important, limit participation in the bailout to institutions really in trouble.