September 24, 2008

9/24: This Isn't Going Over Well...

The Bush Admin.'s proposed $700 billion bailout of financial institutions continues to dominate the conversation in the political blogosphere. Many liberal bloggers have concluded that the Bush Admin. is exaggerating the severity of the financial crisis in order to push through the bailout plan with as little debate as possible, and they're growing increasingly angry about it. Atrios accuses the Bush Admin. of "attempting to steal $700 billion and give it to Wall Street." Markos Moulitsas warns of political consequences for lawmakers who support the plan:

"This ridiculous bailout plan needs to be immediately snuffed out. Anyone who votes for this thing won't face just trouble this November, but in 2010 when primary season comes around."

Most conservative bloggers are also opposed to the bailout, albeit not as fiercely as are liberal bloggers. Many righty bloggers believe that it's in John McCain's interest to vote against it. Matt Lewis writes:

"...This is a golden opportunity for John McCain. By opposing the bailout, he would be essentially be following the same recipe he used when deciding to pick Sarah Palin; it's both a bold move -- and a conservative move!"

$700 BILLION BAILOUT: The Numbers Just Don't Add Up...

Liberal bloggers reacted with anger to WH Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto's warning that provisions limiting executive pay would reduce participation in the bailout program:

"With respect to executive pay, again, I'm not going to get into specific, point-by-point details on what our views are on that, other than the Secretary of Treasury said it would make more difficult to make this plan work and effective if you provide disincentives for companies and firms out there who are holding mortgage-backed securities and other securities from participating in the program. You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value. They were not necessarily irresponsible players, and so you have to be careful about how you deal with them."

Liberal bloggers are arguing that if financial firms truly needed this $700 billion bailout, then the Bush Admin. wouldn't be concerned about creating "disincentives" for participating in the program:

• Moulitsas: "'Careful how you deal with them'? How about you LET THE FUCKING FREE MARKET HANDLE IT then? If they want taxpayer funds to bail out their incompetence, they give up equity, they accept limits on executive compensation. If they don't want those conditions imposed on them, they don't take our money. Simple, right? And if they don't take our money, who cares? They are strong and successful! And the taxpayers don't have to give up a dime. Everyone wins! I am now certain that this is all a giveaway to the GOP's friends on Wall Street and an effort to financially handcuff the next administration. It has little to do with saving the economy. Otherwise, Treasury and White House officials wouldn't be talking about bribing and arm twisting these banks into taking government handouts."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Deputy Press Secretary Ton Fratto tells us that the banks we are bailing out are actually good firms with a lot of profitable assets. [...] Um, then why are we bailing them out? I thought there was a crisis. Now the government has to step in and help out hugely profitable firms just because one aspect of those banks is as profitable as the rest? Whenever rich people make a mistake, taxpayers have to plug the gap, even if those rich people are still making huge amounts of money? This is all a lie. They are lying about how much trouble these firms are in. They are lying about their desire for oversight. It is just a big frakkin' lie. I doubt there is a crisis at all."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "The Democratic proposal for limits on executive compensation only applies to firms who participate in the bailout. But apparently the White House view is that 'very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well' should be bailed out, too, and they should be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too. Actually, as I think about it, it's even worse than that. Under its 'the more the merrier' plan, the White House doesn't want firms who are doing just fine to be discouraged from the participating in the bailout. Kind of like the way Republicans always want to make sure we maximize participation in Medicaid, welfare, and other social service programs, right?"

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias makes a similar point: "I just heard [Fed Chairman] Ben Bernanke saying that there should be no 'punitive measures' for companies that participate in a bailout because that might discourage firms from participating. But that would be the point, right? That if some measure of bailing out is truly necessary then the money will be provided, but it shouldn't just become handouts for bankers. Punitive measures mean that only firms that genuinely have no alternative will enter into the program, and their corrupt or inept managers will be duly punished. Firms that would merely prefer free money to no free money will, by contrast, stay out of the program and avoid punishment but suffer some financial loss. What's the problem with that?"

$700 BILLION BAILOUT II: This Was Planned In Advance?!?

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing over Fratto's contention that "the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials":

• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "So has the Bush Administration been formulating a plan to bail out their buddies, in secret, because they didn't want to let the voters know how badly they had fucked up the American economy before November? And if that is true, how much worse has the economy gotten -- and how much more expensive will the bailout be -- because the Bushies were trying to hide yet another colossal Republican failure? Or, did they simply not tell us about their fuck-up so they could spring the $700,000,000,000 surprise on us on a Friday and demand results by Monday? The Shock Doctrine at work!"
• digby: "If the Bush administration has been formulating this plan for months and never breathing a word to lawmakers about it, then there is a much bigger story here than we know. This is being presented as a response to an unpredictable crisis. If that's not the case then perhaps some of the conspiracy theories that are floating around are actually true."
• Bowers: "If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?"

$700 BILLION BAILOUT III: This Ain't A Real Crisis, People

Many liberal bloggers are concluding that the Bush Admin. is exaggerating the extent of the financial crisis in order to push through the bailout plan with as little debate as possible:

• Moulitsas: "This isn't a real crisis since, as they themselves have told us, they don't want to limit this giveaway to just failing banks, but to all of Wall Street, even the 'very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well'. So since the fate of the free world doesn't really reside on this bill, they can spring it at the most opportune moment. And in this case, it was in a shortened congressional session just days before final adjournment before the elections. They're so used to crying wolf and having Democrats jump at the site of men in suits carrying briefcases, that they were confident they could roll the Democratic leadership with their Chicken Little act, all the while keeping their own troops in line."
• Atrios: "It's quite possible that some sort of government action at some point might be desirable. But the way this was dropped on the Democrats is how everything has always been dropped on the Democrats by the administration. GOP Daddies In Nice Suits quietly explain that unless they do exactly what they demand, the world will blow up and it will be all the Democrats' fault. Usually the Dems fall for it, and initially it looked like they were going to fall for it again. Will they? Stay tuned."
• Bowers: "There no crisis. [...] I am not saying that there is no need for government intervention. I am saying that the case for a $700 billion bailout is far from having been made. Until the case is made, there is no need to go forward. We will elect a new President in 42 days. We swear in a new Congress in 103 days. What is the rush? Why does this all of a sudden need to be done while the Bush administration is still in charge? The case hasn't been made, and answers are slow in coming, if they come at all."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT IV: Only Fools Rush In...

Many liberal bloggers are urging lawmakers not to be hasty in passing bailout legislation of this magnitude:

• Yglesias: "Even if the strong version of the maybe there is no crisis theory is wrong, it's doubly unclear why [Treasury Sec.] Hank Paulson needs $700 billion this week since he's clearly not going to spend nearly that much by Halloween. If congress feels like taking Paulson at his word, they can appropriate some fraction of $700 billion deemed adequate to tide Paulson over until November, add on a second stimulus and some measures to start reorganizing mortgages, and then let everybody keep studying the issue. Then if Paulson wants more money after the election, he can send a request that's coordinated with the president-elect's transition team to the lame-duck congress. Why should a rushed process commit us to spending months from now?"
• Ezra Klein: "I'm very sympathetic to the point of view that says we shouldn't be rushed into anything. [...] If Wall Street were teetering on the brink of collapse, their only hope of survival a $700 billion emergency action from the government, they'd be in a state of total desperation and Paulson and Bernanke would be able to dictate terms. As it is, they're instead creating a package meant to entice firms into participating: They'll buy assets without demanding equity, purchased the assets at 'maturity' rather than current prices, protect them from congressional oversight, etc. If Wall Street is in a position to haggle, it's hard to imagine it's also about to collapse."
• digby: "The only responsible thing to do is to figure out a way to stanch the bleeding until the voters decide which candidate and party they prefer to lead them through this crisis. Ramming this through five weeks before an election, in the same way they rammed through the Iraq war resolution in 2002, with public fear mongering and threats to lawmakers that they will suffer at the ballot box if they don't go along, is a recipe for disaster."

Others are denouncing the Bush Admin.'s bailout plan in even stronger language:

• Moulitsas: "There are so many good reasons to oppose this plan -- on policy, on politics, on common sense -- that it's crazy to think that anyone is even remotely taking it seriously. It's not a bailout, it's a gift to the Wall Street elites who made a bad bet, and now want us to pay the bill. [...] This ridiculous bailout plan needs to be immediately snuffed out. Anyone who votes for this thing won't face just trouble this November, but in 2010 when primary season comes around. You want a bipartisan popular revolt on both sides of the ideological divide? This will do the trick."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This is a wildly unpopular bill, and [Barack] Obama's already saying he's going to give up on some of his priorities to pay for it. And no one has explained why this bill needs to happen and why $700 billion is the magic sum. A 'hell no' is a really good answer to this lying gang of thieves, including their new GOP Daddy Hank Paulson, the shithead in charge of this scam who asked for unaccountable authority and then pretended he didn't."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT V: Standing Athwart History, Yelling "Stop!"

Many conservative bloggers also oppose the bailout, although they're not criticizing it as fiercely as are liberal bloggers:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "How quickly the GOP has forgotten...They just adopted their darn platform for 2008. You can read it here. Let me pull out the key paragraph for you: 'We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all.'"
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "I believe in capitalism, which means I believe in profits and losses. This bailout plan is about the feds trying to pretend there are no losses from the housing bubble. As Sen. Richard Shelby says, there's not even any guarantee that the bailout will fix the problem -- we might pay $700 billion for nothing. So, forget it -- I'm against the bailout. Get the government out of the way and let the market fix itself. It always does. That would mean short-term economic hardship for a lot of people (your 401K is going to go south for a while), but in the long run, the preservation of free enterprise is more important that the immediate pain of the correction."
• Michelle Malkin: "We don't have to have this trillion-dollar bailout shoved down our throats. You can make a difference. [...] Make your voice heard now. Every second counts: 202-224-3121."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I don't think that conservatives who are supporting the plan have fully considered how it means the end of capitalism, and the beginning of European-style socialism in the U.S. I don't think I'm exaggerating. [...] In reaction to the Paulson plan, Democrats in Congress are moving to restrict executive compensation of companies seeking taxpayer help, as well as give the government shares in the companies. And within the logic of the bailout, can you blame them? If Paulson wants to socialize the risk that financial institutions have taken, than how could anybody argue that the resulting profits shouldn't be shared by all? The result, however, would be the government having an ownership stake in every major financial institution, as well as a say on who gets paid how much."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I've decided I'm against [the bailout]. [...] Basically, I think the bad paper should stay with the people who bought it. If we need to further capitalize the banks, create short term rules or cobble together other backstops, fine. But Paulson's plan basically says, 'I am the Lord thy God,' and that's crazy. Also, it seems to me that Newt [Gingrich] and the editors of NR are right when they worry that the Paulson plan essentially opens the door to unending government control of capital markets and that, too, is just crazy. Even if I completely trusted the wisdom of Paulson and his bureaucrats -- which I don't -- there's no way that I trust the Dodds, Franks or the next Treasury secretary. Every day the markets don't go off the cliff suggests to me that we can do this in stages and that Paulson's do-it-my-way-or-it's-the-Dark-Ages-for-us-all argument doesn't hold water."

$700 BILLION BAILOUT VI: An Opportunity For McCain?

Many conservative bloggers believe that McCain should oppose the bailout, for both political and philosophical reasons:

• Lewis: "I also think this is a golden opportunity for John McCain. By opposing the bailout, he would be essentially be following the same recipe he used when deciding to pick Sarah Palin; it's both a bold move -- and a conservative move! Moreover, he would essentially be the one offering change from the Bush/Obama bailout. Does Obama really want to be the one giving George Bush a blank check? In short, I don't think McCain should do this for political reasons. However, I think there are strong philosophical -- and political -- reasons for McCain to oppose this."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "There are a lot of good reasons to oppose the bailout, but McCain has already drawn a bright-line on oversight so I'll go with that. Here's Section 8 of Paulson's 3-page version of the bailout...that was being discussed in the comments on my bailout post below: 'Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.' That's called a blank check made out to a guy, Paulson, whose buddies on Wall Street caused this whole mess to happen in the first place. Do you trust him? I sure don't. [...] John McCain should schedule a trip to the Senate floor without delay to bash this section to death and to knock down any Republicans who might consider handing over such unprecedented power over to Treasury."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "People are going to have to bring themselves to admit that the political economy of this matters. There is an election in 41 days. And that the outcome of that election may count for as much or more as the outcome of the bailout. [...] The GOP's best hope of jamming up Obama's messaging on change was not necessarily to stop the bailout, but to seem like the side most hostile to it and to the status quo largely shaped by an an out of control Fannie and Freddie. Driving the fact that Fannie and Freddie were Democratic patronage mills was crucial from day one (instead we got the Chris Cox distraction, which had nothing to do with anything). Also throwing the President's 'ownership society' under the bus -- in which a lot of bad loans were encouraged in the name of showing good minority and low-income homeownership numbers. McCain and the GOP needed to use this to achieve clear separation from Bush and the corrupt Dodd/Rangel Congress, even if it was mostly symbolic on the question of the bailout itself."

MCCAIN: Freddie Mac Buys Some Influence Over Johnny Mac

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about today's New York Times article revealing that the lobbying firm owned by McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was being paid $15,000/month by Freddie Mac as recently as last month (which directly contradicts an assertion made by McCain on Sunday night):

"WASHINGTON -- One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement. The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about a new Newsweek article revealing that Freddie Mac had paid "at least $345,000" to Davis's firm since 2006 under a consulting arrangement initiated by "Davis himself":

Some liberal bloggers are focusing on the fact that McCain made a false statement about his campaign manager's relationship with Freddie Mac:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Another day, another lie revealed. Turns out Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, was involved with Freddie Mac. Quite recently. [...] I'll just observe that if the McCain campaign is so ticked off at being called liars, they might try, well...not lying."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "What this means is that either John McCain was blatantly lying in his interview with [John] Harwood on Sunday or had no idea what his campaign manager was up to. Pick which is worse. [...] This should be absolutely devastating to McCain's bid for the presidency. At the very least, I really don't see how Davis continues on as McCain's campaign manager after tomorrow."

Other liberal bloggers are focusing on what they perceive to be the corrupt nature of the relationship between Davis and Freddie Mac:

• BooMan: "Rick Davis has received obscene compensation to represent the mortgage industry in exchange for basically nothing, no work, just access to John McCain. [...] John McCain has staffed his campaign with people that were being bribed (essentially) to do the bidding of a mortgage industry that has run the U.S. economy onto the shoals. And John McCain wants us to ignore that and trust him to clean up the mess? Please."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Newsweek: McCain's campaign manager [was] paid by Fannie and Freddie to do pretty much nothing. The implication being that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was being paid money in order to keep him happy until McCain became president, and then Fannie and Freddie could call in favors. I'm sorry, but, if true, this story is corrupt as hell. It goes far beyond lobbying. We are talking about potentially buying someone off. And buying them off in order to buy John McCain."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "If the NYT and Newsweek are right to say that Davis did almost no work for Freddie Mac, that (to my mind) makes the story worse, not better. What McCain spends his time railing against on the campaign trail is 'the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.' Paying someone to do nothing, because of his 'close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House', is about as clear an example of what McCain called 'the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling' as you could ask for. McCain is absolutely right to condemn it. He was just wrong about who was 'square in the middle of it.' It wasn't Barack Obama. It was his own campaign manager."

PALIN: The Press Revolts; The Netroots Cheer

The liberal blogosphere is abuzz over the news that CNN pulled its TV crew in protest after the McCain camp decided to exclude pool reporters from Palin's sessions with foreign leaders:

"NEW YORK -- Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday barred most pool reporters from her meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the first foreign head of state she has ever met.

Journalists protested the campaign's decision to exclude all but photographers and a TV crew from Palin's sessions with foreign leaders. CNN decided to withdraw its TV crew, effectively denying Palin the high visibility she sought for her initial foray into world affairs. The campaign then reversed course, saying pool reporters -- a small group that provides information to all media -- could attend the meetings planned after Karzai hosted Palin at his suite in The Barclay New York Hotel."

Liberal bloggers are praising CNN for taking a stand and are criticizing the McCain camp for trying to shield Palin from the press:

• Bowers: "Mark this down as a first. Upon hearing that reporters would be barred from attending Palin's staged meetings with a few international heads of state, CNN actually pulled its television feed in protest. In so doing, they were actually allowed access to the event. [...] Wow, this is an actual hopeful sign that the press is getting sick of the way they are being treated by the McCain campaign, and by the abject cynicism of choosing a one-line photo-op as a Vice-President. [...] If you are constantly insulted and deligitimized by one campaign, why continue to cover that campaign at all? If someone is scoring points off you by insulting you, how can you respect yourself if you just keep doing what that person tells you to do? Stand up and show some respect for yourselves. CNN has taken the first positive step in that direction."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The purpose of [Palin's] visit [to the UN] is to, um, expand her already substantial experience in foreign affairs, and the McCain campaign wanted all the networks to cover it, of course. But they didn't want anyone asking Palin any questions. And then they decided they didn't even want reporters present, even if they kept silent. Just a camera, so that Palin's smiling face would show up on the network news deep in discussion with important foreign leaders. But what do you know? Apparently the networks actually balked at being used quite so baldly. So the McCain campaign backed down and is now allowing one (1) CNN producer in the room along with the camera operator. But still no questions, I gather. Wouldn't want to put Palin under too much pressure, after all."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The McCain campaign's overbearing handlers are panicked at the notion of a candidate for national office hearing an unscripted question for which she has not been prepped. As a result, they want the benefit of the images, without the risk of embarrassment. As it turns out, presidential campaigns in a democracy don't work this way."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Between the stiff-arm Palin has given the press, the constant lying from the McCain campaign, and the McCain camp's adolescent acting-out about the media's alleged mistreatment of longtime media fave McCain, it seems clear that relations between the McCain campaign and the media are approaching a breaking point. Whether this will materially impact the race is unclear, but that's where we are now."
• Marshall: "If Sarah Palin has to be treated with kid gloves to this extent how feeble must she be?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan urges the press to "demand access": "The press is beginning to resist the incredibly sexist handling of Palin by the McCain campaign. There is a simple point here: any candidate for president should be as available to press inquiries as humanly possible. Barring a press conference for three weeks, preventing any questions apart from two television interviews, one by manic partisan Sean Hannity, devising less onerous debate rules for a female candidate, and then trying to turn the press into an infomercial for the GOP is beyond disgraceful. Fight back, you hacks! Demand access. Demand accountability! It's our duty. If we cannot ask questions of a total newbie six weeks before an election in which she could become president of the country, then the First Amendment is pointless. Grow some!"

Aravosis makes a similar point: "Why is the corporate media continuing to subsidize John McCain's free photo opps by having staff on his bus and plane? It costs a fortune to have reporters embedded with the candidates. And for what purpose? When you travel with Palin and McCain you will not ever be permitted to pose a single question. You are window dressing, there to take pictures and parrot the Palin/McCain message of the day. [...] Why is the media putting up with this? [...] Pull your reporters from coverage of the McCain campaign until Palin and McCain start acting like big boys and girls, like potential future leaders of the free world."

BIDEN: Gaffe Machine

Conservative bloggers are mocking Joe Biden after the DE senator made a series of gaffes in the last few days:

• NRO's Yuval Levin: "So in the last 24 hours we have seen Joe Biden call an Obama campaign ad terrible and say it would never have happened if he had known about it; Barack Obama say Joe Biden should not have opposed the AIG bailout last week; and Joe Biden disagreeing with Obama's position on clean coal and telling a voter (rather unpleasantly) that his view, not Obama's, is the campaign's position. Not a great sign from the guys who argue that running a campaign is a substitute for executive experience."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama's running mate is an absurd caricature of a pol, and his silliness has begun to illuminate Obama's lousy judgment -- again."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I guarantee you, after hearing Joe Biden pump out gaffes non-stop for 48 hours, Obama probably wishes he could send him to that hut his half-brother lives in until the election, to get him out of the media spotlight."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "While most forgive the silly slip like 'Barack America' or asking the wheel-chair bound to stand up, I think the Obama staff must have gone from amusement to embarrassment and now to serious concern whether Biden is up to the job. Had this been Palin, the election would now be over."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "That's twice now in about 18 hours that Biden's undermined his own campaign. Are they just not cc'ing him on the memos anymore? Has the surging tide of Palinmania caused even Obama HQ to forget that he's part of this campaign? Or is this all part of some dastardly Axelrodian plan to have him gaffe his way off the ticket, clearing the way for Her Majesty to come aboard and bring that stubborn 42 percent with her?"

Righty bloggers are devoting particular scorn to Biden's declaration that he does not support coal plants in America:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "By declaring 'no coal plants here in America,' Joe Biden has effectively ceded Western Pennsylvania to the McCain campaign. [...] Good luck winning the state with just Philly and some of the 'burbs, Senators."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "Hey, by the way, Joe, did you know that Pennsylvania's a swing state? Just thought I'd point that out."
• Glenn Reynolds: "There goes the U.M.W. endorsement."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Thank you, Joe Biden!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Candidate Of Good And Evil?

Ezra Klein analyzes McCain:

"McCain is, at heart, a relentless personalizer. His attitude towards Russia, as John Judis has detailed at some length, is largely a bunch of Great Power rhetoric pasted atop a primal dislike of Vladimir Putin. His take on the financial crisis was a desperate and slightly comic search for good guys and bad guys. He found, in the 'evil' column, Chris Cox and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But he's been unable to explain why any of those players deserve more opprobrium than everyone else. Alan Greenspan, for instance, refused to regulate the subprime market, even after his underlings brought the problems to his attention and begged action from him. Fannie and Freddie were compromised institutions, but no dirtier than dozens of other major investment banks or lenders. And Andrew Cuomo, who McCain has decided is a 'good guy' in the crisis, was the government official who, as HUD Secretary had the power to regulate Fannie and Freddie in the 90s. Not only did he abdicate that responsibility, but he made a series of decisions that hastened their entry into the subprime market.

Of course, McCain's tendency to sort the world into good and evil has held him in good stead till now. It's why reporters love him: A politician willing to trash other politicians makes for a great quote. A candidate willing to enter into bitter feuds with everyone from Grover Norquist to Barack Obama makes for vibrant copy. If you're evaluating the politican-as-narrative-vessel, a tendency to personalize conflict is a tremendous virtue. The problem comes now that McCain is being asked to seriously understand world events and crises, and the public is looking for more than a good quote or an angry denunciation. They're looking for a compelling explanation. And McCain doesn't have any of those."

LEST WE FORGET: Audio Guide Clearly Hates Degas

From The Onion:

"LOS ANGELES -- According to museumgoers at Los Angeles' Getty Center, an automated audio guide for the 19th-century Impressionism art gallery obviously despises French painter Edgar Degas. 'The narrator wouldn't stop gushing about Monet's work with water or Pissarro's "Landscape In The Vicinity Of Louveciennes," but when we got to Degas, she called him a "master of the female form, if you like staring at a bunch of ballerinas and women sitting in bathtubs,"' said Natalie LaTouche, 32. 'And even though she did say that Degas was brilliant at depicting the subtlety of human bodies in motion, she said it really sarcastically.' Others added that when they got to Degas' self-portrait, the audio guide made no mention of the visible brushstrokes or the use of dark and light, instead saying only, 'Interesting fact, he really was that ugly.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at September 24, 2008 01:01 PM