The big banks need to be dealt with in the same manner as the small ones: TAKEN INTO RECEIVERSHIP and broken up and sold off as needed. But that's so dull sounding! Better to call it nationalization so people can compare it to socialism and be outraged.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't receivership a process whereby assets of insolvent institutions are redistributed back into the system? The government should only act as the interim overseer, not the permanent administrator.

A number of economists have mentioned this, but it appears noone is listening. We need to change how this issue is being framed.

Specter will vote for cloture (and maybe even vote in favor of) all crucial bills leading up to 2010, and then lose the Democratic primary due to a massive grassroots effort in spite of efforts by Democratic leadership.

A guy can dream, can't he?

Thirty years ago, two-income families were not the predominant norm that exists today. Subsistance expenses (food, healthcare, energy, etc.) were not nearly as expensive (as a percentage of total income) as they are today, either.

Bottom line: The qualitative standard of living (a.k.a., quality of life) has drastically eroded over the past thirty years for a large majority of Americans.

I'm a big Simon Pegg fan, and would be interested in how he pulls off playing the role of Scotty (If we push her any harder, Cap'n, she'll blow!).

As long as most stressed consumers are paying upwards of 30% APR on their credit (by virtue of a late payment or one of the other traps set by credit companies). That used to be the interest rate only Tony Soprano would charge, but it's become an industry standard.

As long as people are barely making the minimum and their balance is hardly changing, there will be NO meaningful spending by a substantial percentage of consumers.

Is all in the heads of Mike Madden and the beltway insiders. To the rest of us, it's all a bunch of bullshit parlor tricks.

Bottom Line: Pelosi wants an investigation. If she were hip-deep in all of this (the GOP's wet, deluded dream), WTF would she want a truth commission?

Regardless of the degree of her complicity, NONE of it mitigates the role of Bush & Cheney as the primary protagonists for torturing people to advance a political agenda (Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda).

Anyone who thinks this issue is going to be kept under wraps is kidding themselves. Too many people are starting to speak out and it cuts too close to the bone for most honest people. This country needs a Torture Debate.

P.S. E-man, you keep holding on to your belief that Cheney's not hurting your party.

Grow up.

I too am not happy with the preventative detention idea, but right now it's just that: a proposed course of action that will undergo a rigorous (hopefully) review process.

He claims that whatever he does, it will be legal. Well, let us all be citizens and hold him to it. I, personally, don't think he can do it, but at least he is opening the floor for debate. This issue will also be a test of his promise for transparency, and we'll see how that goes.

Obama is trying for the reverse, triple-gainer with a back twist. I wish him luck but I fear he will end up on his stomach. That said, he is going for it.

The ultimate face-off is national/personal security vs. the rule of law. To his credit, he is trying to mitigate the hopeless situation to the best of his ability. What people have to ask themselves is: which is more important? Can you have both in all situations?

Greenwald really lays out the legal issues on this and I urge everyone to read it. The bottom line is that true due process necessarily includes the possibility of failure by the prosecution. That means they might have to be released somewhere.

People need to understand that they may finally have to sacrifice something (a measure of personal security) as a consequence of the "War on Terror."

From DanP on the comment thread at Washington Monthly:

"Good. Now let's move past waterboarding. Which of these right wing celebrities wants to under go a regimen of sleep deprivation, slapping, slamming against the wall, just enough tasteless food for survival, stress positions and blaring "Born in the USA" for a few days. Until then, Cheney cannot thank Obama for withholding thousands of abuse photos while claiming EIT were only used on a few people."

I couldn't agree more.

The counter-argument isn't to defend abortions as a preferred solution to unwanted pregnancies. The true problem is the anti-choice movement's absolutist stance against all contraceptives, whose informed use would preclude the need for abortions in most instances (other than instances of rape, etc.).

But to the AA extremists, there is no difference between the two. As long as they are allowed to focus on the more discomforting procedure, the pro-choice movement will have difficulty mounting a defense from a PR perspective.

The focus needs to be placed on the fact that because of their intransigence on ALL forms of birth control, the AA movement has CAUSED the situations that lead to the abortions they decry.

They are an extreme religious sect, not unlike Al-qaeda or the Taliban, that seeks to impose their rigid ideology on all American citizens.

Unfortunately, this is a price the GOP will be glad to pay in order to keep Franken out of office as long as possible.

We can only hope that the court decides to levy some real sanctions that will bring some notieable pain.

It's truly pathetic.

To anyone with half a watt rattling around in their cranium, it's obvious that the right-wing terror is based upon their understanding (deep down) that they can't debate the issues on the merits.

Is anyone aware of a liberal commentator who is afraid of debating conservatives? Me neither.