QOD

The disappearance of unemployment from elite policy discourse and its replacement by deficit panic has been truly remarkable. It’s not a response to public opinion. In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 53 percent of the public named the economy and jobs as the most important problem we face, while only 7 percent named the deficit. Nor is it a response to market pressure. Interest rates on U.S. debt remain near historic lows. [emphasis added]

The Lesser Depression, Paul Krugman

Cheesehead Shame

One could argue that the Wisconsin GOP's tactics in calling a vote for the governor's/Koch brother's state budget bill is balanced by the Democratic senators' quorum-denying maneuver of vacating the state.

Once one peruses the 140+ page bill in depth, however, all semblance of equivalency dissolves. The Republicans expose themselves as the corrupt and power-hungry scoundrels that they are.
To wit, this gem from the bill:

“Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

Basically, the governor can sell state assets to his cronies (read the Koch brothers?) for any sweetheart price he likes and not be subject to any oversight. In what way is this good government? Or government at all? As Krugman points out, this is more Baghdad than middle America and the governor and his buddies should be ashamed!

ht: pk

The Future of The Palin

Now that Sarah Palin is back in Wasilla pondering her future, so too do we take a look at her prospects for future, national office.

Perhaps the best thing that could happen to her is for Ted Stevens to lose his Senate seat to his Democratic challenger. This would give her the opportunity to take back the seat in 6 years and continue her journey on the national stage, starting to think seriously about issues beyond distributing Alaska's wealth-spreading oil checks.

If, however, her popularity has been significantly driven by her sex appeal then she could have a problem. I may get in trouble here but politics and image are by their nature crass. In 2012, Sarah Palin will be four years older. Will she still have the same sexual charisma? Will she still be a "hot"? What about 2016 when she is over 50 years old? She may retain her "beauty" (never got it, myself) She may still be "handsome" and that may be enough. Maybe she can transform herself into a compelling mother-figure. She can always cling to her folksiness schtick.

Another one

Well, apparently the Republican party is quite serious about winning California. First they decide to sponsor a proposition that would split California's electoral votes by congressional district rather than the overall vote winner selecting all electoral college delegates. Fair enough. It beats the Texas mid-term gerrymandering plan. Now we can be certain that Phase 2 of the plan is to win more votes in that uber-liberal state by having a series of Republican congressman pretend to be gay! That Karl Rove really is a boy genius!

Killing the Messenger?

"Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions about a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."

By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz

Washington Post
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; Page A01 (link)

Does this mean that Americans would accept similar decisions about Iraq if they had been suggested by Russ Feingold? I think they have demonstrated that they can accept some level of casualties higher than what they experienced in Mogadishu. What if Reid and Pelosi announced that they were authorizing funding for a permanent base Iraqi Kurdistan and enough troops to secure the borders and train the Iraqi army for two years. Would they buy it? Wouldthey at least retain I higher confidence level on the matter than Bush is currently managing?

Easy to Forget

From a Eugene Robinson Washington Post piece:

One revelation that comes with spending time with politicians is that they actually have core beliefs. To cite one example, John Edwards may be a multimillionaire, but I can't doubt his sincerity when he talks about poverty. I've seen him volunteer in a soup kitchen without first summoning the television cameras. He grew up poor, and the experience has never left him.

I know, "Isn't that just precious!" He cites Democratic candidates in soup kitchens but I am sure there are hearts lurking in the chests of some Republicans as well. That's not to say that there are not sociopathic manipulators drawn to politics. What's more, core beliefs are matched with the temperament that will act on those beliefs. Just because George Bush sincerely believes that America can only be made safe through obsessive attempts at appearing "strong" doesn't mean it is best for our country to get involved in a land war in Asia. Draw your own conclusions about Hillary.

Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.

From Vice President Cheney's statement concerning the I Lewis Libby sentencing.:

I have always considered him to be ... a man fully committed to protecting the vital security interests of the United States and its citizens.

Notice there is no mention of upholding and protecting the laws or Constitution of the United States.

See also Cheney's weird paraphrase of the Oath taken by military officers:

On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in. [emphasis added]

No, Dick, they pledge to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I am beginning to think that you might be one of the later.

Have your Godwin Card Ready

Recent reports are that Vice President Cheney is planning a behind-the-scenes coup to undermine President Bush's decision to employ diplomacy in dealing with Iran. Considered along side this review of Vietnam revisionism, suggests to me a slender thread connecting post-WWI Germany and modern day neoconservatives like Mr Cheney.

Play your Godwin's Law card here!

It's as if the need to avenge the loss of the previous war forces emerging leaders to view every situation as an opportunity to find redemption. One is left to wonder if a later successful application of total war purges these men and women of the need to prove themselves so that the can mellow in their old age.

In any case, I am becoming convinced that National Humiliation is too often left out of consideration when examining the consequences and reactions to foreign policy.

Ego

Well, Wolfowitz is out at the World Bank. He got his little letter of recommendation.

Just how fragile does your ego have to be that you threaten to hold your breath unless your Mommy and Daddy tell you how wonderful you are? These Neocons are amazing! Responsibility is so alien to them that the slightest criticism sends them into a tantrum. These people should be kept as far away from positions of leadership as is humanly possible.

Gun Control

Here is my take on gun control.

I don't think gun laws would have changed the fact of the VT shootings. The nature of the massacre might have been different. The Shooter might have had to get his guns somewhere else. he might have had to use 4 guns to prevent frequent reloading. Maybe fewer than 32 people would have died but there would have been a shooting. 32? 10? It matters to the victims and their families but does it matter from a policy perspective?

The impact of fewer guns in America, I believe, would be on the domestic front. How many shootings run like this. Dean gets into an argument with Jerry. It gets heated. Dean has a gun in his house. Dean thinks, I am going to shoot that SOB. Dean goes to his home, retrieves his pistol, returns to the location where he confronted Jerry and kills him. Now we can't outlaw anger or confrontation but reducing the likelihood that a firearm is available would reduce at least one kind of common homicide.

I know Dean could return with a baseball bat or a knife but Jerry has a fighting chance against an attacker at close range and his injuries are less likely to be life-threatening.

Sunny Niger

From Walter Pincus in July 2005

the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife

What I don't understand is how anyone would think that a trip to Niger is a "boondoggle"? Like Wilson was just sitting around just dying to sit hours on a plane for the opportunity to spend a few days talking to bureaucrats. What's more, the insinuation is that Wilson is such a wuss that he has to rely on his wife to get him work. If he had been a real man like Cheney, he would get his own boondoggles! Could this be more sexist?

More likely, the CIA needed someone low profile who knew how to work around government officials and was available in a hurry. Plame thought her husband could do the job discretely and suggested him. Not so mysterious after all. That Wilson decided discretion was no longer appropriate after the President lied us into a quagmire is more admirable than duplicitous (triple word score and the D on a double letter score nets me 54 points!).