A Request For Advice From My Readers

Hello all. I would like a little advice from you if you don't mind. I intend to the change the name of the blog within the next week or two and I would like your input. I'm playing around with four ideas and would like your thoughts...

The United States of Wayne (Because it sounds sort of funky...and...well, let's face facts, shall we? Don't we ALL think we could run this country a bit better than the goon currently manning the helm?)

The Twelfth Floor (After the infamous dance club in Andrew Holleran's classic novel "Dancer From the Dance.")

Wayne In the City (City boy that I am...)

Wayne, Oh! (Friends called me "Wayne-o" in high school, and my little sister still does.)

Shoot me an email with your thoughts on the matter - or with other ideas. Simply click the "email me" link to the right under "correspondence." I may post a few more ideas later in the week.
Thanks everyone!

Three New Polls and a Map

Two new national polls and a poll in Virginia show Barack Obama with comfortable leads, outside the margins of error.

CNN/Opinion Research:

Obama 51%
McCain 46%

DailyKos/Research 2000:

Obama 49%
McCain 43%

In Virginia, a Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Sen. Obama moving into a sold lead over John McCain, with most of the movement in the Democrat's direction coming in the last few days:

Obama 51%
McCain 43%

I'd normally call the Virginia poll an outlier, but SurveyUSA, whose polling was absolutely stellar during the primary season, had a very similar result yesterday:

Obama 51%
McCain 45%

These two polls by no means indicate that Virginia is safe for Obama. It is, after all, a state that hasn't gone Democratic in a presidential election since 1964. But, add those two leads to that the fact that North Carolina (last Democratic in 1976) is tied, and one has to at least wonder how stupendous it would be if, on Election Night, two states of the old confederacy vote for the first African-American president.

I'm not holding my breath, and I'll pay closer attention to the polls the last week before the election, but right now it looks promising.

And so here is the updated map, as I see it, based on the current polling:


Obama 286
McCain 237
Tied 15

2 in 1: Eye Candy and Song of the Day

This morning your Song of the Day is by one mighty nice piece of eye candy. From his 2002 album "Daylight," here is a little known yet superb piece of pop-rock...

"On A High" by the devastatingly handsome Duncan Sheik

George Will: McCain Unpresidential

George Will, the true red-blooded American conservative - and the rest of the ABC This Week Roundtable - rake McCain over the coals:

It Was 1932

The map in yesterday's "Which Election Was It?" post is from 1932. The United States was bogged down in the Great Depression, with Republican President Herbert Hoover standing by his conservative principles (ie: let it work itself out) while banks closed and Americans went hungry and homeless. One-term Democratic Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York (former Secretary of the Navy under President Wilson, and the 1920 candidate for vice-president on the losing Democratic ticket) won a landslide victory on his platform to bring America a "new deal."

Emmy Award Winner Sarah Silverman

Ladies and gentlemen, the Emmy Award for Original Music and Lyrics goes to...Sarah Silverman!

(I shit you not!)

The Farce

Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan, Naomi Klein, and Will.I.Am. in a brutally honest exchange on the farce that is the vice-presidential nomination of Sarah Palin...

Changed Thinking

Quote of the Day:

As gay couples have gone to the courthouse and entered into matrimony, usually surrounded by champagne, family and friends, the worst fears of gay marriage opponents suddenly seem greatly inflated...

The long-standing institution of marriage is not in crisis. Californians have taken this change in stride.

The editorial page of the San Diego Union Tribune, who have until recently urged civil unions over marriage for gay and lesbian couples, in an essay last week urging readers to reject Proposition 8 here in California.

The proposed amendment to the state Constitution is currently failing, with 55% of state voters against it and only 38% for it, according to a new Field Poll. The key now is to make sure we keep the margin that big between now and Election Day, just in case these samples contain votes who are telling the pollsters one thing only to turn out on November 4th and do something else.

If you have a few bucks to spare, please donate against the fascist cause here.

Little Miss Chloe

Bringing me her new tug-of-war toy...

A Risk We Can't Afford

Obama hits McCain hard with this new ad...

Old Boys Network

More superb analysis from TPM's Josh Marshall:

The New York Times reports this evening that "foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the [Wall Street bailout] plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks.

The Times further reports that two of the biggest foreign banks in need of such relief are Barclays and UBS. In fact, my understanding is that UBS is more on the line here than any other foreign bank.

Let's add this up.

John McCain's top economics advisor, who is widely believed to be his choice for Treasury Secretary, should he win in November, is former Sen. Phil Gramm. (Indeed, just last night his spokesman refused to say Gramm wouldn't be McCain's choice for Treasury Secretary.)

Gramm is both vice chairman of UBS's US division and a lobbyist for UBS.

If UBS successfully lobbied over the weekend to get in on the bailout, what was Gramm's role in the lobbying?

Between the pick of Palin as V.P. and the potential pick of Gramm as Treasury Secretary, it is more than obvious that John McCain doesn't have the judgment to be president. Americans should reject him without question on Election Day.

Putting Out Fire With Gasoline

As I learn more and more about the government's banking bailout plan, I keep thinking to myself that this is the Bush administration (for crying out loud!), and that we should not be trusting them to handle a crisis of this magnitude. These are, after all, the guys that see a fire and try to put it out with gasoline (Iraq) or simply freeze and don't do anything (Katrina). Don't you think?

But...totally unrelated...that thought put this classic David Bowie rocker in my head. From 1983's "Let's Dance" album, the track was produced by the legendary Nile Rodgers and features Rodgers and the late Stevie Ray Vaughn doing some superb guitar work. Your Song of the Day is...

"Cat People (Putting Out Fire)"

Telling Us What We Don't Want to Hear

As always, Thomas Friedman hits the nail on the head. This time regarding last week's financial meltdown. Some key parts of yesterday's column follow:

...In this age of globalization, government matters more than ever. Smart, fiscally strong governments are the ones best able to empower their people to compete and win...

In many ways, this election is about how we get our groove back as a country. We have been living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. President Bush has nothing to offer anymore. So that leaves us with Barack Obama and John McCain. Neither has wowed me with his reaction to the market turmoil. In fairness, though, neither man has any levers of power to pull. But what could they say that would give you confidence that they could lead us out of this rut? My test is simple: Which guy can tell people what they don’t want to hear — especially his own base.

So what would get my attention from McCain? If he said the following: “My fellow Americans, I’ve decided for now not to continue the Bush tax cuts, because the most important thing for our country today is to get the government’s balance sheet in order. We can’t go on cutting taxes and not cutting spending. For too long my party has indulged that nonsense. Second, I intend to have most U.S. troops out of Iraq in 24 months. We have done all we can to midwife democracy there. Iraqis need to take it from here. We need every dollar now for nation-building in America. We will do everything we can to wind down our presence and facilitate the Iraqi elections, but we’re not going to baby-sit Iraqi politicians who don’t have the will or the courage to reconcile their differences — unless they want to pay us for that. In America, baby sitters get paid.”

What would impress me from Obama? How about this: “The Big Three automakers and the United Auto Workers union want a Washington bailout. The only way they will get a dime out of my administration is if the automakers and unions come up with a joint plan to retool their fleets to get an average of 40 miles per gallon by 2015 — instead of the 35 m.p.g. by 2020 that they’ve reluctantly accepted. I am not going to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money, but I will invest in Detroit’s transformation with taxpayer money, provided the management and unions agree to radical change. At the same time, while I will go along with the bailout of the banking system, it will only be on the condition that the institutions that got us into this mess accept sweeping reforms — in terms of transparency and limits on the leverage they can amass — so we don’t go through something like this again. To help me figure this out, I’m going to keep Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on the job for a while. I am impressed with his handling of this crisis.”

Those are the kind of words that would get my attention. The last president who challenged his base was Bill Clinton, when he reformed welfare and created a budget surplus with a fair and equitable tax program. George W. Bush never once — not one time — challenged Americans to do anything hard, let alone great. The next president is not going to have that luxury. He will have to ask everyone to do something hard — and I want to know now who is up to that task.

The Trouble With Henry, Part 2

Josh Marshall can't seem to find an economist who is on board with the Bush administration's financial bailout plan:

I'm having a hard time finding economists or others with related expertise -- either on the right or left -- who don't believe two things: a) that this plan gives way, way too much discretionary power to the Treasury Department with little requirement even to make reports to Congres and b) as Paul Krugman puts it, "there's no quid pro quo here -- nothing that gives taxpayers a stake in the upside, nothing that ensures that the money is used to stabilize the system rather than reward the undeserving." Whether that means equity stakes for taxpayers or simply some assurance that the USG won't be paying premium prices for worthless crap, that key component just doesn't seem to be anywhere in the proposal.

And unless I'm not being clear, this request isn't simply for effect. This is not a rhetorical question. I'm really looking for examples. I can see lots of politicians saying we need to do something now or we'll all die and lining up to vote for whatever Paulson says. But I'm curious how many economists there are (or people with relevant professional expertise) who don't agree that these two shortcomings must be rectified.

As I said below, congress needs to be very careful. They need to take the time to actually comb through the proposal before voting on it. If there is any clue whatsoever that the plan may place America's financial house in increased jeopardy, it should be rejected outright.

The Trouble With Henry

Economic professor and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman doesn't think this federal bail out is such a great idea:

I hate to say this, but looking at the plan as leaked, I have to say no deal. Not unless Treasury [Secretary Henry Paulson] explains, very clearly, why this is supposed to work, other than through having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets.

As I posted earlier today, it seems all too likely that a “fair price” for mortgage-related assets will still leave much of the financial sector in trouble. And there’s nothing at all in the draft that says what happens next; although I do notice that there’s nothing in the plan requiring Treasury to pay a fair market price. So is the plan to pay premium prices to the most troubled institutions? Or is the hope that restoring liquidity will magically make the problem go away?

...And there’s no quid pro quo here — nothing that gives taxpayers a stake in the upside, nothing that ensures that the money is used to stabilize the system rather than reward the undeserving.

I hope I’m wrong about this. But let me say it again: Treasury needs to explain why this is supposed to work — not try to panic Congress into giving it a blank check. Otherwise, no deal.

As much as I think some sort of government intervention was needed, the scope of the administration's proposed plan does pose some very, very important questions. And the congress should make sure those questions are answered, and that the American people aren't being taken for a ride, before they pass the proposed bailout package.

This is, after all, the administration of George W. Bush. When it comes to handling crises, America and the rest of the globe don't trust the man one bit. He's a proven failure and, as such, the congressional leadership need to bend over backwards to make sure this proposal is solid and and that it isn't going to bury an already crumbling economy deeper into a hole.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (my congresswoman here in San Francisco) is already on my shit-list for not putting impeachment on the table and, most recently, for caving on the off-shore drilling issue. In fact, she will not receive my vote on November 4th for those two reasons. It'll be a protest vote, as she is sure to retain her seat by a wide margin, BUT...if she rolls over for a banking bill that will turn the economy on its ass, she'll need to pray to high heaven that she doesn't get a primary challenge the next time she stands for re-election.

Which Election Was It?

Following 12 years of Republican rule, the nation was reeling from a banking and economic crisis. The Democratic candidate won a landslide victory with 57.4% of the popular vote and 472 electoral votes. The Republican incumbent won just 39.6% of the national vote and 59 electoral votes.

Which election was it?

And Who's the Elitist?

From Newsweek:

After the fuss over the number of residences owned by the two presidential nominees, NEWSWEEK looked into the candidates' cars. And based on public vehicle-registration records, here's the score. John McCain: 13. Barack Obama: one.

New Poll: Obama Up By 7

This morning's DailyKos/Research 2000 poll has Barack Obama leading John McCain by seven percentage points:

Obama 49%
McCain 42%

It seems the financial meltdown of the past week has the chickens coming home to roost for the Republican-led government.

GOP Senator: Palin Pick 'Insulting'

Quote of the Day 2:

She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything.

I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, ‘I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia. That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.

-United States Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican-Nebraska), yesterday, to the Omaha World-Herald.

I have a very strong hunch that Hagel will be part of a bipartisan Obama cabinet, more than likely as Secretary of Defense. It has become plainly obvious during the course of the campaign that Hagel backs Obama's candidacy over McCain's.

And with Colin Powell admiring Obama from afar, I think it would be a tremendous boost to the Democratic ticket if both Hagel and Powell held a joint news conference announcing their endorsement of Barack Obama for president.

Perhaps around the time of the debate that is to be dedicated to foreign policy?

Just thinking out loud.

Ouch!

Via CNN:

Sarah Palin likes to tell voters around the country about how she "put the government checkbook online" in Alaska. On Thursday, Palin suggested she would take that same proposal to Washington.
"We're going to do a few new things also," she said at a rally in Cedar Rapids. "For instance, as Alaska's governor, I put the government's checkbook online so that people can see where their money's going. We'll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We're going to bring that back to D.C."

There's just one problem with proposing to put the federal checkbook online - somebody's already done it.

His name is Barack Obama.