Step back and summarize who McCain is. He's an old man from a military family that says "we must win, we must win", in between his gaffs and misstatements and saying "we are winning, we are winning." If we win in Iraq and leave, then we are 'surrendering' is Senator McCain's baffling call to keep fighting.

He can't lead on health care, the economy, taxes, jobs or ecology.
Saying he's for change is a contradiction to his upbringing, age, and nature.

He is true to his roots when he repeats his single constant message: more glory on the battlefield, more fighting, more war, any war.

I like the patriotism and the majesty of a good Fourth of July parade as much as anyone but votes are about so many more here-at-home issues. Votes are questionable if cast only to advance the non diplomatic goal of having the U.S. attacking more foreign countries to enforce capitalism and old time vainglory.

The issues John McCain, in his one-note campaign, and by his nature finds less attractive and uplifting are good jobs, fairness in wages, equitable health care and returning Washington to a bi-partisan, non lobbyiest controlled can-do status.

Military might and patriotic pomp have their place but the McCain Bush era mantra of "If you're not afraid, you're a coward." needs to be put out to pasture.

I will not surrender, John McCain proclaims, as dramatically as he can.
Obama declaims, "John, John, John. What are you thinking about when you say I, or our military or anybody else, might surrender.
Militarily, our American warriors have won all the battles required to end Saddam's era and have free elections for the Iraqi people.
If John, your goal is to occupy Iraq, then leaving would be simply relinquishing control. It would be an exercise in letting go of these occupation goals. This 'letting go' is the goal of both Iraq and America. There is no 'surrender' in bringing home our troops from Iraq in this case. It's just admitting that our troops are not fairly deployed for either their sake or America's national security if they are being used as referees and civilian police.
John, stop implying that America or our troops are losing or losers. There is no surrender in coming home. Who would we losing to Senator McCain? We've reached the time for us to leave the bulk of the fight to the Iraqis.
The Shiites will fight amongst themselves for power. They will fight Sunnis too and both will fight criminal elements and religious fanatics who align themselves with terrorists. This is the internal struggle facing Iraq for a long while to come.
It's time for America to declare itself a staunch ally of Iraq and Iraqi democracy and cease operations akin to an all out occupying force. No one entity specifically wins when we leave. We lose to no specific entity.
John, unless the pursuit of battle is an end in itself, which is a scary prospect, step back and take bold stock of the situation. There is no 'surrender.'"
"My America is not losing."

(This is the dialogue I wish to hear: by Craig Johnson.)

   
BAKER FLUMMOXES HANNITY: RIPS BUSH FOREIGN POLICY .
Oct. 5, 2006, FOX NEWS, Hannity & Colmes, 9:00 PM EST
Click Baker Video Part II (two)
http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html Part II (two)

James Baker, the globally accomplished diplomat and former GOP Secretary of State under Reagan totally flummoxed the cartoonish GOP bagman, Sean Hannity.

Point blank, Baker said that given the choice between waging a war or a foreign policy solely restricted to establishing a new democracy in the Mid-east or alternatively pursuing policies of stabilizing the region, policies of stabilization were preferable.

Hannity tried to parry this heretical bashing of Bush's core foreign policy talking point with the usual GOP gobbledygook propaganda such as "this is "World War III" and "this is a fight against Islamo Fascists." Baker seemed uninterested in Sean's offer of GOP red meat talking points and he continued.

Paraphrased as best I can, Baker said, "Given the choice between engaging America's forces based on a principle (i.e. 'democracy') or based on establishing stability, stability is, all things considered, the superior objective.

Not yet finished shredding the inept Bush, Rice, Cheney foreign policy, Baker continued by basically saying that engaging in talks with America's enemies is not appeasement and not engaging in talks is sophomoric (my words). He recounted that he personally visited Syria fifteen times and on his next visit Syria abandoned their twenty-year-old policy towards Israel and agreed to sit with Israel in negotiations, de facto recognizing their existence.

Thank Video replays because this is political theater of the highest order which everyone should have the opportunity to see and hear once this episode is posted. Not only was Hannity beautifully sandbagged, in my opinion, but Bush 41' had to know that his son was going to get this political ass whumping.

This is an important message. It is the old guard of Bush 41' and Reagan trashing 43's leadership and foreign policy. Hopefully this clear message will help America return to some semblance of values, competence, professionalism and honesty in its foreign policy.

Obama has embarked on a profound sociological and political gamble. He gambles by offering the electorate a deep respect by quietly and firmly telling truths. His campaign, to a degree unparalleled in normal campaigning, constantly and repetitively gambles that voters of all stripes, indeed, can handle the truth. It must be at times agony to watch the 'gotcha' spin from opponents and the press while waiting to see if the American citizenry can make intelligent decisions faced with a cacophony of spin.

So far the voters have proved Obama's respect for them to be well placed. They have showed their common sense by ignoring mindless spin battles and continuing to vote increases in Obama's winning lead primary numbers.

Hillary has made herself into the politician's worst nightmare, a caricature of the pandering politician. This week I am against trade deals says she as she enters a post-industrial state. This week I am a bird hunter she advertises. Last week I was a policy wonk and before that Mrs. Experience and whoops I find myself in rural hinterlands so fetch me a shot and a beer.

Obama was thoughtful, honest and a bit perhaps too cerebral last week. He was thoughtful, honest and trusting of the electorate and a bit perhaps too cerebral the week before. He said his white Gramma distrusted black people and that she said bigoted things, which was honest, thoughtful, respectful of his listener's intelligence and a bit too cerebral the week before that. Pennsylvania's rural voters in the majority accept that there is bitterness and a penchant to be angry over race, guns and religion but Barack's delivery would have been better couched in more palatable down to earth terms.

It must be agony for Barack and Michelle to watch and listen to twaddle gossip cast as news, waiting and waiting to see if common folks respond with common sense to not particularly revelatory truisms, that widespread unemployment encourages bitterness and that racism at varying levels is part of America's culture.

I'd like to think that the Obama family is actually in a "win-win" situation. They will continue to rise above pandering political showmanship and tell truths, although perhaps in a voice a bit too cerebral. They will ask and tell the electorate that their understanding is required to define and tackle America's open sore problems in health care, job creation, a dollar driven Washington culture and the USA's international posture. If Americans in a majority can actually "handle the truth" we/they will stand with the Obamas when they inherit the White House and begin a brutal slog to "change." If, on the other hand, voters revert to distraction over race, religion, sexuality and Annie Oakley panderings then Barack's quest for truthful definitions to guide America will be seen as a bridge too far of an endeavor; a bit perhaps too cerebral.

America's young men and women will now be marching South to the oil important Basra area.
The purpose of the next 200 deaths in this region will be to promote voter suppression against MqSadr's political party.
Maliki and the central gov't are being paid well to follow US policy for gaining control of the oil resources. Sadr represents the nationalist interest for Iraq and our boys and girls must now squash his party. So?, says Cheney.
Sadr has been taking Ayatollah lessons and is emulating Ghandi by calling for nation wide non violent demonstrations.
He is a wily fox from a legendary martyrdom family. Stay tuned. Will Bush/Cheney (McCain?) mow down his followers? Ugh!

This was written before MqSadr called for his million man march. This will be interesting.
The word is that it's a good time to be buying, Crescent Sea Develpoment Ltd. it's listed on the Iranian Stock Exchange and is reputedly a favorite of the Ayatollahs.

Buying and Selling Housing Accounts as a Commodity

What Greenspan (and Paulson) euphemistically call 'mis pricing risk' by the nation's financiers is more aptly described as their collective purchasing of 90% to 100% leveraged commodity accounts.
At the end of the day, homes are a commodity. There are laws regulating the purchase and financing of commodities; there are strict margin requirements and lots of bold print that purchasing a commodity carries a high degree of risk, to wit, you may lose your shirt.
Having thought about this for a moment, the question becomes who in their right mind would set out to purchase someone else's commodity position which had little or no equity, just the position holders' promise to pay interest on the borrowed funds?  
If you are a bank that has access to buyers that accept the premise that housing always increases in value, then by all means, create or buy this type of commodity mortgage account, warehouse them and resell them. It's a business plan. I package and sell, you package and sell, just be mighty careful when the music stops because at that point the bankers own these crap assets that they intended to sell off to others. Merrill Lynch got caught and burned warehousing several billions.
Gold is a commodity which has the flavor of always going up but yet there are margin requirements. Housing, given that the number of buyers always increases and they ain't making any more land you know, seems a sure bet "over time." Near term however it's a commodity, subject to rises and falls due to interest rate changes, recessions, speculative fevers and inflation.
The banks, etc are idiots for placing their firms' equity in jeopardy by creating and holding no equity housing accounts. It's not wholly new however. The banks crashed with excess lending to REITs, Latin America and experienced some hemorrhaging from the tech bubble.
But. And this is a huge but as we head into an election year. Imagine if Mr. Bush had wooed America into placing social security assets into private accounts (because the stock market always goes up ye brethren.)
What would have occurred is that the housing speculation bubble would have lasted considerably longer as Wall St. packaged and sold retail strips of near worthless housing accounts to the nation's social security network.
At least recognize in this last greed driven market bubble or market fever fiasco that the finance industry has wiped out its net worth repeatedly over the last forty years. Keeping Wall Street's mitts off of Social Security should now perhaps be a subject for a constitutional amendment.

Revote, no revote the Super D's still decide.
First I'll say I agree with the general pooh-pooh  sentiment regarding Greg Sargent's post about a new plan being floated in Florida.. Why someone would call this a new plan when it is patently unworkable and useless is over my head.
The answer to the Fla and MI issue already exists. Super delegates will each have an opinion at the end of the day what the reasonable probable results of a full out Fla/MI revote would add to Hillary's and Barack's total. For discussion sake say a range of Hillary 4 to 10 delegate uptick and 100,000 to 350,000 vote uptick.
If the high end of these numbers turns out to be crucial to the final national tallies, the super delegates can base their decisions on that perception. Conversely if it's clear that Barack wins the pledged delegate count and the total vote count, the super delegates can base their choices on that perceived data.
The point is, that the candidate who becomes the Democratic nominee will in all cases be called to compete with McCain by the super delegates. They know today what the probable results of a Fla/Mi redo would be and can cast their votes with an easy conscience. Additional polling which would include the mathematically modeled results that Barack always, always closes any Hillary advantage when he campaigns in a state could be purchased to clarify probable results.
I think that there is a 95% chance that the super delegates have more than enough reliable information on Fla/MI outcomes to cast their support to either Barack or Hillary comfortably and intelligently.
Revote, no revote, the super d's are get to call the eventual outcome. Move on.

Capitalism, Binge Lending and Spillage

.

As the big boys say in Alcoholics Anonymous, "I've spilled more booze than you've even thought of drinking." Likewise the shear waste and uneconomic spillage in US capitalistic practice is an unseen, mind boggling sum of money.

Having personally inked $$ billions of loan deals and met folks destined for both the White House and for jail the most important thing I would like each voter (and economist) to know is:

"The gross dollar value of the rank waste and economic inefficiencies in 'big boy' capitalism is more than sufficient to many times fund both Social Security and Medicare shortfalls."

When the corporate and financial types declaim that there isn't enough money to pay reasonable taxes and/or to provide a broad safety net for the disenfranchised folks in our society tell them to shut their greedy yaps. Offer them the following deal.

"You make sure the poor can eat and get medical necessities and we'll let you continue to take a small bite out of all the capital flows that wash around financial centers, including embezzlement like bonuses and commissions for your daily toil and for your latest bubble-like ponzi-smacking get-rich fiasco(s). But, be aware of our recognition that the Pound Sterling and the Euro, currency representatives for the full-out 'Socialism' of Europe, are hands down taking the Dollar to the cleaners. Significant change is needed and the broom is in your hands."

"For the moment!"

(The "Fairy Tale" in the Clinton campaign)

.

Bill Clinton nakedly lied to the nation and the fact that the Democrats are not discussing it in no way means that it has gone away.

His national standing was then so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due. It somehow seems dead wrong that a process has begun, the culmination of which will be to again place this once disgraced man in the White House. We live in the era where stardom supersedes values for the masses, a la American Idol and the "Brittany" effect, but primary voters and the Democratic Party should think long and hard before they offer philandering Bill the first spouse position.

I could vote for the Clinton him/her or her/him combo but there is a "Fairy Tale" being told in the Clinton electioneering speeches.

The fairy tale is that Hillary can remotely match Barack Obama's ability to affect change in Washington. She/he can claim more experience in the legislative process, etc. but the fact that so many people despise her/him will end up with the legislative process being hallmarked by brutal antagonism. Look for the first ever Republican congressperson to perform self immolation rather than give Bill and Hillary passage of any historic legislation. Sadly, they simply have too much negative baggage to approach Senator Obama's potential for a massive November turn out leading to systemic change and some modicum of national healing.

Labels: Barrack, change, Clinton, fairy tale, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Published Letters to Editor The Eagle

Corporations thirty years ago or so contributed over twenty percent of the tax revenues collected by our IRS. That number is now only seven percent.

Presumably this has come about in part because of the modern ability with computers to instantly reallocate costs, profit centers and scheme like deductions on a global scale.

It has also come about as the hordes from K Street each win a tax break here and a tax break there from their future brethren now sitting in the legislatures.

My proposal is a variable corporate tax rate.

First, set the percentage of total USA taxes required from the corporate sector (for example let’s say 12%). Then on a past year or past quarter rolling basis inform the corporate tax payers what their tax rate is; the rate necessary to meet the 12% goal.

Doesn’t this seem a fair way (as a citizen) to establish a countervailing power to the hold Corporate America has over the taxing powers, i.e. all legislatures?

If you’re economically geeky you may also appreciate a beautifully humorous scenario unfolding from this plan.

If the total amount of taxes to be paid is a set sum per period, then, when one company or one industry negotiates a large tax reduction this will cause the other corporations and industries to pay additional taxes to meet the set goal. Tax boondoggles become a competitive endeavor with each lobbyist’s gain a loss to a competing K Streeter.

Not only is there a smiley thought in envisioning members of the Armani suit cross my palm with lucre K Streeters being at each others throats as they compete to buy favors but tax cuts would have to pass a rigorous economic cost benefit analysis to meet approval.

Well, gee, that’s kinda funny too and somewhat novel.

(Next week: "Squeals drown out proposal to cap Pork in Congress")

I see writings everywhere that people are upset with legislation to not allow a few tens of thousands of 'resetting' mortgages to default. Damn those stupid borrowers they say. Let the free market work. To me this is horrendously uninformed and naive thinking. I say.

What you espouse seems so right; so logically straight forward. It, however, for the most part is simply dead wrong and off target.

Forget entirely who made the loans, both the borrower and the initial lender. Trillions of dollars of mortgage loans were made and having been made these promises to pay became assets; account receivables to the hedge funds and institutions that subsequently purchased them.

Any middling good economist knew that excesses were going on and that with a rise in interest rates a ton of these CMO assets would default or otherwise decline in value.

So,and nevertheless, the pros, the hedge funds and their mega wealthy clients and other financial institutions still gobbled up these assets.

There was indication aplenty that the ratings were hyped on CMOs and that the financiers were buying some portion of junk assets. Caveat emptor.

In summary, the big boys bought crap assets and being leveraged their entire equity is exposed. As and if the free market was nakedly allowed to operate the big boys equity and concomitant lending resources would evaporate.

Hence the government steps in and says, "You know, the two hundred billion in mortgages that are shaky? Well, we're going to going to say that they are okay for the next cycle at least."

And you say, "Oh, they're now okay and no one needs to write off their equity and go out of business. How swell is that?"

Bottom line. The government cares not a whit that Jane, Joe, Dick or Harry will default and lose homes. They care that the big boys will tank due to their stupidity and that the credit resources of America will then hemorrhage.

Unfortunately, allowing the free market to work in this instance could be a mega disaster for all so the big money guys will of necessity be bailed out.

Jane and Joe, not so much.!

A cunning, brilliant, spectacularly amoral solution.

(Opening thoughts on the US Executive Branch signing an agreement for a major long term military presence in Iraq.)

As Malaki accepts the Honorary post of Shah of Iraq once promised to Chalabi, the Iraqi nationalists and the Iraqi fundamentalists are sold down the river.

Who said that two wrongs could not make a right or that a continuous pattern of incompetence as in BushCo arming proscribed elements..."other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime;"....(the Sunnis) could not make the Shia holler Uncle ("Sam").

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you just gotta love it.

Wait until the coming Democrat executive cum majority tells our Iraqi co-signors that they have to inaugurate women's rights to keep our support.

Have I just been transmigrated to Doonesbury World? Hello! Hello!

.

Camel Thongs Don’t Cut the Mustard

(A Western fable)

“Lookee here Mister Chief Native, I’ll trade you guns and firewater for the land you call “Gusher Canyon”. You know which area I mean, where we put up those oil derricks years ago.”

“Sorry, today is a Sacred Day, ’all praise to Mother Bear‘.”

“Look, screw a bunch of Sacred Days, we’ll throw in fifty aisles worth of jeans. Your daughters will love em, especially the low hippers so’s their little belly buttons can get some air.”

“Not possible, today is sacred day, ‘bless brother antelope.’”

“All right, for Christ sake, you’re killing us. We’ll give you guns, firewater, three Wal Mart’s of enticing jeans, a gross of Estee Bauder nipple and labia piercing Pierce-o-matic Pro Guns, ten tattoo parlors fully equipped and an era’s long subscription to Rap music from both the “Dysfunction Is Me’ and “Misogyny Rocks” labels. And you get bison and camel thongs. Camel thongs from “Allah’s Little Secret” label in every color under the sun. Now do we have a deal?”

“Today is Sacred. All praise our ancestors.”

“Praise your arse. I’ll be back tomorrow. We’re not going away, you know that.”

“Tomorrow is a sacred day.”

“Up your sacred days.”

“Everyday is a sacred day, kneel and bow to the East.”

“Bullshit on your every day is a sacred day horse pucky. You can stick Mother Bear you know where. There’s something you guys want and I’m gonna find out what.”

“Everyday is a sacred day. However.....”

“Yes, yes sacred, totally sacred, but ‘however’ what? You son of a sacred snake, ‘however’ what? What is it you’re considering?”

“Well, remember that line of fissionable material you showed me.... maybe just one more little peek.”

“Tex’, help, we done got us a problem. We’re gonna be here til the cows come home and listen to me for once, jeans and camel thongs are not cuttin’ the mustard.”

"Bubba, shut your trap with the mustard bullshit. These fucks don't eat hot dogs. Even I know that."

“

Labels: fear is politics, kill the savages, mideast oil, nuclear aspirations

The comments and Iraqi' discussions in the next three paragraphs below, but definitely not conclusions, are from the Washington Monthly blog.

Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.

"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."

Humam Hamoudi, a prominent Shiite cleric and parliament member, said any future reconciliation would emerge naturally from an efficient, fair government, not through short-term political engineering among Sunnis and Shiites.

Such as it is, I interpret from the Iraqis, in the above discussions, that they in a gestalt manner have declared that a government exists.

If you can noodle what gestalt means and apply a little logic here a consensus government now exists in Iraq.

One clarion hint is that all of the squabbling Iraqi interests have now pretty much agreed on the defining elements of the problem. Unity in defining the problem was a necessary milestone which is finally allowing prospective solutions from a 'government' to be aired or implemented. Lo that it took four years and all the dimwittery of Bushco but kicking five million Sunnis down the steps and considering strategies to invite them to return does take a while.

Does this gestalt of a government make a difference. I hate to tell you.

As the idea that a gestaltian Iraqi government has formed progresses from intellectual argument to recognizing that demonstrable progress toward Iraqi peace is inevitable the GOP and Bush favorables are going to go up.

Somebody, or everybody, in the Democrat camp had better plan on ideas, opinions and strategies that include winning in '08 with the situation in Iraq markedly improving.

(Co-opt the GOP, give credit to Murtha and the Democratic Party's relentless drive to bring the troops home if nothing else comes to mind.)

Gestalt: -A physical or symbolic configuration, pattern, or organized field having specific properties that cannot be derived from the summation of its component parts; a unified whole.

Labels: Bush uptick possible, election strategy needed, Iraq government appears, merde, this is bad news!

Basic Palmocracy Do's and Don'ts

My Mother often tells the story how, some 60 years ago, a local small town official, to explain politics to her said, "When it comes to politics, its like this. Spit in one hand and put money in the other and see which way their head starts tilting."

Think of the upturned palms in Washington. Think of the K Street money machinery. Think of the billions we hand out to dictators and despots worldwide wide who align with us or at least give good lip service.

The proper term for this form of government is a "Palm-ocracy."

The goal in Iraq was to form a 'palmocracy' with Chalabi as the bursar in chief. It's the American way. Why then does everybody from Rep. Waxman, the Nation magazine and its liberal sisterhood and the blogosphere go ape because a few billion $$ are missing in Iraq? It makes no sense to me. The $$ failure in Iraq is not that a truck load or two of $$$ are missing but that BushCo failed to to find a home for this moola which had any sustainable political or military weight to it. If it's ten billion a week to fight the war and accrue dead troops, what is the fuss that a few days cash flow went missing in a hemorrhaged buyout?

This thinking gives rise to the following timeless lessons encapsulated in "Palmocracies, Foreign & Domestic" the remorsefully edited edition, 'Wolfowitz Cheney Press.'

Never invade a country to promote aligning interests unless you can, with certainty, determine who you can effectively bribe.

Also, never attempt to occupy a country with two Popes.