TIME FOR SOME MORE VACATIONING

Well, soon I'll be off to one of my favorite things in the whole world: The San Diego Comic-Con! If you're in town that week, keep a look out for me ... I'll be the nerdy one with the superhero t-shirt.

And should you need a politics fix while I'm gone, I'm sure there will be plenty of campaigning ...

WE LIVE IN BUSH'S ECONOMY NOW

So, I was running by the newsstand the other morning and came across a headline in the LA Times titled IndyMac Bank seized by federal regulators. It starts off this way ...

The federal government took control of Pasadena-based IndyMac Bank on Friday in what regulators called the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

It then goes on to say ...

The takeover of IndyMac came amid rampant speculation that the federal government would also have to take over lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together stand behind almost half of the nation's mortgage debt.

Welcome to the Republican economy, ladies and gentlemen! If you're a large corporation, feel free to do whatever you want to make a profit. And -- should you fail -- no worries: the government's got your back. If however, you're just an average American, don't complain to us about your economic struggles. Because -- as McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm, said -- you're all just a "bunch of whiners." I think these recent financial events were summed up nicely by Newsweek's Daniel Gross ...

Should Washington intervene and explicitly do what has been implicitly assumed all along--backing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt--critics on the left will correctly claim that it's another example of privatizing profit and socializing risk.

Yep, that is in fact exactly what I'm doing right now. And this whole banking fiasco also got me thinking about the airline industry. Here's a quote from a recent article on the subject ...

US Airways Group Inc. is among a consortium of 12 U.S. air carriers asking the U.S. Congress to address the actions of oil speculators, whom they blame for escalating fuel prices ... The airlines’ chief executives say regulatory oversight of market speculation has declined in recent years, and the industry sees a need for reform to ensure speculators do not overheat the market to a point that hurts the consumer.

Is it just me, or do you interpret this as the airline industry basically begging the government to regulate more? All of a sudden DemocratIC principles seem a little more attractive, huh?

OBAMA: TO THE MIDDLE!

Let me start off by saying that I still love Obama. He should be President in a big way, and a few recent events aren't going to sway me! But, jeez, man ... could you be a little more subtle with your mad dash to the middle. I mean, I know this is what politicians have to do to get elected these days (I guess), but let's not forget what got you here and the passion that many of us have for your positive stance for the things we care about.

Let's be honest: this was not a good couple of weeks for Obama. First, he opted out of public financing, and I'm not even going to try to spin that one (on the other hand, I really can't blame him either). However, I'm genuinely angry about the FISA thing. He should not support that horrible bill ... period! And then came this recent gem from an article on MSN ...

Democrat Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war.

Rut-Ro!

Democrats keep saying we want someone who will win in November. And I suppose it could be argued that Obama is just doing what it takes. Although, I think Arianna Huffington might have the right idea in her post titled Moving to the Middle is for Losers. Here's a portion of it ...

Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the tired Washington model of "I'll do these things for you" with Obama's "Let's do these things together"

In a previous post, I also argued that Obama would be better than Clinton due partly to the fact that he wouldn't run the same loser playbook as Gore and Kerry. Prove me right, Barack.

I'd like to end with a little more about Obama's position on FISA. But rather than listen to me, you should listen to this ...