By Ron Beasley
So why did McCain decide to end his stunt? Maybe this is why - it was a flop:
Or Perhaps it was this:
McCain needs to prove tonight that he's not a crazy hot headed old man who might drop dead in the next few years.
By Anderson
Recent years have turned Russia into an oil boom nation. With production rates on par with Saudi Arabia, oil and gas revenues account for one third of the country's budget. But unless rapid and drastic action is taken by Moscow, oil production faces rapid decline within two years, and total depletion in 22 years. And that is because most of the recent oil production boom has come from drilling and re-drilling Soviet-era fields, while there has been almost no effort to develop new fields. Half of Russia's top producing fields are now 60% depleted with little in the way of new sources coming on line.
This is not to say that more sources are not to be found, but boom times in Russia have been fueling short-term profit-taking plays rather than long investment. If this mentality continues, it spells trouble, not just for Russia, but for the world. Of course, we are witnessing today the effects of short term profit-taking mentality, as Wall Street's toxic brew of hubris and greed threaten world instability. Such considerations do not appear on balance sheets.
Russian right now produces almost as much oil as the Saudis -- just under 10 million bbls per day. For one brief period, Russia actually was the number one oil producer in the world. Should Russian production slip precipitously, oil prices will sky rocket because no one has the swing capacity to make up the loss. Saudi Arabia's reserves are under suspicion and some analyst's are demanding an open audit of Saudi reserve claims. Indeed, most OPEC nation's stated reserves have been under suspicion for sometime. In the late 1980's, all major OPEC countries suddenly, and without explanation, boosted stated reserves by 40% or more. In 1990, for example, Saudia Arabia's reserves jumped from 170 billion bbls to 260 billion bbls, even though major new sources had been neither discovered nor reported.
With Russian production appearing in decline -- production fell about 1% in June, 2008 -- some blame the drop on tax policies while others link it to actual physical depletion. At that level, it is difficult to say which is the cause, but there are real trends in production that have been present for awhile now.
The tax policy dodge may be just that. Mega-projects like the Sakhalin-I have reached peak and are now in decline, and the larger, underlying reality is that Russian production growth has dropped off significantly since 2005. In 2004, production growth hit 10%. Today, production growth is at or near zero and trending downward.
For sometime now, Russian geologists have been claiming that oil is not a fossil fuel at all. They claim that abiotic production in high temperature, high pressure environments can render petroleum from ultramafic rock. Indeed, there may be some evidence that such a process is real, but if it is the sole source of oil, then one must immediately ask, "well, why aren't the Russians finding oil?" And why are the Russians pursuing conventional expected sources the same as are western oil interests? If the Rusisans have the secret of oil production that western science has failed to recognize, they don't seem to be exploiting it very well. I'm sure that some of the oil crunch denial crowd suspect that Russia might be holding back production, keeping new huge discoveries a secret, only to pounce when the time is right, at which point they can enslave the world. Of course, these are the same people who think that global warming is a Big Oil hoax designed to ... enslave the world (still not sure how that one is supposed to work).
Whatever the nature of oil, the fact remains that, as one of the world's top producers, the decline in production that Russia is experiencing right now cannot be corrected without major investment in new exploration and development. And Moscow appears to be relying on old and failing sources than in new development. The world will shudder should Russia's production capacity collapse in the mid-term, because we still have no reasonable replacement(s) for oil. Which is exactly why our weaning must begin now.
By Cernig
Warning, remove all hot liquids from your vicinity before viewing this video. It'll hurt when you snarf them all over your monitor.
by Jay McDonough:
Oh boy, tonight's the big foreign policy debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. Here's some questions I would like to see asked of both candidates. (As much as I would love to have them asked as I've written them, I would be OK on Jim Lehrer massaging them somewhat).
- The U.S. has employed sanctions against Iran since 1979 and
continues to press for additional sanctions to deter Iran from the
purported development of nuclear weapons. During this time we have
been, largely, ineffectual at influencing Iran's behavior. What would
your administration do differently in terms of Iran? How long would
you let either sanctions or diplomacy continue without results before
you ordered a military attack on Iran?
- In it's present form, Iraq is functioning as three somewhat autonomous states with a federal government dominated by Shia Muslims. Would you consider the our efforts in Iraq a success if, after U.S. force withdrawal, Iraq becomes a theocracy with deep ties to Iran? If not, what will you do to prevent that from occuring?
- Both of you are on record as opposing the use of torture as an
interrogation tool in the war on terror, yet recent Congressional
legislation allows the use of torture by C.i.A. personnel. Would you
explain your views on the U.S. use of torture by either U.S. military
or C.I.A. forces? Was the use of torture by U.S. military personnel in
violation of the Geneva Convention, other international and domestic
law? Are those that implemented and approved that torture subject to
criminal prosecution?
- North Korea is, reportedly, rebuilding it's nuclear capability subsequent to a U.S./DPRK agreement to end the development of nuclear weapons in exchange for U.S. concessions. Please outline the reasons the agreement collapsed and U.S. strategy going forward.
- This one's for Senator McCain: You have referred to radical Islam as an existential threat to the United States. What do you believe are the prime sociological, religious and political reasons for the advent of this terrorism? Please outline a strawman strategy for addressing the threat of radical Islam over the next ten years.
- This one's for Senator Obama: You have worked in the Senate on the issue of nuclear weapon proliferation. Is nuclear weapon development acceptable for some nations and not others, and what's the decision making criteria for acceptability? When is U.S. military force required to remove a nation's nuclear weapon cababilities?
- Pakistan is regarded by the U.S. as an ally in the war on terror, yet has nuclear weaponry capabilities, a very unstable government and a large region of the country controlled by al Qaeda, Taliban forces, and a population sympathetic to their cause. Define your strategy for A) maintaining Pakistan as an ally B) assuring Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure C) fighting radical Islam contingents in northwestern Pakistan and D) encourage democratic reform in Pakistan.
You must have some too. Go for it.
By Fester:
A few weeks ago, I posted some personal observations from my retail banking with National City. I thought it looked like National City was attempting to legally game their cash flow to increase their float. This would, if I was correct, reduce their day to day exposure to the inter-bank lending market. Playing cash flow games is often a sign of an entity in trouble. I did not think much of this post until today. It is driving a significant amount of search engine traffic our way.
I think this traffic is coming our way because the company's is becoming extraordinarily volatile as investors believe that National City may be the next bank that experiences a significant run on its reserve. For instance, Bloomberg's chart for today saw a 50% drop and then a 50% rise off the daily lows for a 25% loss today. WaMu's demise is being blamed on a conventional bank run, so is National City next? I would think the traffic spike on a minor post by a blogger who does not have any stock-tip history would suggest a depth of worry and concern. That worry/concern is a neccessary precondition for a run....
By Cernig
IAEA head Mohammed el Baradei says the atom watchdog has been delayed in its investigation of what, exactly, was in the Box On The Euphrates that Israel bombed back in September 2007.
The reason - their liason in the Syrian government was assassinated.
"The reason that Syria has been late in providing additional information (is) that our interlocutor has been assassinated in Syria," ElBaradei told a closed-door session of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-member board. A recording of his remarks was obtained by AFP.
ElBaradei apparently did not provide any details on the circumstances of the murder of the group's liaison, nor on his identity. But the AFP cites various Arab media reports noting the assassination of Brig. Gen. Mohammed Sleiman (or Mohamed Suleiman) in the northern port town of Tartus in early August, describing him as a military advisor to Syrian president Bashar al Assad and Syria's liaison to Hezbollah. The LAT says intelligence experts have long suspected Suleiman was in charge of Syria's alleged nuclear and chemical weapons programs.
ElBaradei has apparently been pushed by some dozen IAEA members, including the US, to complete his report on the Syria investigation by November. He insisted to the closed door meeting today that he was not being evasive.
Now, who do you think would kill a top Syrian general to slow down an investigation of whether Israel had just cause to flout international law with a Bush Doctrine preventative attack on its neighbour?
During Sunday's cabinet meeting, in which Olmert announced his resignation, he said: "I believe the processes the government of Israel has enacted under my leadership in various areas, those that can be told and those that cannot, will yet receive their proper place in the history of the State of Israel."
Olmert did not go into detail, but over the past year, in September 2007 the nuclear facility Syria was building was bombed; Hezbollah attributes to Israel the assassination of a senior leader, Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus in February; the foreign press reported the blowing up of a chemical weapons factory in Syria, in which dozens of Iranian and Syrian technicians were killed; an Iranian Revolutionary Guards convoy delivering weapons to Hezbollah was blown up near Tehran. No one claimed responsibility for these actions.
Want to bet no-one claims this one either?
And for those pointing to today's Guardian story claiming that Bush told Israel they couldn't attack Iran - and Israel listened - consider this from the same Haaretz piece:
...The Mossad's main thrust under Dagan has been to thwart Iran's nuclear plans. According to several sources, Israel managed by diplomatic pressure to obtain a delay of as much as a decade in Iran's attaining nuclear capability, even if it has not been stopped..."Thwarting" involves psychological warfare, leaks to the international media and diplomatic moves to embarrass the Iranians and enlist Western countries against it.
The Guardian story is based upon official leaks from "senior European diplomatic sources" who "work for a European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit." The most likely candidate for that head of state is France's Sarkozy and he's been very hawkish on Iran too.
I read the Guardian story as more planted agitprop to keep up pressure on Iran with an on-again-off-again threat of Israeli attack. I call that underhandedly manipulating world opinion rather than dealing with the issues fairly - your mileage might vary. And I suspect that the Syrian general got "thwarted" too, because he might say the wrong things (i.e. not fitting Israel's narrative of clear and present danger) to the IAEA.
by Jay McDonough
Conventional wisdom is that modern presidential elections are, ultimately, decided in a few key "battleground" states. States like California characteristically vote for Democratic candidates and states like Texas usually vote for the Republican and those electoral votes are considered in the bank for the respective party. The total electoral vote count each candidate gains from these states isn't sufficient to decide a winner though. What's left are a small handful of states, such as Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, with less predictable voting patterns, the so-called battleground states with fiercely fought over electoral votes. The candidate that wins these states, or the buik of them, will win the presidency.
For the last several
election cycles, assumptions about voter turnout have been predictive
and, as it turns out, pretty accurate. That voter turnout is typically
(and embarrassingly) low and voter demographics haven't changed
significantly in thirty years. But if voter registration preceding this general election is any measure, things could be changing.
...the
rise in registered Democrats has far outpaced Republican registration
in many key swing states, giving Dems a clear registration advantage in
a lot of them, while wiping away one-time GOP registration advantages
in a couple others.
Of the dozen or so most closely contested states in this election, seven of the secretaries' offices keep tallies of their registration numbers, broken down by party. The upshot: Of those seven states, four have seen big spikes in Dem registration while GOP registration has gone up by significantly less or has dropped.
In
a fifth state, the number of Dems has gone up by a modest amount while
the number of Republicans has fallen sharply. Dems now lead in
registration numbers in all five of those states, in some by
significant margins.
Meanwhile, in the sixth and seventh states, Dem gains and GOP losses
have effectively erased the GOP's once sizable registration edge. (Link)
No guarantee, obviously, but this bodes well for a level of excitement in the Democratic candidate, a special interest in the historical nature of this years election, and a deep, deep, deep resentment at the turn the country's taken in the last eight years.
By Ron Beasley
A few months ago I reported on efforts to make biofuels from algae.
You can get about 370 gallons of ethanol per year per acre [of corn]. The ethanol economy of Brazil is based on sugar cane which will produce about 900 gallons per acre per year; better but still not a great use of arable land.
But what if you could get six to ten thousand gallons of ethanol per acre per year and use a green house gas to do it. Well it looks like that is possible.
Well my local electric utility, Portland General Electric, is going to give it a try.
PGE aims to turn Boardman coal-plant pollution into biofuel
In the energy equivalent of turning a pig's ear into a silk purse -- and a very green one, at that -- Portland General Electric is testing how to use pollutants from its Boardman coal plant to grow algae for biofuel production.
PGE and renewable energy developer Columbia Energy Partners announced Thursday that they had begun a pilot project for the algae venture at the utility's Boardman facility in Morrow County.
The experiment siphons off some of the coal plant's CO2 emissions and feeds them to six 12-foot-long tubs of algae sitting on a nearby flatbed truck.
During photo synthesis, the algae gobble up the CO2 and release oxygen into the air. Oil is squeezed out of the mature algae and used to produce a clean-burning biodiesel.
The residue -- a starchy goo -- is turned into ethanol, an alternative to gasoline, and livestock feed.
"This is an opportunity to make a real meaningful difference," said Steve Corson, a PGE spokesman.
He emphasized, however, that the pilot project is "tiny" and that more tests must be conducted before determining whether a full-blown production facility is feasible.
The 600-megawatt Boardman facility, about 150 miles east of Portland, is Oregon's only coal plant. It generates about one-fifth of PGE's power and is the state's largest stationary source of CO2, a major contributor to climate change.
The plant has come under fire not only for its CO2 emissions, but also for haze-causing pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. A study released early this year concluded that the plant is responsible for more than half the haze in the eastern Columbia River Gorge at certain times in the winter.
Jon Norling, vice president of Columbia Energy, said he approached PGE more than two years ago about using Boardman's CO2 emissions to grow algae. Norling owns Portland Biodiesel and said he was quick to recognize algae as a potentially valuable biodiesel feedstock.
Algae's attraction to CO2 is a natural, Norling said. "It needs it," he said. "It really likes it."
The pilot project won't make much of a dent in Boardman's CO2 emissions, which total about 5 million tons a year. But, a full-scale plant -- at least 21/2 years away -- could use up to 60 percent of the emissions during daylight hours and produce 20 million gallons of biodiesel annually, Norling said.
As was pointed out in the original post the power plant connection is vital.
Trying to grow concentrations of the finicky organism is a bit like trying to balance the water in a fish tank. It’s also expensive. The water needs to be just the right temperature for algae to proliferate, and even then open ponds can become choked with invasive species. Atmospheric levels of CO2 also aren’t high enough to spur exponential growth.
Solix addresses these problems by containing the algae in closed “photobioreactors”—triangular chambers made from sheets of polyethylene plastic (similar to a painter’s dropcloth)—and bubbling supplemental carbon dioxide through the system. Eventually, the source of the CO2 will be exhaust from power plants and other industrial processes, providing the added benefit of capturing a potent greenhouse gas before it reaches the atmosphere.
See Fuel From Pond Scum for the details of the process.
By Cernig
As the campaign season heats to boiling and the fiscal ship ploughs towards that iceberg, it's time for some good news - Dems have blocked "sense of the Congress" amendments that would have rubberstamped a naval blockade of Iran. Any such blockade would be an act of war.
Howard L. Berman, California Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he has concerns about the current text and will not bring it before the committee until those issues are addressed. That, in effect, blocks the document from reaching the floor.
"If Congress is to make a statement of policy, it should encompass a strategy on how to gain consensus on multilateral sanctions to change Iran's behavior," Lynne Weil, a spokeswoman for committee, said in reference to Tehran's defiance of three U.N. Security Council resolutions.
...A similar draft has been introduced in the Senate. Although its language appears to be less controversial than the House version, it will not reach the floor either, officials said. The current House legislative session is scheduled to adjourn Friday. The Senate has not set a target date for adjournment.
AIPACS boosters are furious, of course.
But despite what the "bomb Iran" crowd are trying to spin, the last IAEA report gave no cause for added impetus to anti-Iran moves. That's reflected in the simple fact that the Bush administration has acquiesced to Russia's opinion that no new sanctions are needed with hardly a murmur. Instead a new UNSC resolution will simply be a waste of paper, reaffirming the unity of the six powers and the continuation of existing sanctions.
By Ron Beasley
Seeing that his latest hail Mary pass was incomplete John McCain has agreed to participate in tonight's debate.
Senator John McCain’s campaign said Friday morning that he will attend tonight’s debate with Senator Barack Obama at the University of Mississippi, reversing his earlier call to postpone the debate so he could participate in the Congressional negotiations over the $700 billion bailout plan for financial firms.
Mr. McCain had thrown debate preparation into turmoil on Wednesday afternoon after he announced that he intended to skip the debate in order to be in Washington for the negotiations. His campaign issued a statement Friday morning saying he was now “optimistic” that a bipartisan bailout agreement would be reached soon, citing “significant progress” in the talks.
So What happened? I think this editorial in the Roanoke Times nails it.
More than John McCain's poll numbers are slipping. So is his grip on leadership qualities Americans expect in their next president.
McCain must have thought he'd look maverickishly presidential when he announced he would suspend his campaign in order to rescue the economy. This, from the same man who last week was so detached from Wall Street's meltdown that he claimed "the fundamentals of the economy are sound." His actions this week confirm he remains out of touch.
McCain claims finally to get it. He said Wednesday he would cancel his ads and appearances, wriggle out of tonight's presidential debate, put his personal ambitions behind duty to country and rush to Washington, D.C. to ... what? ... save the economy?
On the way, though, he dropped by CBS to do damage control after his running mate bombed an interview with Katie Couric on his economic record, of all things, and to meet with a deep-pocket campaign supporter.
So does this mean the VP debate will go on? Not a chance! Don't be too surprised is Sarah Palin takes the advice of Kathleen Parker and decides she really needs to spend more time with her family. Short of that the campaign will come up with some lame excuse to justify canceling the debate. They simply can't let it happen.
by Jay McDonough
It's on. The Presidential Debate from Oxford, Mississippi will occur, as planned, tonight at 9:00PM Eastern. Oh, John McCain apparently plans to show up after all. This is from the McCain campaign:
Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.
Yeah, he's doing such a bang up job at contributing to the Wall Street bailout debate. The New York Times today has a report on Senator McCain's (lack of) contribution to the Congressional debate. After suspending his campaign, Senator McCain hung around New York for awhile and, ultimately, made it back to Washington in time for the photo op meeting the President called at the White House.
But
once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John
A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his
caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy
distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.
Mr.
Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the
government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if
fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.
Mr.
McCain was at one end of the long conference table, Mr. Obama at the
other, with the president and senior Congressional leaders between
them. Participants said Mr. Obama peppered Mr. Paulson with questions,
while Mr. McCain said little.
So, while Washington Mutual goes insolvent last night (and, ultimately, purchased), John McCain can't even bother to ask a question or take a public position and, instead, chooses to play politics. The world is watching this debate, wondering whether the U.S. has the wherewithall to put aside this ridiculous showboating and resolve it's credit crisis. Amid reports critical Chinese investors are becoming nervous about the U.S. economy, folks like John McCain need to start acting like adults.
By Cernig
A Ukrainian vessel captured by pirates while on its way to Somalia had a military cargo aboard, including 30 T-72 tanks according to reports.
That would be a significant and potentially dangerous seizure in Somalia, where Islamist insurgents have been battling the government and its Ethiopian military allies for nearly two years.
Although the subject of a U.N. arms embargo, the Horn of Africa nation is awash with arms.
Reports that tanks had been taken by pirates also raised questions about their original planned destination.
"Some say it was carrying about 38 tanks, others say 30," said Andrew Mwangura, of the Mombasa-based East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme.
"In the past, military equipment has come through Mombasa on its way to south Sudan, but we have not seen any south Sudanese officials at the port waiting. And anyway, there is an arms embargo for Sudan."
Before its Orange Revolution, Ukraine was one of the worst illegal arms traders in the world. It would certainly stymie plans to accept it as a NATO member if it turned out Ukrainian companies were still widely involved in the illegal arms trade.
Meanwhile, Russia is to continue its military outreach, setting itself up as a clear multi-polar alternative to the US, with an anti-piracy mission off the Horn of Africa.
"In the future the Russian navy will send its ships on a regular basis to zones where there is a danger from maritime piracy," navy spokesman Igor Dygalo told the Vesti-24 television station.
He said one Russian warship left its base on the Baltic Sea on Sept. 24 heading for the area off Somalia's coast to tackle pirates operating there.
Pirates have already seized 30 ships this year off the Somali coats and are holding some 200 crewmen from 12 ships to ransom.
By Cernig
I keep reading about the Republican Eric Cantor's plan being better than Paulson's Folly because it says banks, financial firms and other investors holding toxic mortgage securities would pay premiums to the Treasury to finance the insurance coverage. The idea is that institutions holding higher-risk securities would require higher premiums and the whole thing would involve the investment houses forking over instead of the taxpayer.
Huh? This whole plan relies on most people thinking "insurance" just flies out of the heavenly spheres fully formed. But no-one knows how much these toxic debts are worth and it seems to me that if no-one can set a fair price for buying them outright, then no-one can set a fair premium for them. The premium, following good insurance practice, given that these debts are toxic and pretty much certain to result in payouts anyway, should be as near to the costs of just taking them on outright as makes no difference anyways. Think of it as just a form of gambling - you don't give decent odds to someone betting on a sure thing. That is, the costs of insurance will be exactly the same to the taxpayer in 2008 dollars as the costs of the Paulson bailout - just kicked down the road instead of right now. By which time, inflation and prospects for the dollar being what they are, they'll cost one heck of a lot more. And along the way, the Republican plan will have drained some more liquidity out of the financial system and helped finance house along the road to insolvency as the banks will have to reserve money to pay premiums that they could be lending to Main Street USA at financially sound terms instead.
It looks like a political shell game to me, relying on common ignorance about insurance to push a plan that is actually functionally worse than the one it would replace while having almost exactly the same long-term costs to the taxpayer, only disguised in the short term for the GOP's political advantage. "Look how much we saved taxpayers!" It would also, according to Cantor's bullet points, remove " regulatory and tax barriers" - the same old Republican mutton dressed as lamb.
The other Republican plan floating around - that there be less regulation, more tax cuts and a suspension of capital gains tax for assets that are worth less than paid for them - is just dumb economically. It's a transparent attempt to hand ownership of the crisis to Dem's by throwing a spanner in the works then proclaiming loudly that they preside over a "do nothing Congress" and have wrecked the economy by their failure to act.
Warren Buffett today was quite clear where that kind of petty political obstructionism is going:
“We are looking over a precipice in terms of the economic condition of the country for the next few years,” Buffett said during an interview on the Fox Business Channel. “If Congress doesn't help us on this, heaven help us.”
So we have two alternatives, because Paulson's Folly really is dead. The Republican alternative calls for kicking the can down the road, increasing taxpayer costs thereby, making no meaningful plans to regulate financial services and even so leaving the taxpayer empty-handed at the end of it all. The Dem plan puts the costs up front but in tranches so that no-one is running away with taxpayers money without accounting for it and leaves the taxpayer owning a sizable chunk of admittedly partially damaged banks. Where's the debate?
Update: Something else just occured to me. It has been suggested that some of the toxic debt might not be so toxic after all and that some might even show a profit if the Treasury could "hold to maturity". If so, Cantor's plan really is outrageous because it would let the finance houses keep the profit for such while the taxpayer indemnifies them for the bad. And if the banks can in any way identify which portion of their toxic debt might be good at "hold to maturity" prices, they don't even need to pay the insurance premiums on that portion. The manager of the country’s largest bond mutual fund thinks his team can indeed seperate the truly bad from the potentially good, and has offered to do the job for the Treasury for free.
By Fester:
Time Magazine's media blog is looking at the activities of the McCain campaign during its 'suspension' and notes that something odd is going on:
In other words: what is "suspending" a campaign anyway? It means skipping out on a debate. It means pulling campaign ads, which can run later anyway.
But it doesn't preclude getting yourself (and your running mate) on the CBS Evening News that same night. It doesn't mean keeping your surrogates—and, let's be fair, the other guy's—off the news shows to argue the valor of your Entirely Nonpolitical Decision. It doesn't mean your viral web ads go away. As far as I've read, it doesn't mean suspending polling or political messaging generally.
None of these free-media aspects are exactly small, in this campaign age.
So 'Suspension' means a freeze of spending on the biggest budget item in a campaign (TV advertising) and nothing else while loudly proclaiming one's virtue. I wonder why this is the case?
Could it be a response to this TPM Election Central report from earlier in the week?
Obama's overall spending on TV ads has jumped 50% in the last two weeks, while McCain's has held steady -- and Obama is now outspending his rival even as he's up on the air in more states. In the week ending Sept. 21, Obama spent $9.4 million on TV ads in roughly 15 states.... McCain's outlay has held steady at around $7.5 million in roughly a dozen states
Recent polling out of Indiana has pushed that state into a contestable swing state where McCain or his allies have to spend money. McCain's defensive map is expanding as Obama is very likely to pick off New Mexico and Iowa and likely to pick off Colorado which is his minimal winning coalition. At the same time alternative Obama victory routes run through Virginia, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina. McCain's best offensive flip attempt is New Hampshire. And now Indiana is in play.
McCain's campaign is on a fixed budget so a dollar spent this week can not be raised or spent for the last week of the campaign. Obama does not face a budget constraint that is anywhere near as binding.
So is this an attempt for the McCain campaign to make a 'virtue' or at least a 'mavericky' stand out of the neccessity of being financially outgunned -- bet that the 'suspension' is such an oddball move that it will dominate the limited free political coverage while both candidates are buried under economic crisis news?
By Fester:
Chris Briem at NullSpace compresses several years of political economy studies into 20 seconds:
So this is just me, but my own framework for understanding American political economy goes like this:
* If you believe market failures happen on at least a semi-regular basis, you are probably a liberal.
* If you believe market failures happen, but are extremely rare and isolated, you are probably a conservative.
* If you believe 'market failure' is a an oxymoron, you are probably libertarian.
* If you think markets are always failures, you are probably a communist.
And if you believe that giving more money to the idiots who blew through a couple of Trillion dollars in a race for the greater fool, you are either an idiot or in Congress.
By Ron Beasley
It's not often I am thankful for conservative Republicans but today is an exception.
After days of bipartisan negotiations and meetings today at the White House, the deal to bail out staggered investment banks may be dying amid partisan finger-pointing.
The Paulson Deal was a bad deal. If it took the House Republicans to kill it I applaud them. As Fox Business Network's Neal Cavuto said chill out and let the financial sector try to work it out themselves. But everyone is worried about Wall Street. Let it fall, even though it's costing me a bundle, as I said several months ago Wall Street ≠ Economy but is little more than a ponzi scheme. Paulson's bailout is little more than an attempt to keep the ponzi scheme going until the incompetent Bush administration is safely out of office.
But what about John McCain's electioneering stunt? I find it hard to believe that I'm agreeing with the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes who said the only way McCain wins on this is if there is a John McCain/Barney Frank plan that the conservative Republicans will support but for once I think he's right.
Update
Comrade John Cole has some great advice for the Democrats:
Your Boots Are Made For Waliking
If this is not a big enough crisis that McCain and the GOP can play games with it, it is not a crisis at all.
Walk away, Democrats.
And there is more here.
Walk away.
by anderson
Clearly on a mission, presidential candidate and emergent political huckster, John McCain strode into Washington, wailing about the crumbling financial sector and promising to cancel his debate with Senator Obama in order to save Wall Street and the country. Despite the fact that he admittedly knows nothing about economics or finance -- other than knowing to marry rich -- John McCain would save Gotham. John McCain would be Batman.
His mission, of course, was not so noble, meant more to postpone his inevitable meeting with Obama, whom McCain likely fears would swamp the septagenarian with a blizzard of fancy librul talk about equity buy-ins and oversight. Immediate avoidance was imperative and, if possible, should also serve to derail the vice presidential debate, which is looking even more imperative given what a media disaster Governor Palin has been of late.
McCain appeared at the White House confab today, after much work had been done and most had already set down an "agreement on principles."
During the White House meeting, it appears that Sen. John McCain had an agenda. He brought up alternative proposals, surprising and angering Democrats. He did not, according to someone briefed on the meeting, provide specifics.No one there but a gaggle of servile House Republicans were going to buy into a scheme of less regulation considering that that now obviously poison pill was not going to go down without choking. Deregulation, of course, wasn't the point. The choking was.One the proposals -- favored by House Republicans -- would relax regulation and temporarily get rid of certain taxes in order to lure private industry into the market for these distressed assets.
And choking is exactly what we now have, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, has said that McCain is plainly and obviously "making it harder to get things done."
"What this looked like to me was a rescue plan for John McCain," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd of the Republican objections.Given that the American political climate is little more than a free-wheeling circus, complete with floppy-shoe clowns, the rollicking Republicans hilariously suggested that their stand was "principled" because, while they were more than happy to hand out 700 billion taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, the proposal that had been agreed suddenly developed "too much government involvement in private industry." Yes, you read that correctly. House Republican "leader" John Boehner railed againsttoo much government involvement in private industry, indicating that dumping dollars onto the balance sheets of Wall Street was fine, but demanding oversight was beyond the pale.His reference was to McCain's eleventh-hour intervention in the negotiations, when he declared he was suspending his campaign and postponing Friday night's debate with Democrat Barack Obama to help negotiate a bailout plan.
Democrats think that Republicans were backing away from a compromise many of them agreed to earlier Thursday — without McCain's involvement — in order to give McCain time to play a role and perhaps appear as a rescuer.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he believed the breakdown was simply an effort to allow McCain to miss Friday night's scheduled debate with Obama.
Whatever the GOP proposals are -- and the one proposing insurance instead of direct payment is pretty good -- that John McCain is even in the meetings is only a result of his running for president. If that were not the case, he wouldn't even be involved because McCain
is not a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has never been influential in setting congressional financial policy, and was not involved in the negotiated agreement in principle.He is doing what he aims to do, which is to bung up the debate schedule, look presidential by appearing to be concerned for the American taxpayer, and hope to hell his poll numbers pick up and his disastrous muddling last week gets dropped into the memory hole.
The worst part of this is that is just might work. Country first, John. Country first.
Now if they can just keep that "witch hunter" video out of the media ….
by Jay McDonough
Yeah, what a maverick. Senator McCain comes back to Washington and sets back all the progress on the bailout bill with some dumb, nonspecific ideas that NO ONE agrees to. From Marc Ambinder:
During
the White House meeting, it appears that Sen. John McCain had an
agenda. He brought up alternative proposals, surprising and angering
Democrats. He did not, according to someone briefed on the meeting,
provide specifics.
One the proposals -- favored by House Republicans -- would relax
regulation and temporarily get rid of certain taxes in order to lure
private industry into the market for these distressed assets.
That approach has been rejected by Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans
and, to this point, the White House. During the meeting, according to
someone briefed on it, Sec. Henry Paulson told those assembled that the
approach was not workable.
Before the White House meeting, Democrats and Senate Republicans were
on track to get legislation to the floor by tomorrow. Democrats say
that, at best, they hope for half of Republicans in the House to go
along. At worst, the vote in the House becomes partisan and then Senate
Republicans get shaky and then...
As of 6:30, as the Corner notes, Fox's Carl Cameron notes that the mood on Capitol Hill is "remarkably sour."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that "it's
clear that more progress is needed and we must continue to work
together quickly to protect our economy."
Yesterday, Senator McCain said "All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so." By all accounts, a compromise was agreed to this afternoon prior to the meeting at the White House. Senator McCain's political showboating will now, effectively, split the House along party lines and, introduce partisan politics to the process. As both Democrats and Republicans were wary this vote could turn into a gotcha situation, the chances of any bill coming out of Congress anytime soon is seriously reduced.
Good job, Senator McCain. You're quite the leader.
by Jay McDonough
There have been a couple big developments in the last couple days in the unveiling of how the U.S. came to violate international law and the Geneva Convention and began torturing detainees in the War on Terror.
The New York Times has a follow-up article on the previously reported ABC News investigation that revealed high level Bush Administration officials were directly involved in ordering the torture of specific detainees. Newly released documents show meetings ordering the torture were chaired by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and attended by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft and other high ranking members of the Administration.
The
documents are a list of answers provided by Ms. Rice and John B.
Bellinger III, the former top lawyer at the National Security Council,
to detailed questions by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is
investigating the abuse of detainees in American custody. The documents
were provided to The New York Times by Senator Carl Levin, chairman of
the committee.
“I
recall being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected in
training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques
and that these techniques had been deemed not to cause significant
physical or psychological harm,” Ms. Rice, now secretary of state,
wrote in response to one question. Still, Ms. Rice wrote that she
asked Mr. Ashcroft personally to review the program and “advise N.S.C.
principals whether the program was lawful.”
The new documents do not specify dates for the White House meetings. Current and former officials have said that the C.I.A. began using harsh interrogation methods on Mr. Zubaydah in Thailand weeks before the Justice Department formally authorized the interrogation program in a secret memo dated Aug. 1, 2002.
That secret memo from the President's Office of Legal Council, said U.S. forces can legally do anything the President directs and the timeline is critical (particularly for Rice, Rumsfeld et al.) Even if you believe the OLC's judgment was correct (and pretty much no one does), this evidence suggests torture was being conducted prior to that memo, and if that torture came as a result of instruction from the Bush Administration without any legal backing (however shaky the legal arguments of that memo) there should be some serious legal ramifications for those Administration members. (Note: for the definitive treatise on the U.S. implementation of torture, see Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side").
Today's Washington Post includes an article on Army Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a prosecutor at Guantanamo who has just quit his position. Citing ethical considerations, Col. Vandeveld claims the prosecutors office has failed to turn over exculpatory evidence in the trial of Mohammed Jawad. Jawad is accused of throwing a grenade into a military jeep in Afghanistan and injuring two U.S. soldiers and an Afghan interpreter.
"My
ethical qualms about continuing to serve as a prosecutor relate
primarily to the procedures for affording defense counsel discovery,"
wrote Vandeveld in his filing. "I am highly concerned, to the point
that I believe I can no longer serve as a prosecutor at the
Commissions, about the slipshod, uncertain 'procedure' for affording
defense counsel discovery."
Vandeveld's
departure is the latest blow to the military trials process and a
prosecutor's office that has been buffeted by resignations over issues
of fairness. Other officials have alleged that the leadership of the
military commissions is sacrificing principles of justice in a rush to
secure convictions.
Word of Vandeveld's resignation came on the same day that a military judge rejected a formal motion by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-described operational mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to disqualify himself because of bias and the possibility that his upcoming retirement could disrupt the process.
(In the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed), Defense attorneys said they will seek to exclude from trial all evidence extracted under duress. "Torture is at issue in this case," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, who is representing Ammar al-Baluchi. "It is going to be at the very center of this case."
Khalid
Sheik Mohammed is evil personified. It would be a great injustice if
he can't be found guilty of his crimes because any incriminating
evidence against him was derived by the use of illegal means by U.S.
interrogators.
By Fester:
On CNN.com right now is this headline:
Palin takes questions from press corps for first time
Okay, this is most of a month since her nomination for the second highest office in the country, and this is news.
Disgusting that it has taken this long. It is not like there is any need to know what her views, opinions and attitudes are.