It's official. According to a statement from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the United States has been in a recession since December 2007. But while that conclusion from the non-governmental NEBR differs from the traditional definition of two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction, by any accounting the Bush recession will be well underway by the end of this year. And by either measure, the conservative talking point of a Clinton recession "inherited by George W. Bush" remains a myth.

The NEBR declaration is just the latest confirmation of the severe Bush downturn. Last week, the Commerce Department revised its third quarter (July through October) gross domestic product decline to 0.5% from 0.3%, while two recent forecasts predicted a Q4 drop-off of at least 3%. Two weeks ago, the quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia concluded that the United States already entered a recession in April. Today, the NEBR's analysis, which includes a broader range of factors beyond GDP, concluded that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007. As CNN reported:

The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.

Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November.

The NBER also looks at real personal income, industrial production as well as wholesale and retail sales. All those measures reached a peak between November 2007 and June 2008, the NBER said.

Facing the avalanche of grim news Monday, the White House still refuses to use the term "recession" to describe the economic calamity that Barack Obama will inherit from George W. Bush. Two months after press secretary Dana Perino claimed, "I don’t think anybody could tell you right now if we’re in a recession or not" and one month after he himself rejected a question as to whether the U.S. was in a recession as "irrelevant," Bush spokesman Tony Fratto today said of the slowdown, "What's important is what is being done about it."

Of course, back in 2001 the new Bush administration and its amen corner in the right-wing media weren't shy at all when it came to blaming a sluggish economy on Bill Clinton.

Continue reading »

RawStory:

"Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has been chosen to serve as secretary of the vast and troubled Department of Homeland Security for President-elect Obama," Politico's Mike Allen reported late Wednesday night. "Napolitano is a border governor who will now be responsible for immigration policy and border security, which are part of Homeland Security's myriad functions."

Napolitano has been a big Obama booster through out his campaign. Here she is, introducing Obama in September:

Political Punch:

ABC News has learned that President-elect Obama has offered the White House chief of staff job to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Emanuel, a knowledgeable source tells ABC News, has not yet given his answer. The sharp-tongued, sharp-elbowed, keenly intelligent veteran of the Clinton White House is said to have ambitions to some day be Speaker of the House. But he also has a keen sense of "duty."

I actually think this should be viewed as good news for progressives in the long run. I'd rather have Emanuel playing gatekeeper in the White House than in the House of Representatives. This may allow us to push the House even further left in 2010.

For you fellow political junkies, a new site has been established, Cabinet Newsladder, to track information on Obama's future Cabinet.

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 »

With job losses continuing to be a major problem in America, John McCain would rather not focus on the economy. Nope....You can always count on the politics of personal destruction from Republicans and the news coming out is that John McCain will amp up these attacks that have little to do with the issues and all to do with desperation.

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan's campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Being so aggressive has risks for McCain if it angers swing voters, who often say they are looking for candidates who offer a positive message about what they will do.

Maybe now the Obama-Biden ticket will stop complimenting McCain every chance they get.

Plain is attacking Obama with the FOX News/Sean Hannity/Bill Ayers nonsense. 

Palin cited an article in today's New York Times as evidence that Obama "sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country." The Alaska governor was referring to William Ayers, one of the founding members of the Weathermen and someone who once served on a charitable board with Obama in Chicago. 

Obama was eight years old at the time...I saw the really awful Vampire movie on cable called "30 Days of Night" and it reminded me of the type of cities that are in Alaska and I wondered what Palin would do when Vamps attacked her city...

Obama has a lead in all the national polls and has made significant progress in the battleground states at this point. So I think if he wants to cement his run to the White House, he should come out with an updated version of an economic recovery plan that further illustrates his leadership abilities. With his constant call for bipartisanship, he can summon the Republicans to join him for the good of America or he'll be able to paint them as ideologues hellbent on retaining their power in Congress instead of trying to use their authority to help the American people.

It's a simple strategy that could resonate with voters and also knock the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans back on their heels---painting them at obstructing the American dream.

I've never been a fan of calling for bipartisanship because there are no moderate Republicans left in DC since the "Southern strategy" was launched by Gingrich in '94. They've attacked Democrats and liberals at every turn, but as I've said, Obama can use that now to his advantage and it would also finally lead the country in a progressive direction.

The fruits of Conservatism have been finally realized and we can all see that its end game has led this country into ruin so now is the time for a left-wing agenda to guide the country. It will be a difficult task; the Conservatives will continue to kick and scream, but playing the obstructionist game may not help their cause. In any case, if Obama comes out strong and leads with a firm hand he can grab the White House and give us a legitimate shot are restoring America to the promised land.

The ball is in your court now, Obama, will you take it?

The GOP sure knows its base, you gotta hand it to them. A little digging by Govgap.com reveals that www.votefortheMILF.com links directly back to JohnMcCain.com, then on to Sarah Palin's page and a video message.

Govgap.com:

- URL Registered within ~36 hours of McCain's Decision to select Palin as running mate
- Redirect sends users specifically to a palin.htm file, but only on the FIRST redirect
- Whois Privacy Information Matches JohnMcCain.com Whois Privacy
- URL Held by same registrar
- Note that the .net and .org versions also redirect to the McCain Campaign Website.
Network Tools.com Trace Route:
- 64.203.107.149 (VoteForTheMILF.com)
- 64.203.107.149 (JohnMcCain.com) Read on...

Al Franken's new ad features his wife talking about her struggles with alcoholism and how he helped her get through it and kept their family going.  It's so refreshing to see a this kind of revealing and personal ad from a politician, especially in today's volatile climate. 

You can see all of Al's ads at his Franken For Senate YouTube Page and if you would like to show him some love and donate to his campaign and help him give Norm Coleman the boot, you can visit his official campaign website.

  Two of McCain/Palin's most effective (and vile) smears about Obama are are that he voted to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year, and that he voted to "cut off funding for our troops in the field." Obama refuted McCain on the later in the first debate, but he let the second one slide. Obama can learn a lot from Biden about how to diasrm this line of attack.

First on taxes:

The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It's a bogus standard.

Now, on funding for the troops:

With regard to Barack Obama not quote funding the troops, John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a time line. [...]

John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops. Let me say that again. John McCain voted against an amendment containing $1 billion, $600 million that I had gotten to get MRAPS, those things that are protecting the governor's son and pray god my son and a lot of other sons and daughters. He voted against it. He voted against funding because he said the amendment had a time line in it to end this war. He didn't like that.

These smears are so transparently false, it's almost surprising that they're still repeated ad nauseum. Almost because attacks and smears are all the GOP has left. The troop funding one really irks me. While it's technically true that Obama voted no on a funding bill that provided money for the troops, he didn't vote against it on that basis. Biden did a hell of a job pointing out that McCain "voted against funding for the troops" too when he voted against the bill that included a time line. But that's a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. While you can twist and distort a vote to accuse your opponent of hating the military, the Democrats choose not to. I wish McCain's "honorable" campaign compelled him to adhere to the same standard.

The Obama campaign has already released an ad using footage from last night's VP debate and they've scored another direct hit.

The ad targets Sarah Palin from last night's debate as she proudly announced John McCain's disastrous health care plan that allows a $5000 tax credit for Americans to purchase health care -- and then strikes right back with Joe Biden's brilliant response, reminding people that in order to offset the credit McCain's plan would tax American's health insurance premiums for the first time in American history. The ULTIMATE bridge to nowhere.  Brilliant! (h/t Jamie)

And the resume padding hits just keep on coming:

Sarah Palin has committed yet another political blunder after claiming she had held talks with a British ambassador - talks that never actually took place.

In an answer to questions about her foreign policy experience ahead of tonight's make-or-break vice presidential TV debate, her aides listed numerous contacts with foreign officials - including Britain's ambassador to Washington, Sir Nigel Sheinwald.

However the meeting never occurred. Officials at the embassy swiftly contacted the McCain-Palin campaign to inform them of the discrepancy.

A British Embassy spokesman said the error arose after Sir Nigel's name was listed among those who had attended a US Governor's meeting in July.

So her aides used a list with the names of guests at a meeting Palin was at in an attempt to show her foreign policy experience, but that list had an error on it. Even if Sir Nigel Sheinwald showed up, what is to say that he and Palin actual met and exchanged ideas? It really sounds like her handlers are throwing out anything they can to pad her resume a little more, and that tactic has just come back to bite them.

There were no game changers in last night's Vice Presidential debate, but the American people were treated to more rambling, incoherent non-answers from Republican Sarah Palin.

Among the head scratching moments was this rant about nuclear weapons. Palin starts off on one of her "US Americans -- such as" answers about how America uses nukuler weapons safely, yadda, yadda, yadda. Here's the money line:

" Uh, nukuler weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people and too many parts of our planet so those dangerous regimes again cannot be allowed to acquire nukuler weapons, period."

Huh? Notice how once she realizes she's not making any sense and talks herself into a corner, she changes the subject. One need look no further than this clip to see that she is the most unqualified, unfit candidate to run for Vice President in modern U.S. history.  The thought of this person being anywhere near our nukes scares the living daylights out of me. How about you?

  In one of his strongest responses of the night, Joe Biden lists all the issues where McCain has proven himself to be the complete opposite of a "maverick."

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

Transcript via CNN:

Look, the maverick -- let's talk about the maverick John McCain is.  And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives.

He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there.

He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against -- he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.

He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.

Can we send -- can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't -- we can't make it. How are we going to heat the -- heat the house this winter?

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.

So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.

"I don't know what yardstick Senator McCain uses, but where I come from, there is nothing more 'fundamental' than a job.  The fundamentals of our economy are not strong and it's time we had a President who understands that."

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

Obama also explains his vote in favor of the "rescue plan" last night, and calls this crisis the "final verdict" on trickle-down economics and deregulation. 

Transcript of the entire speech (available here) below the fold

Continue reading »

    Most folks missed it, because the vote came just before the bailout bill, but on Wednesday the US Senate voted 86-13 to approve the India 123 bill, giving India access to US nuclear know-how and materials for the first time since India conducted a nuclear weapons test three decades ago. Both presidential candidates voted for the bill and the House had already passed it 298 to 117. The roll call for the Senate vote shows that Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Leahy and Sanders were among the few "Nay" votes.

Arms control experts aren't at all happy with the deal:

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, blasted the deal as a "nonproliferation disaster." India, along with Pakistan and Israel, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. India conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, despite international outrage, and continues to produce fissile material. Kimball said the deal "does not bring India into the nonproliferation mainstream" because it "creates a country-specific exemption from core nonproliferation standards that the United States has spent decades to establish."

But Bush is:

Continue reading »