There is a lot of talk among the political horse race types about “managing expectations.” For example, in the primaries, it wasn’t about picking up enough delegates to win, so much; rather, it was about beating “expectations” and, therefore, building “momentum.” There is a similar narrative that usually goes along with discussions about “winning” and “losing” debates.

Expectations are at rock bottom for Sarah Palin. The right wing is now trying to work the ref by complaining about moderator Gwen Ifil’s upcoming book, citing it as “evidence” that she’s in the tank for Obama. With these metrics, you could probably plug in that tape of Terri Schiavo that Republican Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist used to “diagnose” brain activity and still win the debate.

But, maybe, just maybe, if folks are sensitized to Palin’s tendency to use “word salad;” she might have to actually demonstrate a command of the issues and sensible policy positions on them. Kagro X describes the debate technique common to Gingrich disciples like Palin as follows:

[W]hen stuck, they’ll often: 1) repeat back some of the words in the question to establish that they’re “answering” it; 2) parry by steering the frame of their answers toward a talking point that bears some relation to the subect of the question; 3) spray some transitional buzzwords that help them segue from what they were asked to what they have prepared to say, and; 4) deliver the focus group-tested answer they originally planned, even if it’s kind of a non-sequitur.

Not sure how you turn that into a drinking game, but it’s something to watch for. (And, yes, I did use an abnormally large number of scare quotes in this post.)

Hunter comments on some new ideas for the bailout. What sounds like a worse idea than a cripplingly expensive bailout? How about a cripplingly expensive bailout with tax cuts? Or, here’s an idea! A cripplingly expensive bailout with tax cuts and looser accounting rules. No, seriously, these things are being considered.

So fine, my position has changed. I was previously “skeptical” of the Paulson plan. Now I want it to die a hot, flaming death. I want its ashes to be fed to goats, and the goats fed to sharks, and the sharks put on a rocket and fired into the sun. I want the whole premise to be made Unspeakable, so that future generations shun anyone who even threatens to mention it.

The Politico has a quote from Indiana Republican Party chairman Murray Clark in an article about the increasingly jittery McCain campaign. As the economy is getting turbulent and people are coming to regard Obama as better able to grapple with the complexities, Murray Clark suggests not trying to convince folks that McCain is the better leader on issues pertaining to the economy — admittedly a tough sell — but rather to start playing Six Degrees of Barack Obama, a game we saw in the waning days of the Clinton primary campaign against Obama.

Murray Clark, the chairman of the Indiana Republican Party, said he is eager for Obama’s “troubling relationships” to be aired in his state. “I think those things will come up in Indiana again and they do have an impact on mainstream voters in Indiana. You call it going negative, [but] whoever … is in a position to point out these relationships, I think it’s helpful.”

Presumably, like Clinton, the Republican Party is eyeballing the kitchen sink and wondering if it might be necessary to throw the thing in an effort to get the guy on their team elected. Trouble is, a) people are worried and seem to be taking this campaign more seriously and might not be easily distracted by sideshows; and b) McCain/Palin have close associations with troubling characters of their own. I’ll see your loose association with Rezko and raise you a closer association with Charles Keating, Jr. in a savings and loan scandal that looks disturbingly similar to the current economic turmoil. Jeremiah Wright? Again, I’ll see that and raise you Palin’s witch hunter pastor.

So, let’s just not go there. If McCain has better plans to get folks back to work at jobs with good wages and decent security; help them deal with increasingly out of reach health care costs; and otherwise set a playing field where those who work hard and play by the rules prosper in proportion to their skill and diligence; then lets hear them.

Senator Marvin Riegsecker of Goshen, Indiana died today after a battle with cancer. I didn’t have much interaction with him personally, but by all accounts, he was a good guy. I have a lot of family from Goshen. And they kept re-electing him, so he must have been doing something right.

Riegsecker was diagnosed this year with lymphoma and decided not to seek re-election, wanting instead to focus on his health and spend more time with his family.

Riegsecker was first elected to the Senate in 1988 and represented Senate District 12, which covers most of Elkhart County in northern Indiana. He authored Indiana’s no-call list law against unwanted telemarketing and championed causes such as providing services to those with developmental disabilities.

Like so many others, I am groping in the dark to some degree on the financial mess and the proposed bailout. The unknown variable, really, is how much letting those who acted wrongly suffer the consequences of their actions will affect those who did not act wrongly. In other words, if we let the banks crash because they chose poorly, how badly will it hurt those who did not make poor decisions? Because seeing the wicked punished is emotionally satisfying and it might deter such foolishness in the future. But, if that means that the non-wicked end up losing jobs, houses, the ability to feed their children, etc., it simply isn’t worth the cost.

I don’t think I agree with the editorial in the Evansville Courier Press which seems to base its objection to the recent bailout proposal on an almost dogmatic faith in the “free market.” I put “free market” in scare quotes, because, though it’s a term I and others use quite a bit, I’m not sure of its precise definition. Is government intervention permissible in a “free market” in the form of courts and police being used to enforce contracts? If so, what other forms of government intervention are permissible in the market such that it still remains “free?” Regulation of currency? Laws permitting individuals to escape liability through use of the corporate form? Laws permitting individuals and corporations to escape liability through bankruptcy?

Whatever the precise parameters of the free market, I am of the opinion that it is a tool for us to use, not a God to be worshiped. As folks often say of our Constitution: It’s not a suicide pact. Our Founders designed the Constitution with a system of checks and balances that have done a remarkable job of keeping the system confined within certain parameters, preventing the energy of the system from moving to one extreme or another. Similarly, I think we benefit when the energies of the market are prevented from moving to one extreme or another. Allowing the market to put us through a series of booms and crashes doesn’t strike me as making the best use out of this great engine.

The market is a good tool for allocating resources of goods, services, and labor to those areas where they are most useful. I think that harnessing the energies of this tool requires some constraints — engines need to be constrained to generate and regulate the pressure necessary to move the pistons most efficiently.

At this point, I’m simply putting forth some general principles. But, I think those principles are sound enough to at least make us skeptical when our representatives or opinion makers start edging toward slavish devotion to the market and “free market principles” rather than recognizing that the market is for our benefit, not vice versa. There are many potential entirely pragmatic reasons to oppose the bailout: it may do more harm than good; it cost’s more than it’s worth; etc. But let’s not regard the market as somehow sacrosanct.

Wikipedia tells me that Shana Tova is an appropriate greeting for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, which is taking place today.

In Jewish thought, Rosh Hashanah is the most important judgment day, on which all the inhabitants of the world pass for judgment before the Creator, as sheep pass for examination before the shepherd. It is written in the Talmud, in the tractate on Rosh Hashanah that three books of account are opened on Rosh Hashanah , wherein the fate of the wicked, the righteous, and those of an intermediate class are recorded. The names of the righteous are immediately inscribed in the book of life, and they are sealed “to live.” The middle class are allowed a respite of ten days till Yom Kippur, to repent and become righteous ; the wicked are “blotted out of the book of the living” (Psalms 69:29).

So, good luck out there.

“Remarkably unengaged” seems to be one of the defining characteristics of the Bush administration for the past 8 years. Today’s installment describes former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a report issued by the Justice Department following an investigation into political firings of Attorneys General. So far, the White House has successfully stonewalled the investigation enough to prevent criminal charges from being brought, but following the report, a special prosecutor will continue the investigation to determine whether such charges are appropriate.

[The report] provided particular detail in the dismissal of David C. Iglesias, a former New Mexico prosecutor who was let go at the prodding of Republican leaders in Washington and New Mexico who were dissatisfied with his work in investigating accusations against Democrats. Despite the denials of the Bush administration, the political pressure was “the real reason” for Mr. Iglesias’s dismissal, the report said.
. . .
The controversy over the dismissals of nine federal prosecutors led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales last September, and the report saves some of its harshest criticism for him. It concludes that Mr. Gonzales was “remarkably unengaged” in an unprecedented process to fire a large number of prosecutors at once, and it says that he, along with his deputy at the time, Paul J. McNulty, “abdicated their responsibility” to ensure the integrity of the process and left it mainly to Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson.

The report also faulted Mr. Gonzales’s misstatements to Congress and the news media about the true reasons for the dismissals and his “extraordinary lack of recollection about the entire removal process.”

The Bail Out measure that the Bush administration says is absolutely necessary has failed in the House with a vote of 205-228. The vote did not go down party lines, particularly. The yes votes were made up of 160 Democrats and 65 Republicans while the no votes were made up of 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans. The roll call is here.

The Indiana Delegation was split, but not strictly along party lines. Donnelly (D IN-02), Souder (R IN-03), and Ellsworth (D IN-08) voted “yes.” Voting “no” were Visclosky (D IN-01), Buyer (R IN-04), Burton (R IN-05), Pence (R IN-06), Carson (D IN-07), and Hill (D IN-09).

The Dow Jones is down approximately 600 points as I type this. So, the reaction on Wall Street is what I would call “negative.”

My mind is a cacophony of half remembered music. This morning, I have “Sell Out” by the Reel Big Fish – only instead of “sell out” the words “bail out” have been substituted. I suppose it might go something like this:

Well, I know you’ll have to work in fast food all your life
but don’t sign that paper tonight, she said,
but it’s too late.

And I don’t remember what I read,
don’t remember what they said,
I guess it doesn’t matter,
I guess it doesn’t matter anymore.

[chorus]
you’re gonna go to the Congress
they’re gonna give ’em all your money
media plays what they want you to hear
they tell me it’s cool but I just don’t believe it…

bail out, with me oh yea, bail out, with me tonight
Congress is gonna give Wall Street lots of money
and everything’s gonna be (all right).

It seems that negotiators in the Congressional leadership and the White House have recovered from McCain’s self-injection into the negotiations on the bail out and have come up with a deal that they’re prepared to recommend to their various caucuses. This stinker will likely have to get substantial support from Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. The need to act in this fashion is widely seen as necessary, but nobody is really excited about doing it. And the potential for getting strung up politically is very high. So, you want to make sure if you’re going to do it, every one is on the hook. On the other hand, if it nothing gets done and the markets seize up, fingers will come out very quickly. So, it’s a political game of chicken and it’s not entirely clear that everyone playing knows you have to turn left when you decide to bail.

The plan would work as follows:
1. Money in stages – $250 billion immediately; $100 billion more upon Presidential certification of necessity; and the final $350 billion “after Congress is given 15 days to object.” (I’m not sure if this means that Congress has veto authority or merely that they’re able to say they’d rather it not happen.)

2. Bank funded federal insurance program to protect against losses from troubled assets.

3. Warrants for stock purchases given to the government by participating businesses that can be redeemed if the businesses return to profitability.

4. The Treasury Department would work with banks at modifying the mortgage terms underlying the assets acquired by the Treasury Department.

5. Limitations on compensation for corporate executives at firms participating in the program.

I have read only the summary in the newspaper, but a couple of things that I would have liked to see in addition, if we’re going to engage in this adventure, are provisions to the effect that shareholders from participating companies get paid last and maybe some sort of clawback provision that extracts assets and causes pain to executives who were compensated at some excessive level despite having run their companies into the ground and left American citizens holding the bag.

Just because everyone was undoubtedly wondering, I finished the Akron Half Marathon (13.1 miles) in 2:11:20. I was 892nd overall – oh so close to winning!

My achilles tendon held up very well; wasn’t an issue. I have a nice blister on my toe, though not as prominent as it feels like it should be. Amy & I ran with my sister who lives near Cleveland and some of her friends. Afterward, we had a couple of Michelob Ultra’s — it’s almost like beer!

Lots of hills. Mile 11, in particular, sucked. But, over all, a nice race.