There's been a mini-uproar on the right about a man with a cellphone at a homeless shelter where Michele Obama dropped by this week.
This blog made a post way back in October 2003 that contained observations of a similar nature about Rush Limbaugh (who also flogged the homless-with-a-cellphone story this week). Here are the relevant portions of that post (slightly edited):
Rush Limbaugh a multi-millionaire who complains when moms on welfare have "luxuries" like a microvave oven. (We vividly remember that rant from a while back.)
Here is the picture that accompanied a New York Times article about welfare moms in California. (enlarged 200%)
The thrust of the story was that the state of California was paying such families to move out of the state. This picture was of someone who was living in an apartment in the central valley. Rush Limbaugh seized on the story - and the accompanying picture - to complain that this lady was living the high life. Basing his analysis solely on the picture, Limbaugh was outraged that there was a dishwasher and a microwave oven in the kitchen.
[The New York Times story ran on Monday, 18 June 2001, and Limbaugh made comments on his radio show that same day. From the NYTimes abstract: Tulare County, Calif, which is one of poorest counties in US has been paying average of $1,600 per month to more than 750 welfare families to move almost anywhere in country ...]
We were driving around listening to Limbaugh at the time and were startled at his mean-spiritedness. Complaining about a microwave oven? Look at the picture. It's under the counter. Those things cost about $80. What would satisfy Limbaugh? Welfare recipients living in a tent with no heat?
Marc Fisher, writing in the Washington Post: (emp add)
Tonight, the clock shifts forward. Tomorrow, sunset moves from 6:07 p.m. to 7:08 p.m. But our work here is not done. If we really wanted to fill our lives with joy and save energy and money, if we really wanted to move beyond the fiction of our agrarian conception of time and into the modern world, we'd shift to year-round Daylight Saving Time ...
Daylight Savings was extended in 2005 by a Republican Congress more interested in appearances than real energy conservation (the bill was authored by Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts).
You know that somethings rotten in Denmark when the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times agree on something. That cats laying down with dogs event occurred today and it was prompted by the latest bailout of AIG.
Both newspapers opined that it was past high time for the government to come clean as to who we were actually bailing out. You see, the government keeps saying that AIG is systemically important and dollars keep flowing out of the company to make good on various credit default swaps contracts that the company entered into but no one will say to whom this money is flowing.
The Fed and the Treasury are stonewalling and, of course, conspiracy stories are starting to swirl. One holds that Goldman has been one of the chief beneficiaries of the bailout. Goldman naturally denies that and says that although they bought a lot of protection, they were able to hedge their exposure. Another and probably more on the mark theory is that the money is flowing to European banks who were big AIG customers.
If it is the European banks then that one is going to be embarrassing to say the least. The taxpayer is pretty fed up with supporting U.S. banks. If they get wind of a scheme to use their dollars to prop up European banks look out. I wouldn’t want to try and explain the intricacies of international finance and inter-dependency to them.
Regardless of to whom the money has been directed, I suspect that the pressure to open up about it is going to get pretty intense. Clearly there’s something here the government doesn’t want to have to deal with otherwise they wouldn’t be so tight lipped. The problem is that you can never keep a lid on this sort of thing. Look for the leaks soon.
Here's my thought: The money is going to the European banks. But to a significant degree, the money the European banks were playing with was from the oil-rich Middle East. If that can be proved, can you imagine the furor over giving money to AIG which flows through to European banks in order to make whole a bunch of wealthy Arab potentates.
We are at the end of a 30-year period of radical conservatism, a period so right-wing that many of those now considered "liberals"--like, say, Barack Obama--would be seen as moderate pantywaists in the great sweep of modern political history. The past 30 years have been such a violent departure from the norm, such a profound destruction of the basic functions of government, that a major rectification is called for now--in rebalancing the system of taxation toward progressivity, in rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, not just physically, but also socially and intellectually.
How about these words from Reagan's Treasury Secretary (in the Financial Times):
Beginning in 1990, Japan suffered a collapse in real estate and stock market prices that pushed major banks into insolvency. Rather than follow America’s tough recommendation – and close or recapitalise these banks – Japan took an easier approach. It kept banks marginally functional through explicit or implicit guarantees and piecemeal government bail-outs. The resulting “zombie banks” – neither alive nor dead – could not support economic growth.
... the US may be repeating Japan’s mistake by viewing our current banking crisis as one of liquidity and not solvency. Most proposals advanced thus far assume that, once confidence in financial markets is restored, banks will recover.
But if their assumption is wrong, we risk perpetuating US zombie banks and suffering a lost American decade.
The Treasury department – working with the Federal Reserve – must swiftly analyse the solvency of big US banks. ... Any analyses, however, should include worst-case scenarios. We can hope for the best but should be prepared for the worst.
Next, we should divide the banks into three groups: the healthy, the hopeless and the needy. Leave the healthy alone and quickly close the hopeless. The needy should be reorganised and recapitalised, preferably through private investment or debt-to-equity swaps but, if necessary, through public funds. It is time for triage.
... bank boards of directors and senior management should be replaced and, unfortunately, shareholders will lose their investment. Optimally, bondholders would be wiped out, too. But the risk of a crash in the bond market means that bondholders may receive only a haircut.
Lots of fun, especially with the latest victim, Michael Steele apologizing. But some observations and questions:
Limbaugh is on a roll, but isn't that mostly because of the recent passage of the stimulus bill and budget proposal?
Will Limbaugh still be in the catbird seat one year from now? Isn't he peaking right about now?
If Limbaugh continues to be the face of the Republican party, how will that affect Republicans voting on Obama's health care and energy policies?
Will Limbaugh shunt Republicans into a position of all voting "No", and if so, how is that different than what we've already seen in the last 30 days?
Will Limbaugh rise to a level of "respectability" so that, like in 2004, he's invited onto NBC to opine on elections? Won't there be resistance from the institutional press?
Isn't Limbaugh unintegratible into the Republican establishment hierarchy? Or can he actually take over the party (w/ assists from Hannity)?
It's odd that so far (though it's early), there have been no not-for-attribution, background quotes from Republicans on the Hill critical of Limbaugh.
Limbaugh is a factor here, but isn't the real story here that it's the Base that's calling the shots in the Republican party? Limbaugh more symptom than cause, etc.
How could the moneyed interests in the Republican party lose control to the Base? Or have they? Is this partly a legacy of there being no Bush Jr. organizational network in place, so that the party is virtually leaderless (in the traditional sense, by politicians)?
FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T GET ENOUGH: A huge round-up of comments from across the political spectrum (w/links) at the Moderate Voice.
On Monday, September 29, the DOW dropped from Friday's close of 11,143 to 10,365 - a 778 point decline. By this time, it was clear there was a serious financial crisis, what with Lehman, AIG, et al in the news (and the failure of the House to pass economic-related legislation).
The next day, Tuesday, on the morning network shows, they trotted out various financial advisors. What did they say? The all said pretty much the same thing:
Don't panic and sell. If you sell now, you won't have a chance to erase (some of) the losses.
Since then, and after virtually every major decline the advice has remained constant: Don't sell (with an exception for those who may need money in the next 24 months or so).
Boy, did those advisers screw over the viewers.
FYI: Today the Dow closed at 6,763, a 34% decline from the 10,365 close of Monday, September 29.
Limbaugh gives a speech. Conservative Rod Dreher sees it as bad for Republicans (and conservatives). Random blogger Robert Stacey McCain takes issue, supports Limbaugh, and writes:
If Rod Dreher wants to join Andrew Sullivan and David Brock ... in the ranks of the vaunting army outside the camp, let him go over and be gone. But don't sit pouting inside the camp, giving aid and comfort to the adversary by your demoralizing pronouncements.
This Limbaugh phenomenon is looking like it will bring big dividends to Democrats. The Republican party may very well shrink another 20% if this keep on.
This NYTimes story about AIG is a-freaking-mazing. Excerpt:
A quarter of a trillion dollars, if it comes to that, is an astounding amount of money to hand over to one company to prevent it from going bust.
Let it go bust.
As the story details, the losses are in credit default swaps, which are insurance policies written against mortgage-backed securities. AIG wrote lots of them, with premiums that were ridiculously low, pocketed the cash, and now that the housing bubble has burst, can't cover the policies.
Sounds like holders of mortgage-backed-securities should take the loss (since AIG is unable to compensate). What's so complicated about that? posted by Quiddity at 3/01/2009 02:49:00 AM
During the Bush administration, every so often she'd bring out a new fact or so. But now, it's all limning of characters with stale metaphors (e.g. Obama as Mr. Spock). Uninteresting and boring, with writing that can irritate: Bush is either "W" or "43". Recently there was a column about bankers partying. Out of 806 words, nearly 500 were about Cheryl Crow at a Northern Trust gig (Dowd: Northern Untrustworthy). Check out this filler text:
The entertainment Web site TMZ broke the story Tuesday that ...
... four days of posh hotel rooms, salmon and filet mignon dinners, music concerts, a PGA golf tournament at the Riviera Country Club with Mercedes shuttle rides and Tiffany swag bags.
... lavish dinner at the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday with a concert by Chicago (at a $100,000 fee); rented a private hangar at the Santa Monica Airport on Thursday for another big dinner with a gig by Earth, Wind & Fire, and closed down the House of Blues on Sunset Strip on Saturday (at a cost of $50,000) for a dinner and serenade by Sheryl Crow.
Crow — in her stint as a federal employee — warbled these lyrics to the oblivious revelers:
“Slow down, you’re gonna crash, Baby, you’re a-screaming it’s a blast, blast, blast Look out babe, you’ve got your blinders on ... But there’s a new cat in town He’s got high payin’ friends Thinks he’s gonna change history.”
... had raised $3 million for the Los Angeles Junior Chamber of Commerce Charity Foundation and other nonprofits.
"And other nonprofits"! Are you better informed now?.
That's way too much copy/paste of a wire report to be in an opinion piece. No wonder reading her is a chore. Dowd has really lost her way.
