« Average | Main | Wrap-Up »

Live Blog.

28 Jan 2008 09:18 pm

What I need here is a live blog.

I don't know anything about reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Thus, in principle, it's possible that Bush has just proposed a good idea, though the odds are against it.

By contrast, Bush's plan to destroy America's health care system is a very bad idea.

I like that Bush explicitly linked his plan to destroy the public school system with the idea of Pell Grants. That's appealing to liberals. And, of course, conservatives like George Bush are always shortchanging the Pell Grant system just as once they're done using poor kids as a bludgeon with which to beat down teachers they'll lose all interest in funding vouchers and return to their usual starve the poor attitude.

"Generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions" -- a great idea; maybe next we can develop a pony-based source of power. Or maybe we could reduce emissions by relying on the floo network.

The climate change section actually managed to get more faith-based after the carbon capture part. Innovation is, of course, essential to reducing emissions. But the way you create the incentives for emission-reducing innovation is to put a price on carbon by auctioning tradable emissions permits. Just standing around and hoping -- or even having the government shovel wheelbarrows full of money -- isn't going to do anything.

"Entitlement spending and immigration" -- fascinating to watch the lame duck returning to the scene of the two big issues that wrecked his popularity . . . guest-workers for all, Social Security benefits for none!

“We trust that people when given the chance will choose a future of freedom and peace” -- remember when conservatism was based on a dour, realistic view of human nature and the human condition? I miss those days. There's no time right now for a treatise on the full sociological naiveté of this bizarre statement but it's obviously -- obviously -- false that liberal democracy is some kind of human default condition. It took thousands of years to emerge! Constructing stable, legitimate political institutions is difficult.

Surge stuff. I've written tons about this. Not going to do anymore in Iraq. Just note the total, utter, complete, all-encompassing lack of candor and honesty about the conflict between the CLCs and the Iraqi government. With regard to Iraq one has to wonder time and again why, if this policy is so great, does it need to be constantly sold by means of massive dishonesty.

Okay, wait, it's impossible to avoid commenting on the GOP's loud Iraq-related cheers. Democrats take note -- the GOP thinks this is a winning issue for them and are bound to campaign on it; the other party needs to be prepared to fight on these issues and can't afford to count on the election being all-economy all-the-time.

"The time has come for a Holy Land where a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine live side-by-side in peace" -- well said. Too bad about those years worth of bad policymaking by George W. Bush whoever's been running the country or maybe we'd be a lot closer to that goal.

"There has not been another attack on our soil since 9/11" -- anthrax! Anthrax! Oh well. For some reason that whole episode has been officially erased from the historical record or something.

Lusty applause from the power of small government for unlimited surveillance power.

Malaria -- good stuff. AIDS, too. I'll also note that banal diseases like measles kill way more people in the developing world than you'd think and we should put some emphasis on them as well.

Share This

Comments (53)

The dude still struggles to pronounce nuclear. What do you expect?

I just saw my representative, ultra-republican Scott Garrett. No intelligent comment, I just don't like him and figured I'd mention it.

yay for drunk blogging!

"I don't know anything about reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Thus, in principle, it's possible that Bush has just proposed a good idea, though the odds are against it."

The odds win. "Stimulus Package" has a tricksy provision about raising FHA limits that isn't getting any attention and may cost the taxpayers $60+ billion.

Yes, they are trying to sneak big bailouts.

"I like that Bush explicitly linked his plan to destroy the public school system with the idea of Pell Grants."


Possibility #1: Bush genuinely believes that vouchers are a good idea and is advancing a proposal because he thinks it will help some children.

Possibility #2: Bush hates poor children and puppies.


The Pell Grant argument is logical and sound*. But it can be ignored by the self proclaimed reality based community as long as that community convinces itself that Possibility #2 is correct. Its much easier to prove - by proclamation - that the other side is evil and insincere than it is to actually argue against their best and strongest positions.

* There are many logical and sound arguments for and against almost any public policy position. The right answer is generally a balance of these competing arguments. Vouchers may well be a bad idea, but this is certainly a good argument for the pro-voucher case.

You got that next-to-last paragraph snarled up, Matt -- remove that "not", since currently you're saying exactly the opposite of what you obviously meant to say.

I'd like to say that my favorite part was his attempt to connect the "recruit militias" strategy with "the Surge" by calling it an Iraqi "Surge." But that would be a lie. My favorite part was when he made the argument that those seeking to pay more taxes should donate money to the Federal Government. Because they've never heard of the free-rider problem. Let's just adopt a "pay as much as you'd like" system. That and a national lottery will buy you libertopia.

Oops, myself. Make that your "next-to-next-to-last" paragraph...the one on "liberal democracy", that is.

Normally I consider STOU's required watching, I think I might have missed one in the last 10 years.

This one seems totally irrelevant, like a wonk on CSPAN. Every week-and-a-half or so now I'm reminded who the president is, and I do this mental double-take, thinking "oh yeah he's still there, isn't he, jesus".

It's like the scene at the end of the credits in Ferris Bueller.

If the first two terms of a geometric sequence are 5 and 10, what is the fourth term of the sequence?

a) 16
b) 20
c) 30
d) 40
e) 45

"So long as we trust the people this nation will be strong"
------------
Guess that's why we need unlimited power to eavedrop on the People's telephone conversations and email with no judical review.

Capturing carbon emmissions from coal-fired power plants has to be the most energy-inefficient electrical generation possible. Couple that with the mountain top removal necessary to get the coal (turning WV's purple mountain's majesty into a dirty parking lot) and you have yourself a winner.

Freddie - (d) 40

Thanks!!

Matthew's anthrax comment is interesting, though wrong. There's simply no evidence that the anthrax attacks were the work of foreign terrorists (or as experts term them, "islamofascists"). The counter-theory, that the anthrax envelopes were sent by some lone Unabomberesque whack-job, seems much more plausible, even lacking a suspect.

But hey, I too feel as though the anthrax attacks fell down the memory hole. I remember reading about some poor immigrant woman working at a Manhattan hospital who succumbed and died of anthrax poisoning, more or less unmourned. Why doesn't anyone call on the FBI to re-open the anthrax investigation? They may be feeling burned by the Steven Hatfill fiasco, but that's no excuse.

Oh, I can off hand think of some less efficient electrical generation schemes than coal power with CO2 sequestration. It's not that bad. And if we snatched back Clinton's gift to the Lippo group, and started mining that low sulfur coal in Utah... it's not under mountains.

What has to be the low point of the speech is his executive order directing agencies to start ignoring earmarks in committee reports... effective when the NEXT President takes office! Did he mean that as an insult to Republicans offended by pork? Because that's how we'll take it.

But the way you create the incentives for emission-reducing innovation is to put a price on carbon by auctioning tradable emissions permits. Just standing around and hoping -- or even having the government shovel wheelbarrows full of money -- isn't going to do anything.

Heavens to Betsy! You mean the problem might require market based solutions?

TomH,

Until 9/11, most of the people who committed terrorist acts on US soil were American citizens that voted Republican (or Libertarian or whatever).

Remember militias?

Matthew's anthrax comment is interesting, though wrong. There's simply no evidence that the anthrax attacks were the work of foreign terrorists (or as experts term them, "islamofascists"). The counter-theory, that the anthrax envelopes were sent by some lone Unabomberesque whack-job, seems much more plausible, even lacking a suspect.

As I've said many times, it makes no sense for a terrorist to lie about their motives. It makes even less sense for a terrorist to commit an act of terrorism and not announce themselves or make a demand; terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to leverage a political goal. If you just get your rocks off by causing death and mayhem, you aren't a terrorist.

"There has not been another attack on our soil since 9/11" -- anthrax! Anthrax! Oh well. For some reason that whole episode has been officially erased from the historical record or something.

Good point Matt. Bush has been an abysmal failure at protecting the homeland sine 9/11. Every night I go to bed worried that my children won't survive the next round of anthrax attacks.

Mark,

It's also great that he's protecting you from hair gel on a plane (not that anyone ever figured out how to make a the scary "liquid bomb").

Until 9/11, most of the people who committed terrorist acts on US soil were American citizens that voted Republican (or Libertarian or whatever).

I'm sure the Ku Klux Klan, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers and the Earth Liberation Front, to name just a few, would be amazed to discover they voted Republican or Libertarian.

The KKK is probably the largest perpetrator of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, and it was joined at the hip with the Democratic Party.

Plan to destroy health care? Sheesh Matt, how horrible an idea is it to allow individuals to buy health coverage without an artificial penalty? You're so invested in the idea of nationalized health care (never mind the train wreck occurring in the UK right now) that any idea that conflicts with it must be evil. It's not enough for the left to disagree with an idea; the left has to label it evil and out of bounds.

To call you a partisan hack would be to insult the more honorable partisan hacks out there.

Re Freddie's comment "The counter-theory, that the anthrax envelopes were sent by some lone Unabomberesque whack-job, seems much more plausible, even lacking a suspect"
----------
How about the counter-theory that the anthrax was sent by someone wanting to frighten Tom Daschle and the other Democrats into approving the Patriot Act and into surrendering all power to the Executive??

Gee, who would want to do that??

Whoever it was, I'm sure Mr Bush will make sure that the FBI arrests them before he leaves office.

A Presidential Pardon is such a wonderful thing, is it not? Kinda like the "Get Out of Jail Free Card" in Monopoly.

Mixner,

Thanks for catching that. The worst acts of terrorism on American soil during the 90s were committed by the right-wingers.

And the ELF is known more for setting Hummers on fire and hanging out in trees than blowing up buildings.

Cheers to Matt. Make sure to take two aspirin and drink plenty of fluids before bed tonight. Tomorrow I fully expect cogent comments on the Republican primary. No hang-over excuses, okay? Thanks, that would be great.

Echoing John, "yay for drunk blogging!"

The worst acts of terrorism on American soil during the 90s were committed by the right-wingers.

One decade in 200 years of American history. I'm not sure it even makes sense to call Timothy McVeigh "right wing." In any case, there has been scads of domestic terrorism from the left.

And the ELF is known more for setting Hummers on fire and hanging out in trees than blowing up buildings.

You don't seem to know much about the ELF.

Uh, I don't believe that Steven Hatfill was ever exonerated for the anthrax incidents. The government hasn't yet pressed charges, but it still may. I don't remember the details but I read about the case a few years ago and it looked like a pretty convincing case against him. This is the man, after all, who worked with the South African apartheid government to engineer an anthrax outbreak in Rhodesia.

Mixner,

How much do you want to bet Hatfill votes Republican? Oh, and you know as well as anyone that the Ku Klux Klan, while they were associated with the Southern Democratic Party, were certainly a movement of the right, not the left. As for the Black Panthers, it seems to me they were a defensive response to an (at the time) racist society, hardly a terrorist group.

The Republicans cheer as W. pats himself on the back for having been able to immorally borrow money from the Chinese (a debt payable by our grandchildren) in order to 1.)pay "former Sunni insurgents" to fight an enemy (not there before we invaded) which at the moment they happen to hate more than they hate us or the Shiites and 2.) to rebuild the country we unnecessarily trashed. A real success story. Certainly something the Republicans can run on.

The dude still struggles to pronounce nuclear. What do you expect?

Nucular and poplear. That's something to keep the linguistics students busy.

LOL for real. Have you always been this funny and I just didn't get your odd humor, or is this extra funny?? Perhaps it's me--up too late, but this post and the one after, too, are incredibly entertaining. Hitting all the right points, too.

Man, W is so over. That speech was the anti-inspirational speech of the day.

"Okay, wait, it's impossible to avoid commenting on the GOP's loud Iraq-related cheers. Democrats take note -- the GOP thinks this is a winning issue for them and are bound to campaign on it; the other party needs to be prepared to fight on these issues and can't afford to count on the election being all-economy all-the-time."

True but you watch, the Republicans will manage to use Iraq against either Hillary or Obama and they will be unable to fight back since they have failed to lay the ground for a strong attack ever since 2003.

Then they will try to shift the ground to the economy and the Republicans will bludgeon them with tax cuts and Hillary and Obama will be too afraid to fight back. Then we'll all look back with longing at the days when Howard Dean proved that you could attack the Republicans on tax cuts and Iraq if you do it right and with enough conviction.

Hillary and Obama should have been prepared to massacre the Republicans on Iraq and tax cuts but instead they will half-heartedly and politely say Iraq has been slightly mismanaged and they love tax cuts as much as they next Republican.

Democrats never learn. Stupid, stupid, Democrats.

Matt: "Constructing stable, legitimate political institutions is difficult."

Well, no, Matt, it's actually impossible, at least if you're talking about time periods longer than since you've been out of college.

Hector: "I read about the case a few years ago and it looked like a pretty convincing case against him."

Yeah, right - you and...you...believe that. That's about it.

The FBI spent years trying to hang it on him, while ignoring various other people connected with Fort Detrick where it is likely the strain used originated and achieved bupkus.

Dear Matt,

You should learn a lot about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush is almost done doing to them what he tried to do to Social Security, but well underneath the radar. After all, they had an "accounting scandal".

Why has the administration been hellbent on destroying these companies? They lower mortgage rates and are an extremely effective government-chartered program. Banking institutions and mortgage lenders resent/fear/hate/need them, so they'd like them bottled up and controlled and give tons of money to politically oppose them - most of which (do you need to ask?) goes to Republicans. Further, FNM is an FDR New Deal creation. You don't think the Bushies want to gut it on principle?

Prove it? How about some indirect evidence? The Wall Street Journal has written almost as many nasty editorials about Fannie Mae over the years as it has about Bill Clinton. The head of the GSE regulator - OFHEO - James Lockhart, is a Bush classmate from Yale. The previous acting director (Blumenthal) was removed when he admitted much of the Bush criticism of the GSE's was due to politics.

Most of the rest of it is hedge fund accounting - which generally makes peoples eyes glaze over.

Someone should learn the political facts about the
attempted destruction of these companies, and amplify them.

I am certainly not one to defend Bush, but I do want to point out that carbon capture technology is far from fantasy. My home province of Saskatchewan, Canada (that's just north of North Dakota...for those who might need to pull out a map) has done some pioneering work in this field.

Carbon capture technology not only captures CO2 emissions, but it then can pump them back into semi-depleted oil fields thus bringing more oil closer to the surface and extending the life of the oil supply by years or decades in some cases. Given all of the concerns about energy independence in the USA right now, I would think this would be of some interest to folks on all ends of the spectrum as it buys some time while other solutions are looked for.

I have to second Prairie Fire on this one. It would probably do the liberal blogosphere a bit of good to understand that there are other forms of energy out there and that given the right technology, they can be exploited without killing everyone. Carbon capture technology is a rapidly developing field and will be used on fields everywhere, not just for coal. I am a liberal, but the reality is that energy is a need and it comes from hydrocarbons. Conservation is great and should be expanded (by law), but we are going to have to open our eyes a bit and look at the big picture. I would suggest that everyone read a book called The Prize. It might give you a bit of perspective on the importance of energy to national security, the way the industry functions, and why our foreign policy is the way it is. Not to say that our foreign policy is right at the moment, quite the contrary. A little bit more diversity in our energy portfolio can only make us a stronger, more secure nation. We should be looking into these things.

Here is what you need to know about reforming FNM and FME Matt. It's impossible. They have guaranteed hundreds of billions worth of mortgages and have who knows how much but very little in the way of assets to back up those guarantees. The have retained hundreds of billions more of mortgage securities whose value drops by the hour.

There is one caveat. Foreign central banks have bought over $425 billion worth of the above paper from them over the last three years. The biggest stealth bailout of all time. Very nice of them to use their nations money to by shitty paper denominated in a falling currency. The Chineese in particular have been avid buyers of this stuff. Go figure. If they would just buy up all the rest of the GSE paper maybe they could be saved.

You're so invested in the idea of nationalized health care (never mind the train wreck occurring in the UK right now)

A train wreck that buys better health and longer life expectancy for the British, at about half the price of the US system... oh, the humanity.

By Train Wreck, I'm referring to this:

SMOKERS are to be asked to give up their habit before they are put on the waiting list for routine operations such as hip replacements and heart surgery.

And more recently:

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Here in the US, we already see moves to ban things like trans-fats "for our own good" - when government pays for all health care, you'll see an acceleration of such regulations. All Matt - and other socialized medicine advocates - see is the upside - coverage for all. What they don't care to look at are the downsides, and those are on display in the UK right now.

Re: Sheesh Matt, how horrible an idea is it to allow individuals to buy health coverage without an artificial penalty?

I have to wonder about that one too. As a solution to the health care crisis it is of course laughably inadequete. There are maybe a few thousand poeple in the whole country it would affect: people with almost enough money to buy their own health insurance, but who are deterred because they can't deduct it on their income tax. It would be of no help to most uninsured people whose problem is not taxes but the stratospheric premiums. And it would have effect at all on anyone whose health insurance comes through their employer. They already have the tax break(including on their employee co-pay) plus having at least part of their premium paid by someone else.

Possibility #1: Bush genuinely believes that vouchers are a good idea and is advancing a proposal because he thinks it will help some children.
Possibility #2: Bush hates poor children and puppies.

Possibility #3: Bush doesn't really give a fat rat's ass about poor children.

I hates me a false dichotomy.

>"There has not been another attack on our soil since 9/11"...
>For some reason that whole episode has been officially erased from the historical record or something.

[sarcasm]But that was against Democrats and media figures, not really Americans. [/sarcasm]

He forgot Boston 1/31!

Saskatchewan, Canada (that's just north of North Dakota...for those who might need to pull out a map)

Oh, like that helps.

"put a price on carbon by auctioning tradable emissions permits."
I'd prefer a carbon tax myself, but advocates of this need to start putting the phrase '100 percent' in front of the word 'auctioning' and include some mention of 'auditable' in there.
Otherwise we could be talking about a boondoggle of massive proportions here.

Matthew's anthrax comment is interesting, though wrong. There's simply no evidence that the anthrax attacks were the work of foreign terrorists (or as experts term them, "islamofascists").

Let's go to the videotape.

"There has not been another attack on our soil since 9/11"

Funny, I don't see a reference to "by foreign terrorists" in that declaration. And in one fell swoop, TomH has turned a 30 yard field goal into a 50 yard nail-biter. Well done.

"As all Americans know, recent weeks have brought a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country."
-- President George W. Bush, November 3, 2001

But I saw an excerpt in Newsweek from Jacob Weisberg's book on Bush that said it was only after the anthrax attacks that Bush decided to go after Saddam. Before that he was going to let the inspectors do their work. Yeah, I know it's crap and Weisberg is a "twit," in Atrios' arch phrase, but that's what he claims.

Not just anthrax, but also the Beltway sniper attacks. Even though they weren't committed by terrorists per se, they sure had a lot to do with how completely insane people in D.C. went.

Okay, wait, it's impossible to avoid commenting on the GOP's loud Iraq-related cheers. Democrats take note -- the GOP thinks this is a winning issue for them and are bound to campaign on it; the other party needs to be prepared to fight on these issues and can't afford to count on the election being all-economy all-the-time.

Just silly, Matt. Did 2006 teach you absolutely nothing?

1. Assumes Iraq will be a positive issue for the Republicans, which assumes...

2. That we unwashed masses, a majority of whom in a Wonderful Surge Success World keep consistently telling the pollsters the war is a mistake and we want out and soon, are really, you know, spongy about our opinions and when we've said, over and over, in the face of the MSM's continued "surge is good" frame that the war is a mistake and we want out and soon, we haven't really known our own minds. Because it must mean nothing that when we've kept saying the war is a mistake and we want out, it's clearly tracked with the fact that it wasn't the quality or success of our warmaking that we were complaining about but the fact that we were in it at all.

And, although this isn't important to my point, you also are forced to assume:

3. The Best of All Possible Surges doesn't have anything about it that is false or fraudulent. No hidden gotchas that rear their ugly heads in 2008 real time. Because if such heads are reared, and things kinda collapse on your theme, whither your worry then?

I fervently hope 3 isn't a factor, because that means things got terribly worse in Iraq.

But, as I said, 3 isn't even really a factor for my point, because the immovable, baseline opinion on this is independent of Surge Success. A lot of that nearly 80% "country is going the wrong direction" has been Iraq war-inspired; the non-existent WMD were everything in why this came about. It became so, that is, all-important, when it was considered from the vantage point of, e.g., Katrina.

The war disapproval has never been, and was never going to be, surge-sensitive. Amazing you haven't understood that about us yet.

So, if you want to forget 2006 and go all "ZOMG the Republicans think Iraq is a winning issue, which obviously means that it's a tricky issue for the Democratic Party," knock yourself out.

The MSM and the political parties can pretend that either the war in Iraq OR the economy will be the sole topic in this election. Not gonna happen. Both are on the table; both will be important. The "World's Greatest Surge" isn't going to turn support around for this war the way you suggest it is, because the lack of support was never keyed to military or political success there, as you so obviously and mistakenly think.

That ship has sailed. It is probably too late for you to attempt a leap from the dock and not get wet, but we promise to write a card or two from any ports we stop in.

Wikipedia shows no new info on the anthrax attacks:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Timeline

As I've said many times, it makes no sense for a terrorist to lie about their motives. It makes even less sense for a terrorist to commit an act of terrorism and not announce themselves or make a demand; terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to leverage a political goal. If you just get your rocks off by causing death and mayhem, you aren't a terrorist.

It's entirely possible to leverage a political goal without being completely upfront about your motive. In some cases, it's the only way to go. For example, to pick a hypothetical completely out of thin air that has nothing to do with reality, if you want a political rival to join you against a common enemy in the manner of your choosing, then you could make a threat of violence against them which is apparently from an ambiguous source or from that common enemy, but above all else you couldn't come right out and say that it's coming from you, now could you?

Oh, and you know as well as anyone that the Ku Klux Klan, while they were associated with the Southern Democratic Party, were certainly a movement of the right, not the left.

Didn't you read Big Brother Jonah? All right-wingers are leftists. He said so, and it must be true. The Klan were a bunch of flower children singing kumbaya. Democracy is facism, peace is war, night is day, ignorance is strength.

As for the Black Panthers, it seems to me they were a defensive response to an (at the time) racist society, hardly a terrorist group.

It's possible to be a terrorist and a victim of racial discrimination all at the same time. One may argue this describes the PLO or IRA, for example. That your enemies are racists does not automatically make you a saint.


Comments closed February 11, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.