Russian billionaire purchasing European and US bank shares

At one level, this is good news because the more the financial interests merge, the closer the ties between Russia and the West become. In theory this could help limit extreme behavior when the next hot issue comes up, as they always do. The problem is that this particular billionaire and others who are coming are so closely tied to the Kremlin. It's a clever move by the Russians who are cashing in on their oil wealth and investing in much more (long term) stable economies while they are cheap. Again, it brings benefits (not to mention desperately needed cash) though do we really want leading banks to have such close ties to the Kremlin? Read More......

McCain was for Jimmy Carter and Zbig Brzezinski before he was against them

I'm sure he was simply confused. Again. Read More......

We'll be having an online chat tomorrow with Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO)

At around 2:15PM Eastern tomorrow, Thursday, we'll be holding an online chat with Democratic Congresswoman Diana DeGette of Colorado. She's been a leader on stem cell research, and she represents Denver, where they'll be holding the Democratic National Convention in August to nominate Obama.

Tomorrow afternoon, she'll have just finished holding a House hearing on food safety, and in view of the recent salmonella outbreak in tomatoes - yes, tomatoes - I think the topic is topical, so to speak. So we'll be focusing on that topic, but certainly feel free to ask her about other congressional and political topics as well.

We'll be hosting the chat in our blog comments, and the congresswoman will participate and answer your questions live from her DC office. If you have any questions in advance, feel free to post them here. Chris and I will be moderating the discussion (as you know, Chris has written a lot about food issues on the blog), and asking our own questions, but if folks are interesting in asking the congresswoman questions as well, we've love it. So, if you're interested, make sure you sign up for a comments account - it's free, just go to Disqus.com and create an account. Then, around 2:15 tomorrow I'll post something saying we're ready for the chat, and you click the comments to that post and either read the discussion, or join in. Read More......

Merrill Lynch CEO can shove it

Listening to anyone on Wall Street get on their high horse and complain about regulation really shows why that bunch needs to be firmly swatted on the back of the head. Maybe if Wall Street had shown an ounce of interest in following traditional common sense instead of gambling like Bill Bennett in Vegas we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Merrill Lynch is right up there with the rest of the overpaid Wall Street types who want everyone else to prop them up when they fail instead of falling to the ground and being homeless when they gamble with other peoples money.

Back in the old days that Merrill CEO Thain seems to love so much, Merrill Lynch and others would be nothing more than a name, with tens of thousands of people out of work so let's not even talk about the hassles of government regulation. Thain is part of today's problems and it would be nice to hear one goddamn person on Wall Street fess up to this very important point. Thanks to the bailout without debate, Wall Street still doesn't really get it and we have Congress to thank for this problem. Read More......

WSJ/NBC poll: Change trumps Experience with voters

WSJ:

54% said the statement that “This is a time when it is important to look for a person who will bring greater changes to the current policies even if he is less experienced and tested,” identified more with their personal view, while 42% said the statement that “This is a time when it is important to look for a more experienced and tested person even if he brings fewer changes to the current policies,” was more in line with their view of the race.

Read More......

We're #30, we're #30 - let's go health care!

I hope that we're at least ahead of Tonga, Mongolia and other famous Coalition of the Willing countries. Either way, obviously we're just fine and don't need to tamper with the state of the art health care system that is the envy of the developing world. Read More......

Is it "playing the age card" if McCain is actually too old to be president?

There seems to be an unexplored aspect to this media debate as to whether Obama is "playing the age card" against McCain. Namely, maybe McCain is too old, has been acting confused, and thus it's not a card.

We need to stop pretending that age is the same thing as gender or race or whatever. It's not. When you're 90 years old, for example, you're not fit to be president of the United States. When you're black, or a woman, you are - or at least your race and gender have no impact on your job performance. It's all well and good to be polite little PCers and pretend that it's age-ist to talk about McCain's mental and physical health, but anyone who has ever had a family member in their 70s knows that they start to show some wear and tear in that decade. Hell, I'm starting to feel some wear and tear in my decade. We've all seen the photos of how a president ages so much in office. And we all remember how out of it Reagan was by the end of his second term. Your age is an indicator of your health, and once you hit your 70s, I'm sorry, but it's a fair question to ask if you still have what it takes to be president of the United States of America.

Not to mention, McCain has been confused. Very confused. So whether or not the "age question" is nice, facts are facts. McCain isn't all there of late. And he's certainly less there than he was when he ran for president 8 years ago. Perhaps he's always been a bit confused, and we never noticed. Perhaps. But let's stop pretending that his age isn't relevant, and that it's wrong to even ask the question. Read More......

McCain's has a lobbyist in charge of VP search, and a top adviser who presided over thousands of lay-offs at HP

From the Obama campaign:

"We don't need any lectures from a campaign that waited fifteen months to purge the lobbyists from their staff, and only did so because they said it was a 'perception problem. It's too bad their campaign is still rife with lobbyist influence and doesn't see a similar 'perception problem' with the man currently running their own vice presidential selection process, a prominent DC lobbyist whose firm has represented Exxon and a top Enron executive, or their campaign chair and John McCain's top economic adviser Carly Fiorina, who presided over thousands of layoffs at Hewlett Packard while receiving a $21 million severance package and $650,000 in mortgage assistance," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

The lobbyist running McCain's VP search is Arthur Culvahouse. Read More......

Kerry as Obama's VP?

I rarely cross-post, but then I rarely get the chance to sit down one-on-one with Senator John Kerry. I interviewed him today live as part of the two-day Virtual Energy Forum. You have to sign up (it's free) to get access to the video, but here's the transcript of a small part of our conversation. I asked him whether he'd be interested in the VP spot:

Jacki Schechner: It was inevitable we were going to get this question so I'm just going to throw it out there. But somebody says...her name is Lola...she says, "Would you consider running with Obama, and if so, what would you do to decrease the crisis with the Middle East and use diplomacy in reducing the economy[sic] and dependence on oil?"

Senator Kerry: Well, Lola, I'll answer the first part of your question by saying that having made the selection for Vice President, it's a good idea not to consider running with the person who's choosing. Let them decide who they want to have run with them. So the answer is no, I'm sitting here like everybody else and watching with amusement while this process goes on.

Jacki: Would you be interested?

Kerry: Only...the answer is probably not, but if the right definition were given to the job, then you'd be foolish not to say that you would think about it or consider it. And you'd be dishonest, likewise.

For the record, Senator Kerry was great interview. Kind and generous and much more relaxed and open than I expected him to be. I was impressed. Read More......

Is your whiteness showing?

A controversial piece that piqued my interest because it's so controversial. See what you think. This is only a small excerpt:

This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are....

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

Your whiteness is showing.

When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque....

[B]lack folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Read More......

Schoolhouse Rock -style McCain parody

Read More......

Republicans Gird for Big Losses in Congress

WSJ:

Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.

The feared setback for Republicans, coming two years after their 2006 drubbing, is unusual for several reasons. It is rare for a party to lose two election cycles in a row. And many expect losses even if their presidential candidate, John McCain, captures the White House....

"It's like 2006 never ended for Republicans," said Jennifer Duffy, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of 10 to 20 seats in the House and four to seven in the Senate....

The dynamics at work: voters' sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge....

Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is heading Senate Republicans' re-election effort, recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that it would be "a great night" if his party can hold Democratic pickups in the Senate to three or four seats in November.

Read More......

McCain: Bringing the troops home is "not too important"

MATT LAUER: Do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

JOHN MCCAIN: No, but that's not too important.

See the video here.

First off, the man is an idiot. He's made theshttp://draft.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife comments before, a lot. Remember how the Republicans kept saying that McCain's "100 years" comment about Iraq was out of context? Now that there's a pattern, it's a lot harder to discount. McCain has no desire to ever withdraw from Iraq. And he keeps claiming that that's okay - the only issue we should be concerned about is "casualties," otherwise we can stay in Iraq forever. Really? You mean the $100+ billion a year we're spending/wasting on Iraq means nothing to Mr. McCain, the guy who claims that wasteful government spending is his signature issue? And the impact on our war readiness, the fact that our troops are now not ready to fight another war, should it arise, because they're getting so tired out in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain is now saying that this is no longer a problem or consideration - we can just keep them fighting forever, at no cost? He's lying, again. Or, once again, Mr. McCain has lost any sense of reality.

UPDATE: Harry Reid just weighed in...

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today in response to Senator John McCain’s comment this morning that it is “not too important” when our troops can redeploy from Iraq:

“McCain’s statement today that withdrawing troops doesn’t matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course – Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.”

Read More......

The Clintons' "enemies list" grows

Putting aside the fact that "the state of Iowa" is now on their enemies list (seriously), there's something the Clintons are forgetting. Being a former president is nice and all, but being a current president is nicer. Yes, so they're now never again going to give a job recommendation to anyone who supported Obama. Okay, then those folks can now go to President Obama instead of former President Clinton. It's all just so petty and childish. Not everyone who didn't support you is the enemy. Not to mention, that "you're with us or you're against us" stuff didn't serve you too well during the primary, so why are you sticking with it now? Yes, the Republicans launched a witch hunt (well, multiple witch hunts) against the Clintons. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with them, who supported Obama, has the same motivation at heart as Richard Mellon Scaife, the guy who funded the entire inquisition about the Clintons in the 90s. Oh, I'm sorry, that's right, Hillary likes Mellon Scaife now. It's all so confusing. More from the NYT:

As the Obama bandwagon has swelled, so have the lists of people Clinton loyalists regard as some variation of “ingrate,” “traitor” or “enemy,” according to the associates and campaign officials, who would speak only on condition of anonymity.

Philippe Reines, a spokesman for both Clintons, said neither kept any specific catalog of those believed to have wronged them. “There is no list,” Mr. Reines said.

The lists maintained by supporters tend to be less formal documents than spoken diatribes, with offenders’ names spat forth in rants, gripe sessions and post-mortems.

Several names and entities are common among various list makers. The lineup invariably begins with A-list members like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico; Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip; Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Clinton’s lawyer in his impeachment and trial; David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist; Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; and several Kennedys. Some members of the Democratic Party’s rules committee, the state of Iowa and the caucus system in general are also near the top.

The news media have already focused on some list entries, including the online gossip purveyor Matt Drudge (who had the nerve to show up at Mrs. Clinton’s departure speech on Saturday), Todd S. Purdum of Vanity Fair (the author of a recent profile of Mr. Clinton) and the cable network MSNBC (whose hosts Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are charter list members, Clinton associates said)....

These are people who should know better than to ask the former president or first lady for a job recommendation for a son-in-law....

While Mrs. Clinton has a short list of people who disappointed her, Mr. Clinton, who reportedly has an encyclopedic memory of all the people he has helped, employed or appointed over the years, apparently has a far longer one, the campaign officials said.

So much time and energy spent. Read More......

FHA forecasting $4.6 billion loss

As if we needed more proof of gross incompetence and failure by the Bush administration, details are emerging about HUD and the FHA that show just how poorly they were managed. Remember, the McCain economic team helped set up the housing bubble and will continue with business as usual. The GOP told the country that they knew how to run an economy, if only those pesky Democrats would get out of the way and let business do business. They did and this is the end result of letting business do as they please.

The Federal Housing Administration expects to lose $4.6 billion because of unexpectedly high default rates on home loans, officials said Monday.

Brian D. Montgomery, the F.H.A. commissioner, attributed the unanticipated losses primarily to the agency’s seller-financed down payment mortgage program, which has suffered from high delinquency and foreclosure rates in recent years.

Read More......

Gay weddings could be big boost for states' economies

High gas prices causing a drop in states' revenues? Legalize gay marriages! From AP:

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years – so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law....

The study estimates that over the next three years, gay weddings will generate $64 million in additional tax revenue for the state, and another $9 million in marriage license fees for counties.

Read More......

Crazy McCain attacks Obama for endorsing McCain's proposal on Social Security

He's such a goof, that John McCain. You just never know what's gonna come out of his mouth next. There's a reason they're calling him McFlipper. Read More......

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Between "it's a google" and the beer veto and the stupid 1980s Jimmy Carter joke, I'd say McCain is having a rough week. I'd say that, but I actually think this is par for the course when it comes to McCain. It's who he is. We just haven't paid this much attention to him before.

What's next? Read More......

$23 billion of taxpayer money gone and there is a gag order

Tell me again about freedom and democracy when we won't even allow people to talk about what Congressman Waxman says "may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history." The BBC had program last night about the missing billions though the YouTube video currently has some audio problems. (I'm going to assume that it's a normal problem and nothing more but check the link and maybe it will be fixed soon.)

Since this is John McCain's war and he speaks so highly of Iraq, we ought to insist that he helps shed light on this situation. If he's so eager to slash budgets and give away tax breaks to everyone, surely we could use these missing billions to cover the troubled US budget. This also raises the question of how little oversight McCain has provided during his obsession with this war. Was he asleep at these meetings too or does he simply not give a damn that US taxpayer money is being lost by the billion in Iraq? If McCain is not asking questions now, we can expect a gagging order to continue in his 3rd Bush term. Read More......

Buy-and-Bail adds to real estate problems

Those poor lenders. It's just not easy to cut a break these days after riding high and doing as they please thanks to Republicans who did not think regulation was a very good idea. Now it's the lenders who are crying about "mortgage fraud" as buyers ditch their old house and buy newer, cheaper houses. Isn't a regulation-free market exactly what they wanted a few years ago? What's that old saying about paybacks?

"I can find the same exact house as what I live in right now for half the price," says Ms. Augustine, 44 years old, who runs a child-care service out of her home. She says she soon will be unable to afford her monthly payments, which will jump to $4,000 from $3,300 in August, and she doesn't want to continue to own a home that is now worth $200,000 less than what she paid for it two years ago.

In markets hit hardest by falling home prices and rising foreclosures, lenders and brokers are discovering a new phenomenon: the "buy and bail," in which borrowers with good credit buy a new home -- often at a much lower price -- then bail out of the "upside down" mortgage on their first home.

Read More......

Results for the Blair years are in

...and they are even worse than predicted. We already know about the credit crisis that Blair and Brown promoted via friends at City banks, but the socio-economic results are equally bad. The UK has more personal debt than the US and it is actually greater than the GDP as opposed to a hair under the US GDP. City bankers never had it so good as they have during the reign of New Labour. So good, in fact, that Blair now works for JP Morgan where he receives millions. Yesterday a new report was released that reinforces existing sentiment that the Blair years promoted inequality and were failures.

Ministers were last night putting a brave face on figures showing a widening gap between the richest and poorest families and a second successive 100,000 jump in the number of children living below the government's poverty threshold. They said extra money pledged to help the young and the elderly in this year's budget underlined the commitment to meet Tony Blair's 1999 pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and halve it by 2010.

Britain's leading tax experts - the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) - said that despite the billions of pounds spent on tax credits, Labour had yet to meet its 2005 benchmark of reducing child poverty by a quarter and that the prime minister would have to divert money from middle-class tax cuts to have an even chance of hitting the 2010 target.

Read More......

More signs that the congressional Republicans are in trouble

From Chris Cillizza at the Post:

Through April, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $45 million left to spend on races, compared with just $6.7 million in the bank for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

* The Cook Political Report, one of the most esteemed handicappers of House races (and The Fix's former employer), moved ten (TEN!) Republican-held seats into more competitive categories last week. (The site is subscriber-only and you SHOULD subscribe.) Seven of the ten -- Colorado's 4th, Connecticut's 4th, Illinois's 10th, New York's 29th, North Carolina's 8th, Ohio's 1st and Washington's 8th -- went from "Lean Republican" to "Toss Up". Writes Cook Report's David Wasserman: "Now that Sen. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee, several GOP incumbents will have to work harder than ever before to survive. While hitching their stars to GOP nominee Sen. John McCain will provide them some cover with independents, unprecedented base Democratic turnout looms as a huge threat beyond their control."
...

The Cook Report currently lists 77 seats on its competitive House race chart (44 Republican-held seats/33 Democratic). Of those 77, 21 Republican districts are rated as "toss-up" while just six Democratic seats carry that label. The Rothenberg Political Report lists 62 total competitive seats -- 37 held by Republicans and 25 controlled by Democrats.

In an informal -- and anonymous -- Fix survey of Democratic and Republican operatives who closely monitor House races, estimates ranged from 43 competitive seats at the low end all the way to 70 on the high end. One thing the operatives, regardless of party affiliation, agreed on, however, was that money is the x-factor in determining how broad (or narrow) the playing field will be in November.

Read More......