Morning Hors D'oeuvres

George will continues his disemboweling of McCain.

Per Ambers and others, it is no longer acceptable to ask questions of the McCain campaign.

Andrew and Ta-Nehisi think it will backfire.

Andrew on the slippery slope between presidential democracies and dictatorship. Also, on “deference” to Palin. In his words:

“Are you fucking kidding me?”

Marc updates the Atlantic’s electoral map. The big takeaway is that – despite the noise around the republican convention – nothing much has moved to the right. He also thinks it would be really stupid for the Obama campaign to be spreading viral videos, a claim that Ben basically debunks.

Matt sympathizes with Tucker Bounds for having to explain the smoke and mirrors that is the McCain budget plan.

And seriously, if progressives and liberals don’t grow some balls now, when will they?

Totally unrelated, but Matt is totally right with respect to The Wire not winning any Emmys. Here is Jacob Weisberg from Slate:

“It’s like them never giving a Nobel Prize to Tolstoy,” said Jacob Weisberg, editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and a correspondent for Slate.com. “It doesn’t make Tolstoy look bad, it makes the Nobel Prize look bad.”

HuffPost starts to push the “Keating Five” meme. Video from Countdown as well.

Matt Littman has a good debate formula for Obama. Democrats are right on the issues; make sure you expose McCain's supposed strengths - the surge, experience, bellicosity - his weaknesses.

Doom and Gloom

So, there's a theory floating around out there that the many "missteps" of the Bush administration are actually calculated and calibrated actions, designed to destroy "government" as we know it. The most popular tracts dealing with this theory are Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew, and - to a lesser extent - Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. If one were to contextualize the recent financial disaster through their lenses, one might suggest that putting the federal government on the hook for nearly $1 trillion of flimsy assets - belonging mostly to rich people - might be devastating to the federal government's abilities to create and sustain programs that help, roughly, every other American. I don't necessarily agree with the most extreme versions of this theory, but suffice it to say, the free-market right has a preternatural ability to be opportunistic about imposing ideology when crisis strikes.

This post by Devilstower on Daily Kos does a pretty remarkable job of spinning this scenario out, with sufficient detail to help a layperson understand. Again, I'm not endorsing the totality of what is said here, but it's worth reading the whole thing. Here's the conclusion:

"The sub-prime mortgage crisis that has not only come so close to utterly destroying the markets, but has ruined the value of many people's homes and left millions with mortgages they can't pay, was also the outcome of the deregulation created by [conservative ideologues]. The very predictable outcome. When taxpayers are left holding the bag for $1 trillion this time around, it's hard to believe it's any sort of accident.

This is enemy action. This is a bullet deliberately fired into the economy by men willing to exercise their ideology regardless of the cost to taxpayers. Men who have every expectation that they can plunder the system again and again, while the public picks up the tab. John McCain may not have had his finger directly on the trigger, but he was there. He assisted. These were his personal friends and philosophical comrades. He may not be the high priest, but he has been a loyal acolyte in the cult of deregulation.

It may come as a surprise to the champions of deregulation, but nobody likes regulation. The restrictions that were placed on banks, S&Ls, and other institutions in the 1930s weren't put there because someone thought it would be fun. They were put in place because they addressed problems that had just been clearly and painfully revealed. They were put in place because they were necessary."

-Education Dude

Morning Hors D'oeuvres

McCain was lobbied by Fannie and Freddie too. Given the number of lobbyists in his inner circle, his average coffee break probably involves being lobbied.

Andrew’s quote of the day is George Will eviscerating McCain on “This Week” and finds an old interview with DMX.

Matt thinks we should remember the last time Bush asked us to ignore the details due to crisis situations before signing off on the bailout and ponders the administration’s financial ineptitude.

This TPM reader has the best take on the bailout … money shot:

“ … I saw Hank Paulson talking about homeowners taking out mortgages that were higher than they could afford and about them needing to live up to their obligations. I find it incredible that he would use language like that while asking taxpayers to send a trillion dollars to Wall Street because investment banks made irresponsible investments and aren't able to live up to their obligations.”

Ambers digs into the data in AP’s race survey and thinks the McCain camp is trying to pivot to a new depiction of Obama. There’s only so much time to make something stick, guys.

Ezra summarizes a popular essay floating around from Prof. Zingales of the U of Chicago.

Mallaby’s column on what the government should do. By the way, nobody I’m reading seems to think this bailout is a good idea, as designed. Anyone see upside?

Edsall has a good take on the various ways the economic crisis can affect the electorate.

Albert Hunt at Bloomberg analyzes the candidate reactions. Obama trounced McCain.

$700 Billion for Wall Street, No Money for Health Insurance and Infrastructure

The New York Times asks a great question:

How is it that the administration and Congress, which have not tried to find huge amounts of money to, say, improve the nation’s health insurance system or repair bridges and tunnels, can now be ready to come up with $700 billion to rescue the financial system?

And then punts....

[This] question will surely come up again, involving as it does not just issues of spending policy but also more profound questions about national aspirations.

I understand that the goal is for Treasury to eventually resell toxic mortgages, making the price tag possibly less than $700 billion. And I'll trust that this action is necessary to avoid a greater catastrophe. But can someone answer the NY Times question?

-Law Dude

PS- I don't think anyone can argue that earmarks are a good thing. But on days when Congress is expected to spend 700 BILLION DOLLARS, McCain's railing against a few million spent on pet projects seems a bit out of place.

Saturday Night (Election) Fever

If you're like me, you've been spending this weekend decompressing and pondering the fickleness of the American financial system. I also did some shopping. With that:

Nobody likes Palin anymore.

And seriously, what the fuck is she talking about?

Nate’s projections have Obama winning 72% of the time. A remarkable swing from last week. I told you …

John Stewart for Secretary of State

In three sentences, Stewart sums up why "After 9/11, the world has changed" is not a good explanation for war in Iraq:

"Nineteen people flew into the towers. It seems hard for me to imagine that we could go to war enough to make the world safe enough that 19 people wouldn't want to do harm to us. So it seems like we have to rethink a strategy that is less military based."

See the interesting part of his interview with Tony Blair here:



-Law Dude

A Great Gun Compromise

Here’s a common-sense gun policy for both sides of the debate. Less gun control in rural areas, more gun control in cities. Hunters can go hunting, urbanites can feel marginally surer that when an argument breaks out, fists are thrown and bullets aren’t shot.

What’s wrong with this policy? Well, the Supreme Court may have shot it down in District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. Guns case. There, the Court interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not a collective right, applying only to militias. Individual right could mean a right to a hand gun in the home no matter where you live.

Was this a sensible decision? The plain text of the Second Amendment seems to support an individual right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But the question of individual vs. collective right misses the point. Just because the Second Amendment has a textual command giving individuals the right to bear arms, that does not mean the right is unlimited. Rather, individual right or not, cities should have the flexibility to restrict gun use as a means to reduce murder rates.

To illustrate this point, let’s look at what the First Amendment. If anything, the text of the amendment is even more direct:

Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .

Despite this clear command, the Supreme Court has been sanctioning laws abridging free speech for 90 years. An individual can be punished for statements likely to incite a crowd to imminent lawless action, for true threats on another’s life. As the saying goes, the First Amendment does not protect a right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

So Supreme Court, follow you own example. Even if an individual has the right to bear arms, that shouldn’t bar cities from passing laws aimed at reducing gun violence.

-Law Dude

Morning Schmorgasbord

Sorry the clips have been inconsistent this week. Anyone who's sentient knows that politics haven't been the big story this week, and that the candidates' reactions to the financial crises have been more or less some mix of tough talk and proposals for more regulation. This isn't astonishing, except for the fact that the newly minted conservative ideologue McCain has morphed - again - into a populist in the face of this crisis. Thanks for the steady hand John, I really hope you're in charge for the next one. Besides that, it appears that we've been trying to determine whether or not a President McCain would allow paella in the White House.

Ben realizes there may be some hypocrisy in McCain accusing Obama of cheerleading the crisis.

Ambers tries to get to the bottom of whether McCain really hates Spain and aggregates the battleground polls. Plus, McCain's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week.

Nate tracks a HUGE swing back to Obama in their projection model and examines the increasing possibility of an electoral college tie.

Palin has gone from most to least popular national ticket member in the last week.

And if you're in PA, make sure to help the living members of the Dead support Obama!

Leak from the Onion-- Obama's Gmail Account!

Afternoon Arugula

Sorry we've been slow on the clips this week, Education Dude has been traveling. We'll do a big one later to make up for it. On that note:

Ambers thinks the McCain campaign is the McCain campaign's worst enemy. He also thinks that the race is returning to something more familiar, except for the fact that:

the Obama campaign will have a massive resource advantage in each state it contests. In past elections, Democrats have had to pull together GOTV operations on the fly as if cramming for the final; this cycle, their field teams are extravagant and efficient. These are multiplier machines, and they're already turned on, culling, identifying and persuading tens of thousands of new voters.

Ambers also reminds us that campaigns aren't won by figuring out how to get the most electoral votes ... they're won by following the path that provides the highest probability of getting 270 of them.

When McCain Says "Fundamentals of Our Economy," He Means Puppies. Ergo, Obama Hates Puppies!!!!

For months, John McCain has been saying that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. He made a similar statement yesterday after the Lehman Bros bloodbath.

Yesterday, I'd give McCain an A for taking one for the team. Sure, the fundamentals of our economy don't look super strong when 3 of the 5 largest investment banks implode over a weekend. But, markets are cyclical, and maybe trying to garner investor confidence is the best way to turn the corner.

But clearly, such unbridled optimism plays into Obama's "McCain is out of touch" argument.

So what's a Karl Rove-inspired campaign to do? Simple. Redefine "fundamentals of our economy." McCain:

Well it’s obviously true that the workers of America are the fundamentals of our economy, and our strength and our future. And I believe in the American worker, and someone who disagrees with that – it’s fine.

Now next time Obama criticizes McCain for saying the "fundamentals of our economy are strong," he's not saying that McCain is out of touch-- he's saying that the American worker is weak! And did you know that Obama sometimes doesn't wear a flag pin?!?! And he probably hates puppies, too!

Thanks for the Straight Talk, John.

-Law Dude

Calling Conservative Dudes and Dudettes

We've been giving Sarah Palin a hard time on this blog for a while now (see here, here, here, here, and here).

Anyone care to defend Sarah? Leave a comment or email us at liberaldudes@gmail.com.

Fareed to U.S. Foreign Policy: Chill Out

The most enduring and dangerous legacy of World War II on U.S. foreign policy has been a worldview devoid of shades of gray. Potential adversaries become pure evil. Negotiations are nothing more than repeats of Munich.

Fareed Zakaria speaks truth:

It's also worth noting that since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Richard Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s brought a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to "Finlandize" Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of collapse.

Don't get me wrong, the pure evil label may fit some of our enemies (see Al Qaeda; the Taliban). But when prioritizing responses to threats and less clear-cut adversaries (see Putinized Russia; China), some nuance can go a long way.

-Law Dude

Weekend Caviar

Who cares about Derek Zoolander anyway? The man has only one look, for Christ's sake! Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I invented the piano key necktie, I invented it! What have you done, Derek? You've done nothing! NOTHIIIING!
- Mugatu

NYTimes Editorial board had a crazy pill moment themselves today:

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

Obama campaign, how bout using some of this for a new campaign commercial?

-Law Dude

The Toes Are Slipping Over the Line

McCain’s new ads are the kind of stuff most people will dismiss now, saying things like, “Yeah, this is pretty rough, but it’s a national campaign.”

But in a few years, we’ll look back and say, “Holy shit, that was straight up race baiting.”

Afternoon Arugula

Fallows has the best take on the Palin interview, methinks. I’ll ruin the money shot for you, but you must read the whole thing to appreciate the argument:

“What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues.”

The best speculation yet on the Obama-Clinton meeting.

Barack Obama: Shadow President. I think Sullivan is right on this, just another example of how good Obama’s judgment is.

He also eviscerates Kristol. I might start an official “Andrew-Sullivan-spontaneously-combusting” watch.

TPM looks at what Palin’s earmarks look like when scaled nationally. It’s a good thing she has never asked for them, according to her running mate.

Matt’s waiting for the “liar” narrative too. Seriously, guys, he keeps lying. Sullivan isn't nuts.

The weird earmark war.

Klein finds out that even McCain’s top economic advisor admits that McCain will raise taxes.

And the hardest hitting news team on television finally takes McCain to task.

Gloves Off

I think the new aggressiveness from the Obama camp is palpable today.  If you don't feel it yet, wait for the PM clips.

Please Stay Healthy, McCain....

Had Bush actually followed the Bush Doctrine, the world would be a safer place. And when I say the Bush Doctrine, I'm talking about the original, "If your country harbors terrorists then we'll treat you as a terrorist" Bush Doctrine and not the Preemptive War Bush Doctrine.

If Bush followed the original, we'd have had enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the country and wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of troops tied up in Iraq, thereby giving us greater flexibility (and moral authority) to deal with Al-Qaeda members operating out of the tribal regions of Pakistan.

Given that the original Bush Doctrine was a pretty good idea, it's sad that Palin's handlers forgot to tell her about it.



PS- If Palin had made substantive foreign policy statements prior to being nominated, I would not assume that most of her foreign policy positions are simply regurgitations of what McCain's advisers are telling her to say.

-Law Dude

New Idea for an Obama Ad

Starts with a black screen.  Cuts to a blow-up of an actuarial table, demonstrating the 33% likelihood that McCain dies in his first term, with voiceover reinforcing that fact.

Cut to video of Palin asking "What exactly does the VP do?"

Follow that with a fast-paced photo montage of a cavemen riding a dinosaur, a price tag on a rape kit, a bridge to nowhere, a plane listing on eBay, and a baby seal flopping around on a bunch of hundred dollar bills, a la Demi Moore in "Indecent Proposal."

"I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

Game changer.

Dear Obama, Please Hire Matt Damon

The Obama campaign needs to stop ignoring Palin and start engaging her. A good start would be pressuring her to accept a news conference. Even better? Hire Matt Damon.



-Law Dude