Month: September 2011

What are they complaining about?

by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

Matt Yglesias has the most profound insight into today’s jobless numbers:

Looks like we had 17,000 thousand new private sector jobs in August, which were 100 percent offset by 17,000 lost jobs in the public sector.

The striking zero result should galvanize minds, but it’s worth noting that this has been the trend all year. The public sector has been steadily shrinking. According to the conservative theory of the economy, when the public sector shrinks that should super-charge the private sector. What’s happened in the real world has been that public sector shrinkage has simply been paired with anemic private sector growth. This is what I’ve called “The Conservative Recovery.” Conservatives complain about the results because the President is a Democrat named Barack Obama. But the policy result is what conservatives say they want.

Public sector job losses, private sector job gains, in a neat 1-to-1 correspondence. Isn’t that exactly what the tea party crowd wanted?

The Very Serious Journalists should certainly be asking Republicans those questions.

Also, they might want to ask just how many more government jobs must be cut before private sector job gains outpace those cuts by the sorts of 10-to-1 margins that it would take to bring the country back to full employment. Probing on the exact mechanism by which firing school teachers will push big corporations to create jobs would be nice, too.

Not holding my breath, though.

.

This is beginning to feel like a waking nightmare where everything is familiar, but completely different. Here’s Roy Edroso on the latest wingnut tsuris over Martin Luther King:

Gotta give Kuhner credit: This bit about civil rights hurting black people is wingnut SOP of long standing, but it takes some stones to suggest that Martin Luther King is the real racist.

Yes, but reverse racism is the new black. This fine fellow is being wingnut fashion forward. I’m sure within a year half the country will believe that Bull Connor was America’s true civil rights hero, unfairly maligned by the socialist welfare queens and gay terrorist liberals.

Polluted politics

by digby

If you are wondering why the climate hawks are so up in arms over this ozone ruling today, the context will clear it up for you. Brad Plumer spells it out:

The last time new ozone standards were set was back in 1997 — at 84 parts per billion. In 2006, the EPA reviewed the science on ozone and health, which had advanced considerably over the years: It wasn’t until the 2000s, for instance, that researchers realized ground-level ozone might actually be killing people, not just causing respiratory problems. And so, that year, EPA scientists recommended a new level of 60 to 70 parts per billion. The Bush administration, however, went with a level of 75 parts per billion in its final rules, issued in 2008.

Groups such as the American Lung Association quickly filed a lawsuit to stop the Bush rules, which they claimed were too weak and would lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths and cases of respiratory disease. However, when Obama came into office, the new EPA said it basically agreed with the critics and would issue revised rules by August 2010. At that point, the ALA agreed to hold off on its lawsuit. “We said, that sounds reasonable to us,” says Paul Billings, the ALA’s vice-president for policy and advocacy. “We basically trusted that they had good intentions.”

But August 2010 rolled around. Still no rules. The EPA asked for a further extension. Then October. Then December. Still nothing. Then the EPA said it wanted to go back and look at the science again, just to double-check. Sure enough, EPA’s scientific review board said that 60 to 70 parts per billion was the way to go. And EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the final rules would be more or less in line with the science.

Industry groups, obviously, weren’t pleased with this. They noted that complying with a stricter standard could cost them anywhere from $19 billion to $90 billion per year by 2020. (The EPA did, however, note that a tougher standard would yield benefits of $13 billion to $100 billion.) Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called it “possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama administration regulations.”

So now, today, the White House announced that it’s not going to have any new rules…

So what happens now? That’s unclear. Right now, most states are still operating under the old 1997 standards. The EPA had earlier directed states not to follow the (somewhat stricter) 2008 Bush standards because it was working on even tighter standards. But now those regulations aren’t happening. As Bill Becker of the National Association of Clean Ar Agencies told me, the EPA could now direct states to follow the 2008 rules, but that seems unlikely given the White House’s preference to wait until the 2013 review. So that means states probably will keep operating under the old 1997 standards, which are weaker than even what the Bush administration had come up with. “We would have had tighter standards if we had just followed the Bush-era rules back in 2008,” notes Becker.

Once again you find yourself wondering what they are thinking and it would seem to boil down to a choice between a bizarre and useless political move or a sop to campaign donors. Maybe it’s both. But if by announcing it today they thought this was a way to balance out the bad unemployment news, somebody needs to call the DEA and have them confiscate whatever it is they’re smoking over there. This just adds to the sense of chaos and confusion.

On the other hand, they love to do the old “one from column A and one from column B” bipartisan menu planning, so maybe this means he won’t approve the Alberta tar sands pipeline. We’ll be coughing either way.

Oh and BTW:

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is “Fundamentally Flawed,” Editor Resigns, Apologizes

One month ago, a paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell was published in the journal Remote Sensing arguing that far less future global warming will occur than the scientific community currently anticipates. This highly controversial finding – controversial since it is at odds with observations, basic understanding of atmospheric physics, models, and with what most scientists think we know about climate science — was seized upon by climate change deniers and skeptics and broadcast loud and far.

While other climate experts quickly pointed to fatal flaws in the paper, it received a great deal of attention from certain media. In something of a media frenzy, Fox News, the authors themselves in press releases and web comments, Forbes, in a column by a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, Drudge, and others loudly pointed to this as evidence that the vast array of science on climate change was wrong.

The staggering news today is that the editor of the journal that published the paper has just resigned, with a blistering editorial calling the Spencer and Braswell paper “fundamentally flawed,” with both “fundamental methodological errors” and “false claims.” That editor, Professor Wolfgang Wagner of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria, is a leading international expert in the field of remote sensing. In announcing his resignation, Professor Wagner says “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.”

Just saying. Enabling polluters isn’t going to solve anything. It will only make things worse.

.

The consensus of wrong

by digby

Krugman:

He says that he’s still gathering his thoughts about why this happened and I’ll be interested to read what he has to say.

Back in the day I used to pose a question every once in while just to get a read on whether any consensus was emerging: Why did we go into Iraq? Inevitably, there would be at least a dozen different answers, all plausible, all probably held by some Very Serious Person or war hawk somewhere. I suspect we’re going to see the inexplicable move to austerity the same way. There were different reasons, but all of them were wrong.

.

The “Only Grown-up” Strategy

by digby

The NY Times this morning:

Anticipation of President Obama’s plan for creating jobs while cutting deficits, now heightened by the scheduling controversy over his prime time address to Congress next Thursday, has turned on a question: Will he go big and highlight his sharp differences with Republicans, or will he be pragmatic and downsize his ideas to get Republican votes?

The challenge for Mr. Obama is that he must do both.

Despite Republican opposition to spending measures or tax cuts to spur job creation and economic growth, the president is under pressure to fight for a significant stimulus program. The demands come not only from Democrats, but also from many economists, financial analysts and executives who fear a relapse into recession.

But as administration officials are well aware, another display of partisan gridlock this fall could again provoke a downgrade of the United States’ credit and market upheavals that would further batter consumer confidence.

Note the passive voice there. This “display of partisan gridlock” in the face of what Democrats, economists, financial analysts and executives agree needs to be done is the fault of only only one party — the Republicans. They behave like thugs, despite the horrible consequences, and the press acts as though it’s a “both sides do it” phenomenon — which it’s President Obama’s obligation to avoid.

I hold no brief for the president’s strategy or policy of the past couple of years and I believe he made a bad judgment of the highest magnitude by pushing his Grand Bargain and fetishing deficits.(And it’s true that his promise to “change Washington” has contributed to this as well.) Many of our problems stem from the absurd consensus that we needed to cut spending in a weak economy and his rather bizarre insistence on pretending that Republicans were partners rather than saboteurs long after their intentions were crystal clear made it worse. However, if he wishes to change course now and embrace policies designed to actually fix our current problems rather than “instill confidence” by fixing problems that won’t manifest themselves for another couple of decades (if at all), it will not be the Democrats’ fault if the Republicans in congress refuse to do what’s necessary to put people back to work.

It’s very late in the game to change perceptions about the economy, particularly since it is actually deteriorating, so the election will be held against a background of recessionary angst regardless of what he proposes. But according to this report, they’ve at least finally accepted that the Grand Bargain isn’t the big vote getter they assumed it would be and that attacks on the safety net might just be counterproductive:

People familiar with the White House’s planning say Mr. Obama will focus in his speech on the specifics of his immediate job-creation plans, but leave the details of his longer-term deficit reduction program for later. They say he does not want to dilute the political impact of his jobs message with controversies, especially with his Democratic base, over deficit-reduction ideas like raising the eligibility age for future Medicare recipients.

If that’s true, chalk up a tiny little victory for the professional left, whose annoying caterwauling may have saved them from themselves — temporarily, at least.

But according to this, they won’t be going big on jobs:

The signals from the White House suggest that Mr. Obama’s agenda will not be so bold as to satisfy many liberals clamoring for New Deal-style programs. On Tuesday, 68 progressive groups wrote to Mr. Obama urging him “to move beyond these half-measures designed to appeal to a narrow ideological minority who have repeatedly shown their unwillingness to negotiate.”

Still, they say Mr. Obama’s plan will be far more ambitious than would have been expected just months ago, given the weakened economy. He has concluded, Democrats say, that Republicans will oppose anything he proposes, and with an election looming, Mr. Obama must make clear what he stands for.

Expected among those stimulus proposals is an extension for another year of the payroll tax cut for workers that Mr. Obama and Republicans agreed to last December, which has meant $1,000 more this year for the average family. Mr. Obama has been considering whether to seek an expansion of the payroll tax cut for employers. And he is expected to propose a separate tax credit for employers who increase their payrolls.

The total cost could reach several hundred billion dollars. But the White House figures that tax cuts have the best chance of Republican support.

Actually, it’s not likely they will even go along with that. They are so emboldened at this point that they are one step away from mooning the President during his speech.

But according to this report they know that and are going with the “only grown-up” strategy:

That sets up an opportunity, as Democrats see it, to saddle Republicans with the blame for a weak economy.

“The president wants to work with Republicans and Democrats to create jobs and grow the economy,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “If nothing happens, it will be because Republicans in Congress made a conscious decision to do nothing. And that is a choice that will have tremendous consequences for the country.”

I guess they haven’t got much choice, but the danger of his being seen as Boehner’s catspaw is becoming acute now and this strategy plays right into it. Doing it a year ago before the GOP had racked up so many victories, it might have been possible to put them on the defensive, but at this point the people seem to be attributing the problem to presidential weakness as much as GOP obstructionism and that’s a real problem. By refusing to pick fights back when he had the juice, he’s now firmly entrenched in people’s minds as a pushover. I’m not sure that complaining about the other side refusing to do the right thing at this point is helpful. But again, there isn’t a whole lot to work with, is there?

There is some good news in this piece. Having accepted that the GOP is probably not going to sign on to anything, they are seeking ways to use the executive branch for job creation. It’s unknown whether any of these ideas will be useful or whether the administration will have the courage to follow through despite what is sure to be a full blown Republican shitstorm, but at least they have recognized that there may be more to governing than playing chicken with GOP lunatics. Despite the current consensus that the presidency of the US is not much more than a ceremonial job, the fact is that he does have power and he needs to use it. Even if it makes Eric Cantor wail.

Update: Looks like polluting freely the environment is going to be the big sweetener for business. Too bad for the humans and animals who have to breathe.

.

The Wrong Problem

by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

Howard Schneider at the WaPo asks the question the rest of the us have been asking for a long time now:

After more than a year of aggressive budget cutting by European governments, an economic slowdown on the continent is confronting policymakers from Madrid to Frankfurt with an uncomfortable question: Have they been addressing the wrong problem?

They’re only asking themselves this question now?

With the euro-zone economy slowing and governments aggressively cutting, the ECB may need to concede its rate increases and tight money were a mistake, Peter Vanden Houte, an analyst at ING, wrote Wednesday in a research note. “Loose monetary policy seems to be the only medicine left to prevent a painful fall back into recession,” he said.

Recent statistics showed that the combined economy of euro-zone countries nearly stalled from April through July, with growth of just 0.2 percent. Germany’s economy, one of the main props of the region, grew just 0.1 percent. Analysts project Spain’s annual growth at about 0.7 percent for the year, far below prior government estimates of 2.3 percent. That may force a choice: further belt-tightening, or missing the deficit targets that international markets now expect.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde recently warned that government officials could be overreacting to the debt crisis.

Yes, we already know this. A group of idiots is in charge of worldwide economic policies based on fallacious assumptions about economics. So, finally someone is willing to step up to the plate and identify the real problem: the real estate bubble crash.

“Spain’s is not a fiscal problem,” said Gail Allard, a professor of economics at Spain’s IE Business School. Like many analysts in Spain, Allard noted that the country’s overall debt level remains below the average for euro-zone nations.

But the financial crisis, which started in 2007, and the subsequent recession hit Spain’s banking industry hard. Real estate tax receipts, a major source of government revenue, fell sharply, and annual budget surpluses turned to deficits in excess of 10 percent of annual economic output. The overall debt level, which had been considered reasonable, began to increase fast.

Great! So stabilize the housing market, defang the banks, and create public sector jobs to boost the economy until the private sector can get back on its feet. Finally some answers that make sense!

Or not:

But the immediate rush to trim deficits, some analysts now suggest, may be diverting attention from politically difficult structural decisions needed to clear the way for growth. These could include selling off public companies in Greece and consolidating Italy’s millions of small firms into more efficient enterprises. In Spain, it could mean curbing the power of trade unions…

Allard and other analysts agree that the government needed to take action. But they say the focus should have been on restoring growth by, for instance, revising labor policies that hamper investment and hiring, rather than on cutting deficits in an economy that was already reeling.

Investors were still comfortable lending money to Spain. So there was little reason, analysts say, for Spain to seek to reassure them by raising sales taxes — especially at a time when local demand was plummeting and unemployment was rising above 20 percent, the highest in the region. Investors may have respected the budget cuts, but they also would have taken note of pro-growth structural changes, these analysts say.

“Unless you start with some sort of labor market reform, it is not going to change anything fundamental about the Spanish economy,” Allard said.

Oh right. It’s the fault of the labor unions. The same labor unions that have served the Spanish middle class very well for decades. They clearly had a lot to do with the real estate bubble.

Seems like no matter which door you peek behind, a neoliberal is behind it with a wrong answer. And when they’re called on being wrong, there’s another neoliberal waiting behind the next door with another wrong answer. In fact, there’s an endless string of stupid and/or corrupt business school graduates waiting to tell us that the banking sector crisis is the fault of social security, labor unions, universal healthcare, strange swarthy Greeks, individual deadbeat homeowners, welfare queens driving Cadillacs, the Environmental Protection Agency, and anyone and anything else they care to dream up. Anyone, of course, but the banks, business school grads and Milton Friedman acolytes who drove this car straight in the ditch and refuse to take any responsibility for having been right behind the wheel the whole time.

.

Keeping them contented with nothing

by digby

I knew about Emo-core and lately, Emo-prog (unfortunately.) But until today I didn’t know about “Emo-porn” which is apparently wreaking havoc on decent Real Americans’ relationships. Via Rightwing Watch, here’s Focus on the Family blowing the lid off the latest threat to marriage:

Loneliness strikes at the heart of both husbands and wives, but tends to plunge deeper into the emotional expanse of women. This is one reason why wives are seduced by “emo-porn,” virtual infidelity that is more emotionally satisfying before it physically pleases. But like salt water, it creates a worsening thirst. With emo-porn, fantasy men perform stunningly between the sheets of conversation, emotional understanding, and emotional dexterity. Most mortal men cannot deliver such behavior, the way men do in soap operas and romance novels. Just as wives rightly complain when compared to the artificially created women of Internet porn, men should complain when compared to the artificial men of daytime television. Interesting, isn’t it, how they have such exciting jobs—no Joe The Plumbers. In the real world where real men burn through a lot of emotional battery life to make a real living, being expected to behave like men who don’t exist is more than wrong. It’s cruel.

Emo-porn creates caricatures in the minds and hearts of wives. Most men just aren’t and cannot be that attentive, especially in marriage where responsibilities to provide weigh heavy upon them. Husbands are quietly deemed unresponsive and uncaring when compared to emotionally dexterous hunks of daytime lore, chat rooms, celebrity rags, and romance novels. Thus a secretive and snowballing form of marital discontent is born and nurtured.

You can see the problem. Of course women enjoying stories about men who care what they have to say and think is bound to make them feel discontented with the selfish, domineering boors they’re married to. It’s telling, however, that this poor fellow seems completely unaware of the major fantasy these stories deliver: good sex. I’m imagining that it’s because he doesn’t recognize the sort of activities that please the ladies between the sheets — and is confused by the sorts of things the ladies do to the gentlemen as well. (Not that any of it is beyond the straightest white bread sex by normal people’s standards.) He just saw all that talk, talk, talk and assumed that it was a bunch of chicks dreaming about a fantasy man who knows how to do laundry, when they are actually getting off on a fantasy man who knows how to do them.

Poor girls. These men (and their church lady lieutenants) are so afraid of sexual equality, they won’t even allow their women a People magazine or a Romance novel because it makes them feel inadequate and weakens the institution of marriage. But then Christian Right marriages must be very weak already. Just about everything threatens them.

.

.

What Markos Said

by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

Markos over at dkos hits the nail right on the head over the speech scheduling stupidity:

Obama has two options:

1) Immediately say, “That’s cool, we’ll do it another day.” The date, again, is inconsequential. Why get in a fight over this?

2) Go on the offensive. Make the argument that Obama chose the day because it was the first day Congress was back in session. What’s more important to the American people than jobs? And anyway, the White House ran it by Boehner and he had no objections, so why is he freaking out now?

Either one would’ve been fine. But instead, we got a crazy hybrid—the White House initially went on the offensive, called Boehner a liar, started working reporters on a pushback campaign, and then, suddenly, collapsed to Boehner.

It was the worst of all worlds. Rather than look accommodating or strong, the White House came off looking indecisive and weak. All over the biggest non-story of the month. It was a great way to cap off a dismal August…

Obama’s fiercest defenders rushed to rationalize yesterday’s mess. “He looks like the grownup in the room!” Maybe. But no one gives a shit. Look at the numbers above. “Boehner came off looking childish!” Maybe, but so what? He’s not running for national office. “Who cares, this doesn’t matter!” Yup, it doesn’t matter, other than the fact that we have a whole new slew of headlines making Obama look weak…

Bottom line, if Obama’s approach to governing was proving popular, then there’d be little fault. If triangulating against liberals bolstered his numbers with independents, then that’d be cool! Heck, if slapping my first-born in the face bumped his numbers up with independents, I’d tolerate it. But it’s not. His current approach isn’t working. Capitulating to the GOP on matters big (and small) only reinforce the notion that he’s weak. No one cares that he’s the “grownup” in the room. No one cares that he’s “reasonable” or “compromising” or “serious.”

I disagree with Markos on the notion that bolstering Obama’s numbers among independents is necessarily terribly important right now. Independents shift with the political winds, and improving poll numbers among malleable voters 15 months before the election is sort of pointless. To say nothing of the fact that the whole point of politics isn’t to win elections, but to drive public policy in a particular direction. And, of course, many will take offense with Markos’ characterization of the necessity of electing Obama and the silliness of encouraging a primary challenge–though I think Markos is right on both those counts.

But Markos’ key critique of the Administration is well-taken. First, everything they do is almost designed to make them look craven and weak. Being accommodating is one thing; being constantly humiliated like Charlie Brown kicking a football is quite another.

And it’s not even working to attract independents. It’s terrible politics, in addition to being terrible policy.

Keep in mind that these are some of the top political professionals in the entire United States advising the Administration on these maneuvers. Which means that either they’re utterly incompetent idiots as Digby and I have repeatedly argued, or they’re paid-off corrupted tools of a grand global elitist conspiracy. Personally, I find the latter idea preposterous hogwash, a comforting opium for the sorts of people who want to believe that there are no solutions, or that the solutions are as as easy as grabbing pitchforks and guillotines and letting blood run in the streets. Yes, there’s rampant criminality–in Wall Street’s case, even an entire culture of criminality. And those criminals should be held to account. But that doesn’t mean that the entire governmental and financial apparatus–or even most of it–is run either by elite criminals or their paid-off lackeys. It just doesn’t work that way, as anyone who has actually dealt with the individual policy makers in question knows.

But there are a growing number of people in this country who incline to the sorts of Bircher fantasies espoused by the likes of Glenn Beck on the right, to the Alex Jones/Jesse Ventura brand of “both sides do it” crazy, and to various lefty conspiracy mongers as well.

And it’s no surprise. It’s just really hard–and frankly terrifying–for a lot of people to believe that we’re really governed by selfish, short-sighted, incompetent morons. That our lives are really and truly dominated by idiots who set their eyes on a shiny object like next quarter’s profit statements, or moving the polling dial with white female independents aged 35-65 by five points, or some other stupidity, so much that they miss the big picture, and then grab as much of the loot as possible and make the best of the situation after everything smashes to bits. That’s understandable. But if policy makers want to limit the growing number of conspiracy mavens out there, it might be advisable for them to try putting competent people in charge for a change. Otherwise, they’ll get the paranoid public attitudes toward them that they deserve.

.

I’m so sick politicians I could just scream. But Howie reminded me today that there are some good ones — and good people are always making the truly patriotic sacrifice to run.

Blue America doesn’t usually ask for contributions because of some phony Inside the Beltway “deadline”– as if a $20 contribution is any more or any less crucial today or tomorrow or the next day. And yesterday we got a wretched plea from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, begging for money for the dreadful and unpopular incumbents whose voting records make it impossible for them to raise contributions from grassroots Democrats. “I need your help. We only have 6 hours left until our August FEC deadline, and we’re still $8,000 short of our goal. Eric Cantor outlined the Republican vision in a recent memo– they will gut environmental regulations, repeal health care reform and attack workers. If Republicans outraise us and grab momentum, the Senate will be that much harder to defend. Must-win seats may be out of our reach. And this GOP vision could become reality.”

He doesn’t mention that some of these Democrats he’s raising money for vote against the Democrats and with McConnell and DeMint. I mean who in their right mind is going to donate to conservative shills like Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill? During his miserable Senate career Nelson has voted with the Republicans 56% of the time on the crucial votes and Both Machin and McCaskill are barely over 60%. They’ve alienated Democratic voters… and the lobbyists and Big Business interests they have normally counted on would rather replace them with Republicans. Good riddance!

On the other hand, Blue America is asking for help in sending a loud and clear a message to the DSCC and Beltway Democrats today (or tomorrow– we don’t care) by helping us support Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), two people who have fought long and hard for ordinary American families, not for the banksters and not for the corporate elites.

Unless this is the first time you’ve been on DWT you already know Bernie. You probably know Elizabeth Warren too. This is what she told the Boston Globe yesterday: “It’s about being willing to take a good idea and fight for it. It’s being willing to throw your body in front of a bus to block bad ideas… There are some things worth fighting for and right now it’s about fighting for the middle class.”

She’s running for Ted Kennedy’s old seat, which is currently occupied by Wall Street’s favorite senator, Scott Brown– and that’s what business-friendly Forbes called him… admiringly. One day Elizabeth may be the tellers’ favorite senator, but she’ll never be the banksters’ or hedge fund managers’!

“I came out of a hard-working middle class family. I lived in an America that created opportunities for kids like me… I now see an America in which our government works for those who already have money and already have power… I would walk out of a senator’s office and the office would be completely jammed with lobbyists who were there to explain why the consumer agency was bad. There was not enough room for them to sit down.’’

Blue America has only endorsed 2 people for the Senate so far this cycle. It’s hard to imagine any other incumbents and so far the only other challenger who looks worthwhile is Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, although she hasn’t declared yet. So we’re asking you to take a look at our Senate page and see if you can give us a hand with Bernie and Elizabeth… even if it is after the DSCC’s midnight “deadline.”

.

Wanted: Rich, white male 4 short term affair

by digby

Centrist Matt Miller, is once again trolling for wealthy men in the pages of the Washington Post. But never let it be said that he’s so shallow that the only thing he cares about in a man is his money:

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that Mike Bloomberg or Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz or others rumored to be weighing such steps are “the answer.” We’d need to know much more about their ideas for the country before making such judgments; and I expect more frustrated leaders will consider entering the fray in the months ahead.

You think? I don’t. If he’s a billionaire, businessman “leader” (oooh baby) that’s good enough for me. They’re good at just everything. I don’t even want to clutter my beautiful mind with the details. Just fix it Mr Big!

Miller wants a man who will mess up that giant, king sized bed bed we call America:

If you’re rich, serious about changing the world and think our two-party tyranny has become part of the problem, there’s no better time to invest in disruptive political innovation. The country you save may be your own.

I think that’s a typo. It should say, “the country you own may be the one you save,” but that’s just quibbling. The most important thing here is to realize that these vaunted centrists are just desperate to hook up with a billionaire businessman hero, and they’ll pretty much go down on their knees and … beg, if that’s what it’s going to take.

Sadly, they don’t understand that no matter how much they complain about the old ball and chain, these businessmen are actually quite happy with their current mates — the Republicans and the Democrats. They are getting everything they need at home.

.