Senator Al Franken ? ?

Beginning to look like Al Franken just might end up being the 59th Democrat in the new Senate (58th if you don't count Fickle Joe from Connecticut).

Watch this Space

I've been asked to consider posting guest articles, which I'm happy to do, subject to editorial discretion. E-mail me anything you'd like posted; if I decide not to or want to edit it, I'll be in touch. You hafta give me a working e-mail address, and your real name, which will not be used unless you ask me to.

An impassioned reaction to the failure of the Auto Industry rescue plan

In the wake of the failure of the Auto industry bridge loan, I sure hope the foolhardy Republicans in the Senate who blocked its passage are happy. They have probably ensured that the recession will indeed be longer, deeper, and more permanently destructive to the U.S. economy than any since the Great Depression.

The breathtaking stupidity of their rationale is so egregious that it makes me wonder about their patriotism. They and their ilk love to question the patriotism of people who civilly disagree with a particular foreign policy analysis justifying supposedly preventive wars, but when they act in ways that are directly, materially destructive to a strategically vital sector of the U.S. manufacturing economy, we're all supposed to say, oh, well, it's just a difference of opinion. But the fact is, actions matter, and votes matter.

Even the Bush administration came to understand how vital it is to keep the auto industry in business during a transition to a whole new management approach, product range, and set of long term goals.

Sure, the auto companies have been badly managed. Very badly. And I certainly support forcing them to revamp completely, towards efficient vehicles, away from fossil fuels; including ousting the current management, especially at GM, where they have been incredibly stupid for the past ten years especially.

Having said that, it's utterly beyond me how Senate Republicans can justify $150 billion in taxpayer funds to make high flying speculators whole in the AIG bailout; (people whose actions would be criminal if they had not been foolishly and destructively legalized); but they can't see their way clear to guarantee a tenth that amount for a historic and strategic manufacturing industry. I truly hope that the public comes to see just how destructive this is, and votes every single one of these fools out of office.

Of course, even moreso, I hope that we are able to avoid the worst of the likely destructive effects of this vote. There is, at least, hope that the administration will allow use of the TARP bailout funds to at least ensure that GM and Chrysler don't fold before January, when we can try again.

Chapter 11 is no solution. The effect on the confidence in the companies and the ripple effect on jobs in the region would create a downward spiral that I think it's unlikely either GM or Chrysler would survive at all. Get with it folks, this is an unacceptable outcome, which must be avoided.

Bail out finance but not industry. Disgusting. I fear we're likely to find out just how foolish this was, when its cascading destructiveness ricochets throughout our economy in the coming months and years. Maybe, somehow, this can be avoided. I sure hope so.

Update: The NYT is reporting that the Bush administration may be open to using the TARP bailout money to help bridge the gap for the Auto industry. Credit where credit is due, if this proves true.

Update 2: Hale Stewart in HuffPo agrees with me: "The Republicans want a Depression."

Update 3: It is particularly vexing to encounter the right wing argument, invariably placed first in the agenda, that the primary problem with the auto makers is their supposed failure to "negotiate" better contracts with (i.e., use the leverage of globalization to force huge givebacks from) their union workers and retirees. I reject this argument completely. The problem with the U.S. economy isn't overpaid workers. It's public policies that have intentionally hollowed out our manufacturing sectors, and made our industries uncompetitive.

Countries, like Sweden, that have ensured high wage rates, have not found this causes their industries to become uncompetitive. Quite the contrary. High wage workers produce high value products. This used to be the paradigm in the U.S., until Trickle Down economics became public policy and the heart and soul of our national prosperity began to be hollowed out from the inside, in favor of short term financial speculation. (Also, if the celebrated foreign manufacturers' plants in the U.S. weren't privileged with a legal structure that virtually outlaws unionization, the playing field would be a good deal more level: this is no accident). Read James K. Galbraith's The Predator State for more on just how all this has worked and continues to work, to our detriment as a nation.

Update 4: It starts. Already, news reports say GM is "temporarily" shutting 21 plants, and laying off all those workers. Let that slide into permanence, and we're well on our way to big-D depression. Thank you, Republican Senators, for screwing the entire country.

NASA administrator non-cooperative with transition

The Orlando Sentinel reports that Bush appointed NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with the Obama transition team, and is ordering staff not to criticize his baby, the "Return the the Moon" program. Personally, I think the policies at NASA in recent years have been awful. Obama should just quietly plan on asking for Griffin's resignation effective Day 1 and implementing a whole new management team. He could do a lot worse than asking former Administrator Dan Golding to return at least for a time; Golding at least had some kind of vision for the future beyond just replicating the past, and badly at that.

Fair disclosure: I think Golding's abiding interest in deep space exploration and fundamental science of extrasolar planets in particular was exactly the right approach for NASA right now, not so much expensive and largely unproductive manned missions, for which sufficient money is just not forthcoming.

Relationships and Love: a Buddhist Perspective

I sent this to my farflung correspondents as an e-mail a while back.

All great spiritual teachers have taught that we should love one another, but it seems that few have made really clear exactly what love is. The Buddhist tradition is particularly explicit about this, but I believe what the Buddha taught on this subject is universal in application, regardless of one's particular faith, and that it is based on keen insight into the working of the human heart.

All relationships will flourish when they are based on love; whether acquaintances or collegial relationships, all the way up to spouses and life partners. They will suffer when pervaded by the antagonist of love, which isn't hatred, but attachment.

Love has three phases, or types:

1. Affectionate Love. This is when you perceive the object of your love as beautiful, pleasant, attractive. There is no element of desire here. It is merely seeing the person or being as pleasing. This can be cultivated and brought out, when it doesn't arise spontaneously. All types of love, in fact, can be created in your heart, through practice. All living beings are in fact beautiful, so it's just a matter of seeing.
2. Cherishing Love. Having come to see the object of your love as pleasant or beautiful, you come to feel he or she is important. Their happiness is important. They are precious, and you cherish them. This too can be cultivated.
3. Wishing Love. Having come to see them as precious, you come to wish, with all your heart, that they not suffer, that they have not just happiness, but that they be happy all the time, present and future, that they have all good fortune, wisdom, and blessing. You keep this thought in your heart, until it's there all the time.

Notice that there is nothing in any form of love about I or me. Desire, your needs, your happiness have nothing to do with it. Relationships which are based on 'my needs' are relationships of attachment: you are important because you make me happy. I need you. My life depends on you. You are my world. These are not thoughts of love, but thoughts of attachment, and they destroy love.

If you move away from such thoughts and cultivate minds of the three types or phases of love, your relationships will flourish.

Try it. It's guaranteed (but not always easy). A spiritual practitioner strives eventually to love all living beings, but if you don't love those close to you, you can't do that, so it's the best place to start.

TPM reader: Blago, deadly combination: ignorance and arrogance

Talkingpointsmemo quotes this, from a reader:

Simply put, Blagojevich is that deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance. One or the other is survivable, but the two, combined,
are not. I know from speaking with many of my friends who have worked with him over the years (including on his campaigns) that he is as dumb as a box of rocks. (The campaign folks would never let him talk to the press, unscripted, à la Palin.) He also thought he was God's gift to the planet.

In recent years, his circle of advisers has shrunk to a miniscule three or four who make Bush's "yes men" crew look like a debate society. As a friend in state government told me recently, "Everyday Blagojevich gets up and says 'What can we do today?'" The point being, there is (and has been) no rhyme or reason for his governance. Fundamentally, the guy is an idiot, as the taped conversations prove. He is simply a jackass.

Seems quite credible to me. A key point here is that Blago surrounded himself with a very small number of cronies who were privy to his dumb, arrogant shenanigans. If that's true, he may go down without too much fuss or too many repercussions, especially for the new administration.

Highly Recommended: The Predator State / Jamie Galbraith

I finally got around to reading the last couple of chapters of The Predator State, by Jamie Galbraith, which I had set aside a few weeks ago after returning from a trip to France.

I can't reccommend this book highly enough for the big picture of what's been wrong with the U.S. economy for some time, and where we could go from here. Definitely will not be agreeable to those who believe in the ability of "free markets" to solve all problems, but for those whose concepts range to the kinds of checks and balances necessary to make the economy work equitably and well for all the people, it's a welcome and useful synthesis. It was written before the current crisis, and contains nothing really shocking or radical, but it is a clear and systematic exposition of intelligent liberal thinking on the economy.

A Major Distraction for the Obama Administration

Although there is as yet no indication at all of any involvement on the part of President-elect Obama or anyone in his transition team with the debased shenanigans of Governor Blagojevich ("Blago," as he's becoming known), it is impossible to see these events as anything other than an extremely unwelcome distraction for the Obama transition and the commencement of his presidency. As a senator from Illiniois, there have to be normal contacts between the governor and his staff and Obama and his aides, and inevitably the prosecution and investigators will want to talk to people close to Obama to find out what they know.

The best outcome would be if it were to trun out that Blago was pretty much a loose cannon and rogue element, and the investigation turns up an open and shut case against him and one or two close aides, and that's it. The second best would probably be that for whatever reason the whole thing is delayed and slow to develop, so that whatever interviewing of Obama's aides and contacts takes place will not come until after the "hundred days" or whatever you want to call the critical first few months of the administration. The hope that there will be no serious distraction from what must be the greatest need for focus on issues a new administration has had to face in many decades is, unfortunately, forlorn.

Towards Social Democracy in America: the Republic Window & Door Sit-In

I’m struck by the phenomenon of the Republic Window & Door sit-in in Chicago. Here are the pertinent facts as I understand them.

The company applied for a line of credit with Bank of America, which received a infusion of Federal funds for the purpose of freeing up credit as part of the bailout. The line of credit was in keeping with its past business models, and would have been approved but for the very tight market in credit which the Federal bailout was designed to address. The bank, due to lack of effective oversight in the Federal bailout program, was free to continue its restrictive lending practices, and refused the line of credit, causing the company to shut down.

Despite contractual obligations to union workers for sixty days’ notice and severance in the event of plant closure, the company gave its workers three days’ notice.

The workers are sitting in in the plant, demanding their severance, or better yet, a financial solution which will keep the company open.

President-elect Obama has expressed support for the workers.

Illinois’ Democratic governor has ordered that the state stop doing business with Bank of America unless and until it reverses its decision not to extend the line of credit.

I perceive a new current here. American working people are growing increasingly intolerant of the transfer of wealth from them to the richest. They are growing increasingly intolerant and angry about how the solution to all financial problems is seen by Wall Street as cutting jobs, never in doing more long term planning and changing public policy to keep the companies that make up the dwindling but vital manufacturing sector open and competitive, with a high priority given towards the shared societal goal of maintaining and growing high wage jobs. This approach flows from the forgotten understanding that constant expectation of short term returns at the cost of long term growth and stability have hollowed out our manufacturing economy, and that such short term returns are unsustainable, because the economy depends on consumer spending and only through high wage jobs, as Henry Ford understood, will the workers have enough purchasing power to keep the manufacturing economy functioning.

Also, there is no other word for the government equity stake in Bank of America than socialism. Socialism is perceived by conservative economists as all right if the beneficiaries are financial institutions, but not all right if its goal is to keep American workers employed, productive, and spending money. Hence the ease of approval by the Right wing in government of the financial bailout, and their resistance to the paltry-by-comparison emergency loan program to preserve the continued existence of the Auto industry.

I think there really is a major paradigm shift going on here. People see three quarters of a trillion dollars in borrowed Federal money going to bail out excessive risk-taking and leveraging in the financial sector… socialization of risk; privatization of profit. And they are getting mad as hell, and won’t be taking it much longer. They are coming to expect, and demand, that if there is going to be, as there must, public sector investment, it must go to saving jobs, saving homes, and saving the consumer economy.

I hope the sit-in works, and pressures B of A to capitulate and extend the line of credit. Maybe Republic Window & Door won’t survive, but the welfare of its workers is a more worthy goal of the Federal money that’s saved B of A than making side-betters on Wall Street whole. And it’s a case of regulation by popular uprising. I hope we see more and more of this until the public and private sectors get the message: it’s time to change the way the economy functions to see to it that more of the unearned wealth legacy that we all own is in fact made to benefit the bulk of the people, and not only a tiny sector of the very rich. Clearly, “free markets” as promoted by the economic conservative regime of public policy that has prevailed in this country in the last 30 years, have made matters vastly worse, and it is time to completely revamp the regulatory system and economic policy with these vital goals in mind.

Update: Right after posting this, I saw the news about Gov. Blagojevich's arrest on allegations of corruption in connection with the selection of a temporary replacement for Obama's senate seat. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, a wrong action doesn't negate a right one, either, so this doesn't affect the fact that the governor's action in connection with the Republic Window & Door sit-in is praiseworthy, in my opinion.

Further Update: H/T Barbara. Yahoo news reports: Workers win a big round in Chicago factory sit-in.

I would like to see the Bank forced to make enough available to keep the doors open instead of just enough to pay off fired workers, but it's better than nothing. I don't know the details of the viability of this business, of course, but it seems to me there is no better use for public funds than maintaining American manufacturing jobs in existence, as a bridge to a time when public policy changes make American manufactures more competitive again and the companies can survive on their own. And a lot of BofA's money is public funds.

TPM Muckraker: Gonzo Prosecution?

TPM muckraker reports "it's looking more and more like prosecutor Nora Dannehy's investigation into the US Attorney firings has Alberto Gonzales in its crosshairs."

While I certainly applaud the Justice Department following the law and where the evidence leads (for once; Mukasey has proven only marginally better than Gonzales in this respect); I can't resist noting that there are far more serious crimes for which substantial evidence of administration guilt exists: in the areas of ordering and condoning torture, intentionally misleading Congress to induce authorization for military involvement in Iraq, and illegal surveillance of Americans, primarily.

Of course, that's not Dannehy's brief, but I'm just sayin'.

Pardon Power? I can think of more important constitional amendments we need

Josh Marshall asked for comments on the proposal by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to introduce a constitutional amendment to limit the presidential pardon power.

This was my response:

Not exactly answering the question, but:

I'm not opposed to some well-thought out limits on the pardon power, but there are far more pressing needs in the area of constitutional reform. Right off the bat how about these?

1. Direct election of the president. 2000 showed as clearly as could be needed how necesarry this is. Even 2008 raised speculation about the uncomfortable possibility, it turned out far from reality, that Obama might have lost the popular vote but still won electorally. What's sauce, etc.

2. A carefully designed Anti-Gerrymander amendment. It's often occurred to me that some kind of modifiable-within-limits mathematical algorithm to ensure that the Congressional districts are not designed merely to re-elect incumbents would go a long, long way towards restoring meaningful public participation in policy decisions.

Most Beautiful Desert Wildflower Notecards

Unquestionably the most beautiful California desert wildflower notecards are those based on paintings by Henry R. Mockel. They are available for $6.50 for 12, with envelopes, in several different sets (some animals too), from Henry R. Mockel's, P. O. Box 726, 29 Palms, CA 92277. Send for their order form (send a self-addressed stamped envelope; it's literally a mom+pop). Take my word for it, order them sight unseen... they're beautiful. Here are a few samples.

Most Disgraceful Element of Bush Legacy

I suspect that the single most disgraceful element of President Bush's legacy (at least from an American point of view) will be the historical conclusion that thousands of American soldiers needlessly died as a consequence of the adminstration's use and tolerance of torture. This is the allegation of former military interrogator Matthew Alexander (pseudonym) in an op-ed in Tuesday's Sunday's Post (11/30). "Alexander" is the guy who got Sunni extremists to rat out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, by using traditional confidence and rapport building interrogation techniques (the kind that actually work). He quite credibly says the number of American military killed as a result of the recruitment effect (on Arabs) of our country's torture policy will never be known, but it's reasonable to estimate it at close to the number killed in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks.

Update: This comment from "Alexander" is telling, and chilling: "How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."

In case it isn't self-evident, the mechanism for this tragedy is as follows: Arab nationalists, and such people as Iraqis displaced from their usual occupations and/or homes as a result of war, came to see America as a violent oppressor, which tortures captives (as do many Arab countries, but this was not America's former reputation). As a result, probably tens of thousands, or more, men became persuaded to fight against American forces. The results of the interrogations "Alexander" describes frequently included descriptions of precisely this process.

...
["Matthew Alexander" is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, and his op-ed is presumably in conjunction with a book tour. He appeared on Democracy Now! and Countdown this week, but otherwise has garnered little attention.]

Ways and Means to undo the current economic mess

I didn't mean to create a false impression with the post below, which was intended to be forward looking and prescriptive. I had previously commented on the need for completely rethinking the ways and means used to deal with the current failures of financial institutions; namely, the preservation of the underlying transactions and the sacrifice of the interests in side-betting derivatives. Very probably, the only way to save the likes of Citigroup and others up to their eyeballs in CDO's and CDS's, is to let them go into Chapter 11 and appoint a special master to oversee the public interest while guiding them out of bankruptcy. The goal would be to force the speculators in these side bets, which in the memorable phrase of one recent commentator I linked to are to the real economy like fantasy football to real football, to just walk away empty handed, or nearly so, while renegotiating the underlying loans and transactional securities, and preserving the existence of the institutions themselves. (While firing the top management wholesale). (See this piece by Michael Lewis piece in portfolio.com).

This, while it will no doubt rock the markets further, is preferable to the altnernative, which is, again, to watch the whole economy wash away in a sea of debt. There just isn't enough money in the world to make all these bets good, and the sooner the economic team around Obama, and the pres.-elect himself, realize it, the sooner we can start spending the huge sums of money we don't really have, but continue to borrow, to some actual effect rather than just throwing good after bad.

I don't claim to understand all this stuff, but, like many Americans, I've been trying to figure out what's gone wrong, and to understand what's needed to get out of this historic mess. The outlines not only of what went wrong but of the way forward are becoming clear to me, and to many others. Whether the new administration will end up seeing the forest for the trees is yet an open question.

Strange Inversion of Economic Conservative and Progressive views

When thinking about economic policy and where it needs to go, I'm struck by how it's become typical of our world that terms are inverted: up is down and down is up. "Economic conservatives" is a label used for people who promote, with zeal sometimes amounting almost to religious fervor, licensed speculation and side-betting on the economy, and trade regimes that result in the wholesale dismantling of production capacity. Their rationales for such policies sound good, until you realize that they're based on false assumptions and demonstrably untrue principles, such as that tax cuts always result in greater net revenue, and many others.

Economic "progressives," on the other hand, tend to believe in old fashioned, tried and true economic postulates like these:

• An advanced economy, with a rising standard of living for the majority of its citizens, cannot be sustained by trading alone, still less by financial speculation, still less by trading in derivatives from the actual transactions that take place in the "real" economy. Derivative trading creates bubbles and inevitable collapses, often huge ones, as is happening now. Production, not only of services, but of goods, is the real engine of economic growth and sustainable prosperity.
• "Free Markets" are largely fictions, which, to the extent they exist at all, must be regulated to ensure that financial transactions are not only fair, and reasonably transparent, but that excessive leveraging and "side-betting" (e.g. credit default swaps) are not permitted. At all. These have been seen, very clearly in recent events, to have extremely deleterious effects on the proper functioning of the financial system (i.e.,the allocation of capital and the fostering of the utilization of capital to create growth and overall prosperity).
• "Free Trade" is largely a fiction as well. Governments regulate trade in lots of ways, and the results should be controlled, to the extent they are controlled, not for the benefit of traders and speculators, but to foster the health of the production economy and its employed workers. This is a simple matter of national interest, and it is practiced by every successful and growing economy in the World.
• An inevitable result of an economy based primarily on financial activity is increasing public debt, which is ultimately unsustainable.

(This is because, in a very real sense, the trade deficit and the budget deficit are inseparably linked in a positive correlation, and eventually the size of the debt will cause the collapse of confidence and cause this form of "growth" to lurch to a halt. Then, if we haven't developed energy independence and a program to restore a production economy, we will really find out what 21st century depression looks like).

• Paradoxically, the only way out of a depression created by the foregoing problems is increased and sustained public spending, over the short and medium terms, but it must eventually be followed by recognition that the global economy depends on at least relative balance, and our trade and budget deficits cannot expand forever.

I am very concerned, as I've intimated elsewhere, that these are not the postulates, nor the implied goals, of the majority of the new president's economic advisers.

U.S. economic policy in the past thirty years has been an abysmal failure from this traditional point of view: it has tended to destroy the health of the production economy to the (temporary and unsustainable) advantage of the financial economy, resulting in huge wealth transfer from the former middle class to the plutocrat class. This looks from a long term perspective like nothing less than a giant rip-off. The middle class in America is on life support, as a result of this wealth transfer.

I've noticed that many very traditional "conservative" economic thinkers, while clinging to their belief in the panacea of so-called free markets, nonetheless have come around to agreeing pretty much entirely with the predicate of bullet point two above. Many people have come to recognize that even if you believe, philosophically, in relatively unrestrained capitalism, you have to have some rules to keep the transactions in the arena that actually results in positive economic activity, as opposed to simply gambling. Much of the activity that fueled the recently collapsed bubble was exactly that: side-betting on the outcomes of uncontrolled, unassessed, and incredibly risky securitized lending. This kind of activity is inherently destructive and must be eliminated from the universe of legal economic activity.

Some of what Pres.-elect Obama says is encouraging. He seems to favor investment in infrastructure and renewable energy to end dependence on fossil fuels. But I'm not sure he has a full-fledged commitment to, and understanding of, the need to restore the American economy to a production basis, or of the methods, in use in places like Scandinavia, to ensure that the economy is not only productive, but that it remains high-wage, and high standard of living, for the segment of the population which is actually engaged in production. Trickle-down economics has completely failed, and it's time to dump its paradigms and postulates entirely, and to adopt principles which have been shown to work elsewhere. We need to recognize that without some long term planning and, (quel horreur!) dirigisme, i.e., control over the direction of investment and such things as the health care "industry" and the energy and transportation industries (as examples) to promote public policy goals, there can be no successful restoration of a solid basis for long term prosperity. Also, of course, a regime of carefully balanced re-regulation needs to be imposed to control the financial markets.

Along these lines, the restoration of Glass-Steagall, which used to prevent banks, insurers, and investment houses from being the same people, needs to be a top priority, as do restoration of strict leveraging limits and the blanket outlaw of trading in transactions that amount to nothing more than wagering, involving no actual capital involved in production, which has been so destructive in the most recent bubble. As a friend who knows this stuff better than I do says, otherwise, we will simply "wash away in a sea of debt." (He undoubtedly doesn't agree with much of the above, especially about the necessary role of planning and direction of the production economy, or the necessity of suspending concern about the national debt for the duration of the worst of the emergency in order to inject money into the economy, but I think he'd agree with the other conclusions, and with the need for some serious sheriffin' to get the miscreants back in line).

Bailout needs Major Strictures, or no deal

Secretary Paulson, who let's not forget is a former chairman of Goldman Sachs and thus one of the foxes, wants a "clean bill" on the proposed 3/4 trillion bailout. Democrats need to say, "Your plan, as is, is DOA, sir, fuhgeddabout it!"

The bill, at minimum, needs to have the following provisions:

• Any company applying for bailout must turn over substantial equity, to be sold later to pay down the debt, and must agree to be bound by strictures.

• Among those strictures must be:
- Strict caps on executive compensation and severance
- Right of government oversight, including audit and dismissal of executives found to have breached fiduciary duties.
- Mandatory refinancing of principal home mortgages up to a certain amount (say $750,000) held by securities instruments
- Preferential treatment of small investors in any liquidations
- Cap individual capital loss write-offs over a certain amount; those who profited before should bear the loss now; no more privatization of profit and socialization of loss
- [I'm sure there are other things that will come up; the main point: Paulson says this shouldn't be punitive: like hell. This should hurt those who caused it.]

• Some of the $700 billion needs to come not from just raising the debt ceiling, but taxing the richest. I would say a tax surcharge on the top 1% would be in order, with a fixed duration, of ten years or something. (Mainly because the richest segment will be getting a tax increase soon anyway to help get the Federal Government on something resembling a sound footing going forward).

• Britain has a small tax on securities transfers, and it hasn't exactly gone belly up as a result; we should impose one too, to help pay for this.

• Some of the $700 billion needs to come from offsets. This can't practicably be in the bill itself, but at least the principle should be. (I would target unnecessary large weapons systems. This is especially important because the Bush administration has been saying for years that there's no money for infrastructure or health care reform, but suddenly there's $700 billion for this. So, if there is going to be infrastructure development and health care reform as well, we need to restructure spending to find the money for all this.)

• Some of the $700 billion needs to come from windfall profits tax on oil profits for three years. This could be in the bill itself, since otherwise it might be impossible to pass.

• No bailout of sovereign wealth funds.

• Understanding that major reregulation is part of the quid pro quo. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act will be repealed, the Glass-Steagall Act will be reimposed; etc. (Not literally, perhaps, but the laissez faire system that caused this debacle will be trashed).

Again, I'm sure there are other provisions that need to be put in the mix, but these will do for starters.

Why, when we can't bailout individual families losing their homes, or small businesses, or manufacturing, do we always seem to have plenty of socialism to save Wall Street? The reason is simple: they have us over a barrel, and the barrel is fear. Fear that the whole house of cards will collapse. OK, that's the reality. But the interests of those other than in the financial sector need to be front and center now.

Enough of Sarah Palin Already: Hit McCain and Use Direct Approach

A friend at work sent me yet another e-mail cataloging the faults and inexperience of Sarah Palin, some of them, like the "book banning" accusation, actually not even true. Nothing disarms an attack on integrity like using falsehoods yourself.

I think it's time for those of us who don't want to see McCain elected to pretty much ignore Sarah Palin. Her nine-day wonder has run its course. She's their VP candidate, so she will be mentioned here and there. There is a debate coming up, of course, which will call attention, but I think most of the attempts to portray her as a lunatic and a vindictive, retributive, parochial hick, however much some of them may be justified, have backfired. Better to ignore her, and shift focus to their presidential candidate, attack his lack of any real plans to do anything about the myriad problems that face us, and his willingness to betray principles and integrity to get elected. At the same time, and, even more forcefully: hit hard on the direct approach: promise specific program changes, and ask the voters for their support, in ads featuring Obama personally. I really think this is the path to victory, and I sure hope the O. campaign gets busy and starts spending their considerable warchest on this approach soon.

My Barack Obama Ad Script

George Lakoff has talked about how the Democrats need to change the frames in order to redirect the focus of politics. Obama needs to change the whole frame of the political conversation. Here's my suggested ad. Picture Obama in a chair, fireside chatlike, talking directly to the camera. (See Anonymous comment below for a suggested rewrite... the commenter makes good suggestions).

«I'm Barack Obama. The Republicans have done everything they could in this election to bring our national discourse down into the gutter, with outright lies, nonsense about celebrities and phony outrage about every turn of phrase. The reason for this is simple: in order to win this election, they have to distract the American people from the real issues, because they have no programs to benefit the American people on these issues. John McCain voted over 90% with George Bush, and a McCain administration would be more of the same for America: continued tax cuts for the very rich, a so-called health care 'plan' that would end up costing ordinary people more for their health insurance, if they have it at all; an impulsive go-it-alone attitude towards foreign policy that's been a disaster for our country; continued record deficit spending even while they call themselves conservatives; and continued disrespect for the very foundation of our country, the Constitution of the United States.

I want to run a different kind of campaign, but I need your help to do it. I want to talk about our plan to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans while asking those who are truly fortunate to pay more of their fair share. I want to talk about our plan to bring access to quality health insurance to all Americans. I want to talk about our plan to reduce the deficit, over time. I want to talk about not only how we will end the war in Iraq, which is not serving our nation's interests but has cost and continues to cost our nation dearly in the lives of its young men and women and in treasure, but also about how we will rethink our whole foreign policy, to restore prestige and respect to America. We will use force, when necessary, but only as a last resort, not as a doctrine of preemptive war, which has failed us so badly under the Bush administration. America used to lead the world through cooperation and negotiation through strength, it will again. I want to talk about how we will bring jobs to America, and stop giving breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. I want to talk about how we can renew our infrastructure and develop the technologies to free America from its dependence on Middle Eastern oil, within ten years, and develop renewable energy resources over time to help solve the worldwide climate crisis and at the same time end our nation's energy dependence permanently. We can do all of these things. We are a can-do country, and I believe the American people are tired of all the negativity coming from the other side. We can make our nation a better partner in the world, and a better place to live for all its citizens. But I need your help to get there. That's why I'm asking for your support in this presidential election. Thank you.

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

...................................................

And here's another comment I received via e-mail. These are good points, too:

As a somewhat objective observer, I think it would be a serious misstep for Obama to talk about what he wants to talk about. One of his perceived problems is that he's mostly talk and little action. But I get your drift. With some wordsmithing to address the 'talk' part, and a little more statistical content, you're absolutely correct. Although I think I would leave out or greatly shorten the opening. The contrast to the Repub style would be clear if O just actually adhered to a much more substantive and less reactionary direction. No need to call them out on it to such a degree. And don't remind people of any GOP message that has worked well, like the Britney/Paris spot. A more general statement would suffice.

A coupla things I've learned after 30 years in advertising....

My suggestions to David Pouffle, Obama Campaign Mgr

USE this video from Portland, ME.
Contrast Biden's sensible statements, intercut.

READ E. J. Dionne 9/11/08 on truthdig. HE has it exactly right.

RUN ADS making each of the points Dionne mentions:
McCain's "tax cut" is far smaller than Obama's for 95% of Americans! Plus, his health care plan will almost certainly result in higher overall costs for most working people, more than offsetting any tax cut!
Obama would guarantee everyone access to health care or that McCain's health plan might endanger coverage many already have!
Obama will create new jobs from major infrastructure to create renewable energy resources and get US off foreign oil!
These are positive points that McC CANNOT RESPOND TO!

We need MUCH MORE AGRESSIVE ADVERTISING, both positive and negative, and ....
WHERE IS HILLARY?
WHERE IS BIDEN?
Get them on the news everyday! Somehow!
Thank you.

McCain leading in tracking polls

I can’t really say I’m surprised that McCain is now running slightly ahead in tracking polls. Democrats, again, are failing to appreciate and effectively counter the Big Lie propaganda being put out by the Republican smear machine.

The fact that so many American voters are apparently responsive to the snide derision of something so ridiculous as community organizing for the benefit of people affected by a steel plant closing, coming from a right wing extremist who thinks global climate disruption is not man made and that creationism should be taught in the schools, is disheartening but not surprising. After all, more Americans vote for American Idol than vote for president. A woman who 20 months ago was literally the mayor of a village can stand up there and deride Barack Obama, with snide contempt; a man who’s been proven right about the disastrous turn of American foreign policy, the completely disastrous mismanagement of the economy by the Republicans in power, and the total failure to do anything about either climate change or dependence on foreign oil, by this same party in power, and people eat it up, because propaganda works. People don’t vote issues, they vote sound bites and images. Democrats must get better at this, or in this year, where 80% will say they realize America is heading off on the wrong track, too many will once again ignore their own self interests and vote for the better marketed feel good message of the very people who got us into this mess, and who, if you take the trouble to actually read what they say, intend to dig us in deeper as vigorously and as quickly as possible if they take office.