the progressive bailout alternative

From The Nation, via dKos, a bill proposed by members of the House Progressive Caucus who voted against the Bailout on Monday:

DRAFT

No BAILOUTS Act

Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security

1. Require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require an economic value standard to measure the capital of financial institutions.

This bill will require SEC to implement a rule to suspend the application of fair value accounting standards to financial institutions, which marks assets to the market value, no matter the conditions of the market. When no meaningful market exists, as is the current market for mortgage backed securities, this standard requires institutions to value assets at fire-sale prices. This creates a capital shortfall on paper. Using the economic value standard as bank examines have traditionally done will immediately correct the capital shortfalls experienced by many institutions.

2. Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restricting naked short sells permanently

This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks naked selling, selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring the shares can be borrowed. Such practices many times harm the companies represented in the sales and hurt their efforts to raise capital. There is no economic value produced by naked short sales, but significant negative effects.

3. Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restore the up-tick rule permanently.

This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks short sales without an up-tick in the market. On September 19, 2008, the SEC approved a temporary pause of short selling in financial companies "to protect the integrity and quality of the securities market and strengthen investor confidence." This rule prevents market crashes brought on by irrational short term market behavior.

4. "Net Worth Certificate Program"

This bill will require FDIC to implement a net worth certificate program. The FDIC would determine banks with short-term capital needs and the ability to financially recover in the foreseeable future. For those entities that qualify, the FDIC should purchase net worth certificates in these institutions. In exchange, these institutions issue promissory notes to repay the FDIC, counting the amount "borrowed" as capital on their balance sheets. This exchange provides short term capital, with not cash outlay. Interest rates on the certificates and the FDIC notes should be identical so no subsidy is necessary.

Participating banks must be subject to strict oversight by the FDIC including oversight of top executive compensation and if necessary the removal of poor management. Financial records and business plans should be subject to scrutiny while participating in the program.

In 1982, Congress approved a program, known as the Net Worth Certificate Program, that allowed banks and thrifts to apply for immediate capital assistance. From 1982 to 1993, banks with total assets of $40 billion participated in the program. The majority of these banks, 75%, required no further assistance beyond the certificate program.

5. Increase the FDIC Insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000.

The bill will require the FDIC raise its limit to provide depositors confidence that their money is safe and help eliminate runs on banks which are destabilizing to the industry.

To be honest, I am in no position to evaluate what effects this bill would have. But as we've seen in the past week, there are definitely many economists who believe there are many alternatives to simply handing over $700 billion without any promises of fixing the problem. An honest debate about the possible options, informed by experts other than the people who got us into this mess in the first place, seems like the only responsible course of action.

bailout = FAIL

Sorry, geek joke/pun.

nyc street food for obama

Hotdogs for Obama:


- Gray's Papaya, 6th Ave. & 8th St.

Fruit Vendors for Obama:


- Fruit vendor, 1st Ave. & 15th St.

the perverse logic of d.c. economics

On Friday, while the leaders of the federal government were all jumping up and down and running around in circles telling us that the sky is falling because Congress had not yet approved the magical $700 billion bailout of some of the most badly-behaving financial institutions in the country, the very same leaders of the federal government categorically refused to consider a new economic stimulus package that was a mere 8% of the size of the bailout that sought to provide aide to ordinary Americans for such luxuries as food, heating oil, and paying the bills.

I say "leaders of the federal government" and not "the Bush Administration" or "Republicans" because this was truly a failure of leadership across the board, Congressional Democratic leaders included. As Paul Rosenberg's column points out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave Republicans a free pass on this one, not even forcing an actual filibuster by Republicans on why they hate people who are struggling as we enter the time of year when the ability to pay for basic sustenance, heat, and housing mean survival. As we have seen too many times since the Democrats regained the majority in the Senate, the party leadership is more concerned with the compromise itself than getting a good deal for the American people. "Bipartisanship" requires two parties, not one party and one group of cowering enablers.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the wrongdoing isn't heavily on the current Administration. It very much is; it's just that sometimes staying angry this long is a very, very hard thing to do. Our visceral reaction to cold-hearted moves by the Bush Administration has become desensitized and calloused over eight long years, but undoubtedly his veto threat of a $56 billion stimulus package that sought to provide funding for food stamps, low-income energy assistance during the winter months, and extension of unemployment benefits for the record high number of unemployed pretty much made the bill dead on arrival. By the way, considering that they're pushing for a yet-unexplained $700 billion in bailouts, the White House still apparently has no grasp of irony, saying

"Record spending that could lead to record tax increases or higher deficits will not advance our economic recovery."

Hilarious.

But to get to this post's title, the muffled death of the economic stimulus bill on Friday (a.k.a. "take out the trash day") is just another example of the perverse economic logic that current rules D.C., which amounts to something along the lines of "from each according to the inverse of his ability to contribute, to each according to the inverse of his need." Corporations and individuals do not succeed in America on their own; they benefit from the infrastructure and opportunities in the United States that have been created not magically, but rather by investment by taxpayers and communities and, yes, the government. The rule of law and the court system, the internet, electricity grids, water and sewage lines, roads, highways, schools, crosswalks, currency itself, these symbols of stability did not all appear instantly, but rather are an investment in the common good. And those who have succeeded most in this country, who have accumulated the most wealth and found themselves the beneficiaries of the greatest number of opportunities, they have not coincidentally also been the greatest beneficiaries of this infrastructure. And now they are most able to contribute their fair share to the American community, to maintaining and rebuilding the infrastructure that makes the country strong. And now they are also the least in need of direct assistance from the government.

And yet it is from them that D.C. asks the least, and gives the most. This is perverse logic from an economic perspective. If there is a recession and you want to increase spending, you should be investing funds in a way that will actually increase spending in the sort of goods and services that create jobs here at home, not so that P-Diddy can refuel his private jet with foreign oil (poor guy has to fly commercial!). The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that direct assistance to the neediest Americans (specifically in the form of extending unemployment insurance and by increasing funding for food assistance) is the most cost-effective and certain way to stimulate the economy with the shortest lag time. Meanwhile, the same Congressional Budget Office recently had this to say about the expected impact of throwing $700 billion at companies who aren't even suffering from a lack of money, but rather just a lack of liquidity, meaning that too much of the assets they do hold are tied up in the high-risk mortgages and debt that they gave out in droves like Halloween candy:

Non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag testified that he has no idea what the plan would actually do:

He added that there were no guarantees that the plan would work as intended, or at all.

So it boils down to this: if you are a ridiculously rich corporation or individual, we're not going to ask you to pay your fair share toward rebuilding the economy, but we will give you oodles and oodles of money every time you need to get yourself out of a bad gambling debt, because you're just "too big to let fail." On the other hand, if you're an ordinary working American who is suffering from the economic downturn that those same speculators caused, you don't get anything. Because you're just "too small to care about."

I guess you and Lehman Brothers have something in common.

cnn poll: obama won the debate

CNN's poll of debate watchers, via TPM, seem to indicate that Obama won the debate:

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the best job in the debate -- Barack Obama or John McCain?
Obama 51%
McCain 38%

[...]

Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think Barack Obama or John McCain would better handle each of the following issues:

• The war in Iraq: Obama 52%, McCain 47%

• Terrorism: McCain 49%, Obama 45%

• The economy: Obama 58%, McCain 37%

• The current financial crisis: Obama 54%, McCain 36%

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:

• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%

• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%

• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%

• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%

• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%

• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%

• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%>

CBS poll of undecided debate watchers also looks good for Obama, though there is seems that though while Obama still won on the economy, McCain won on the Iraq issue. It's in prose, so here's a summary:

• Won the debate: Obama 39%, McCain 24%, Tie 37% (hey, they're undecided for a reason...)
• Opinion of Obama: Improved 46%, Worsened 8%, No Change 46%
• Opinion of McCain: Improved 32%, Worsened 21%, No Change 47%
• Is prepared to be President: Obama 60% (pre-debate 44%), McCain 78% (pre-debate 79%)
• Understands your problems: Obama 79% (pre-debate 58%), McCain 41% (pre-debate 36%)
  

Would make the right decisions about:

• The economy: Obama 66%, McCain 42%
• The Iraq War: Obama 48% (pre-debate 44%), McCain 56% (pre-debate 44%)

And the big one: Did the debate change these viewers minds? Undecided watchers were asked their presidential preferences pre- and post-debate:

• Obama: Post-Debate 41% (pre-debate 36%)
• McCain: Post-Debate 29% (pre-debate 34%)

Looks like those actually watching gave Obama the big win. The big question now will be how the campaigns and media spin the results.

posse comitatus and crossing the rubicon

Have you ever heard the phrase "crossing the Rubicon?" It means a point of no return, and refers to the prohibition during the Roman Republic against any Roman Army legion crossing the Rubicon River, the border leading into Italy Proper and the heart of the Republic, preventing the Republic from the threat of attempted military coup. Julius Caesar, in bringing his army across the Rubicon, demonstrated his complete disregard for the rule of law and the principles of civilian rule of the Republic, and ushered in a new era of military and imperial rule in Rome.

Wouldn't you know it, the United States actually has a similar law in place?

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. [emphasis added] The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

-Wikipedia.

So, given that Congress has not expressly authorized federal military presence in the U.S.... why is this being allowed?

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

[...]

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one [emphasis added].

[...]

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Just in case it isn't clear, this is illegal; neither the Pentagon nor the president has any such authority to do this without express permission from Congress. The exception to the rule is the Insurrection Act of 1807, renamed and expanded in powers in 2007 as the Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act. The expanded powers allowed the President to deploy troops domestically where it was found there was "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition." Of course, "other condition" was not defined. In 2008, those powers were largely retracted, although Bush issued one of his legally irrelevant "signing statements" to the effect that he would construe the restrictions as he saw fit. So the question is, what has more value in a country under the rule of law; legislation passed pursuant to the Constitution, or a "signing statement" with no basis for legitimacy?

This isn't a sign that there will be martial law anytime soon, but as Glenn Greenwald points out, this isn't a very good sign, and definitely a step in the wrong direction in terms of civilian rule and separation of powers:

There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a the sky-is-falling sort of guy, but history provides lessons to learn from in this situation. One brigade will not result in martial law, but it is no less a clear disregard for Congress' authority as Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon was contempt for the laws created by the Roman Senate. Congress, lawyers, the American People, cannot stand by idly while this militarization of domestic policing occurs.

those who got us into this mess aren't going to get us out

The word is that Obama's emergency council of economic advisers include such luminaries as Bob Ruben of Citigroup, one of the architects of the real estate bubble and thus our current economic woes. On the other hand, sometimes-Obama advisor and widely-respected Chicago economist Prof. James K. Galbraith has not been included in the emergency convening, despite having been warning everyone about this impending problem for years.

Galbraith, by the way, thinks a bailout is a terrible idea, and suggests a comprehensive alternative that he predicts would reduce the economy's recovery time from 10 years to three years (WaPo, "A Bailout We Don't Need"):

Is this bailout still necessary?

The point of the bailout is to buy assets that are illiquid but not worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They're called "loans."

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that. So why not eliminate the pointless $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and go take inventory? If a bank is solvent, money market funds would flow in, eliminating the need to insure those separately. If it isn't, the FDIC has the bridge bank facility to take care of that.

Next, put half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund -- a cosmetic gesture -- and as much money into that agency and the FBI as is needed for examiners, auditors and investigators. Keep $200 billion or more in reserve, so the Treasury can recapitalize banks by buying preferred shares if necessary -- as Warren Buffett did this week with Goldman Sachs. Review the situation in three months, when Congress comes back. Hedge funds should be left on their own. You can't save everyone, and those investors aren't poor.

[...]

[The housing price crisis] could be resolved in three years, rather than 10, by a new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, manage rental conversions and decide when vacant, degraded properties should be demolished. Set it up like a draft board in each community, under federal guidelines, and get to work

[...]

Reenact Richard Nixon's great idea: federal revenue sharing. States and localities should get the funds to plug their revenue gaps and maintain real public spending, per capita, for the next three to five years. Also, enact the National Infrastructure Bank, making bond revenue available in a revolving fund for capital improvements. There is work to do. There are people to do it. Bring them together. What could be easier or more sensible?

Here's another problem: the wealth loss to near-retirees and the elderly from a declining stock market as things shake out. How about taking care of this, with rough justice, through a supplement to Social Security? If you need a revenue source, impose a turnover tax on stocks.

[..]

No country in this situation is broke, or insolvent, or even in much trouble. For once, Wall Street's own markets speak the truth. The financially challenged customer isn't Uncle Sam. He's up on Wall Street, where deregulation, greed and fraud ran wild.

made up numbers

$700 billion is a made up number; it had no basis in any real need:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"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."

Of course you did. The problem is, now no one can tell what all this money is supposed to be for. Non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag testified that he has no idea what the plan would actually do:

He added that there were no guarantees that the plan would work as intended, or at all.

At the same time, Orszag told members it was impossible for him to determine the program’s cost because “we know virtually nothing about how this program is going to work.”

Great... just what you want to hear from the people who calculate how much these things should cost. I guess we'll just have to rely our own estimates; here's one from dKos:

On one level, we know that the $700 billion taxpayers are being asked to cough up is going to investment banks[...]

This crisis was brought to you by subprime mortgages. We know that because we're told it many, many times each day. So how big is the problem?

The total value of all home mortgages has risen steeply over the last few years as the housing bubble drove home prices up and lax lending rules roped more people into the pool. Home mortgages were valued at $7 trillion in 2003 but were up to $11.1 trillion by last year.

[...]

Foreclosures were up a steep 79% in 2007, reaching just over 1% of mortgages. The numbers are up again so far in 2008 (though not as steeply). We could top 2% in default this year or next. There are some expectations that foreclosures could triple from today's historically high levels, meaning ultimately 3% of mortgages could be in trouble.

And that's where we get that math problem. 1% of all mortgages -- the amount now in default -- comes out to $111 billion. Triple that, and you've got $333 billion. Let's round that up to $350 billion. So even if we reach the point where three percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure, the total dollars to flat out buy all those mortgages would be half of what the Bush-Paulson-McCain plan calls for.

Then we need to factor in that a purchased mortgage isn't worth zero. After all, these documents come with property attached. Even with home prices falling and some of the homes lying around unsold, it's safe to assume that some portion of these values could be recovered. In the S&L crisis, about 70% of asset value was recovered, but let's say we don't do that well. Let's say we hit 50%. Then the real outlay for taxpayers would be around $175 billion.

Which, frankly, is a number that Wall Street should be able to handle without our help. After all, the top firms on Wall Steet payed out $120 billion in bonuses alone between 2000 and 2006. If they've got that kind of mad money, why do they need us to step in now? And why do they need twice as much as all the mortgages that are even likely to implode?

So, the bailout isn't really even necessary, and if we did want to go through with it, it really only costs between $175 billion and $350 billion.

Why are we talking about $700 billion?!?!

bailout = scam email

Via a chain of friends, I received this suspicious-looking email asking for me to participate in an unorthodox transfer of funds...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Secretary Paulsen
Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Subject: PLESE HELP WITH YUR FUNDS
To:


Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson

Strange... but I suppose if he's the Secretary (and/or Minister) of Treasury, he must be trustworthy!!!

bailout = fisa

Remember when Congress agreed to shred the Constitution and toss the Fourth Amendment? The bailout is the sequel. Kagro X at dKos dusts off his old FISA-opposition post to demonstrate how this is the exact same politically-unnecessary, foolish and cowardly capitulation that happened with FISA:

The Congress is at the threshold of a major capitulation on FISA the bailout. There's no doubt that there are a lot of political (read: electoral) implications to this vote. We all know that. We've been through this fear mongering routine before, where the public is rattled by vague pronouncements about unspecified threats (or about whatever's going on in Michael Chertoff's "gut," as the case may be), and where Members of Congress are cowed by the prospect of Republican attack ads claiming they're "weak on terror the economy."

And of course, at this point it should go without saying that if a bill is placed before you that addresses additional powers and authority for the Attorney General those in charge of the economy, of all people, this is a full stop moment.

The vote on this bill is no. The vote on any bill expanding the powers of this Attorney General these looters is no.

These are things I should not have to outline for anyone at this point. Certainly not Daily Kos readers. But you'd hope Members of Congress, too. But apparently, in that hope you'd be disappointed.

Still, these are merely the surface issues. There's something deeper and even more troubling going on here. What's happening here is the ceding of the last remaining prerogatives of the legislative branch to the executive. We are currently watching the Congress cede its oversight authority -- not its ability to hold hearings, but its ability to make hearings mean something. We may be watching the Congress cede its "power of the purse," as George W. Bush now threatens to veto any appropriations bailout bill that does not match the numbers in his budget isn't "clean," i.e., come with no strings attached. (You need to know that the president's budget has almost never been the working model for Congress. The traditional reaction to the president's budget, no matter whose it is or even who's reacting, has been that it's "dead on arrival.") Now we are watching the Congress cede even its legislative powers, reacting to Bush's threat to keep them in session veto their bills until they pass the exact FISA bailout legislation he demands.

Does this comport with any American's concept of the basic functions of the different branches of our government? Since when does the president dictate the terms of legislation... to legislators?

Since they started rolling over for it, that's when.

This is a fundamental failure not just of politics, but of the framework envisioned by the Founders, who felt sure that the immutable precepts of self-interest would be the engine that drove the checks and balances that protect our freedoms and forestall the creep of tyranny. While the political motives of elected officials were always open to question, it was beyond doubt that personal ambition and the jealous guarding of power would be all the motivation necessary to keep any branch from ceding its powers to another.

That this could ever yet again turn out not to be the case is simply astounding, and it is a measure of just how much damage the George W. Bush "administration" has inflicted on our Constitution. While we are all too well aware of the political constraints involved in remedying the situation, the fact is that his continuance in office endangers the future of our system of government as every one of you have understood it to date.

Have a nice recess.

The good news? At least this time, Obama appears to be on the right side:

bartlet's advice to obama

MoDo has the exclusive from West Wing Creator Aaron Sorkin, who has written a fictional meeting between Obama and West Wing President Bartlet.

BARACK OBAMA knocks on the front door of a 300-year-old New Hampshire farmhouse while his Secret Service detail waits in the driveway. The door opens and OBAMA is standing face to face with former President JED BARTLET.

BARTLET Senator.

OBAMA Mr. President.

BARTLET You seem startled.

OBAMA I didn’t expect you to answer the door yourself.

BARTLET I didn’t expect you to be getting beat by John McCain and a Lancôme rep who thinks “The Flintstones” was based on a true story, so let’s call it even.

OBAMA Yes, sir.

BARTLET Come on in.

BARTLET leads OBAMA into his study.

BARTLET That was a hell of a convention.

OBAMA Thank you, I was proud of it.

BARTLET I meant the Republicans. The Us versus Them-a-thon. As a Democrat I was surprised to learn that I don’t like small towns, God, people with jobs or America. I’ve been a little out of touch but is there a mandate that the vice president be skilled at field dressing a moose —

OBAMA Look —

BARTLET — and selling Air Force Two on eBay?

OBAMA Joke all you want, Mr. President, but it worked.

BARTLET Imagine my surprise. What can I do for you, kid?

OBAMA I’m interested in your advice.

BARTLET I can’t give it to you.

OBAMA Why not?

BARTLET I’m supporting McCain.

OBAMA Why?

BARTLET He’s promised to eradicate evil and that was always on my “to do” list.

OBAMA O.K. —

BARTLET And he’s surrounded himself, I think, with the best possible team to get us out of an economic crisis. Why, Sarah Palin just said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” Can you spot the error in that statement?

OBAMA Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t funded by taxpayers.

BARTLET Well, at least they are now. Kind of reminds you of the time Bush said that Social Security wasn’t a government program. He was only off by a little — Social Security is the largest government program.

OBAMA I appreciate your sense of humor, sir, but I really could use your advice.

BARTLET Well, it seems to me your problem is a lot like the problem I had twice.

OBAMA Which was?

BARTLET A huge number of Americans thought I thought I was superior to them.

OBAMA And?

BARTLET I was.

OBAMA I mean, how did you overcome that?

BARTLET I won’t lie to you, being fictional was a big advantage.

OBAMA What do you mean?

BARTLET I’m a fictional president. You’re dreaming right now, Senator.

OBAMA I’m asleep?

BARTLET Yes, and you’re losing a ton of white women.

OBAMA Yes, sir.

BARTLET I mean tons.

OBAMA I understand.

BARTLET I didn’t even think there were that many white women.

OBAMA I see the numbers, sir. What do they want from me?

BARTLET I’ve been married to a white woman for 40 years and I still don’t know what she wants from me.

OBAMA How did you do it?

BARTLET Well, I say I’m sorry a lot.

OBAMA I don’t mean your marriage, sir. I mean how did you get America on your side?

BARTLET There again, I didn’t have to be president of America, I just had to be president of the people who watched “The West Wing.”

OBAMA That would make it easier.

BARTLET You’d do very well on NBC. Thursday nights in the old “ER” time slot with “30 Rock” as your lead-in, you’d get seven, seven-five in the demo with a 20, 22 share — you’d be selling $450,000 minutes.

OBAMA What the hell does that mean?

BARTLET TV talk. I thought you’d be interested.

OBAMA I’m not. They pivoted off the argument that I was inexperienced to the criticism that I’m — wait for it — the Messiah, who, by the way, was a community organizer. When I speak I try to lead with inspiration and aptitude. How is that a liability?

BARTLET Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it.

OBAMA You’re saying race doesn’t have anything to do with it?

BARTLET I wouldn’t go that far. Brains made me look arrogant but they make you look uppity. Plus, if you had a black daughter —

OBAMA I have two.

BARTLET — who was 17 and pregnant and unmarried and the father was a teenager hoping to launch a rap career with “Thug Life” inked across his chest, you’d come in fifth behind Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and a ficus.

OBAMA You’re not cheering me up.

BARTLET Is that what you came here for?

OBAMA No, but it wouldn’t kill you.

BARTLET Have you tried doing a two-hour special or a really good Christmas show?

OBAMA Sir —

BARTLET Hang on. Home run. Right here. Is there any chance you could get Michelle pregnant before the fall sweeps?

OBAMA The problem is we can’t appear angry. Bush called us the angry left. Did you see anyone in Denver who was angry?

BARTLET Well ... let me think. ...We went to war against the wrong country, Osama bin Laden just celebrated his seventh anniversary of not being caught either dead or alive, my family’s less safe than it was eight years ago, we’ve lost trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, thousands of lives and we lost an entire city due to bad weather. So, you know ... I’m a little angry.

OBAMA What would you do?

BARTLET GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

OBAMA Good to get that off your chest?

BARTLET Am I keeping you from something?

OBAMA Well, it’s not as if I didn’t know all of that and it took you like 20 minutes to say.

BARTLET I know, I have a problem, but admitting it is the first step.

OBAMA What’s the second step?

BARTLET I don’t care.

OBAMA So what about hope? Chuck it for outrage and put-downs?

BARTLET No. You’re elite, you can do both. Four weeks ago you had the best week of your campaign, followed — granted, inexplicably — by the worst week of your campaign. And you’re still in a statistical dead heat. You’re a 47-year-old black man with a foreign-sounding name who went to Harvard and thinks devotion to your country and lapel pins aren’t the same thing and you’re in a statistical tie with a war hero and a Cinemax heroine. To these aged eyes, Senator, that’s what progress looks like. You guys got four debates. Get out of my house and go back to work.

OBAMA Wait, what is it you always used to say? When you hit a bump on the show and your people were down and frustrated? You’d give them a pep talk and then you’d always end it with something. What was it ...?

BARTLET “Break’s over.”

happy fall!

You'll notice that Google has autumnal leaves on their search page today. That's because today is the first day of fall. As I explained on Labor Day:

The first day of solar fall begins with the September Equinox, this year at 11:44am of September 22nd, in the northern hemisphere. The autumn and spring equinoxes are the day of the year when the sun rises directly in the east and sets directly in the west.

So Happy Fall! I hope you had a good summer. Personally, Fall is my favorite season in the City. The weather is perfect; I wish it was fall all year.

jenn brown on good morning america

Good Morning America talks about the presidential campaign in Canton, the swing region of the perennial swing state of Ohio. Of course, that means that the lovely Jenn Brown, UCSD alum and former Organizing Director for the U.S. Students Association, was interviewed.

No embed, unfortunately, but she's at -00:33.

tina fey as sarah palin on snl

saturday evening frivolity: what's your palin family name?

Via OpenLeft, the Palin Family Name Generator:

Once in a while, in the middle of all this insanity, we all just need to sit back and have a good laugh. I've been compulsively chuckling over this one for the last 10 minutes.

We know that Sarah and Todd Palin like to name their children with sports/Alaskan theme names.

Track, who was born in Track and Field season.

Bristol, after Bristol Bay.

Willow, after the town north of Wasilla, or the Willow Ptarmigan (Alaska State Bird).

Piper Indy, after the Piper Cub airplane, and the Polaris Indy snowmachine (snowmobile for you 'outsiders'). And an interesting quote from Palin has her saying Indy could also refer to "Independence".... Hmmm.

Trig Paxson, after the town of Paxson, north of Wasilla.

So haven't you ever wondered what your name would be if the fates had made Sarah and Todd Palin your parents? Now you can find out.

I plugged in my first and middle name and got "Halter Grasshopper." What's yours? Click here to find out!

rachel maddow: growing the progressive news media

Just watched the first segment of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC tonight, where she took a look at a story on McCain and convicted con artists and on Palin and abuse of executive privilege. Good coverage of two stories not getting nearly enough coverage. But the thing that really struck me about the show is the two news reporters she had in the first 15 minutes: a reporter from The Nation magazine and the D.C. bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine. These are both fantastic progressive news outlets, which means, of course, that in the conservative-leaning corporate cable news media, the times they make it onto your screen are few and far between. Even Keith Olbermann, darling of the liberal/progressive cable news-watching set, tends to stick with members of "The Village," the circular firing squad of D.C.-based, conventional mainstream media wisdom that brought us such hits as the Iraq War.

So kudos to you, Rachel Maddow, for growing the progressive news media. We'll be watching (literally).

palin: judge for yourself

I, for one, think she is a lightweight, a hypocrite, and a right-wing nut. You?

the real media/palin problem

So before Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin spoke tonight, the talking heads prattled on about whether or not the media had been unfair in following and trying to get a straight answer on questions about her past: her alleged involvement in getting her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state troopers, her flip-flopping on the Bridge to Nowhere and federal "pork" that benefited the town she was mayor of after she hired Sen. "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens' former chief-of-staff as the town's lobbyist, the hypocrisy of her teen daughter's pregnancy when she line item vetoed funding for a program that helps teen mothers in need find housing and get back on their feet and when she actively opposes the reproductive rights of women... the list sort of goes on. Anyway, the media was talking about whether it was unfair for the media to be asking all these questions, as if the job of the media was instead to cover up lies and things that might make Republicans look bad. This confusion, of course, is understandable, given that this is the same media that has covered up lies and things that might make Republicans look bad for the past 10-12 years.

The real Media/Palin problem isn't how much they're reporting on these issues that demonstrate she is a hypocrite and possibly corrupt, but how they're treating her, and Republican nominee John McCain (NOT Your Friend) with kids' gloves. Seriously, did any of them even watch that speech she gave, or were they too busy writing their prepared "commentary" about how great it was and what a wonderful opportunity she took advantage of to speak directly to the American people? I'll put the speech up as soon as it's up on YouTube, but doesn't anyone else think that Palin sounded a lot like a high school student graduation speaker? Her. Cadence. Was. Terrible. And yet, this:

• Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "A star has been born."
• David Gregory on MSNBC: "A great speech, a great performance.
• Chris Matthews on MSNBC: "Norma Rae"
  

Come on people. Really. This is what we've come to. "Fair and Balanced" means outright lying, telling people who did not see the speech that it was great when everyone watching on TV saw how terrible it was. Really, really pathetic. Shame on you, media.

Of course, Keith Olbermann gets it, if the only one to even suggest that the others are full of crap, calling it (in response to Chris Matthews), "Norma Rae by way of Tracy Flick."

And on that note, what they should have all said is what georgia10 at dKos said:

If there was any doubt left among voters, pundits, and politicos alike that John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was based purely on politics, tonight's speech should lay to rest any notion that Republicans chose their candidate based on anything other than a shallow political calculus.

With her snarky, amateurish, almost Student Council-like speech, Palin proved today that she can attack like a candidate for vice-president. And she demonstrated that she can support the top of the ticket like a candidate for vice-president.

But nowhere in her speech did she demonstrate that she can be vice-president. She's still the former Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, who didn't even know what the vice-president did until a couple weeks ago, who admitted that she doesn't pay attention to Iraq, who's stonewalling investigations into her alleged misconduct, and who took advantage of the very earmark process she claims to be against.

In sum, she demonstrated that while she can serve as the second person on a ticket, she is unquestionably not ready to serve as the second most powerful person in the world.

On a completely tangential note, but needing to be reported due to weirdness: Before the speech, Tom Brokaw on MSNBC went off the deep end, theorizing about what it must be like for a theoretical single-mom-divorced-waitress-on-the-late-shift in Omaha, Nebraska to look up and see a woman nominated for VP and speaking on TV. Imagine that, a woman in presidential politics! Speaking at a national party political convention! Amazing! The weirdest part about that, of course, was the whole hypothetical woman thing; Brokaw got very specific, getting into how long ago she had been divorced (I believe he actually used the line "her husband left her four years ago") and what time the night shift was (10pm-4am?).

labor day, the start of fall, and wearing white

Happy First Day of Fall. Not by any sort of official measurement, of course, but Labor Day (first Monday of September) has come to be known as the end of summer. Many schools are starting classes today, and the emptiness of many cities during the glut of August vacations has more or less ended, much to the delight of local eateries and businesses (unless you live in a major tourist destination, in which case folks are probably just recovering).

The first day of solar fall begins with the September Equinox, this year at 11:44am of September 22nd, in the northern hemisphere. The autumn and spring equinoxes are the day of the year when the sun rises directly in the east and sets directly in the west.

So, back to Labor Day. Two things always struck me about Labor Day, the first being that no one is supposed to labor on the day, and so it seems to be a bit of a misnomer. It is, of course, a holiday in celebration of Labor (big "L"), a day of rest for working men and women across the country. The idea for the holiday began in the midst of American industrialization in 1882, the plan for an annual day off for the masses hatched by the Central Labor Union of New York City, trade unionists that later became part of the American Federation of Labor in 1886, and then later the AFL-CIO in 1955. Congress made Labor Day an official national holiday on June 28, 1894, following violent May Day protests that same year in Cleveland, Ohio, as the United States suffered from a massive depression resulting from a bursting railroad bubble fueled by irresponsible speculation. Sound familiar?

The second thing that I've always wondered about Labor Day was the whole thing about only wearing white between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I had heard a rumor back in the day that it had something to do with respect for workers, but that never really made any sense. A quick browse online shows that there's really no basis for that rumor, and the likely explanations have nothing to do with workers at all. Not wearing white other than during the summer was biggest in the 1950s and 1960s. The first theory is that it is a practical matter; white shoes (dress shoes, traditionally) were impractical during the winter months, and the tradition started as dealing exclusively with shoes, but somehow spread to clothing in general. Off-white clothing, such as coats, apparently was fine. The second theory is that it was an attempt by the "proper" elite to enforce an arbitrary code of conduct on the nouveau riche to teach them how to behave "correctly," although why that would include not wearing white shoes during the winter is beyond me.

So feel free to wear white even though it's after Labor Day, and if anyone gives you any grief for it, ask them why you shouldn't be doing it. That should shut them up.