Just to chime in further regarding Kevin's post about "deliberate charlatan" George Will, when viewing this chart, it must be evident to even the most reason-challenged of Will's readership that this data set can be easily gamed to make a point. Over the last 100 years, one could've picked any high-temp year and then a few years later claimed the trend in temperature was down. Just look at 1910, a high-temp data blip, and by 1915 the temperature plummeted -- only to spike back up a few years later.

Obviously the primary line of importance is the red line, which is the 5-year moving average that takes out much of the intermittent noise and offers a truer picture of the overall trend. Focusing on the red line, does anyone see a downtrend more recently? And while the red line has dipped in the past, when you consider it's starting point in 1900 to now, the trend has been clearly in one direction: up!

But I'd also like to mention a point I believe gets lost in all of this climate change debate, a point I feel is equally important, and that is: the urgency should not strictly be about temperature. Much energy has been spent arguing about warming versus cooling, but the global warming / emissions debate is also about toxins, pollution, cancer, etc. What comes out of cars, trucks, smokestacks, etc. is not harmless steam, but rather by-product emissions that can kill over time. In this debate, CO2 gets most if not all the attention but it shouldn’t. Why is it children are advised to eat only one can of tuna fish per month, or that asthma rates have been increasing for years? CO2 is solely to blame?

Alternative energy solutions cut down on not just global warming but also pollution and resulting health maladies. Also, last time I checked there is no debate about the content of what comes out of smokestacks, tail pipes, etc.

Perhaps those framing this issue could shift the focus to emphasize that which is of much less dispute, as it would accomplish the same end-game goal.

The Party of Nix It, Not Fix It

Republicans are looking to work every angle to defeat health care reform. Their alternative? Notta, no solutions, just the status quo. Sounds about right.

I give you the lovely C Street abode, or aka Animal House.

Priceless. We endlessly debate and procrastinate regarding global warming and alternative energy, but once China (of all countries) plows forward in earnest, determined to become the dominant global player in green energy, then the U.S. cries foul!

The Anonymous Liberal has an excellent summary of the entire Sarah Palin embarrassment. And of course, there's always the now famous take-down of Palin from the right, ala Peggy Noonan.

Just remember, we always have 72-year old cancer survivor John McCain to thank for this, Mr. Country First. To think she would've been a heartbeat away from running things in the White House is a nightmare that still keeps me up some nights....

Classic. A constituent asks Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) how he can get the same health care coverage that the Senator has, understanding that it's cheaper and better. Grassley replies just go work for the government. See for yourself.

The only way we can get such terrific coverage is to work for the federal government, so says this top-ranking Republican. And yet the GOP is the party that decries big government -- but that doesn't stop Grassley from urging his constituents to join the government's payroll, effectively endorsing the idea of bigger government. Logic once again gets in the way of a Republican's point.

Another outrage is Congress has the public health care option, but they don't have to accept it. They can always refuse it and shop around for supposedly superior private health care insurance -- like the majority of us have to do.

Anyone aware of a Senator or Rep ever refusing their "public option" coverage?

We continue to learn more about the Dark Lord's patriotic decisions:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

Efforts to reach Cheney were unsuccessful, quite a shocker. When he wants to spread propaganda and lies in his defense, he's everywhere, giving speeches, blathering on TV, but when it comes to little stuff like this, he's back hiding in the cave.

I'm sure his decision to conceal this program had everything to do with putting country first -- despite the fact that the same can be said for other countries where similar orders are given and carried out (hint: those countries are not democratic).

This video clip is great. Catch the deafening silence (and isn't it so adorable of Todd to go in the weeds!).

For how long, and how many times, have we heard the right inflame about judicial activism from the bench.... Well, we just observed it from -- wait for it -- the right wing of the Supreme Court. They recently legislated new law -- exactly what they fear from liberal justices.

And let's not forget the ultimate judicial activism from the right wing Supreme Court justices, the never-to-be-used-as-precedence ruling in favor of Bush over Gore.

To be conservative or right wing is to be for hypocrisy, plain and simple. Happy 4th!

It wasn't just Bush/Cheney in on the fix, Blair was complicit.

The rightwing disinformation campaign continues in full force (see here, here, and here).

What a shocker. Saddam never had WMD, the UN inspectors were correct all along.

Yes, Sanford's press conference was a rambling mess, much of it making little if any sense whatsoever, but I'm willing to cut him some slack on this since he had nothing prepared and was just shooting from the hip (heart).

That's not to say I feel pity for him. If he were not like so many other Republicans we've witnessed over the years who strongly condemned Bill Clinton for his behavior only to then see these same characters commit the exact same sin(s), then I would feel somewhat badly for his circumstances. However, Sanford was one of the more vocal advocates for impeaching Clinton. He was, and remained, one of the many holier-than-thou Republicans who tossed rocks in glass houses.

But the hypocrisy doesn't just stop with adultery. Sanford said the following in his press conference:

I am here because if you were to look at God's laws, there are in every instance designed to protect people from themselves. I think that that is the bottom line with God's law -- that it's not a moral, rigid list of dos and don'ts just for the heck of dos and don'ts. It is indeed to protect us from ourselves.

Sanford makes the case that man is inherently evil or has a very dark side that God's law is supposed to protect him from. It's as if man is capable of doing many bad things, all the time, and if it weren't for God we'd be a nation of 24/7 sinners.

What a lovely view of life and mankind! That if it weren't for God we'd be a bunch of ravaging savages, committing unspeakable atrocities and spreading chaos. Is this what the religious right truly believes?

Oh, and if it's true what Sanford portrays about man, the need for him to be protected from himself, than doesn't that argue for regulation in our capitalist society? If we are inherently capable of wrong doing, and many in the country are not aware of "God's law," then one would think regulations should be in place to serve as a check against man and his dark side. Heck, even guys like Sanford (and Ensign) -- who presumably know God's law -- were not able to resist giving in to their evil or dark side.

I wish one of the reporters at his press conference posed these questions to him.... Again, the hypocrisy and inconsistent logic runs well beyond anything sexual in nature.

Another "family values" Republican hypocrite...

Ensign last week, Sanford today. Both were not shy about playing up their Christian values (to curry votes?). The marital cheating is their business, it's the hypocrisy that should outrage everyone.

But then again, it's Bill Clinton's fault, right? He ruined the moral fiber of this country, gosh darn it!

I wonder which Republican will be making an awkward confession next week? In the meantime, Sanford apparently was an up-and-comer for 2012 -- poor GOP, back to having Palin as their rock star.

Distortion Machine in Overdrive

We can argue about just how many Muslims reside in the U.S. No one seems to know for certain what is the right number. But regarding this video clip, it's not the point. In an attempt to bridge global relations and repair the damage GW inflicted for many years, Obama points out in an interview that if you considered all of the Muslims living in America, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet.

Cut to Sean Hannity who claims Obama categorically stated that the United States was a Muslim nation. It's a completely false allegation.

Watch the video. Any person with an IQ greater than a birch tree will realize that Hannity is flat-out lying.

The depth of their desperation equates to the severity of their troubles. The right-wing kooks are really feeling the pressure, almost to the point where I feel pity for them (but don't).

The Not-So-Great Entertainers

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the yammering clowns say they’re entertainers. The quotes are out there. It's no shocker to us, we’ve always known that sad fact. The problem has always been that their fans either don’t acknowledge this fact or don’t care. Instead, they continue to tune in with baited eyes and ears, believing the many lies and distortions.

Here's an idea, the next time these charlatans criticize a celebrity/entertainer for having and conveying a political point of view, let’s be certain to remind them of their self-proclaimed entertainer status. Last time I checked, these fellas were pontificating quite often about all things political.

Just more of that hypocrisy we've come to expect....

The $2 Trillion Swing

When Bill Clinton exited office, he left behind a hefty $850 billion budget surplus. Enter GW and a GOP-controlled Congress and it didn't take long for that surplus to vanish.

The deficit is now projected to be $1.2 trillion and this chart breaks down how much of that shortfall is on Obama's head, versus GW.

Of the $2 trillion swing in good fortune, it appears to me that Obama is responsible for just about $200 billion, or 10%. Remember that figure the next time you hear a Republican bemoaning spending and deficits.

Lawrence O' Donnell sums things up nicely.

These are the kind of court jester, clown voices that are left in the atmosphere, in the aftermath of the Bush presidency...
<..>
The mistake a party makes, or a partisan can make, is jumping up and down about everything.

So true. Many Dems voted against Roberts and/or Alito and yet you heard none of the hysterics that you're hearing now from the GOP and the screeching wingnuts re Sotomayor. I believe it says more about the voters (and listeners) of the other side than anything else, the fact that they react emotionally much more so than with a level head demanding facts.

Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest of the clown-like entertainers all know this full well, sadly.

Those Republicans still proud of their RNC please say "I"...?

Last we heard the RNC wanted to rename the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party" (but after getting much-deserved grief over, by no less than Fox News' Cavuto, the RNC abandoned the idea). Now we see they've turned their attention to Nancy Pelosi, stoking the sexism angle, comparing her to Hollywood starlets and in particular a James Bond girl, Pussy Galore from the movie Goldfinger.

Never mind that regardless of who's telling the truth, Pelosi or the CIA, the fact remains she had no authority over actually authorizing the torture, the illegal acts, the war crimes, to begin with. That fell with, remained with the administration in charge.

Don't you just love the way the RNC will wag that dog, shift the focus, "hey, look over here -- no, not there, here!" Anything to get the attention off the so many wrongs committed by there side.

But to sink beyond zero, Pussy Galore, "botox withdrawal" (from a former Oxy abuser, no less)... Just when you thought they've bottomed out, they go one level lower.

"Cheney's public relations tour sparks criticism"

No surprises here. Apart from the fact he's out there flailing about in hopes of winning over at least some public opinion, but more so some possible future jurists, what we're seeing now is what we've known all along: who was really running the country from 2001-2008? Me thinks not Junior. You have Cheney now attempting to protect and defend his legacy (ass?), not necessarily their legacy.

That said the Dark Lord remains one scary psychopath.

More proof that financial companies own Congress and that the affluent in this country continue to benefit from legislation versus average Americans:

During negotiations last week over the contentious loan-modification amendment, banks did win some concessions from Democratic lawmakers.

“We gave [the banks] extraordinary leeway in terms of deciding whether a person could raise this in bankruptcy court,” says Senate majority whip Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois, who led the negotiations.

These included requiring that homeowners try to renegotiate terms with the bank at least 45 days in advance of seeking relief in the courts, limiting the kinds of mortgages to be covered by bankruptcy reform, and precluding homeowners from going forward in bankruptcy if the mortgage lender made a good-faith offer of renegotiation.

In the end, though, the sweeteners were not enough to win the industry’s support for the amendment. “We added all these things at the request of the banking institutions, and they said: ‘Fine, we leave. We’re not part of this.’ They walked away,” Senator Durbin says.

Courts are already allowed to write down the terms of loans on secondary homes, yachts, and other big-ticket items involved in bankruptcy proceedings, but not on an individual’s primary residence.

The failed amendment would have given judges in bankruptcy proceedings the power to have loan terms on a primary residence renegotiated so that the owner facing foreclosure could remain in his/her home. The kicker is this provision is already law for those who own a second home, a boat, and other "big-ticket items."

In other words, the wealthy are able to renegotiate better terms on their prized possessions, albeit as unnecessary as they may be, and yet less-wealthy Americans are not extended the same right when it comes to their primary residence!

Have to love the fairness. Incredible.

It seems the RNC believes Republicans have been too nice to Obama and now it's time to toss the gloves and fight bare-knuckled. More proof that they're living in some kind of detached, parallel universe.

Given the latest polls, like the one below, they have quite the uphill battle on this front:

I can't vouch for the veracity, but South Korea's newspaper is claiming a swine flu vaccine has been developed.

Let's review: the conventional techniques of persuasion applied by the FBI produced actionable (good) intel, but when the CIA stepped in and applied harsh (illegal) techniques (torture) the suspect refused to offer any intel (he shut down).

As for whether or not torture works, it's not the point. It's illegal, period. It's a crime. If you don't like that fact, then change the law. Until that happens, torture is illegal and to give orders for it to happen is to break the law.

What was it the Republicans used to say over and over, something like "the rule of law"...? Yeah, right.

If true, very scary:

As the news is constantly telling us, Pakistan is undergoing a fight for its survival as a secular state. We are skeptical about these reports, for according to our sources much of Pakistan is already under the control of the Taliban, and in most of the rest of Pakistan, the Taliban has an important presence.
<..>
In our opinion, Pakistan has already fallen under the influence of non-productive influences, and the U.S. is once again paying the price for supporting regimes who have no interest in bettering the quality of live of the local people. In our opinion, the U.S. and its allies should focus much more attention on India to stabilize the South Asian and eastern Mid East regions.

From a fairly well-respected investment management firm. Nuclear Pakistan is already lost to the Taliban? To the point where we should just focus on currying favor with and supporting its neighbor, India?? I hope not true, or that there's still time left to reverse the course of events in Pakistan, but this investment firm has been correct on several things in the past (disclosure: I have no connection whatsoever to the firm)....

And as for the relative value of geopolitical insights or info coming from investment-type firms, don't sell it short (so to speak). Often times, these firms have as clients or speak with some of the most connected, informative, and influential people in the world, or at least those who know those types of people, so very frequently the info is far better than you might first assume. But again, let's hope in this case it's wrong.

From Paul Krugman today, I love this opening line:

In a way, it was easy to take stands during the Bush years: the Bushies and their allies in Congress were so determined to move the nation in the wrong direction that one could, with a clear conscience, oppose all the administration’s initiatives.

Close your eyes and throw the opposition dart, and you were bound to hit bulls-eye. Sadly we'll be paying for and trying to undo their wrongs for many, many years to come.

Some brief comments (dated, but so be it):

Regarding potential nominees to be next Supreme Court justice, Kevin Drum writes, "Nobody gets nominated anymore unless their judicial temperament is fully and unequivocally cast in stone. The market for moderates and interesting thinkers is pretty much gone." Agreed, the pool of "interesting thinkers" has become quite shallow, but as for "moderates" I'm not sure what Kevin is getting at. It would seem to me that the only hope for passage in this day and age is if the nominee were a moderate. To be perceived as too far to the right or left is to be deemed no-shot from the get-go.

Condi Rice's recent "And by the way..." response to torture sounds like a panic move regarding any future investigatory proceedings that may occur on this front. She was basically exclaiming in no uncertain terms, "IT WASN'T ME! I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS! IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING EVERYTHING WAS LEGAL!!" Me thinks she doth protest too much...

We find out Miss California opposes gay marriage AND she got a boob job. So let me understand, I assume she believes that God is against gay marriage, and if the case then shouldn't her body -- made by God -- be good enough and beautiful enough as is and not require augmentation? Or does she feel God's work required improvement, that it wasn't quite perfect...?

I apologize for the much less frequent updating of this blog, but I guess it goes with territory. I started writing here in early 2004 mainly because I needed an outlet to remain sane. I didn't care if I had 10 readers or 10,000, I just wanted to get off my chest and out of my head the many critical things that needed to be said about the worst presidency this country has ever had to withstand. If not for anything else, the blog was a catharsis, a mind purge that allowed me to decompress. That's not to say that I didn't wish to communicate my thoughts and hopefully connect with and/or influence a few people out there, but it just wasn't my primary goal.

That said with Obama now in office, I can breath much easier and frankly there's less to get angry about. Yes, the GOP is crazier than ever, which is really something to behold since most of us thought they were off-their-rocker nuts just a year or two ago. But given the extent of their devolution into obsolescence, it's become much less worthwhile or even necessary to write about their latest outrageous statement or beyond-the-pale media stunt.

In effect, the entire Republican party has become like Ann Coulter, with most respectable progressive blogs never mentioning her because she's simply not credible and is just a laughable cartoon character, undeserving of an entry 99% of the time. And given this sad fact that the other major political party in the country has marginalized itself to the point of being equivalent to Coulter or Malkin or Beck, that all the more explains my relative radio silence here.

I will try to pick up the pace regarding updates, but based on what I described above it's just not worth the bother.

Quote of the year, from of all people, Bernard Goldberg, telling Sean Hannity enough is enough with criticism of Obama:

"I'm sorry, Sean....but we have to stop going out of our way to find fault with every single thing he does.... If something bad happened here, and thank God it didn't, but if something bad happened here, I guarantee you, I'll tell you who would have been leading the crusade against him: you."

Hannity was looking to find fault with the way Obama handled the pirate/hostage situation.

These far-right talking heads have become laughing-stock buffoons, even more so than they've ever been. Since nothing seems to stick with regards to smears against Obama, it's been an exercise in continuously raising the bar of mud-slinging, propagandizing, and just sheer over-the-top behavior (see Glenn Beck). When and how will it end? Will their tea-bagging day become their jump-the-shark moment?

Until then, it's quite sad to watch the escalation of idiocy.

As for Kevin's question concerning Norm Coleman, I'm sticking with my original premise. I wouldn't be surprised if Coleman files for appeal around Memorial Day....

Just loving the latest Letterman interview with Bill O'Reilly, a riot.

Dave starts off fairly early by delivering the money quote, telling Bill "I think of you as a goon." Dave refers to a picture of a young Bill and is concerned because Dave has a young son and some day his boy may grow up to likewise become a goon. The crowd roars with laughter....

Bill makes the claim that it wasn't Rush Limbaugh's big mouth, or RNC head Michael Steele, or the millions of fearful Dittoheads that hurled Rush into the limelight regarding the Republican Party. No, Bill claims it was James Carville's doing... Ah, yeah, OK.

I love the way Bill claims to be the luckiest guy in the world now that he's out of talk radio. Easy to believe that a guy who sells his fans coffee mugs, golf balls, and "No Pinheads" doormats would supposedly walk away from talk radio $$$.... OK, right.... I imagine it had zilch to do with ratings problems....

Another fave money quote, Bill says "I don't check in with the Republican Party very often." Seriously, he said this....

Bill asks Dave, why "cheap shot" Rush? Are you kidding me? Limbaugh, The Master of the Cheap Shot? But more so, it's choice to hear Bill plead with Dave to ease up on poor, undeserving Rush -- this coming from a guy who sends his attack-dog producers to hound people at their homes....

Bill considers Rush and Glenn Beck as "entertainers" and yet considers himself to be a "journalist," providing hard-hitting news and facts.... You can't make this stuff up....

Finally, speaking of making stuff up, Dave point-blank asks Bill what is the percentage that you just make up, and Bill immediately responds to Dave in a serious fashion! He doesn't laugh or snicker, or even just ignore the question, which would at least then provide the appearance that he was in on the joke. No, dopey Bill barks back at Dave that gosh darn it he makes nothing up, he has a top-notch research department, blah blah blah.

You can just see that Dave is having so much fun taking shots at the "goon" and yet it's just too easy. Bill is a clueless straight man and yet no good comic likes to capitalize on punch lines that are coming way too easily. As bad as Dave makes Bill look, make no mistake, it could have been much worse.

We have the right criticizing Obama because he's Obama, and we have the left criticizing him because he's being too much like GW. Lovely.

Folks, he's been in office for about two months, i.e. a fairly short time. Most of us who voted for him knew he was an enormous improvement over the intellect of the previous guy in office, not to mention the alternative (McCain). Can we now at least have a tiny bit of faith that Obama is not completely clueless and may in fact know what he's doing, or is at least making the best decisions possible under the circumstances?

That's not to say we must stifle dissent or blindly follow our leader, not at all. When Obama screws up or does something I disagree with, I'll be there to criticize. However, with regards to much of what he's rightly spending his time on, that being the economy and the financial crisis, the proof in the pudding will not be known for many months from now, so I'll refrain from harsh words until some real evidence becomes known as to whether it's working or not. Until then, I'll just exercise some faith.

Very true words from Ruth:

If it weren’t so appalling, it would be fascinating to compare the behavior of Republican and Democratic congressional legislators when confronted by an Administration of the opposite party. I watched in dismay as Republican leaders arrogantly obstructed efforts to address the growing economic crisis as millions of families contemplate poverty. Their vindictive, mean-spirited posturing adds nothing to clarify and improve the legislation; all effort goes to ridicule and defamation. On the other hand, the Democrats during the Bush years paid obsequious deference to the President and supported a litany of Administrative debacles. The Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and a no-strings bailout are just three that continue to haunt us. Neither party has served us well.

You have the a-hole Republicans who would continue to play partisan politics even if they knew a gigantic asteroid was about to hit the planet. And yet you also have the spineless Democrats, who enabled an a-hole president to get just about anything and everything he wanted -- compare to the opposition party today and the current president.

Yes, at times, one indeed wonders which party is worse....

I agree with Kevin, they've gone too far.

Steve Benen has it right regarding Cheney's recent burst of absurdities. Quayle? Gore? Did they trot out harsh (and misleading, fact-challenged) criticism weeks after leaving office? Don't think so. Where's the criticism against such unprecedented behavior and motives? This from a VP of an administration that disdained criticism from without as well as within. Just more proof that these walking embarrassments continue to be in hyper-revise-past-and-repair-legacy mode.

Here's an idea: whenever Obama gets back to health care, he should consult with Hillary. Although numbing in detail many years ago, her work on this issue was far (too far?) ahead of its time when it came to recognizing the need for change. Obama would do well to include her in discussions. Yes, she's now foreign policy, but still she's a multi-talented resource.

I never would've thought it was possible but the far-right talking heads have become even more insane, with Man-on-Dog Rick Santorum claiming that "the fundamentals of American economy is still strong" and Michael Savage believes that "the environment...is being used by the Obama administration in an attempt to gain control of the US population." You have to listen to believe it. And of course it includes comparisons to Hitler. (Is Obama a fascist or a socialist? Make up your minds fellas.).

This is what they did to Bill Clinton for eight years and they haven't missed a beat in starting it up again versus Obama. The worst part is their doddering minions just lap it all up, without questioning a thing....

Incredible.

The American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

When can we finally go ahead and nationalize these sinkhole institutions? When is enough enough?

UPDATE: Even more priceless: "An even bigger problem...was that financial products employees who are denied payments could quit and that AIG's losses...could spiral enormously if the only people who understand the company's convoluted dealings are not around to 'unwind' the damage they have caused." Don't you love it?! AIG has to pay the screw ups millions of dollars so they won't leave because supposedly they're the only ones who can undo the damage they've wrought... AGHHHH!!!!!

Leader of the supposed "Country First" party:

So what is it now, we're up to three Republican politicians who have criticized Rush Limbaugh only to recant and grovel for forgiveness from the almighty blowhard....? Gingrey, Sanford, and now Steele.

Dare I say the first Republican to criticize Rush and actually stand by it and not blink later will receive surprising popularity from their own side. I know, it's a stretch, but I'd like to believe that the entire GOP hasn't sunk to the level where they've simply degenerated into a clamoring horde of mindless, doddering Dittoheads -- but I could be wrong.

The downward slide of the GOP continues, with Jindal's excruciatingly bad performance following Obama's speech now coming with an admission that he told a story that was false. I still can't figure out what was worse, Jindal's "Mr. Rogers" delivery or the sophomoric content of his speech...

But even more so, I don't know the particulars but I would have to guess that before Jindal trotted out in front of a primetime national TV audience and gave the Republican response to Obama, that his comments would have been fully vetted by top people in the GOP. Assuming that's true, it's even more alarming to realize that not just Jindal had the poor judgment to go ahead with that inept performance and speech but that it was apparently given the green light by his party.

If there was any doubt up to that point that the GOP has seriously gone astray, that debacle drove home the sad reality.

Obama is already talking about cutting the budget deficit (he inherited), by half no less...? Is this another bone thrown to the GOP?

Enough already. Yes, it's good to know that Obama is cognizant of our huge deficit, but there is a time and a place for stressing a balanced budget -- and now is not that time. We're facing an economic calamity requiring fiscal spending to first and foremost reverse the tailspin. After evidence surfaces that this objective has been achieved, then and only then should Obama turn his attention, albeit quickly, to resolving the deficit problem. It's just a matter of prioritizing.

After eight years of mangled words and crude expression, how refreshing was it to witness a president who was quite the opposite? Last night Obama was inspiring, not insipid, direct and yet not threatening, forceful while still conveying gentle optimism and encouraging words of hope. Compared to what we had it was like air conditioning on a 100-degree, humid day. To not see the scowl of Cheney in the background or to hear the many references to war, terror, enemies. It was wonderful.

The moment that was most revealing -- in a disturbing way -- was when Obama said "America does not torture." It was an eerie moment with the sense that everyone in the chamber knew that over the last several years we did exactly that, tortured, despite Bush/Cheney's denials and wordplay around the matter. It was an unspoken, accepted belief in the room that we had tortured and after Obama spoke those words, everyone rose to their feet and clapped, acknowledging that a shameful period of time had finally passed, but recognizing also that crimes were committed and nothing was or has been done. Really sad.

Alan Keyes is still hard at work being insane.

What a shocker! The Bush presidency was indeed providing the likes of Fox News, Limbaugh, etc. with talking points. Just call them partisan disseminators.

If there's one thing certain about this year's Oscars, it's that Slumdog will win best picture.

From a recent AP poll, approval ratings on handling of the economy: Obama +41% (68% approve vs. 27% disapprove), Democrats in Congress +4% (49% vs. 45%), Republicans in Congress -26% (33% vs. 59%). Looks like the GOP has their work cut out for them...

And it appears as if one of the things they're going to spend their time on is getting to the bottom of the whopping 3% of the stimulus bill that they believe to be pork. I'm willing to bet in the many bills that the GOP-controlled Congress passed during the Bush years, the amount of pork in those spending behemoths was well above 3%, well above... It's never about the amount of pork but rather that the spending is going towards things the GOP does not favor, plain and simple.

GW's former speechwriter declares that recessions can be good for you. I suppose this follows the same logic that global warming is good because it will boost crop output in certain parts of the world. Gads. And I thought Bill Kristol's column in the Times was dopey...

The biofuel boom is destroying rainforests.

Dennis Kucinich on Fox Business talking about the SEC and Allen Stanford. What's most disturbing to me is to see the depths to which Fox will go to get people to tune in to their fledgling (and failing?) business channel. Watch the video: young "hip" male with long hair, to his right a gorgeous model with a VERY low cut dress, the "newscast' taking place at a bar -- WTF?

The Republicans may have screwed themselves with their adamant stance against the stimulus bill. I get the fact that they stacked all their chips on the bet that Obama and this bill will not successfully impact the economy, and in effect they're hoping we transition from a recession to a depression (have to love that "country first" BS!).

But it may not work the way they believe. If the economy does in fact slowly recover, needless to say Obama (and the Dems) wins and the Republicans lose, game over. However, if indeed the economy stays in the tank and it appears as if the stimulus bill was all for naught, there is a good possibility the public will not immediately and categorically blame Obama (and the Dems) for this outcome. The Republicans may try to make the case that the $800 give/take billion was a waste, but the public isn't always that dumb and mindless. With the help from Dems, the public could realize that 1) 20/20 hindsight blame is cheap and easy, 2) at least Obama and the Dems tried, at least they tried to do something in the face of grave circumstances, and 3) the public will hopefully recall that the economy was already in deep, deep trouble before Obama set foot in the White House. It's more difficult to slowdown a runaway train once it's been able to attain higher speeds. As many have already written (particularly Paul Krugman), this stimulus bill may be too light to tackle the problems we now face, but arguably it also came too late.

As it is there's already signs of rescue plan fatigue. A few more such plans were announced recently and the stock market just heads lower on the news. People may now have low expectations that any of this stuff will work -- which further gets to my point. For the Republican plan to work, they need not only that Obama fail, but also that people have very high expectations that he will succeed. Regarding the latter, the public is hopeful and supports Obama, yet that doesn't necessarily mean they have high expectations given the daunting task(s) at hand (only the worst economy since the Great Depression).

To sum up, if the economy recovers this year, Obama and the Dems are big winners and the GOP huge losers. If the economy does not recover this year, and either remains as bad as now or possibly even gets worse, the Republicans still may not end up winners. They didn't try to do anything to help, were rooting against the president at the time, and the public may decide that given the degree to which the economy is and has been reeling, no one person or entity can be blamed for it.

In my mind, Republicans face more of a lose-tie or lose-nothing scenario on this matter as opposed to what they believe to be a lose-win situation. Regardless, one thing is clear: they're clearly betting against the economy, and the country.

Absolutely priceless. The shameless GOP at work.

Regarding what I wrote about Norm Coleman and the GOP on Feb. 9th, six days later it appears as if I was right. Franken may never see the light of Washington.

I also wrote on Feb. 9th: "Obama needs to do what he did to win the White House: appeal directly to the public, circumventing the wrapped-in-politics swamp that is currently and has been DC." Four days later in Politico: "But the strategy to promote these items is getting an emergency overhaul. Obama plans to travel more and campaign more in an effort to pressure lawmakers with public support, rather than worrying about whether he can win over Republican votes in Congress." Excellent.

Can we stop reading about how Obama has got his wish: to limit the pay of all financial executives on the planet? Many are making it sound as if this executive pay limit applies to all companies in the entire financial industry, as opposed to just those companies requesting taxpayer-funded aid -- obviously not true. That still leaves thousands upon thousands of firms that can pay whatever they want to top talent.

As for the pay limit applied to TARP-needy firms, what's wrong with some form of "punishment" for their past misdeeds in exchange for lifeblood aid? Also, the exorbitant plane purchases and lavish parties attracted as-expected wide attention, all but forcing the hand of media-sensitive Obama and Congress to originate and implement this pay limit.

Also, don't you just love the way these complainers don't necessarily mind capitalism bending a bit by way of receiving savior funds to prop up companies that the invisible hand is supposed to extinguish, and yet they'll scream "socialism" if you dare curb compensation on said firms...?

So enough with the excessive generalities. Obama and Congress are not instituting a blanket ban on high comp for all financial companies. Such mischaracterizations are irresponsible and serve as simple-minded propaganda.

Why the political content of Forbes magazine is nearly as funny as that of the WSJ editorial page:

Before the September meltdown one might have graded George W. Bush with a "B" (on the Reagan scale) for his two-term presidency. On the exemplary side, Bush prevented a post-9/11 attack, and he cut taxes in 2003, which sparked the economy. What prevented a higher grade were bad appointments (Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Brown and the near disaster of Harriet Miers, to name only three, with more to come) and speaking skills that embarrassed even his fans.

Alas, the Bush Administration's bobble of the 2008 financial crisis knocked W down to a "C," at best....

Yeah, Harriet Miers was his big screw-up -- geez.

I wonder, could the GOP be encouraging Norm Coleman to keep up his hopeless fight to win Minnesota, to at least delay Franken's seating as long as possible to deny him voting on the crucial matters that face us?

Michael Hirsh of Newsweek recently wrote a column with some terrific points. Some segments:

The reason Obama is getting so few votes is that he is no longer setting the terms of the debate over how to save the economy. Instead the Republican Party—the one we thought lost the election—is doing that. And the confusion and delay this is causing could realize Obama's worst fears, turning "crisis into a catastrophe..."
<..>
Obama's desire to begin a "post-partisan" era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending.
<..>
Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough.
<..>
Obama needs to remind the American people that unless the Republicans get on board, they will bear political responsibility for failing to act in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The lesson: to court bipartisan compromise only works if both parties involved are sincere in their intentions. Obama tried (too) many times to win over Republicans and as much as he tried, he got nowhere. Instead, he's been treated to harsh criticism from the GOP's water-carriers, namely talk radio and Fox News.

Obama needs to do what he did to win the White House: appeal directly to the public, circumventing the wrapped-in-politics swamp that is currently and has been DC. As we now fully understand and realize, the GOP is willing to do only that which they perceive to be in their interest -- the country be damned.

How a national home insulation plan would boost the economy, cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers billions of dollars over the years. An investment that would have a multi-pronged payoff. Alas, there's not a shot the GOP would support such a sensible idea. It needs to be much more idiotic and imprudent for the Republicans to go for it.

Reminder from 2004 (prescient): 60% of U.S. corporations paid zero taxes from 1996-2000 (hardly a period of recession). 94% of corporations had a tax liability of less than 5% of income. "...any benefit working families have received from the Bush tax cuts has been more than offset by the additional tax burden they must bear because corporations no longer pay their fair share of taxes." And yet Republicans now want to push through even more tax cuts.... Insanity.

On Friday morning, Steve Benen wrote, "The Senate bill grew, not by additional stimulus spending -- the chamber narrowly defeated a measure to expand infrastructure investment -- but by adding $94 billion in tax cuts. The Nelson/Collins group, to make the package 'palatable,' isn't eyeing the tax breaks that aren't stimulative, they're eyeing about $100 billion in spending that is stimulative." So they were looking to add about $100 billion in tax cuts and subtract about $100 billion in spending, or about a $200 billion swap. The original plan was already too small when it came to stimulus spending and the Senate compromise version is even smaller. Paul Krugman says "this is really, really bad."

It's about time they admitted to it: Rep. Sessions (R-TX) urged the GOP to become more like the Taliban. The party of crazies.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment to Dick Cheney is an absolute must-view:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bush: eight years of blunders, no admission of mistakes, no apologies. Obama: within weeks of his taking office, he admits, "I screwed up." Now that's change.

This despite this. Business before IQ / health.

I hardly write about sports, if ever, but with this Super Bowl I have to make this point. If the Arizona Cards win, it will be the biggest fraud to occur in any sport in quite some time. Many will protest, saying "But they won the Super Bowl! End of story." Sorry, in most years the winner of the Super Bowl is more often than not the best team in the NFL that season, or certainly one of the top 3. Yet this year with the Cards making it all the way to the big one, it proves that on rare occasion an impostor can have everything break their way and stand to be crowned #1.

What do I mean? The Cards finished the regular season a mediocre 9-7 to win the weakest division in the NFL. They won their home games (6-2) but had a losing record on the road (with several losses absolute blowouts), meaning they frequently took advantage of teams having to make the long trip to Phoenix, but then faltered badly when they had to make same trip to East Coast. Thanks to their divisional standing, they were fortunate to get home field advantage in two post-season games, a huge edge, and the one game they did not (as +10 pt. dogs to the Panthers) they again were fortunate with the Panthers turning the ball over six (!) times). Note: typically if a team has a net turnover margin of two or greater in a game, they don't win. Six turnovers makes it near impossible to win.

The NFL should re-evaluate their playoff rules. It should not be that the winners of each division get home field advantage. These teams should obviously get into the playoffs but it should be the W/L record that dictates home fields. The fact is the Cards should have never been at home in the post-season given their pedestrian record. Meanwhile, we saw the 12-4 Indy Colts have to play on the road versus the 8-8 SD Chargers -- it's simply not right.

I fully expect the Steelers to win by double-digits. They're simply the better team, esp. on defense (which typically is what matters most in these big games). However, the better team does not always win and again, in this case not only would the lesser team prove fortunate to win, but the clearly lesser team is lucky to have made it this far in the post-season. Kudos to them for making it so far with a subpar team, but I'm sorry, if they hold up that Super Bowl trophy, I for one will not suddenly erase their stats and their regular season record and salute them as best in the league. Not even close.

The John Thain news just further reinforces the notion that to be a CEO at a major corporation requires one to be part psychotic, part sociopath. These people are so often removed from everyday reality and can tell a lie better than Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct -- it's not all that surprising when hearing about the details of Thain's reprehensible actions. If it was any of us, you wonder how you could face your neighbors or acquaintances in town, but these people don't come into contact with mere regular folk so they have nothing to worry about when it comes to shame or embarrassing encounters. And I'm willing to bet the people Thain does hob-nob with will likely forgive him or worse, understand and empathize with his apparent motives.

I asked it a week ago in the entry below and I'll ask again: can someone please tell me, where is the socialist that is supposed to be inhabiting the White House for the next fours years? Not only did Obama pack his original stimulus proposal with tax breaks amounting to 40% of the total cost, but word is he's willing to include even more tax breaks to win over some straggling dissenting Republicans. But that won't stop the lunatic right from fanning the flames of fear with that "S" word, and unfortunately the fools that comprise their base will just unquestionably take it as gospel...

My two favorite progressive radio shows are hosted by Thom Hartmann and Ron Reagan Jr. John Harris of Politico was recently on Reagan Jr.'s show to discuss an article he co-wrote and he made a comparison between invading Iraq and Obama's fiscal stimulus proposal. He claims beware of the herd instinct as it was wrong when Bush pushed for the invasion of Iraq and it may be wrong again when it comes to spending nearly $1 trillion in hopes of averting an economic depression. The two couldn't be more different. Prior to invading Iraq, there were several experts warning against it (but were either ignored or told to revise their intel/thinking), we were told it was going to be quick and cheap, we were told it had something to do with 9/11. As for the stimulus package, many top economists (experts) believe that this move is the right one and the alternative facing us if it's defeated is much more real when it comes to adverse ramifications than anything that was ever verifiable when it came to an Iraqi threat. The comparison is absurd.

More and more trees are dying due to global warming. Meanwhile, in late October it was reported that Bush/Cheney were rushing to have power-plant pollution rules relaxed. Let's hope we can recover from all the damage wrought by these irresponsible, craven clowns. Thankfully, this just in, Obama will let states decide when it comes to emission standards; recall Bush was for states rights on many things -- but not air pollution (he wanted to insure all 50 states had bad air).

In today's NY Times magazine, there's a brief interview with former SEC chief, Arthur Levitt. Wow, in my humble opinion, it's all quite embarrassing. When asked if he has modified his spending habits given the dismal economic environment, Levitt says, "Yes. I canceled a vacation to the Far East that I had planned for the spring. I don’t feel right about spending large sums of money in this environment." That's nice, he doesn't feel "right" about it -- I guess meaning it would look bad. It's safe to say that Levitt is worth many millions, many. I wonder what he decided on instead for a vacation spot... As for Madoff, when asked why the SEC under his watch did not catch this longtime schemer, Levitt says, "Bernie Madoff was simply not on our screen." What can you say? Incompetence did not just occur in the last eight years.

UPDATE: At InTrade, odds of the U.S. entering into a depression (not recession, a depression) is up to 65%.

As far as I know, Bernie Madoff is not in jail. So let me understand this, if he was caught with a couple of ounces of marijuana, his butt would've been tossed in the pokie -- like most who get caught with said amount of weed. But because he defrauded many people out of $50 billion (with a "B"), he gets to avoid such an existence...? And we're to believe our justice system is blind to class or social status?

President-elect Obama recently gave a speech to the public. Isn't this unheard of, for the to-be prez to give such a speech? Some might say unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the current administration many weeks ago just checked out. What we've been treated to instead is both Bush and Cheney taking to the interview circuit, trying desperately to shore up their legacy, concerned more about themselves than our country. If anything, now is a time when both the prez and prez-elect should be working together in hopes of staving off a depression. Instead, we have an empty White House and Obama governing from afar.

Here's a question: what ever happened to all that talk from the right about Obama being a socialist? Call me crazy but I don't think a socialist would have 40% of his stimulus package comprised of tax cuts. Hmm, could this have been just more pre-election red-scare labeling to frighten voters, more empty rhetoric based on zilch? You know, like the empty rhetoric McCain voiced with his bragging he knew how to capture or takeout Osama bin Laden (and apparently such know-how still stays with him). Socialist, my arse.

Surprise! This administration had a direct role in torture. Bush is likely to grant many pardons to protect the guilty, but can Bush pardon himself?

Kevin Drum writes about how Bush's science advisor for eight years was not allowed to insert any science into the president's briefings. (Instead, he was likely forced to bring GW milk and cookies three times a day).

It's a bit disturbing to witness the excessive expectations people have in Obama. Prior to the election, Republicans tried as they might to convince people he was the Messiah. The right-wing knew to “reverse engineer” what they do to benefit their side: play down expectations; with Obama, they played up expectations to the hilt in hopes that he would fail at least in the court of public perception. Unfortunately, he’s being tagged as President Panacea (i.e. cure for all ills), and in large part it's why Obama made the unprecedented move of a prez-elect doing a speech prior to the inauguration, in hopes of making clear the many severe problems we face and play down expectations. However, it appears as if very few heard what he was saying or even more so understood the purpose of giving the speech....

This is disturbing:


It shows on InTrade the odds that the U.S. will enter a depression this year (we're already in a recession; we're talking depression with a "D"). 56% believe it will happen -- scary.

The GOP is blackmailing Obama into providing tax cuts if he wishes to pass his stimulus plan. The country is in danger of potentially regressing into the Great Depression II and most legit economists say on record that a massive spending package is needed to avert such a disaster. However, the GOP does not wish to hear from high-minded academics; they'd rather do as usual and cater to their affluent cronies. Of the proposed $775 billion plan, 40% is now pegged towards tax cuts, leaving around $500 billion in spending money. But even the $775 billion figure was regarded as too light if it were completely dedicated to spending as most credible figures on the subject state that more like $1 trillion is needed to really push the needle.

What's most outrageous is to witness the GOP suddenly gain renewed religion when it comes to fiscal prudence. From 2000-2007, the GOP controlled government spent our money like there was no tomorrow, as shown in this graph:



Notice the two rising red lines. The deficit as a % of GDP has risen under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

It's hard to imagine Republicans becoming any more of a joke.

Hey, hello again. Yes, it's been over a month since I last wrote something up here, but what can I tell you -- with Obama in and Bush out, there is simply less to get angry about. Give it some time, once Obama is sworn in you can bank on the GOP slime machine kicking into high gear so odds are there will be plenty to get worked up over in the coming months.

As for now, I had some thoughts / comments, starting with: whatever happened to McCain boasting about how he knew how to get Osama bin Laden...? Having lost the election, McCain apparently has decided to just sit pat with that curious secret -- is that his version of putting country first? (Hmm, me thinks this was just more empty rhetoric; fits with the real priorities of his run: election/me first, the country a far distant second).

Could Rick Warren be Obama's first truly bad decision? I have to lean with the affirmative. On the one hand, you have sympathetic folks on the left trying desperately to make the case that this is some genius move by Obama to show that he truly means to be inclusive and a unifier. However, what you have with Rick Warren is not just someone who disagrees with same-sex marriage but goes much further than that by comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. In other words, Warren crosses over a line - by miles. Whereas Obama may have indeed wished to send a message with this choice, he erred in simply making the wrong choice for his messenger in this regard. You don't "reward" someone with views like Warren's with such a high-profile function. Period.

I too agree with the many who have blogged that we should not a give a dime to Paulson. The Treasury head has been pleading for the remaining billions of the $700 billion to be handed out ASAP. It's quite obvious that the first half of that $700 billion has not worked as hoped and thus Paulson's credibility is zilch. Before throwing the rest of our good money into what could be a sinkhole, better to wait a few weeks and allow for Obama's people to do the distributing. In so doing, may we see more stringent stipulations conveyed and enforced and a better designed road map to eventual recovery.

Many haven't noticed how this administration is hard at work 24/7 looking to give away as much as possible to industry friends and connected cronies. As if they haven't screwed enough the environment and our future health for the last eight years, in the last several weeks they've picked up their pace to insure that our planet is devastated for that many more years to come, thanks to their wonderful stewardship. Business first, the public's welfare a far distant second.

And how about Cheney all but bragging about his direct involvement in the torture planning and proceedings.... Amazing. Many believe this is Dick's odd way of signaling to GW that he'd like a pardon (much like his buddy Libby received). I beg to differ in that I believe Dick is a bit of a sociopath and that he truly believes his involvement in these illegal activities is perfectly fine. Much like Nixon's it's-not-illegal-if-the-Prez-did-it reasoning, Cheney likely believes in his head that he's on firm ground, that he did nothing wrong -- Dr. Strangelove redux. But it's also just Cheney thumbing his nose at our legal system, our Constitution, our country. He cares not a wit about the laws that apply to you and me; such well-meant conventions are for suckers, for the commoners. In his far-gone mind, he's above it all, and has been for years. And they'd like us to believe they place country first -- laughable.

The Bush administration is becoming like genital herpes -- you can't get rid of these people!

GW is not satisfied with inflicting eight years of lasting damage on the country, no, he wants to "burrow" many of his incompetent stooges deep within the government to continue the onslaught for years to come. Obama's people will have to identify these "moles" and either keep close eye on them or look to remove them, the latter choice reportedly a difficult task.

Only 62 days until our national nightmare is finally over, but apparently the Bush/Cheney "experience" will stay with us in some form or another for quite some time (much like Freddy Krueger).

And just look at what the creeps are looking to do in southern Utah, one of the most beautiful expanses of land in the country. I ache.

Earlier this year I wrote:

Cut to climate change. It too is MAD, as we're all "mutually assured destruction" if we continue to ignore this problem. However, the fact that global warming does not conjure up jarring images like hundreds of war heads pointed at our country or "finger on the button" jitters makes the entire issue less frightening, less impending, less urgent. Yet with each passing year of no mandates, no action, no urgency makes the probability of MAD that much more irreversible and certain.

When will this enormously pressing problem generate the fear it deserves, to be treated less as a luxury that can be managed or curtailed at the margin?

The fortunate thing about global warming is it is occurring at a slow enough pace so that we're not in any immediate jeopardy today, allowing for precious time to potentially address what needs to be done. However, the unfortunate aspect to that benefit is the threat is not foreboding enough, namely that global warming is not perceived as something that will kill us tomorrow, thus affording us time to worry about many other things other than global warming.

Alternet has an excellent article discussing the many problems with how people perceive global warming. It's worth reading and circulating to friends and family.

Be very afraid: even as we sleep, Obama is holding secret meetings as he plans to turn the country into a Marxist state.... (Oh, and I heard he may try to cancel Christmas).

Isn't it great to witness the GOP sailing towards irrelevancy? In general, the reasonable Republicans lost (Shays) on November 4th and the crazies and kooks won (Inhofe, Bachman, McConnell, etc.). As a result, the party has moved that much closer to the extreme right -- and that much further away from positions held by most Americans.

Enough with the critics who say Rahm Emanuel is too much of an attack dog to be an effective chief of staff. Look, one needs a hard-line keeper of the asylum given the opposition party is riddled with nutballs and zealots who will look to take down Obama given the chance.

Hey, whatever happened to Karl Rove's subpoena? I thought it was going to be enforced??

Hello, and I hope you voted today!

I remain extremely optimistic that this time there will be no chicanery, no shenanigans, that for once in quite some time we'll have a clean reflection of what the people want and desire in their government.

I've been perusing around to see what the Vegas-type odds are saying at various web sites and I'm heartened by what I'm finding. For example, at World Sports Exchange, Obama is favored to win the election by a percentage of 93% (out of 100%), meaning it should be a lock. In the following key states Obama has very strong numbers: FL 73%, VA 87%, OH 80%, NV 83%, PA 90%, and NC 57%.

Not to jinx it, but it looks like he should easily get over 300 electoral votes. Tomorrow starts a new, long-awaited era.

I've had lingering doubts about the Clintons, their true intentions when it came to Obama, perhaps not wanting to try too hard to help him land in the White House, etc. Well, seeing Bill with Obama in Florida put much of those concerns to rest. Not your typical endorsing stump speech as Clinton goes over the top in all the right ways. See it here.

A terrific blog entry by Steve Benen, further making the case that McCain = Bush, only Benen infers (rightly so) that in some ways McCain is worse. Wow, didn't think that was possible.

In The New York Observer, a letter to the editor from James Ponsoldt:

With John McCain's campaign becoming sleazier and slimier, I've heard a number of Republican friends and family members indicate that they can't possibly vote for him, especially with Sarah Palin waiting in the wings.

But they can't talk about it with church, club or business friends.

So, yes, we'll see a bit of the traditional "Bradley effect" this election, but there will be an even greater "reverse Bradley" effect: longtime Republicans who claim they're sticking with the party but, once they enter the voting booth, won't be able to stomach it.

I am increasingly hearing and reading about an expected reverse-Bradley effect come November 4th. Considering recent evidence tends to show that the Bradley effect is misinterpreted and even outdated, if a reverse-Bradley were to happen (and it's very much conceivable), then Obama's 10-12 point lead could in reality be more like a 15+ point lead.

I recently wrote, "Obama is risking his life by seeking to become president -- a notion that is incredibly horrific but unfortunately something that cannot be dismissed out of hand."

Some unfortunate evidence reported today.

Ed "Walking Around Money" Rollins recently said this about Sarah Palin: "She definitely is going to be the most popular Republican in this country when this thing is over."

What I can't figure out is when this thing is over who is going to be more persona non grata, Bill Kristol or Ed Rollins -- two of Palin's biggest cheerleaders...?

Wanted: finance experts.

The complexities inherent in our modern financial system have increased at an exponential rate over the last several years, one that surely far surpasses the rate of incline for the typical IQ. All the more reason supposed experts are clueless when it comes to this crisis.

The state of our global financial apparatus is beyond fathoming by any one "expert." Bernanke and/or Paulson may think they have it all figured out (though truth be told, I don't think they would ever admit to that), but it's obvious they don't and the point is that shouldn't shock anyone.

Yet that realization doesn't make it any less scary. It's quite a daunting prospect to ponder that a system in which we depend on greatly (!) is currently suffering dearly, has grown out of control in its layers of sophistication to the point where it may implode before we even recognize a remotely appropriate cure for the problem(s).

In the Washington Post last week:

A $25 billion loan program rushed through Congress to revive the nation's ailing domestic auto industry may not deliver any money to Detroit for more than a year, federal officials said, prompting concern that the cash may come too late to prop up one of the country's most important manufacturing sectors.
<..>
The loan package, the largest government subsidy for the auto industry since the 1979 Chrysler bailout, is intended to aid production of more fuel-efficient cars. During the gas crisis of the 1970s, Asian and European automakers capitalized on America's growing appetite for smaller cars. Since then, the Big Three have slipped and continue to lose market share to Toyota, Honda and other foreign brands.
<..>
"It's critical to have a direct loan program, and it's equally important to infuse that money into the industry as quickly as possible," GM spokesman Greg Martin said.

The bailout craze has now hit the auto makers. What ailing industry will we the tax payers save next, the airlines? Retailers? Oh, but you better not call it socialism or nationalization, no way....

Have to love how for years the U.S. auto companies resisted developing and building fuel-efficient vehicles, choosing instead to churn out Hummers, Tahoes, etc. Yet now they need from us these many billions ASAP so that they can survive long enough to develop -- fuel-efficient vehicles.

Only in America....

With his campaign bopping along, looking to find any message that might stick and have some impact, one of the latest is to play up the idea of a unified government (same party) is bad. We just can't have a president, Senate and House all hailing from the same political party, that would be awful.

Look, this message may have worked if McCain didn't choose Palin. Americans might have been more comfortable with this check-mate idea if they didn't have to picture an unqualified diva waiting in the wings with a 72-year old McCain who has experienced serious health issues. That imagery alone is a deal breaker for most Americans and it has come through in the polls. Palin has succeeded in becoming a bigger negative working against McCain than Bush -- amazing.

And this revelation is not lost on McCain who is reportedly fuming about his decision to go with her in the first place, feeling misled by Palin's primary advocate: Bill Kristol. However, if true it's just more proof that McCain equates to Bush in that he not only continues to receive bad advice from inept associates, but that he proceeds and embraces it. We need four more years of that?

The other piece of irony regarding the VP pick is it was said that McCain refused to go with Romney because of a concern about loyalty, that Romney would be more closely aligned with Karl Rove et al than McCain himself, so he felt someone like Palin would be more true-blue and indebted to him. Now of course we hear she's turning on him. The entire campaign has been a disaster and is now unraveling, coming apart at the seams.

On Thursday, Dick Polman noticed a curious error or disconnect when Sarah Palin was being interviewed by James Dobson:

The key moment came when Dobson brought up the official Republican party platform, which decrees total opposition to abortion - with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the endangerment of the woman's life - and proposes that this ban be codified in the U.S. Constitution. Dobson asked Palin, "In your private conversations with Senator McCain, is it your impression that he also strongly supports those views?"

Palin: "I do, from the bottom of my heart. I am such a strong believer that McCain believes in those strong planks, and we do have good conversations about some of the details, too, about the different planks and what they represent. And I'm very heartened that John McCain, he doesn't want a vice president who will check the opinions of me at the door, and we talk about some of these. And they are very important. It's most important, though, as you are suggesting that Americans know that John McCain is solidly there on those solid planks in our platform that build the right agenda for America."

Those remarks prompt me to wonder who at this point is really in charge of the McCain campaign - is it McCain, or her? Because the fact is, McCain has repeatedly indicated that he opposes a total ban on abortion, that he would permit abortions in cases of rape, incest, or the endangerment of the woman's life; as recently as Sept. 8, a McCain aide told the factcheck.org website that McCain favored those exemptions. But here was Palin, apparently on her own, yanking him further rightward.

How can she get this wrong? Her statements obviously differ from McCain's views, with these exceptions making a huge difference on this issue. Is Palin just babbling on like she does, barely knowing anything of which she speaks, OR is she purposefully stating these things, knowingly trying to influence the campaign and rewrite positions to her liking? In other words, is she possibly looking to covertly take over the campaign, to make it more Palin/McCain than McCain/Palin? And if so, what does Mr. McCain think of this?

Well, yesterday Kevin wrote about the looming crack-up between Palin and McCain. It could get very ugly -- before November 4th. This is what happens when you select a bubble-head, narcissistic diva to be your Number 2. Divas never settle for second fiddle.

Do we feel sorry for him yet? Nah.

Hasn't McCain been making a big stink about waste and pork spending, claiming Obama brought home to Illinois a very expensive overhead projector?

Well, it appears his Republican colleague, Sen. Mitch McConnell, is actually bragging about his pork spending on the campaign trail.

Looking desperately for a redoubt, some Republicans are returning to the last refuge of incumbents: pork-barrel spending. McConnell now claims to have delivered $500 million in taxpayer funds to his state in the past year for projects that range from riverfront development to mobile health-care units. By comparison, he says, the most pork any freshman Democratic Senator delivered to a state last year was $16 million.

That's $500 million in pork for just one year. Compare this to Obama's $3 million "overhead projector," which in reality is not what McCain described. The partisan distortions continue.

With fingers crossed and realizing the race is far from over, it's great to see that Electoral-vote.com shows Obama with a huge 364-171-3 lead in the Electoral College. Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight.com shows a similar lead for Obama at 345-193.

To help put these numbers in perspective, please view the following two charts:





The top chart shows Obama/McCain, the bottom shows Bush/Kerry. Like McCain this year, Bush enjoyed a post-convention bounce in the polls, with Kerry having to make up ground in that regard from about late September until the election. Kerry was able to close the gap and actually pull ahead of Bush late, but to no avail.

Compare the McCain/Obama chart to the Bush/Kerry chart. Not even close. Obama gave up some of his lead around the GOP convention, allowing McCain to draw about even at one point, but has since re-expanded his lead in dramatic fashion. Obama's cushion over McCain now easily surpasses his prior high set in June when he was in Europe.

I know about the racism concerns, the voter suppression efforts, the robo-calling, the potential for a late "October Surprise," but if Obama were to lose this election due to some odd, Ohio-like strange happenings then we will have witnessed the hat trick, three consecutive presidential elections that involved shady results. The polling numbers as we see them today has to translate into a resounding Electoral College victory for Obama. Assuming these numbers hold up, all the nefarious chicanery they can muster should not change this expected outcome. If it were to somehow, someway succeed, then the citizens of this country better rise up and demand recounts on a massive scale. As Obama said in Denver, enough!

Kevin Drum believes that if McCain loses, the GOP will likely become even more conservative and right wing, not less.

As unbelievable as it may seem, Kevin is probably correct, Republicans will look to remedy their perceived problems by lurching even further to the right. If you don't think this is possible, I ask who remains in the party with enough influence to effectively advocate for more moderation? Before this year it might have been McCain, but that ship has long ago sailed, so who does that leave, Richard Lugar?? I rest my case.

Christopher Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley Jr., recently endorsed Obama and for that he was forced to leave the magazine his father founded.

Some choice segments in his own words:

As for the mail flooding into National Review Online—that’s been running about, oh, 700-to-1 against. In fact, the only thing the Right can’t quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot. Lethal injection would be too painless.
<..>
Kathleen [Parker] had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster.
<..>
I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.
<..>
So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Glad to see the right wing is imploding from the inside, one by one eating their own. And it's not as if it's one crazed faction warring against another, but rather some within the "big tent" simply see Obama as the better candidate and yet to voice this belief publicly, offering reasons, is apparently an unforgivable sin worthy of banishment.

To those of us on the outside, the question remains: who would ever want to be a part of this group to begin with? Their true colors are evident with these types of episodes as well as on the McCain campaign trail.

Expect more of the same in the next few weeks, and if Obama wins, the next several years.

From yesterday's NY Times:

With time winding down, this administration continues to make anti-environmental changes to please industry friends....

When conservative pundits and commentators have written critical words about McCain and Palin, they have often received angry, threatening emails -- proving much about the sober thoughtfulness and reasoned tolerance of their rabid base.

Frank Rich says don't fall for the offered excuse that McCain's woes are due to GW and the economy. Not quite....

Regarding McCain's debate performance, Kevin Drum wrote, "He sounded like a guy who had so many preplanned attacks lined up that he could barely spit all of them out in the allotted time."

In other words, he was just like his overly coached running mate in her debate. She had so many talking points and sound bites crammed into her noggin that she resorted to just ignoring the questions asked and instead just regurgitate these phrases where/when she could. It ended up sounding forced, nonsensical, and frantic in a very disturbing way.

As Kevin said, McCain similarly seemed to have a gazillion little attack lines that he wanted to launch like spaghetti against the wall, hoping at least one of them would hit the mark ala "I knew John F. Kennedy...." But it was not to be, with instead McCain appearing more/less like a male version of his running mate (sans the winking).

It's quite sad that with either McCain or Palin you never hear a coherent, well thought out answer rooted in policy. All of their responses are reactive, cobbled together talking points and gotcha lines that are expected to resonate with the base -- who apparently just want blurb lines they can repeat at the water cooler and to friends.

Haven't we seen enough of this make-it-up-as-you-go-along "policy" over the last eight years?

Even when it comes to literally their Joe Six Pack, there ends up being falsehoods here and there.

Christopher Hitchens endorses Obama.

[T]he difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, and there is no decent way of avoiding the fact. Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience.
<..>
I suppose it could be said, as Michael Gerson has alleged, that the Obama campaign's choice of the word erratic to describe McCain is also an insinuation. But really, it's only a euphemism. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out. The train-wreck sentences, the whistlings in the pipes, the alarming and bewildered handhold phrases—"My friends"—to get him through the next 10 seconds. I haven't felt such pity for anyone since the late Adm. James Stockdale humiliated himself as Ross Perot's running mate. And I am sorry to have to say it, but Stockdale had also distinguished himself in America's most disastrous and shameful war, and it didn't qualify him then and it doesn't qualify McCain now.

He concludes by pleading, "One only wishes that the election could be over now" so as to spare us further from "a low, dishonest campaign." I couldn't agree more.

Meanwhile, McCain's amazing implosion continues as his poll numbers seemingly sink with each passing day. What was a 6-8 point deficit now looks more like a 10-12 point gap from Obama's lead.

That said Obama still faces an uphill battle given racism, which could amount to 6% of his lead, and the newly reported evidence of massive voter registration purging occurring in key states. But even if Obama were to overcome these obstacles and land in the White House, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman reminds us that the next four years will be quite despicable.

Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage.
<..>
We’ve seen this before. One thing that has been sort of written out of the mainstream history of politics is the sheer insanity of the attacks on the Clintons — they were drug smugglers, they murdered Vince Foster (and lots of other people), they were in league with foreign powers. And this stuff didn’t just show up in fringe publications — it was discussed in Congress, given props by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and so on.
<..>
What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.

It's not a stretch to state that for reasons mentioned above, Obama is risking his life by seeking to become president -- a notion that is incredibly horrific but unfortunately something that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Must-reading: McCain's latest attempt at craven vote-grabbing is a supposed $300 billion homeowner bailout package. Kevin Drum discusses it here and here.

It appears to be 1/3 corporate give-away, rewarding all the wrong parties, and the other 2/3 is given to homeowners who got in over their heads.

But what about most of us homeowners who did not get in over our heads and continue to payoff our mortgages? Is it fair to us to see others get bailed out with sweeter terms because they either got bamboozled and yet should've known better, and/or over-extended themselves and should've known better?

Kevin writes:

The only comment I did make in real time about McCain's proposal was an observation that CNN's focus group "against expectations, really didn't like McCain's idea of bailing out homeowners directly." And the reason for that appears to be straightforward: cautious, responsible homeowners who took out cautious, responsible loans and bought cautious, responsible houses, are not necessarily thrilled at the idea of their idiot profligate neighbors getting a federal bailout for the idiot profligate loans they took out on their idiot profligate house/remodel/HELOCs.

It's fitting that McCain likely thought he had a sure-fire winner with this latest gimmick and yet like everything else associated with his campaign, it turns out to be not just a dud but a potential negative. When does he just give up and begin to go through the motions until it's finally over?

Rep. Brad Sherman says many members of Congress were told that if they didn't vote for the bailout bill then martial law would be the end result. The fear-mongering never stops for this administration.

A man is shot three times for wearing an Obama t-shirt. It's getting very ugly to say the least.

Voter registration drives have helped the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. Unfortunately, Greg Palast and Robert Kennedy, Jr. have concluded it may not matter, that the fix may already be in.

Another thing Greenspan got wrong.

In their debate, Palin frequently evoked the image of Reagan, yet it was Biden who was doing to Palin what Reagan did to Carter: remind the voters of prior woe and the need for change. Voters typically seek change by booting out the incumbent party, yet McCain/Palin wish to try the novel approach of convincing us that change will come by keeping the GOP in the White House for four more years. Oh, right, almost forgot, THEY'RE MAVERICKS!

Despite what McCain may claim, Obama is the true supporter of veterans.

"That one" won.