The Department of Justice has the historic role of advocating for the people of America and is not just the legal arm of the administration.  This dual role has led to conflicts because of the inherent conflict.  However what has transpired during Mr. Bush's occupation of the White House has been the transformation of the Department of Justice into being only an advocate and justifier of the political and policy aims.  The other side has been willfully ignored.  This can be clearly seen in the politicization of the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys.

This has not been a major news story by the corporate media for many months.  But I caught this little item via Talkingpointsmemo.com's Kate Klonick writing:

Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general who oversaw the Justice Department during the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, won't be presently referred to a grand jury for his role in the affair...

The only good is that the door won't be entirely closed.  She continues:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to name a prosecutor from within the DOJ to continue the work of the Offices of Professional Responsibly and the Inspector General, the same sources told the Post.

The corruption within the Department of Justice continues to this day.  As far as I can see there has been no meaningful reform within the Voting Rights Division nor in the Civil Rights Division's of the Department of Justice under Mukasey's tenure but the exact opposite.  Mukasey has continued policies of empahasizing "voter fraud" and not has implemented policies to combat "voter disenfranchisement" in states that are aggressively using HAVA to "scrub" voters from registration rolls in the upcoming election.  

Mukasey is "slick justice" and had hoodwinked Senators Schumer and Feinstein during his confirmation hearings.  Unfortunately it is the people of America who must suffer from the infirm hand of Mukasey's continuing policies of injustice.

From a note that I saw on Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory:

...Robert Farley responds and objects to my post of yesterday concerning the first permanent, standing deployment of a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for law enforcement purposes since Reconstruction.

Looking backward this is what Glenn wrote on NorthCom's activity:

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

Again:

The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

The real danger is that the "tools" are left to be used in the future by any executive who deems them to be "in the national interest" even if it only for the "One Percent" doctrine.

If ministers want to endorse political candidates then their ministries should be taxed because they have become active political organizations that are partisan in nature and by extension adjuncts to any political campaign and political party.

Laurie Goldstein, New York Times, writes:

The protest, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, was organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of Christian lawyers that fights for conservative religious and social causes. When the fund first announced the protest this year, it said it planned to have 50 ministers taking part. As of Thursday it said it had hundreds of volunteers, but had selected only 33 who were fully aware of the risks and benefits...

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said: “This is not something these churches want to do in secrecy and hiding. In fact, they don’t believe they’re doing anything wrong. They don’t believe they’re violating the law.

“What they’re doing is talking to their congregations about biblical issues related to candidates and elections, and they believe they have the constitutional right to do that.”

The protest is challenging an amendment to the tax code passed by Congress in 1954 saying that charitable organizations known as 501(c)(3)’s, which accept tax-deductible contributions, cannot intervene in political campaigns. The legislation was intended to prevent nonprofit organizations from funneling money and resources to political candidates....

Clearly the Alliance Defense Fund's lawyers are inducing ministers to undermine tax laws.  The New York Times article continues:

Three former I.R.S. officials, now lawyers in a Washington firm, recently sent a letter to the I.R.S.’s Office of Professional Responsibility urging that the Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers be investigated for “inducing churches to engage in conduct designed to violate federal tax law in a direct and blatant matter.”

Republicans must be onboard this bailout.  Because House Minority Leader John Boehner stated today the Republicans will not be for the bailout.

Jake Tapper writes about Boehner:

“As I told our Conference this morning, there is no bipartisan deal at this time," Boehner said. "There may be a deal among some Democrats, but House Republicans are not a part of it.”

Meanwhile CNBC reports:

The banking system needs another $500 billion to survive beyond the $700 billion rescue plan being contemplated by Congress, said Pimco founder Bill Gross.

Gross said on CNBC that the government bailout plan will help free up bank balance sheets so they can start lending again, but will provide only about $50 billion in real capital to the system....

But what about the foundation from which all this came from?  The mortgage holders, of which there are about 4 million in or will be in a distressed position in the following 12 to 24 months?  From what I've read there has been fierce opposition from Mr. Bush and his cohort to any type of relief for home owners.  Propositions from Democrats and other groups include suspension of foreclosures for 60 to 90 days, freezing mortgage rates, and allowing judges greater latitude for individual cases.

There should be no bailout bill without bipartisan support.  Period.  If Republicans want to kill the economy then let it be on their heads.  

Democrats need to start with a major ad campaign to tie failure of this bailout for homeowners to intransigent Republicans.  The campaign itself should be not about Wall Street but homeowners.

How did they get to this number of 700 billion USD?  Brian Wingfield and Josh Zumbrun, Forbes magazine reporters, write:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number." [my emphasis]

Is there nothing that Republicans won't do to bamboozle and swindle people out of their homes and to keep Wall Street failed financiers in the black?  But it takes a willing accomplice to the crime.  Wingfield and Zumbrung continue:

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says she is optimistic that the House will pass a bill this week. But that doesn't mean the Senate, which is by nature more sluggish than its larger counterpart on the other side of Capitol Hill, will be so quick to act.

Martin D. Weiss writes, from his financial newsletter Money and Markets:

We believe Congress may be on the verge of making what could become one of the greatest policy mistakes of modern times, passing bailout legislation that could aggravate, rather than alleviate, the nation's massive debt crisis.

Who is Martin D. Weiss?  Eric N. Berg, New York Tiems business writer, reports:

An anthropology graduate of New York University and Columbia University, Mr. Weiss began his career by working at the investment-newsletter publishing firm of his father, Irving Weiss. One of his first assignments was editing Money and Credit Reports, a newsletter that dealt with interest rates and the safety of financial institutions. Mr. Weiss says he trained for that job as a teen-ager, tagging along when the elder Mr. Weiss visited banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies. On His Own

In 1971, Mr. Weiss struck out on his own, founding Weiss Research to provide investment advice to wealthy individuals. In 1976, he expanded the business to include the publication of his own financial newsletters (his father's newsletters had ceased operating by then).

In 1980, after a two-year stint in Japan as a Fulbright Scholar studying decision making in Japanese financial institutions, Mr. Weiss returned to the United States to begin issuing formal safety ratings on banks and saving associations.

Nine years later, he began rating insurers. Unlike the other major agencies, which rely heavily on management assessments, Mr. Weiss focuses on the detailed financial results that insurers file with state insurance commissions. To generate a letter grade, he crunches all the numbers using a computer model developed by an actuary, Peter Chapman, and an insurance professor, Harold Skipper of Georgia State University.

Time to stop the Bush-Pelosi gravy train to the privateers of the financial sector.  As many others have said why should be we believe in the "solution" from the same people who brought such fiscal irresponsiblity upon themselves (like Sec. Treasury Paulson who was Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs)?

From Talkingpointsmemo.com, Josh Marshall writes:

Sen. Obama is saying his spending programs may have to be delayed in light of the massive bailout bill...

And remember, if Obama wins, his Treasury Dept. would be administering a lot of this. So are they planning to pay premium prices for the worthless or near worthless paper the banks are trying to dump on the public (in order to recapitalize the banks at public expense)?

AP reporters Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Jeannine Aversa write:

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke bluntly warned reluctant lawmakers Tuesday they risk a recession with higher unemployment and increased home foreclosures unless they act on the Bush administration's $700 billion plan to bail out the financial industry. 

David Cay Johnston, Poynter Online.com, Pulitzer Prizer winner, asks:

The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.) [my empahsis-Ken]

Folks this is monumental scam taking place before a complict media...if it is such a crisis then why is Nightline taking a full week on "exotic peoples of the world" of which the Monday installment was on forgotten tribes of Brazillian rainforest.

There are no hard questions being asked by the media.  If there are hard questions being asked by the Senate and House respective committees why are they being held "closed door"?

This, my friends, is to strait jacket the incoming president for doing anything constructive for the American people...expand SCHIP?  Sorry Mr. Bush and his cronies carted off the money.  Fix Medicaid?  Sorry Sec. Treasury Paulson scammed all those tax dollars for his high finance rollers.  Renewable energy development?  Sorry Fed. chairman Benanke said that your tax dollars are spent on the bad debt of financial institutions at buying their worthless securities at premium prices not fire sale pricing. 

This is not a 700 billion USD bailout but at least a 3 trillion dollar bailout.

Call your congressional representative and tell them "NO DEAL".  It is purely political that this so-called crisis happened.  

Remember, Republicans will vote against whatever proposal that comes out of Congress.  They will run against it and win because this is a "win-win" for them in November.

It is time for Democratic groups to start running ads on framing this "crisis" as a "Republican crisis".  But...they won't.

The legacy of Mr. Bush will be that your taxes will go up no matter who is elected in the fall because he is fiscally irresponsible.  It is that simple.  A nation that is in hock to the tune of trillions of dollars to other countries of the world must pay the price for such mismanagement.  The price that will be paid is through higher taxes or by having a nation go into receivership; i.e., the nation will be forced to balance it's books through liquidation of it's assets.  This is nothing new to countries that have defaulted on their loan obligations.  This is nothing new to citizens who have defaulted on their debts.

What is happening now in this nation is that private companies are asking government to take on their bad debt due to their own decisions that is the bottom line.  

From 2002 this is from usgov.info:

The June 28 deadline was announcement earlier this week by Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who had previously not set a deadline by which Congress needed to increase the current $5.95 trillion debt limit. Should the national debt exceed the debt limit, the government is considered in default and loses its ability to borrow money necessary to keep the government running and pay the interest due on debt. President Bush's budget projects that the national debt could rise to $6.099 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2002 and to $6.489 trillion at the end of 2003.

This is from AP's Julie Hirschfeld Davis writing:

It also would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion — making room for the massive rescue.

If our national debt is increasing by, on average, 20 percent every year (between 2002 and now) then there is no way to "grow" out of our debt through the conservative view of lower taxes means increased revenue due to economic growth.  If sustainable economic growth is pegged at approximately 3 to 4 percent per year, which does not trigger inflationary pressures, and the tax rate for corporations and individuals remains the same under the Bush tax plan then it is fiscally impossible to continue such debt accumulation.

When AIG went under there was this little noticed rule that the Federal Reserve relaxed too.  On September 14 the Financial Times writers Francesco Guerrera in London, Krishna Guha in Washington and Greg Farrell in New York reports:

The Fed also suspended rules that prohibit banks from using deposits to fund their investment banking subsidiaries.

And

It widened the set of assets eligible as collateral for loans of Treasuries to include all investment grade paper, and raised the size of these Treasury loans to $200bn.

This means that Level 3 investment paper is the equivalent to junk bonds; i.e., almost worthless in valuation, will be taken on by the federal government.  What is Level 3?  From North Coast Investment Research on what is the definition:

Level 1 assets have quoted prices in active markets. At the other extreme Level 3 assets have only unobservable inputs to measure value and are thus valued by reference to the banks’ own models.

Does this remind you of anything?  Jim Willie writes:

Why were officers at Lehman permitted to remove box after box from their building, when it should be treated as a crime scene with yellow cordon tape?

Click2Houston.com reported on the collapse of Arthur Andersen accounting and it's criminal practice:

Former Andersen LLP partner David B. Duncan testified Monday that he knew he was breaking the law when he instructed employees to comply with the firm's document retention policy, which resulted in destruction of Enron Corp.-related materials.

Instead of clarifying this "crisis" Bernake and Paulson are aiming to muddy the waters further through nationalization of finance corporations.  Roubini writes on the federalization of AIG:

AIG should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy court and any government financial help to avoid systemic risk should have occurred in the form of a formal debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing. Bankruptcy court have laws and a judicial history of how claims of an insolvent firm are treated and they provide clarity to the pecking order of such claims while avoiding – via a stay – some creditors running and be made whole while others are inflicted - because of such a run - even greater losses. So instead of doing the right thing – pushing AIG into bankruptcy court and providing government DIP financing – the Fed and Treasury have formally nationalized AIG and they have created a legal mess where there will be endless confusion and lack of transparency of the government claims relative to junior and senior creditors of AIG....

Contrary to what I've read and seen on commentators stating that this 500,000,000,000 USD bailout includes the previous "loans" to Bear and the rest- it does not.  As a matter of fact what is coming out of the mouths of Paulson and Bernake understates the matter by a factor of about 6x.  If all bad mortagages are taken into account along with the their associated "collateralized debt vehicles" created by financial corporations then the real bite out of us, the taxpayers, will be to the tune of 3,000,000,000,000 USD.  

What is the underlying reason?  

Bush and his conservative allies, like Grover Norquist, want to limit the what the next president can do.  It is a manufactored financial "crisis" in order to strait jacket government's choices.

But who is hurt in the long term are not the CEO's and high rollers but the American people.

This is at least a half trillion dollar scam on the American taxpayer.  Who is going to pay for this?  Mc$ame will lower taxes...what is his answer?  China will save our *ss again? 

The problem is that our elected representatives are being "herded" down the chutes to the slaughtering pen. 

We are being fleeced of our money by Bush and his gang. 

If he and his cohort lied to get America into war then why wouldn't he and his cohort lie about this in order to gain more political power?

Go to your representatives office on Monday and demand that they do nothing until the American people understand why it is going to take a trillion dollars to bail out banks... it is our money.

Why not let the system fail and have government take over everything?  Because Bush and his cohort have done already done it!  We give loans to banks without any systemic changes in the system itself.  Without changing the essentials of the system it is we who are the fools and the predatory banking executives who are laughing.

We, the people, own AIG, now.  That is what 85,000,000,000 USD has done and we should exercise our ownership of said company.  We also own Fannie and Freddy, too. 

What would I do?  First is to freeze all foreclosures threats to homes in sub prime and alt A categories for the next six months.  Those homes that are in foreclosue would be reprived for twelve months.  Both categories of home owners would be allowed to pay their principal.  Interest on their loans would not be charged for twelve months.

Second, I would overhaul the financial system that would include out right banning of all exotic financial vehicles that caused this financial system "meltdown" including CDO's, SIV's, et.al.  The banking industry would have firewalls reinstated such that banks and other financial institutions would be seperated again.

Third I would hold accountable all upper level management and boards of directors of the financial companies in the United States for both fiduciary and criminal courts. 

Fourth, the world financial companies need to brought to leash, too.  Since they actively aided and abetted the fraud being committed by the biggest investment banks in America.  The U.S. government should strongly urge foreign nations to strictly regulate their own banks and financial companies.  An international tribunal for crimes, and a comprehensive review board that would recommend stringent laws to regulate the international financial markets.

What is readily apparent is that history will be repeated.  If this is the worst crisis since 1929 then why did it happen?  As Naomi Klein has stated eloquently in "The Shock Doctrine" is that corporates freed from regulation of the market place will destroy their fiscal environment just as Ebola will destroy its host without regard for long term survival.

Now is the time for Change...a change to a free market with well regulated corporations.

Tim Paradis, AP Business writer, reports:

CNBC said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is considering creation of an entity like the Resolution Trust Corp. that was formed after the failure of savings and loan banks in the 1980s...

Investors were cheered by the notion of a huge federal intervention like the establishment of RTC to acquire the real estate debt that has hobbled financial institutions and led to the intense volatility in the markets this week.

No way in hell should the American taxpayer be left holding the bag on this.

However, if we should be then I think that we should demand our pound of financial flesh.  This is what I wrote to Rep. DeGette:

This is insane.  It is time for those who benefited from the real estate boom to pay for their willfully reckless creation of this problem through predatory lending practices, creation of specialty debt obligation vehicles, and other exotic investment types.  It is not the time for us, taxpayers, who should shoulder the bad debts that were the creation of an "Enronized" financial market and approved by the Republicans for the last eight years.

CEO's and corporate boards should be, at a minimum, taxed of all stock and stock options.  Other "perks" should be expensed and taxed for all upper management.  The fiscal fallout should be that "golden parachutes" for CEO's who fail their companies should not be given.  Failure should never be rewarded.

Since, we, the taxpayers, of America now "own" Fannie and Freddy, AIG, and other major corporations because they failed in the most basic fiduciary duties and responsibilities it is time for the imposition of penalties for those responsible.

Why should we give recklessly irresponsible corporations 600,000,000,000 USD for free?

It is time we rolled up our collective sleeve and administrator a sound spanking to this felonious culprits.

I caught this off Newshounds.us, Ellen writes:

There’s been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin's ties to the Alaskan Independence Party which the McCain campaign has been trying to minimize...

But during last night’s (9/16/08) interview with Greta Van Susteren, Palin’s husband Todd explicitly distinguished “Alaskan families” from “American families.” It was a jarring suggestion that they’re not all part of the same country. With video.

I believe that this issue should be brought to the forefront because it really is about whether or not Palin supports secession for Alaska via her taped video to the Alaska Independence Party's conventions.  As can be seen it is readily apparent that the "1st Dude" still has a secessionist mind set.

I would point out that Sarah Palin has a racist attitude towards Afro-Americans.  Gwendolyn Alexander, President African American Historical Society of Alaska, Inc. writes:

While meeting with black leaders concerning the absence of any African-Americans on her staff, Gov. Palin responded that she doesn’t have to hire any blacks and was not intending to hire any. What kind of attitude is this toward African-American for who may be the first Vice-President of the United States?

Makes me wonder if there is a locked closet with the "Stars 'n Bars" hanging in it.

Is it too fast, too big to "fail" or is a con game going on? 

Lori Montgomery, Washington Post reporter, writes:

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concern yesterday that they have had no control over when and how federal money has been used to curb the panic on Wall Street...

"My instincts and my gut tell me they made the wrong move. But I don't have all the information they do," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, who yesterday fielded furious calls from constituents. "People are angry because they see this as their tax dollars bailing out Wall Street speculators. And in some cases, it is."

For Republicans this is all they can say: Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Republican Conference, yesterday urged the administration to send an "envoy" to Capitol Hill to explain their decisions

An envoy?  Is this what Republicans think that the three co-equal branches of government are, for them, seperate states?  Truly deluded thinking on their part.

Remember when Chrysler was "too big to fail"?  Well it required an act of Congress to release the money.  Why is "Helicopter Ben" allowed to have at his discretion 800,000,000,000 USD via the central bank's reserves?

Edmund Ross, PoliticalBull.net, writes:

With a single act the concept of "conservatism" as espoused by centuries of free market capitalists is washed away. The heart and soul of the ideology; small government, low taxes, and free markets; has been exposed as nothing but a fair weather ideology, something that works when things go well and fails when circumstances do not. The U.S. government bailout of Insurance Giant AIG demonstrates the failure of the conservative ideology and exposes its proponents as frauds.

Yes, he is correct:  conservatism is a fair weather ideology.

BTW- Since Republicans love to resurrect the old Communist threat I believe Darksyde, DailyKos.com, is correct:

Long Live the New Union of Socialist Republicans

Welcome news comrades! We the People are now We the Owners. The People's Insurance Company, formerly known as AIG, was saved for the time being from the forces of capitalism by the new Union of Republican Socialists, formerly known as the GOP...

Now that the People own a major insurance company, it's fair to ask how the People's Insurance Company, along with the People's Mortgage Companies and the People's Investment Banks, will benefit the People who Own them. Can we expect lower premiums, equity sharing, and corporate perks for our hundreds of billions of dollars? Should we start checking our mailbox for dividend checks? Who gets paid first, claimants, bondholders, stockholders, or we the new taxpayer owners?

Without a ethics or a moral sense is what McCain has come down to which is what Brian Rogers is talking about.  Thomas Edsall, Huffingtonpost.com, writes:

The McCain campaign is making no secret of its changed stance. "We recognize it's not going to be 2000 again," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told Politico, referring to the campaign eight years ago when McCain was revered by the media for his transparency and accessibility.

"He lost then," Rogers said. "[Now] We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."

Isn't it about time for television stations to be held accountable for the ads that candidates are running which are outright lies?  Those television stations are making money from political campaigns. 

I believe that television stations ought to be held accountable for the airing of ads that are lies.  If they can do analysis of whether or not the campaign ad is truthful or not then they should be held accountable for the airing of said ad rather then just taking the money and running to the bank.

We, as consumers of television ads, news, and entertainment now must exercise the power of the purse in telling television stations that political ads that are outright lies should not be aired if they do not want their stations boycotted.

BTW- have anybody noticed that McCain's ad about celebrity has been changed?  There is no longer the reference to crowds at the beginning of the attack ad.

Become the Paul Revere of today.  Josh Marshall, Talkingpointsmemo.com, makes the call:

What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska. They've both embraced a level of dishonesty that disqualifies them for high office. Democrats owe it to the country to make clear who these people are. No apologies or excuses. If Democrats can say at the end of this campaign that they made clear exactly how and why these two are unfit for high office they can be satisfied they served their country

It is time for all Americans to aware of the clear and present danger that McCain/Palin represent for the future of this nation.

We have a duty to wake up the citizenry to this danger in the guise of McCain/Palin.

(BTW- I just wrote to state senator Ken Gordon about being the modern Paul Revere.  I'll see if he responds.)

This the right wing view of how rape victims should be treated.  Jo Fish, Firedoglake.com, writes:

Have to begin this post by offering a hat-tip to GregB in comments for the pointer to this disgusting article. Apparently the tax-cutting, deficit-running administration of the (dis)honorable ex-mayor of Wasilla, Alaska decided to charge women who were sexually assaulted for the rape kits used in the investigation of the crime. Yes. You read that correctly.

Leave her town tens of millions of dollars in debt and let the victims of rapists pay for their own forensics.

This is Bush/McCain's "ownership society" which means you are own your own when it comes to living in American society.

This should be front page headlines of every newspaper and national television CNBC writes: 

The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows that the U.S. is "more communist than China right now" but its brand of socialism is meant only for the rich, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe on Monday...

From 2010, Fannie and Freddie will have to shrink their portfolios by 10 percent a year until they reach $250 billion, to reduce the risk to the taxpayer, according to the Treasury plan. But this may put additional pressure on the housing market, Rogers said.

"That's going to also ensure that house prices continue to go down. It's going to be harder and harder to get a mortgage."

This is no aberration but a direct result of the system itself.  Ask McCain if the "free market" should rule or should there be strict oversight on financial institutions and markets because this bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac effectively doubles the national debt in one day.

For a good primer as to why this situation was allowed to happen I suggest reading this by Stephan Lendman "Immoral hazard":

It's called "moral hazard," and the term goes way back - to the 1600s. English insurance companies then used it in the late 17th century. In the modern era, it got more study in the 1960s, but at the time didn't imply fraud, immoral behavior or outsized excess. Economists used the term to describe market inefficiencies when risks are displaced. It was before what became known as the "Greenspan put," or the idea that Fed Chairmen provide insurance - to bail out investors who take imprudent risks, so take even greater ones since winning is always guaranteed. But only for high-rollers.

For the political aspect of this crisis I would point to Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine".  New York Times reviewer, Nobel prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz writes:

Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies. But Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification, basing their belief in the perfection of market economies on models that assumed perfect information, perfect competition, perfect risk markets. Indeed, the case against these policies is even stronger than the one Klein makes.

What did Obama say?  As reported by Ben Smith, Politico.com, on June 14, 2008:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.

The problem is that Republicans will not elevate the level of political discourse because what works, and can only work, for them is to appeal to their base who are fundamentalist cross bearing kooks, knuckle dragging xenophobes, mouth breathing warmongers, nosey-neighbor spies, craven chest thumping bullies, know nothing creationists, corporate facists, morality freaks, and are for the destruction of planet Earth. 

By utilizing demagogery and fear in wrappers of patriotism and the "stars and bars" does the Republican Party trumpet their scam on the American people though the willing accomplices in the corporate owned mass media of TV and radio.

So this is what is unfolding as Kagro X, DailyKos.com, writes:

Once again, sporks to a gunfight. The McCain campaign is dispatching lawyers and operatives to Alaska, preparing to meet this issue and fight it head-on as if it were Florida 2000 all over again. Democrats, it seems, are pinning their hopes to state legislators and regular order.

Why should Dems approach this differently? We discussed the dangers of Troopergate yesterday. But let me reiterate the central points once again:

1. Cheneyism -- that is, the legalistic resistance to oversight in every form and at every juncture -- is gelling as precedent and is spreading to the states.
2. Sarah Barracuda GantryWindrip is now positioned to take the reins of a Vice Presidency gone wild, and marry her brand of Nixonism -- that is, the use of the power of office to settle personal and political scores by leveraging the mechanisms of state against her enemies -- to the principles of Cheneyism, which grafts the veneer of legality onto these vendettas, and (this is key) rebuffs all attempts to challenge this illegal exercise of power as "criminalizing politics."

What I am not seeing is that Obama's campaign should be "working the refs", i.e., the press, in telling the American people that the Republican Party working hand-in-hand with McCain's campaign is doing everything to undermine the whole American ideal as embodied in the Constitution.  What they should be doing is to stop immediately with the whole schtick of "making nice" to the character of McCain and Palin.

What is happening is that there is much less enthusiasm for Obama by his supporters because he is not "fighting for liberal and progressive principals" and is running a "under the rock" campaign of letting the media know about how is fighting McCain's attacks on his character.

As other people have mentioned the fact that you take on the strength of your opponent in order to destroy him.

Obama can only make McCain self destruct by pushing him aggressively.  As we can see that McCain is thin skinned and will exhibit the same actions as Bush when it comes to controlling the message.  

While it is good to see that Obama is airing "The Same" ad it is still problematic.  The goal is to not just tell people that McCain is the same as Bush but to actively destroy McCain's media created "strengths" of commander-in-chief, maverick, no Senate leadership role and likeable "rogue".

It is time to set up Truth Squads to every McCain and McCain surrogate event nationwide.  

It is time to air ads questioning McCain's mental fitness for command by demanding that the Department of Defense release in toto his mental evaluation post POW experience.  Ask McCain if he received any psychiatric counseling for PTSD.  

To put it crudely, it is time to push McCain's buttons in order for the American people to see how he would react to real world pressure.

The police state has arrived, at least temporarily, in America curtesy of St. Paul and how city, state and federal law enforcement agencies conspired to shut down any and all protests before the Republican National Convention.  As I checked USAToday and Firedoglake.com I have come up with a rough estimate of over 700 protesters being arrested with a significant number being charged with felonies.

As I noted before that Amy Goodman was arrested, along with her two producers, and that the police and intelligence organs planted informants into protest groups.  What I did not mention is that not only were those spies in protest groups to gather information but I would bet that they were provocateurs within those groups due to a resurrected cointelpro.

In reading this post by the excellent reportage of Lindsay Beyerstein, Firedoglake.com, I caught this at the very end her report:

The RNC took out a $10 million insurance policy to pay off police brutality settlements. This is the first time party host committee agreed to take out such a policy.

Remember the 2004 RNC in New York City resulted in 1,800 people were arrested as reported by USAToday.  The resulting lawsuits had the city of New York pay out of it's own budget as they reached settlements. 

At what point will it be too costly for political parties to hold national conventions if they have to have an insurance policy for the actions of the host city's police force?

It is time to call McCain a traitor.  Why?

Because McCain has stated that he has a "plan" to capture/kill OBL.  If that is so then why wait?  Americans are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.  What moral reason does he have in not telling Mr. Bush his "plan"?

Call our elected representatives and demand that McCain give his "plan" to Mr. Bush and not wait for an election.

Let the local media know about this despicable tactic of McCain to let our soldiers die while he plays politics with his "plan to get OBL".

This is just like the fringe thinking Republicans to view the assassination attempt by neo-Nazis to be something less than serious.  Dave Neiwert, Firedoglake.com, writes:

Note the language used by Eid in dismissing the gravity of the case: the case isn't serious because they were "more aspirational, perhaps, than operational"? Well, when it was the Liberty Seven -- black Muslim men who were described by the FBI as "aspirational rather than operational" -- there was no hesitation by the Justice Department in bringing charges.

Another funny thing: When a black man in prison sent a threatening letter containing baby powder to John McCain, Troy Eid brought down the full force of the law, complete with press conferences and public declarations that "We won't stand for threats of this kind in Colorado."

But when it’s a claque of white men with rifles, disguises, and all the accoutrement of a conspiracy – as well as open admissions to it – Troy Eid isn’t worried. After all, they just a bunch of harmless, tweakers, right? … Just like little Timmy McVeigh.

But then, when you’re a Karl Rove operative promoted to deliver justice the Republican way, as Troy Eid is, that’s the way the scales fall. As Marcy reported at the time, Eid in fact nearly didn't get the Colorado job because of concerns about "improper lobbying."

His failure to take this matter seriously is itself a serious matter. When law-enforcement officials let this stuff slip by, they send a dangerous message to other would-be plotters out there. And next time, they may in fact be more competent.

Maybe it is time for our state officials, like Gov. Ritter, and federal elected officials, like Senator Salazar, to speak up about the serious nature of people who want to assassinate politicians.