Continuing his long-standing effort to enrich the civic discourse, Hannity recently said:

If you believe that these are consequential, transformative times, if you believe our borders need to be secure, if you believe that we need to cut taxes to keep the economy humming, if you think it's an absolute mistake and a disaster to pull out of Iraq too early, if you think we're gonna retreat in the war on terrorism, if you think we're gonna be less safe, less secure with a party that has a pre-9-11 mentality, then this is the time not to give up. This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker.

Three questions for the Hannitized one:

1) So if given the choice, would you actually trade your life to keep Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker?

2) If yes, is this localized to Pelosi, or generalizable to any Democrat?

3) Since you included "fighting" in your quote, would you be willing to murder Pelosi? What about a suicide mission?

You can contact the Hannity show using this form.

--Ezra Klein 

Some good news for Democrats on the front page of USA Today. And believe it or not, it doesn't even contain a pie chart. The article is an overview of the 2006 elections, and the congealing conventional wisdom that Democrats are rushing towards an outright victory in both the House and the Senate. Professional prognosticator Stuart Rothenberg is quoted saying that libs will pick up the 15 seats necessary for control of Congress, while eminent Congress-watcher Thomas Mann says they'll take upwards of 20. In the Senate, the fight seems tougher, but here too USA Today releases polling showing that Democrats lead in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, and Minnesota, while Republicans might be able to hold Missouri.  And that doesn't even mention potential pick-ups in Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia. 

It's worth counseling caution, however. Elections happen in November, not late August, and that's a distinct blessing for incumbents. The Summer months bring higher gas prices, more violence (in Iraq and at home), higher gas prices, harsher weather, and more high gas prices. Those are painful trends for incumbents, but they universally ease as autumn settles across the land. That isn't to say that cool climates will provide relief to the embattled GOP, but this might not be the most representative moment from which to draw predictions.

Nevertheless, Bush's non-bounce from the foiled plots in London and the skepticism towards his new Iraq speeches point in a more optimistic direction, towards a country that's grown deeply weary of this crew, and not simply annoyed over temporary conditions. Most worrisome for the GOP, but less talked about in the media, is that wages are largely stagnating even as inflation picks up. Health costs, energy prices, mortgage rates, and all the rest are easily outpacing salary growth, the realization that voters hate this unequal economy is beginning to dawn, and with it, an understanding that folks have real reason to be upset. While Congress dithers over gay marriage bills and endless Iraq resolutions, Americans are losing their health care, seeing the interest rates on their variable mortgages skyrocket, and generally losing economic ground -- and their president and politicians seem uniformly uninterested in addressing the decline. That's sparked an enduring resentment, one that won't fade with the heat.

--Ezra Klein

As we enter the 723rd "major public-relations offensive to strengthen support for the Iraq War," it's good to see the media wizening up a bit to the ghastly insinuations and accusations spit out by the increasingly desperate administration. The Bushies' new tactic seems to rely on suggestions that Democrats plan to block all war appropriations, starving the troops of supplies, armor, and munitions so they lose the war, and thus retreat, faster. Happily, Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post seem to have found that one a headscratcher, and asked for some clarification.

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Ah ha! The dreaded "logical interpretations" gambit. I'm looking forward to the next press conference, when Rummy drags out a chalkboard and treats the American people to an ontological primer so we're better equipped to follow future speeches.

In any case, none of this seems like a very big deal to me. If Dems cut off the money, well, the soldiers can always take out loans...

--Ezra Klein

You know, just the other day I was riding around town, luxuriating in the moral superiority conferred by my "Support The Troops" magnetic bumper attachment (a sticker would leave icky residue when I decide to stop supporting the troops) and thinking about how much my decorative encouragement must mean to the men and women of our fighting forces. And yet, somehow, when I read that nearly 20 percent of our soldiers are being preyed on by predatory lending operations set up near bases, I wonder if I might need, I don't know, another bumper magnet.

Predatory lenders are generally a problem in poor urban areas where reputable banks don't see the sort of profit margins that justify a branch. But capitalism abhors a vacuum and folks still need loans, wire services, money orders, and all the rest, so small lenders charging insane rates flow into the gap. That's a large part of what folks like John Edwards mean when they say "it's expensive to be poor," loans and advances that respectable banks and good credit ratings make trivial for the rich become economically dangerous for the working class.  A minor advancecoupled with a couple hundred percent interest rate can, under certain circumstances, bankrupt a family and destroy their credit, thus leaving them unable to draw on better lenders, thus perpetuating the cycle.  It's unsavory stuff.

These payday loan stores are increasingly becoming a problem near military bases, too, where soldiers seeking an advance on their (paltry) paychecks or a loan to fix their car are being charged exorbitant rates. The issue grew so acute that Congress commissioned a study on the rates. The researchers found that soldiers are being charged $15-$25 for a two week, $100 loan(!), and annual rates of up to -- ready for this? -- 780 percent(!!). The average borrower pays backs a total of $834 (!!!) on a $339 loan, and the debt problems can grow so urgent that they lose their security clearances (assumedly under the rationale that debt renders one susceptible to bribery).

So we have two forces at play here: The first is that we pay our service members so little they're forced to enter into debt if they want a chance at middle class lifestyles. The second is that we sequester them on remote bases, where the available financial options fleece them. This must be really demoralizing for our troops. So much so that I might need more than a second bumper magnet; this might require a miniature American flag, too.

--From Ezra Klein, with love

Good morning class, my name's Ezra Klein, and John has asked me to be one of your substitute teachers bloggers for the next few days.  Pay close attention, as there will be a quiz.  If you like what you see, I can generally be found here or here .  Now let's get started. 

First, take a moment to enjoy this rarest of all passages describing the aftermath of a major piece of legislation expected to win passage in the glorious Golden State:

Business interests, especially oil companies, were irate and said they felt abandoned by the Republican governor, who had pledged to work for a bill they could support. They accused Schwarzenegger and Democrats of cobbling together behind closed doors a haphazard bill that could create unintended economic chaos.

Ahhh.  What a difference a few years makes.  Remember when it was Cheney and the Big Business interests working behind closed doors to cobble together an energy bill to pad their pockets and accelerate our ecological decline?  Yeah, me too...

Anyway, this a Schwarzenegger film top to bottom.  Conscious of the perils running for reelection in California, he's playing up the issue area where his progressive impulses appear genuine: environmentalism.  In recent weeks he's sought a compact with Tony Blair on global warming, and in recent days he's crossed California's extractive industry's to mandate a 25 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. 

It should be said here that California is actually rather green already, with our vehicle requirements often rendering the exhaust out my auto's tail pipe cleaner than the LA air it mingles with, and so our state, with the sixth largest economy in the world, accounts for a mere two percent of carbon emissions.Nevertheless, this is a model for what other states can do, and if, as looks likely, it sinks the final nail into the incompetent campaign of Phil Angelides, it'll serve as a template for other governors seeking to burnish the popular aspects of their progressivism.  If the federal government insists on ignoring emissions, the states needn't emulate its irresponsibility.  Schwarzenegger, who I've no particular love for, deserves credit for getting this done. 

-- Guest post by Ezra.  Not, not that one .  This one.