No

El Cid, a commenter over at Ballon Juice:

I love the fact that the “rescue plan” for the crisis brought on by the deregulation of our financial industry requires that Congress DEREGULATES the actual “rescue plan” itself.

No

Shorter version of the Paulson bailout proposal:

Give me $700 billion dollars and don't ask any questions.

What our short answer should be:

No!

What our longer answer should be:

Hell No!

Look, few outside the most extreme libertarians are arguing that there shouldn't be a bailout. But the idea of giving unfettered access to $700 billion to the very same people who used unfettered access to money to get us into this mess in the first place is just insane.

Of course, if Obama or Reid or Pelosi balk at this the tailor-made response will be, "What? Do you want the economy to collapse!"

It's the Shock Doctrine writ large.

1. Take a bad situation and magnify the talking points on it to make it sound like it is a world ending crisis that demands immediate action and no debate.

2. Propose a solution that has little to do with fixing the fundamentals of the bad situation.

3. Profit!!!

No. Hell No. No fucking way. Not in a million years. Get your ass out of my face you fuckwads.

Confused by how we got to this point?

Check out The Subprime Primer.

McCain/Cox '08?

Is it true that McCain once considered Christopher Cox (the SEC chair McCain is saying he would fire) as a potential running mate? DownWithTyranny says it is so. I'm looking for confirmation.

---

Okay, I've been able to find a few suggestions from prominent individuals that McCain should have considered Cox (most notably Robert Novak), but I haven't been able to find anything saying McCain ever actually considered the idea.

John "Bozo" McCain

I've been thinking for some time that one response to McCain's circus like campaign would be an ad showing him as a clown.

Looks like Ruben Bolling had the same idea.

Sorry John

Turns out McCain, as President, wouldn't have the authority to fire the SEC chairman anyway.

So not only has McCain, in response to the calamity on Wall Street, proposed nothing more than a feel good measure (let's can the bum), he didn't know that he couldn't do it.

Steven Benen has more.

Clarity

Looks like Scheunemann is clarifying his clarification of what McCain said about Spain. Marc Ambinder gets another response from the McCain advisor:

In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.

Looks like the McCain is rapidly trying to walk back this mistake.

Source of the ill will towards Zapatero?

The Hill says that Zapatero is backing Obama:

Zapatero has weighed in on this year's election, publicly backing McCain's opponent, Barack Obama.

"Yes, I like him," he told the Financial Times when asked whether he'd like to see Obama in the White House.

I wouldn't consider that a flat-out endorsement (he didn't say he opposes McCain), but its about as close as a foreign leader can come without going over the line. So its understandable if McCain might hold a grudge against the guy.

Still, it would be nice if we had a President who didn't govern based on personal slight.

I know! I know! Let's fire someone!

McCain seems to be in the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" phase of his response to the crisis on Wall Street. Yesterday he proposed a 9/11 style commission, and got soundly laughed at. Today he says the SEC Commission Chairman Christopher Cox should be fired.

McCain is trying to find some way to sound like he "gets it". But so far he is just pecking around the edges.

(Aside: I have no idea whether Cox should be fired or not. But I doubt McCain does either.)

Plagiarism we can believe in

Jed noticed the same thing I did. He just got up with a post about it first.

Details

Josh Marshall has a good rundown on the possible explanations for McSpain.

McCain in Spain

You know, I really didn't think this story would develop into a big deal. At best, I thought it might be another bullet point in the "McCain is to old" argument.

Never did I imagine that the McCain campaign would actually confirm the most unbelievable interpretation of what happened. And it is that that will turn this into a major story.

And it won't save McCain from questions about his age. The consensus is already forming that this is just an excuse to hide a senior moment. It's a twofer: McCain looks belligerent with a NATO ally and he gives weight to questions about whether he is mentally fit for command.

Vanity

I think Hilzoy has it right. McCain had two options after his stumbling interview yesterday on relations with Spain: Either admit he was confused or double-down and say that he really meant it when he suggested he might not meet with the Spanish Prime Minister. He has apparently chosen the latter.

So he'd rather be seen as dissing a NATO ally than allow people to think the he might have had a senior moment.

McCain won't commit to talking with an ally

It's one thing to argue that we shouldn't meet with world leaders who could arguably be called our enemy. I can understand that argument, even if I disagree with it.

But no John McCain is hedging on the question of whether he will meet our allies.

Wow!

Pie Charts You Can Believe In

(original source)

Stabilization

Just found two fascinating films. One is the most famous Bigfoot film ever taken. The other is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. What makes these fascinating is that someone stabilized the pictures by shifting the frames so that the background elements didn't shift around (like they would with someone with a handheld camera). The result is as clear an image we can get of what the scene would have looked like to a stable observer on the scene.

The stabilized Bigfoot film looks more like a man walking by in a gorilla suit then an actual wild animal.

The stabilized Zapruder film really conveys the shocking nature of the event (warning: not for the squeemish).

Btw, the Zapruder film has an artificial soundtrack added by the creator. I actually think he got the placement of the gunshots wrong, but I'm not up on my assassination facts enough to be sure.

Certainty

I was reading the comments to the post linked previously when I ran across this:

deliriousgod: my favorite conservative fundamentalist quote is from Rexella Van Impe: "You can't trust Science because scientists admit they are wrong." That, for me, is the intellectual litmus test. If you understand what is wrong with that statement, no explanation is necessary. If you don't know what is wrong with that statement; none is possible.

I don't know if the quote is accurate, but I think it is an accurate distillation of a world view shared by many.

Someone who admits they might be wrong can't be right because if they were right they wouldn't admit that they might be wrong.

Certainty is a persuasive tool in any argument, which is why modern Republicans have honed the skill to such perfection that John McCain can push the most egregious lies, knowing that they have been shown to be lies, and do so without blinking an eye. It takes a strong mind not to be persuaded by persistent bullshit.

Arguing with conservatives only makes them more sure of themselves

Scientific studies show it.

I'd like to repeat what the author of this piece (Dan Sweeny) says. If arguing with conservatives only makes them more rigid in their beliefs then don't bother, except when there are undecided people around. Then the argument can be useful if your arguments are designed to persuade the undecided that the other side is nuts.

Republicans understand this better than Democrats. Republicans, for the most part, aren't interested in converting Democrats. They are all about persuading the audience in the debate. Democrats need to understand this and adjust accordingly. They need to "get over themselves" with their persistent belief that if they could just talk sense into the opposition they can win them over to their side.

That means arguing your position in a way that persuades the audience that you are right and the other side is nuts. Fortunately, reality has a way of lending a helping hand in this endeavor.

Welcome Comrades!

When Republicans touted the ownership society is this what they meant?

Is it safe to come out yet?

caption: A single home is left standing among debris from Hurricane Ike September 14, 2008 in Gilchrist, Texas. Floodwaters from Hurricane Ike were reportedly as high as eight feet in some areas causing widespread damage across the coast of Texas. (David J. Phillip-Pool/Getty Images) #

Full set of images.

Countering emotional appeal

Never get into an argument with people about their emotional reactions. If someone says they are supporting McCain/Palin because they are impressed by their life story, etc. then they are expressing an emotional reaction. If you try to counter that with a purely factual argument you will lose because emotions aren't based on facts and always trump facts.

Here's how I might approach it:

I respect that you were persuaded by McCain's compelling life story. I am impressed by it as well. But here's the thing that bothers me: To many con men throughout the ages know that they quickest way to win over a mark is to appeal to their emotions. So, when I see a politician appealing to my emotions, a part of me automatically ask, "What are they trying to sell me?" I look past the emotional imagery and ask myself, "What will a President McCain really mean for me?" And when I do that I find that <insert a list of 2-3 facts that argue against McCain>.

Not saying this will work. It probably won't. But at least you won't come off as belittling of their emotional connection to McCain.

Put it this way, you may have a strong emotional connection to many people in your family, but that doesn't mean you would trust them to run the country.