I'd like to see a demand for a public apology from both the public and media to the working stiffs in the media whose security has been threatened. Covering a campaign rally should not entail accepting war zone like danger. The Secret Service is responsible for the protection of candidates -- but the campaign has responsibility for security of those attending events, and that includes media figures and technicians.

Posted at October 8, 2008 2:39 PM in response to Hazardous Duty

If the demographic polling is correct, we have a younger generation that is hardly conservative, and we need to make certain this identification is made permanent, Just as the New Deal Generation remained relatively liberal for 50 years or so. The Obama ascendency needs to be a great deal about bringing a new set of cultural attitudes to the fore, and not just a shift in the cast of characters.

Posted at October 8, 2008 2:26 PM in response to Sitting On the Conservative Coffin

Yes, they had to pass a special rule for a recent Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, so he could wear a string tie with an Indian holder. Otherwise it is strictly suit and tie. Paul stretched things with his tweed jacket with leather patches on the sleaves. The women have their own standards that allow a little more freedom, they can choose either pants suit or a skirt.

When Paul would tell the story he always noted that he wanted to offer an amendment, requiring powdered wigs.

Posted at October 7, 2008 5:59 PM in response to The Senator's New Clothes

When Paul Wellstone decided to run for the Senate in the late summer of 1988, he didn't own a suit. Professors at Carleton didn't need them, and he didn't have other needs. But they told him he would have to wear a Suit and Tie to campaign events, so he went to K-Mart and bought four off the racks. That served his needs till he won the Senate Seat.

When he got to DC some of his collegues didn't appreciate the by that time, thread-bare K-Mart Suits, so they took him to a mid-upscale place in DC, and insisted that he buy a couple of suits and other stuff. He had to borrow the money, but eventually paid it back to Democratic Senators, and after a few months, discovered the bargin places around DC where he could shop and still meet the Senate Dress Standards. But Sheila would not give up her job of cutting his hair -- one compromise he would not make. You knew things had changed when he showed up in a truely elegant Norwegian Sweater one weekend, telling us all how he had found it on a bargin sale.

Norm gives the term "stuffed shirt" a totally new meaning.

Posted at October 7, 2008 5:21 PM in response to The Senator's New Clothes

It has always seemed to me that the "little guy" and consumers got attention paid in the first days of the New Deal because they showed their ability to organize and act, and while they were not in the rooms where deals were being done, they were heard.

When the Farmers in Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota started pouring their milk into road side ditches instead of delivering it to processors at less than the cost of production -- they were heard. Yes, the first AAA was ultimately declared unconstitutional, and had to be redesigned, but it was quickly redesigned.

When Armed Farmers started showing up at Farm Foreclosure Auctions, and pushing out anyone who would bid more than a penny on the Farm, Farmstead and Farm Equipment, attitudes toward Farm-Home Loan programs rapidly evolved, with Congress and the Administration outdoing each other in support of the loan proposal and adequate funding.

And when some very angry citizens in Iowa kidnapped a Bankruptcy Judge seen to be just a little too close to the local Banker, and took him to the edge of town, put a noose around his neck and threatened to pull the box from under the judge -- that message was heard all the way to DC. (No, I don't endorse Lynching).

But these things happened in the 4th year of the Depression, when everyone had run through any savings they had, or any family support. Early on, people suffered in isolation, and accepted that bad times were their own private failures. Then the notion that maybe that wasn't true took hold, and the message they had changed was understood. Congress legislated, programs were created, and people did what they could to save house and farm.

So if Treasury is responsible for dealing with Foreclosures -- when are we going to see a long line of people around the block waiting to get into Treasury to see Mr. Paulson about fixing their home Mortgage. People prepared to tent all night on the street, peacefully waiting their turn to do the paperwork?

Posted at October 3, 2008 9:19 AM in response to Bailout Redux: The Real Choice Ahead

The key thought about a pardon -- acceptance of a pardon is understood as an indication of guilt, and with that acceptance, one gives up recourse to the protections of the 5th Amendment. A properly constituted Congressional Committee with a well stated legislative intent can compel the testimony of those accepting pardons, and failure to truthfully testify could well lead, eventually to perjury or contempt of congress charges.

I fully agree that time -- and quality investigative work -- needs to come before talk of trials. The next Congress and President will have enough on the platter to deal with that impacts day to day life, and that needs to be what is delivered up in the next two years. But no question that the criminal core of what has happened needs to be the subject of investigative work and pressed on a new Congress and DoJ.

Posted at October 1, 2008 6:35 AM in response to Major Issue: Bush Pardon

During this campaign, face it, Obama has to play with the same rules Jackie Robinson used during his first two years with the Dodgers. Play the position, Hit, Steal Bases, all to the tune of racial slurs designed to distract -- and only in his third year could Jackie steal a Base and slide in with spikes up.

I hate watching all this play out all over again, Old enough to remember when Robinson joined the Dodger -- but as a Cleveland Indian fan, I watched it play out in 48 when Larry Doby and then Sachell Page were part of that World Championship team. The dynamics of this are very similar.

Posted at September 27, 2008 7:20 AM in response to Here's Looking Away from You, Kid

Both Bush and McCain constantly use or rather misuse the term "Understand" -- and I suggest it is intentional.

Bush is always saying, as a way of drawing all possible choices down to what he advocates, "You have to Understand..." essentially leaving everyone with no choice but his.

McCain's use of "Understand" is quite similar, though he uses it to suggest lack of understanding is an indicator of being dumb, stupid, or niaeve.

In both cases it is a way of dismissing reasoned differences about policy, sometimes fact, and instead making the whole matter more a consideration of the supposed competence of the audience to which the remark is directed, and not the core of any issue differences. It is a rhetorical tactic of self-empowerment, and disempowerment of one's interlocutor.

It is time someone boldly called both Bush and McCain out on this tactic for exactly what it is, and my guess is that somewhere in that jumble of debate coaches, they have the same teacher.

How to call them out? --- with Bush, "No, I don't have to Understand anything. If you want to convince me, then make your argument clearly."

With McCain -- "Of course I understand your position, I just happen to have a quite different one based on ...such and such evidence. It's up to the audience to figure out which one of us has the best thought out position."

Posted at September 27, 2008 6:52 AM in response to Ways of Understanding the World

I always want to compliment those who remember HOLC -- one of the New Deal programs that came in during the first months of FDR's first term, and lasted about three years.

HOLC was piggy-backed on RFC -- (english, the Home Owner's Loan Corporation was piggybacked on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation), and RFC was first established by the Democratic Congress in the last two years of the Hoover Administration, and vastly expanded by FDR. Between 31 and 33 RFC primarily recapitalized failing banks -- Hoover traded seats on the Boards of Banks for RFC loans, not the same as shares, but inside positions on management. When FDR took over, RFC was nearly without funds, FDR vastly enlarged it, and put other programs into it, such as HOLC. From 1931 through the depression, the RFC refinanced over 4000 Banks, and the HOLC that lasted from 33 to about 1936, restructured and reassigned one-fifth of the family mortgages in the US. There was a similar program in the Dept of Agriculture for Rural Housing.

HOLC was an office where an RFC employee/agent dealt directly with a home-owner with a problem mortgage -- and many Americans had problem mortgages, due to the failure of so many banks in 33. If a home-owner met minimum standards, and actually lived in the home (this was not for speculators), they walked out with a 20 year fixed rate mortgage, low interest -- and it was Government Insured. Eventually most were re-assigned to local banks and savings and loans as these were re-structured (by RFC) as performing loans. The US Government did not "profit" from this, but local Governments certainly did, because it meant they collected property tax, supporting schools, police, fire, local roads, garbage and sewage and all the rest.

HOLC also set the standard for Mortgages -- prior to 1933, most mortgages were 5 year notes with a balloon at the end, meaning that most home owners had to renegotiate their loans (and the interest rate) every five years. HOLC's 20 year loans treated home ownership as a long term investment and an equity building framework. HOLC was essentially replaced by the FHA program, which was structured to encourage new construction. (Jobs) about 1936.

An HOLC would make sense today with two conditions -- it would require that Securitized Mortgages be eliminated -- there has to be an identifiable actual mortgage holder or lender -- and it would require the kind of Capital that RFC had to work with. Because FDR's process of reorganizing banks favored locally owned banks and savings and loans, the whole structure supported community relationships among borrowers, lenders, savers, and local businesses. With FDIC covering deposits, and with a much strengthened bank examiner system, the structure worked well for about 50 years.

Posted at September 26, 2008 5:30 AM in response to Bailing from the Bottom

Hillary's value is NOT in attacking Palin -- it is in whatever will keep the "Reagan Democrats" and others of a similar bent in the Democratic and Obama Orbit this November -- and this is more about drilling home the message of vote your interests than it is in any sort of emotional cat fight.

Posted at September 7, 2008 3:23 PM in response to Election Central Sunday Roundup