As an ordinary citizen with college-101-level economics expertise, I am puzzled by what is absent from the current financial rescue proposal:  that all or some of the $700 billion be given directly to homeowners who lost or are about to lose their homes through foreclosure, instead of the Wall St. securities firms, banks, investors, insurance companies, etc.

As I understand it, the weakened housing market remains at the center of the economic storm, and things won't truly turnaround until it stabilizes (as with Japan in the '90's). A family behind in mortgage payments could use government aid to stabilize their finances and keep their home, which I assume is better for the housing market than for the house --and neighborhoods full of such houses across America-- to sit empty until a new buyer comes around.

It also seems better for communities and employers to have fewer people missing work, relocating, and kids missing school as inevitably happens to people who lose their homes. People who are scrimping to make mortgage payments would likely redirect more spending on consumer goods, which would stimulate economic activity.

I can imagine all the arguments against this --that consumers who defaulted on mortgages can't be trusted with the money; it would just be a temporary fix until homeowners fall behind again next year; it isn't fair to Wall St. investors.

But the folks running institutions like AIG and Lehman Brothers, if anyone, have proven they cannot be trusted with other people's money (and they seem likely to pocket much of it for themselves, rather than help people keep their homes). And I don't see how "fairness" has ever been an argument for the recent round of bailouts --it's all about keeping the economy healthy, right?

I'll cheerfully listen to any generous post explaining the economics of why giving this money to taxpayers is the dumbest idea ever, or why the feds shouldn't just nullify some of the variable-rate mortgages that gullible consumers signed-on for.

As a taxpayer, I'm much more willing to help struggling neighbors than the jerks on Wall St., and --politicians take note-- other taxpayers surely feel the same.

The folks at Gawker have posted screen shots from an apparantly hacked Yahoo! email account belonging to Sarah Palin.

Looks like she was sereptitiously using the account for official business insteade of her government account  --a serious no-no-- as some of these emails are already being sought in the Troopergate investigation.

No wonder Carly Fiorina loves her...

In response to Josh's earlier request, here are some examples today of the news media failing to accurately report the McCain campaign's mass-lying strategy:

1. Darrell West on CNN: 2008 Campaign attack ads hit an all-time low 9/15/2008:

Like most other "neutral" pundits, West can cite specific smears used against Thomas Jefferson's and Grover Cleveland, but not against Al Gore or John Kerry... Note his preference for the word "erroneously" to describe McCain's attacks and "falsely" for Democratic groups [emphasis mine]:

John McCain broadcast an ad taking Barack Obama's words out of context and suggesting Democrats were trying to compare GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin to a pig. The McCain campaign ran another spot erroneously claiming Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners.

Democrats have not been above reproach either. After McCain secured the GOP nomination this spring, outside groups falsely claimed the Republican supported a 1,000-year war in Iraq and therefore was not worthy of the presidency.

These misleading appeals suggest voters must remain vigilant about candidate, party, and group claims. Generally, the most misleading commercials have come from independent groups uncoordinated with the candidates.

2. AFP (No Byline) McCain, Palin Defiant in Lies Storm 9/15/2008:

Seems like AFP wants to do the right thing here, despite some of the ol' moral equivalence:

Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin stand accused Monday of trying to "lie" their way into the White House with discredited claims and advertising -- and it's not just outgunned Democrats crying foul.

Non-partisan fact-check operations, newspapers and opinion columnists are also charging McCain, once a darling of the press, of cloaking the election in sleaze and unfairly smearing Democrat Barack Obama.

With the United States locked in two foreign wars, punished by its thirst for Middle Eastern oil and with the economy plummeting, the race was consumed for two days last week by McCain camp claims Obama called Palin a "pig."

US election campaigns and hardball advertising always push the limits of truth and often amount to outright distortion -- the Obama camp has not hesitated to blur McCain's record too.

Blurring, lying, what-ever. And here's the ultimate statement from a dysfunctional, soulless press corps:

Whatever its morality, the final judgement on McCain's strategy will be dictated by whether it works.

Ugh.

3. Glora Borger, CNN Candidates of 'change' stick to politics as usual 9/15/2008

A veritable banquet of shallow insight and journalistic relativism [emphasis added]:

[Palin] was a purely political choice. It had nothing to do with governing or with who would be best able to step up to the job of the presidency should that need arise. It was about finding a woman to appeal to those disaffected Clinton supporters and finding a true social conservative to appeal to the GOP base that has been so unenthusiastic about McCain.

Not that Obama's choice of Biden wasn't political, too: Biden is a Catholic with appeal to those working-class voters in battleground states who still can't connect with Obama. [they can't? --Ed. ]And, by the way, he brings foreign policy credibility, too.

Biden's extensive foreign policy work is a substantive  qualification for VP, and the #1 reason Obama picked him. Gloria spun it bass-ackwards: Biden's working-class Catholic roots are his "by the way" attribute. More:

Then Obama responds [to McCain lies], with an ad mocking McCain as an out-of-touch, computer-illiterate candidate who can't possibly understand your problems.

OK, we get it: He's old.

Here's the problem for both of these campaigns: This bickering won't sustain the rest of the campaign. You can't argue about change by saying you were there first. You can't claim that experience -- no matter how much -- is enough to lead. You can't make a blatant play for special-interest groups (and that includes women) and wind up with a united country, even if you win.

Borger should feel ashamed to collect a paycheck for such relativistic garbage. As John Stewart said about corporate media campaign coverage, "they never tell you who's right, just who's winning."

The Republican Party built it's political power base by mass-marketing a singular bogus claim: people who ascribe to right-wing conservative beliefs behave more honestly, ethically and morally than people who do not.

They've preached that every social ill results from individual moral failing and/or a lack of religious faith: poverty, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, terrorist attacks, substance abuse—even natural disasters.

They've insisted that so-called “liberal” values and policies  —empiricism, human rights, pluralism, collective bargaining, stem cell research, comprehensive health education, environmental protection, progressive taxation, Social Security, women’s rights—  caused an epidemic of moral failure, weakened national resolve, and left us first slouching, then skipping towards Gomorrah.

The nation’s problems, they claimed, were just the citizenry’s lack of conservative religiosity writ large; their solution was to eradicate the slightest hint of “liberalism” in governance, adopt policies based upon “correct” right-wing ideology (found mostly in ultraconservative religious teachings), and place ultraconservative Republicans in charge of government.

Enter Sarah Palin, touted as the latest examplar of curative Right Wing Values. She's a religious conservative who ascribes to the Conservatively Correct views on social issues, notably opposing birth control, comprehensive sex education, and reproductive choice for women. She raised her kids according to these values, and guess what?  Her unmarried teenage daughter got pregnant.

Yes, in the best-resourced family of hardest-core preachers of right-wing conservative values, 17 year-old Bristol fooled around under Mom and Dad's nose (just like most other teenagers). As if
David Vitter, Dr. David Hagar, Helen Chenoweth, Ed Schrock, Vito Fossella, Duke Cunningham, Rev. Ted Haggert, Cardinal Bernard Law, Henry Hyde, George Roche III, Mark Foley, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingstone, Jimmy Swaggert and Phil Giordano weren't proof enough, we're reminded again that Republican claims of moral superiority are a scam.

Right-wing conservatives are more likey --not less-- to abuse the public trust and engage in corrupt, deviant and exploitative behavior. Their constant sermonizing and moral attacks are just camouflage
and misdirection from their own misdeeds.

Republicans are spinning the Palin teenage pregnancy as an act of virtue because she's agreed to marry the father and have the baby. Can you imagine the Republican reaction similarly if a teenage Chelsea Clinton or unmarried Sarah Gore got preganant? The Right would be lining-up to call them sluts, fornicators, etc. and would blame it all on their parents' "liberal" values.

Time for the media and all honest Americans to call bullshit on the Republican morality scam.

In Arizona did Kubla McCain

7 stately pleasure domes decree:
Where Abramoff and sleazebag lobbyists, ran
Through bribes measureless to a working man

                Among the elitist GOP.

He built one mansion in Sedona’s precious sands
With walls to hide Big Oil’s greedy hands:
And Wall Street cash flowed from gilded spigots;
While Kubla McCain dined with Swift Boat bigots

In Phoenix did Kubla McCain aquire more pleasure

Bought a mega-ranch with Cindy’s treasure
Where the Keating 5 would come to drink and dance

Among the pampered parasites of inheritance

Yes, pleasure domes did Kubla McCain collect

Not far from Warren Jeffs’ weird sect

In Scottsdale, Flagstaff and Cucamonga Junction

all stocked with pills for erectile dysfunction.

 

Then an American asked of Kubla McCain
(‘casuse Bush’s class warfare casued his country such pain):

“How many pleasure palaces, in fact, do you own,

While middle-class families work their fingers to the bone?”

”And are they all surrounded by by moat, sand or wall?”

But Kubla McCain stammered, “uh, well, I don’t recall...”

“A condo here, maybe a condo there...
but I’m a regular guy like you, I swear!”

 

The American replied, “I didn’t mean to cause you distress,

but I thought you rode the Straight Talk Express...?”

 

Said Kubla McCain, “I do!  I’m not lyin!  I feel your regular-guy pain!
And did you know Obama’s middle name is ‘Hussein’?”  Yes,

That boy is black, and his wife? Even blacker!
Rush Limbaugh once said that she called me a ‘cracker!’”

 

“I just asked how many houses,”  the American did insist

But follow-up questions get Kubla McCain pissed

“I don’t answer to you little people,”  he said, extra-riled

 While somewhere in hades, Leona Helmsley smiled.

Then Kubla McCain got grumpy when his pleasure domes made news
So he stomped marbled floors in his $500 shoes
”I know “ he fumed to his servants, “how to make this all stop”

“ I’ll announce another patented McCain Flip-Flop!”

“Broder will praise it, so will Brooks no matter what,
And there’s always Jeff Gannon (though he’s kind of a slut)
Yes, the MSM loves me, tho’ I’m a pompous right-wing prick...”
Then Joe Lieberman whispered “you mean ‘original maverick’”

 

But the pandering must wait, here in pleasure dome number 4

Kubla McCain walks through an imported arabesque door

To his private Olympic-size pool -a Mexican just skimmed it of slime

It is 2:35 --Kubla McCain’s Nap Time.

Everyone is hoping Harry Whittington has a full recovery from his gunshot wounds, but with the news that he experienced a "mild heart attack" from bridshot that migrated to his heart, folks in the White House are surely preparing for the worst even as they hope, pray and work for the best.

If Whittington dies as a result of this incident, would the Vice President be criminally liable --whether or not the family decides to press charges? If so, would he be forced to resign?

If not legally liable, would Cheney's moral liability force him from office? Would personal guilt and saddness be too much of a burden for him to bear while performing his duties?

What if Whittington partially reovers, but is permanently parylzed or otherwise debilitated?

I don't mean to be at all morbid or insensitive here, but I suspect that the Veep's public absence is partly the result of anxiety and uncertainty over some of these very questions.

The fact that the shot was deep enough to move to his heart suggests this is much more serious than they're letting on.

UPDATE:

Yes, there's more than they're letting on. Apparantly Whittington was much worse than "peppered," and may have been close to death at the time of the incident. From the Dallas Morning News:

Sally (Whittington) May said her father does not recall a lot of the incident, nor was he involved in how or whether information about the incident was released: "He didn't know at the time if he was going to the hospital or the mortuary." The doctors were back around Monday morning. They have mostly been concerned with injuries to his throat.

Also, CNN reported that the White House knew of Whittington's heart attack before today's press briefing, but witheld the information until after.

UPDATE #2:

The NY Times notes the legal possibilities for Cheney in the event of a fatality:

Under the law, even an accidental hunting fatality can result in criminal charges. Mr. Cheney could be charged with negligence, defined as failing to understand the dangers involved and disregarding them, or recklessness, defined as understanding the dangers and disregarding them.

In the same article, they also quote the local District attorney:

In Texas, Carlos Valdez, the district attorney in Kleberg County, said a fatality would immediately spur a new report from the local sheriff and, most likely, a grand jury investigation.

This just in from John Solomon and Pete Yost at AP:

Abramoff Said to Claim Close Ties to Rove

Three former associates of Jack Abramoff said Monday that the now-disgraced lobbyist frequently told them during his lobbying work he had strong ties to the White House through presidential confidant Karl Rove. The White House said Monday that Rove remembers meeting Abramoff at a 1990s political meeting and considered the lobbyist a "casual acquaintance" since President Bush took office in 2001.

The article proceeds with now-predictable he-said-she-said dickering over whether or not, maybe, possibly, REPUBLICAN LOBBYIST and BUSH PIONEER Jack Abramoff mighta, coulda had some vague connection to Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

Cripes, even the accompanying photo is subtitled "disgraced lobbyist" Jack Abramoff --they just insist on concealing Republican Jack Abramoff's party affiliation.

When are Josh Marshall, the Democratic Party, and other advocates of honest government going to get smart about communication in the instant media age?

There is a reason the right-wing dominated corporate media continues its efforts to spin the Republican Jack Abramoff scandal as bi-partisan: we are letting them do it!

Nowehere in today's AP article about Senator Reid --cited by Josh on TPM-- do Solomon & Theimer identify Abramoff for who he is: a Republican lobbyist.

Their article's insinuations about Reid would be dismissed immediately had they accurately identified him as Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, because logically he's not going to be helping opposition Democrats.

You'll find the same thing in major print, radio and television news coverage of this scandal: Abramoff is almost never identified explicitly as Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff or as a lifelong Republican.

This is largely our fault for letting them get away with it.

Anytime we mention Jack Abramoff we must identify his as REPUBLICAN LOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF or better yet, DISGRACED REPUBLICAN LOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF.

A while back, Josh flagged the Bushies' and the corporate media's effort to spin Republican Jack Abramoff as an equally bi-partisn scandal. He invited suggestions in TPM cafe for how we could counter this.

In response, I postd the simple suggestion that we identify him as Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff at every mention. Not that I'm anybody, but this suggestion was ignored. Josh, who is read by many in the corporate media, failed to promote this accurate meme in his blog entries or interviews.

The Republicans by contrast, use every second of face time and every bit of bandwidth to promote their message and memes (e.g. "terrorist surveillance program," "private accounts," "medicare savings," etc.).

When is our side going to get smart, discplined and aggressive? When are we going to start acting like advocates and salesmen instead of facilitators and conversationalists?

It's not hard; repeat after me: Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff...