PERRspectives: What the health care debate was really about.

Progressive Blog Digest: Will have a ton of links- pro and con -on last night's vote

Blue Gal: Shorter President's Executive Order on Abortion

Demeur: Republican reaction to passage of HCR

Cartoon News: Cartoonist finds nothing funny about tea bag mob

The Bobblespeak Translations: This Week -March 21, 2010

UPDATE: Ah, this is still the same Obama we're used to. Apparently the appointments that went through aren't the most important ones - he's still letting them block NLRB appointees Craig Becker and Mark Pearce.

Who knew? Apparently the president does indeed have a spine:

The Senate confirmed a huge group of administration nominees on Thursday, following a tense exchange between President Barack Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

At a White House meeting with bipartisan congressional leaders on Tuesday, Obama warned that he would make recess appointments if the logjam over nominees wasn’t broken before the Senate left for the Presidents’ Day break.

“Mitch, this is unprecedented,” the president said, gesturing forcefully on the Cabinet Room table, according to aides. “If you don’t move any, I’m going to do some appointments.”

The 27 confirmations mean no recess appointments will be needed during this break, top administration officials said. Recess appointments, which a president can make when Congress is not in session, are temporary and generally last to the end of the year.

In a statement Thursday night, Obama said: "At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination. ... And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. ... Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate. While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future."

A C&Ler named mc sent in this very good e-mail about the causes of the financial meltdown we've just witnessed and the people who helped cause it.

I have almost 40 years of experience as a retail banker and financial services provider. I opened, managed and served as country head in Spain, Korea, Canada and the US. I would like to contribute comments and blogs.

It is not so difficult to find the people who should be held accountable for the financial meltdown of 2009. It seems, however, from 2001 until the present day nobody tries to find anyone responsible for anything.

There are 2 people in government that bear the bulk of the responsibility for our financial meltdown as well as the presidents of all banks that participated in the approval of mortgages with substandard credit criteria and the packaging and selling of such mortgages as asset backed securities. Additionally, all of these banks had, or should have had, senior risk asset management committees who were equally responsible. In each case they understood the risks and didn’t care as long they increased compensation for themselves and their company

As for the politicians, 2 of them bear the primary responsibility of these bankrupting financial policies. We need look no further than John McCain’s financial advisor Phil Gramm. Gramm, on Dec. 15, 2000, snuck into a congressional bill an act which prevents the government from regulating investment banks’ credit swaps. Gramm is the one who called Americans whiners and told us that the crisis was in our heads. McCain considered him for the position of Secretary of the Treasury.

Equally responsible for our economic crises was the SEC chairman (Christopher Cox), who changed a key regulation in 2004. Under pressure from those who wanted to please their campaign contributing Wall Street buddies the SEC approved a measure that let investment banks lend out 30 times the amount of capital they had backing up their loans. Before 2004 they could only lend out 12 times the amount of capital.

A solution to the banking meltdown that would prevent it from happening again would be:

1) Reinstate the regulation of CDSs and CDOs by the SEC (assumes increasing head count & improving the quality of staff).

2) Reinstate the 12 to 1 leverage ratio.

3) Require increased capital by product where the riskier assets require more capital reserves

4) Create a regulation that requires each sale of packaged assets by a bank or investment broker to provide some percentage of recourse to the purchaser.

5) Make the board of directors have fiduciary responsibly to stock holders and face fines and civil charges

There are others that share a lot of the blame too, like Bernanke, and no doubt he could name them too. But this is right on: The conservative mania for deregulation -- they like to call it "small government" -- is the root cause of our economic meltdown.

And Sarah and the Tea Partiers are still trying to sell us on the idea that more of the same is what we need. Because, you know, a nice PCB cocktail topped off with a cigar is just what you need to cure cancer.

AMERICAblog News: White House thanks Lieberman for blocking president's reform promise, criticizes Dean for defending it. Enough...

Economist's View: Cutting wages won't help

TPM LiveWire: Franken rape amendment included in Defense Spending Bill

Oliver Willis: No longer just a handful of crazyass fringe dwellers, the John Birch Society is BACK!

Constitution Project: We welcome the enhanced transparency recommendations from the Obama administration. The rules for handling “controlled unclassified information” would standardize the system and increase government transparency, but stronger enforcement mechanisms are needed.

Bitch Ph.D.: My 3 least favorite holiday ads

tttthink: On 9/10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld admitted the Pentagon couldn't account 2.3 trillion dollars. Then 9/11 happened and everyone forgot

AlterNet: 14 things you need to know about Joe Wilson

Lean Left: "Mr. Gorbachev, Build Up This Wall" - Jackass Rightwinger's cynical hypocrisy hits historic high

Welcome Back to Pottersville: The Big Casino

attytood: College president honors "diversity" by naming center for Dick Cheney

Garry Wills on the death of conservatism

This is pretty cool. Someone took the time to time to make this video in which the faces of all 44 Presidents are morphed into each other. My, how far we've come.

God, I love being a San Franciscan... I can't think of a more appropriate dedication for this administration.

Some presidents get carved into Mt Rushmore; others have airports, motorways, and even entire cities named in their honour. But when George Bush leaves office, his most visible memorial may be a mouldering patch of human effluent.

In November, alongside casting their ballot for the next president, the people of San Francisco will also vote on a measure to rename one of the city's largest sewage works the George W Bush Sewage Plant, to provide a "fitting monument" to the outgoing commander-in-chief's achievements.

Activists from the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, a mischievously-named group behind the move, will ask supporters to participate in a "synchroni(z)ed flush".

It may sound like a student prank, but the proposal is almost certain to be passed. Democrats usually secure between 70 and 80 per cent of the vote in San Francisco - and in 2006 passed a proposition to impeach Mr Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney by a majority of almost two to one.

"In 50 years from now, we want people to see George Bush's name on that plant, and ask each other what went wrong," said Brian McConnell, the Memorial Commission's organi(z)er. "We want them to be reminded of the Iraq war, and his other dramatic mistakes, and this is the perfect way to do it."

Let me say for the record that I am not particularly enamored of this line of questioning, because I fail to see how it materially affects one's job performance as POTUS. There are several of our finest presidents who would not have held up to that scrutiny. However, since the Republicans crossed this threshold during the Clinton administration, making it an issue worth millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate and prosecute, it is only fair to hold them to the same standards.
Cliff Schecter:

(F)rom a town hall meeting in Nashville, Tennessee Monday, mixed in with platitudes about gay marriage, we get a nice little comment from this questioner on the sanctity of marriage in McCain's life--or more to the point, sanctimony. Here is a rough transcript of her question to The Morally Righteous One, which comes at the beginning of the video (it includes McCain's answer to this question and a previous on on Hillary Clinton):

My second and final question, you talk a lot about the character issue...and...like you, um, I was opposed to gay marriage, I was in always in favor of civil unions but the basic definition of marriage....but, then I get to thinking, that is based on what we consider to be the sanctity of marriage. There is nothing....you see long-term couples splitting up, it's, it's just crazy...I know that you, your own situation, you're going to have to address that in the campaign. Infidelity is just a terrible cancer on this country....and I think if we're going to talk about...gay marriage, it has to be in the context of the preservation of marriage...which I just don't see it, I think we need to make it more difficult for people to get married, or whatever we need to do..if that's...if we're going to be consistent.

McCain ignored that part of the question, of course.

Old People's News: US residents in military brigs. Your governmnet says 'it's war.'

Gristmill: The USDA cravenly stops measuring the poisons used in US farming. Meanwhile, Germany has banned chemicals linked to honeybee devastation.

Corrente: Hillary's RFK/assassination gaffe inspired more of the molehills to mountains
reaction we've come to expect from the press - and many blogs. This seem appropriate.

Halfway There: Lots of first black presidents

Kids Prefer Cheese: Things to do in Denver when you're dead.

The Opinion Mill's Sunday Bookchat: For Memorial Day -- a book about America's finest hour, and a gauge of how badly America's moral standing has been soiled by the Bush administration. The man who prosecuted Charles Manson would like to do the same for King George II. And a new book argues that the problem with conservative foreign policy isn' the "foreign policy" part -- it's the "conservative" part.

As a rule, Law Day, a ceremonial holiday since 1958, goes by largely unnoticed. It was established as a Cold War counterpart to May 1, the biggest day on the socialist calendar. Ever since, presidents have issued proclamations that went by largely unnoticed and unread.

But Bush isn’t just any president, and respect for the rule of law over the last several years is not quite what it was. So, when the White House issued Bush’s Law Day proclamation yesterday morning, it was hard not to appreciate the irony.

The right of ordinary men and women to determine their own future, protected by the rule of law, lies at the heart of America’s founding principles. As our country celebrates the 50th anniversary of Law Day, we renew our commitment to the ideals on which this great Nation was established and to a robust system of ordered liberty.

The American legal system is central to protecting the rights and freedoms our Nation holds dear. The theme of this year’s Law Day, “The Rule of Law: Foundation for Communities of Opportunity and Equity,” recognizes the fundamental role that the rule of law plays in preserving liberty in our Nation and in all free societies. We pay tribute to the men and women in America’s legal community. Through hard work and dedication to the rule of law, members of the judiciary and the legal profession help secure the rights of individuals, bring justice to our communities, and reinforce the proud traditions that make America a beacon of light for the world.

I almost feel bad for the White House communications staffer who had to write this. It must have been kind of embarrassing.

With national attention shifting away from Bush and towards the race to succeed him, today’s Law Day hasn’t drawn too much attention. But a New York Times editorial from a year ago still rings true.

As long as there was a national consensus about the importance of the rule of law, Law Day felt superfluous, like celebrating gravity. But for six years now, the rule of law has been under attack. An array of doctrines has emerged to undermine it, like the enemy combatant doctrine, which says people can be held indefinitely without trial, and the unitary executive doctrine, which insists that a president can do as he wants in many areas, no matter what Congress says. [...]

The less committed a president is to the law, the more need there is for Law Day, which makes it a holiday whose time has come.