Thanks for the info., Carla - good post. Also - a note for readers: comments on the earlier TARP post seem not to have been showing up since this morning due to a technical glitch, so let's continue the discussion here with Carla's new info. in mind.

One correction, Carla. You said "the mortgage protections weren't in the bill before Merkley made those demands." The mortgage protections are not in the bill. That is, they are not legislated into law. The "mortgage protections" are merely a letter from Obama aide Lawrence Summers to lawmakers saying they will devote some of the bailout money to helping homeowners. That's no doubt a good thing, but it's not the law of the land - and Obama can veer away from doing that precisely because it ISN'T in the bill.

So yes, it's good that Merkley got those assurances from Obama. But they aren't in law - so let's hope Merkley follows up on that letter with concrete legislation, legislating those rhetorical assurances into law. That's not too much to ask from a candidate who campaigned against the bailout, is it?

While this takes us away from the Oregon focus, it's also worth looking at the pressure that Barney Frank et al. are looking to bring from the House side (HR 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009). Part of Frank's strategy is to urge the Obama administration to "buy problem mortgages from investors at a discount to facilitate the restructuring of these loans."

Ah, David Sirota is at it again. Obama can do no right. The number one attack dog for the self-marginalized on Open Left.

It's too bad that Jeff Merkley thinks he has to explain himself to the other pre-eminent "attack Obama" site, Dkos.

the self-marginalized on Open Left

Bill - I hope you're not suggesting that Open Left is a site for the self-marginalized. Mike Lux, one of the site's founders, just came off a stint with the Transition Team. I'd also question your characterization of Kos as an attack Obama site.

Groups/sites that maintain a principled independence are critically important in the political process, and have a distinct role to play. I thought Merkley did the right thing in responding directly, and that the straightforward and non-defensive tone of his post was right on.

I am indeed suggesting that Open Left is the haven of the self-marginalized. Their persistent drumbeat of attacks on Obama and the Dem. party have made them great instruments of the right. If they had any hope of credibility in influencing policy, it's gone.

I would suggest the same for Daily Kos except not so much. I went to both sites for election coverage, but they have since become the mouthpieces for self-indulgent personal alienation of the likes of David Sirota and others. Blue Oregon's management still has a foot in political reality, so perhaps it won't take the same course.

If they had any hope of credibility in influencing policy, it's gone.

Bill - I think there's a real difference between honest and clearly stated policy differences and pushback from the left on the one hand and persistent attacks on the other. So while David Sirota's favorite gear is certainly "flame thrower," that's his style (and I'd be careful to distinguish style from substance), and others are different.

In addition, while you may be ready to designate Open Left as beyond the pale, just as Merkley responded respectfully and effectively (IMHO) to Kos, Chris Dodd's office responded to Chris Bowers' post on Open Left criticizing him for declining to take up an equivalent of Barney Frank's TARP Reform Bill in the Senate.

Anyway, I think you're making this too much of a "good versus evil" argument. Here's Bowers on it - which hardly strikes me as the attitude of a shil for the right:

I very much appreciate the follow-up call from the Senate banking committee (people in Congress have been surprising helpful to us this week), and I want to maintain the honest, reciprocal communication that we have seen so far. However, I also made it clear that I disagreed with Senator Dodd on this matter.

This is healthy dialogue, of the kind unimaginable during the Bush Administration.

Well stated, Dan, but my view is different. Perhaps the left blogosphere finds its purpose in throwing rocks, but I find it rooted in a rigid ideological fundamentalism of its own. Sites like DKos and Open Left, and to some extent this site don't know how to come to terms with the pragmatism of real governance and building the common ground of coalitions. Nor are they willing to accept a political leader like Obama who is a pragmatist and who promised to change the nature of political dialogue in this country, and to pursue policies that are nuanced and adapted to find common ground with all parts of the political spectrum.

I predict that as time goes on Open Left and DKos will only marginalize themselves further with their rhetoric, rigid posturing, and unwillingness to reach outside of their ideological comfort zone.

I'm not yet ready to make any predictions yet, Bill - especially since some of the things we're seeing are unprecedented.

One of those is the degree to which Obama has created a movement unto himself, which he fully intends to maintain as a tool to govern, not only to get elected. So while the "movement conservatives" were an essential part of Bush's governing coalition, he did not control them and their base institutions in anything like the way that Obama will try to maintain control over the people and money he mobilized during his campaign - and this force will be independent of the traditional institutions we think of as making up the base of the progressive movement.

BUT - and this is a big but: Bush governed from the right, with a philosophy that any vote beyond the 50% plus 1 (or 60 in the Senate) necessary to win was “a wasted concession,” as Mark Schmitt described it. Obama is at least for now looking to govern from the center. So if that's where Obama begins the debate when key policies are crafted, without a strong and, yes, persistent mobilization of forces on the left, then those policies will inevitably be negotiated rightwards once the negotiating begins. In that sense, my own indications from progressives inside the new Administration (and these have been communicated publicly, as well as privately) is that they both want and need continue pressure from an independent left.

If you don’t mind reading another Open Left post, Paul Rosenberg discusses some relevant issues in his current discussion of Mike Lux’s new book, The Progressive Revolution.

Carla shows we have sad, lost cases who defend weasel, self-serving politicians like Merkley on the "left", just like those they attack on the right (takes one to know one):

Carla:

This is consistent with at least some of Merkley's campaign rhetoric, fyi: "A plan must have protections for our home owners..."

Candidate Merkley lying his way through the campaign:

"I have dedicated much of my life to advocating for consumers and I believe it is just wrong to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money to bailout the very Wall Street financiers who created this crisis. This bill will allow those same executives to walk away with golden parachutes, while doing nothing to end the abuses of oversight that caused this mess or help working families who need their own economic rescue. This proposal is badly flawed and adding a number of important unrelated items, no matter how worthy, does not fix the problems with this bailout."

Note how he attacks the ENTIRE $700mil plan and the premises behind it. He doesn't say I oppose this $350mil now but I think we should make some changes and then spend another $350mil. He knew he was toast with the voters if he said that was his plan. They knew from his campaign he was nothing but a grasping, desperate, tool for the party faction who are in bed that in fact are the Senators and Representatives from Wall Street. They paid for a huge share of Merkley's media (And the lying little weasel said he coudn't do anything to stop their negative ads even has he sat there criticizing his lying weasel opponent for the same kind of advertising).

All Merkley worked to get was the chance to lie and then say it wasn't his fault when Obama can't and doesn't stand up to the financial sector. As "David Sirota" said, none of what sleazy Candidate Merkley talked about so hypocritically is in the law for which sleazy Senator Merkley actually voted. Merkley didn't use the only way he could to actually get it in to the law: Vote against the next $350mil until it is. But, there is no way he would vote against those to whom he happily sold out to advance his career.

The reality of what Merkley voted for and knew it looks more like this announcement Friday of more TARP money and other federal support to, in Candidate Merkley's own words, the very Wall Street financiers who created this crisis.

The exact dollars are still sketchy, it looks like at least 5.7% of the new funds Merkley voted for less than 24 hours earlier (the previous $350bil is gone), but the commitment is a fact. I think we can anticipate another scare campaign about the collapse of the world financial system so the rest of the $350bil will get spent just the way the first $350bil got spent before the Congress and Obama can find time to start hearings on helping average folks.

It's absolutely hilarious, though, to watch pathetic Blue Oregon flacks just utterly debase themselves doing everything they can to spin, lie, and attack honest and informed critics as Princeton Ivy-Leaguer Merkley tell us he thinks we common folks are too stupid to know he's playing us.

(Can someone close the tag that Dan left open in his post).

my bad.

What about the rigid ideological fundamentalism of people like Bill R., whose nose is so far up the Democratic Party's arse that when he sneezes Obama's eyes bulge.

(The intellectual vacuity of "Dr. Prosthetic" reinforces my point, and sadly is representative of what too much of the commentary is like on these blogs.)

Your points are well taken, Peter, and well expressed. We shall see how things develop. But since the election I have seen the left blogosphere turn into a launching pad for ongoing and relentless attacks by people who consider themselves the keeper of the flame of progressive righteousness to the degree that I can foresee that no candidate who has any hopes of holding office will want to be associated with these forums.

So if people like David Sirota simply want to be an irritant on the butt of the body politic, perhaps that serves a purpose. But they will be marginalized from being real players or having significant impact on the real policy decisions that affect our country and our world. Stroking themselves with their righteous ideas and principles will serve nothing for helpful policy directions for our country. For myself I have lost interest in the left blogosphere and their self absorbed rants but hope they can self-correct at some point.

So to move things back onto TARP, Merkley, etc., here's a strategic question:

The Senate has now acted, and by not blocking release of the second $350 million that's a done deal. But what about the kinds of necessary reforms embodied in Frank's House bill, as well as other valid concerns?

Just this morning, for example, the NYTimes had a short piece pointing to a new GAO report showing the extraordinary number of subsidiaries maintained in offshore tax havens by US corporations receiving TARP funds. It "singled out Citigroup as having 427 subsidiaries in offshore havens like the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and Switzerland. Bank of America has 115 subsidiaries in offshore havens, while Morgan Stanley has 273, the report said."

What's more, for all of the questions about TARP funds, there's a far higher lack of information and transparency behind the Federal Reserve's role in the bailout. The Financial Times has a great interactive graphic on the scale and timeline of interventions by various central banks, but more precise details are secret, and likely to remain so if these responses to questions during recent House hearings are any indication. And, of course, Ben Bernanke will be around for a while, and not under Obama's direction.

All that's to say that while I do agree with both Bill and Kevin re. the frequently overheated rhetoric, I nonetheless think there's still a critical role for both independent journalism and commentary on the left (so think TPM if it's more to your taste), to say nothing of organizing. Pressure from the outside can help provide additional leverage to those working on the inside.

Carla shows we have sad, lost cases who defend weasel, self-serving politicians like Merkley on the "left",

So the part where I said I disagree with Jeff's vote and I think he's wrong amounts to...a defense?

The real points are: this thing was going to pass with or without Merkley, so he worked to get a commitment from Obama that foreclosure protection money would be a part of this. Merkley didn't try to weasel his way out of talking to those who disagree with him about it, either. He went to the DKos folks and Sirota and laid it out. I think in the end, I think Merkley's trust is misplaced and he should have stuck to his guns and not voted for it.

And please don't insult my intelligence with elitist bullshit "...Ivy League vs the common man.." That is just so much crap. It's snobbery of the highest order, IMO.

Oops..."Editor" is me. Weird. I don't get why it did that.

Okay...."Editor" is Carla.

ACK!

Carla said (but can anyone figure out why?):

So the part where I said I disagree with Jeff's vote and I think he's wrong amounts to...a defense?

Sirota's comment is a well-deserved, masterful slam on Merkley that you apparently don't understand. He specifically stated Merkley's vote is completely contrary to his campaign promise and why. At the bottom line, he in fact said the best defense Merkley could possibly offer is that he's too dumb to realize his action was naively impotent. (Of course, we see Merkley has far too big an ego to cop to that plea because Merkley has spent 48 hours defending his vote on grounds that just highlight his impotence.) Sirota is still correctly arguing out Merkley is in fact a weasel, just maybe one who is more bumbling than cunning.

What you didn't say in your baffling comment is: "A defense of what?". Your comments contrast totally with Sirota's argument. In fact, you specifically argued Merkley's vote is consistent with his campaign promises. Of course, it isn't consistent in any authentic way. Your actions and comments in sum speak far louder as a defense of Merkley, regardless of your few words of disagreement on this vote.

So do you want to say you agree with Sirota, in a few and unambiguous words, that Merkley is a double-talking weasel? Maybe just a self-concerned bumbling one, rather than a pathologically egotistical cunning one (maybe just on his way to being the latter)?

And please don't insult my intelligence with elitist bullshit "...Ivy League vs the common man.." That is just so much crap. It's snobbery of the highest order, IMO.

Just like your not very strangely incriminating comment obfuscating whether you have been defending Merkley, who and what are you claiming is elitist? Your sputtering here could mean either you just don't know understand the concept of snobbery, or you just throw around comments in which you use words for effect with no regard for the validity of your accusations.

As more evidence you probably don't have a good grasp on the meaning of the words you throw around:

Snobbery: a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others..

Can you provide an argument why your defense of Merkley (regardless of this particular vote) and your comments here are not just a sad case of projection when compared against the well-founded criticisms made here? That is, can you compare and contrast just who it is that imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and who those superiors might be?

Folks, jump on me all you want, but I don't think Merkley sold out on this anymore than I thought Novick should have gotten the nomination because of an obscure Merkley House resolution vote in 2003.

Votes like this happen. Did I agree with every vote Darlene Hooley or Wyden or any other Oregon elected official I supported over 3 decades? No.

But I have a quote on my wall--a copy given to me by an LA after his legislator boss cast a tough vote. There had been intense lobbying on the issue from all sides in his district. The easy vote would have been to go along with the side being lobbied by rich interests, but he went with the side backed by some of his constituents instead.

After the vote, someone thanked him and gave him a Wayne Morse quote enlarged to fit an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper. It begins "I will exercise an independence of judgement based on the evidence of each issue....." It ends "...cast my vote unmoved by threats of loss of political support".

Some people here seem to have the same excessive certitude that many folks like me will not miss when Bush leaves office. There are purists on any side of a political spectrum---they have the revealed truth which no one should question.

If anyone ever tells me I am "from the left", arguments like these will allow me to say that since I disagree with viewpoints like many here, obviously I am not "on the left".

I don't expect Merkley to obey my every wish in his voting record. As long as he keeps the "every county every year" schedule Wyden has, folks will be free to ask Merkley about this or any other issue to his face.

All due respect, Sirota is not an elected official. A majority party has to remember that a circular firing squad is not the best way to solve problems.

Columnists are saying Obama is anti-ideology in that he would rather solve problems than be loyal to an ideology--Bush proved that ideology does not solve problems.

So call me a moderate, a centrist, tell me the only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead animals. But I don't see this as something that makes me want to vote against Merkley when he runs for re-election. Give the guy a break--he just got elected!

Carla really needs to quite quoting things that dismiss her own arguments. Those of us who read and understood Sirota's column didn't miss this, although Carla clearly did when she quoted it:

I don't agree with Merkley's rationale - I believe he told voters he was against the bailout, and then proceeded to vote for that very same bailout, and I think in doing that, he does what I said in my original post: he starts his Senate career looking like he "epitomizes the worst kinds of images people have of politicians - those who sound like they're for "the folks" at election time, and then who sell out "the folks" once in Washington." He also officially goes on record supporting very bad economic policy.

...

All of that said, I think it's good that Merkley didn't try to pretend his vote yesterday looks completely consistent with his campaign statements

Sirota repeats Merkley is a weasel. Carla doesn't seem to grasp, or refuses to be honest and admit, that Just because Merkley doesn't deny he is a weasel doesn't make him any less a weasel.

For reasons that can only make sense in her world, she once again repeats the false statement:

How you've construed that into a defense of Merkley's vote

What was argued was that she is defending Merkley the weasel, not his vote. She apparently can't quite grasp that she can disagree with his vote and still defend him as she actually does.

Earlier she incorrectly asserted, and it seems she wants us to believe Sirota agrees with her, that:

The real points are: this thing was going to pass with or without Merkley, so he worked to get a commitment from Obama that foreclosure protection money would be a part of this.

In fact he doesn't. Sirota is very careful how he words things in his post. And he goes out of his way to be generous to a guy who clearly isn't up to the job. He acknowledges that Merkley advances a defense of his weaselhood that, on it's face, it's about the best defense one could give for being a weasel if all was what Merkley is desperately trying to claim it is. Unfortunately, the reality is the only thing Merkley got was a worthless gladhanding note signed only by the leader of Obama's transition team that gives Merkley what he needs to play credulous whackjobs like Carla. That has no semblance to a genuine, enforceable commitment from Obama. Moreover, it is indisputable that the law as passed places no legally binding restrictions on Obama. As we've already seen, we got our first indication that the rest of the TARP scam is going to go down pretty much like it started, with 5.7% of Merkley's $350bil being given to BoA less than 24 hours after Merkley's voted for it.

Carla does provide us with an insight into how her mushy little brain actually works though. She thinks that simply throwing out a definition like:

Snobbery (dictionary.com): the trait of condescending to those of lower social status

that she has no way of knowing is factually relevant is somehow credible. She follows that with this gem of irrationality:

Given the way you reacted to the label, I'd say I hit the nail on the head. Of course, I wasn't thinking of "lower" social status. I was thinking of "different" social status. But the label fits.

It's kind of sad that all she is able to do is label those who prove she has no game with pejorative words for which she has no factual basis they apply, and instead in a desperate attempt to gain the upper hand she redefines them in a shameful attempt to falsely moralize.

(By the way, people might want to look into Summers rocky tenure at Harvard the first half of this decade before locking down their beliefs about Obama and any commitments Merkley actually got.)

Of course, all of this begs the obvious question: If Senator Merkley has pulled off such a political masterstroke, one that is wholly consistent with Candidate "I'm even more outraged than Wyden" Merkley's umbrage against this $700bil ripoff of the taxpayers, what does logic tell us whacked out Merkley defenders like Carla have to actually be saying about Wyden and his vote, whether they accept it or not? That the senior Senator from Oregon with 12 years experience doesn't have the political saavy of the new lesser senator from Oregon? Or that Wyden voted against the second tranche of the TARP bailout because he actually doesn't agree with Merkley that TARP funds should go to help working folks who foolishly signed for mortgages they had no business taking on?

And by the way Carla, please try to get one thing clear if you can't get anything else clear: This is about well-founded criticism of our weasel lesser Senator for what he's always been, based on how this vote demonstrates he continues to be. As much as those who've chosen to defend him (not his vote, are we crystal clear on that?) want to interpose themselves and believe it's all about them, it's quite possible to criticize the defense they make of Merkley without thinking any more about them then the poor quality of their defense.

Now this is more like it. From David Axelrod this morning:

"First of all, the point is to get credit flowing to businesses and to families across the country. That hasn't happened with the expenditure of the first $350 billion," of the TARP financial bailout fund, Axelrod said.

In addition, the administration of the program needs to be changed to make sure the use of the money is more transparent. "No one can really tell you where the money went how it was spent. ... We have to deal with that."

"We have to make sure the money doesn't go to excessive CEO pay and dividends when it should be going to lending," Axelrod told ABC.

The incoming Obama administration is considering setting up a government-run bank to acquire bad assets clogging the financial system, a person familiar with the Obama team's thinking said Saturday.

Just so people know, either the system is dropping comments, or someone at Blue Oregon is deleting them in their entirety. Last night at least one comment was posted in rebuttal to Carla that most definitely appeared and now has disappeared.

Suffice it to say the issue is how folks are defending a weasel, not defending his vote. (A new definition of "defense" is only needed in your mush-for-brains head Carla.) Merkley didn't get a commitment from Obama. All he got was worthless, borrowing Sirota's phrase "non-binding letter", signed only by the transition leader. He is using that as a weasel to play his credulous supporters. What we see is how defenders like Carla can only shamelessly twist arguments and redefine terms like "snob" in meaningless ways as their only means to make a desperate, angry defense of the weasel.

Sirota's argument from top to bottom is that Senator Merkley's vote is not consistent with Candidate "I'm more outraged than Wyden" Merkley's disingenuous speechifying during the election. Just because Merkley doesn't deny he is a weasel, doesn't mean he isn't a weasel. Sirota charitably tried to put the most generous spin on Merkley's weaseling. Merkley's defense would be about as honorable as one could make if only the commitment Merkley dupes his defenders with were a reality.

Sirota is fair in commenting Merkley may not (yet) be as venal as the evidence could suggest. For those who know Merkley's history, and who witnessed first hand Merkley's utter venality in his last race, the reality is that Merkley's vote is much more plausibly explained as he is already owned by the power structure Sirota describes: They paid for much of his media and guided his campaign because they saw in him a useful tool.

And by the way LT, I'll bet Morse rolled in his grave when you cited him in defense of Merkley: Merkley is the guy who made criticism of his Democratic opponent for calling out feckless Democrats like those who own Merkley one of the major themes of his campaign. Hardly the model of principle Morse was talking about in that quote and that we saw him demonstrate as one of only two Senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. And by the way, it's Wyden who claims Wayne Morse as his mentor on his official Senate website.

All of this just absolutely begs the question for his pathetic Merkley defenders: If Merkley pulled such a political masterstroke, what are they saying about Wyden? That the senior Senator from Oregon with 12 years experience doesn't have the political acumen of the new lesser weasel Senator? Or that Wyden disagrees with Merkley and believes that there should not be any aid for working folks who signed up for mortgages they should not have taken?

(I doubt you read this Sirota, but if you do you need to drop the implication Merkley is an populist. Or at least that he's an authentic populist in the Fred R. Harris mold. He's a much more typical story of lust for power, and buying into that simplistic characterization as a populist that he and his defenders try to sell is a disservice to everyone.)

I think the login business is more about policy than work. Personally, I would be strongly for it, as in require a credit card for age/ID verification. That said, I'm disturbed to see it mentioned on this thread. I would call this a good, on topic discussion. I think if you call anything trolling on this thread, you want a club, not a blog.

It's interesting to think it through in terms of identity, though. The water cooler metaphor does provide for some basic identity. You don't have passer-bys hanging out at the water cooler. Of course, this about gov, and I can tell you first hand that DHS would be a much better organization if you did have passer-bys hanging out at the water cooler (not talking field staff, of course). From a getting the message out and getting donation in POV, having it wide open might have helped when Dems were out of power. Now, it would probably help donations if there was more control. There will definitely be more trolling. Most trolling is about people wanting to vent and looking for likely targets. That's why you often get cardboard-cutout stereotypes of contributors from trolls. Being in power, this will be one of the first places to vent against anything the admin does.

All that said, respect for what has been managed so far. It's almost like it's become two blogs, Blue Oregon and Blue Sky. If the division is natural, it makes sense to split it. I've always thought that those now rare Medical MJ gatherings would have been infinitely better if they had separated the people with cards from those that are there for everything else. With a real perspective/resource difference like that, throwing everyone into one group just leads to cliquish behavior among the central players, trying to ignore the increasingly vocal brickbats of the out group.

Seems to me it is possible to vote for a bailout supervised by and under the values of the Obama Administration even after having opposed a bailout supervised by and under the values of the Bush Administration.

Couldn't it be a matter of trust that the grownups will actually handle it well, instead of just looting the treasury for themselves?

I think I like what Merkley did. But I’ll admit I don’t really understand the financial, that is to say TARP, bailout much at all, even helping folks with their mortgages. I’m all for home ownership, for helping people readjust their mortgages to market prices while the lenders take the financial hit, and for stopping the downward spiral in real estate prices to stabilize the economy. But I own a house and two rentals. It’s in my interest that property values stop sliding, and, of course, that the economy picks up.

But from another perspective, say that of my 19 year old son, who is a property-less renter, and of others in our economy who rent, this may not be such a great deal. Would not renters benefit in the long run if property values dropped even further? Rents would then adjust lower and, with lower prices, renters might be able to afford a starter home. Are these bailout efforts going to keep property values too high?

How do you distinguish between "Internet Trolls" and those who wish to express an honest opinion but still preserve their anonymity? If this site is an "unofficial - official" branch of the Oregon Democratic party, then by all means require membership, login identification, ISP verification, etc. Nobody at Stoel Rives will likely be fired for offering an opinion at an quasi-official Democratic Party web site. On the other hand, if this site is for the expression of all sorts of "progressive" opinions including Democratic Party, socialist-workers, libertarians, communists, etc., then requiring public disclosure of the names of all posters will, in my opinion, significantly restrain discussion.

Solidarity Forever!

It is spelled Murkily not Merkley.

"Making people to attach their real name doesn't change opinions. But it does seem to bring a certain level of courtesy, because people can attach words to faces. "

Yes, Steve, and there are some of us who would never comment if we had to post our full name. If the requirement were full name OR initials, that would be OK.

These posts stay up forever. If a person is already in public life (like Jack Roberts) that is one thing. But if a private citizen just wants to make a remark, why should they leave aside anything from online safety to not wanting everyone to know what they said in case of possible current/future job hunting be allowed to post their thoughts if they are within the bounds of intelligent conversation?

Don't forget that part of the Obama vetting process was to ask for every screen name any applicant had used online.

Steve, if you and I talked at a State Central Comm. meeting, or at the capitol, or some other conversation in person, only those within earshot would hear us.

But anyone with an internet connection could type in the URL for this site (or for that matter comment sites on newspapers or elsewhere) and read what the person says.

If full name were to be required, I would stop commenting and only read/send the link to friends and comment to them.

"There is an inherent moral right to be able to report news anonymously. Whistleblowing depends on it. But there is no such moral right to spew insults and lies anonymously. " I agree with that and your comments on dreck.

But there are lots of us who comment using initials who are not writing dreck.

I want to defend weasels. Unlike our non-representatives, weasels are beautiful little creatures that have a reputation for cleverness and guile. Merkley is not a lesser weasel, although I approve of the derogation.

Maybe, Harry, you can hook up with PETA to find a Sea Kitten style moniker for weasels that will make them, well, less weaselly. (Note: Colbert is all over the PETA campaign.)

But once again trying to turn back to TARP: some tough questions from Theda Skocpol for Barney Frank based on his latest thoughts on buying up the toxic assets: "The idea that "elites" will "get serious about repairing the safety net" if they are FIRST given billions of dollars of payoffs to shareholders who made bad decisions is the height of naivete."

In general my economist friends are much more inclined to see dealing with the "toxic waste" as necessary.

<hr/>