In a liquidity crisis, the Bush admin. would naturally come up with a trickle-down solution: They want to take money out of all our pockets, ship it to the top, and let it trickle down to future taxpayers who are footing the bill.

If we are to spend $700 Billion to provide liquidity to the system, lets use a trickle up solution. The Gov. should issue $2,500 real estate certificates to every citizen of families making $150,000 a year or less. They could be sold or traded, but only redeemable by the government to banks for real estate purchases.

Can someone tell me why this wouldn't accomplish the same thing as Paulson's plan, while allowing us to touch the money before the banks got a hold of it?

It would be a lot simpler to administer.  It makes me choke watching them bend over backward to b"be fair" to all the banks.  Boy, we wouldn't want to discriminate there, would we?  What about us?

I think, without getting into conspiracy theories, that it is imperative that we realize the bailout as the October surprise we all feared would come. The Wall Street crisis is not the surprise, but the bailout itself.

An October surprise is a dramatic global event with enormous consequences that steals the control of the narrative from the challenging party and exposes them to tremendous risks no matter which way they respond.

The very fact that the bailout is couched in terms that would be unacceptable to so many Democrats should tip us off.

I am no expert, and so I can only see the broader arcs of the dilemma, but to quickly accede to the proposed bailout provides 700 Billion dollars of unfettered power to the executive branch, and cripples the flexibility of a new incoming administration.  To delay, play politics, insist on new regulations, runs the risk of making Democrats appear responsible for any continued collapse in the market over the next two months.

I don't have a clue what should be done, but I do know that the Democratic Party response needs to be  unified, and Obama, risky as it is, needs to step up to the plate and serve as the leader of the party.

In 2005, in the wake of Katrina, the earmark in Don Young's transportation bill for the Bridge to Gravina Island came under additional scrutiny.  It was the US Congress that stripped the earmark, but agreed to give Alaska the money for other transportation projects.

There would be no way for Gov. Palin to reject the earmark or the money in 2005, because she wasn't governor, in fact, she wasn't even running for governor yet.

In 2006,  Ketchikan was continuing to lobby for its bridge through State transportation funds. Palin, who was then running for Gov. at least gave lip service to funding the bridge.

The state continues to spend money on different feasibility options for Gravina Island access. To my knowledge the bridge has never been formally rejected as an option; it's only that less expensive alternatives are receiving more attention.

It is wise for the Obama campaign to avoid attacking Palin alone; they know it will provoke a protective reflex in key voting sectors, and it casts McCain into the sympathetic role of a protective father. They are right to try and focus the campaign back on McCain, but given the current national psycho-drama surrounding Palin at this point, that might be impossible.

The best choice is to attack them both together. Instead of repeating that McCain is four more years of Bush, let's say that McCain/Palin would be four more years of Bush/Cheney.  Attacking any one of Palin's weaknesses alone can appear desperate and even petty, but add them into a collage with Bush's & McCain's weaknesses and they create  patterns of weakness that are mutually reinforcing and powerfully damning.

Attack Palin repeatedly --never on experience,  but could we try to attack her on seriousness? Only attack her in connection with parallel attacks on Bush, Cheney & McCain. Such a strategy does elevate Palin in stature, yes, but we're going to have elevate her before we can knock her down. The sooner we do this, the better, otherwise she will be perpetually exceeding expectations.

Here are bones to several ads. This is just a start, add more if you wish...

What would four more years of the same look like?


1. Repeating the same falsehoods over and over until the people believe they are true...( Flashes of WMD quotes,
"rejection of the Bridge to Nowhere quotes,  the blue skies initiative, lies about Obama tax plan etc.

2. Secret meetings, hirings and firings: (flash:  US Atty firings, Troopergate., Cheney energy meeting, McCain Keating 5.etc etc)

3.Obstruction of Justice: (flashes: Palin withholds emails, White House deletes emails. McCain's votes to protect White House.etc)

4,  Massive deficits to serve lobbyist, special interest with out of control pork barrel spending: ( Flash: Palin holding BTNowhere Tshirt, Palins Wasilla record, Pictures of Abramoff etc.)

5. A war we cannot afford based on ignorance and arrogance (quotes all round)

6.A complete lack of seriousness about US foreign policy. (McCain's "Bomb Bomb Iran" clip--no need to mention Palin here.

7.  Who is going to keep him in line now? (juxtaposition of McCain Lieberman Shiite /Sunni flub, and any of Palin's present and future gaffes.)

Attack Palin where McCain is strong. Attack McCain where Palin is weak. The McCain camp will have a terrible time untangling it enough to respond.

From Andrew Sullivan: "I'm simply staggered that someone who could be president in an instant next January has been in her position for a week and cannot be asked questions by the press corps. Has this ever happened before in American history? Again: unbelievable. And terrifying."

Waiting to expose Palin to questions excites while reducing expectations, and attracts attention for the inevitable rollout. Her eventual press conference will attract more viewers than her nomination speech.  And for that event, if they are capable of it, they will give Palin some real and specific policy rollouts to frame the press conference. Since the evangelical right already knows she is one of them, everything else you see from her will be picture perfect moderation.  She is studying very hard now, but she's a very quick study, and a gifted politician--her rise from Mayor of Wassila  to Governor  cannot be attributed to the quirky electorate or small talent pool in a frontier state.  As an Alaskan who has been watching her, I assure you, she may never be up to the vice-presidency, but she is certainly up to the campaign. She will surpass expectations, which will reinforce the very compelling fairy tale that any American can become President,  She is the anti-Obama, and her story is just as powerful.  While Obama is an Ivy league graduate that elevates the aspirations of every American, she embodies the aspirations of every American. She is everything that Bush pretended to be. Terrified? You bet.  Open your wallets and hold on to your hats for a very tight race.

Carter's & Lowry's speeches were very inappropriate for a burial, and that's what protesting Republicans most devoutly wish: to bury Coretta Scott King.  A funeral is not a burial, however, it is a ritual for keeping a person alive-- even in death.  Lowry's & Carter's speeches were quite appropriate for her funeral, but the disconnect was this: President Bush was attending her burial; everyone else was attending her funeral.