Sean Hannity Lies About Housing Crisis and CRA

Hannity baselessly blamed Democrats, CRA for financial crisis
Sean Hannity baselessly asserted that "[t]he federal government and the Democrats ... forced these banks, through the Community Reinvestment Act, to make these risky loans," adding, "The risky loans started the subprime mortgage crisis, which impacted all these financial institutions, which needed government bailouts." In fact, according to housing experts, the vast majority of subprime loans were made by independent lenders not covered by the CRA.

Obama The Realist

Obama's Bush Doctrine
The thrust of his argument against the Iraq invasion was a classic realist's critique of a war he denounced as "ideological." It would, he said, "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." It also would "fan the flames of the Middle East" and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

In fact, Obama sounded a great deal like -- Brent Scowcroft. In a widely noted 2002 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, published six weeks before Obama gave his speech, Scowcroft warned that an invasion of Iraq "very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation." Going to Iraq, Scowcroft said, would "divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism," and it could "destabilize Arab regimes in the region," "stifle any cooperation on terrorism" and "even swell the ranks of the terrorists." Clinton, who once said that "we have to be both internationalists and realists," is a natural fit with the new Obama-Scowcroft-Gates establishment. In explaining the appeal of Clinton, a senior Obama adviser recently spoke several times of the president-elect's respect for her "toughness" and described the practical reasons for choosing a figure who would have instant credibility around the world.

Financial industry rescue criticized as double standard

Financial industry rescue criticized as double standard
Congressional leaders and the Bush administration have stressed that the industry's $25 billion must be the automakers' last word on government help. Yet two of the largest financial institutions are on their second and third serving of government bailout funds; The Treasury had put $25 billion into Citigroup, while privately held AIG has now drawn $150 billion in loans from the government.

"It's a double standard, basically," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "Holy cow, AIG gets $150 billion for one insurance company that not only made mistakes but engaged in very dubious practices ... and they're bailed out? I'd love to see what their financial plans are, but I doubt they were even asked for them."

Did liberals cause the financial crisis

Did liberals cause the financial crisis

The financial crisis that has been wreaking havoc in markets in the U.S. and across the world since August 2007 had its origins in an asset price bubble that interacted with new kinds of financial innovations that masked risk; with companies that failed to follow their own risk management procedures; and with regulators and supervisors that failed to restrain excessive taking.

A bubble formed in the housing markets as home prices across the country increased each year from the mid 1990s to 2006, moving out of line with fundamentals like household income. Like traditional asset price bubbles, expectations of future price increases developed and were a significant factor in inflating house prices. As individuals witnessed rising prices in their neighborhood and across the country, they began to expect those prices to continue to rise, even in the late years of the bubble when it had nearly peaked.

The rapid rise of lending to subprime borrowers helped inflate the housing price bubble. Before 2000, subprime lending was virtually non-existent, but thereafter it took off exponentially. The sustained rise in house prices, along with new financial innovations, suddenly made subprime borrowers — previously shut out of the mortgage markets — attractive customers for mortgage lenders. Lenders devised innovative Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) — with low "teaser rates," no down-payments, and some even allowing the borrower to postpone some of the interest due each month and add it to the principle of the loan — which were predicated on the expectation that home prices would continue to rise.

But innovation in mortgage design alone would not have enabled so many subprime borrowers to access credit without other innovations in the so-called process of "securitizing" mortgages — or the pooling of mortgages into packages and then selling securities backed by those packages to investors who receive pro rata payments of principal and interest by the borrowers. The two principle government-sponsored enterprises devoted to mortgage lending, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, developed this financing technique in the 1970s, adding their guarantees to these "mortgage-backed securities" (MBS) to ensure their marketability. For roughly three decades, Fannie and Freddie confined their guarantees to "prime" borrowers who took out "conforming" loans, or loans with a principal below a certain dollar threshold and to borrowers with a credit score above a certain limit. Along the way, the private sector developed MBS backed by non-conforming loans that had other means of "credit enhancement," but this market stayed relatively small until the late 1990s. In this fashion, Wall Street investors effectively financed homebuyers on Main Street. Banks, thrifts, and a new industry of mortgage brokers originated the loans but did not keep them, which was the "old" way of financing home ownership.

Over the past decade, private sector commercial and investment banks developed new ways of securitizing subprime mortgages: by packaging them into "Collateralized Debt Obligations" (sometimes with other asset-backed securities), and then dividing the cash flows into different "tranches" to appeal to different classes of investors with different tolerances for risk. By ordering the rights to the cash flows, the developers of CDOs (and subsequently other securities built on this model), were able to convince the credit rating agencies to assign their highest ratings to the securities in the highest tranche, or risk class. In some cases, so-called "monoline" bond insurers (which had previously concentrated on insuring municipal bonds) sold protection insurance to CDO investors that would pay off in the event that loans went into default. In other cases, especially more recently, insurance companies, investment banks and other parties did the near equivalent by selling "credit default swaps" (CDS), which were similar to monocline insurance in principle but different in risk, as CDS sellers put up very little capital to back their transactions.

These new innovations enabled Wall Street to do for subprime mortgages what it had already done for conforming mortgages, and they facilitated the boom in subprime lending that occurred after 2000. By channeling funds of institutional investors to support the origination of subprime mortgages, many households previously unable to qualify for mortgage credit became eligible for loans. This new group of eligible borrowers increased housing demand and helped inflate home prices.

These new financial innovations thrived in an environment of easy monetary policy by the Federal Reserve and poor regulatory oversight. With interest rates so low and with regulators turning a blind eye, financial institutions borrowed more and more money (i.e. increased their leverage) to finance their purchases of mortgage-related securities. Banks created off-balance sheet affiliated entities such as Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) to purchase mortgage-related assets that were not subject to regulatory capital requirements Financial institutions also turned to short-term "collateralized borrowing" like repurchase agreements, so much so that by 2006 investment banks were on average rolling over a quarter of their balance sheet every night. During the years of rising asset prices, this short-term debt could be rolled over like clockwork. This tenuous situation shut down once panic hit in 2007, however, as sudden uncertainty over asset prices caused lenders to abruptly refuse to rollover their debts, and over-leveraged banks found themselves exposed to falling asset prices with very little capital.

While ex post we can certainly say that the system-wide increase in borrowed money was irresponsible and bound for catastrophe, it is not shocking that consumers, would-be homeowners, and profit-maximizing banks will borrow more money when asset prices are rising; indeed, it is quite intuitive. What is especially shocking, though, is how institutions along each link of the securitization chain failed so grossly to perform adequate risk assessment on the mortgage-related assets they held and traded. From the mortgage originator, to the loan servicer, to the mortgage-backed security issuer, to the CDO issuer, to the CDS protection seller, to the credit rating agencies, and to the holders of all those securities, at no point did any institution stop the party or question the little-understood computer risk models, or the blatantly unsustainable deterioration of the loan terms of the underlying mortgages.

Incredible Deniability

Incredible Deniability

It’s not so much that we don’t deep down understand where our food comes from. It’s not that we’d expect our rifle-totin’, NRA member for life, moose field dressing governer to be squeamish about the turkey killing that was happening on a turkey farm. It’s simply the fact that she showed without a shadow of doubt that she does not “think outside the bubble” of her own brain. The scene did not offend her, but the critical step of imagining the scene from another’s perspective was completely missing. What about the vast majority of Americans who never get closer to their meat than the supermarket? What about small children who love animals that happen to be watching the 5:00 local news? There are all sorts of distasteful or unfortunate things in the world that are just part of life, but they’re not going to score you political points by standing in front of them and broadcasting it out to the world. This is the problem. Lack of perspective, lack of empathy and lack of understanding that this just might be controversial.

The Decline and Fall of the First MBA President

The Decline and Fall of the First MBA President
If nothing else, George W. Bush is an irony-producing machine. After all, the collapse of the American economy, perhaps the enduring legacy of Bush's tenure in the White House, was presided over by the man many once lauded as the nation's "first MBA President." Now with the Bush recession deepening into a crisis of historic proportions, "MBA President" has joined expressions like "mission to Mars", "weapons of mass destruction" and "we do not torture" among the cruel jokes of the Bush years.

NOAA and the Whales

NOAA and the Whales
by Christopher Brauchli

The grand leap of the whale up the Fall of Niagara is esteemed, by all who have seen it, as one of the finest spectacles in nature.

-- Benjamin Franklin, Letter to British paper poking fun at Brits' lack of knowledge of America

Pity the poor whale. All it wants is to peacefully swim in the ocean. Instead it finds itself caught up in a net of litigation and rule making processes.

Although whales off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States have been affected by recent developments, it is probably not presumptuous to suggest that the Melon-head Whales in the Pacific are slightly envious of the Right Whales in the Atlantic.

The Melon-Head whales found themselves in federal court in California because of the Navy's need to conduct training exercises using high-powered sonar. Although no whales were asked to testify as to the effect of the high powered sonar on their well-being, the Natural Resources Defense Council, acting as amicus belaenae, testified in the trial court that the tests could "disturb or threaten 170,000 marine mammals . . . and would cause permanent injury to more than 500 whales . . . ." The district court judge agreed with those who had entered their appearances on behalf of the whales and imposed certain limits on the Navy when conducting its exercises using high-intensity sonar. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court judge. George Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which disagreed and said the need for the Navy to conduct its tests took precedence over the need to protect the whales from the effect of the sonar.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said, "the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of marine mammals" whereas imposing restrictions on Naval exercises would force "the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine force" that would jeopardize "the safety of the fleet." Posited that way the conclusion would seem to be a no-brainer and that is, how it came out. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "The president-the commander in chief-has determined that the training with active sonar is ‘essential to the national security'. We give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest." Prescribing courses of conduct in the interest of "national security" as determined by George Bush is not limited to whales. That was also the reason given for, inter alia, the eavesdropping program that Mr. Bush developed to protect us all from terrorism. One can only hope that the justification for impinging on the rights of whales to live peaceful lives is more firmly grounded than Mr. Bush's assertion of the right to impinge on the right of U.S. citizens to live peaceful lives not intruded on by an eavesdropping government.

Meanwhile, thousands of miles away as the whale swims, the Right Whales were the beneficiaries of a set of regulations imposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). During the 1800s Right Whales were the favorite of hunters because of their oil rich blubber and the fact that they were large and slow and, as a result, easy to kill. After their survival was insured by protection from whalers, a new threat arose-high-speed freighters. The Right Whale population is believed to be 300 or less and it is now protected both by the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Beginning in 1999 NOAA began developing federal speed limits on freighters in waters off the eastern seaboard where the Right whales live. The need for such regulations was obvious as NOAA explained saying: "One of the greatest known causes of deaths of North Atlantic Right whales from human activities is ship strikes."

In 2006 it was disclosed that NOAA was close to imposing a 30 nautical mile buffer zone around several East Coast ports in which a 10-mile per hour speed limit would be enforced. The whales were delighted with the proposed rule but cargo companies were not. They said the imposition of this rule would cost them time and fuel. In late August it was announced that the buffer zone would be reduced in size from 30 nautical miles to 20 nautical miles. The new rules take effect in December.

Amy Knowlton, a research scientist at the New England Aquarium was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying: "It's a huge step for the Right Whale. We're disappointed about some aspects of the rule, but it hasn't been so watered down that it won't be effective." Although the Right Whales won't be told of the new rules, they will be delighted when their mortality because of encounters with vessels moving at high speeds, declines. The Melon-Head whale whose well-being was decided by an un-Noah-like Chief Justice probably wish that their fate had been left up to the other NOAA instead of to the Supreme Court-for good reason.
For political commentary see my web page http://humanraceandothersports.com

Staying in Iraq Forever

Staying in Iraq Forever
by Tom Engelhardt
It's the ultimate argument, the final bastion against withdrawal, and over these last years, the Bush administration has made sure it would have plenty of heft. Ironically, its strength lies in the fact that it has nothing to do with the vicissitudes of Iraqi politics, the relative power of Shiites or Sunnis, the influence of Iran, or even the riptides of war. It really doesn't matter what Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or oppositional cleric Muqtada al-Sadr think about it. In fact, it's an argument that has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with us, with the American way of war (and life), which makes it almost unassailable.

And this week Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen -- the man President-elect Obama plans to call into the Oval Office as soon as he arrives -- wheeled it into place and launched it like a missile aimed at the heart of Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan for U.S. combat troops in Iraq. It may not sound like much, but believe me, it is. The Chairman simply said, "We have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now. We have lots of bases. We have an awful lot of equipment that's there. And so we would have to look at all of that tied to, obviously, the conditions that are there, literally the security conditions… Clearly, we'd want to be able to do it safely." Getting it all out safely, he estimated, would take at least "two to three years."

For those who needed further clarification, the Wall Street Journal's Yochi J. Dreazen spelled it out: "In recent interviews, two high-ranking officers stated flatly that it would be logistically impossible to dismantle dozens of large U.S. bases there and withdraw the 150,000 troops now in Iraq so quickly. The officers said it would take close to three years for a full withdrawal and could take longer if the fighting resumed as American forces left the country."

As for the Obama plan, if the military top brass have anything to say about it, sayonara. It's "physically impossible," says "a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq," according to Time Magazine. The Washington Post reports that, should Obama push for a two-brigades-a-month draw-down, a civilian-military "conflict is inevitable," and might, as the Nation's Robert Dreyfuss suggests, even lead to an Obama "showdown" with the military high command in his first weeks in office.

In a nutshell, the Pentagon's argument couldn't be simpler or more red-bloodedly American: We have too much stuff to leave Iraq any time soon. In war, as in peace, we're trapped by our own profligacy. We are the Neiman Marcus and the Wal-Mart of combat. Where we go, our "stuff" goes with us -- in such prodigious quantities that removing it is going to prove more daunting than invading in the first place. After all, it took less than a year to put in place the 130,000-plus invasion force, and all its equipment and support outfits from bases all around the world, as well as the air power and naval power to match.

Some have estimated, however, that simply getting each of the 14 combat brigades still stationed in Iraq on January 20, 2009, out with all their equipment might take up to 75 days per brigade. (If you do the math, that's 36 months, and even that wouldn't suffice if you wanted to remove everything else we now have in that California-sized country.)

Intelligence Report Say Farewell To American Supremacy

Intelligence Report Say Farewell To American Supremacy
Global warming could be a boon to Russia, a European country could be overrun by organized crime and the U.S. and its dollar could further decline in importance during the next two decades, says a U.S. intelligence report with predictions for the world in 2025.

The report, Global Trends 2025, is published every four years by the National Intelligence Council to give U.S. leaders insight into looming problems and opportunities.

The report says the warming earth will extend Russia and Canada's growing season and ease their access to northern oil fields, strengthening their economies. But Russia's potential emergence as a world power may be clouded by lagging investment in its energy sector, persistent crime and government corruption, the report says.

Analysts also warn that the same kind of organized crime plaguing Russia could eventually take over the government of an Eastern or Central European country. The report is silent on which one.

It also says countries in Africa and South Asia may find themselves unstable and ungoverned, as state regimes collapse or wither away under security problems and water and food shortages brought about by climate change and a population increase of 1.4 billion.

The potential for conflict will be greater in 2025 than it is now, as the world's population competes for declining and shifting food, water and energy resources.

Despite a more precarious world situation, the report also says al-Qaida's terrorist franchise could decay "sooner than people think." It cites its growing unpopularity in the Muslim world, where it kills most of its victims.

"The prospect that al-Qaida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," the report states.

The report forecasts a geopolitical rise in non-Arab Muslim states outside of the Middle East, including Turkey and Indonesia, and says Iran could also be a central player in a new world order if it sheds its theocracy.

The report, a year in the making, also suggests the world may complete its move away from its dependence on oil, and that the U.S. dollar, while remaining important, will decline to "first among equals" among other national currencies.

Bush Administration Moves to Protect Key Appointees

Bush Administration Moves to Protect Key Appointees
Just weeks before leaving office, the Interior Department's top lawyer has shifted half a dozen key deputies -- including two former political appointees who have been involved in controversial environmental decisions -- into senior civil service posts.

The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.

Similar efforts are taking place at other agencies. Two political hires at the Labor Department have already secured career posts there, and one at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to make the switch.

Between March 1 and Nov. 3, according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, the Bush administration allowed 20 political appointees to become career civil servants. Six political appointees to the Senior Executive Service, the government's most prestigious and highly paid employees, have received approval to take career jobs at the same level. Fourteen other political, or "Schedule C," appointees have also been approved to take career jobs. One candidate was turned down by OPM and two were withdrawn by the submitting agency.

After Obama's win, white backlash festers in US

After Obama's win, white backlash festers in US
"Most of this movement is not violent, but there is a substantive underbelly that is violent and does try to make a bridge to people who feel disenfranchised," says Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. "The question is: Will this swirl become a tornado or just an ill wind? We're not there yet, but there's dust on the horizon, a swirling of wind, and the atmospherics are getting put together for [conflict]."

Though postelection racist incidents haven't posed any real danger to society or the president-elect, law enforcement is taking note.

"We're trying to be out there at the cutting edge of this and trying to stay ahead of groups that are emerging," says Special Agent Darrin Blackford, a spokesman for the Secret Service, which guards the US president.

"Anytime you start seeing [extremist propaganda] floating around, you have to be concerned," adds Lt. Gary Thornberry of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, a member of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. "As far as it being an alarmist situation, I don't see that yet. From a law enforcement point of view, you have to be careful, because it's not illegal to have an ideology."

Bush Sells Free Market as Cure-All, Despite Crash

Bush Sells Free Market as Cure-All, Despite Crash
On Thursday, Bush gave a speech in New York about the financial crisis, and it was a laughable ode to the free market.

It sure was an odd time for such an ode, since the free market is crashing down upon us.

Ever incoherent, Bush himself admitted as much.

"I'm a market-oriented guy, but not when I'm faced with the prospect of a global meltdown," he said.

And so he enumerated the market interventions that his administration has already taken. He talked about the need to "make our financial markets more transparent"- though his bailout is anything but. And he even called for more regulation.

But then he went back to singing his ode.

"The greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market," he said. "It is too much government involvement in the market."

This is economic idiocy at a time of global collapse, and to utter it, Bush had to distort the cause of the collapse, blaming a lot of it on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and denying that it was caused by "greed and exploitation" or "a failure of the free market system."

Nice try, George.

But that's exactly what it was: A failure of cowboy capitalism. Deregulation come a cropper.

Bush can deny it all he wants. But the evidence is right in front of us.

This is what happens when you knock down the wall between commercial banks and other financial institutions, as Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin did by abolishing Glass-Steagall.

This is what happens when you allow Wall Street to issue all sorts of clever derivatives and swaps that are unregulated, as Bill Clinton (with encouragement from Larry Summers) did when he signed Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

This is what happens, in short, when you believe in the Reagan-Clinton-Bush ideology that big government is bad and that any regulation is suspect and that the free market will regulate itself.

Hell, even Alan Greenspan has given up on that now.

But not Bush.

He not only reiterated his mindless praise for the free market's economic magic. He swore that the free market confers all sorts of other blessings.

"If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go," he said.

This equation of unfettered capitalism with social justice is about as erroneous as they come. Read Naomi Klein's "Disaster Capitalism" for chapter and verse. Or look at the role of the free market in Pinochet's Chile. It didn't bring social justice or human dignity. It thrived on repression. Or take Yeltsin's Russia and the shock therapy of capitalism, which, by the way, Lawrence Summers insisted on. It didn't bring social justice or human dignity. It brought mass poverty.

Bush is an evangelist for capitalism, but the proof of its miracles has vanished. So he tried to make his case in the negative, by holding up the Soviet Union and Cuba as counter-examples.

He evidently hasn't heard of Scandinavia, which has a much more mixed economy than the United States, and a much more expansive social safety net, with a lot more social justice and human dignity than we have. But the model of democratic socialism, or a tamed free market, doesn't interest him. In his world, there is but predatory capitalism and communism.

Fortunately, the world is passing him by.

Barack Obama has a rare opportunity to lead the United States away from predatory capitalism.

And yes, that means more government involvement in the economy-and in restoring the safety net. It's an economic imperative-and a moral imperative.

Because you can't have social justice and human dignity with mass unemployment, rampant foreclosures, high rates of poverty and food insecurity, and a health care system that leaves almost 50 million people uninsured.

The snake-oil peddlers of the free market-Reagan, Bush I, Bill Clinton, Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, Bush II, Alan Greenspan, Henry Paulson-have all had their day.

Adios. And good riddance.

Sorry Bush Supporters Iraq Not Main Front in Terror War

CIA Chief: Iraq Not Main Front
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday that al-Qaeda remains the single greatest threat to the United States but that Iraq is no longer the central front in the broader war on terrorism.

"Today, the flow of money, weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq is greatly diminished and al-Qaeda senior leaders no longer point to it as the central battlefield," Hayden told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a bipartisan group that deals with international affairs. But he warned that al-Qaeda remains "a determined, adaptive enemy" that is resilient and operating "from its safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas."

"If there is a major strike on this country, it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaeda," he said. While law enforcement and diplomacy have their place, Hayden said, "this war -- and no one should mistake it as anything else -- is far from over."

Hayden said there has not been any noticeable increase in terrorist chatter that would indicate al-Qaeda is preparing to take advantage of a presidential transition period as they did in attacking the World Trade Center in 1993 shortly after President Clinton took office, or again in 2001, as the Bush administration was settling in. "No real or artificial spike [in intercepted terrorist communications] has been caused by the transition," he said.

Idaho students chant 'assassinate Obama' on school bus

Idaho students chant 'assassinate Obama' on school bus
Madison County, Idaho was once dubbed "the reddest place in America" by Salon, but that didn't make it any less shocking when elementary school children allegedly started chanting "assassinate Obama" on the school bus.

Matthew Whoolery told KIKD News he found out about the chanting from his second and third graders, who had no idea what the word "assassinate" meant.

"They just hadn't heard anything like this before," Whoolery stated. "I think the thing that struck us was just like, 'Where did they get the word and why would they put that word and that person together?'"

Whoolery, a psychology professor at Brigham Young University in Rexburg, is not an Obama supporter, but he was shocked that any public official would be threatened in that way. "I don't think that the majority of people in Rexburg have extreme ideas like that, but we were just surprised that it would go that far," Whoolery told KIKD.

Van Susteren Advocates For Palin - Again

Van Susteren Advocates For Palin - Again

Once again FOX News "Democrat" Greta Van Susteren proved more interested in advocating on behalf of Republican Sarah Palin than in acting as the kind of balance against the other conservatives on the network that Van Susteren is billed as. During a lengthy, lapdog interview of Sarah Palin aired last night (11/10/08), Van Susteren swallowed every one of Palin's assertions without question, including a repeat of her dubious claim to be dedicated to uniting the country under an Obama presidency. Not only that, but despite criticism of Palin's detractors for staying anonymous, Van Sustern used her own anonymous source to defend Palin. Then Van Susteren all but proclaimed him or her credible and characterized Palin as the victim of a whack job.

McCain Owes Sarah Some Straight Talk

McCain Owes Sarah Some Straight Talk
Where's John McCain's honor when we need it?

We'll find out tonight, when the Arizona Republican appears on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno. In the week since the election, Mr. McCain's campaign team has leaked some nasty stuff about Sarah Palin. These leaks are personal, and they speak more to the character of Mr. McCain and the leakers than they do to Mrs. Palin. So it will be telling if Mr. McCain stands up for his partner and says how offended he has been by what some of his staffers have done to her.

Two weeks or so before the campaign was over, the first round of McCain campaign rumors alleged that Mrs. Palin was a "whack job," and characterized her clothes-shopping as "hillbillies looting Neiman-Marcus from coast to coast." More recently, she has been alleged to know as little about geography as Barack Obama knows about the number of states in the union (at one point, he put it at 57).

The unmistakable message here has nothing to do with Africa, the North American Free Trade Agreement or bathrobes. It is the campaign team's cry, "It's not our fault. How could we ever win with this woman on the ticket?"

The first point to make here is the most obvious: This is the language of losers.

Harsh Words About Obama? Never Mind Now

Harsh Words About Obama? Never Mind Now
That whole anti-American, friend-to-the-terrorists thing about President-elect Barack Obama? Never mind.

Just a few weeks ago, at the height of the campaign, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that, when it came to Mr. Obama, “I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views.”

But there she was on Wednesday, after narrowly escaping defeat because of those comments, saying she was “extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year.” Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama’s victory, which included her state, “a tremendous signal we sent.”

And it was not too long ago that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, accused Mr. Obama of “palling around with terrorists.”

But she took an entirely different tone on Thursday, when she chastised reporters for asking her questions about her war with some staff members in the McCain campaign at such a heady time. “Barack Obama has been elected president,” Ms. Palin said. “Let us, let us — let him — be able to kind of savor this moment, one, and not let the pettiness of maybe internal workings of the campaign erode any of the recognition of this historic moment that we’re in. And God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family.”

There is a great tradition of paint-peeling political hyperbole during presidential campaign years. And there is an equally great tradition of backing off from it all afterward, though with varying degrees of deftness.

But given the intensity of some of the charges that have been made in the past few months, and the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s election, the exercise this year has been particularly whiplash-inducing, with its extreme before-and-after contrasts.

The shift in tone follows the magnanimous concession speech from Mr. McCain, of Arizona, who referred to Mr. Obama’s victory Tuesday night as “a historic election” and hailed the “special pride” it held for African-Americans. That led the vice president-elect, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., to get into the act. During the campaign, Mr. Biden said he no longer recognized Mr. McCain, an old friend. Now, he says, “We’re still friends.” President Bush, in turn, also hailed Mr. Obama’s victory, saying his arrival at the White House would be “a stirring sight.”

Whether it all heralds a new era of cooperation in Washington remains to be seen, and it may be downright doubtful. But for now, at least, it would seem to be part of an apparent rush to join what has emerged as a real moment in American history.

The presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said she was hard-pressed to find a similar moment when the tone had changed so drastically, and so quickly, among so many people of such prominence.

“I don’t think that’s happened very often,” Ms. Goodwin said. “The best answer I can give you is they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and they recognize how the country saw this election, and how people feel that they’re living in a time of great historic moment.”

Others in the professional political class were not so sure. Some wondered whether simple pragmatism was the explanation.

“My experience is, it’s less an epiphany and more a political reality,” said Chris Lehane, a former Democratic strategist who worked on the presidential campaign of Al Gore. “I’m thinking they will continue in this direction so long as the polls indicate it’s a smart place to be.”

Bush and the Republican Wrecking Crew

Bush and the Republican Wrecking Crew
Brattleboro Reformer Editorial

On its way out the door, the Bush administration is rushing to gut some important laws and regulations protecting the environment. Regarding the Endangered Species Act, for instance, the administration wants to impose major exceptions to rules requiring scientific review of federal projects that might harm or threaten endangered species.

The administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other projects will harm endangered animals or plants. The changes would apply to any project the federal government funds, builds or authorizes.

This giveaway to commercial interests would greatly reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been conducting in the 35 years since the act was adopted. The new regulations also would bar federal agencies from assessing whether emissions from proposed projects would further endanger species or habitats by contributing to global warming.

In response to these proposed changes, individuals, groups and officials submitted more than 300,000 comments. The Interior Department quickly assigned 15 employees to "review" all of them in 32 hours, a cynical speed-reading exercise with a predictable outcome.

Not surprisingly, the Interior Department "brightly concluded that no significant environmental harm would result from simply allowing federal agencies to voluntarily decide whether their projects might be a threat to wildlife," writes executive director Carl Pope, of the Sierra Club.

The rush job is a result of the administration's desire to finalize all regulatory changes before it leaves office, making it difficult and time-consuming for the incoming Obama administration to reverse them.

In another area, a rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service, now under final review, would lift the requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries management decisions. In addition, it would give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests, according to The Washington Post.

The administration has received almost 200,000 public comments on the rule, as well as protests from 80 members of Congress and 160 conservation groups, according to the Post.

In yet another outrage, the administration signed a rule on Oct. 31 exempting thousands of factory farms from needing permits that limit water pollution. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency did not adopt improved controls for bacteria and other pathogens that can pose risks to human health and wildlife, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Factory farms, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations, confine animals on an industrial scale and produce massive amounts of manure and other waste that can pollute waterways with dangerous contaminants. These farms lack waste treatment facilities comparable to those that treat human sewage, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

There are many more such damaging rule changes in the pipeline than can be detailed here. Others include, according to The New York Times, a rule that would weaken a Clean Air Act program requiring utilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. The EPA also will issue a rule to make it easier for coal-fired plants to locate near national parks. And the Interior Department is awaiting EPA approval of a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic wastes in valleys and streams.

The new administration will undo all this craziness - but with an unfortunate expense of time, energy and money. A decent future for the U.S. and the world will require thinking through and working out responsible and integrated economic, energy, food and environmental policies which don't destroy one sector to boost another. The Bush administration's ill-considered rule changes are the last gasp of an exhausted and discredited ideology.

Joe the Plumber is a welfare queen too

Joe the Plumber is a welfare queen too
Is there anything this guy hasn't been involved in? What's next for Joe, "Dancing with the Stars?" I was watching H&C last night and made this clip after I almost couldn't stop laughing at this guy. Joe "the Plumber" Wurtzelbacher is the perfect definition of what a wingnut is if you never understood the term before. You see, he survived in our country using welfare, a program designed to help the needy, but now says Obama is not loyal to our country because he wants to take our money and give it to other people. Does he drive a Cadillac too? I guess if it wasn't for welfare he wouldn't be littering our air waves. His 15 minutes are almost up.

Colmes: Do you really doubt that Barack Obama's loyalty to the United States?

Plumber: Ah...to a Democracy "yes," I mean, right back to the, as far as the Socialism issues, spreading the wealth around. I mean, Alan that is right out of Karl Marx.....Webster dictionary...government health care...

Colmes: You don't think he's loyal to our country?

Plumber Joe: To democracy? He's proposing a lot of changes that could change the core of America, don't you think?

Plumber Joe: Was it patriotic for Joe Biden to say "take my money and give it to other people? That's patriotism?

Colmes: Well, let me ask, you were on welfare once, was that taking somebodies else's money and giving it to you?

Plumber Joe: Paid into welfare. It something to be used, not to be abused like it often is.

Spoken like a true wingnut. He's perfect for FOX News. Colmes nailed him pretty good. He talks about his principles at the end of the clip, but really they are no principles at all, just the principle of a wingnut.

Jed has more:

So it turns out that when Plumber Joe was a child, he was on welfare, not once, but twice, and he credits it with helping his family ultimately lead a middle-class life style. He defends having received welfare by saying that he's subsequently paid into the system.

Bob Novak Just Doesn't Get It

Bob Novak Just Doesn't Get It
In the Wednesday edition of the Chicago Sun-Times, conservative columnist Robert Novak claimed Barack Obama's historical election last night was not "a broad mandate from the public" and the ensuing Democratic wave did little to change the political alignment in congress. Given recent history and the evidence of a shifting tide in American politics, I'm hard pressed to find a more inaccurate assessment of the outcome.

George W. Bush and Co. declared a "mandate" from the people shortly after his reelection in 2004 by a mere 35 electoral vote-margin. He did so despite barely eking out a majority with 50.7% of the popular vote over John Kerry's 48.3%. Incidentally, this 2.4% margin of victory was the narrowest win for any elected incumbent seeking reelection since Harrison beat Cleveland in 1888 and it was the smallest victory in all of American history for a war-time Commander in Chief.

Obama sailed over John McCain last night with a clear majority of over 53% of the popular vote and a 6%, 7.4-million vote margin of victory that is over twice that of his predecessor. And with an electoral-vote margin of nearly 200 (over five times that of Bush), Obama's win constitutes not just more than double the "mandate" claimed by Bush, it is an historic landslide by contemporary standards.

The President-Elect flipped eight Bush states to the blue column and managed to get two states--Indiana and Virginia--to elect a Democrat for President for the first time in nearly half a century. Solidly red North Carolina hasn't sent a Democrat to the Whitehouse in 22 years but they seem likely poised to do so this year, and the changing maps in this election weren't limited to just the Presidency.

In the Senate, Democrats were successful in unseating the incumbent Republicans in New Hampshire and North Carolina and won seats formerly held by Republicans in Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico. They failed to upset Republican leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky but, much like the races in blood-red Alaska and Georgia, the outcome should never have been in doubt or so razor-close. This is indeed a year of changing political landscapes.

It's No Joke Bush Fed Hires Failed Bank Executive

It's No Joke Bush Fed Hires Failed Bank Executive
The Federal Reserve Bank is drawing jeers for hiring a former top executive from the now-defunct investment bank Bear Stearns to help it gauge the health of other banks.

"How's this for sweet irony?" business publication Portfolio.com needled the pick.

Michael Alix was head of risk management for Bear Stearns for two years until the institution imploded this spring, a victim of its (risky) subprime-mortgage related investments.

Last Friday, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York quietly announced it had hired Alix to advise it on bank supervision.

"You're kidding me," said economic policy expert Dean Baker, of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic Policy and Research. While he didn't know Alix personally, he said, "You would think [his record] would be a big strike against him."

The collapse of Bear Stearns led to its pennies-on-the-dollar buyout by J.P. Morgan Chase; the bank's shareholders saw their wealth plummet. To facilitate the buyout, the Fed agreed to assume potential billions in losses on bad Bear Stearns investments.

"[Alix] was the guy on the mast charged with yelling 'iceberg' just before the Titanic introducted its bow to a floating chunk of ice," wrote financial expert and blogger John Carney on the web site Clusterstock.com, where he flagged the hire.

The Fed's move "is sure to put to rest the notion that there are no second acts in American life," Carney observed drily.

Wash. Post misrepresented Obama's remark to SF Chronicle editorial board about coal

Wash. Post misrepresented Obama's remark to SF Chronicle editorial board about coal
Summary: The Washington Post distorted a quote by Sen. Barack Obama in reporting that Sen. John McCain "ma[de] fun of something Obama had told a reporter, 'The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster.' " In fact, Obama said during a January 2008 interview: "The only thing that I've said, with a respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster -- what I have said is that, for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying, if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. You know, that I think is the right approach."

In a November 3 Washington Post article, staff writers Shailagh Murray, Juliet Eilperin, and Robert Barnes cropped a quote by Sen. Barack Obama during a January 17 meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board to misrepresent what Obama had said about coal. Murray, Eilperin, and Barnes reported that during a speech the previous day, Sen. John McCain "ma[de] fun of something Obama had told a reporter, 'The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster.' " The article went on to quote McCain stating, "My friends, I've been a coal booster, and it's going to create jobs, and we're going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs." In fact, during the Chronicle meeting, Obama said: "The only thing that I've said, with a respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster -- what I have said is, that, for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying, if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. You know, that I think is the right approach."

From Obama's January 17 meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board:

EDITORIAL WRITER: Senator, you introduced a bill promoting coal-conducted fuels, and then you said you'd only support them if they emitted fewer greenhouse gases in gasoline. Now, all the scientific evidence points to coal being dirtier than pretty much anything else, so how are you going to score your support for coal with the need to fight global warming?

OBAMA: Well, I've already - I've already done it. You know, I voted against the Clear Skies bill -- in fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I'm a coal state, and that half of my state thought I'd thoroughly betrayed them, because I think clean air is critical, and global warming is critical. But, this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that, right now, we are getting a lot of our energy from coal, and China's building its coal-powered plant once a week. So, what we have to do, then, is we have to figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon, and how can we sequester that carbon and capture it? If we can't, then, you know, we're gonna still be working on alternatives. But --

EDITORIAL WRITER: Alternatives including coal, or what?

OBAMA: Let me sort of describe my overall policy. I mean, what I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more - that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first call for a 100 percent auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are placed -- imposed every year.

So, if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It's just that, it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I've said, with a respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster -- what I have said is, that, for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying, if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. You know, that I think is the right approach.

The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don't know how to store nuclear waste wisely, and we don't know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain, and so it's wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But, I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine, and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue what's the best approach to take, as opposed to us saying, at the outset, here are the winners that we're picking, and maybe we pick wrong, and maybe we pick right.

From the Post article:

Although McCain's pitch to voters in his final days focuses primarily on the theme that he is more experienced and would manage the economy better than Obama, he has also increasingly shifted to the right in recent weeks as he courts voters in swing states.

In one of the clearest indications of that move, the candidate who once spoke repeatedly of the need to curb climate change now devotes his speeches to touting the need to boost oil and coal production, two of the biggest contributors to global warming, while campaigning in those coal-producing states.

Indeed, the one new line he unveiled Sunday -- which his aides said he would use several times during his seven-state swing in the run-up to Election Day -- was to make fun of something Obama had told a reporter, "The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster."

Speaking before a crowd in Scranton, McCain said, "My friends, I've been a coal booster, and it's going to create jobs, and we're going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs."

— M.G.

McCain And Obama Criticize New Coal Plants — Right Wing Goes Insane

McCain And Obama Criticize New Coal Plants — Right Wing Goes Insane
The right wing has gone insane over these remarks, falsely claiming that Obama said he “will bankrupt the coal industry.” This false claim is the headline of a Newsbusters story — the same right-wing front group that falsely attacked Al Gore using doctored audio clips. This time, the piece is based on an anonymous YouTube video. After being pumped by a top link on the Drudge Report, the right-wing — including the Weekly Standard, Michelle Malkin, and Power Line — went wild and repeated the lie that Obama talked about “bankrupting” the “coal industry.”

In reality, Obama’s statements, while blunt, are neither revelatory nor controversial. At a September 15 townhall meeting in Orlando, FL, McCain warned against building new coal plants:

We’re going to build new plants that generate energy, my friends, we’re going to build them. We’ve got to. There’s an increased demand for it. And it seems to me, it’s going to be coal, which I believe will increase greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, or it’s going to be nuclear, or it’s going to be clean coal technology.

In the San Francisco Chronicle interview , Obama similarly stated that the future of power involves coal:

But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

Under either candidate’s cap and trade program, constructing new coal plants that do not employ “clean coal technology” — that is, carbon capture and sequestration technology — would raise costs “dramatically.” Independent analysts have found that new coal plants would “create significant financial risks for shareholders and ratepayers” because of the likely cost of their greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, energy providers will have a financial incentive to pursue alternative energy and energy efficiency. McCain explained the market signal of a cap and trade program in his May 12 speech on climate change:

And the same approach that brought a decline in sulfur dioxide emissions can have an equally dramatic and permanent effect on carbon emissions. Instantly, automakers, coal companies, power plants, and every other enterprise in America would have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, because when they go under those limits they can sell the balance of permitted emissions for cash. As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. . . A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy.

McCain emphasized who the winners under a carbon cap-and-trade system are: “clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels.” The market “incentive,” “reward,” or “signal” is a euphemism that the winners will make money because the losers will pay more. And the losers, above all, are traditional coal plants — no matter who is elected president.