slothrop #1, seems likely these are old rules, just unstated before, like “don’t pick your nose while addressing your sighted grandma.”
b, I think if Obama is chosen, and not soon offed, that’s a good sign for 99.9% of the US and the global population, but seems likely apparently idiotic wars will continue, for they are profitable (and I think delightful)for those who call the shots and supply the ammunition. (Also thank you for site, and your sensibleness.)

Posted by: plushtown | Oct 20 2008 18:28 utc | 3

I think that it would be very tough to be as belligerent than the Bush administration – and I don’t see much scope or appetite for further US military adventurism in the medium term given current circumstances. Obama doesn’t strike me as someone who would instinctively clutch at the “war-presidency” straw that has so animated Bush and his cohorts.
More truthful – again, I doubt that Obama would emulate the Bush administration’s addiction to mendacity, and don’t, at this stage, see any reason to believe that he would repeat the mistake of losing every round in a 15-round truth-telling competition with Saddam Hussein ( you really can’t get much lower than that ).

Posted by: dan | Oct 20 2008 18:49 utc | 5

if Obama wins i’m afraid of four years of ignorant scapegoating an Obama administration for all the ills of the past eight years. I got a glimpse of this visiting my grandma, who is eating up the coded racism of the McCain ticket via Fox News and Pat Robertson, and already blaming Obama’s “socialism” and acorn for everything that’s going wrong right now. it’s dumbfounding how impossibly stupid people can be.
If Obama wins it will be a national game of pin the tail of blame on the democrat donkey, paving the way for an eager acceptance of a blatantly fascist GOP ticket in 2012.
despite those concerns, i do hope Obama wins, if only to just redeem our image in the world a little bit, and to prove that we’re not all ignorant, racist rednecks voting idiotically against our interests.

Posted by: Lizard | Oct 20 2008 19:32 utc | 7

@ slothrop #4 I suddenly live in a swing state, and so will vote for O. I cannot survive 4 years+ of ignorant, dangerous redneck triumphalism.
I find myself in the same position. I just couldn’t stand 4 years with a second angry, half-senile old man. I already have one of those in the other room taking his nappy-poo. (grin)
I just can’t justify the luxury of voting for a third-party candidate as I originally planned when so much is at stake. Although there is hardly a shred of difference between Obama and McCain, Obama seems to be much more intelligent, patient, and far less belligerent than McCain.

Posted by: Ensley | Oct 20 2008 19:55 utc | 9

“…do not expect less lies…”
Lying is the standard political methodology, you are right. We noticed the lying increase after repugs gained WH in 2000, and grow from there to a desperate level, especially to cover 9/11 and a couple of new unwarranted invasions. Plus huge payouts of public money to Halliburton and other friends.
There was/is a deadline to be met by the political class; no failure, no excuses. So the lies became open, shameless, right out in the open for everyone to see. Perhaps, as some have said, this was in part a program to silence complainers, as it becomes apparent that truth has no meaning in public discourse, and therefore cannot be used to make a point. It could be said that this program has worked; for many, truth is what the boss says it is, and for the rest, protests are ignored.
Is an Obama administration likely to do the same? I hear you saying yes they are. I don’t think so.
1) Repugs missed or are in the process of missing their deadline, with deadly (for them) consequences. No I don’t claim to know exactly what the deadline represents specifically, but it was/is there and has caused great fear among those charged with meeting it.
2) IF Obama wins the presidency and keeps it (isn’t assassinated) he cannot achieve a fraction of his campaign promises, if only for a lack of money and cooperation, but he will not have a similar agenda to that of Bush&Cheney. His facial expressions tell me he is not part of the cabal, not that he won’t be pressed and threatened to go along, keep it in power.
3) The cabal will certainly remain organized and powerful even out of power, as Rummy and Dick have so ably done in the past.
4) The deadline is past or nearly so, meaning that our old system of power, war, diplomacy, exchange has reached its end. Maybe next we will see acknowledgement of higher power ETs, rendering our institutionalized human power structure obsolete, ineffective. The people may assume their own improved powers of self-direction and to hell with government.
Either way, with Obama as president (next four years) life will not be anything like it is now, even if he were to try and make it so.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 20 2008 20:13 utc | 11

I still wonder, with the advent of e-voting, whether or not our votes really matter. Until they change the voting methods, I’ll continue to be very pessimistic of the voting process.

Posted by: Ben | Oct 20 2008 20:28 utc | 13

Also strange that the phrase and concept of ‘class warfare’ has been co-opted by McCain, surreally, as a sort of populist appeal to working Americans. One awaits lawn signs outside battered double-wides reading “Eat the Poor.”

Posted by: Tantalus | Oct 20 2008 20:43 utc | 15

Who is Colin Powell?
Colin Powell claims Scottish coat of arms
Tania Branigan
Wednesday May 12, 2004
The Guardian
He is known as a dove among the hawks of the Bush administration. But Colin Powell has chosen an eagle and a lion in his application for a coat of arms to mark his Scottish ancestry.
The US secretary of state has petitioned the heraldic authority of Scotland for the right to bearings, joining a growing and disparate band of Americans keen to lay claim to their roots in the old world.
A researcher recently claimed that Elvis Presley’s family originated in Lonmay, a hamlet in Aberdeenshire, while Johnny Cash insisted he descended from the family of a 12th century Scottish monarch.
Heraldic bearings cannot be granted to non-citizens, but Mr Powell has applied on behalf of his late father Luther, who was born in Jamaica and therefore a subject of the crown. The secretary of state would inherit the right to use the bearings.
He wanted a Scottish coat of arms as his mother Maud McKoy’s family was originally from Scotland.
Elizabeth Roads, Lyon clerk at the court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh, said applicants had to be “virtuous and well deserving persons” who fell within the court’s jurisdiction.
“His father was a subject of Jamaica and of course he is an honorary KCB, so a worthy individual,” she added.
Mr Powell received his honorary knighthood in 1993, his last year as chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff.
As a four-star general, it was perhaps inevitable that Mr Powell’s coat of arms would include the trappings of a warrior. But Ms Roads ruled out the prospect of humvees and grenades. “We try to use symbols rather than specific things,” she said.
Accordingly, the shield will feature four stars and two swords as well as a lion, commonly used for arms holders with the surname Powell. The crest will be an eagle, in reference to America and the badge of the 101st Airborne Division, in which he served and which he later commanded. The motto – in English, rather than Latin – will read: “Devoted to public service.”
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
(Sorry b, lost the link. Please truncate as appropriate)
PS the device of awarding to the father for the benefit of the son is how Sir Mark Thatcher got his honour!

Posted by: john C | Oct 20 2008 21:08 utc | 17

Serious questions- Has Obama promised to eliminate signing statements? Has he stated that the Iraq SOFA should be ratified by the Senate?

Posted by: biklett | Oct 20 2008 21:29 utc | 19

As one who has supported and will vote for Obama, permit me to say:
Fuck Colin Powell.
Thank you, that is all.

Posted by: EGrise | Oct 20 2008 22:06 utc | 21

yo annie! @ 10
🙂
I told annie I wouldn’t discuss the election here anymore but I have to say that when I was at the h.q. in my city yesterday morning, they were training seven Brits who just walked in off the street to volunteer.
They spent their own money to come over here and chose Virginia because they decided it was where they were needed most. They don’t know anyone here and are staying in a hotel. They canvassed all day and didn’t return until almost dark. And are doing this for a week.
just sayin’

Posted by: beq | Oct 20 2008 23:26 utc | 23

I have said many times including here that Obama will be different than what is portrayed in the election. He must run as a centrist or be labeled a radical black. My daughter works at an assisted living home and the old persons believe if Obama is elected the US black population will take revenge for “whitey keeping them down”.
I don’t believe that but I do believe Obama will use a more Keynesian view on economics with person like Stiglitz and others advising him. Its the Rubins that should be left out. I do think he will make government a more important part of his economic policy than rethugs ever would. He come from a poor background and I believe his wife will have much influence and not let Obama get to off the reservation when it comes to remembering where he came from.
I also saw Barney Frank on CNBC today and pulling from Iraq is his suggestion for saving federal dollars. I believe a very profound direction change is about to happen and much of it may be due to pressure from other countries (G7 ?) to change course. We are broke and we must create more wealth. Stimulus into the economy from green jobs and infrastructure is the only course we have right know. The housing bubble busted so building is in a depression, manufacturing has been killed, finance is bankrupt, and people are broke so service jobs are hurting, so the government must do it. There are no sectors left but government.

Posted by: jdp | Oct 21 2008 0:18 utc | 25

Slothrop has a good point about how Americans overestimate their economic standing. By the same token, there is also the same myopia that denies that America is not itself a welfare state. Its part of the exceptionalist myth that paints the U.S. as somehow in extreme contrast to its “socialist” European counterparts. And while the U.S. does lag behind Europe in some respects (nationalized resources, health care, transportation, etc.) fully 50% of spending in the U.S. is on dependent on the government and 65% of the national budget is spent on entitlements. So its pretty stupid to think the U.S. is not involved in or is outside the realm of being itself a “socialist” welfare state. It is, more so than not. Calling Obama a socialist, in distinction to the Bush administration – who has borrowed more cash for the government than all previous presidents combined, and has now de-facto nationalized the financial system – is a joke.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 21 2008 1:43 utc | 27

I think the issue is not so much is the U.S. a socialist country, but what kind of socialist country. Corporate socialism or people socialism, thats the question.
After the last eight years, and particularly the last month the demonization of the word “socialist” has lost its ability to stick, just like “terrorist”, and before that “communist”. Which is why the republicans are left out in the cold – without a believable monster to scare the people into their extortion racket.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 21 2008 2:02 utc | 29

Most amerikans have been trained from birth to believe that voting dem is about the most powerful shot they can fire in the class struggle.
And, in this respect, America is exactly like most of the other parts of Euro-world – the original pirate states in Western Europe and their white colonial spawn overseas. The alternative of authoritarian kleptocrats and mild mannered “social democrat” mediocrities is what is on offer – except in the UK where the labor party moved far enough right as to become nearly indistinguishable.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 21 2008 2:46 utc | 31

war criminal powell’s spokesperson larry wilkerson

I was fully expecting the grand wiz of the Klu Klux Klan to arrive from Maryland and endorse McCain. I was becoming frightened that we were returning to 1968, when they assassinated Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Those were bad times.
One of the most dramatic moments for me was when I was watching McCain on television, and I thought I saw in McCain’s eyes himself, when someone yelled something out, a recognition of, ‘Oh, God, what have I done?’ This is not McCain; he doesn’t cater to this. But for the first time in his political life, I think he realized that there are some strange people in the Republican tent. My father used to say, ‘Larry beware of the left because they will bankrupt you; beware of the right because they will kill you.’

Posted by: b real | Oct 21 2008 5:30 utc | 33

First, fuck Colin Powell, war criminal, water carrier for Republican scumbags, liar, hypocrite.
Still… b, thanks for the mention but you forgot this from my post: Given that the US military is so huge that any civilian Govt. will have it’s hands full trying to rein it in…
Nobody here is more aware of the criminal behaviour of the US military and clandestine services, and of the absolute need for them to be brought to heel. I know that Obama isn’t going to do that by himself. He certainly can’t even speak about it whilst campaigning for president. To illustrate:
John Kerry is a good man. His list of achievments in Congress is extensive. To all intents and purposes he served with merit and bravery in the American war on Vietnam, a war I regard as another act of criminality.
He was a prime motivator of the investigations into the Bush 1/BCCI scam with all of it’s sinister tentacles and did such good work that he was threatened and warned off.
He was defeated in a presidential race not only by his opponent, not only by the media, not only by the foul Swiftboaters but by the absolute incompetence and intransigent thick-headedness of the American electorate. According to recent surveys, between 19 and 26 percent of the American electorate self-identify as liberal, versus moderate or conservative. Throw religion and neocons into the mix and intelligent electoral results are almost impossible.
When Obama captures the presidency, he will not succeed as president unless he has the absolute support of the electorate. The intense campaigns waged by the web so far will have to be repeated incessantly to help Obama achieve success in delivering a fairer, more democratic, less war-oriented society, to rein in the criminals who are so thoroughly entrenched in American society and who act with such impunity.
Obama voted against the war. He doesn’t approve of Colin Powell. He’s striving for the presidency and as everyone here knows he has to compromise in order to have some semblance of a chance at achieving first the presidency, then the rest of the sorely needed change in American society.
No-one here, including me, knows what he will do when he becomes president. Will he betrayed, like Clinton, by his own party? Will the power of the office corrupt or pervert him as it has so many others? Is he a the new representative of the amoral secret oligarchy that controls all branches of the US govt?
I say no.
I want to believe he is honest, that he will succeed. I want to believe that America can succeed and once again be a good example for the rest of the world and a fair and just democratic society within itself.
Chris Floyd recently wrote to me in reply to my comments at his page, thoroughly demonstrating with unassailable logic that Obama is a coward and hypocrite who will continue the endless wars and calumnies perpetrated by US governments for most of the last century. I have no empirical logic to offer in contest apart from Obama’s words: “We must remember that ideology is not a foreign policy. We must not embark on war based on untested theories, political agendas or wishful thinking that has little basis in fact or reality. We must focus our efforts on the threats we know exist, and we must evaluate those threats with sound intelligence that is never manipulated for political reasons again.”
Indeed, if I was as rigorous here as I am with say, religion, I would consider my own point of view contrarian, even mischievous.
Nevertheless, I’m being honest when I say I trust my experience and intuition in arguing the opposite. I trust Barrack Obama and there’s only one way to find out who’s right.
First the presidency, then the rest.

Posted by: waldo | Oct 21 2008 10:59 utc | 35

Wonder if Mohammad Khazaee also received such a request…

Posted by: estouxim | Oct 21 2008 13:54 utc | 37

me @38

Posted by: Lizard | Oct 21 2008 15:48 utc | 39

Reinvestment Act
The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor’s
Business Daily explaining “What Caused the Loan Crisis”:
1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into
Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to
those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership
would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in
terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?
Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.
1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger
that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public
at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rules
turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized
monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks
and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This
potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie
and Fannie.
1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership
Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.
1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to
Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin’s Treasury Dept to rewrite the
rules. Robert Rubin’s Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy
quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA
rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans
began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 – 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo,
then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and
Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep.
Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by
easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to
back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at
lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor
communities, often “no doc”, “no income”, requiring no money down and
no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and
Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton
Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and
Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political
activities. During the 1990’s Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of
as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and
shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new
homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority
home ownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at
Fannie and Freddie’s excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year
but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to
key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes
would take place. “We manage our political risk with the same
intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks,” Fannie
CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama
advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to
Congress seeking an end to the “special status”. Democrats raised a
ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO’s
who knew how to reward and punish. “We think that the statements
evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets”
Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during
the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie
and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially
Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees
and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage
giants.
2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called “the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago”. Even after discovering a scheme by
Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost
their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: “We are
placing the total financial system at substantial risk”. Sen. McCain,
with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, “If
congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed
to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the
housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a
whole”. Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to “cripple the
ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding
home ownership” The bill went nowhere.
2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the
$12 trillion US mortgage market. 20The mortgage giants, whose executive
suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been
working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to
investors. As the housing market fell in ’07, subprime mortgage
portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15
years in the making.
2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush
urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats’
talking points about this being a “Republican” disaster. A few
Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by
Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and
protected by Democrats. That’s why taxpayers are now being asked for
$700 billion!!
If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to
your lawmakers own words. They are condemning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related#
Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/
Freddie’s slush funds. They are currently under indictment or
investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal
counsel, defending their activities for several years.
Please share this with everyone you know. Send it. Print it. Talk
about it.
America needs to know!!!

Posted by: Jason | Oct 21 2008 21:16 utc | 41

ô b how do cretins like this find us
i have three words for you, jason
burn, baby burn

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 21 2008 21:31 utc | 43

one of the standard features of the right wing is an unstable oscillation between feelings of omnipotence and powerlessness. They are, in their own minds, both tough, rough, realistic ubermenschen and the hapless victims of the inferior races whose trickery has bound them. What else can be expected from these wounded people for whom politics is just a stage on which to play out their sado-masochistic conflicts?
So for “jason”, Barney Frank and black “activists”, a gay man and dangerous black men, have had there way with him, something he both longs for and fears.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 21 2008 22:03 utc | 45

(the richest) would pay $59
ok, just for the heck of it lets pretend instead of beer they are spending their money on, its war (what most of our taxes pay for anyway).
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing because 2 of them had a dads who died in the last war and their single moms didn’t make enough to put them thru college, the 3rd got assaulted by one of the first, and the forth is caring for the 3rd who has stress syndrome from serving in the war.
The fifth would pay $1 because he fought in a war and lost a leg, so why the hell should he have to flip the doe for it, he paid his dues.
The sixth would pay $3 because he makes a decent living selling food he grows.
The seventh would pay $7 because he makes a good living at the post office, off the fed budget.
The eighth would pay $12 because he works for a bank that doesn’t have to pay any money to the feds, in fact the feds pay his bonuses.
The ninth would pay $18 because he lobbies the government for the drug companies who in turn get massive amounts from the fed budget and can afford to pay him a very devent salary thanks to the taxpayers.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay
$59 because his company makes the bombs the government buys to fight the war, and he’s hella rich. he also hasn’t had to pay any taxes for the last 8 years while sucking off the fed teet. he would also be out of work if we didn’t have to pay taxes to support his industry. in fact, if we didn’t have a war all that money the others paid in taxes could go into buying them all health care, sending all their kids to college and building roads or whatever it is people can spend money on when they are supporting the guy who bitches about having to pay for the war that is making him rich.

Posted by: annie | Oct 22 2008 0:16 utc | 47

Jason reminds me of an argument a wingnut I know made once – that taxing the rich, against their will, was actually a form of legalized slavery. That liberals pass laws that enable open theft from the rich, which are then left with no recourse – to their enslavement. He was also fond of Jason’s fantasy that the rich should simply divest in any system that doesn’t praise their capital contribution, and move to where its appreciated.
Fools.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 22 2008 2:11 utc | 49

I read that Joke of the Day as well, Jason (#40). I just didn’t cut and paste it (your version is verbatim except for the inclusion of the word “Democrats” in the final sentence.)
While you appear to be using the material from that popular site for precisely what it was designed for, you might want to keep it over there. Word is, it’ll make you go blind.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 22 2008 3:49 utc | 51

annie: we can watch quality documentaries, like the high cost of low price, but we don’t really understand what’s being lost until terrain we’ve known for decades gets assimilated by the corporate borg.
for me, the spread of suburbia is synonymous with “the nothing” from a movie that stimulated my young mind: the never ending story
i can’t help but think that the power of the imagination has been explicitly targeted for assimilation. kids are powerful, because magic is an unquestioned aspect of their existence, and the advertisers who realize how valuable winning over the tween demographic can be should have a special circle of hell reserved just for them.
for all the posturing that goes on here at MOA, i wonder how many of us think back to when the enormous issues we dwell upon were eclipsed by the simple pleasures of childhood.
let’s make it simple: the future depends on the vitality of the imagination, and the escalation of authoritarian control depends on the suppression of that vitality.
it’s a timeless story.
we should remember that.

Posted by: Lizard | Oct 22 2008 7:33 utc | 53

annie @ #47:
Best thing you wrote, ever! Second post wasn’t far behind.
Of course, our troll Jason simplifies taxation to the only true progressive tax — income — neglecting all the regressive taxes the poor are forced to pay: tolls, payroll, sales tax, etc.
Rarely have I seen an intelligent ()non-ideological) discussion of the real purpose of taxation: Representing the means for government, acting as the representative of the people they represent, to use policy to modify behavior for the greater good or commonweal. It is obviously in someone’s interest to mystify the masses.

Posted by: Malooga | Oct 22 2008 15:42 utc | 55

thanks malooga, i consider that a real compliment coming from you.
lizard, i missed that movie. what a great trailor. i have lots of faith our (speaking globally) youth will find solutions we haven’t even imagined yet. thank goodness.

Posted by: annie | Oct 22 2008 16:41 utc | 57

annie@ #2 excellent commentary…
grrrr… I just saw this due to the HTML/Typepad crap… I kept clicking names and getting the reload page. I hope this isn’t the new format.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 22 2008 23:55 utc | 59