Glenn you said: "I quoted that part, but he never says that the tea party anger is aimed at the wealthy or at corporate power, and nobody who has watched any part of those festivities could claim with a straight face that it is."

I believe he was talking about the Town Hall protestors, not the Tea Party gangs. And it's pretty clear Ross D. said the Town Hall group aren't just mad about Health Care initiatives, they're mad about money going to Wall Streeters and AIG, etc.

Anyway, I think Obama blew it, he should have waited on health care and used the energy of that anger to reform and regulate Wall St. He didn't, probably for the reasons you note, the Dems have their hands in the Wall St. cookie jars as well.

Barry Ritholz had a good bit up a week ago along the same lines - meaning using that anger to reform finance rather than attempting health care reform.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/09/finance-reform-vs-health-care-reform/

Funny, I read that bit this morning and thought Ross was fairly clear who the current rage is against. In fact he seems to state it in the section you quote; the Wall Streeters and AIG bonus recipients. Meaning the wealthy…

"They were about the Wall Street bailout, the G.M. takeover, the A.I.G. bonuses, and countless smaller examples of middle-income Americans’ 'playing by the rules,' as [GOP pollster Frank] Luntz puts it, 'and having someone else benefit.'"

Titonwan, apologies, i had to cook some dinner and didn't log back on to respond to your post here:

"Ha! YOU are trying to compare Clinton's use of rendition to bring a few people to justice in court and comparing it to Bush's disappearing of hundreds of people to undisclosed black sites for the express purpose of torturing them is breathtaking in it's comedic value! And to even use Dawn Johnson's (spelled correctly here) name in the same sentence with John Yoo is sacrilege. Oh well, what ever you thought of your troll mask, it sure slipped off your face with that comparison. Good luck in the finals!"

First, the easy part, you incorrectly spelled Ms Johnsen's name, not me. Go google it.

Second. Is that what you think Clinton was doing with his rendition, bringing them to the US for court trials? Again, do some research you're incorrect.

My problem with Ms Johnsen is simple. i read her remarks about Bush's program, which i fully agreed with, but found it odd and possibly partisan that she never mentioned the fact it grew from a questionable (i saw clearly illegal) program under Clinton. When i checked her background i found out she not only worked for Bubba she was in fact the acting head of the OLC. What was her position on Bubba's program, which according to Richard Clarke's book was illegal (he even quotes Gore as affirming that).

As for indicting Bush's cronies and even Bush himself for breaking the law. hey, i'm fine with it. But at least recognize that this is something new (a president indicting the staff of a previous president for following that president's policies).

How will that impact future presidential transitions? My guess something bad, perhaps as sinister as Bob suspects... who knows? the whole "unintended consequences" and all that.

And ask yourself, do you think Obama should look into illegal programs under Clinton, or Carter, or Reagan and issue indictment where illegal acts were found even if those acts where part of Clinton/Carter/Reagan policy? Carter hauled off some housing project in cuffs? That would be fun! Do you think it would have made sense for Ike to indict Truman and his politicos, and also FDR politicos? If you answer yes to these questions, ok then fine. If you answer "no" ask yourself why - my guess you're looking at this through partisan glasses.

Do you think FDR's political appointess who were responsible for imprisoning Japanese Americans should have been indicted by Ike? How about Nixon indicting JFK appointees responsible for the Bay of Pigs? How about Harding or Calvin Coolidge indicting Wilson for Veracruz?

All horrific crimes done by past presidents but all of which we happily ignore.

That was not my main point, i noted Bob said it and thought it interesting.

My point, is since this have apparently never been done before, despite the many crimes committed by LBJ, FDR, Wilson, etc, why do it now? Why should Bush's political cronies be indicted - by the current president - for implementing Bush's policies, when, as far as i can tell, that's never happened before. That was my main point.

The fact that that would be revolutionary and potentially dangerous is a side issue for me, discuss that with Bob.

Oh, in case anyone cares, i'm all for indicting the crooks, for that matter, i wish Truman was tossed in jail, and Wilson, and FDR's cronies, and McKinley's henchmen, etc. But that's besides the point.

Don't look to GG to defend Dawn Johnsen, if you have problems with what i wrote, than do it yourself.

According to the ACLU Clinton started the rendition program which Bush increased after 9/11. Ms Johnsen has spoken out openly about Bush's crimes regarding rendition, however she never said anything about Clinton dirty hands, despite the fact he started the program. Which is especially odd as she had John Woo's job under Clinton.

Why do you think she has said nothing about Bubba? My guess, she's a partisan hack.