The Lady From Shanghai

Ah, now I understand

It was Newt the whole time.  Andrea Mitchell reports (h/t Huffington Post) that it was Newt Gingrich's behind the scenes machinations that torpedoed passage of the bailout yesterday – typical behavior for the bloated egomaniacal irresponsible Newt. 

The thing that mystifies me is that Boehner placed the blame on Nancy Pelosi's speech, an epically stupid move oh his part, rather than laying the blame where it belonged.  Apparently he'd rather trash a Democrat, making himself and his party look stupid, arrogant, and heedlessly cavalier in the process, than call his back-stabbing buddy to account.   Gingrich may have destroyed Boehner's leadership position in the GOP yesterday, but Boehner seems afraid to call him on it.  However, apparently Newtie's antics did not please some in his own party, since they're discussing it so freely with the news media.

Be interesting to see how widely the corporate media covers this – I suspect it will get very little play.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I don't think I will be.

Was he really that stupid?

Did House Minority Leader Boehner actually say that Republicans voted against the bailout legislation because Nancy Pelosi made a speech they didn't like?  Is this little man admitting, for real, that members of his party are so arrogant and puffed up that they will vote against legislation that would affect every man, woman, and child in this country out of pique?  If that's true, I hope they're all up for re-election in November.

Now mind you, I am very uncomfortable with this legislation myself, although I very reluctantly concede that it is probably necesary.  I certainly wouldn't have had a problem if Boehner said that those Republicans voted against it on principle.  But that this clown is so out of touch that he would make that statement just boggles my mind.

Trust – we don’t have it

Why is there so little popular support for bailout legislation?

Shortly before Congress was due to recess, the Bush administration sent Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed chairman Bernanke to Capitol Hill with the message that the economic situation was so dire that the Treasury Department required immediate access to $700 billion to bail out the financial services industry in order to avert catastrophe.  The demand to Congress for legislation included language that, in typical Bush administration fashion, prohibited accountability – "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."  Congress was instructed to immediately pass this legislation. 

It has never been made clear to the American people that a huge bailout is the best possible course of action.  Nor has it been made clear what the consequences of a meltdown of the economy will be.  There have been vague allusions to the Great Depression, but most of us were not alive during that time, and many have no idea what it was, other than being a Bad Thing. 

Most perceive the bailout as rescuing the fat cats of the limousine class from the consequences of their own greed and recklessness, and most of us are loath to do so.  The demand for this bill was presented – with lots of pressure for speed and out of the clear blue sky – from an administration that only the week before had been touting the underlying strength of the economy.  The perception, then, was that this was just the latest hustle from an administration that had pulled this trick before – the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was in everybody’s mind.  The cost of mendacity is mistrust, and it looked like the Bushies crying wolf again. 

There is now widespread distrust of the Bush administration and its motives and actions.  Congress, too, which abdicated its oversight role and allowed the Bush administration to deregulate the financial services industry without let or hindrance, is not viewed with favor.  In fact, the finance sector (among many others) has contributed very generously indeed to members of Congress.  The influence of lobbyists on legislators is incalculable, and very few believe corporate interests have not heavily influenced this bill.  

The institutions that normally are seen as bulwarks are no longer trusted.  In fact, the only common ground that liberal and conservative voters have at this point is a deep distrust of government, Wall Street, and industry.  The repercussions of this lack of trust are just now beginning to be felt, and they will not vanish when the administration changes – lack of faith in our institutions has become a way of life for us.  Selling a distrustful and resentful populace on any remedy is going to be very, very difficult.

On the bailout

Larry Summers,  Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton and former president of Harvard,  says the bailout is just a start -- necessary, although regrettable,  and need not necessarily force us to cut back on health care, energy, education, and tax relief.  

It is impossible to predict the ultimate cost to the Treasury of the bailout and the other commitments that financial authorities have made -- this will depend primarily on the economy as well as the quality of execution and oversight. But it is very unlikely to approach $700 billion and will be spread over a number of years.

Second, the usual concern about budget deficits is that the need for government bonds to be held by investors will crowd out other, more productive, investments or force greater dependence on foreign suppliers of capital. To the extent that the government purchases assets such as mortgage-backed securities with increased issuance of government debt, there is no such effect.

Third, since Keynes we have recognized that it is appropriate to allow government deficits to rise as the economy turns down if there is also a commitment to reduce deficits in good times. After using the economic expansion of the 1990s to bring down government indebtedness, the United States made a serious error in allowing deficits to rise over the past eight years. But it would compound this error to override what economists call "automatic stabilizers" by seeking to reduce deficits in the near term.

Indeed, in the current circumstances the case for fiscal stimulus -- policy actions that increase short-term deficits -- is stronger than ever before in my professional lifetime. Unemployment is almost certain to increase -- probably to the highest levels in a generation. Monetary policy has little scope to stimulate the economy given how low interest rates already are and the problems in the financial system. Global experience with economic downturns caused by financial distress suggests that while they are of uncertain depth, they are almost always of long duration.

The economic point here can be made straightforwardly: The more people who are unemployed, the more desirable it is that government takes steps to put them back to work by investing in infrastructure or energy or simply by providing tax cuts that allow families to avoid cutting back on their spending.

Fourth, it must be emphasized that nothing in the short-run case for fiscal stimulus vitiates the argument that action is necessary to ensure the United States is financially viable in the long run. We still must address issues of entitlements and fiscal sustainability.

One issue nobody has addressed though, is the widespread loss of faith in the government.  The bailout is received with skepticism because we don't trust.  We assume that there are secret backroom deals to take care of the rich and undeserving who got us into this mess.  We know that Congress routinely accepts money from lobbyists of large corporations -- for example, the largest contributers to Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking Committee, are banks.  Few have any faith that Congress or the executive branch act in the best interests of their constitutents.

It's true that the current financial situation has been a long time brewing and the Bush administration is not solely to blame.  But they accelerated and exacerbated the situation by emasculating or removing regulations that had been put in place to prevent such a meltdown, and Congress didn't lift a finger to stop them.

A necessary sequel to the bailout must be transparency.  For 8 years the Bush administration has perpetrated many of its acts behind a veil of impenetrable secrecy, and that is one reason nobody really knows how much damage the economy has suffered.  That must be corrected.  In order for this country to function effectively, the actions of the government must be visible to all and open to comment.

McCain's lost chance

E.J. Dionne muses on John MCain's lost opportunity.  He does have two more debates to go in order to make up ground, but he did himself a lot of harm with his failed intervention into bailout negotiations and his boorish behavior at the first debate.

Presented without comment - Live from New York!

Sunday morning songfest

Paul Newman (January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008)

h/t Crooks & Liars

The very bad week

Frank Rich hits the highlights of McCain's backfiring stunt.

Not ready for primetime

Bob Herbert at the Times is concerned about Sarah Palin's intellectual capital.  I've seen a theory posted online that Palin performed so badly in her interviews, particularly with Katie Couric, because the McCain campaign has robbed her of her self-confidence.  That may be partly true, but I think, with Mr. Herbert, that the biggest problem is that she's just not very bright.

The Gambler

The New York Times has an article about McCain's ties to the gambling industry.   His fondness for gambling isn't confined to high-risk political stunts that blow up in his face.   According to the Times:

A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party’s evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.

The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCain’s campaigns and built Foxwoods into the world’s second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain’s affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.

Aside from what this tells us about McCain's addiction to risk, the very fact that he is so closely tied to an industry that in its turn is closely tied to organized crime should concern us all.   

An interesting analysis

by James Fallows on McCain tactics vs. Obama strategy.  It illustrates not only why Obama scored so well in the debate last night, but why he'd make a much better president than the grumpy, rude old man.  Obama is capable of seeing beyond the immediate benefit to the long term consequences--an ability that has been woefully missing over the last eight years.  I actually think Obama is more statesmanlike than any president since Kennedy.

The Debate

I perched in front of the TV last night, bag of microwave popcorn in hand, and settled in to watch the debate.  Right away, though, I encountered a problem -- turns out John McCain's voice and speaking style irritate me every bit as much as George Bush's do.  McCain has two modes of electioneering speech:  saccharine condescension and a shrill, angry bleat.  Consequently I spent much of the evening hitting the mute button, so I missed a lot of the debate.  I know this makes me partisan and unfair to McCain, but really, the man irritates me more than I can bear.  I really should have recorded it so I could watch it when I had more stamina.  

So now I'm forced to rely on accounts of others for McCain's half of the debate.  There are lots and lots of analyses out there.   And there's YouTube -- thank goodnes for YouTube.  

Rhetorically speaking, it seems McCain did have some good moments, but detracted from his perfomrance by behaving in a rude and boorish manner.  Perhaps he thought he was enacting the role of alpha dog and would thus command respect.  If so, many in the audience didn't seem to catch on.  I can see where such a tactic would appeal to the white supremacists, but I don't know how big their voting bloc is.  I do know that many of us have unacknowledged prejudices -- perhaps it was that vein McCain was trying to tap into.

On the other hand, McCain did have a world-class awful week, what with having his little "suspend the campaign" stunt blow up in his face, so maybe he was just feeling cranky.  He must have started the debate in a really awful mood, and in the face of Obama's cool, unflappable demeanor, perhaps he just couldn't summon up the will to respond appropriately.

McCain morphs into McCan't

According to Thomas M. DeFrank at the New York Daily News, who feels that McCain's antics irretrievably damaged him this week.  

DeFrank cuts McCain slightly more slack than I do, though.  I don't believe that McCain's decision to "suspend" his campaign (which he never actually did) ever smacked of bold, gutsy leadership.  To me, it reeked of desperation and flop sweat.  

It also said, hey, America, I can only handle one thing at a time. 

Blatantly stealing again

From Hoffmania this time.  Here's Sarah Silverman on how to get your grandparents to vote for Obama.  This girl's a hoot.

The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

Will she be gone by Tuesday?

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker says Palin ought to drop out for the good of the campaign.  

I say, no, no--stay, Sarah, stay.  I haven't been this entertained for years.

What do McCain and the GOP think they're doing?

According to a New York Times news analysis, McCain is leaping into a thicket.  He seems to be operating from a position of ignorance, confusion, and showmanship.   And the AP says yesterday was a remarkably bad day for the GOP.

Today should be very interesting.

Donate to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's Name

An organization called Feminist Philosophers is spearheading a campaign to get people to donate to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name.  Planned Parenthood will send both you and Sarah a nice handwritten note thanking you for the donation.  Feminist Philosophers provides the contact information for Sarah (at McCain headquarters), and a link to Planned Parenthood's donation page.  I gave 50 bucks and I feel much better!

A few words in defense of our country

The incomparable Randy Newman

Bailout could make things worse

According to the CBO chief.  This thing definitely needs to be carefully thought out.  Why can't Congress pass a three-month stop-gap bill for, say, $75 billion, then work on a comprehensive financial reform package in concert with the president-elect -- one that is based on accurate information, not fear-mongering by the most crooked, incompetent administration this country has ever had?  

According to Forbes, Treasury just basically pulled the $700 billion figure out of its hat, anyway.  

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

So...

Gamble won't pay off

"GOP nominee hopes Americans will see his proposal as sign of bipartisan leadership."

I see it as an admission that he can only do one thing at a time. The job he's running for requires that he be able to to handle conflicting demands on his time, so as far as I'm concerned, this action is an admission that he is unqualified for the competing complex tasks facing the next President of the United States. He just flunked the audition.

Also it's a stunt born of desperation. You can see the flop sweat all over this one.

Anything going on today?

I hear John McCain made some kind of statement.

The American Presidential Candidate

At the end of the 1995 Movie, The American President, the president, played by Michael Douglas, takes a question at a press conference, and his answer morphs into a speech that is quite relevant to the current situation. 

Reporter: Robyn, will the President ever respond to Senator Rumson's question about being a member of the American Civil Liberties Union?

President Shepherd: Yes, he will. Good morning.   It's alright. Please keep your seats. Good morning.

For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being President of this country was, to a certain extent, about character. And although I've not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I have been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.

For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it!

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore

Of course, Barack Obama is running for president, and the diversion isn’t his girlfriend, it’s his minister.  Or his race.  Or he's got a funny name.  Or the fact that he wasn’t born on the mainland of the United States.  Or the fact that he spent part of his childhood in a foreign country.  Whatever.  But the tactics remain the same.  Change Bob Rumson to John McCain and read it again.

Just once, I would like to hear a Democrat give an impassioned speech like that.  

I wish I'd seen this before

In the New York Times on Monday, Bob Herbert, in a column entitled A Second Opinion? asked:  

"Does anyone think it’s just a little weird to be stampeded into a $700 billion solution to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression by the very people who brought us the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?"

This is the fundamental thing that really bothers me about this bailout package.  It makes absolutely no sense at all to allow the Bush administration to ramrod any measure through Congress, let alone one that gives them unparalleled funds and power--the two commodities they are known for abusing.  All of a sudden we should trust their judgment?  I don't think so.

Herbert's column is well worth the read.

Obama, Capitol Hill Leaders Speak as One on Crisis

The Washington Post has been a fount of good news for Obama today.  This article, by Jonathan Weisman, about Obama, his economic advisors (a pretty impressive list), and the Senate leadership won't make the Bush/McCain camp happy at all.  I'm waiting for the howls of outrage and shrieks of "lib'ral media."

But after all, McCain really offers nothing but bluster, lies, and phony outrage.

Bipartisan Outrage? Maybe

According to WaPo this morning, nobody in Congress seems happy with the Bush administration's bailout proposal.

But whether these posturing, outraged politicians will, for once, be able to withstand the Bush Administration juggernaut is another question entirely.  They're due to break at the end of the week, and that just adds to the pressure coming from the Bushies.  I don't recall Congress ever working into its vacation before.  

Maybe they could pass some kind of stopgap measure to carry over to the new administration, then craft some thoughtful legislation, working with the new president.  That's highly unlikely, though.  They're far more likely to revert to their comfort zone, give Dick Cheney's boots a final quick lick of farewell, and abdicate their responsibilities yet again, giving the Bush junta exactly what they demand.

Obama has clear lead

52% to McCain's 43% in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, according to an article by Dan Balz and Jon Cohen in  the Washington Post this morning.  Lots of good info in that article.

Six weeks left to go.

Rick Davis lied

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, lied to reporters about his ties to Freddie Mac.  And this while the McCainiacs have been running misleading ads about a "relationship" between Obama and Franklin Raines, formerly of Fannie Mae.  

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to discover such mendacity and hypocrisy from the folks that also brought you those models of upstanding truthiness, George Walker Bush and Richard Whatever Cheney.

Scares me when I agree with George Will two days in a row

But his column this morning warns Congress against allowing the Bush administration to stampede it into again turning over unrestricted, unregulated, un-overseen access to a huge sum of money and even more power than it has already ceded.  It's definitely worth a read.

There may be only four months left of the Bush administration, but that just means it's even less to be trusted than usual.  There has been a great deal of dishonest dealing and power grabbing from this bunch over the last 8 years and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the waning days of their power will be any different.  On the contrary.

Sen. Sanders hits the nail on the head.d

Again, thanks to Balloon Juice, they're providing a real gold mine today.  Senator Bernie Sanders spoke a basic truth in simple, easy to understand English--a thing that most politicians find impossible to do.

Here's what the senator said:

We must end the danger posed by companies that are “too big too fail,” that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.

Think about it.  

Liar, liar

Per Comrade John Cole at Balloon Juice, Henry Paulson is a big, fat liar.  Excellent catch, comrade.

We hold this truth to the self-evident.  Nobody with a shred of common decency would be part of the Bush administration.  If there is anybody within it who is not a lying, scamming, power-mad sleazeball, it's news to me.

Palin vs. McCain on global warming

The Washington Post has a very good article about the difference in Palin's and McCain's stated positions on global warming.  McCain professes to believe that humans are driving global warming.  The Post points out, though:

 "...in selecting Palin and deciding to place her in charge of energy affairs should they win the White House, he has a running mate who has resisted this key tenet of his candidacy."

If John McCain truly believes that global warming is human-driven, then he knows that it is a critical issue.  Why on earth would he put a known dissenter to his alleged point of view in charge of energy affairs?  That would be the absolute height of illogical irresponsibility.

The truth is, nobody knows what John McCain really thinks because his positions change from day to day and from audience to audience.   In the blizzard of pandering and lies that is the McCain campaign, it is impossible to determine what, if anything, John McCain stands for.

McCain has lost whatever bearings he ever had

And he's lost George Will.   The things that worry Mr. Will about McCain--" boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes"--are very Bushian qualities.  Will didn't add the word "irrational" to his criticism, at least in so many words, but the implication certainly is there.  

After the last catastrophic 8 years and in the current crisis, the last thing we need is another, older even more irrational Bush.  I have certainly areas of disagreement with Obama, but he is definitely not a doddering frontman for a bunch of fiscally irresponsible neocon religious ideologues who most certainly do not put "country first."  

Here's a reason...

why giving the Feds $700 billion with NO OVERSIGHT would constitute criminal negligence:  $9 billion lost to fraud in Iraq.   Congress didn't demand accountability there either--and $9 billion is chickenfeed stacked up against what the Bush goons want now.

It is incomprehensible that Congress is allowing itself to be hustled yet again by these strong-arm scammers.  Are they utterly incapable of learning from experience?   This bailout is NOT something to be rushed, and if they have to forego some of their vacation, so be it.  The've abdicated their responsiblities long enough.  It's time for them to do what we're paying them for--legislating in our best interests.  They should remember that the repercussions from this legislation will last a long, long time--for them as well as the rest of us.

For those old enough to remember, here's an allegory:  Charlie Brown and Lucy.   Poor, hapless, clueless Charlie Brown (Congress) fooled time after time by Lucy, (the Bush administration), with the football.

It's a start, but not much of one

Congressional Democrats are presenting some demands of their own with regard to bailout legislation.   

Congressional Democrats considering the Bush administration's emergency plan to shore up the U.S. financial system countered with their own demands yesterday, presenting draft legislation giving the government power to cut salaries of chief executives at firms that participate in the bailout and slash severance packages for their top management.

But we've seen this many, many times before--they talk big, they strut, they pound their chests--yet they always cave.  Between fear and greed, they ALWAYS give the Bush administration (and in this case, if the election goes bad, the Bush administration's next figurehead, the perpetually confused John McCain) exactly what they want.

And the Dems are not even challenging the unfettered and unreviewable access of the Bush administration (a group not known for handling money or power well) to $700 billion.

Democratic leaders have broadly embraced the administration's proposal to spend up to $700 billion to take troubled assets off the books of faltering firms and are not questioning the need to give the Treasury Department expansive authority to halt the meltdown in world markets. But by attempting to limit executive pay, they risk alienating key Republicans who object to such restrictions and delaying passage of the rescue plan, which in turn may stir renewed fear in the markets.

The Congressional Democrats are a craven bunch.

McCain, the born-again regulator

Oh, my.  This can't be good.

Some say...

he's not McSame.  I say he is.

Oh, dear

Via Balloon Juice, sources tell ABC news, some people have had to sell their jets.  Oh, damn, now WHERE did I put my tiny invisible violin?

Disaster in the making

Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks that giving Treasury Secretary Paulson a blank check for $700 billion with no strings attached ( "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.") is an absolutely godawful idea. If Congress approves the bailout plan as is, it will be one of the stupidest things it has ever done. I was going to say “the stupidest thing,” but then I remembered the last 8 years. It IS difficult to say which of the blank checks Congress has handed George Walker Bush and his merry band of crooked incompetents was the stupidest, but this bailout plan will be right up there. 

She's not ready

She has to have special rules because it's not fair for her to have to debate Joe Biden without any restrictions.

Sunday Morning Dance Party

SHAKE IT!!!  (hat tip Rumproast)

Enhanced interrogation techniques

Julia Child, international spy

McDole

Experiment - Embedding Video

It worked!  I be going to have BIG fun with this!

 

And now, news from the Apocalypse

Oh, noes, they've had to postpone doomsday!

Palin perjured herself? Say it ain't so

via Americablog, a report from ABC News suggests that Caribou Barbie was less than completely honest in a court filing regarding the "Troopergate" affair.

An internal government document obtained by ABC News appears to contradict Sarah Palin's most recent explanation for why she fired her public safety chief, the move which prompted the now-contested state probe into "Troopergate."

Fighting back against allegations she may have fired her then-Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, for refusing to go along with a personal vendetta, Palin on Monday argued in a legal filing that she fired Monegan because he had a "rogue mentality" and was bucking her administration's directives.

"The last straw," her lawyer argued, came when he planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape.

The McCain-Palin campaign echoed the charge in a press release it distributed Monday, concurrent with Palin's legal filing. "Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.," the release stated.

But the governor's staff authorized the trip, according to an internal travel document from the Department of Public Safety, released Friday in response to an open records request.

So Sarah is saying she's pro-domestic violence?   Poor Todd.

Couldn't happen to a nicer fella

GOP delegate's hotel tryst goes bad when he wakes up with $120,000 missing

I love this part:

In an interview filmed the afternoon of Sept. 3 and posted on the Web site LinkTV.org, Schwartz was candid about how he envisioned change under a McCain presidency.

"Less taxes and more war," he said, smiling. He said the U.S. should "bomb the hell" out of Iran because the country threatens Israel.

Asked by the interviewer how America would pay for a military confrontation with Iran, he said the U.S. should take the country's resources.

"We should plant a flag. Take the oil, take the money," he said. "We deserve reimbursement."

Via Crooks & Liars

Sometimes you can only shake your head

Krugman, in yesterday's New York Time s (h/t Hoffmania):

OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue ofContingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!