the American public has become decidedly less optimistic about the prospects and wisdom of war generally.

As vehemently as Biden spoke against the Iraq war last night, he spoke with equal conviction for the Afghan war, as the committment to bomb Pakistan if "actionable intelligence" on al Qaeda could be obtained, and the need to militarily intervene in Darfur to halt genocide. And they aren't even in office yet. That's two wars promoted for one war denounced.

Add to this the fact that AFRICOM is now established in Africa, that our embassies across the world are now armed fortresses, rather than gateways of cultural exchange and diplomacy, and that the State Department is a shell of what it used to be, while DOD and Intelligence budgets have been bloated beyond all need.

In the above sense, the Right has had a lasting impact on how we conduct ourselves, and it is unclear to me that a Democratic administration under Obama and Biden would do much to change that. Hence the comment about winning a war, but loosing the battle.

I certainly hope you're right that there is a lasting shift in popular opinion against war as a valid, creditable foreign policy tool. But we've seen many things happen that the public is arguably against. It has become commonplace.

It may be true that the Iraq argument from the right is dead. However, the idea that military action is a normal, credible and useful foreign policy tool, to be easily discussed by our leaders at the drop of a hat, shows that the right may have lost the war, but they've won the battle.

it ain't over til it's over, but this thing really could be a rout.

Of course, it should be a rout, but things so often don't work like they should.

Today's right would not fare well in Rand's novels, I believe.

Regardless, since Rand is no longer with us to defend herself, it'll remain an unanswered question.

I believe the victimization talk from the right is their version of nostalgia--this is how they reclaim their roots--back when they lived in the catacombs and carved Reagan-related symbols on the damp stone walls. As Greenwald points out, it's total rubbish, makes no logical sense, but that doesn't matter. Simply by chanting the ancient 'victim' meme, they comfort themselves.

Now, with a side of pork.

I have not read the senate bill, but my understanding is that it is simply the Paulson plan, herded into a pork feedlot for fattening, and then trotted back to the House for their pending collapse.

All your freedom are belong to us.

Sincerely,

teh liberal

Lloyd Doggett, House Budget Committee

“Like the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, this bill is fueled by fear and hinges on haste. So much is missing. There is: No requirement that Wall Street pay a dime for the damage caused or the clean-up, though a future President can request Congress do what it declines to do today. No meaningful limitation on outrageous executive pay; like the war, no shared sacrifice; only rewards for the greedy and burdens for the needy. No bar on American taxpayers having to bail out the Bank of China – and the entire world. No guarantee taxpayers will not be overcharged for buying toxic debts that no one else wants. And no guarantee taxpayers really share in future profits of those bailed out."

.

“Yes, every one of these concerns gets cosmetic mention. Not even Avon and Mary Kay can compete with the cosmetics in this bill. This 100-page bill - three pages of what Secretary Paulson would do; 97 pages of what he could do, plus excuses for approving the first three pages - it aspires, but it seldom requires.

“All of us want to avoid further economic deterioration. Action or inaction today – that's a false choice; it is a matter of never seriously considering any alternative in these negotiations to just giving $700 billion to the same Bush Administration that has done so much to create this crisis and for whom the vultures have now come home to roost.”

Yesterday, reports have the ratio of calls coming into Congress @ 200 calls against for every call for the bill. Yet today, we're led to believe that:

Bullshit item 1:

House Members Receive Angry Calls on Vote, Aide Says (Update1)

By James Rowley

Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Voters flooded Capitol Hill offices today with complaints about the U.S. House's defeat of the $700 billion financial-rescue plan, a House Republican leadership aide said.

The tenor of the calls is a reversal from an earlier outpouring of voter opposition to the bailout legislation, the aide said.

Bullshit Item 2:

Senate Leaders Vow to Push Bailout Plan This Week (Update2)By Brian Faler and James Rowley

Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush and Senate leaders vowed today to revive a $700 billion financial rescue plan amid evidence voters and lawmakers regretted yesterday's U.S. House vote to kill the bailout.

...

Voters flooded Capitol Hill offices today, decrying the defeat of the rescue package, a House Republican leadership aide said. Prior to yesterday's tally, lawmakers said sentiment was running about 100-1 against the plan

Two articles, based on a single, unnamed "House Republican leadership aide".

I don't know the answers, but I believe that voting "NO" was the correct, best vote. I'm suspicious of this "crisis".

But my main point previously was that I don't think most members were playing with this vote. I think it was a tough vote, and that various members were reacting to different factors.

We'll have to see what happens--but my bet is that the system is not going to go down in flames because some banks with bad paper didn't get bailed out. I believe there are thousands of banks out there that are perfectly healthy and are lending and borrowing.