Friday, October 31, 2008

BOO!


Did Ann Coulter Admit To Commiting Voter And Tax Fraud On Hannity & Colmes?

Reported by Ellen - June 8, 2006

Tuesday night (6/6/06), Ann Coulter gave an astonishing defense for the allegations that she committed voter fraud by registering at a false address in Palm Beach County, Florida: That she really lives in New York.

The surprising comment came when Alan Colmes confronted her about the allegations of voter fraud. As reported by Marie Therese, who was kind enough to sub for me that night, the middle-aged Coulter gave this “mature” response. “I think that syphilis has gone to their brains.” To quote further from Marie Therese’s post, “(Coulter) refused to answer direct questions, hiding behind claims that this would let her "stalkers" know her address. She did, however, say, directly, "I live in New York" and then denied receiving a registered letter from Mr. Anderson's office.”

As Brad Blog has reported, Ann Coulter is registered to vote in Florida, albeit at an address that seems to belong to her realtor, rather than to Coulter’s own home there. So if she really lives in New York, that seems an outright admission of voter fraud. Coulter’s Florida addresses – the registered address and the “real” address – seem to be a matter of public record. They are both posted on Brad Blog. So Coulter’s stated concern about stalkers being able to find out her address seems disingenuous.

But wait, there's more. Coulter may have admitted to a violation of Florida tax law as well. According to Brad Blog, Coulter took a $25,000 homestead exemption -- according to the Palm Beach County Appraisers office -- on the $1.3 million dollar crib in Palm Beach County which she purchased in March of last year. The Florida homestead law states: Every person who has legal title to a residential property and lives there permanently qualifies for this exemption. You must be a permanent resident of Florida on January 1 of the initial application year.

Looks like “Christian” Ann Coulter may have some un-Christian behavior to account for.

Happy Halloween!





A Last Push To Deregulate
White House to Ease Many Rules

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008; A01

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

"They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "This administration has taken extraordinary measures to avoid rushing regulations at the end of the term. And yes, we'd prefer our regulations stand for a very long time -- they're well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind."

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered "economically significant" because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.

In some cases, Bush's regulations reflect new interpretations of language in federal laws. In other cases, such as several new counterterrorism initiatives, they reflect new executive branch decisions in areas where Congress -- now out of session and focused on the elections -- left the president considerable discretion.

The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Bush's aides are acutely aware of the political risks of completing their regulatory work too late. On the afternoon of Bush's inauguration, Jan. 20, 2001, his chief of staff issued a government-wide memo that blocked the completion or implementation of regulations drafted in the waning days of the Clinton administration that had not yet taken legal effect.

"Through the end of the Clinton administration, we were working like crazy to get as many regulations out as possible," said Donald R. Arbuckle, who retired in 2006 after 25 years as an OMB official. "Then on Sunday, the day after the inauguration, OMB Director Mitch Daniels called me in and said, 'Let's pull back as many of these as we can.' "

Clinton's appointees wound up paying a heavy price for procrastination. Bush's team was able to withdraw 254 regulations that covered such matters as drug and airline safety, immigration and indoor air pollutants. After further review, many of the proposals were modified to reflect Republican policy ideals or scrapped altogether.

Seeking to avoid falling victim to such partisan tactics, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten in May imposed a Nov. 1 government-wide deadline to finish major new regulations, "except in extraordinary circumstances."

That gives officials just a few more weeks to meet an effective Nov. 20 deadline for the publication of economically significant rules, which take legal effect only after a 60-day congressional comment period. Less important rules take effect after a 30-day period, creating a second deadline of Dec. 20.

OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said that Bolten's memo was meant to emphasize the importance of "due diligence" in ensuring that late-term regulations are sound. "We will continue to embrace the thorough and high standards of the regulatory review process," she said.

As the deadlines near, the administration has begun to issue regulations of great interest to industry, including, in recent days, a rule that allows natural gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures and new Homeland Security rules that shift passenger security screening responsibilities from airlines to the federal government. The OMB also approved a new limit on airborne emissions of lead this month, acting under a court-imposed deadline.

Many of the rules that could be issued over the next few weeks would ease environmental regulations, according to sources familiar with administration deliberations.

A rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service and now under final review by the OMB would lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and would give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.

An Alaska commercial fishing source, granted anonymity so he could speak candidly about private conversations, said that senior administration officials promised to "get the rule done by the end of this month" and that the outcome would be a big improvement.

Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group said the administration has received 194,000 public comments on the rule and protests from 80 members of Congress as well as 160 conservation groups. "This thing is fatally flawed" as well as "wildly unpopular," Crockett said.

Two other rules nearing completion would ease limits on pollution from power plants, a major energy industry goal for the past eight years that is strenuously opposed by Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups.

One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming.

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But Scott H. Segal, a Washington lawyer and chief spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said that "bringing common sense to the Clean Air Act is the best way to enhance energy efficiency and pollution control." He said he is optimistic that the new rule will help keep citizens' lawsuits from obstructing new technologies.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman, said that he could not discuss specifics but added that "we strive to protect human health and the environment." Any rule the agency completes, he said, "is more stringent than the previous one."

Wired.com Readers' Best Geeky Halloween Costumes

By Wired.com Photo Department Write to the Author
10.31.08

It can be scary soliciting photos from Wired.com readers (yepperz, and this proves it--java) and not knowing what to expect, let alone Halloween costume photos. Sure, some were creepy in all the wrong ways, but our favorite 10 submissions put our fears to rest.

Click through the gallery to see the best geeky costumes our readers have to offer, from Predator to iPod silhouette girl.

If your Halloween spirit is still not quenched, head over to our best reader pumpkin gallery.

McCain Is Robin Hood in Reverse

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on October 31, 2008

John McCain is a firm believer in a philosophy of governance that's been responsible for the most dramatic redistribution of American income and wealth since the New Deal. For the past 30 years, the conservative movement has focused relentlessly on redistributing income, but always upward, toward the top. It's a great irony of the 2008 campaign: Nobody is more dedicated to redistributing wealth than adherents of the ideology that McCain represents.

The numbers don't lie. In 1972, the top 1 percent of Americans took in 8.7 percent of all earned income, but that figure skyrocketed to more than 20 percent in 2006. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported the results of all this conservative redistribution: "The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929."

Meanwhile, wages have stagnated for most of us. Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez sliced and diced the American economy, going back to the beginning of the last century, and they found that between 1973 and 2005, despite several periods of healthy growth, the average income of all but the top 10 percent of the economic ladder -- 9 out of 10 American families -- actually fell by 3 percent.

The Corporate Right achieved that through systematic union-busting, fighting increases in the minimum wage, drafting so-called "free trade" agreements that placed American workers in competition with working people overseas, abusing the immigration system and gaming the tax code so that more of the burden would fall on wage earners than on people who sit back and make most of their scratch from investment income.

Conservatives are often accused of being obsessed with keeping government's nose out of the free market. But Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argues that progressives are off the mark when they accuse economic conservatives of "free market fundamentalism." "When we say they're 'market fundamentalists,'" he told me in an interview, "we're acting like they're willing to accept market outcomes." In reality, he continued, "they've rigged the deck. They've made sure that certain people come out ahead, that income flows upward, and that other people are put at a disadvantage -- and these things are built into the rules of the system."

So it's an irony that, desperate to find an attack that might have some traction in the closing days of the race, the McCain camp has seized on the idea that -- gasp! -- Barack Obama is a "redistributor"; in a campaign stop in Iowa this week, McCain referred to his opponent as the potential "redistributor in chief."

This, after the McCain camp failed to move the polls by charging that Obama -- a centrist Democrat by inclination as well as experience -- is a crypto-socialist. That charge led to moments that were nothing short of bizarre, like when CNN explained to its viewers that socialism is a system in which the state controls the means of production and the private sector doesn't exist (if you missed Obama's call to do away with capitalism, you're not alone).

Of course, everyone in government is a "redistributor." The redistribution of wealth is what political scientists call a "defining function" of the state -- it's one of the reasons states exist. Every time a government spends a tax dollar to build a school, repair a road or deploy a military unit, wealth is being redistributed. If it weren't, those who could afford it would have private police forces, fire departments, schools and all the other organs of government, and the rest of us would be out of luck.

But the McCain camp is trying to paint Obama as a "radical" bent on taking money out of hardworking Americans' pockets and giving it to the lazy and indolent (there's no small amount of classism and racism implied in the charge). The reason: When Obama suggests that spreading the wealth around a little bit more equitably would be good for our entire society, he's talking about redistributing income downward.

It doesn't appear to be a debate the Obama camp is uncomfortable having. With deep structural problems in the global economy, a terrible federal balance sheet and two costly wars, the Bush years have been bad for most working people. As economist Jared Bernstein -- one of Obama's advisers -- noted, when one compares the economic peak of the past business cycle, in 2000, with the high point of the business cycle that just ended, in 2007, households in the middle actually lost ground, earning $300 inflation-adjusted dollars less than they did in 2000. The worst they had ever done in previous business cycles was during the 1970s, when median income "only" increased by about $2,000. In comparison, the income for a family in the middle rose by almost four grand during the 1990s.

It's the first time since they started keeping records of family income after World War II that the economy has gone into a recession before the middle class, those iconic "American families" that dominate our political discourse, had rebounded fully from the previous downturn. That represents an immensely painful double-dip for those in the middle and at the bottom -- only those in the top one-fifth of the economic ladder have seen any gains whatsoever since the last recession (officially) ended in 2001. And those in the top 1 percent saw their incomes increase by about half during that time (which some conservative economists have called the "Bush Boom").

Ultimately, it's this reality that has softened the impact of the McCain campaign's charges and damaged his chance to win the presidency. Americans are more pessimistic about their economic prospects than they've been at any time since they started tracking those trends, and, according to a Gallup poll released Oct. 30, 6 out of 10 of them agree that "money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people."

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by our writers are their own.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.


Hearts & Minds by Jim Wallis

Be Not Afraid


In the final days of this election campaign, a new message has emerged. For the entire political year, the overriding theme has been change—with each candidate competing to be the real champion for a new direction. With 80 percent of Americans unhappy with our country’s current direction, it seemed that no other theme could break through.

A new message has, and it is this: “Be Afraid—Be Very Afraid.” Most of that fear is directed at Barack Obama, the leading candidate with just days to go before November 4. Instead of being content to offer a competing policy vision to Obama’s, the Right has now focused on the man himself in an attempt to stir the fears of the electorate that “he” is not really like “them.” “Do we really know who Barack Obama is?” has been the refrain of partisan peddlers. A parallel and ugly national innuendo campaign stokes the fear. Is he a Muslim? An Arab? A pal of terrorists? Or maybe even a closet Socialist? Where did he grow up? Why such a funny middle name? Doesn’t his support come from those parts of the country (and those people) that deep down inside are anti-American? And, of course, what has quickly become a campaign classic—guilt by association.

The fact that Barack Obama is the first black nominee of a major party for president gives all the fear a decidedly racial undertone. YouTube has quickly become populated with video after video of the dark underbelly of American fear and racism. The innuendos and rumors have brought to the surface latent fears and thinly veiled biases that many had hoped were gone from our country. The message of fear is the same: Obama may look okay on the surface, but we don’t know what might lie beneath.

Regardless of whether one favors Obama or McCain, this development should be of concern to all Americans, and especially people of faith. There is now a new spiritual dimension to this election, and it is decidedly evil. Christians believe that “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out all fear...” (1 John 4:18.) There are, of course, good and decent motivations to vote either way in this election. Strong people of faith will be marking different boxes on Election Day, but for people of faith there will be a spiritual decision to be made as well. Will we put our trust in the power of fear or hope?

Conservatism did this with the bright and hopeful theme of “Morning in America” with the Ronald Reagan years. I disagreed with most all of Reagan’s agenda, but his appeal was to ask us all to choose hope, not fear. Similarly, the best of liberalism was seen in the power of John and Robert Kennedy’s appeal to build a “newer world.” Both conservatives and liberals can appeal to the better instincts of the American people, or to their worst—and each side has done both over the years.

Fear has always been the dark side of American politics, and we are seeing its resurgence in the campaign’s final days. Demagoguery has come from both the right and the left in America, and the most dependable sign of it is the appeal to fear over hope. Facts don’t matter when fear takes over. Fear covers over the debate on a candidate’s tax plans, the wisdom of their foreign policies, their experience and judgment to handle the economic crisis. Fear attacks character and lies with false prophecies of what a candidate would do if they are elected.

Some of the worst fear-mongering has sadly come from leaders of the Religious Right who are worried about losing their control over the votes of the evangelical and Catholic communities, especially a new generation of believers. Their apocalyptic rhetoric has been among the worst and most irresponsible. When religious leaders sound so desperate and seek to stoke fear and hate, they have lost their theological perspective by putting too much of their hope in having political power. It is that loss of power and control which seems to be motivating the current campaign of desperation and fear now being waged by so many conservatives. Instead, scripture points to a better way:

For "Those who desire life and desire to see good days, let them keep their tongues from evil and their lips from speaking deceit; let them turn away from evil and do good; let them seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:10-15, emphasis added)

With that reminder that Christ is our ultimate hope, let us pray that, on November 4, the need for change will finally prevail over the appeals to fear. Pray that the voters will choose either Barack Obama or John McCain as the best agent of change, rather than submit to the tyranny of fear. It is always better to live (and to vote) in the light of hope than in the darkness of fear. It is always an act of faith to believe that, in the end, hope will prevail over fear. So pray, and vote.


In US economic decline, worst is yet to come

Agence France-Presse
Published: Thursday October 30, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US economy contracted in the third quarter as panicked consumers slashed spending, data showed Thursday in the first downside leg of what analysts say could be a deep and nasty recession.

In its first reading of gross domestic product (GDP) in the July-September period, the Commerce Department said output of goods and services fell at a 0.3 percent annual pace amid a sharp retrenchment by consumers and businesses.

The drop in gross domestic product (GDP) was the first negative figure since the fourth quarter of 2007.

The decline, not as steep as the 0.5 percent annualized drop expected by private economists, comes amid mounting expectations of a sharp falloff in the US economy amid the worst banking and financial crisis in decades.

Some analysts said the drop could be just the start of a deep and painful recession, which is normally defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

"A heftier decline in real GDP is likely in the fourth quarter, which will confirm that the US economy is in recession," said Dawn Desjardins, economist at RBC Capital Markets.

The decrease marked a sharp fall from the 2.8 percent growth rate of the second quarter and reflected weaker consumer and business spending and housing activity, offset in part by strong exports and government spending.

With the decline, economic output was estimated at an annualized 14.43 trillion dollars.

"What is noticeable is that the US economy is hanging onto support from exports that will not last in the fourth quarter," said Avery Shenfeld, economist at CIBC World Markets.

"The rest of the world is slowing and the rising dollar will take some of the shine off exports. The fourth quarter is going to be much worse, with a decline of perhaps as much as two percent."

Consumer spending, the main driver of economic activity, fell 3.1 percent in the quarter on a sharp 14 percent plunge in spending on so-called durable goods like cars and appliances expected to last three years or more, the report showed.

Spending on nondurables such as food and clothing slid 6.4 percent, the biggest decline since 1950.

"The drop in consumer spending was the largest since the recession in the early 1980s," said Augustine Faucher at Economy.com.

"Households are cutting back because of the end of the tax rebates, tighter credit, the worsening labor market, falling house prices, the drop in the stock market, and general angst."

In housing, which has seen a horrific meltdown after a long boom, investment fell 19.1 percent, a major drag on the economy.

While the decline in activity was mild, the report comes amid expectations for one of the worst recessions in decades as the economy is strangled by a collapse in credit amid troubles from banks that bet on the US property bubble.

Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics, noted the GDP number would have been even weaker without accounting for companies building up inventories, which added 0.5 percentage points on the positive side.

"This is the first of a run of negative GDP numbers," he said.

"The economy is in recession. We tentatively expect GDP of minus one percent in the fourth quarter and first quarter of 2009."

Activity had been supported in the second quarter by a big US government stimulus plan that sent out tens of billions of dollars in tax rebates to consumers, but the impact of that has now faded.

Exports, a main source of economic activity earlier this year, also helped keep the GDP figure from being weaker but growth slowed to 5.9 percent in the third quarter from 12.3 percent in the second.

Peter Kretzmer, economist at Bank of America, said another factor skewing the report was a 5.8 percent jump in government purchases,including an 18.2 percent annualized jump in federal defense purchases, which added 0.9 percentage points to GDP.

"We expect a faster pace of GDP decline in the current quarter, as capital spending declines far more rapidly, inventories are reduced at a faster pace, the housing decline remains steep and federal defense spending simmers down," he said.

Citigroup's Steven Wieting said it could get even uglier: "Production and employment declines, credit tightening, and wealth destruction are clearly more severe in the current (fourth) quarter, which should show shrinkage in GDP in excess of the 3.0 percent decline posted in consumption last quarter."

The Bailout: Bush's Final Pillage

Lookout

By Naomi Klein

This article appeared in the November 17, 2008 edition of The Nation.

October 29, 2008


In the final days of the election, many Republicans seem to have given up the fight for power. But that doesn't mean they are relaxing. If you want to see real Republican elbow grease, check out the energy going into chucking great chunks of the $700 billion bailout out the door. At a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, Republican Senator Bob Corker was fixated on this task, and with a clear deadline in mind: inauguration. "How much of it do you think may be actually spent by January 20 or so?" Corker asked Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old former banker in charge of the bailout.

When European colonialists realized that they had no choice but to hand over power to the indigenous citizens, they would often turn their attention to stripping the local treasury of its gold and grabbing valuable livestock. If they were really nasty, like the Portuguese in Mozambique in the mid-1970s, they poured concrete down the elevator shafts.

The Bush gang prefers bureaucratic instruments: "distressed asset" auctions and the "equity purchase program." But make no mistake: the goal is the same as it was for the defeated Portuguese--a final frantic looting of the public wealth before they hand over the keys to the safe.

How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have governed the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush administration announced it would be injecting $250 billion into America's banks in exchange for equity, the plan was widely referred to as "partial nationalization"--a radical measure required to get the banks lending again. In fact, there has been no nationalization, partial or otherwise. Taxpayers have gained no meaningful control, which is why the banks can spend their windfall as they wish (on bonuses, mergers, savings...) and the government is reduced to pleading that they use a portion of it for loans.

What, then, is the real purpose of the bailout? I fear it is something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business--that this bailout has been designed to keep pillaging the Treasury for years to come. Remember, the main concern among big market players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but their battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in the banks' honesty, and with good reason. This is where Treasury's equity pays off big time.

By purchasing stakes in these institutions, Treasury is sending a signal to the market that they are a safe bet. Why safe? Because the government won't be able to afford to let them fail. If these companies get themselves into trouble, investors can assume that the government will keep finding more cash, since allowing them to go down would mean losing its initial equity investments (just look at AIG). That tethering of the public interest to private companies is the real purpose of the bailout plan: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is handing all the companies that are admitted to the program--a number potentially in the thousands--an implicit Treasury Department guarantee. To skittish investors looking for safe places to park their money, these equity deals will be even more comforting than a Triple-A rating from Moody's.

Insurance like that is priceless. But for the banks, the best part is that the government is paying them--in some cases billions of dollars--to accept its seal of approval. For taxpayers, on the other hand, this entire plan is extremely risky, and may well cost significantly more than Paulson's original idea of buying up $700 billion in toxic debts. Now taxpayers aren't just on the hook for the debts but, arguably, for the fate of every corporation that sells them equity.

Interestingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both enjoyed this kind of unspoken guarantee. For decades the market understood that, since these private players were enmeshed with the government, Uncle Sam would always save the day. It was the worst of all worlds. Not only were profits privatized while risks were socialized but the implicit government backing created powerful incentives for reckless investments.

Now, with the new equity purchase program, Paulson has taken the discredited Fannie and Freddie model and applied it to a huge swath of the private banking industry. And once again, there is no reason to shy away from risky bets--especially since Treasury has not required the banks to give up high-risk financial instruments in exchange for taxpayer dollars.

To further boost confidence, the federal government has also unveiled unlimited public guarantees for many bank deposit accounts. Oh, and as if this wasn't enough, Treasury has been encouraging the banks to merge with one another, ensuring that the only institutions left standing will be "too big to fail." In three different ways, the market is being told loud and clear that Washington will not allow the country's financial institutions to bear the consequences of their behavior. This may well be Bush's most creative innovation: no-risk capitalism.

There is a glimmer of hope. In answer to Senator Corker's question, Treasury is indeed having trouble dispersing the bailout funds. It has requested about $350 billion of the $700 billion, but most of this hasn't yet made it out the door. Meanwhile, every day it becomes clearer that the bailout was sold on false pretenses. It was never about getting loans flowing. It was always about turning the state into a giant insurance agency for Wall Street--a safety net for the people who need it least, subsidized by the people who need it most.

This grotesque duplicity is an opportunity. Whoever wins the election on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It can be used to call for a freeze on the dispersal of bailout funds--not after the inauguration, but right away. All deals should be renegotiated immediately, this time with the public getting the guarantees.

It is risky, of course, to interrupt the bailout. The market won't like it. Nothing could be riskier, however, than allowing the Bush gang their parting gift to big business--the gift that will keep on taking.

About Naomi Klein

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002). more...

Paulson's Swindle Revealed
  • U.S. Economy

    William Greider: United Steelworkers Union prez Leo Gerard cracks open the sweetheart deal that bailed out nine banks--and likely lined the Treasury Secretary's own pockets--with billions of taxpayer dollars. Does anybody care?

The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting voters are preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson's transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride--a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public's money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.


These are dynamite facts that demand immediate action to halt the bailout deal and correct its giveaway terms. Stop payment on the Treasury checks before the bankers can cash them. Open an immediate Congressional investigation into how Paulson and his staff determined such a sweetheart deal for leading players in the financial sector and for their own former employer. Paulson's bailout staff is heavily populated with Goldman Sachs veterans and individuals from other Wall Street firms. Yet we do not know whether these financiers have fully divested their own Wall Street holdings. Were they perhaps enriching themselves as they engineered this generous distribution of public wealth to embattled private banks and their shareholders?

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, raised these explosive questions in a stinging letter sent to Paulson this week. The union did what any private investor would do. Its finance experts vetted the terms of the bailout investment and calculated the real value of what Treasury bought with the public's money. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the analysis could conveniently rely on a comparable sale twenty days earlier. Billionaire Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and bought the same types of securities--preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock in the future. Only Buffett's preferred shares pay a 10 percent dividend, while the public gets only 5 percent. Dollar for dollar, Buffett "received at least seven and perhaps up to 14 times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms," Gerard pointed out.

"I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett's investment," the union president wrote. "In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal--50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift--is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy."

The Steelworkers' close analysis was done by Ron W. Bloom, director of the union's corporate research and a Wall Street veteran himself who worked at Larzard Freres, the investment house. Bloom applied standard valuation techniques to establish the market price Buffett paid per share compared to Treasury's price. "The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to," Bloom's report explained. "It also assumes that Gold Sachs' job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could.... Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett--if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents--that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs."

The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: "If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions--which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return--you paid a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions."

If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson's grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers "to reward the institutions that have driven our nation and it now appears the whole world into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years."

Is anyone angry? Will anyone look into these very serious accusations? Congress is off campaigning. The financiers at Treasury probably assume any public outrage will be lost in the election returns. I hope they are mistaken.

UNDER THE RADAR

POLITICS -- McCAIN CAMPAIGN SLANDERS MIDDLE EAST SCHOLAR AS ANTI-SEMITIC: In recent days, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his surrogates have attempted to paint Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as holding anti-Israel views because of his links to Palestinian-American professor Rashid Kahlidi. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed this week that Khalidi has a "very hostile view of Israel" and disapprovingly noted that the Woods Foundation funded "Khalidi's organizations" while Obama was a board member. Yesterday, McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb called Khalidi, "anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-American," and as the Washington Post notes today, McCain himself likened Khalidi to "neo-Nazis." In fact, Khalidi is a well-respected, mainstream scholar of Middle Eastern studies. As the Washington Post explained in a 2004 profile of Khalidi and his book "Resurrecting Empire," "Among other scholars who specialize in the region, [Khalidi's book] isn't a radical take on the present state of affairs. Michael C. Hudson, director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown, describes Khalidi as preeminent in his field, a courageous scholar and public figure." Further demonstrating the inaccuracy of the McCain campaign's characterization of Khalidi is the fact that while McCain served as chairman of its board, the International Republican Institute distributed nearly $500,000 in grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi." As the American Prospect's Ezra Klein noted, "This, of course, just goes to show how absurd it is to suggest that Khalidi is some sort of radical polemicist."".
Agence France-Presse
Published: Thursday October 30, 2008


Free Press Action Alert

Tell the FCC to Stand Up to Scare Tactics and Open White Spaces for Everyone.

Sign Our Halloween
Action Card

"They're Ba-ack..."

This Halloween, the powerful lobbyists at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) are trying to scare Washington with horror stories about "white spaces" -- vacant TV channels that can be used to bring high-speed Internet to rural and low-income Americans across the country.

The NAB’s hired guns have bombarded policy makers with false claims in a desperate, last-ditch attempt to hoard these airwaves and to disrupt a critical FCC vote taking place in just six days.

The FCC's five commissioners must not buckle under the intense lobbying pressure:

Tell the FCC: Don't Give in to NAB Scare Tactics

Here are the facts:

  1. If we open white spaces now, we can bring the social and economic benefits of a fast Internet connection to tens of millions of Americans now on the wrong side of the digital divide.
  2. FCC engineers have tested white spaces devices and determined that the technology can deliver high-speed wireless Internet, without interfering with adjacent TV broadcasts.
  3. The NAB and Big Media are doing everything in their power to close off access to white spaces because they fear competition from new innovators and losing control of the public airwaves.

The NAB is furiously spending millions of dollars on dirty tricks and political intimidation to scare the FCC away from white spaces. They have high-priced lawyers and lobbyists, but we have you.

Take just one minute to sign this Halloween action card and forward it to your friends. Free Press will deliver your cards to the FCC on Halloween and make sure they "treat" us by opening white spaces for eveyone's benefit:

This Halloween: Stand Up to the Lobbyists' Scare Tactics

With your support today, we'll expose Big Media's fear-mongering and make certain that white spaces are used to make fast, affordable Internet service a reality for everyone.

Thanks,

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
Free Press
www.freepress.net
www.savetheinternet.com

1. Maybe NAB lobbyists have seen Poltergeist one too many times. But whatever the case, we need to set the record straight by the time FCC commissioners gather to decide the future of white spaces on November 4. Click here to help Free Press fight back.

2. Learn more about the fight to open white spaces at www.freepress.net/whitespaces

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Sour Grapes

The Book of Fables and Folk Stories by Horace E. Scudder

THE FOX AND THE GRAPES

A HUNGRY Fox found some bunches of grapes upon a vine high up a tree. He tried to get at them, but could not. So he left them hanging there and went off, saying to himself:—

"They are sour grapes."

That is what people sometimes do when they cannot get what they want—they make believe that what they want is good for nothing.

DNC to File FEC Complaint Against McCain Campaign

John McCain's attempted politically motivated gaming of the public financing system is already drawing the attention of the Federal Elections Commisssion, with the chairman of the FEC firing off a letter to McCain's presidential campaign asking them to explain why, after they had been certified to become a part of the program, they believe they're able to pull out without approval. Now the Democratic National Committee is joining in the act, and will file an FEC complaint tomorrow against the McCain campaign.

According to DNC chairman Howard Dean, McCain has clearly received a "material gain" from being a part of the public financing program, and as such cannot opt out of it at this point.

First, McCain was able to get around ballot access rules for the primaries in states around the country -- at a value of $2-$3 million (what Dean's own campaign had to spend on ballot access, having not participated in the public financing system in 2004) -- by participating in the program. Pulling out now would enable him to reap the material benefit of ballot access offered by the program -- again, valued at millions of dollars -- without having to abide by the program's overall spending limit (somewhere in the neighborhood of $54 million).

Second, McCain used the promise of public funds as collateral to help secure a private loan. Once a candidate uses actual public funds in this manner, they have used those dollars, thus locking them into the program. This is key, not only in that it seems to bind him to the program but also in that McCain showed a clear willingness to capitalize on voluntary taxpayer money in order to help him raise more funds from special interest lobbyists (some of whom are at the upper echelons of his campaign staff).

Finally, now that McCain is in the program and hasn't been certified to pull out -- an act that requires a vote of the FEC -- it seems that he may have already gone over the spending limit in violation of the law. As of the last campaign finance filing deadline, McCain was already coming dangerously close to the $54 million threshold, and in the weeks since he might have already passed it.

In short, this is an issue of integrity -- and John McCain's lack of it. What the DNC is asking the FEC to do is fairly simple: Require McCain's campaign to abide by the legally binding contract it created with the federal government to enjoy the benefits of the public financing system -- benefits his campaign has already used -- in return for abiding by the program's spending limits. Soon the ball will be in the FEC's court. Let's see where they go from here.

Update [2008-2-24 15:48:13 by Jonathan Singer]: Howie Klein has the choice quote from Howard Dean:

"The crucial issue here is John McCain's integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him... His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question. McCain financially benefited by accepting this agreement; he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million loan to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should be held to the law."

Tuesday, October 28, 2008


Iraq denounces Syria raid, seeks U.S. pact changes

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Iraq drew up amendments on Tuesday that it will demand of the United States in a bid to salvage an agreement allowing U.S. forces to remain beyond the end of this year.

Baghdad also issued a belated rebuke of Washington for a helicopter strike on Syria, a sign of the pressure Iraq's government is under to reassure its neighbors that it is not letting U.S. forces use its territory against them.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will now send U.S. negotiators the proposed amendments to the security deal, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

Washington and Baghdad have been scrambling to get the bilateral pact in place to provide a legal basis for the U.S. presence after a U.N. mandate ends on December 31, but it was held up last week when Baghdad said it would demand changes.

Dabbagh did not provide details of the proposed amendments. Asked if they covered just the wording of the deal, he said: "the wording, yes, and some of the content."

But a cabinet member indicated that the proposed changes would not require the pact's main points to be renegotiated.

"The most important changes are in those articles which could be interpreted more than one way," Environment Minister Nermeen Othman, who attended the cabinet meeting, told Reuters. "We worked to avoid any ambiguity."

The pact already includes a number of key concessions to Baghdad, such as a 2011 withdrawal date and a mechanism for Iraq to try U.S. troops for major crimes committed while off duty. Othman said the proposed amendments would not alter the pact's wording on the issue of legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops.

U.S. officials said they had not yet seen the proposed changes, but they have made clear that they are reluctant to make substantial revisions to a text hammered out over months.

"We believe that the current draft agreement is a good agreement. Both countries have worked on this current draft for many months and we believe that the current draft addresses the concerns of both," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

POLITICAL DIVISIONS

The future of the foreign military presence remains sharply divisive for Iraq's political class more than five years after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

Iraq's powerful Shi'ite political parties have historical ties to Iran, which has long claimed that the pact would allow Washington to use Iraq as a base for attacks on its neighbors.

The strike on Syria puts that argument in a starker light. The Iraqi government did not condemn it until nearly two days after it took place, and had earlier justified it as targeting an area used as a staging ground for militant attacks on Iraq.

"The Iraqi government rejects U.S. aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria. The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries," Dabbagh said on Tuesday, finally condemning Sunday's U.S. strike.

Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem had angrily denounced Iraq's initial description of the strike as targeting insurgents. He said the attack killed eight civilians.

A senior Shi'ite member of parliament said the U.S. strike's timing makes it more difficult to gather support for the pact.

"The whole strike is confusing for us. Why now, why at this time when we are negotiating the pact?" he said. "One of the red lines which neither Maliki nor any of the other political powers would allow to be crossed is the use of Iraq as a staging ground to attack other countries."

The decision on the pact is widely seen as requiring Iraq's ruling Shi'ites to choose between supporting their new friends in Washington and their old friends in Tehran.

If no deal is in place by the end of the year, officials could seek an extension of the current U.N. mandate, but Iraqi officials have made clear they prefer a satisfactory pact.

The United States has threatened to halt virtually all its activities in Iraq -- from security patrols to logistical support for the Iraqi army to airport traffic control -- if no formal legal mandate is in place come January 1.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray in Washington; writing by Missy Ryan and Peter Graff; editing by Richard Balmforth)

One Last Bush Doctrine

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2008; 11:43 AM

Belittled domestically, President Bush is flexing his last working muscle: His control over the nation's military. And in so doing, he is adding one last addendum to the ever-changing Bush Doctrine, establishing yet another de facto U.S. policy on his way out the door, and leaving his successor with yet another controversial precedent to wrestle with.

By approving a U.S. military raid across the Iraqi border into Syria, Bush has changed the rules once again. On Sunday about two dozen special forces soldiers entered the country by helicopter and killed a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader, without the permission or cooperation of the Syrian government. Call it an October surprise -- if not, at least so far, the October surprise.

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker write in the New York Times: "[I]n justifying the attack, American officials said the Bush administration was determined to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries' consent.

"Together with a similar American commando raid into Pakistan more than seven weeks ago, the operation on Sunday appeared to reflect an intensifying effort by the Bush administration to find a way during its waning months to attack militants even beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States is at war.

"Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite 'special groups' that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces. . . .

"[A]dministration officials said Monday that the strikes in Pakistan and Syria were carried out on the basis of a legal argument that has been refined in recent months to justify strikes by troops and by rockets on militants in countries with which the United States is not at war.

"The justification is different from the concept of pre-emption the administration articulated immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, and which was used as the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. While pre-emption was used to justify attacks against governments and their armies, the self-defense argument would justify attacks on insurgents operating on foreign soil that threatened the forces, allies or interests of the United States.

"Administration officials pointed Monday to a passage in President Bush's speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month as the clearest articulation of this position to date.

"'As sovereign states, we have an obligation to govern responsibly, and solve problems before they spill across borders,' Mr. Bush said. 'We have an obligation to prevent our territory from being used as a sanctuary for terrorism and proliferation and human trafficking and organized crime.' . . .

"It is not clear how far-reaching the White House may be in seeking to apply the rationale, but several senior American officials expressed hope that it would be embraced by the next president as well."

Pamela Hess writes for the Associated Press: "Selective U.S. military action across the borders of nations friendly and unfriendly reflects increasing willingness to embrace what U.S. commanders consider a last resort: violating the sovereignty of a nation with whom the U.S. is not at war.

"It's a demonstration of overt military strength that the U.S. has been reluctant to display in public for fear it would backfire on U.S. forces or supporters within the governments of the nations whose borders were breached.

"Now, senior U.S. officials favor judicious use of the newly aggressive tactics, seeing more upsides than down. They reason that whatever diplomatic damage is done will be mitigated when President Bush leaves office and a new president is inaugurated."

Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef write for McClatchy Newspapers: "It wasn't immediately clear whether an order that President Bush signed in July allowing U.S. commandos from Afghanistan to attack a suspected terrorist base in Pakistan also authorized cross-border operations in other countries.

"Pentagon officials were tight-lipped about the operation. But they were quick to defend the decision to cross the border, with one saying that if nations that sponsor terrorist networks won't go after them, 'we will.'"

Ann Scott Tyson and Ellen Knickmeyer write in The Washington Post that "officials said the raid Sunday, apparently the first acknowledged instance of U.S. ground forces operating in Syria, was intended to send a warning to the Syrian government. 'You have to clean up the global threat that is in your back yard, and if you won't do that, we are left with no choice but to take these matters into our hands,' said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the cross-border strike."

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "Some pundits have suggested that the attack is a parting shot from President Bush, his last attempt to exact vengeance on a longtime rival before leaving office. That's a bit cynical even for Bush critics, including this page, but it's notable that in the closing months of the administration, the military has grown considerably more aggressive in pursuing foreign insurgents -- especially in Pakistan, where U.S. attacks across the Afghanistan border have become almost commonplace. Bush, it appears, is conducting yet another experiment in Middle Eastern cowboy diplomacy, with the advantage (for him) that if it all blows up, someone else will have to pick up the pieces."

As for Pakistan, Marvin G. Weinbaum writes in a Washington Post op-ed: "In its eagerness to reverse the mounting insurgency in Afghanistan, the United States has embarked on a policy course that could shatter our vital strategic partnership with Pakistan. By allowing American combat forces to freely conduct raids into Pakistani territory, a move that President Bush authorized in July, the United States intends to pressure Pakistani leaders to step up the fight against militants ensconced in the borderlands. But this policy threatens cooperation between the two countries, possibly to the breaking point."

The problem, as usual, is: "There simply are no quick fixes."

Iraq Watch

Walter Pincus writes in The Washington Post: "The status-of-forces agreement that would govern conduct of the U.S. military and its contractors in Iraq beyond 2008 would apparently tie the hands of the next U.S. president in some respects if it was ratified by the Iraqis before Jan. 20.

"For example, the next president would have to wait a year if he wanted to pull out of the agreement altogether, according to Article 31, the final section. The current draft says that 'cancellation of this agreement requires a written notice provided one year in advance,' according to an English translation of the Arab version.

"Even modification of the agreement's provisions would be difficult, requiring 'written approval of both sides and . . . accordance to constitutional procedures in both countries.' That means that if the new president wanted to change any provisions, he would have to get the approval of not only the Iraqi government but also its legislative body."

And you get the impression the White House wants this real bad.

Roy Gutman and Leila Fadel write for McClatchy Newspapers: "The U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1 if the Iraqi government doesn't agree to a new agreement on the status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations mandate for the American mission in Iraq.

"Many Iraqi politicians view the move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

"In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq's economy, educational sector and other areas -- 'everything' -- said Tariq al Hashimi, the country's Sunni Muslim vice president. 'I didn't know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services.'"

Fadel has more about the specific threats.

So why do the Iraqis continue to resist? As Mary Beth Sheridan writes in The Washington Post: "A deal to authorize the presence of American forces in Iraq beyond 2008 is forcing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to choose between two influential powers in this country: the United States and Iran.

"U.S. officials had hoped Iraq would quickly approve the accord put before the cabinet this month, which would give 150,000 American troops legal authority to remain in Iraq after Dec. 31. But Iraqi political leaders have balked. Maliki has not openly supported the agreement forged by his negotiating team.

"As the U.S. ponders withdrawal, it is clear that American political capital in Iraq is waning as Iran's grows."

Legacy Watch

Richard N. Haas writes in an 'open letter' to the next president, in Newsweek: "When George W. Bush became president nearly eight years ago the world was largely at peace, the U.S. military was largely at rest, oil was $23 a barrel, the economy was growing at more than 3 percent, $1 was worth 116 yen, the national debt was just under $6 trillion and the federal government was running a sizable budgetary surplus. The September 11 attacks, for all they cost us as a nation, increased the world's willingness to cooperate with us. You, by contrast, will inherit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tired and stretched armed forces, a global struggle with terrorism, oil that has ranged as high as $150 a barrel, a weaker dollar (now worth 95 yen), substantial anti-American sentiment, a federal budget deficit that could reach $1 trillion in your first year, a ballooning national debt of some $10 trillion and a global economic slowdown that will increase instability in numerous countries.

Laurent Lozana writes for AFP: "On January 20, US President George W. Bush hands over the keys to the White House and turns out the lights on an eight-year span of war and, as one ally put it, 'mind-boggling and hair-raising' episodes.

"The Bush presidency, forged in the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes, now melts away with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and fears of recession and widespread unemployment.

"In between, he began the still-unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, two fronts in a 'war on terrorism' whose tactics have at times worried allies and drawn widespread condemnation at home and overseas.

"He drove mammoth tax cuts through the US Congress, which he credits for spurring the US economy despite soaring deficits, and oversaw an unprecedented expansion of aid to Africa to battle disease and poverty.

"After scaling historic heights of popularity, Bush leaves office with abysmally low standing with a US public that still recalls the nightmare images from the botched government response to killer Hurricane Katrina.

"But he survived political storms whipped up by foes of an administration seen by its critics as one of the most partisan and secretive in US history.

"Bush, who never stopped talking about the need to protect the United States, faced charges of betraying core US values with a network of secret prisons, or by putting detainees in the legal limbo of Guantanamo Bay, or green-lighting interrogation practices long seen as torture, or spying on Americans."

Newsweek's Matthew Philips interviews author Ron Suskind, and concludes: "In the midst of the current financial meltdown, Suskind has developed a sort of Unified Theory of Everything, believing the same ends-justify-the-means mind-set that formed the basis for so much of the Bush administration's post-9/11 actions is also at the heart of the financial meltdown. Suskind argues this convergence has had a two-pronged effect: not only has the U.S. lost its standing as an exporter of freedom and democratic ideals, but its supersized brand of capita lism has ruined balance sheets around the world."

Says Suskind: "Eras get defined by presidents. In a very basic way, people--even against their will--tend to channel their leaders. Bush is a confidence man. He believes in the transforming power of confidence, which typifies these last eight years and defined so many of our engagements in the world. Confidence has ruled all. Was it earned confidence, based on evidence, or willed confidence, based on desire? We decided we'd rather not draw that line and instead simply said, 'I am confident, I'm certain, therefore you should trust me. Don't ask questions because it will slow me down.' A moral slope, for sure, and, as a nation, we've slid down it. Now, it may be time to start climbing back up that slippery slope, back to the high ground."

Transition Watch

John Brinsley and Edwin Chen write for Bloomberg: "Whoever wins will come under intense, immediate pressure - - unmatched since Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932 -- to begin participating in policy making over which he'll have no formal control for 2 1/2 months."

They suggest that "either Obama or McCain would have to abandon the president-elect's traditional hands-off role in the months leading up to Inauguration Day, on Jan. 20. . . .

"'There's only one president at a time,' says John P. Burke, a University of Vermont professor who has written two books about presidential transitions. 'But maybe we've got to think about an exception here.'"

The Way Out

The American Civil Liberties Union announces: "In anticipation of the presidential election, the American Civil Liberties Union today released a set of detailed recommendations on steps that the new president should take to 'clean house,' renew freedom, and restore the nation's reputation. . . .

"The new ACLU document, entitled, ' Actions For Restoring America,' . . . consists of actions that the executive branch could take on its own.

"On Day One, the next president should, by executive order, direct all agencies to prohibit the use of torture and abuse; direct the new Attorney General to appoint an outside special counsel to investigate, and, if warranted, prosecute any violations of federal criminal laws; close down Guantánamo and either charge and try detainees in criminal or traditional military courts or transfer them to countries where they won't be tortured; and end the practice of extraordinary rendition.

"In his first 100 days, the president should take actions, as detailed in the ACLU document, to end illegal spying and surveillance, to protect Americans from privacy violations and discrimination, to end the federal death penalty, and to increase government transparency."

Bypassing the Law

Charlie Savage writes in the New York Times: "The Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security.

"The August 2007 law requires the agency's chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress 'without any prior comment or amendment' by superiors at the department or the White House.

"But newly disclosed documents show that the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last January questioning the basis for that restriction, and that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, later advised Congress that the administration would not 'apply this provision strictly' because it infringed on the president's powers. . . .

"Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the move 'unconstitutional.' He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bush's frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.

"'This is a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he's done on the signing statements,' Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview."

Last Minute Rule-Making Watch

Dina Cappiello writes for the Associated Press: "The Bush administration on Monday said that changes it wants to make to endangered species rules before President Bush leaves office will have no significant environmental consequences.

"That's the conclusion of a draft assessment released by the Interior Department that represents one of the last remaining hurdles for the regulations to become final before Jan. 20."

Robert McClure blogs for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "It wasn't unexpected, but today the Bush administration said it's going ahead extremely quickly with a proposal that has enraged environmentalists -- and is giving the public just 10 days to comment on it. I guess the Bushies can see 1/20/09 coming up very fast."

Renee Schoof writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "At the Bush administration's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency is working on a new rule that would weaken pollution regulations for power plants, allowing them to increase emissions without adding controls."

Poll Watch

Jonathan Darman writes for Newsweek that "dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and despondency over the direction the country is headed seems to be the biggest factor driving McCain's poor showing in the poll. Only 23 percent of voters now say they approve of the job that George W. Bush is doing as president, a new low for any president in the Newsweek Poll."

McCain on 'Meet the Press'

Michael D. Shear writes in The Washington Post: "Sen. John McCain said Sunday that he and President Bush share a 'common philosophy' but insisted that he is his own man in his first appearance on NBC's 'Meet the Press' in more than nine months. . . .

"On 'Meet the Press,' Brokaw noted that McCain had blasted Bush in a recent interview. He then played part of an interview from three years ago.

"'The fact is that I'm different, but the fact is that I've agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed,' McCain said at the time. 'And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.'

"The June 2005 interview concluded with McCain stating that 'I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I've been in agreement with.'

"A somewhat flustered-looking McCain asserted that he was 'the harshest critic of the failed strategy in Iraq' and that 'I've supported action to address climate change since 2000 and said we've got to do something. Sharp disagreement there.'"

Here's the video.


Pew: McCain In Downward Spiral

Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 09:50:05 AM PDT

The Pew poll is one of the most respected in the business, and a real narrative setter. Today's has very bad news for Palin McCain-Palin

McCain Support Continues Downward Spiral
Obama Leads by 19 Among Those Who Have Already Voted

Barack Obama leads John McCain by a 52% to 36% margin in Pew’s latest nationwide survey of 1,325 registered voters. This is the fourth consecutive survey that has found support for the Republican candidate edging down. In contrast, since early October weekly Pew surveys have shown about the same number of respondents saying they back Obama.

Check out enthusiasm.


This important stat means evereything in terms of who will show. People want to be part of a history-making election, and the first Serious Election in some time (one dominated by issues instead of the usual Republican character assassination. Republicans and conservatives are peeved about that, as if life is unfair because of it. The rest of America and the world is rejoicing.)

Here's another important observation:

The survey finds that the proportion of Americans who disapprove of Bush’s job performance has hit a new high in a Pew survey (70%); just 22% now approve of the way Bush is handling his job. Since January, when Bush’s job rating was already quite low, at 31%, his approval mark has declined by nine points.

As disapproval of President Bush’s job performance has edged upward, fewer voters say that McCain would take the country in a different direction from Bush’s. Currently, more voters say McCain would continue Bush’s policies than say he would take the country in a different direction (47% vs. 40%). Just a week ago (Oct. 16-19), voters were divided over whether McCain would continue Bush’s policies or not (44% continue, 45% take new direction).

Albatross!! Actually the NBC/WSJ poll says Palin is a bigger albatross.

Note also the undecideds (and don't predict how they'll vote, because they are not really paying attention):

On most issues, the positions held by undecided voters fall between those of Obama and McCain supporters, although they are somewhat more similar to McCain supporters on the issue of illegal immigration. Overall, these voters are more likely than supporters of either candidate to say they don’t have an opinion about most issues.

Undecided voters do clearly distinguish themselves from supporters of both McCain and Obama in their lower levels of participation and interest in this election, and partisan politics in general. A majority (51%) of undecideds do not identify with either the Republican or Democratic parties and fewer than half (48%) report having voted in the primaries this year; by contrast, 63% of both Obama and McCain supporters say they voted in a primary.

Not much good news for McCain here. The trackers are closer to 6-7 than Pew, but then again, Pew has better LV modeling than some of the trackers. But as for the final tally, well, we'll just have to wait on that one.

In any case, Gallup adds insult to injury:

Poll: 7 in 10 Americans Say Obama Will Win
Even McCain supporters slightly more likely to say Obama, rather than McCain, will win

Ouch.