Karen DeYoung at the WaPo had an interesting report on the change of style that Obama is bringing to the White House, particularly in how it approaches the military:

Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

There's no better way to lose a war than to have your on-the-ground decisions be forced through an ideological prism. And it was obvious even to outsiders that this was how Bush was conducting the Iraq war -- indeed, it was the decisive factor behind the very decision to invade in the first place. It's even more telling that the military minds involved saw that this was occurring too.

But in truth, this constitutes not merely the entire Bush approach to governance, but conservative governance as well. Thus -- to use one example out of many -- during Bush's tenure there was not a single economic problem that could not be solved by anything other than tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of the financial sector.

Of course, we now realize that this was simply a prescription for gobbling PCBs after a diagnosis of cancer.

So when we hear conservatives tell themselves that the reason they lost this last election was their failure to adhere to "conservative principles," we know they're continuing to cling to the very reason they lost. Because such adherence inherently means that these "principles" -- that is, conservative dogma about how they believe the world ought to be, particularly the insistence that government itself is the problem, when the reality is that bad governance is the problem -- trump their ability to face realities on the ground.

From the outset, it's clear that reversing that approach is the most fundamental aspect of the "change" that Barack Obama intends to bring to the White House. And that is a very good sign indeed.

A tale of two moral compasses. The NY Times issued an editorial exhorting Bush to not "abuse" the pardon privilege:

With the Bush administration drawing to a close, it is presidential pardon season. Presidents have become increasingly shameless about issuing pardons to insulate political cronies from prosecution, even to protect themselves. We hope President Bush will not abuse the pardon power by putting his appointees, political supporters or friends above the law.

The Constitution gives the president sweeping authority to grant pardons. The founders intended for presidents to use this power as an “act of grace” or to promote the public welfare. It was never intended to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for people close to the president who stretched, bent or broke the law.

A nice, if a bit naive, sentiment. The editorial goes on to point out how past presidents have abused the privilege, so it's not without precedent to have Bush issue pardons to whom he wishes to repay for their political loyalty (Hi, Scooter!).

But it is svengaliesque William Kristol whose advice will much more likely be heeded by his PNAC buddies and disciples in the Executive Branch. He argues in his Weekly Standard that the right thing for Bush to do is to pardon any and all foot soldiers in his War on Terror™:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning--and should at least be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

Unbelievable. This goes beyond immorality and straight into a complete lack of humanity. And let me for the record reiterate that Bill "Brave with other people's kids" Kristol has NEVER been right. Not once. Not when he cheerleaded the Iraq invasion and lied about the reasons. Not when he cheerleaded Sarah Palin and led the campaign to get her on the GOP ticket. Not once in his weekly appearances on Pravda, er...FoxNews has he ever given even the slightest semblance of being right. And now he goes against his employers at the NY Times (Jeez, what does it take to fire a bloodthirsty, warmongering amoral Republican flack? Obviously as much as it does in the US Senate) to suggest that those who have violated every principle that was supposed to be the American dream should get the farkin' Medal of Honor?

And sadly, the Villagers will look to this and not blink an eye.

Watertiger notices that the Preznit had himself a drinky-poo at this weekend's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation gathering in Lima. It's described in this AFP report too:

Even teetotalling US President George W. Bush, who famously quit drinking at 40, was spotted apparently sipping a pisco sour during the summit on Saturday.

It was unclear whether he actually drank any, or whether it was an alcohol-free version.

The White House rebuffed questions about the matter.

Libby Spencer at The Reaction observes that this isn't the first time in recent months that Bush has appeared have been drinking.

Of course, the whole "Bush as a teetotaler" story always had the appearance of being more propaganda than reality. Jane has written convincingly that Bush evinces the classic symptoms of the "dry drunk". But I've always wondered, honestly, just how dry he's really been these eight years.

Certainly the wreckage he's leaving behind isn't the mark of someone in full command of his faculties. But that may be another story.

John Amato:

And since the National Enquirer is now considered a legitimate news source by right wingers after Edwards, how can they refute this 2005 report that said Laura was very upset over it and planned to monitor him.

Bush, who said he quit drinking the morning after his 40th birthday, has started boozing amid the Katrina catastrophe.

Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First Lady Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he learned of the hurricane disaster.

His worried wife yelled at him: "Stop, George."

Following the shocking incident, disclosed here for the first time, Laura privately warned her husband against "falling off the wagon" and vowed to travel with him more often so that she can keep an eye on Dubya, the sources add

As the American economy plunges deeper into crisis, the conservative chattering classes are hoping for a replay of their 2001 blame game. Having successfully perpetuated the myth that President Bush "inherited a recession" from Bill Clinton, right-wing mouthpieces from Rush Limbaugh to Fred Barnes began blaming Barack Obama for the Bush recession literally within hours of his election. But as a quick glance at the data shows, across virtually economic indicator from GDP, unemployment and consumer confidence to home prices, foreclosures and manufacturing output, ownership for this mushrooming economic calamity squarely belongs to George W. Bush.

Gross Domestic Product. U.S. GDP shrank by 0.3% in the third quarter (July through September), a decline which followed the downward revision of the Q2 number from 3.3% to 2.8%. But while "recession" is traditionally defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction (which is almost certain to occur), the quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia concluded that the United States entered a recession in April.

Recession at the State and Local Level. While there is debate as to whether or not the United States has technically slipped into a recession, at the state and local level there is no doubt at all. According to Moody's Economy, by the end of September 30 states were in recession, up from just five in March. 19 more states were deemed "at risk." (Only Sarah Palin's petro-state of Alaska was forecast to experience economic growth.) 276 of 380 metropolitan areas measured by Moody's had also sunk into recession. Combined with the downward spiral of home prices, these regional economic contractions are having a devastating impact on state and local tax revenue - and government services.

Unemployment. In October, the American economy shed 240,000 jobs, catapulting the losses for the year to 1.2 million. At 6.5%, the unemployment rate hit a 14-year high. The percentage of the adult population now working dropped to 61.8%, its lowest level in 15 years. The Philadelphia Fed survey forecast 222,000 more lost jobs per month through the end of the year. With some analysts now predicting unemployment will hit 8% by the middle of 2009, President Bush's reversal on extending jobless benefits could not come a moment too soon.

Jobless Claims. Of course, the corollary to skyrocketing unemployment is an explosion of new jobless claims. The Labor Department today released figures showing new unemployment claims jumped to 542,000 last week, a 16-year high. First-time jobless claims have now remained above the 400,000 for 17 straight weeks.

Continue reading »

Democracy Now!:

As the media focuses on President-elect Obama and the transition of power here in Washington, the Bush administration is quietly trying to push through a wide array of federal regulations before President Bush leaves office in January.

Up to ninety proposed regulations could be finalized by the outgoing administration, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment. According to the Washington Post, the new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era. They include rules that could weaken workplace safety protections, allow local police to spy in the so-called “war on terror” and make it easier for federal agencies to ignore the Endangered Species Act.

While it’s nothing new for outgoing administrations to try and enact these so-called “midnight regulations,” the Bush administration has accelerated the process to ensure the changes it wants will be finalized by November 22nd. That’s sixty days before the next administration takes control. Most federal rules go into effect sixty days after they’ve been finalized, and it would be a major bureaucratic undertaking for the Obama administration to reverse federal rules already in effect.

I know that it will surprise no one that most, if not all, of these regulations come at the benefit of corporations and to the detriment of the American people and the environment, including making it easier to pollute near national parks, easing mining restrictions, and neutering the Endangered Species Act.

So much for that lame duck quackitude, Bush is going to place his anti-Midas touch on as many areas as he can before he's kicked out the door.

Not only do the world's most powerful leaders refuse to shake the POTUS' hand, they also seem to refuse to even make eye contact. Heckuva job, Bush. Heckuva job.

CNN Anchor Rick Sanchez: Bush looks like "the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked."

I think I speak for the entire world (well, everyone other than the 20% dead-enders) when I say January 20th can't come soon enough.

I'll admit that naming a mountain after President-elect Obama before he's even sworn in might be a tad over the top. But, it does show the overwhelming enthusiasm and support he is receiving from around the globe and the stark contrast between our new president and the outgoing national embarrassment that is George W. Bush.

The prime minister of Antigua wants to rename the island's highest mountain Mount Obama in honour of the US president-elect.

The prime minister, Baldwin Spencer, announced the plans on Wednesday in a congratulatory letter to Barack Obama.

Antigua's attorney general, Justin Simon, said he would find out if parliament needed to approve the name change. The political analyst Avel Grant said it could draw more tourists to the island. Read on...

As for Dubya? Well, the comedy world is going to miss him, but he's finding out that the rest of the world just isn't that into him:

In less than three months, President-elect Barack Obama will take office and the Bush administration will belong to history. With the president reportedly interested in writing about his White House years, publishers have a suggestion:

Take your time.

"If I were advising President Bush, given how the public feels about him right now, I think patience would probably be something that I would encourage," says Paul Bogaards, executive director of publicity for Alfred A. Knopf, which in 2004 released Bill Clinton's million-selling "My Life." Read on...

Back in May, I argued that with the American electorate's across-the-board preference for Democratic policies and a historically unpopular Republican president, John McCain's campaign would turn the November election into a "character war." In September, campaign chairman Rick Davis confirmed the GOP would follow its tried and true strategy from 2000 and 2004 when he announced "this election is not about issues" but instead about "a composite view of what people take away from these candidates." On Tuesday night, Americans will learn not only whether Barack Obama won the election, but whether voters literally thought he was a better man.

Heading into Election Day, Senator Obama looks like to outperform his recent Democratic predecessors across a range of policy and demographic measures. An October Rasmussen survey showed that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans across each of the 10 issues tracked. The party of Obama enjoys double-digit leads on the economy (by 13%), Social Security (12%), health care (20%)and education (by 19 points).

That issue advantage, compounded by John McCain's feeble response to the economic crisis and the GOP's increasingly xenophobic line towards immigrants, is helping fuel Obama's strong performance among critical voting blocks. As I detailed last week, media myths notwithstanding, Barack Obama will approach traditional levels of Democratic support among Jewish voters and outpoll Al Gore and John Kerry among Hispanics. And with his backing among white voters reaching 44% in the final CBS News/New York Times survey, the African-American Obama may surpass the levels achieved by Gore (42%), Kerry (41%) and even Bill Clinton (43%). Four years ago, John Kerry lost among white men by a 25 point margin (62% to 37%); according to a Fox News poll, Obama now trails John McCain by only 5 points among the same group.

But from the moment John McCain secured the Republican nomination, his fall strategy rested on creating a "character gap" between himself and Obama. As in 2000 and 2004, I argued, the Republicans would try to turn the race into a presidential personality contest:

And to win it, they need to manufacture a "character gap" between John McCain and Barack Obama...The data is clear. If the election is about the economy, health care and Iraq, John McCain cannot become the 44th president. Only if the GOP succeeds once again in transforming the race into a media medley about lapel pins, angry ministers and Muslim-sounding middle names can the Republicans hope to maintain their hold on the White House.

Sadly, we've been here before. The 2000 and 2004 exit polls clearly show the Republican Party succeeded both in portraying the presidential contest as being about character and in defining the accepted media narrative for candidates Bush, Gore and Kerry.

Continue reading »

Even in its last throes, the Bush administration continues its uninterrupted lawlessness. As two recent stories by Charlie Savage of the New York Times revealed, President Bush ignored Congressional statutes requiring privacy disclosures by his Department of Homeland Security and non-discrimination in hiring by faith-based groups receiving federal funds. In twice turning his back on the rule of law, Bush again resorted to his favorite executive power-grabbing tools, the signing statement and "interpretation" by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.

Savage, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 2006 expose of Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements, revealed last Friday that the President is at again. The White House informed Congress that it is bypassing a law passed as part of the package of recommendation from the 9/11 Commission. Designed to prevent political interference with the Department of Homeland Security:

The August 2007 law requires the agency’s chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress “without any prior comment or amendment” by superiors at the department or the White House.

But in a move ranking the Republican on Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA) deemed "unconstitutional" and "dictatorial," DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff told Congress the administration would not "apply this provision strictly" because it infringed on the president’s powers. And as Savage detailed, President Bush used a signing statement to thwart the will of Congress - and the law of the land:

The Bush administration defended the decision not to obey the statute. Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, said its legal view was consistent with what presidents of both parties had long maintained.

Mr. Ablin also said the administration had told Congress that the provision would be unconstitutional, but Congress passed the legislation - which enacted recommendations of the 9/11 Commission - without making the requested change. So the administration decided to sign the bill and fix what Mr. Ablin called its "defects" later.

In condoning illegal discrimination in hiring by religious charities receiving funds from American taxpayers, President Bush turned to his Office of Legal Counsel.

Continue reading »

One day after proclaiming on Meet the Press that he and George W. Bush share a common philosophy, John McCain took to a stage in Cleveland Monday to attack the President's economic policies. As it turns out, of course, when it comes to ideology and policy on the economy, John McCain and George W. Bush are virtually indistinguishable.

The feebleness of McCain's effort to distance himself from Bush was revealed in its brevity. Despite the AP's headline that "McCain says Bush policy on economy is wrong," McCain's critique was limited to a single sentence. And in those nine words and the attack on Barack Obama that followed, John McCain wasn't telling the truth:

"This is the fundamental difference between Senator Obama and me. We both disagree with President Bush on economic policy. The difference is that he thinks taxes have been too low, and I think that spending has been too high."

Leaving aside for the moment his dissembling on the Obama tax plan (which the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded would offer larger tax cuts to Americans at every income level below $112,000), McCain simply lied about parting company with George W. Bush.

A quick glance at their shared approach to tax cuts, the deficit and health care confirms that George W. Bush and John McCain are joined at the hip.

Continue reading »

After a weekend of rampant speculation that Monday would produce yet another incarnation of John McCain, the only comeback from his campaign appears to be the text of his 2004 speech to the Republican National Convention. McCain's latest transformation - after McCain the Goldwater disciple, the Reagan footsoldier, the Maverick, the neocon, the experienced one, the change agent, Maverick II and, most recently, the race-baiting smear merchant - is once again that of "the fighter." And if you think you've heard this one before, it's because you did back in 2004, when John McCain was fighting for George W. Bush.

After squelching rumors that its man would unveil a new set of economic proposals this week, his campaign released the text of John McCain's new and theoretically improved stump speech (video here):

Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country.

Fight for what's right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again."

But for a man desperate to distance himself from the current, historically unpopular occupant of the White House, John McCain made a poor choice in relying on virtually the same words he used to ask Americans to fight for George W. Bush in 2004.

Continue reading »

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heather)

Bill Maher asks Bob Woodward if "our best days are ahead of us" and Woodward replies with a Presidential anecdote.

Shorter Woodward: "The times ahead will be tough, but at least we won't have George Bush as President."

   Bloomberg:

The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.

The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone. Read on...

I'm not an expert on the economy or Wall St., but this sure looks like an end-around by the Bush administration to give away hundreds of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress. 

If you don't give me da' money then Saddam will nuke us.

Further stress on our financial markets would cause massive job losses, devastate retirement accounts, further erode housing values,. 

And my administration did nothing wrong.

Well, most economists agree that the problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time 

No sir. As a matter of fact we are saving you all from disaster. Is there anyway Halliburton can get a chunk of the pie too? (hehehehe) Cheney made me say that.

Thank you for listening. May God bless you.

When Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and if they had ran into a financial crisis, like Bush says we are facing  now. If he asked a valued employee to submit the ultimate blue print for the salvation of the corporation and he came in with a three page proposal---he would have been fired on the spot. I'm just saying. This bail out is a sham on the American people. 

(Here's some FDR)

I read Ron Suskind's book called "The Price of Loyalty George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," and there's a chapter that is a prequel to the economic nightmare we are facing today. O'Neill wanted CEOs to be held accountable for their financial records that their companies made public. Enron was the red blinking light, so to speak---the PDB that told the administration disaster was a-coming. Remind you of anyone? The CEOs are Bush's base and they balked big time. I was trying to scan a couple of pages for you, but thankfully Suskind printed this in the NY Times times called 'The Crisis Last Time."

The crisis of that moment was the implosion of Enron, Global Crossing and other companies. Along with conflicts of interest and criminally creative bookkeeping, the culprit was often a combination of financial complexity and insanely expensive compensation packages.

Enron is long gone, but this episode - as much a warning for our financial security as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was to the threat of wider terrorism - carries some telling lessons as our best minds struggle now to save the economy.An article about the meeting appeared a few days later in The Wall Street Journal. The next day, Mr. O'Neill was in Florida addressing chief executives of America's top 20 financial services companies. They piled on. One told the Treasury secretary that he'd "rather resign" than be held accountable for "what's going on in my company." A phalanx of outraged financial industry chiefs, many of them large Republican contributors, called the White House. Real reform was a political dead letter.

A presidential speech that followed was toothless, mostly recommending that chief executives personally certify their companies' financial statements. Earnings per share remained the gold standard. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, signed into law a few months later, largely focused on the auditors, and actually increased the complexity of reporting practices. As for lawsuits? Not to worry. No significant rise.

At issue, of course, were those twins, transparency and accountability. The years since have shown that the first one is meaningless without the second. With a world financial crisis upon us, the president and his economic team are forced again to talk about accountability. Let's hope this time they mean it.

Paul O'Neill then came out with this today: Bush Doesn't Get Financial Crisis, 'It Shows'

So why is the president and his administration pushing so hard for this plan?"I think it's because they're in a panic and they haven't thought about it very well," O'Neill said.

The bailout process risks being bogged down by a number of "sideshow issues," O'Neill added, including executive pay and aid for homeowners.

"Not a lot of people are saying, 'Slow down.' They've actually done something a lot worse than say, 'Slow down.' They've introduced a whole bunch of sideshow issues like executive compensation and oversight committees," O'Neill said. "All of that stuff is not relevant to the central problem of re-liquefying these financial instruments."

O'Neill said we got into this mess because bankers were not making prudent decisions, because they believed that by reselling mortgages to Wall Street they weren't going to be stuck with the problems.

"We suspended disbelief and said we can take people with no known source income or wealth generation and we can give them a $500,000 mortgage," he said. "I think there's a very important thing: When you violate fundamental principles of economics you can get away with it for a while, but eventually it's going to get you."

There are a lot of side shows going on for sure and the American tax payer is getting royally screwed as usual by Conservatives. All these nice little safeguards they are putting in place to somehow protect us will be useless. At least he didn't blame the poor people for the crisis and apply the Kudlow thesis to it...