Have you watched any of the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric? I’ve watched some excerpts, although maybe today or tomorrow I can watch it in its entirety.
I was embarrassed during parts of the interview – embarrassed I guess for Palin – when I get a good link to the interview I’ll post it here. Please take some time to watch – I think you’ll want to ask yourself, “do I want this person a heartbeat away from the presidency?” This interview isn’t funny – it’s kinda scary.
From the Washingon Post:
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Now that all five big investment banks — Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises.
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.
With this solution, the systemic financial threat should go away. Does that mean the economy would quickly recover? No. Sadly, it does not. Two vast economic problems will confront the next president immediately. First, the underlying housing crisis: There are too many houses out there, too many vacant or unsold, too many homeowners underwater. Credit will not start to flow, as some suggest, simply because the crisis is contained. There have to be borrowers, and there has to be collateral. There won’t be enough.
In Texas, recovery from the 1980s oil bust took seven years and the pull of strong national economic growth. The present slump is national, and it can’t be cured that way. But it 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.
The second great crisis is in state and local government. Just Tuesday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public spending cuts. The scenario is playing out everywhere: Schools, fire departments, police stations, parks, libraries and water projects are getting the ax, while essential maintenance gets deferred and important capital projects don’t get built. This is pernicious when unemployment is rising and when we have all the real resources we need to preserve services and expand public investment. It’s also unnecessary.
What to do? 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.
Next, let’s think about what the next upswing should try to achieve and how it should be powered. If the 1960s were about raising baby boomers and the ’90s about technology, what should the ’10s and ’20s be about? It’s obvious: energy and climate change. That’s where the present great unmet needs are.
So, let’s use the next few years to plan, mapping out a program of energy conservation, reconstruction and renewable power. Let’s get the public sector and the universities working on it. And let’s prepare the private sector so that when the credit crunch finally ends, we’ll have the firms, the labs, the standards and the talent in place, ready to go.
Some will ask if we can afford it. To see the answer, don’t look at budget projections. Just look at interest rates. Last week, in the panic, the federal government could fund itself, short term, for free. It could have raised money for 30 years and paid less than 4 percent. That’s far less than it cost back in 2000.
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.
James K. Galbraith is the author of “The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too.”
From CNN:
McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there’s no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.
In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.
Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on as planned — but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the Republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there’s no deal on the bailout.
These are the lengths McCain will go in order to avoid debating Obama and to shield Palin from any substantive, unscripted questioning and answering.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…if you’re not outraged, then you’re not paying attention!
Methinks McCain is playing political games. I just read that McCain wants to suspend campaigning and postpone Friday’s debate so he can focus on the current historic financial crisis. He’s waiting on a response from the Obama camp as to whether they’ll agree. McCain is trying to play the statesman now.
I don’t think the debate should be postponed. Campaigning – yes, debate – no. The first debate on Friday, September 26 is covering the topics of foreign policy and national security – these are McCain’s strongest areas – at least that’s what he’s been saying this election cycle – so, it’s not like he has to cram for the questions.
We have just over one month until the election – I think we can all agree that this is one of the most important elections in our lifetime. Taking a few hours to debate some important issues isn’t going to adversely affect the handling of the financial crisis.
Our country needs this debate, Mr. McCain.
If I was Obama, I would say yes to suspending the campaigning, but NO to postponing the debate.
CNN headlines: “Biden, Obama helped keep ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ alive”
Here’s the thing that irritates me about politicians – they don’t get it. All congress people (Representatives and Senators) are always trying to get money for their states – everyone does it – some better than others – if you don’t bring money home to the state, your constituents are asking what you’re doing in Washington.
Here’s my irritation – in an earlier blog I talked about the “bridge to nowhere” – you’ll note that I didn’t question the merits of the bridge, I didn’t question if the money appropriated was too much or not enough…the entire point of my post was that Sarah Palin was lying when she said that she had not supported the bridge. Rightly or wrongly, she had supported it and then lied about it later. That’s the point I’m trying to make – and I wish the candidates would pursue it- they can all throw stones regarding earmarks, pork, graft, etc. Instead of talking about the amount of dollars that might have been spent on the bridge, Joe Biden should have been talking about Palin’s honesty and integrity when answering questions about her past positions.
by Suzy Shuster, The Huffington Post
Dear Ms. Fey,
We, the people, need you.
We need you to be Sarah Palin each and every Saturday night, live from New York.
How else to explain the sudden about face of Governor Palin’s popularity in the polls just days after your brilliant spot-on impersonation on one of the highest rated Saturday Night Live’s in the show’s history? The hair, the glasses, all perfect, but truly it was the flat mid-western accent, the lip-lick, and the insipid comments which did seem like they came directly out of Palin’s mouth (“I can see Russia from my house!”) made you question whether it was real or was it Memorex.
Frighteningly, it was too real.
From the Friday before the skit on SNL aired to the following Tuesday, Palin’s approval rating dropped ten points. Coincidence? I think not. After all, people in this country are tending to be more influenced by who or what they see on entertainment television, more so than on broadcast news or in print. Americans tune into Jon Stewart for their political appetites more than ever ( and why not). So when you, Ms. Fey, don your Palin wig, you influence millions of voters more than Charles (“Charlie”) Gibson or Brian Williams, Paul Begala or that anorexic blond McCain spokeswoman ever could.
And I think its your responsibility to do so, or else we face the consequence of a woman in the White House who would strive to take away your daughter Alice’s right to choose along with every other woman’s in this country.
Most of us who read the Post are already scared out of our wits of what this woman could “accomplish,” should she reach the Vice Presidency or beyond. Abortion outlawed even in the case of incest or rape. Global warming research dismissed. Polar bears left unprotected, not to mention moose murder celebrated. But you, Ms. Fey, have the ability, with just a wink and a smirk, to change the minds of millions of casual viewers and even more casual voters, to educate them as to what this woman stands or doesn’t stand for. These viewers don’t react to a radical move like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel coming forth to question Palin’s credentials or credibility, or really care about what political pundits prognosticate on cable news shows. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, many swing-state voters get their information and cue from you, Ms. Fey, and you need to provide as much of it as one woman possibly can, before the election is upon us and it is too late.
Comedy can cure and comedy can enlighten, but it must be a constant to reach enough ears to change the hearts and minds of this country, Ms. Fey, and not a minute more can afford to be wasted. So smear on your lipstick, get that slightly crazy look on your face, sharpen your No. 2 shotgun and get to work.
When you won your three Emmy awards the other night (congrats on that, by the way) you wondered aloud:
“I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5. So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me.”
Well, I think it’s obvious. That person is you.
Save us, Tina Fey. You may be our only hope.
I just finished reading an article in the Gainesville Sun about how Sarah Palin is employing the same means to squash “troopergate” as the Republicans did in the 2000 election in Florida.
But there’s a couple of paragraphs at the end of the article that has me shaking my head. The entire article is here. But the excerpt I’m concerned about is this: (Note that Branchflower is the investigator and Colberg is the Attorney General appointed by Palin.)
When Branchflower sought to subpoena 10 employees of Palin’s administration, Colberg responded with a letter that said they had been placed in a untenable position.
“As state employees, our clients have taken an oath to uphold the Alaska Constitution,” he wrote.
Yet, he added, “our clients are also loyal employees subject to the supervision of the Governor” whom he said has stated that the subpoenas were of questionable validity.
“We respectfully ask that you withdraw the subpoenas directed to our clients and thereby relieve them from the circumstance of having to choose where their loyalties lie,” he added.
Choose where their loyalties lie? Seriously? This is a reason to dismiss the subpoenas? Because these employees would have to choose between upholding the state constitution or protecting Palin? Isn’t that why they took an oath to uphold the constitution? It’s not a choice, people. Are you kidding me?
From Courthouse News Service:
Obama Campaign Sues Over Republican Suppression Effort
DETROIT (CN) – Barack Obama’s campaign has filed a class action to try to stop the Republican Party’s effort to prevent voting by those who have lost homes to foreclosure. The complaint calls the Republican plan the “lose your home, lose your vote” vote-suppression program. (see filing here)
The suit says Michigan seeks “to strip the right to vote of individuals who reside in homes for which a notice of foreclosure has been issued.”
Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee sued the Macomb County Republican Party, the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee in Macomb County Court.
“This complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ vote-suppression program adopted by the Macomb County Republican Party, in concert with the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee, as well as unnamed Defendants who will implement the scheme at polling places in Macomb County and throughout the State,” the complaint states.
“Republican operatives have announced that they will seek to strip the right to vote of individuals who reside in homes for which a notice of foreclosure has been issued by making challenges on Election Day to each such citizen’s right to vote. This ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ program is part of a broader scheme – misnamed an ‘election integrity’ program – to harass voters and suppress the vote throughout the State of Michigan in the upcoming election on November 4.”
The three individual plaintiffs are longtime homeowners in Macomb County whose homes are in foreclosure proceedings.
Plaintiff Duane Maletski was laid off from his job making auto parts and his home entered foreclosure proceedings in late July but he still lives there legally.
Plaintiff Sharon Lopez, 61, owns her home and is buying the home next door. That home entered foreclosure after the renter, her son, broke his leg in five places, lost his job and could not work, and Lopez’s husband was laid off from his job as a welder. The interest rate on her rental home jumped from 2 percent to 10 percent and it has entered foreclosure. So her name is on the foreclosure list, though she lives in her own home, which is not in foreclosure.
Plaintiff Frances Zick lives in the home she bought from her parents 15 years ago. Its adjustable rate mortgage rate jumped to 10%, her monthly payment rose from $1,100 to $1,800 and the lender foreclosed after she got two months behind. She works, and has worked for 17 years, as a cashier in a supermarket. She still lives in the home legally, though it is in foreclosure and may be sold.
The complaint states: “The mass and systematic challenge of voters under the Defendant Republicans’ ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ scheme will impair the right to vote of Individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. The presence of an address on a list of foreclosures provides no legitimate basis for challenging a voter’s eligibility to vote, and use of such foreclosure lists for mass and systematic challenges can have but one purpose: to threaten, harass, and intimidate voters whom Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to vote for their candidates. The result of the mass challenges envisioned by the ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ scheme will be denial and/or abridgement of the right to vote, indeterminate and inordinate delays at polling places affecting Individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated who must suffer through a baseless challenge process, as well as others affected by the diversion of election resources compelled by the mass, baseless challenges of the ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ scheme, and the subjection of Individual Plaintiffs and similarly situated voters to potentially harassing public questioning that is unrelated to their eligibility to vote.”
Plaintiffs are represented by James Bruinsma of Grand Rapids.
This Saturday, September 20th, please join Barack Obama in Jacksonville, where he will talk about his vision for creating the kind of change we need.
Change We Need Rally with Barack Obama
Metropolitan Park
1410 Gator Bowl Blvd.
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Saturday, September 20th
Doors Open: 12:30 p.m.
Program Begins: 2:30 p.m.
Not required, but you can RSVP at: RSVP Here
The event is free and open to the public. Space is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. Tickets are not required. However, an RSVP is strongly encouraged.
For security reasons, do not bring bags. Please limit personal items. No signs or banners allowed.
Hmmmm.., who moves around a lot? Oh, of course, young student voters, many of whom would support Obama…yes, the trend is becoming very clear…read on…
Michigan Is Disenfranchising ‘Thousands Of Voters,’ ACLU Says
DETROIT (CN) – The Michigan Secretary of State has disenfranchised “thousands of voters” and continues to do so by striking them from the rolls “upon notice that original voter identification cards have been returned as undeliverable,” the United States Student Association Foundation and the ACLU claim in Federal Court. Plaintiffs say the state violates its own laws and federal law by the hasty disenfranchisements.
They say they notified Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land of this by letter on July 8, and she responded, on Aug. 29, that she is canceling voter registrations in the manner the plaintiffs described, “and that the onus lies with the voter to ‘correct the record.'”
Plaintiffs say the state’s purging procedure is illegal. They want it enjoined, and the people whose names were stricken from the roles illegally reinstated.Their lead counsel is Matthew Lund with Pepper Hamilton.
Mirlisa's Bits and Pieces 