My Inner Shatner

Here's how I felt when writing yesterday's entry, "Ford's Better Idea":

Everybody WHOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!!

Thanks to smudgeorama @ You Tube. Check out THIS smudgeorama production too!

Ford's Better Idea

Wage Wars. There's a very fine essay at Down With Tyranny (DWT) discussing and roundly criticizing the growth of the distorted claim that auto workers, on average, make $70.00 per hour. As you can see by reading DWT's reporting, this claim is scurrilous, at best, as it is based upon some rather "fancy," i.e. dishonest arithmetic. In short, to reach the $70.00 per hour figure the proponents of this baloney add up each present worker's hourly pay and benefit costs and then add in the costs of all retirees' benefits as well. They then divide that massive total by the number of hours worked by present workers while excluding the retirees. In fact, the average pay of so-called "Detroit" auto workers is $28.00 per hour. In addition, union health and pension benefits add another $10.00 per hour to the total cost per worker. The pay of non-union auto workers for primarily foreign auto makers, as in Alabama Senator Richard Shelby's "right to work" state and other southern states, is between $20.00 and $26.00 per hour. The difference in actual wages, therefore, is relatively small (except, one might guess, in the opinion of the Honda and Toyota workers who make $2.00 - $6.00 less per hour than the unionized "Detroit" workers). The anti-union crowd mendaciously tries to massively expand the resulting gap by adding in the retiree and surviving spouse benefits. This does indeed result in a $70.00 per hour figure for union employees. Those nasty money hungry Detroiters.

Surely, it is true, as Jonathan Cohn points out, retiree benefits are a cost to the Big Three auto makers, and a large one indeed. He explains, however:

Of course, the cost of benefits for those retirees--you may have heard people refer to them as "legacy costs"--do represent an extra cost burden that only the Big Three shoulder. And, yes, it makes it difficult for the Big Three to compete with foreign-owned automakers that don't have to pay the same costs. But don't forget why those costs are so high. While the transplants don't offer the same kind of benefits that the Big Three do, the main reason for their present cost advantage is that they just don't have many retirees.

The first foreign-owned plants didn't start up here until the 1980s; many of the existing ones came well after that. As of a year ago, Toyota's entire U.S. operation had less than 1,000 retirees. Compare that to a company like General Motors, which has been around for more than a century and which supports literally hundreds of thousands of former workers and spouses. As you might expect, many of these have the sorts of advanced medical problems you expect from people to develop in old age. And, it should go without saying, those conditions cost a ton of money to treat.

Felix Salmon at Portfolio.com's Market Movers writes "As of 2007, the UAW represented 180,681 members at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors; it also represented 419,621 retired members and 120,723 surviving spouses. If you take the costs associated with 721,025 individuals and then divide those costs by the hours worked by 180,681 individuals, you're going to end up with a very large hourly rate. But it won't mean anything, unless you're trying to be deceptive." And they are.

Jonathan Cohn further explains that in 2006 the Big Three and the United Auto Workers (UAW) negotiated an historic new agreement whereby the UAW would take over the management of retiree benefits following an initial deposit by the Big Three to fund the UAW trust that will be created and self-funding thereafter. Also, the union agreed to a change in health benefits for all active or retired workers, a change that will result in significant cost savings for the Big Three. Finally, the union agreed to a two-tiered salary scale that will also mean cost savings for the companies. All these changes will result in a radically closing of the gap between the costs of the operation of Big Three companies and their non-union counterparts.

The Eternal War on Wages. The recent furor over the Big Three and the supposed money hungry UAW and, in particular, the now debunked "$70.00 per hour" distortion represents a desperate attempt of the predominantly Republican and Blue Dog Democratic anti-union forces to continue a decades long war against unions, and against income distribution fairness in general. The conscious or unconscious agenda of the WalMart ownership families of the world is to create a society where the population consists of working families who share five important characteristics:

(1) they work for the lowest wage that can be offered that when supplemented by debt will provide enough disposable income to support purchases of consumer products and services consistent with maximization of profit that enrich the business class industries, services, and familial lifestyles;

(2) they accrue debt that becomes consistently larger as a percentage of disposable income and consequently becomes increasingly difficult to repay until families exist primarily to work well into old age primarily to pay interest on debt;

(3) they have little or no publicly financed "safe harbors" to rely upon in times of unemployment so that families may not make reasoned decisions about offering their labor nor may they feel safe in organizing to seek greater benefits or rights;

(4) they rely upon a for-profit health care system that is minimally supported by public finance or public services so that a significant portion of family earnings is regularly apportioned to the inflationary health care industry and the business class that owns it; and

(4) they have their scant savings, after debt payments, if any, invested for their short retirements principally in the equities and debt markets, and as often as is possible in the companies they work for, and with little or no publicly financed pension plans or protections from pension reductions or destruction due to corporate bankruptcy.

Obviously, this is nothing new in theory, the list above includes many of the underlying unconscious motivations of an "invisible fist" laissez faire economy that, as in the Bush years, also asserted an ever increasing amoral attitude toward workers and the poor. It's a wealth machine for the few buttressed by a reinforced religious belief system where the working families are convinced that their economic standing is exclusively the result of their own shortcomings and that, conversely, the wealthiest among them deserve their massive good fortune.

The Debt Front. Debt, in this system, has to be kept within certain boundaries. In the Bush years, however, that sensible idea was submerged in a belief that debt could not sink the entire economy. Debt, public and private, was piled upon debt. One of the principle areas where the economy has suffered a systemic and theoretical failure, at least in terms of conservative ideology, is that debt does seem to matter. Remember those days when the Republican party, a la Phil Gramm, warned and raved about debt and deficits? In the W. Bush years they actively shunned such thinking and added monumental amounts of public debt (which, of course, due to their shenanigans and ongoing bailouts, will blossom further under President Obama). In that way they kept much of the cost of the Iraqi war conveniently off budget, for example. Also, consumer debt ballooned to enormous proportions before the present economic downturn, and that, in the present accelerating diminution of GDP, will become an ever greater burden in percentage terms, for the nation, as a percentage of GDP, and for individual families, as a percentage of their shrinking - or disappearing - disposable income (which was already at a pre-recession low point). See the chart below (Source, Federal Reserve), and note, in comparison, how mild was the debt overhang prior to the Great Depression of the '30s. Witness also the extreme slope of the rise from 1999-2008.
Then, most importantly perhaps, see the charts displaying household debt and disposable income. (Sources, Federal Reserve)



A low wage debt driven system where the vast number of Americans were consigned to the role of permanent worker class, such as what the Republican party hoped to bring about during the nearly 30 year Reagan era, required really careful fine tuning. It literally makes no sense to push their mass of workers into so much debt relative to their incomes that they simply cannot meet their obligations. That could only result in consumer products and services unsold at almost any price. And clearly the deeply indebted U.S. consumer cannot rely on savings, as the chart below indicates (Source, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). (Note, however, that since the beginning of the bank bailouts the savings rate has increased which is consistent with a scenario of consumers hoarding cash as jobs disappear and prices drop.)Ford Really Had A Better Idea. Henry Ford understood that pushing workers into near penury did not serve business interests. How this obvious lesson was lost in the Dubya years simply boggles the mind. In any event, Ford, among of the greater wealth mongers, union haters, and classic meddlers in his worker's private lives, at least understood, to the harsh criticism of his peers, that the interests of his family, his class, and the country, were best served if his Model T's were affordable to his own workers. Ford shocked Wall Street by more than doubling the industry standard by paying his workers $5.00 per day, and shortening the workday as well. In the Dubya years, however, the "Fordism" of decent wages was purposely starved continuing with a vengeance decades of Reagan inspired "no holds barred" deregulated vulture capitalism aimed at disabling unions. To keep their wealth machine well oiled they forgot Ford's advice that the workers need to have both adequate income and the room for debt and debt repayment to fuel economic growth, and thus provide the consequent gargantuan incomes and asset growth required and revered by the supremely wealthy.

Contrarily, it is well known that Bush years laissez faire policies have not added to the income of the vast majority of working families during his tenure even as GDP rose (in fact, these policies have subtracted from average incomes among working families from 2001-2008), see chart at right (Source, Wall Street Journal). As Joe Klein wrote recently at Swampland, "We have had 30 years of class warfare, in which the wealthy strip-mined the middle class. The wealth has been 'spread' upward." Yet, after stoking economic growth by encouraging debt upon debt, vulture capitalists, in their greed, went a "debt too far," and now must wonder why so many families are actually saving money, or refusing to add to debt (even those who can actually secure loans, higher credit card balances, etc. from suddenly - and understandably - cautious banks). The so-called financial crisis they have created via the cravenly immoral policies of unrestrained capitalism is, in its most dangerous manifestations, not a credit supply problem. In the end, I think, this period will be viewed as a credit demand problem, at least from the viewpoint of the debt swamped consumer. Remember when consumers were merely debt "strapped"?

The average Jane and Joe in our country, the debt buried majority, has learned a great deal about debt in the last six months, and the lesson has begun to sink in. As they watch banks, insurance giants, and financial firms go belly up from preposterously over-leveraged financing, now, I believe, Nancy Reagan like, they may have learned to "just say no," and go on a "debt strike," refusing to add to family indebtedness. And, ironically, this is what is called the "paradox of thrift" since it occurs precisely at the time when the economy most needs spending to stay above water. But, like the prisoner's dilemma, it makes sense for individual families to save and repay debt. So, as debt is shed rather than added, a massive buyer's strike occurs simultaneously, fostering a period of dwindling sales, plummeting profits, and consequent price deflation as millions of families repay debt. Unfortunately, in yet another irony, deflation causes the dollar's value to "swell," i.e. debtors are repaying dollars in a scenario where wages and prices are falling, thus making their repayment dollars more valuable to the creditor and more burdensome to the debtor to repay. GDP and employment, in that debt repayment and dollar hoarding scenario, has lately just begun to fall. Like Katrina, what we've seen thus far may be the equivalent of the first water cascading over the levees. The recent data on unemployment, spending, and business investment reveals a nation and world rapidly treading water with few life jackets at hand.

Hope We Can Hope Works. President Elect Obama's plans for massive fiscal stimulus, however, is an exceptionally bright prospect among all this bleak data, and it may pave the way to a softer economic landing by 2011, particularly given his wise economic team choices. Kevin Drum at Mother Jones expanded upon Joe Klein's previous quote when he wrote, "For three decades we've artificially kept middle class wage increases far below the growth rate of the economy, and this trend has been even more pronounced over the past eight years. This has created an enormous pool of extra money that's been — yes — strip mined and redirected to the rich, and fixing this is Barack Obama's biggest and longest-term challenge. If we restore the normal growth of middle class wages, it provides a sustainable consumer base for the entire economy; it reduces the demand for endless credit card debt; it brings down income inequality naturally. . ." Economists, however, debate the effects of fiscal stimulus just as they debate the effects of monetary policy, and the clock is ticking with nearly everyone in over their heads. President Elect Obama warned of inaction during the months of the interregnum. Already, the Big Three has been left to flounder as the waters of its own debt rise above its revenue from collapsing sales and combine to overwhelm its dwindling protective financial levees. Also, will House and Senate Republican and Blue Dog Democrats again revert to voodoo economic ideology and stand in the way of fiscal stimulus for the Big Three, and others, when Congress meets again in December's Special Session, or when the 111th Congress convenes in January 2009? In the absence of congressional action, or deft moves by an apparently flailing Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve monetary policy, the other tool available to our economy, has little to offer during the interregnum. With the fed funds rate at nearly 0% little remaining traction can be applied, if any (see Paul Krugman's discussions of "liquidity traps," here and here).

If all the various stimuli fails, come Spring 2009 perhaps we'll see a dramatic "clear the decks," a wholesale G-20 mediated trans-government debt holiday. We're already hearing some of that in the proposals to write down the principal on home mortgages. What would be foremost among other candidates? Credit card debt, student loan debt, even auto debt? Paulson has made noises lately that he intends to try to unstick those understandably sticky credit markets with Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) megadollars.

When the waters are flowing around one's economic neck, well, at that point, "moral hazard" be damned. The wealthy who survive this Lesser Depression (so far), although arguably the least qualified lecturers upon anything containing the word "moral," will once again sternly lecture American workers about that during the next expansion, well after the Katrina level waters of the present debt tsunami have subsided. For sure, those at the top of the economic ladder will find it hard to avoid their own massive losses as consumers prove that Henry Ford was correct: when you do not pay your workers enough to purchase your company's products or - a thoughtful Mr. Ford might have added - to service the debt you have rabidly encouraged upon them, then profits collapse, investment ceases, and it's all hands on deck to hand out the life jackets. Oh, and to them as well, to the regal WalMart ownership families of this world, they too . . . to the lifeboats! Yet, with a new and invigorating Captain at the helm, and his proposal to create millions of new jobs in needed infrastructure and other employment, my bet, despite all my inherent gloom, is that the world economy has a very reasonable chance to avoid a Titanic moment . . .

Assembly Line Crises

In the days of yore, most knowledgeable predictors and beltway pundits pontificated that the housing crisis brewing in 2006 would be quite manageable and certainly not impact Main Street in any appreciable manner. Treasury and the Federal Reserve could certainly keep up with this. Then along came other little tremors, also to a great extent downplayed, like Freddie and Fannie, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the fall off in employment, failing banks here and abroad, and then even Iceland's credit froze, fer Gawd's sake . . . Well, the video below is a pretty good representation of how the initial crisis snowballed into something that is an avalanche and well above everyone's pay grade, as they say in D.C.

Picture Lucy and Ethel as Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, and I think you'll get the idea. Perhaps if we think of the shift manager as God, it'll help focus our prayers.

Update to "Bush to Country . . ."

UPDATE to yesterday's "Bush to Country", 11-24-2008: Mike Licht at NotionsCapital wrote an informative and lively take on "burrowing," and closes with this:

"NotionsCapital has this tip for Bushie burrow-watchers: Look for The OPM Delegation Ploy, in which ”Schedule C” (politically-appointed) employees apply for positions and OPM delegates examining authority back to the appointee-led originating agency. Expect that agency’s Inspector General to blow the whistle? Not if the IG is a crony, too."

Bush to Country: "And Here Are My Parting Gifts . . ."

Thankfully, it looks like the Bush administration is actually going to leave on January 20, 2009. At the height of their power festival I often wondered whether they would leave at all; visions of an "emergency" cancellation of the 2008 elections did an elephant dance in my head. Yet, say what one will about the weakness of the Democrats of the 110th Congress, in my view they at least made any formal Bush dictatorship untenable. So now we turn our minds to contemplate the shenanigans the Bushies might yet foist upon us in their final daze.

More of Less. Many have written of the administration's rush to finalize their usual contra-regulatory agenda that would make everything from mines less safe to work in to water less safe to drink. The administration had set its own deadline of November 1, 2008 to finalize its parting regulations, with, of course, the always useful loophole "except in extraordinary circumstances." Interestingly - and, as you'll see, ironically - a dozen years ago the Newt Gingrich led Republican wingnut "Contract With America Congress" enacted the Congressional Review Act as Subtitle E of its Contract with America Advancement Act. (Ahhhhh, remember those halcyon days of the post-Reagan "conservative" Republicans?). Among other things, this law permits Congress to vote to disapprove regulations finalized in the last 60 days of a congressional session. So, what's ironic here? Newt and his wingnut brigade had enacted this legislation to respond righteously to President Clinton's midnight regulatory machinations, and it is that very law that is now being viewed as a way to undo at least some of Bush's own last minute trashing of federal regulations. However this works out in the 111th Congress, this is one area of concern as Bush prepares to leave town.

The Gifts That Keep On Taking. Another concern is the conversion of political appointees into career civil service employees. The practice, called "burrowing," (yes, as in ticks) is nearly impossible to reverse by the new administration, and is roundly criticized by true civil service employees who had to work their way up. Bushies are burrowing in at quite a few agencies including Interior, Labor, and Social Security. When this occurs it is another way in which the Bush agenda will retain some vitality in the Obama years, and beyond, although some point out that the Obama administration can move many of these employees to places where they will be less obstructive.

For example, one may employ the "lateral arabesque," first identified by Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull in the 1969 classic The Peter Principle. In a lateral arabesque an incompetent or uncooperative employee is not fired but is provided a longer title and a bigger office in a remote part of the agency. Let's imagine one rather unsavory example from Bush's Interior Department, Mr. Matthew McKeown, who once referred to the Endangered Species Act as "hospice care" and who touted the Orwellian titled "Healthy Forests Initiative" (what environmental groups call the "No Trees Left Behind Act"). In any event, Mr. McKeown has burrowed in to a career position as Deputy Associate Solicitor at Interior, although the department maintains that Mr. McKeown met all relevant hiring requisites. It's interesting, though. Mother Jones reports this month that Mr. McKeown told a 2004 group of property rights advocates, "I am a temp . . . I am not a career bureaucrat." Well, he is now, but perhaps he can be "arabesqued" to Chief High Forest Ranger on Lake Superior's Isle Royale and spend his civil service years dodging wolves and befriending moose.

Pardon the Turkey, Not the Turkeys. The nightmare of mass pardons of Bush administration cronies haunts many. There is no need to list the probable sources of purposeful misgovernment and actual lawbreaking. The names on the list for investigation would include far more Bush administration officials than it would exclude. There has never been a time in our history when investigations are more needed, accountability more important. Thus, the fear is high that many, or all, of the potential perpetrators will escape justice through a stroke of one man's pen, a pen wielded by perhaps the most culpable of the very group which he pardons - and he may, to purposely put too fine a point on it, pardon himself.

Our Constitution is brief regarding the pardon power, a power replete with history well before its placement in our charter. "The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." (United States Constitution, Article II, Sec. 2) The courts have upheld the power and its absolute nature. In the primary pardon power case the Supreme Court, in Ex parte Garland, asserted:

“The inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence [sic]. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.” 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 333, 380 (1866)

Also, the pardon power is personal to but one person, the President. Although it was originally thought to have been exercisable in a narrow way, for example, in times of war and rebellion, the power has been used far more broadly, and the courts have interpreted it so. President Bush most famously used the pardon power to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but clearly the power has been used by many presidents for what some consider political gift giving, for example, President Ford's controversial pardon of Richard Nixon and President Clinton's scandal ridden "midnight pardon" of tax evader Marc Rich. Yet, the Constitution prescribes no role for any other person, branch, or governmental agency in the pardon/commutation process, although in the deliberations about the original pardon power a role of advice and consent was unsuccessfully proposed. The Department of Justice does include an Office of the Pardon Attorney to "assist" the President in exercising the power, and it operates under regulations regarding applications for commutations and pardons; yet, President Bush, as is his right, did not employ the Pardon Attorney in the Libby commutation. The power is both supremely constitutional and, perhaps therefore, utterly political in that there is little that can be done to impede it other than to bring political pressure directly upon the President. Happily, on November 2oth, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced what amounts to a very good idea to do just that.

President Bush, Heed Your Own Words. Regarding the pardon power, in February 2001 President Bush asserted, "Should I decide to grant pardons, I will do so in a fair way. I will have the highest of high standards." Well, let's just say we have doubts. About his word. About his definition of "fair way." About his definition of "highest standards." He has set a notoriously low bar in all those areas, and with Scooter Libby he gave us a preview of the likely outcome of his use of the pardon power in areas presenting political difficulty for himself and the GOP, issues like torture, eavesdropping, war profiteering, politicization of federal agencies, interference in criminal prosecutions, violations of habeas corpus, renditions, and all the other delightful daily activities of the Bush regime.

Mr. Nadler introduced House Resolution 1531 (text). Nadler's press release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, introduced a Resolution in the House of Representatives demanding that President Bush refrain from issuing pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his Administration during the final 90 days of office. H.RES.1531 is in response to President Bush’s widespread abuses of power and potentially criminal transgressions against our Constitution. The Resolution aims to prevent undeserved pardons of officials who may have been co-conspirators in the President’s unconstitutional policies, such as torture, illegal surveillance and curtailing of due process for defendants.

“This Resolution declares that we will not tolerate a last minute attempt by President Bush to shelter his cronies – cronies who may well be guilty of serious criminal offenses – from the full force of the law,” said Rep. Nadler. “President Bush must not excuse his own officials from possibly illegal acts committed outside the context of their official duties. Such pardons would merely obfuscate the truth and amount to a gross miscarriage of justice.”

Beyond preventing pre-emptive pardons, the Resolution also recommends the establishment of a special commission or select committee to investigate the potentially illegal activities – including abuse of pardon power – of senior Bush Administration officials. It also calls for the next Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel to investigate and prosecute any crimes.

True, its a resolution. And true, it'll draw relatively scant support, although you may implore your congressional representative to do so here. And true, the Senate has no similar resolution, although Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) sounded the right notes in his Salon.com article yesterday. And as a final "true too," even if a resolution passes either chamber (assuming one is even introduced in the Senate), it's utterly unenforceable. It is, however, a way to send another message to Mr. Bush. Perhaps with enough outcry - and a President who is contemplating his legacy - he will indeed heed his own words and employ the pardon "fairly." If he does not, Mr. Nadler's resolution is, if nothing else, another way to underscore the "legacy" of an administration that is in many ways humanly unpardonable.

Lieberman to Senate Democrats . . .

The Democratic Caucus As Doormat. On Tuesday, the Senate Democratic Boys Club, i.e. caucus, voted, and unfortunately - but as expected - they barely bruised the recalcitrant and seemingly unrepentant Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman. By a vote of 42-13 (this included the freshman senatorial class to take office in late January 2009) the caucus allowed Lieberman not only to remain in the party, but, more importantly, to keep his chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform. In a clearly symbolic gesture they stripped him of his membership on the Environment and Public Works Committee. In fact, Lieberman himself did not consider his loss of the committee post as punishment for his support of John McCain, telling Politico magazine, "I don't view it a a sanction," but, rather, as a gesture on his behalf "in a spirit of cooperation." Senator Patrick Leahy likened Lieberman's treatment to a "slap on the wrist." Apparently, Lieberman doesn't even rate a week in rehab.

The resuscitated Lieberman spoke with Katie "Gotcha" Couric after the vote on Tuesday:

"Couric: Did you understand at the time how nervy [your speech for McCain at the Republican presidential nominating convention] might seem to some Democrats? How inappropriate?

Lieberman: I understood that I was doing something different as an Independent Democrat supporting a Republican candidate. But I did it not only because I felt so strongly on behalf of my friend John McCain, but because there is so much partisanship in our politics today that really stops us from getting things done for the American people. And in a speech that I would guess went 15 or 20 minutes, I spoke three sentences, which I believe were respectful, about Senator Obama. " [Emphasis added]


Insult, meet Injury. Imagine the mountain range sized chutzpah of the senator-in-name-only. He speaks first to Couric of "partisanship" and how very much it upset his bleeding bipartisan soul. Lieberman, however, carried out one of the more partisan agendas of the present Congress through his nearly criminal mishandling of his committee. Then, not satisfied with that damage, he fought tooth and nail for John McCain and Sarah Palin for what would have been another four years of Bush politics! And, have no doubt, he was no casual bystander. He descended into the mud with the McCain campaign, standing idly by while Palin, in particular, spewed forth the worst distortions, lies, and fear mongering about Obama and his agenda. Remember too, that he also vigorously politicked for the defeat of challengers to GOP incumbent Bush rubber stamp senators. And then, in his his next comment to Couric, in a coup de grace to understatement, he appeared to brag that during his Republican convention speech he "spoke three sentences, which I believe were respectful, about Senator Obama." Three entire sentences, and "respectful," you say? Given his overall behavior during the campaign, this is roughly the equivalent of Brutus whispering into Caesar's ear, "You know, I'll really miss you" whilst driving the shiv deep into his heart.

The entire episode is utterly offensive. It makes one cringe at the thought of the lack of inner resources not only of Lieberman, but, more importantly, of the 42 Democratic senators who voted in secret for this charade. Lieberman - and any other Democrat of similar persuasion - is now on notice that a Democratic senator may injure his own party without conscience and suffer no punishment whatever. Sickeningly, Lieberman, like a typical Republican, used Democratic principles against us to secure his redemption. Bipartisanship, indeed. Lieberman is among the more partisan (for Republican war hawks, torture, eavesdropping, etc.) and among the more unrelenting. For the Gang of 42 Democrats to have provided this disgraceful man the bully pulpit at one of the more important committee chairs is beyond reprehensible, its primary impulse is cowardly and, in what has lagtely become a Democratic tradition, self-loathing. I believe this will come back to bite the caucus firmly on the exposed Dem Derriere.

Buyers Beware. Firstly, will Lieberman provide the kind of hard hitting committee investigations called for regarding Bush administration abuses and lawbreaking? My guess is that we'll hear him and the Democratic caucus refuse to "play the blame game," and counsel the nation "to move on with the important business" of handling multiple crises, crises, of course, left behind by the Bush regime. They and Lieberman will counsel "moving forward." Thus, at least in Lieberman's potentially powerful committee very little will likely be done to set the historical record straight, much less to bring the Bush gang to justice. And thus a critical opportunity to uncover Bush administration perfidy will pass by the boards, and as the years pass, investigations will become more remote and less comprehensive. Should this come to pass it will be a national disgrace, and we will have the victorious Democratic Senate to "thank" for it. Hopefully, the House will not follow suit.

Secondly, and I've heard no mention of this before, is there any doubt that if McCain had emerged victorious, and if the Republicans had lost only two or three Senate seats, that Lieberman would have fled the Democratic party to accept a position in the McCain/Palin administration and membership in the GOP? As it is, Lieberman remains a threat to slyly communicate Democratic caucus strategy and tactics to the GOP. Among the worse nightmares I have is Lieberman running his Senate committee as a base to advance the hopes of the Republican party by taking every occasion to hold politically motivated hearings and use the subpoena power against President Obama's administration. That would be a fine comeuppance for the 42 Democrats who supported his blame-free reentry into the caucus. Perhaps then they might be moved to remove him from his committee chair? I wonder if even that level of perfidy would be enough for the caucus to be moved to anger.

Have no doubt, Joseph Lieberman is not a prodigal son returning home to ask forgiveness and to receive forgiveness. This is a traitor to his Democratic colleagues sneaking back home without sorrow and unconcerned with forgiveness after nearly burning down the family home.

Leahy and Sanders Say "No" To Lieberman

Here at They Will Say ANYTHING! the things they say run somewhere between ridiculous and reprehensible. In fact, that's what I like to report. Yet, sometimes the things they say can be remarkably refreshing, and this entry delights in two United States Senators who have broken a few plates, so to speak, in the Senate Club dining room, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

On Friday, November 14, Daily Kos reported a Vermont Public Radio interview with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy who asserted that, for his deplorably raucous support for Senator John McCain in the presidential election, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) deserved to lose his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. As you'll hear on the audio below, Senator Leahy was quite straightforward in his views, and for a United States senator that's both remarkable and refreshing. Smashing dinnerware right and left, Leahy disturbed the casual attitude of the Senate Club as he loudly listed the obvious facts about Lieberman's treachery, facts that most other Democratic senators choose to ignore, deny, or tread softly upon. Worse, some Senate Democrats propose, as Blue Dog Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) did, letting "bygones be bygones," and eagerly await welcoming Lieberman back to the Democratic caucus and his chairmanship.

Senator Leahy, however, has different thoughts about Lieberman: "I felt that some of the attacks that he was involved in against Sen. Obama, whom I did support — I was one of the first in the Congress to support him — I thought they went way beyond the pale. I thought that they were not fair. I thought they were not legitimate. I thought that they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Sen. Obama." In the clubby atmosphere of the Senate, this is like shouting "Sez who?" at the Pope during his Easter homily. And this kind of breach of etiquette is definitely what is needed in re Joseph Lieberman.

Senator Sanders, in another matter-of-fact statement sent to Talking Points Memo was equally forceful as Senator Leahy, "To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country. Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in.' I very much hope that Senator Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus and is successful in regaining the confidence of those whom he has disappointed. This is not a time, however, in which he should be rewarded with a major committee chairmanship."

Allowing Lieberman to run the Homeland Security Committee is akin to simply handing the committee over to the Republican party. He already has been instrumental in their bidding through the do nothing agenda he adopted as chairman in the 110th Congress, holding no investigative hearings regarding Bush administration misfeasance and neglect. In fact, it would be a good bet that had John McCain been chairman then, investigations and oversight would have been more likely. In addition to his abject failure as committee chair, his efforts for the McCain candidacy on the campaign trail are as infamous as they are legendary. He even supported Republican senatorial incumbents against Democratic challengers.

When considering Lieberman's role in the 111th Congress, consider the importance of the oversight and investigatory responsibilities of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, one of the more powerful Senate committees. Surely, the country needs to have Bush administration practices examined in full light, and with the executive branch in Democratic hands information will likely flow more freely to congressional committees of all stripes. It is unfortunate, but likely, that nothing like full-scale investigations of the Bush administration will occur during an Obama presidency, and oddly enough, this is precisely because of the incredible mess Bush has left in his wake. The new administration will be forced by circumstances not of its making to move in a forward direction towards resolving the "ongoings": the financial crisis, the recession, the wars, the very idea of "public service," and the general mess left by GOP Luddites at the helm. Yet, some investigations of the Bush years are utterly essential, not merely for historians, but for the country as a whole. Therefore, the very committee that Lieberman chairs needs to be led by an individual who shares the beliefs of the Democratic party as a whole.

Senator Lieberman has forfeited his right to lead. This is not, as Evan Bayh suggested, "retribution," it is justice. As the Republicans told us time and time again, "elections have consequences." If he bolts parties as some Dems fear, so be it. The Democratic party cannot afford to sell its prized committee chairs for the likes of Joseph Lieberman. Nor can it be seen as caving in to his demands, nor to his insincere apologies, should they come next week in the Democratic caucus meetings. The consequences of this election for Senator Lieberman ought to be nothing less than a long banishment to the political wilderness, and bravo to Senators Leahy and Sanders for pointing Senator Lieberman and staff toward the dusty road to the lonely prairie. There, "thanks" to the housing crisis, he will find some very fine cabins available on the cheap . . .

Just In: The Governor Has No Clothes!

Yesterday, Governor Sarah Palin, now freed from the watchful eyes of McCain campaign operatives, denied claims that during the campaign she had run up a $150,000+ clothing bill, and all at GOP expense. The original revelations in October had stirred up complaints that Governor Palin, while portraying herself as common folk, had betrayed her supporters by approving wild buying sprees at high fashion boutiques like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. As the campaign wound down, more and more "Palinography" surfaced detailing a VP candidate who abused a GOP donor's open-ended contribution of clothing money, and even directed campaign staffers to put her expenses on their own credit cards, to be reimbursed, she assured them, by the GOP at a later date. The Governor has repeatedly denied these allegations. Upon returning to her Gubernatorial duties last Friday, Palin told reporters, "I never asked for anything more than a Diet Dr. Pepper once in a while." She went on to explain, "Those are the RNC's clothes. They're not my clothes. I never forced anybody to buy anything."

However, new and startling revelations have arisen, revelations that are stranger than fiction, yet squarely in line with the Governor's reputation as a "maverick." Today, GOP campaign sources at the highest levels spoke out in a single voice to defend the costs for Palin's wardrobe, explaining that the Governor arrived at the GOP convention in August with no clothing whatever. "Yes, that's quite true," said a highly placed campaign worker, "There she was, the putative VP pick, waiting at the Minneapolis airport wearing nothing but a beach towel."

"The prospect of a candidate for the second highest office in the land appearing before the country clothed in this minimalist manner presented the campaign directorship with exceedingly difficult choices," said one of Senator McCain's inner circle. Not surprisingly, given the importance of the issue, within the campaign there were disagreements about how to proceed. One group within the McCain camp, the "minimalist" faction, saw in Palin's simple clothing choices a message that comported well with the GOP's message of less government, less waste, less artifice, less elitism, and, apparently, less clothing. One other rationale was also convincing. According to one minimalist pollster, "Let's be candid, the Guv has a fantastic bod, and well, our focus groups showed a sharp preference among males aged 13 to 85 for a less, shall we say, 'overdressed' VP. Conversely, among comparable likely Democrat voters, comparisons of the Guv with images of Senator Biden dressed in a towel brought about mass desertions, including measurable levels of vomiting and wailing." Some found the idea of a VP candidate clothed in a beach towel interesting, even Democrtic President Clinton was rumored to have deemed it "intriguing." Another McCain group, however, the "dress for success" faction, took a dimmer view of the Governor's choice of attire, or lack thereof, believing it might offend millions of the family values and moral crusader voters so urgently needed to offset Senator McCain's reputation of softness on social issues. Ultimately, the dress for success faction won the day, with the deciding vote coming from Cindy McCain herself who reportedly warned, "No way I'm appearing in public with a skank in a bedsheet!" or words to that effect.

Thus, the exhaustively reported "buying spree" had its genesis in necessity; not by any means was it Governor Palin's choice, and she resisted it at all points. Today, VP candidate Palin's Garment Task Force Director (GTFD) reported "She simply had not a stitch of clothing that was even marginally appropriate to anything but an ancient Roman bacchanalia." Among the items in her "clothing sack" (the Governor had no suitcases) were two beach towels, three washcloths, a few skimpy animal skins (some of which, according to the GTFD "were still quite alive"), and a tin foil chapeau shaped like moose antlers, referred to by the Governor as an "Executive Headdress." The GTFD continued, obviously exasperated, "For God's sake, people, she didn't even understand the very idea of undergarments, and laughed herself to tears when they were explained to her. We never could get her to wear underpants!"

So, clearly, once the minimalist faction had been sent packing, the Governor's lassitude toward clothing needed addressing, and quickly. Particularly daunting were the facts that emerged about her dressing habits while exercising her role as Governor. Though hidden through the Alaska Photoshop Division (the only state to have an entire agency dedicated to Photoshopping a Governor's daily press images), Governor Palin spends most of her time in a state of "radical undress," a euphemism within the McCain camp for "completely stark naked." (Carefully edited, G rated, un-Photoshopped pictures accompany this report.)

Therefore, VP candidate Palin had not only to be provided clothing of every kind, but had to be convinced that clothing was to be the rule on the campaign trail rather than the occasional exception. As explained by the GTFD, "At first, we had to literally chase her around the hotel room, hold her down, and carefully staple on each garment. She only cooperated - and minimally so - if, as the Governor demanded, 'underpants were off the table'." Thus, the widely circulated story of Governor Palin greeting campaign directors Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis clad only in a bath towel emerges not as apocryphal urban legend, but as indisputable fact. "Yes, and usually she wore far far less than that when greeting campaign staffers," a source close to the campaign director revealed, with a knowing wink.

In any event, with the context now clear, the "buying sprees" are viewed by Republican and Democrat alike as arising out of sheer necessity and without the tinge of impropriety that suffused earlier reports. As for the Governor, she maintains she is pleased to be back in a state where "anything goes," particularly, one surmises, outer garments of any variety.

Non-Photoshopped, G-Rated version. Source: Undisclosed Ex State Trooper

Photoshopped version, Courtesy Alaska Division of Gubernatorial Photoshopping

Congressloon Broun Meet Michael Godwin

Yes, that's right, the irrepressible Adolph is back in town, and not a moment too soon. After all, according to the right wing lunafringe, President-Elect Obama clearly presented a stark Hitlerian vision on the campaign trail . . . or was that a Marxist vision? or a Muslim terrorist vision? or a Socialist vision? Well, yesterday, Congressloon Paul Broun of Georgia had his Hitler Vision glasses on. He recalled a July campaign speech during which candidate Obama spoke of building a national service corps, of renewing our commitment to the Peace Corps and the Foreign Service as an important part of our overall "national security" apparatus. The relevant portion:

"And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obviously, the last two sentences stirred up the lunafringe last July even though the context of the words was clear. Candidate Obama was speaking of a "national security force" in terms of the non-military diplomatic strengths that a rebuilt Peace Corps and Foreign Service might bring to our national security agenda. Manifestly, he was not referring to a bunch of neo-brownshirts marching around neighborhoods Heiling here and Heiling there enforcing an Obama worldview.

Yet, such is the mind of the Congressloon from Georgia that he had this to say in an interview with The Associated Press, "It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force. . . I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism." Not being struck dead by lightning, he continued to bloviate, nastily violating Godwin's Law along the way, "That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist." Still no lightning, so on another occasion that day the Congressloon attempted to "clarify" his earlier comments, "We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

This is the typical wingnut ground game, and the election game loss has not - will not - give them the slightest pause. Note his obvious bending of words purposely taken completely out of context; the use of fear to turn off the minds of his constituency and scare their children; the outright comparison of Obama to Hitler while he simultaneously maintains he is not comparing Obama to Hitler. This is pure wingnut.

Another of the basics of their playbook on display was the unintentional psychological projection of their deeds and motives onto others. This is a typical and telling piece of evidence. Imagine the audacity of it - and that's a corollary of the projection, it's very audacity - the right wing congressional crafters of the overreaching Bush Presidency and its unprecedented power grabs, its politicization of the Justice Department, and its use of privatized paramilitary forces like Blackwater, accusing Obama of Hitlerian purposes. The finger of that particular "J'Accuse!" points directly at what is left of the now even more right wing Republican party.

I do agree with two things you said, Mr. Broun. First, your words do "sound a bit crazy and off base." Clinically so. At best. Second, and seriously, I also agree that "we can't be lulled into complacency." If there is one thing that is admirable about wingnuts it's their maniacal sense of purpose and indefatigable energy, and we cannot afford to take our eyes off them for even a second.

Post Election Analysis

Well, there's that alright, and a cavalcade approximately eight years long of other reasons too. There will be no end to the tsunami of talk about the facts, figures, and logic. In any event, I hope this helps in simplifying it all. Sarah was only one of the many who undid McCracky's campaign, and among them was Pappy himself. Below, you can find some of those from the recent past who were so instrumental in undoing McCracky/Palinthebutt.

For fun, and if you have some rudimentary photo editing tools, you can replace the Palin head in the cartoon with any of the others below, and while you're at it enjoy listening to "Charlie Brown" by the Coasters!

Football Snatcher's Gallery

The Tide Goes In, The Tide Goes Out

Sometimes it's a tsunami!

THIS Is AMAZING!

Obama McCain Palin Dance Off!!

Discovered at Brilliant at Breakfast blog, movie produced by

MiniMovie.com

'Nuff Said

It's almost time . . .

Voter Fraud Alert!

Voters throughout the United States have lately been bombarded with reasons to worry that their franchise is in trouble. Republicans and Democrats have engaged in an historic battle to get out the vote for their party candidates, and this has led to allegations of voter registration fraud. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), registering Democrats, is the most discussed, but only one among many who are being examined for fraudulent practices. Among the problems dogging ACORN are a number of registration forms filled out by “Mickey Mouse.” (See "Mickey's" registration form below.) Republicans too have been charged with voter registration shenanigans, for example, Young Political Majors (YPM), stands accused of tricking registered Democrats into changing their party affiliation to Republican.

Another group has come forward as well. Throughout the U.S. a growing number of voters reveal that they were tricked into registering as a member of a party they disdain, at best. Their stories are similar. Disaffected with the Republican banner, or erstwhile independents searching for a party to call their own, these voters often say they were approached while recumbent in the back of an emergency vehicle. Some tell of being solicited while undergoing pelvic or prostate examinations. Others mention that their registrations were changed during funerals, when nursing crying infants, while ducking gunfire, or during their wedding vows. A few maintain that voter registration forms were pushed under the doors of public toilet stalls.

Regardless of the where or when of their solicitation, they relate that canvassers painted a picture of a new political party they'd never heard of, the "Grand Old Party," (GOP). And the GOP's philosophy was appealing. As explained to them, here was a party that promised to extend equality to all, to provide economic incentives to each American, to pursue a foreign policy based upon negotiation from strength, and to responsibly work our country out of its fiscal and debt crises. "This was what I'd been seeking," says John, an Internet tube inspector, who was solicited while using a bus terminal urinal. "After eight years as a Republican I was ready for a change, but the Democrats are just too far leftie for me, and I have no idea what the 'Independents' stand for. So, after hearing about the 'GOP,' I decided they sounded like the party for me," summed up Mr. Enfield.

Surprises were to follow, however, when these new GOP members learned that the "GOP" was actually the Republican party. "Surprised?" asked 81 year old retired suffragette Julia, "I was floored, or I would've been had I been standing up." (Julia had been solicited for her registration while prostrate in a hospital ICU.) Her doctors report that Julia's heart rate went through the roof when she learned that her GOP registration actually kept her in the Republican party, quite contrary to her wishes. "For God's sake," she muttered through a breathing tube, "I already was a goddamned Republican! And I wanted to get away from them like a Kennedy from a temperance meeting." John the Internet tube inspector also felt badly used, "I changed my registration from Republican to the 'GOP' because they sounded so totally unlike the Republicans I've voted for. You know, that GOP registration guy talked about the GOP's fiscal responsibility, their sane foreign policy, equality, and all that stuff so un-Republican. I was hoodwinked." And with a palpable sense of loss, he says he'll never again talk to anybody while using a urinal.

What's Worse Than George W. Bush's Endorsement?

This guy's.
<--------
It's almost time that we consider humanitarian aid to John McCracky. What more could go wrong in these last few days before November 4th? He's already got Sarah Palin on the ticket, and that's like campaigning with Coco the Chimp, fer God's sake. And now along comes a modern day curmudgeon's curmudgeon in the bloated form of Dick Cheney. And this is supposed to help the McCracky campaign? One supposes that the Cheney brand will get out the 2% of the lunatic ultra-fringe who still think Cheney's doing a good job and who can also find their way out of their abodes and to a polling place if they start working on it today.

When informed of the endorsement from Hell, Senator McCracky uttered a stunned and rather plaintive "Mama Mama Mama." Sarah Palin has long since gone rogue, but issued a statement indicating she doesn't know a Dick Cheney, but thinks a first name of "Dick" is funny. McCracky campaign insiders maintain they are hoping for Osama bin Laden's endorsement to help offset the VP's nod. Mr. bin Laden's spokeslunatics could not be located for comment. Most importantly, according to a McCain camp spokesperson, they devoutly hope that Cheney's endorsement does not cause the President "to get any ideas."