Posted by WLS:

One of the great weaknesses of the bailout package as proposed was its lack of specificity about where the money was going. It was too easy to simply demagogue the package as a bailout of Wall Street “Fat Cats.”

Treasury should provide a list of institutions that will be considered for relief under the proposed legislation, and an estimate of how much in bad debt each institution will be trying to sell to the Treasury.

The reality is that not all this money is going to Wall Street “Fat Cats.” As an example — and this is simply a hypothetical made to make a point — I think public sector employees in California might view this issue differently if they knew that CalPERS (California Public Employee Retirement System) owned $20 billion in bad mortgage bonds. That would be a huge drag on CalPERS’ ability to generate earnings in the future.

Right now those bonds have a value of $0.00 because there are no ready buyers in the market. But, if a given bond is backed by $5 million in real estate as collateral, then the bond — even with no buyers — has an inherent value of $5 million. If the Treasury buys that bond from CalPERS for $2.5 million, CalPERS has to take a 50% hit on its balance sheet, but at least it gets the $2.5 million to invest elsewhere on behalf of its retiree members in an effort to generate earnings/income for its beneficiaries. Right now that bond is nothing more than wallpaper.

So, if Treasury had a tangible list of institutions that are likely to be the recipients of bailout money in exchange for collateralized debt instruments they cannot sell in the current market conditions, a large segment of people who are viscerally opposed to this approach may begin to understand that they have a financial interest in seeing these institutions be able to un-tangle themselves from this mess.

Second suggestion — have the legislation require that in an agreement that each selling institution must sign in order to participate, that the money they receive be held in a separate blocked account which can be used for no other purpose than to reinvest in their core business functions. It cannot be used for ancillary business needs such as compensation, dividends, etc. This would be subject to both regulatory and congressional oversight. If the businesses want the billions to take the bad debt off their books, then they are going to have to commit to using the money they receive in a constructive fashion. They can make the specific decision about where they put it to use, but certain types of uses would be prohibited.

– WLS

Andrew Sullivan is full of course not.

The link goes to Dan Riehl — not because of some fastidiousness about linking Sullivan, but because Sullivan has removed his idiot post. In the post that Sullivan has taken down, Power Glutes claimed that McCain had “clearly” said “horseshit” . . . when (as Sullivan now acknowledges) McCain actually said “Course not.” If you want to read Sullivan’s original language, which he has now taken down like a coward, you have to read Riehl.

My God, this guy does nothing but write course not.

Clearly.

Hot Air Headlines has Sullivan’s praise for this VP candidate:

THE RIGHT CHOICE: Well, this is just what I had hoped for - and it’s easily the best choice available to Kerry, who now passes his first presidential judgment test. Edwards is uplifting, while Kerry is a downer; he can touch the Democrats’ heart, not just their minds and their wallets; he’s fresh and youthful in a way that will only contrast sharply with Cheney; he can speak - and we need more in politics who have his kind of rhetorical skill; he’s positive, which is important in a rancid political atmosphere. Substantively, I don’t like his background among the trial lawyers, nor his protectionism. But I’ve come to think of him as a decent man, who shied from the easy snarl in the primaries, and who believes in this country’s promise in ways that some on the left have lost touch with. He’s the anti-bitterness candidate. And his presence will change the dynamic. The trouble with Bush’s and Cheney’s fundamental position - you cannot trust anyone else to wage this war - is that it must inevitably conjure fear and danger. Americans also like broad grins and happy futures. Edwards will give them plenty.

Me, I like Sarah Palin’s broad grin better than John Edwards’s. But then, I’m not Rielle Hunter or Andrew Sullivan.

People accused of crimes should be treated the same whether or not they are famous.

Someone tell Las Vegas Detective Andy Caldwell, who was dispatched to investigate the O.J. Simpson robbery.

“If it was anybody else, we would have arrested him that night,” Caldwell said. “Because of who he was, we wanted to make sure we had everything right.”

Moron.

[Posted by WLS]

Come on — how much of an idiot does a guy have to demonstrate himself to be before election officials in the Democrat party conclude that leading one of the most important Committees in the House of Representatives outweighs the spoils system of Congressional seniority?

Here’s the latest on Lord Charles:

(more…)

Andrew “Glutes” Sullivan (Motto: “To see what is up one’s ass needs a constant struggle”) continues to highlight the slipshod vetting of Sarah Palin with this critical piece of information: Wasilla has a meth problem. [UPDATE: Actually, that's another lie by Sullivan. The truth is that the region where Wasilla is located has one. I considered the allegation to be so trivial that I didn't even click Sullivan's link to check his facts. That'll learn me.]

How could the McCain campaign have missed this?

Also, I hope everyone caught Sully’s insightful live-blogging of the Sarah Palin speech last night. Some actual excerpts, which I swear I am not making up:

11.00 pm Styrofoam pillars; and self-designed seals. And her lip curls.

. . . .

10.49 pm. Piper is poking Trig in the eye!

. . . .

10.47 pm. She has this weird tick of scrunching up her face to make a forceful point. Kinda Tracy Flicky.

It is simply beyond me how the McCain camp could have picked this face-scrunching, lip-curling mother of spawn who poke special needs children in the eye, and former mayor of a town where people use drugs. Where’s the vetting? Thank God for Andrew Sullivan and his unwavering honesty!

P.S. Sullivan has really been on Palin’s case for seeking money for the Bridge to Nowhere and then spending it on something else. Indeed: how dare someone seek money for one purpose, and then suddenly decide not to use it for that purpose. Why, it would be almost like . . . holding a pledge drive for your blog, raking in six figures, and then going on a blog hiatus!

P.P.S. Sarah Palin can give a great speech, but how is she without a teleprompter? Here’s a recent interview. Judge for yourself.

[by Justin levine]

Did Al Gore really sign on to the prediction that the North Pole would completely melt away during the next four years??

That is certainly how I interpreted the comments from his speech at the Democratic National Convention yesterday -

Many scientists predict that the entire north polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months in the first term of the next president. Sea levels are rising, fires are raging, storms are stronger. Military experts warn us our national security is threatened by massive waves of climate refugees destabilizing countries around the world, and scientists tell us the very web of life is endangered by unprecedented extinctions.

We are facing a planetary emergency which, if not solved, would exceed anything we’ve ever experienced in the history of humankind.

The best way to debunk Global Warming hysteria is to continue to let this man speak.

- Justin Levine

[Posted by WLS]

With Joe Biden and Bill Clinton on tap to to speak tonight, lets start a contest to see who can predict what cliche’-ridden slobberfest stream of free-association praise and worship Keith Olbermann will have flow from his lips at the conclusion of their speeches. To give you some guidance on what you might anticipate, consider the following from Monday night after Michelle Obama’s speech:

OLBERMANN: Case, I think, closed. If that speech was to be more about tone than content, pitch-perfect. If it was supposed to be more about content than tone, pitch-perfect. If that was supposed to be friendliness and what they call accessibility, couldn’t have done it better. Couldn’t have done it better.

OLBERMANN: And the premise of this speech, to try to erase doubts that now seem difficult to voice aloud because they seem almost foolish, was also done subtly. There was a reference to, they love the country, meaning the troops. There was another one to, I love the country. There were six references to country. But if you went back and listened to that speech again and waited for the moment in which she is supposedly selling herself or redeeming herself, you wouldn’t have noticed it.

OLBERMANN: Yes, case closed. That could not have gone better for them. That could not have gone better for them right to the point with the little girls taking the mikes away and suddenly turning out to be hams. It’s wonderful. It really was terrific. And notice—did you notice that throughout that, especially as it built towards its conclusion, the women in that convention hall, the ones we saw at least, we can’t say every one was this way, but there were tears throughout among the women. And it was not a maudlin speech, it was not a—it was not a salesmanship speech, there was just a—I know, I’m beginning to sound borderline sycophantic on this.

Borderline?? Pal, you lost sight of the border years ago. You’re John-Madden-Monday-Night-Football-RV-Ride away from the border.

But lets also not forget last night after Hillary’s speech:

OLBERMANN: Grand slam. Grand slam, out of the ballpark, across the street.

OLBERMANN: Across the buildings across the street.

OLBERMANN: Five, six, maybe seven campaign slogans in that speech, starting out from the initial get-go, a sock to the jaw of disunity, a speech that started about Barack Obama, a proud American, a proud Democrat, a proud senator, and a proud supporter of Barack Obama, then a lot about her, some about George Bush, twisting it all back to get her supporters to recognize that their goals are now best served by Barack Obama, then Michelle, then Biden, then several key, probably the strongest hits against John McCain we have heard at this convention, and finally tying it all back together. I don’t know how it could have been better. I don’t know how it could have been better, Chris.

OLBERMANN: The usual Hillary approach of listing those things and those people she met who were in trouble and she tried to help, going along in that traditional manner we saw throughout the primaries, and now with a twist at the end: Those are the reasons I ran for president. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should, too.

It’s literally what we have been talking about. How do you convert her campaign into their campaign? I don’t know how she could have done it better. At the end of the speech, it is one of those speeches, I would think, for Democrats, at least, that you now charge through the doorway, and, after you are through it, you check to see whether or not it was open. You go through the wall, if necessary, what she just told you to do.

Ok — so that’s what we’ve got so far. Lets have some predictions about what Keith has in store for us tonight.

[posted by Justin Levine]

After being decisively put in their place and called out for the ‘tabloid trash’ that they are by John Edwards, the National Enquirer continues to just dig its own grave even deeper -

NOW, The ENQUIRER has uncovered more blockbuster information, including:

After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant.

Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron,  was funneling money to Rielle.

Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards’ use of campaign funds.

…

The ongoing ENQUIRER investigation has also confirmed that he has been with Rielle and the baby three times this year in California.

“John Edwards is still lying!” a close source told The ENQUIRER.

“He lied to his wife Elizabeth, he’s lying to Rielle and he lied all the way through his TV interview!”

For THE FULL STORY pick up this week’s ENQUIRER.

They are even quoting UNNAMED SOURCES!  Don’t these people have any journalistic integrity? Can you name me even one other paper that would have the chutzpah to do such a thing?? That proves you can’t believe them.

John Edwards gave a convincing denial, as these other sources will attest to.

That should be the end of it. Stop dragging his name through the mud!

- Justin Levine

[posted by Justin Levine]

Many news sources report that John Edwards is claiming that his affair with Hunter ended in 2006.

Even Fox News states: “Edwards said he told his wife everything about the affair after it ended in 2006.”

But has anyone bothered to watch Edwards’ Nightline interview (or read the transcript)?

Edwards claims that he first told his wife about the affair in 2006, and that the affair has “been over for a long time”.

But when Edwards is specifically asked how long the affair lasted, we get the usual obfuscations that politicians have in their standard playbook -

BOB WOODRUFF: Is this affair completely over?

JOHN EDWARDS: Oh yes, it’s been over for a long time.

WOODRUFF: How long did it last and when exactly did it end?

JOHN EDWARDS: Well, here’s the way I feel about this Bob. I think that my family is entitled to every detail. They’ve been told every detail. Elizabeth knows absolutely everything. I think beyond the basics, the fact that I made this mistake and I’m responsible for it and no one else. I think that’s where it stops in terms of the public because I think everything else is within my family and those privacy boundaries ought to be respected.

Has he specifically claimed that it ended in 2006 in some other media outlet that I’m not aware of? Not some vague, lawyerly implication mind you - but a direct, unambiguous assertion of it completely ending in 2006?

If he hasn’t, then news outlets should stop with the “2006″ claim and instead report the truth - Edwards refuses to state when his affair ended.

[Update]: Numerous people have pointed to Edwards’ own statement that he released after he taped the ABC interview where he states: “With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then.”

Fair enough. But if he is willing to say that in his statement, am I the only one who finds it strange that he chose not to answer the question when asked by ABC? Do we need to ask him what he means by ‘misconduct’? Is he trying to pull a ‘Clinton’ here?

- Justin Levine

[posted by Justin Levine]

Well isn’t this special….

Rielle Hunter, the former presidential campaign aide who had an affair with John Edwards, said yesterday that she will not pursue DNA testing to establish the paternity of her 5-month-old daughter, despite the former senator’s offer to participate in such a test.

In a statement provided to The Washington Post, Hunter said through her attorney that she would not take a genetic test “now or in the future.”

The attorney, Robert Gordon, called Hunter a “private” person who is “not running for public office” and would not comment further on the media frenzy engulfing her.

“She wishes to maintain her privacy and her daughter’s privacy,” he said in the statement. “Furthermore, Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter’s privacy now or in the future.”

Now let’s remember what Edwards said: “I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established.”

And let’s re-examine what he told ABC News before Hunter’s latest announcement: “I would welcome participating in a paternity test. I’m only one side of the test, but I’m happy to participate in one.”

Let’s look at the phrase again:  “I’m only one side of the test, but I’m happy to participate in one.”

That is a curious fact to point out if you are trying to come clean to the press. “I’m only one side” of a paternity test. You need two willing participants to be sure about the results.

Let’s also recall that there is no name listed for the father on the child’s birth certificate.

The reasonable conclusion to be drawn: Edwards already coordinated his statements with Hunter before he went public with them. He told ABC News that he would be willing to take a paternity test knowing full damn well that Hunter herself would later refuse to take one. That way, he could pretend to be putting everything out in the open, when in fact, he is still a lying sack of crap.

Why is Hunter doing this?  Only one of two reasons.  (1)  She still wants to protect Edwards, and naively thinks that the truth can still be hidden; or (2)  She is still being paid off by Edwards and/or his political operatives and needs to take this position because she still wants to collect the money.

This is all obvious by now. The lies by Edwards still stink here. But he, Hunter and most of the media still insist on treating me like I’m an idiot.

I know that most of the media think that the story is over now that Edwards has admitted to the affair, but thank goodness we still have the Enquirer to shake the truth out. If the media were still interested in this story, they would realize that Edwards’ denial of paternity still leaves many unanswered questions, and they would now be hounding political operative Andrew Young and/or his attorney to answer some direct questions.

Let’s remember:

A December statement attributed to Young’s Washington attorney, Pamela J. Marple, said, “As confirmed by Ms. Hunter, Andrew Young is the father of her unborn child. Senator Edwards knew nothing about the relationship between these former co-workers, which began when they worked together in 2006. As a private citizen who no longer works for the campaign, Mr. Young asks that the media respect his privacy while he works to make amends with his family.”

Now that Edwards continues to deny paternity, that makes Young’s statement still very newsworthy. Is anyone trying to track him or his attorney down to re-confirm all of this? Because once again, if this is true, then that would have to mean that Hunter carried on two separate affairs with married men within the Edwards camp within a short period of time. People will think that she is a political-hungry whore if this is true - that’s why we need to clear the air on this (and why Hunter’s own family is calling for the paternity test, even if Hunter herself is not).

But the media STILL aren’t interested in  getting the truth. They are only interested in getting the memo of official statements from the participants, re-printing them, and then shrugging their shoulders since they are ‘aren’t able to confirm’ anything else. They still consider the reporting of common sense conclusions to be ‘rumor mongering’ since they don’t have an actaul signed confession from Edwards, Young, Hunter, et al.

For the record: I don’t think Hunter is a political-hungry whore. Rather, I think that Edwards continues to lie and that she is being complicit in helping him try and maintain his lies.

I only ask one thing from the media and our politicians -  DON’T TREAT ME LIKE I’M AN IDIOT.  Why does that seem to be so tough?

- Justin Levine

[posted by Justin Levine]

That’s not an exact quote above, but it remains the substance of his latest stance.  99% honest…I’ll have to use that line myself.

Here is an exact quote from Edwards though -

I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established.  I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of  the baby.

Once again, if you believe that, here is what you must also believe -

1. That he had a legitimate reason for visiting Hunter at 2:30 in the morning last month at a Beverly Hills hotel without telling his wife  - even though he claims he previously told his wife about his affair with Hunter in 2006.

2.  Shortly after Hunter’s affair with Edwards supposedly ended, she began ANOTHER affair with married Edwards aide  Andrew Young who managed to get her pregnant. That would mean that Hunter certainly gets around in the Edwards camp.

[Update]: Lee Stranahan nails it.

- Justin Levine