Geoff Eliot is a political insider at Rupert Murdoch's flagship newspaper in Australia. His article today (link at sig) begins like this:

JOHN McCain's campaign is on the ropes and maybe that suits him just fine. His run for the White House was all but over last year but he fought back against the odds...

After repeating FOX News talking points about Obama being "criticised [by FOX] for being too cool and dispassionate" he writes:

What can change now to help Senator McCain alter the narrative? A national security event might again elevate this war hero and former naval aviator's military credentials - just as the crisis between Russia and Georgia helped Senator McCain dominate the headlines two months ago.

The neocons have tentancles in Australian politics and media, nowhere moreson than Murdoch's "The Australian" newspaper. Irresponsible journalism like this should not go un-noticed.

Bernie Sanders explains why he voted against the bailout again:

Incredibly, for the first seven years of Bush's tenure, the wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase in their wealth. That is just 400 families...

This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem.

With the extortion money in the bank, Bush is back on his ranch again. It's hard work being Preznit!

Now, as markets keep diving, he's warning that it will take some time for the "full effects" of the bailout to become clear to the American people. I'm guessing the "full effects" might become clear on Nov 5th, or sometime thereafter.

This bailout is another purely political "surge" tactic - throw enough money into the system to get you through to Nov 4, and hope the situation changes by then. If it does - or even if it just stops getting worse - you can claim a victory.

And just like the "surge" tactic in Iraq, this one has the backing of both parties, so there is no real debate.

First up, Lehman Bros has blamed JP Morgan chase for sending them bankrupt.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/05/2382557.htm

There is something very fishy about the fact that Bush & Co have bailed out others but not Lehman, and when you read the fine details it smells a lot more fishy. No doubt there is a big story hiding in there somewhere (hey Perlstein, wanna win another Pulitzer?).

Second up, Palin just accused Obama of associating with terrorists.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/05/2382414.htm

Where do I start with this one?

Firstly (as Glenn would say) this sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Funny, coz I thought the GOP was the party which frowned upon such "irresponsible" discussion, and refused to even acknowledge questions on such "fantastic" matters.

Secondly, for the record, it's pure bullshit, of course. Obama is accused of having briefly associated with a former member of the Weathermen, many years ago. Whatever the truth of that accusation may be, it hardly makes him a terrorist. (In fact, I think a bit more public scrutiny of the Weathermen's role in history might be very useful right now).

Thirdly, this is a sign of desperation from the McCain camp. Either Palin is going out on a very long limb by making such accusations on her own, or (far more likely) she's been chosen to deliver this "hit" because McCain needs to remain seemingly aloof from such gutter politics (and yet he clearly has decided to endorse his campaign's descent into the sewers). They have got nothing left, folks.

Fourthly, @ Glenn, do you see what I'm talkin' bout?!?!?

If this is - as I firmly believe - a carefully orchestrated move from a desperate GOP campaign, then it perfectly illustrates two points that I have been hammering here for the past month.

Firstly (as Glenn would say), a la Rove Play Book, you take your biggest weakness and turn it into a weapon of attack, whatever the logic.

Secondly, an increasingly nervous cabal of Bush White House criminals have decided that accusations of "terrorism" are in fact their biggest weakness right now. They realise they have already lost the election, and they are in damage control. And their biggest fear is that they could all end up behind bars.

Why? What did they do?

Glenn's excellent work analyzing the anthrax attack lies tells only half the story. But even that is enough - the most effective, ruthless and dangerous terrorists of the past 8 years have been working inside the Oval Office.

If (God forbid) a lone gunman shoots Obama, we will all remember who stirred up the hatred and sowed the lies that terrorized rightwing fools into believing he was a real threat to them.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have been using the politics of fear and hate for eight long years. It is a form of terrorism.

PS: Where's the real anthrax killer(s)?