Obama is back giving Centrism a bad name. His budget proposal has drawn criticism because it incorporates a mechanism for reducing Social Security Cost-of-Living benefits called the “chained CPI”, which ties those adjustments to the inflation rate. Obama’s inclusion of the chained CPI has drawn harsh criticism from Progressives as well as the Liberal base of the Democratic Party. Although the President and his sycophants characterize this proposal as an example of “Centrist” politics, it is actually an example of the economic neoliberalism which the Disappointer-in-Chief has advanced since taking office in 2009.
Despite its liberal slant, the FiredogLake blog has been critical of Obama since the beginning of his first term. A recent article by Jon Walker at FDL presents an unvarnished look at Obama’s motives for including the chained CPI in his budget:
Obama didn’t put chained-CPI in for Republicans, regardless what he may claim. While Republicans like to talk a big game on entitlements they have shown no real interest in cutting benefits for current retirees, who are the most important part of their base.
The comments to Walker’s piece give us a look at how a good number of liberals are finally seeing through the man who was advertised as an agent of Hope and Change. I was particularly impressed by the following comment from a reader identified as “coloradoblue”:
War criminal
Mass murderer
Crimes against humanity
Crimes against the American people
Crimes against the constitution he swore to uphold
Failure to investigate, prosecute and punish the war criminals of the last administration
Failure to investigate, prosecute and punish the crimes of wall street
Destroyer of the legacy of FDR and LBJ and the dem party
Liar
Failure
Hell of legacy you’ve got there Barry. Hell of a legacy.
Oh, Snap!
Lest I repeat the entire batch of comments, I’ll include just one more. Reading through them provides one with the opportunity to understand the extent of disappointment in Obama, as expressed by those who voted for him. This comment was from an individual using the name, “BearCountry”:
o was never really the “capitulator in chief.” He has worked to destroy the safety net since he became pres. When I voted for him in ’08 I knew he was not going to be a savior for the nation, but I didn’t realize how bad he would be. He is worse than w because he knows full well what he is doing. Those that defend him or blame the repugs are simply deluding themselves.
Progressive Democrats chose Obama over Hillary Clinton because they wanted to avoid electing a President who would advance the same neoliberalism we saw from Bill Clinton, the man who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 into law. Bill Clinton’s enactment of that legislation completely deregulated derivatives trading, eventually giving rise to such “financial weapons of mass destruction” as naked credit default swaps, which brought us the 2008 financial crisis.
When Hillary begins her run for the 2016 Democratic Nomination, it will be interesting to see whether any of her opponents exploit the photo of Bubba and Blankfein in Boca. On February 19 of 2012, The Business Insider published this photo of Bill Clinton having lunch with Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein at the Boca Raton Resort and Country Club. Obama’s function as a tool of the Wall Street megabanks will provide an ongoing reminder to anyone entertaining the thought of supporting Hillary, as to what they could expect from another Clinton administration.
Meanwhile Barry O. Tool is gonna’ have some ’splianin’ to do about his chained CPI proposal. His angry former supporters will want some answers.
Comments Off on Instead Of Solving a Problem – Form a Committee
It’s become a stale joke about the Obama administration. Every time a demand is made for the White House to take decisive action on an important issue . . . the President’s solution is always the same: Form a committee to study the matter.
In my last posting, I discussed the January 20 article written by Scot Paltrow forReuters, which revealed that Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, had been partners in the Washington law firm, Covington & Burling. As Scot Paltrow pointed out, during the years while Holder and Breuer were partners at Covington, the firm’s clients included the four largest U.S. banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo & Co.
Less than a week after publication of Paltrow’s report, which raised “conflict of interest” questions concerning Holder’s reluctance to prosecute banks or mortgage servicers for fraudulent foreclosure practices, President Obama delivered his State of the Union address. With Paltrow’s revelations still fresh in my mind, I was particularly surprised to hear President Obama make the following statement:
And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
If it weren’t bad enough that critics had already been complaining about the Attorney General’s failure to prosecute mortgage fraud cases, Obama has most recently appointed Holder to supervise “investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis”. It’s hard to avoid the assumption that those “investigations” will lead to nowhere. By Wednesday, I found that I was not alone in my cynicism concerning what is now called the Office of Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses.
Wednesday morning brought an essay by Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, in which she expressed dread about the possibility that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman may have been seduced by Team Obama to join the effort exerting pressure on each Attorney General from every state to consent to a settlement of any and all claims against the banksters arising from their fraudulent foreclosure practices. Each state is being asked to release the banks from criminal and civil liability in return for a share of the $25 billion settlement package. Ms. Smith compared that initiative with Obama’s most recent announcement about the Office of Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses:
So get this: this is a committee that will “investigate.” . . . Neil Barofsky, former prosecutor and head of SIGTARP, doesn’t buy the logic of this committee either:
Neil Barofsky @neilbarofsky
If task force created either b/c DOJ hasn’t done an investigation, or b/c 3-yr investigation a failure, how does Holder keep his job?
A lot of soi-disant liberal groups have fallen in line with Obama messaging, which was the plan (I already have the predictable congratulatory Move On e-mail in my inbox). Let’s get real. The wee problem is that this committee looks like yet another bit of theater for the Administration to pretend, yet again, that it is Doing Something, while scoring a twofer by getting Schneiderman, who has been a pretty effective opponent, hobbled.
If you wanted a real investigation, you get a real independent investigator, with a real budget and staffing, and turn him loose. We had the FCIC which had a lot of hearings and produced a readable book that said everyone was responsible for the mortgage crisis, which was tantamount to saying no one was responsible. We even had an eleven-regulator Foreclosure Task Force that looked at 2800 loan files (and a mere 100 foreclosures) and found nothing very much wrong.
Neil Barofsky’s question deserves repetition: Why does Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless still have his job if – after three years – the Justice Department has taken no action against those responsible for originating and securitizing the risky mortgages which led to the housing crisis?
David Dayen of Firedoglake weighed-in with his own skeptical take on Obama’s purported crakdown on mortgage origination and securitization abuses:
First of all, this becomes part of a three year-old Financial Fraud Task Force which has done approximately nothing on Wall Street accountability outside of a few insider trading arrests. So that’s the context of this investigative panel, part of the same entity that has spun its wheels. Second, the panel would only look at origination, where there have been plenty of lawsuits and where the main offenders are all out of business, and securitization, which may aid investors (that includes pension funds, of course) but not necessarily homeowners. . . .
Given the fact that this is an election year, President Obama knows that mere lip service toward a populist cause will not be enough to win back those disgruntled former supporters, who have now learned – the hard way – that talk is cheap. Obama is now going the extra mile – he’s forming a committee! Trouble is – those disgruntled former supporters have already learned that committee formation is simply the disingenuous “follow-through” on a false campaign promise. Nice try, Mr. President!
The Obama administration’s failure to prosecute any of the crimes which caused (or resulted from) the financial crisis has been a continuing source of outrage for voters across the country.
Last summer, Gretchen Morgenson of The New York Times earned a great deal of praise for her August 21 report, exposing the Obama administration’s vilification of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for his refusal to play along with Team Obama’s efforts to insulate the fraud-closure banks from the criminal prosecution they deserve. The administration has been attempting to pressure each Attorney General from every state to consent to a settlement of any and all claims against the banksters arising from their fraudulent foreclosure practices. Each state is being asked to release the banks from criminal and civil liability in return for a share of the $25 billion settlement package. The $25 billion is to be used for loan modifications.
The administration’s effort to push this fraud-closure settlement is ongoing. On January 21, David Dayen provided an update on this crusade at the Firedoglake website.
The American public is no longer content to sit back and do nothing while the Obama administration sits back and does nothing to prosecute those criminals whose fraudulent conduct devastated the American economy. On December 22, I discussed the intensifying wave of criticism directed against the President by his former supporters as well as those disgusted by Obama’s subservience to his benefactors on Wall Street. Since that time, Scot Paltrow wrote a great piece for Reuters, concerning the Justice Department’s failure to intervene against improper foreclosure procedures. Paltrow’s widely-acclaimed essay inspired several commentators to express their disgust about government permissiveness toward such egregious conduct. At The Big Picture, Barry Ritholtz shared his reaction to the Reuters article:
The fraud is rampant, self-evident, easy to prosecute. The only reason it hasn’t been done so far is that this nation is led by corrupt cowards and suffers from a ruinous two-party system.
We were once a great nation that set a shining example for the rest of the world as to what the Rule of Law meant. That is no more, as we have become a corrupt plutocracy. Why our prosecutors cower in front of the almighty banking industry is beyond my limited ability to comprehend.
Without any sort of legal denouement, we should expect an angry electorate and an unhappy nation.
Scot Paltrow wrote another great article for Reuters on January 20, which is causing quite a stir. The opening paragraphs provide us with some insight as to why our Attorney General deserves to be called Mr. Hold-harmless:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who’s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud, a Reuters inquiry shows.
The firm, Covington & Burling, is one of Washington’s biggest white shoe law firms. Law professors and other federal ethics experts said that federal conflict of interest rules required Holder and Breuer to recuse themselves from any Justice Department decisions relating to law firm clients they personally had done work for.
Both the Justice Department and Covington declined to say if either official had personally worked on matters for the big mortgage industry clients.
* * *
The evidence, including records from federal and state courts and local clerks’ offices around the country, shows widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and illegal foreclosures on the homes of thousands of active-duty military personnel.
In recent weeks the Justice Department has come under renewed pressure from members of Congress, state and local officials and homeowners’ lawyers to open a wide-ranging criminal investigation of mortgage servicers, the biggest of which have been Covington clients. So far Justice officials haven’t responded publicly to any of the requests.
The revelations in Scot Paltrow’s most recent report should create quite a scandal requiring significant damage control efforts by the Obama administration. Given the fact that this is an election year, Republican politicians should be smelling red meat at this point. After all, Obama’s Attorney General is being accused of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, will any Republicans (or their Super PACs) seize upon this issue? To do so could place them in a conflict-of-interest situation – as far as those banks are concerned. Dare they risk biting the hands that feed them? It could be quite a high-wire act to undertake. Will any Republicans rise to this challenge?
But ask what your country can do for its largest banks.
— “Turbo” Tim
All right . . . “Turbo” Tim Geithner didn’t really say that (yet) but we’ve all seen how his actions affirm that doctrine. Former federal banking regulator, Professor William Black, recently criticized Geithner for not protecting the taxpayers when Turbo Tim bailed out CIT Group to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars this past summer. CIT has now filed for bankruptcy. Henry Blodget of The Business Insider described Professor Black’s outrage over this situation:
The government was in no way obligated to lend the struggling CIT money and, in fact, initially refused to provide it bailout funds. More importantly, being the lender of last resort, the government should have guaranteed we’d be the first to get paid if CIT eventually filed Chapter 11. By failing to do so, “it’s like he [Geithner] burned billions of dollars again in government money, our money, gratuitously,” says Black.
After Tuesday’s election defeats for the Democrats in two gubernatorial races, the subject of “bailout fatigue” has been getting more attention.
Acting under the pretext of “transparency” the Obama administration has developed a strategy of holding meetings for people and groups with whom the administration knows it is losing credibility. Jane Hamsher of FiredogLake.com has written about the Obama team’s efforts to keep the disaffected Left under control by corralling these groups into what Hamsher calls “the veal pen”. She described one meeting wherein Rahm Emanuel used the expression “f**king stupid” in reference to the critics of those Democrats opposing the public option in proposed healthcare reform legislation.
A different format was followed at what appeared to be a “message control” conference, held on Monday at the Treasury Department. This time, the guest list was comprised of a politically diverse group of financial bloggers. One attendee, Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, described the meeting as “curious”:
None of us knew in advance how many attendees there would be; there were eight of us at a two-hour session, Interfluidity, Marginal Revolution, Kid Dynamite’s World, Across the Curve, Financial Armageddon, Accrued Interest, and Aleph (and of course, others may have been invited who had scheduling conflicts).
* * *
It wasn’t obvious what the objective of the meeting was (aside the obvious idea that if they were nice to us we might reciprocate. Unfortunately, some of us are not housebroken). I will give them credit for having the session be almost entirely a Q&A, not much in the way of presentation. One official made some remarks about the state of financial institutions; later another said a few things about regulatory reform. The funniest moment was when, right after the spiel on regulatory reform, Steve Waldman said, “I’ve read your bill and I think it’s terrible.” They did offer to go over it with him. It will be interesting to see if that happens.
* * *
My bottom line is that the people we met are very cognitively captured, assuming one can take their remarks at face value. Although they kept stressing all the things that had changed or they were planning to change, the polite pushback from pretty all the attendees was that what Treasury thought of as major progress was insufficient.
* * *
Several of us raised questions about whether what their vision for the industry’s structure was and that the objective seemed to be to restore the financial system that got us in trouble in the first place.
. . . it wasn’t clear that there was a “plan B” in place if things do not recover in 2010 as many mainstream analysts expect. In fact, the suggestion from one official was that the tenure of the current crisis would likely be nearer the shorter end of expectations.
There was also a bit of a disconnect between the remarks various Treasury officials have made in public forums and what was said at the meeting. … Yesterday, however, a number of those present clearly acknowledged that things could (still) go wrong and said such fears kept them awake at night. While that is not unusual in and of itself, at the very least it adds to doubts I and others have expressed about the true state of the financial system and the economy.
Finally, the meeting seemed to confirm the strong grip that Wall Street has on the levers of legislative power.
The most informative rendition of the events at the conclave came from Kid Dynamite, whose two-part narrative began with a look at how Michael Panzner interrupted a Treasury official who was describing the Treasury’s current focus “on reducing the footprint of economic intervention cautiously, quickly and prudently”:
Michael Panzner jumped right in, addressing a concept I’ve written about previously – that of “extend and pretend,” or “delay and pray” – the concept of attempting to avoid recognizing actual losses and or insolvencies, and growing out of them after enough time. Panzner called it “fake it ‘till you make it.” I mentioned that I felt like we were undergoing a “Ponzi scheme of confidence” – but that confidence mattered less than ever in the current environment where, contrary to perhaps the prior 10 years, confidence can no longer be “spent.”
Kid Dynamite’s report contained too many great passages for me to quote here without running on excessively. Just be sure to read his entire report, including Part II (which should be posted by the time you read this).
David Merkel of The Aleph Blog also submitted a two-part report (so far — with more to come) although Part 2 is more informative. Here are some highlights:
As all bloggers there will note, those from the Treasury were kind, intelligent, funny … they were real people, unlike the common tendency to demonize those in DC.
* * *
To the Treasury I would say, “Markets are inherently unstable, and that is a good thing.” They often have to adjust to severe changes in the human condition, and governmental attempts to tame markets may result in calm for a time, and a tsunami thereafter.
* * *
As for the bank stress-testing, one can look at it two ways: 1) the way I looked at it at the time — short on details, many generalities, not trusting the results. (Remember, I have done many such analyses myself for insurers.) or, 2) something that gave confidence to the markets when they were in an oversold state. Duh, but I was dumb — the oversold market rallied when it learned that the Treasury had its back.
John Jansen from Across The Curve included his report on the meeting within his usual morning posting concerning the bond market on November 4. In a subsequent posting that afternoon, he referred his readers to the Kid Dynamite report. Here’s what Mr. Jansen did say about the event:
. . . those officials expressed real concern about the downside risks to the economy (as did blogger Michael Panzner of Financial Armageddon) and since I think that the relationship between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has morphed into something somewhat incestuous I suspect that the Federal Reserve will not jump off the reservation and take the first baby steps to exiting its easy money policy.
The report at the Accrued Interest blog drew some hostile comments from readers who seemed convinced that Accrued was the only blogger there who actually drank the Kool-Aid being served by the Treasury. Their reaction was easily understandable after reading this remark (which followed a breach of protocol with the admission that Turbo Tim was there in the flesh):
It was a fascinating experience and I have to admit, it was just plain cool to be within the bowels of power like that.
Huh? All I can say is: If you like being in powerful bowels, just take a cruise over to duPont Circle. Actually — it was at his next statement where he lost me:
I am also on record as saying that Geithner was a good choice for Treasury secretary.
— and then it was all downhill from there.
The administration’s “charm offensive” has moved to the dicey issue of financial reform, where it is drawing criticism from across the political spectrum. Given the fact that they have all but admitted to a strategy of simply reading The Secret and willing everything to get better by their positive thoughts — Michael Panzner might as well start writing Financial Armageddon — The Sequel.
Lately, I’ve been receiving blog comments wherein the writers tell their hard luck stories about the current recession. My skeptical nature leads me to suspect these stories are fake and in fact, they may be the most recent incarnation of the Nigerian e-mail scam. Rather than spamming large numbers of people with e-mails, the perpetrator simply posts a “comment” to a blog, telling a tale of woe and including an e-mail address. The con artist then waits for generous people to start dumping money into his or her PayPal account (since the recipient’s e-mail address is all that is necessary to send funds). With the economy in shambles, there are plenty of prosperous individuals who feel downright guilty about basking in good fortune while so many are suffering. Human nature being what it is, many characters have sensed that the time is right to “put the touch on” those with bleeding hearts.
The other day, I received an e-mail from my brother, Mike. It contained a link to a story in Advertising Age about how publishers of the more liberal-oriented blogs are pressuring liberal activist groups to advertise on those websites. The article began with a quote from Greg Sargent of The Plum Line:
Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.
Sargent’s piece included complaints from liberal bloggers who feel stiffed by the left-wing organizations they support with favorable postings:
“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. …”
* * *
“Most want the easy way — having a big blogger promote their agenda,” adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. “Then they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.” Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sites’s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them.
The Ad Age article, by Ken Wheaton, contained a link to a posting by John Cook of Gawker, entitled: “Left Wing Blogs Try on Extortion as a Business Model”. Cook explained why it would not make sense for progressive activist groups to advertise on blogs whose readership already may contribute to those groups without seeing an ad reminding them to do so:
Unless Hamsher, Moulitsas, et. al. start attracting enormous numbers of readers who aren’t already politically engaged and don’t already agree with Americans United for Exchange, then the group would be wasting its money on their sites. The point is to persuade and rally the actual country, not the liberal echo chamber. The only reason for the left-wing establishment to divert more ad dollars to the blogs than it already is would be to keep them happy, well-fed, and useful.
Ken Wheaton voiced similar logic in the Ad Age article:
Earth to left-wing bloggers: If I’m a Democratic group, why am I going to pay to advertise on your sites? It’s the epitome of preaching to the converted.
This is exactly why these liberal groups should start advertising with me on TheCenterLane.com. This is a centrist blog, attracting readers from across the entire political spectrum. If you want to reach those people, thisis the place to do it. Additionally, these groups should publicize and speak highly of TheCenterLane.com as much as possible in order to draw more views to their ads appearing on this blog. This website would be a good place for conservatives to advertise, as well. However, conservatives are by their very nature, uh … tight with money and as a result, they would probably be less willing to part with it in order to advertise on a large number of blogs. Nevertheless, the invitation remains open.
Just think about it: What good has the DailyKos blog ever done for the Democrats? They promoted that inane rumor that Bristol Palin was the “real” mother of Trig. Everyone knows that Down syndrome is a risk arising from pregnancy during the mid to late forties. The idea that Bristol was the mother rather than Sarah, was just plain stupid. On the other hand, if the Democratic Party were to advertise on my website, I could start a rumor that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are going to make a porno together. Now that’s a story with LEGS (in every sense)!
So get with it, Democrats and Republicans! If you want some really vile rumors about your opponents (and their family members) to start spreading through the blogosphere, advertise here!
In a perfect world, there would be a floor fight to take Sarah Palin off the ticket at the Republican Convention. It would make for some good TV this week. On the Friday, August 29 program, Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO), National Public Radio’s Michel Martin made the strident claim that those who criticize Sarah Palin “do so at their peril”. Sarah Palin is a Gumball. There. I will say it again, as well. Although I would agree that anyone who resorts to sexist criticism of Palin does so at their own peril, there is plenty of room for reasoned dismay at McCain’s choice. Meanwhile, Michel Martin’s claim that Palin’s experience is analogous to Tim Kaine’s experience, should have been made at Martin’s peril. Actually, it was. Tim Kaine is the Governor of a state that just happens to be next door to our nation’s Capitol. Virginia’s population is 7,702,091 people. The population of Alaska is less than one tenth of that at 683,478. Although Kaine’s time served as Governor of Virginia is equivalent to the time served by Palin as Governor of Alaska, Kaine previously served four years as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia — a job with similar day-to-day duties as those of the Vice-President of the United States. You see, both the Lieutenant Governor and the Vice-President preside over a body called “the Senate”. The Lieutenant Governor presides over the State Senate and the Vice-President presides over the United States Senate. The Gumball made the mistake of asking the question, into a TV camera, of what the everyday duties of the Vice-President might be. Tim Kane learned the answer by presiding over the Virginia Senate for four years. In case The Gumball doesn’t know (and she doesn’t, by her own admission) Kane’s duties as Lieutenant Governor matched those of the Vice President of the United States. Michel Martin must be aware of this … she just might not want anyone else to be so aware. Before Tim Kaine was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, he was the Mayor of Richmond Virginia for four years. Two years ago, The Gumball was the mayor of her home town: Wasilla, Alaska (population 9,000). Tim Kaine was the mayor of a city with a population over twenty times the size of Wasilla, Alaska, at 200,123 people. Tim Kaine went to law school (Georgetown). The Gumball didn’t, nor did John McCain.
The stupidity of this episode is “off the charts”. On the heels of an outrageously successful Democratic Convention, McCain has made a desperate reach for those disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton. At the same time, with his choice of The Gumball, McCain has sold out to the televangelist lobby in the hope of connecting with that ever-elusive Republican “base”. The term “desperate” has been used by many commentators. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was kind enough to analogize the selection of Palin to a “Hail Mary” or “Hail Sarah” pass at the end of a close football game. McCain’s media sycophants claim that McCain’s selection of Palin as his running mate, reinforces his “maverick” persona. To the contrary, if McCain really were a maverick, he would be standing up to the televangelist lobby, rather than sucking up to it, as he is with this choice.
Sarah Palin (a/k/a “The Gumball”) is a “wing nut” who wants creationism to be taught in public schools and who refuses to believe that global warming has been caused by human activity. To her credit, Palin went to term with a baby known to have Down Syndrome, based on her anti-abortion stance. Her ability to do the anti-abortion walk as well as the anti-abortion talk will give her some degree of “street cred” with a limited population.
Nevertheless, with his choice of Palin, McCain has alienated his own “base” – the independents, moderate Republicans and centrists who believed that once elected President, McCain would tear off the rubber mask and return to his old self. As Arianna Huffington said a while ago: “The John McCain of 2000 is not a candidate in this election.” McCain’s choice of The Gumball just drove that message home.
The fact that The Gumball was not adequately vetted, has become glaringly obvious to many Republicans. She hasn’t been Governor of Alaska for two years and yet, she is already in trouble there. A special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate her activity. She has been accused of “abuse of power”. Our current Vice-President has that as his middle name. This situation should make life easy for those writing the negative ads about the Republican ticket.
As long as Michel Martin has directed our attention to Tim Kaine, let’s remember where he was born: a city named St. Paul, Minnesota. If you want to find out what life is like there now, with the Republican Convention taking place, read Lindsay Beyerstein’s article, “Inside an RNC Raid” at Firedoglake.com. It will make you sick, with reports of warrantless searches at homes — even one owned by a former military police officer. When a woman staying at the house discussed in the story asked for a warrant, she was detained. Local police were blended with apparent “contractors” or private Gestapo-for-hire. Of course, this is all completely illegal in the United States where we have lived for all our lives. Those in control of the 2008 Republican Party don’t care about the rule of law. They make a point of promoting “leaders” who know nothing about it, either. The reasons for this are obvious.
TheCenterLane.com offers opinion, news and commentary on politics, the economy, finance and other random events that either find their way into the news or are ignored by the news reporting business. As the name suggests, our focus will be on what seems to be happening in The Center Lane of American politics and what the view from the Center reveals about the events in the left and right lanes. Your Host, John T. Burke, Jr., earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston College with a double major in Speech Communications and Philosophy. He earned his law degree (Juris Doctor) from the Illinois Institute of Technology / Chicago-Kent College of Law.