http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/09/22/daily70.html

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809251152DOWJONESDJONLINE000702_FORTUNE5.htm

John Allison is Chairman and CEO of BB&T, the largest bank in the southeastern US.

In a letter to Congress dated Tuesday, Allison didn't oppose government action outright. But he suggested changes to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s proposal to inject $700 billion in fusion to liquefy mortgage assets.

"The government should directly purchase housing assets, not real estate bonds. " ... wrote the chairman ...

...

"There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial institutions," Allison wrote. "While all financial intermediaries are being impaired by liquidity issues, this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial companies."

"It is completely unclear why the government needs or should bail out insurance companies, investment banks, hedge funds and foreign companies," Allison wrote in his letter. "The primary beneficiaries of the proposed rescue are Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS)."

The atlanta biz journal link is missing the "L" in "html" at the end of the link.

Glenn -

{I typed this comment prior to reading the exchange between Amerigo and Glenn here in the comments thread, but I still think this needs some more emphasis}

Something that you mention in passing but I think deserves some more emphasis is Hannity's completely disingenuous response re: Martin that he is a journalist who often has conversations with people with whom he disagress.

As aired, the piece in question was absolutely devoid of any critical thinking towards the claims of Mr. Martin. Quite the contrary, all of his opinions were presented as authoritative and conclusive. There was not one ounce of disagreement with anything Martin said. There was no suggestion that Martin has specious, untoward motives; no mention or suggestion of his long and calamitous career as a vexatious litigator (look that one up - it's a badge of dishonor few have attained); no mention of his "Obama is a muslim" propoganda campaigns; and no mention that Martin WAS A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR SENATE IN ILLINOIS IN THIS ELECTION {link at sig} - which I think might be information requiring disclosure in this circumstance.

I think Hannity is entirely odious and infuriating, and often disingenuous - but, to give the devil his due, he is usually at least a little bit slick about it. This thing with Martin is just absolutely appalling, and beneath his usual "standards".*

Is there a mass media equivalent of "Better trolls, please?"

*Irony intended - I remain unconvinced that Hannity has standards, other than to provide a veneer of acceptability to movement conservative populist rhetoric.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has conclusive proof, in the form of a chart, that the reason for global warming is the decline in the world wide population of pirates.

link at sig.

Jonah Goldberg is, plain and simple, a jerk.

[The McCain campaign], not out of malice or intent, didn't allow themselves to think through how some of these images would be taken by their audience.

For this sentence alone, she should lose her job.

The idea that a Republican campaign, in the year 2008, would not be aware of the potentially racist and divisive undertones of their symbology and rheotoric is an idea that COULD ONLY BE PUT FORTH BY A COMPLETE AND UTTER FUCKING MORON.

There is absolutely no defense for this statement or belief that could at all excuse the utter preposterousness of not only advancing it, but advancing it as someone who supposedly is providing objective analyses and information to the effected electorate.

If she has never heard of the Southern Strategy, she is utterly ignorant and thus completely unqualified for her position. If she has heard of it, and is still willing to utter the sentence you quoted, she is completely delusional and thus utterly unqualified for her position. There is a recurring theme here.

...moderate Democrats in Congress " ... aren't going to go crazy liberal, because they'll see that as a mistake for building what they want to build, which is an enduring Democratic majority.

I never - ever, ever - want to endure one more goddamn word about how this or that politician's real goal is ensuring an enduring {insert party here} majority in Congress or on Capital Hill.

• How about a goal of a fucking functioning government?
• How about a goal of efficient delivery of social services?
• How about a goal of effective oversight of those services, and, where appropriate, modification or abandonment of programs that aren't fucking working?
• How about a goal of real rebuilding of our national infrastructure?
• How about a goal of a military policy that cares more about efficient training and accurate assessments of jobs and missions than where i choose to put my penis, fingers, or tongue? {link at sig}
• How about a goal of amending the federal sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug-offenders so that they can pass a laugh test in the court of common sense?

The first thing we do, let's bury all of these consultants up their necks in a fire ant farm and coat them in honey.

As far as I am concerned, any truly enduring majority, of any party, is not a desirable goal. This country was not founded on the idea that we would or should agree, but that we could have a system of government in which all reasonable people would have their say. That means that ideas will change, power structures should shift over time, and sometimes, no matter how right you think you are, you are going to have to eat it.

Somebody please tell these assholes, loudly, to shut the fuck up about enduring majorities, and get back to fucking work.

I do not vote for you so that you can erect some sort of political fiefdom, demesne or kingdom. I vote for you to govern. THAT'S IT. STOP SEARCHING FOR SOME BROADER MANDATE AND GET TO WORK YOU GREEDY MOTHERFUCKERS.

Sorry, this really pissed me off today.