The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.
read moreGeneral Motors Corp., seeking a federal bailout as its cash dwindles, would cost the government as much as $200 billion should the biggest U.S. automaker be forced to liquidate, a forecasting firm estimated.
The projected expense of $100 billion to $200 billion covers funds for existing programs, such as unemployment insurance, and new measures that would be needed to revive economic growth after millions of auto-related job losses. Such a sum would be an eightfold increase over the $25 billion bailout package that will be debated in Congress next week to help prop up Detroit-based GM, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC amid the industry's worst sales year since 1991.
I never stopped to think what this moment would feel like. It was the game of politics writ oh-so-large, played by all the usual players who typically control the game. I will never forget the moment it became personal for me. It wasn't long after the GOP rout in 2006, that the pundits immediately began handicapping the 2008 race. While appearing on Hardball, GOP operative Ed Rogers was asked to assess the likelihood that Illinois junior Senator Barack Obama could mount a challenge to presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. With a devilish glee, Rogers couldn't wait to pronounce that "(T)here is NO WAY America will elect someone named Barack HUSSEIN Obama(!),"he cackled from his rosy cheeks in cocksure certainty. What I'd give to hear his feelings today.
read moreOn August 30, I posted the following quotes from serious leaders in Alaska who knew Palin:
"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
And this:
Anchorage Democratic state Sen. Hollis French said it's a huge mistake by McCain and "reflects very, very badly on his judgment." French said Palin's experience running the state for less than two years hasn't prepared her for this.
But actual reporters were soon finding this out for themselves - and not even conveying the gist of that to their viewers and readers. Why not?
They kept taking Palin seriously as a veep candidate when she didn't come close to even minimal standards for passing a citizenship test. I'm sorry but I think this is a terrible failing, and it is a reason the mainstream media are imploding. They let the rules of the game over-rule their duty to tell the American people the truth as they began to discover it. The truth is that Sarah Palin had no business whatever being on a national ticket. It was an insanely reckless choice. She could never adequately perform the job of president at a moment's notice, and the McCain campaign and their media enablers were putting this country and the world at serious risk by perpetuating this farce.
It was a farce. And it was a potential threat to national security if anything happened to McCain in office. But they couldn't admit a mistake because it would have killed their campaign, destroying our impression of McCain's judgment and management skills. So they kept this farce alive for two months, putting the country at potentially great risk to massage their own careers. Now they are doing all they can to dump on her. But the dumpage goes both ways. The McCain camp picked Palin and stuck with her far longer than any people who put country first would have. Every reason why she should not have been picked is a reason why McCain should never have been president.--Andrew Sullivan
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
If you go back into the archives you will find my ONLY CONCERN is exactly what is described above. I wish you'd spend less time telling me what I think and more time actually READING what it truly is that I think!


Ridiculous. Clinton was championing diplomacy over force before we ever heard of Obama.
Not as it regarded invading Iraq. And you know that this is the point I'm making. I don't dislike Hillary, but her voice would have been too loud to ignore in the run-up if she'd had assessed the risks as Obama did and as he articulated in October 2002. Both Hillary and Bill joined in agreement with the neo-cons because this fit their own visions of US policy and in their belief of Saddam as an ongoing threat to this nation and Israel.
Its poor sport to rewrite history Corky. Obama was right for all the right reasons including disbelieving the rhetoric of immediacy being propagated by the Bushies in their rush to war. The funny thing is that far too many think this made him anti-war. As I've said since day one, Obama is a pragmatist and a realist. He doesn't wax idealic about the threats facing the US or shirk from confronting them with force if necessary. But in contrast, he doesn't use bluster and arrogance in setting forth the next direction of US foreign policy after the debacle of Bush's stewardship, if one can call it that.
Change will be defined as LISTENING to competing views and balancing them as best as intellectually possible, WITHOUT a preconcieved conclusion having already been reached by stifling all debate, into a coherent policy that minimizes risk and accenuates positive outcomes. Change NEVER meant only listening to specific voices from outside the usual channels. Those voices will be heard if they indeed produce the answers required by the problems seeking solutions, but the times still require the wisdom, both right and wrong, from experience. Those who've been wrong before sometimes articulate the best reasons for not repeating mistakes.