I open up my wallet, and it’s full of blood.

aaronfreed @ 2009-02-03T02:25:00

2009-02-03T07:26:00Z

I intend to start posting regularly again sometime in the near future. I graduated, and since then have been working close to full-time and doing a bunch of maintenance work for various sites I'm involved with. I intended to write up a long post-electoral analysis, but somehow I never got around to it.

In the mean time I'll leave you with this very well written editorial about Michael Phelps' alleged marijuana use. It's directed at parents specifically, but there's no reason others won't find it interesting and provocative as well.

aaronfreed @ 2008-11-04T23:40:00

2008-11-05T04:40:28Z

Thank you, America.

aaronfreed @ 2008-11-03T16:06:00

2008-11-03T21:11:43Z

I'm far too busy as of late to write up an entry of my own, so via vulgarlad:

Final Gallup poll: Obama 53%, McCain 42%...an 11-point margin (among likely voters). Split the undecideds equally and it becomes 55/44, Obama. Give McCain ALL of the undecideds, and it's still Obama by 51%.

Final Wall Street Journal/NBC poll: Obama 51%, McCain McCain 43%. McCain's support among white men & hispanics is significantly lower than that of Dubya's in 2004.

Time magazine's GOP kiss-ass, Mark Halperin: For McCain, the Numbers Aren't Adding Up

********** ********** ********** ********** **********

Of course, none of this matters if you don't get out & vote. Need some additional motivation (above & beyond putting an end to 8 years worth of fascist GOP rule) to do so?

-Starbucks is giving out free coffee to people who vote.

-Ben & Jerry's is giving out free ice cream to people who vote.

-Krispy Kreme is giving out free donuts to people who vote.

-Baltimore folks...you can stop by Todd Conner's Pub for a free beer if you vote!

-Seattle people...I've heard that Cupcake Royale is giving out free cupcakes...but I haven't been able to confirm that yet (confirmed! free cupcakes!)

-some Chick-fil-A establishments are giving away free chicken sandwiches. Then again, their food sucks & they're run by creepy uber-zealot christians...so maybe avoid this one...or keep going back and get so many free sandwiches that you bankrupt them. mwahahahaha!

and the best one of all...

-Babeland is giving out free sex toys. Help save the United States AND get off...it's a win-win situation!

I'll resume responding to comments after the election is over.

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-22T19:45:00

2008-10-22T23:50:21Z

I may have been wrong about the al-Qaeda story being this election's October Surprise. The Beltway types mostly seem to be ignoring it, despite the McCain camp's tremendously feeble response to it. There's acutally another story which is drawing even more outrage, from Republicans, because it cuts through Sarah Palin's Everywoman persona and reveals actions by the McCain camp which are quite possibly illegal by the very law that bears his name. The details:

PoliticoThe Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.

Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment on Monday, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.

Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.

“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.
But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement.

"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.

Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.

A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.

But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.

What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington.

The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.”

It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”

September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).

Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.

The entries also show two purchases at Pacifier, a top-notch baby store, suggesting $196 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.

An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.

Marc Ambinder
McCain-Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt on this Politico storyWith all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.
There is already an attempt to blame the media -- as in, the liberal media would have looked askance at Palin if she wasn't clad in Neiman Marcus, but this won't wash. Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures.

This sort of spending is without precedent -- the closest approximation for any campaign I've ever covered is make-up expenses for television interviews and commercial shoots -- , and Schmitt's weakly defensive response tonight indicates that the campaign is deeply embarrassed by it and has nothing to say in their defense. Spokespeople have clammed up, a sure sign that they're trying to figure out who authorized the expenses and who knew about them. Did Palin wear all of the clothing? Where is it kept?

The Democrats are going to have a lot more fun with this than is prudent, but the heat for this story will come from Republicans who cannot understand how their party would do something this stupid ... particularly (and, it must be said, viewed etroactively) during the collapse of the financial system and the probable beginning of a recession.

Viewer reactions on MSNBC's Morning Joe:

This is from Pat in Ohio. She says, "Mika, I'm a woman and for Sarah Palin to say she's an average everyday woman like me while she's wearing $12,000 suits is utter nonesense and pure B.S. And for you to sit there and say there is nothing wrong with the campaign spending $150,000 on wardrobe for three months is truly offensive. What, they couldn't spend $300 for a nice suit? Maybe you need to come down to earth and realize that the majority of women don't make $150,000 a year and we resent it when you tell us our $300 suits aren't professional enough."

MSNBCThe 2002 campaign finance law that bears McCain's name specifically barred any funds that "are donated for the purpose of supporting the activities of a federal or state office holder" from being used for personal expenses including clothing. (emphasis mine)

The Atlantic on the person responsible for doing Palin's shoppingLarson is the Karl Rove protégé who’s a principal in the robocalling firm of FLS Connect (the “FLS” stands for Tony Feather, Jeff Larson, and Tom Syndhorst, all veteran Republican political operatives). Larson’s firm is the same one that launched the scurrilous robocalls against John McCain in 2000, and that McCain has now hired to make robocalls connecting Barack Obama to Bill Ayers. He’s also well known in Minnesota for leasing his basement apartment at a steeply discounted rate to embattled Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Evidently, Larson also has quite the eye for women’s fashion.

Every time I think I've seen the full extent of the McCain campaign's stupidity, they surprise me. Even with a good campaign, they'd be struggling, but the huge margins Obama has managed to open up aren't entirely due to the tarnished Republican brand.

Don't get complacent, though. Get out and vote. Early voting is open in most states now. I'll be voting on Friday.

October Surprise

2008-10-22T07:59:23Z

Al-Qaeda essentially endorses McCain, reports the Washington Post.

Obama's tax credit to the poor is socialism!

2008-10-22T02:12:03Z

Except, you know, not.

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-21T18:51:00

2008-10-21T22:53:47Z

I knew there was a reason I didn't think Charlie Crist was such a bad guy - he's distancing himself as much as possible from the McCain campaign, and especially its laughable attempts to paint Obama as a socialist. He's also called the GOP's ACORN bullshit what it was. He and Powell are two of the few respectable Republicans left.

The funny thing is that, if McCain had nominated Crist, who was rumoured to be on his shortlist, for VP, the race would probably be a lot closer right now than it is with Palin. Of course, the odds of the Republicans ever nominating an alleged homosexual for anything are pretty much nada, which explains why it didn't happen.

Meanwhile, an Obama effigy is hanged near a "Christian" university, an Obama campaign worker is attacked in Wisconsin, at least thirty Obama supporters' tires are slashed, black early voters in North Carolina are heckled, a dead bear cub is placed on top of an Obama sign, Obama supporters receive death threats, and an Obama supporter's car is destroyed. Meanwhile, Michelle Bachman denies having made insane McCarthyist remarks which she clearly made; Robin Hayes makes similar remarks, then also denies making them; Mel Martinez also gets in on the action; and Sarah Palin thinks some parts of the country are not pro-America. I have only one question: Why does the Republican Party hate America?

The photograph Powell was talking about in his interview

2008-10-19T21:10:53Z

More on the soldier here; photo via here.

I came across it while I was listening to that part of the interview. I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried.

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-19T15:10:00

2008-10-19T19:24:50Z

If you thought the right-wing was already coming unglued, you're going to be utterly shocked by their conduct over the home stretch. They're utterly desperate now, and there's nothing more dangerous than a political party in desperation. We'll probably be seeing more campaign workers getting attacked, more blatantly bullshit robocalls, more transparent McCarthyism. In the wake of Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama (watch it, then watch this interview he did afterward), the right-wing has already started pushing the "Powell only endosred Obama because they're both black" meme. As polling shows that the last debate improved Obama's image not only among liberals and independents but also, amazingly, among conservatives, they're only going to get more desperate.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Luntz pointed out, correctly I think, that in today's political climate, the last thing most voters want to hear is partisan attacks. Sure, they'll energise the base, but the majority of people want to hear about issues, want to hear reassurances that everything will be okay. In times of trouble, people want more help from the government, not less. Which makes McCain's attacks on Obama as a "socialist" particularly quaint, especially seeing as his party has just effected the biggest nationalisation in our government's history.

I don't think attacks like these are going to stick. Most people are going to see the attacks on Powell for what they are - out-and-out racism. While this will certainly appeal to the base, the base isn't as large as it was four years ago.

However, Greg Palast reports that ten million voters have been purged from the voting rolls. Palast has done reporting on electoral fraud by the GOP in the 2000 and 2004 elections, clearly demonstrating a systematic disenfranchisement of voters that hasn't been reported in the mainstream media, which Palast feels resulted in fraudulent results in both elections (and he presents subsantial amounts of evidence to back up his point). Josh Marshall has more.

The single biggest possible to the GOP would be to hand them a decisive loss even with the inevitable tampering they're trying to enact. Kos has it absoltutely right; crush their spirits. Go out, volunteer for the campaign, donate money, do everything you can to close out the home stretch. It's time to take this country back.

ETA: Apparently the second Powell video doesn't work in Firefox; I had to load it in Explorer. Sorry about that.

I should point out that if you want to donate

2008-10-14T01:04:13Z

to various political campaigns, it's getting close to the point beyond which donations won't make much, if any, difference. Daily Kos has been especially good about drawing attention to races which deserve it, as has MyDD. I know in economically tough times (although the Dow jumped 900 points today, a record, though who knows whether it'll stay there) donating to a political campaign often seems like the last thing on anyone's minds, but on the other hand you can bet corporate interests who have nothing in common with you are going to do their best to funnel in as much cash as they can, as well. Part of the reason politics have been shifting to the left is because the Internet has made people increasingly able to find candidates who are worthy of their cash directly and fund them, and having a filibuster-proof majority (60 seats) in the Senate would be especially nice; a few small campaign donations could make the difference between, for example, having guaranteed health care for all Americans and not, or reforming America's tremendously regressive tax code and not. Seeing as the President needs the approval of Congress to enact legislation, these races are important and could make the difference between whether America gets a new New Deal or languishes in the same "bipartisan" clusterfuck that has resulted in Congress doing nothing the past two years (remember, Grover Norquist referred to bipartisanship as date rape). I've donated around $75 over the last year myself, and will probably be donating a bit more this weekend. If you can't spare the cash, obviously don't worry about it, but if you can, it's the sort of investment that could come back to help you in a big way if it helps get people elected who can help enact progressive legislation.

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-13T16:01:00

2008-10-13T20:06:54Z

Sorry I didn't update any this weekend. I barely had time to breathe.

McCain's attacks on Obama backfire, say polls.

Students for a Democratic Society (the '60s incarnation) co-founder Tom Hayden argues that Obama's supporters will form a new progressive movement resembling the one of the '60s.

Andy Martin, originator of the "Secret Muslim" slur: racist, anti-Semitic, litigious scumfuck.

Dismantling the "vote fraud" rubbish coming from Republicans currently. And more from Digby.

Similarly, McClatchy dismantles the ludicrous argument that Fannie and Freddie caused the current financial crisis.

Congressional Quarterly, meanwhile, dismantles the dreck about Obama's Ayers associations.

NY Times argues that we may actually see a reverse Bradley effect in the upcoming election.

Pandagon has more on the racism et al. of McCain/Palin supporters.

Finally, congrats to Krugman on his well-deserved Nobel. Not only is his economic analysis generally top-notch, but it's also worth remembering that for years he was literally the only sane voice in the entire mainstream American media. I'm sure the Swedes had that thought in mind when they selected him as their recipient this year (in addition to making up for all the crazy Ayn Rand worshippers who received Nobels in the seventies, no doubt). DeLong has more. Much, much more. See also Ed Gleaser, and, via The Economist's View, a heaping shitload of truly great Krugman pieces.

Another One Jumps Off the Tire Swing

2008-10-10T19:04:26Z

William F. Buckley's son, Christopher Buckley, endorses Obama wholeheartedly. Read the whole piece; it's superb. (I'm linking to John Cole's blog rather than Buckley's because I can't get Buckley's to load right now; I'm not sure if it's just my connection, but Cole has a link to the original anyway).

Meanwhile, the prosecutor of the Weathermen writes in to express his view of how absurd the McCain campaign's efforts to link Ayers to Obama are.

Meanwhile, as crowd members say things like "Off with his head!" some McCain officials are privately expressing worries that the campaign is going too far in its incitement of the lunatic fringe. Joe Klein is worried as well, as is John Cole.

Finally, the questioner McCain insulted at Tuesday night's debates responds to McCain's insults.

Credit where it's due

2008-10-10T04:44:43Z

Arch-conservative columnist Kathleen Parker is, like me, concerned about the behaviour of crowds at McCain-Palin rallies lately. She also jumped off the Palin tire swing in a big way last week, you may remember, so perhaps she's leaving the extremist rhetoric behind for more sensible waters. I'm not going to be that optimistic though.

In other news, how about that stock market? To their credit, it looks like the government is finally starting to come around to my way of thinking and talking about nationalising part of the banking system. Also, Nouriel Roubini is reporting that Barney Frank and several other members of Congress have actually been trying to bring the Treasury around to this way of thinking since Paulson made his initial proposal, so maybe they deserve somewhat more credit than I've been giving them.

dday at Hullabaloo has more.

The Surveillance Society

2008-10-09T20:11:47Z

They were actually transcribing people's phone sex calls.

R.I.P., Land of the Free.

This is why I don't trust the government.

2008-10-09T01:14:25Z

Fifty-three nonviolent activists in Maryland have been classed as terrorists. For opposing things like the Iraq war and the death penalty, presumably.

The idea of a government database of citizens is very, very scary to me, and this is why.

In other news, the sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, goes onto my Good People list for his actions today. I hope more people in positions of power start doing things like this.

Man arrested for threatening to kill election officials

2008-10-09T00:07:42Z

You stay classy, Republicans.

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-08T18:05:00

2008-10-08T22:12:19Z

Conservative columnist David Brooks jumps off the tire swing in a major way.

Stock market took another record-setting dive today - the Dow Jones was apparently down 900 points at its worst point, according to CNN when I was eating. Unfortunately I can't find links for this now that I'm back at the Internet, so alas and alack.

Apparently the AIG execs with their $440,000 resort trips on the taxpayers' dime have already run out of money, so the Fed is lending them another $37,800,000,000. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

There are so many important links in this MyDD entry that I'm just going to direct you to it and tell you to click on anything that interests you.

Meanwhile, with Obama up in national polls by eleven percent, dday at Hullabaloo has a nice analysis of why the McCain campaign is floundering.

With the economy floundering as badly as it is, it's probably a good idea to keep up with the commentary of actual economists. Some helpful resources for me in recent times have been Atrios, Nouriel Roubini, The Economist's View, Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman and EconoSpeak. Dean Baker has been posting a number of informative pieces at TPM Cafe as well. Note, of course, that, as would be expected with any wide variety of sources, these economists do not always agree with one another, and I must once again express my view that economics is still as much an art as it a science, but on the whole, their individual predictions have been accurate over the past eight years far more often than they've been inaccurate, and thus I think it's safe to conclude that they have a reasonably better idea of what they're talking about than most of the talking heads you routinely see on TV.

Hypothesis

2008-10-08T03:00:51Z

Every time McCain says "My friends," it signals that he's about to tell a lie.

Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

2008-10-08T02:36:44Z

Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the Weather Underground are being portrayed as America-hating terrorists when they never actually killed anyone and actually went to the trouble of telling people what they were going to attack in advance? For people who are charged of hating America, they sure did a lot to ensure they didn't hurt actual Americans. Or, as Dan Berger argues in his book, Outlaws in America:

The group purposefully and successfully avoided injuring anyone, not just civilians but armed enforcers of the government. Its war against property by definition means that the WUO was not a terrorist organization — it was, indeed, one deeply opposed to the tactic of terrorism.

Seems a bit different from, you know, driving someone out of town because you think she's a witch. Or, for that matter, plotting to mudrer journalists, as McCain's close friend G. Gordon Liddy apparently did in the '70s after Nixon said "We need to get rid of this Anderson guy."

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-07T21:40:00

2008-10-08T01:41:09Z

In the latest "Batshit Insane McCain Supporters" news, this is just Kafkaesque. And a good indicator of why I think corporations have way, way too much power and way, way too little accountability.

I'll watch the debate later. I really don't think I can deal with much more political crap right now.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

2008-10-07T22:33:28Z

Bush's administration has set yet a new record in negative polling. (Edit: Actually, I lied, he's set three records - his net approval-disapproval and his overall disapproval are the lowest in history as well).

Meanwhile, Naomi Klein addresses the University of Chicago. You know, the place where Milton Friedman and his whackjob ideas that selfishness is a good thing got their start. I refuse to excerpt because you should read the whole thing.

In slightly lighter news, ex-Lehman CEO Richard Fuld gets punched at a gym. While I usually don't approve of violence, in this particular case I think it was justified.

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-07T13:53:00

2008-10-07T17:55:30Z

It appears that McCain/Palin events are beginning more and more to resemble Klan rallies.

For the first time this election, I'm genuinely scared about the future of this country.

dday at Hullabaloo has some telling information about McCain's background with regard to abortion clinics that should merit consideration. Though I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that they fail to understand what they're doing.

And then there's the matter of McCain's ties to right-wing death squads in Latin America.

ETA: Then again, maybe they genuinely are so stupid that they genuinely don't understand what they're doing, considering Palin's fundraiser today at the home of a corrupt SEC executive. I wouldn't count on it though.

ETA 2: Now we're getting reports of violence against Obama supporters. Admittedly this was in London, but sadly, that's the only thing that surprises me after the stuff above.

WHEEEEEEEEEE

2008-10-07T00:06:33Z

The Dow plunged 790 points today, a new record. Granted, it recovered to being only 360 points down by closing time, but it pretty substantially undercuts the notion that the bailout (which passed, by the way; I was too shattered to note it this weekend) has helped.

Bearing this in mind, it would be instructive to review the record of the man John McCain has referred to as "a genius" when it comes to the economy, Phil Gramm. Despite his recent conversion to denouncing deregulation (after a career full of championing it), John McCain has refused to rule out the possibility that Gramm will be his Treasury Secretary.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the entire "debate" on Thursday night. If you can even call it a debate; Juan Cole argues that you shouldn't, and he's right. I'm having a hard time imagining a more insipid format for a discussion of politics; the two candidates may as well not have even been in the same room for how little they talked to each other. Palin lied, of course, a lot. Josh Marshall has more; you'll have to scroll down several screens for the debate-relevant material.

Also, Krugman weighs in on what an unmitigated disaster McCain's health care plan would be.

I'd weigh in on the smear campaign McCain is now resorting to, or Obama's responses thereto, but frankly it doesn't interest me particularly much. Virtually every time McCain has gone negative it's backfired on him; the only time it benefited him was immediately after the convention, when they were still riding on the bounce. I have no reason to expect the American public's sentiments to have changed since then. In the midst of an economic crisis, voters want to hear about the economy, not about vague associations candidates had years ago.

aaronfreed @ 2008-10-02T17:51:00

2008-10-02T21:53:56Z

so the bailout passed the Senate. Sigh. You can still write your representative and tell them to shoot it down.

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent takedown of Steven Pearlson (and by proxy, everyone else who thinks the bailout needs to be passed immediately) which points out again just how little support there actually is for the idea. Robert Reich has more.

Meanwhile, Matt Taibbi has written perhaps the best Palin essay I've seen yet.

I'm not going to post much else tonight, probably - I'm TiVoing the debate and will comment when I have the opportunity to watch it. On the off chance you feel like giving yourself alcohol poisoning tonight, here are a number of good drinking games for the debate.

If you're too lazy to write up your congresspeople, I've written two letters.

2008-10-01T23:33:28Z

Here's the one for Democrats:

Voters are turning against the Republican Party because on the whole, they get the impression that Republicans simply don't care about the economic problems of common people. Given the Republicans' tendency to give massive subsidies to large corporations who shouldn't need them, they're right. This bailout bill, representing some $700 billion of taxpayers' money, represents the single largest corporate subsidy in history, and contains no provisions to enforce Congressional oversight of that money. Simply put, voting for this bill as a Democrat will undercut the single most important frame working in Democrats' favor this election.

David Sirota has a thorough summary of many of the atrocious problems with this horrid piece of legislation here: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/100700/the_fiscally_insane_bailout_bill_might_not_pass_--_here%27s_5_reasons_it_shouldn%27t I thoroughly agree with him on every point, perhaps the most important of these being that there are a wide variety of economists (including one letter signed by over two hundred of them) arguing that the plan very well may actually *worsen* the economy. I certainly agree with the general consensus that the current financial crisis demonstrates that the market on its own is ill equipped to deal with failures, and that government intervention is needed in cases such as this. Unfortunately, government intervention does not always improve matters, and what is being proposed here would not only create a moral hazard by removing incentive for bankers to avoid carrying out risky transaction, but it also fails to supply any adequate regulation to prevent the problems that created this crisis from reoccurring in the future. I would strongly urge the Congress to take into account the opinions of economists who predicted this crisis long before its inevitability was accepted in the mainstream - see Dean Baker and Brad DeLong here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/dean-baker-on-t.html) and here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/time-not-for-a.html), and Nouriel Roubini here (http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253801/the_us_and_global_financial_crisis_is_becoming_much_more_severe_in_spite_of_the_treasury_rescue_plan_the_risk_of_a_total_systemic_meltdown_is_now_as_high_as_ever).

I certainly agree that our economy is in a state of crisis, but acting swiftly is not necessarily the best course of action, especially if it means all options have not been thoroughly debated. The plan currently being voted on in Congress is nothing more than socialism for the rich - and we've had nearly three decades of that as it is. Economic history clearly demonstrates that "trickle-down economics" does not, in any meaningful sense, happen; the Gini coefficient of the United States - one of the most reliable indicators of the gap between rich and poor - has consistently increased the more trickle-down economics has been applied. The best way to protect America's economy is to shore up the lower and middle classes, something that this plan does not, in any meaningful sense, do. I urge you, for the sake of your elected position, to vote it down. If you do not, odds are that you will see a substantial primary challenge from someone who would have.

And here's one for Republicans. They might actually be persuaded to listen because, given poll numbers, they're terrified for their jobs, as they have to run away from the other Republicans in congress, away from Bush, away from McCain, and away from the Democrats. In short, they may well be persuaded to outflank the Democrats from the left, but you have to be careful about how you word yourself or else they'll feel like dirty socialists and will bolt. You'll obviously want to adapt the bit about Florida to your own state, unless of course you also live in Florida.

Voters, including in Florida (which, according to a recent poll, trends Obama by eight points, a staggering margin for a state that went solidly Republican in 2004), have been turning against the Republican Party because on the whole, they get the impression that Republicans simply don't care about the economic problems of common people. This may not necessarily be true, but voting in favor of this bailout is likely only to reinforce the popular perception that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to give massive subsidies to large corporations who, they feel, shouldn't need them. This bailout bill, representing some $700 billion of taxpayers' money, will represent the single largest corporate subsidy in history, and contains no provisions to enforce Congressional oversight of that money. Simply put, voting for this bill as a Republican will reinforce the single most devastating frame being employed against Republicans right now, and almost guarantees an incumbent to be thrown out of office.

David Sirota has a thorough summary of many of the problems with the piece of legislation currently being considered by Congress here: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/100700/the_fiscally_insane_bailout_bill_might_not_pass_--_here%27s_5_reasons_it_shouldn%27t I think his assessments are mostly accurate, perhaps the most important of these being that there are a wide variety of economists (including one letter signed by over two hundred of them) arguing that the plan very well may actually *worsen* the economy. I certainly agree with the general consensus that the market is currently broken and is grievously in need of economic stimulation. Unfortunately, government intervention, as Republicans have been saying for decades, does not always improve matters; what is being proposed here would not only create a moral hazard by removing incentive for bankers to avoid carrying out risky transactions, but it also fails to supply any adequate regulation to prevent the problems that created this crisis from reoccurring in the future. I would strongly urge the Congress to take into account the opinions of economists who predicted this crisis long before its inevitability was accepted in the mainstream - see Dean Baker and Brad DeLong here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/dean-baker-on-t.html) and here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/time-not-for-a.html), and Nouriel Roubini here (http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253801/the_us_and_global_financial_crisis_is_becoming_much_more_severe_in_spite_of_the_treasury_rescue_plan_the_risk_of_a_total_systemic_meltdown_is_now_as_high_as_ever).

I certainly agree that our economy is in a state of crisis, but acting swiftly is not necessarily the best course of action, especially if it means all options have not been thoroughly debated. The plan currently being voted on in Congress is overwhelmingly opposed by the general public and is likely to be perceived as nothing more than socialism for the rich - and the perception seems to be growing that we've had nearly three decades of that as it is. Certainly, the Gini coefficient of the United States - one of the most reliable indicators of the gap between rich and poor - has increased substantially in the past three decades, which supplies substantial grounds for attacks on Republicans; if you vote for this bill, it will only reinforce populist sentiments that Republicans do not care about the problems of common people. This plan does not, in any meaningful sense, shore up the middle and lower classes, nor does it provide a framework for fixing the shattered regulations that, in an overwhelming majority of people's view, enabled the crisis to happen in the first place. I urge you, for the sake of your elected position, to vote this bill down and argue in favor of something more populist. If you do not, odds are that, come the next election, you will find yourself out of a job.