The short version, as reported in the NYTimes, is this:

A 263-page report released Friday by lawmakers in Alaska found that Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, had herself exerted pressure to get Trooper Michael Wooten dismissed, as well as allowed her husband and subordinates to press for his firing, largely as a result of his temperament and past disciplinary problems.

"Such impermissible and repeated contacts," the report states, "create conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior's displeasure and the possible consequences of that displeasure." The report concludes that the action was a violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

What now lies ahead is not fully known at this point. Ms. Palin could be censured by the Legislature, but that is unlikely.

The really short version is that Palin will be off the ticket by Sunday. Keep in mind that much of the rest of the nation does not observe Columbus Day like we do (you know - with a day off).

As I've written before: John McCain should never have put this person in the position that she now finds herself. Had they don e their due diligence, the flaws that reflect negatively on her would have been obvious, and instead of being  the brunt of jokes for the next few years, Palin could have driven Alaska into the ground without even being known in the lower 48.

No word if Todd Palin's events here in Maine have been canceled, but if I were to guess - they will still happen. These folks don't understand the meaning of shame, and so don't have any.

I love Nancy Sinatra:

And who doesn't love Kristin Hersh and Throwing Muses?:

In a press release, the Tom Allen Senate cmapign announced that Allen has received the endorsement of the Maine League of Conservation Voters:

Conservationists from across the state today announced their support for Tom Allen for U.S. Senate. Conservationists for Allen is co-chaired by Dan Amory, Board Chair of the Maine League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and Ellen Baum, Vice President of the Board of the Maine LCV.

"Tom has a strong personal connection to Maine's extraordinary natural heritage. Working with President Obama and the Democratic majority in the Senate, he will be a leader in addressing the environmental challenges threatening our health, our jobs and our quality of life," said Amory, who is also a member of the Maine Advisory Board of the Conservation Law Foundation, and Past President of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

Baum said, "Tom has been a thoughtful and strong advocate for a range of key environmental issues during his tenure in Congress. I look forward to the commitment and seriousness that he will bring to the Senate."

---

In Congress, Allen serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee so is the only member of the Maine delegation to serve on the committee of the primary environmental jurisdiction. Just this year, Allen has passed three critical pieces of legislation for the environment, including the Mercury Export Ban, the Ocean Observing Bill and the Ocean Acidification Bill.

The LCV rates members of Congress, as well as state legislators. It has given a rating of 93% to Allen, while Collins received only a 68% score.

Members of Conservationists for Allen include:

Eleanor Kinney, Bremen. Board President of Natural Resources Council of Maine, Board of GrowSmart Maine.
Clinton B. Townsend, Canaan. President, Maine Rivers; Board Member, Atlantic Salmon Federation, the Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the Maine Wilderness Watershed Trust, and the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Thomas Urquhart, Falmouth. Former Executive Director of Maine Audubon; Board Member, Maine League of Conservation Voters.    
David Shiah, Bowdoinham. Founder, Maine League of Conservation Voters; Co-Founder, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay; Former Board Member, Friends of the Earth.
Richard E. Barringer, Portland. Former Commissioner of Maine Department of Conservation.
Anne Hayden, Brunswick. Board Member, Conservation Law Foundation; Board Member, Maine Audubon; Trustee, Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.  
Michael Herz, Wiscasset. Board Chair, Friends of the Earth; Past President of Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association.
Pat McGowan, Hallowell. Commissioner of Maine Department of Conservation.
Neil Rolde, York. Board Member, Conservation Law Foundation of Maine; Advisory Board, Maine League of Conservation Voters; Former Board Member, Natural Resources Council of Maine; Former Board Member, Maine Audubon.  
Jon Lund, Augusta. Past President, Natural Resources Council of Maine; Chair of the Maine Board of the Conservation Law Foundation.  
Helen Winebaum, York. Board Member, York Land Trust; Former Chair, Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Campaign; Former Trustee, Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.
Judy Adelman, Falmouth. Steering Committee, Maine Land Trust Network; Former Board Member, Falmouth Land Trust.
Rob Levin, Portland. Steering Committee, Maine Land Trust Network; Board Member, Portland Trails.
Lani Graham, MD, MPH, Portland. Former Director of the Maine Bureau of Health; Board Member, Natural Resources Council of Maine.  
Adam Lee, Cumberland. Board Member, Natural Resources Council of Maine; Board Member, Maine Audubon; President of Lee Auto Malls.  
Susan Sargent, Pittston. Former Maine Representative of National Environmental Trust.
Hank Tyler, Hallowell. Former Director, Maine Critical Areas Project.  
Martha Freeman, Portland. Director of Maine State Planning Office.  
Rep. Ted Koffman, Bar Harbor. Chair of Maine House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources.  
Rep. Anne Haskell, Portland.  
Rep. Bob Duchesne, Hudson. President, Penobscot Valley Chapter of Maine Audubon; Trustee, Maine Audubon.  
Rep. John Piotti, Unity. Executive Director, Maine Farmland Trust; Board Member, GrowSmart Maine; Former Board Member, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.
Rep. Sharon Treat, Hallowell. Former Attorney for Natural Resources Council of Maine; Adjunct Professor of Environmental Law at Colby, Bowdoin, University of Southern Maine, Maine School of Law.
Rep. Jon Hinck, Portland. Former Staff, Natural Resources Council of Maine; Official Delegate to Kyoto Convention on Climate Change, 1997.  
Lynne Y. Lewis, Portland. Board Member, Natural Resources Council of Maine.  
Ala Reid, York. Board Member, York Land Trust.  
Rep. Seth Berry, Bowdoinham. Member, Union of Concerned Scientists; Member, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay; Member, Friends of Swan Island.  
Jeanne Mattson, Hallowell. Board Member of Maine League of Conservation Voters.  
Rep. Thom Watson, Bath. Member, Maine Audubon.  Former Chair of Maine House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources
Scott Cowger, Hallowell. Former State Senator.  
Rep. Janet Mills, Farmington.
Conrad Schneider, Brunswick.
Karin Tilberg, Bowdoinham.
Jennifer Litteral, Bar Harbor.  
Bill Plouffe, South Freeport.
Jennifer Niese, Kennebunk.
Ken Cline, Bar Harbor.  
Gretchen Tietenberg, Waterville.

A new ad featuring George Mitchell has hit the airwaves:

Must be nine or ten years ago now that I attended a fundraiser for Rep. Allen at the Nonesuch Golf Club, in which Sen. Mitchell gave a short speech, telling those assembled why he became a Democrat. He spoke about the 1930's and the Depression that then engulfed the nation, and how the Federal government provided jobs and security for so many, programs brought forth by Democrats. And how in the 1960's it was Democrats that led the way in the cause of civil rights and social justice.

It was one of the most powerful speeches I ever heard, and as my friends will tell you, I was so energized by it that I talked about it for a week or more.

I turned to one of Allen's staffers and asked, "You guys taped that, right?"

Alas.

The Connecticut Supreme Court this morning overturned that state's law banning gay marriage. From the Boston Globe:

Connecticut became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage today in a 4-3 decision by the state Supreme Court.

In an 85-page decision issued at 11:30 a.m., the court struck down a law barring same-sex marriage, ruling that the state had "failed to establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban."

The justices noted in the majority opinion that they recognized "as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health ... that 'our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law.' "

The case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, was brought by eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Madison town clerk. They argued that the state's civil union law was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it established a separate and therefore inherently unequal institution for a minority group. Citing equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court agreed.

"In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry," said the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Richard N. Palmer.

Wonderful news, and this may start a trend. It also places opponents in an awkward position, since they are typically the same people that oppose abortion rights, and use the state's rights argument to do so. I'm curious how interstate commerce laws will be affected by this too.

And at some point one of these cases will be brought to the Supreme Court - bringing "advise and consent" into focus again.

From EqualityMaine, this press release:

Today, in an historic decision, Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the state can no longer bar same-sex couples from marrying. Connecticut, which had civil unions, becomes the third state, after Massachusetts and California, in which same-sex couples can wed.

"This decision gives Connecticut couples the legal protections, dignity and respect that only marriage brings, and that Maine couples also aspire to and deserve," said Betsy Smith, Executive Director of EqualityMaine.

More than 350 Maine laws and more than 1,000 federal laws distinguish between people based on their marital status.

"Marriage is far more than the sum of its legal parts," said Mary Bonauto, a Portland attorney who is also the civil rights project director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). "The Connecticut court understood that creating second-class institutions does not treat citizens equally." GLAD represented the couples in the Connecticut case (Kerrigan & Mock et al. v. Connecticut Department of Public Health), as well as the couples in the groundbreaking Massachusetts case.

Beyond the practical protections that accompany marriage, same-sex couples in civil unions have no claim to the 1,138 federal protections afforded married couples.

I didn't know that there were so many laws that this ruling will affect.

Last July I wrote this diary about a claim made by Susan Collins regarding Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2008 (S. 2799):

I have joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues including Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) in introducing the "Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2008," to expand and improve health care services to women veterans, particularly those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Murray on 2 April; Collins didn't become a cosponsor of it until 25 June, almost three months later. She didn't join in introducing it.

---

Then in July I wrote this diary about the creation of the Special Inspector General in Iraq (SIGIR), and the claim:

I am the one who worked to create a special inspector general for Iraq Reconstruction to have auditors and investigators on the ground.

In fact, it was Sen. Russ Feingold that put forth the amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004 (S. 1689) that created the SIGIR. A couple of years later, when the authority of the SIGIR needed to be renewed, Collins played an important role.

But she was not responsible for creating it.

---

And then earlier this week, in an interview with the editorial board of the Portland Press Herald (which Maine Politics has the video here), Collins says:

If you look at my record, you will see that I have authored countless laws; in the area of homeland security, defense, contracting reform, education, health care, tax policy - the list goes on and on.

It is important to note that Collins says laws, not bills, because according to govtrack, Collins has authored just fifteen bills that have become law. I'm not sure what her definition of "countless" is, but I'm able to count up to fifteen.

---

Obviously, candidates are going to try to paint themselves in the best light possible - we all do. But for a public official to exaggerate one's record is a little different than if Joe Six-pack does, as Sarah Palin is finding out.

This would be pretty funny, if it wasn't so indicative of how lame the main stream media here is:

From Our Archives...Whistleblower: Military Eavesdropped on Journalists & NGOs in Iraq

And finally, much of the news media is catching up on a story Democracy Now! covered five months ago. On May 13, former Military Intelligence Sergeant Adrienne Kinne appeared on the program and talked about how she was personally ordered to eavesdrop on Americans working for news organizations and NGOs in Iraq.

   Adrienne Kinne: "Over the course of my time, as we slowly began to identify phone numbers and who belonged to what, one thing that gave me grave concern was that, as we identified phone numbers, we started to find more and more and more numbers that belonged not to any organizations affiliated with terrorism or with military-with militaries of Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere, but with humanitarian aid organizations, non-governmental organizations, who include the International Red Cross, Red Crescent, Doctors Without Borders, a whole host of humanitarian aid organizations. And it also included journalists."

Last night, Adrienne Kinne and another military linguist appeared on this ABC News report.

Brian Ross, ABC News: "This is the first time any of the actual intercept operators, the people who listen in and record phone calls on behalf of US intelligence agencies, the first time any of them has come forward. President Bush says they only listen to Americans if it involves al-Qaeda. These two say, 'Not true.'"

During her interview in May on Democracy Now!, Adrienne Kinne also revealed that she saw secret US military documents that listed the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad as a possible target, even though it was filled with journalists. In 2003, the US military shelled the hotel, killing two journalists: Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Telecinco. The military has maintained the shelling was accidental.

Perhaps ABC News should assign someone to listen/watch Goodman's show everday so that they can see what the frig is going on - and then report on it in a more timely manner.

h/t Collins Watch

The Portland Phoenix has this in-depth article comaring the voting records of Tom Allen and Susan Collins. As I noted earlier, Collins claims that she votes for Mainers 100% of the time, a technical fact.

But does she vote in the best interests of Mainers?

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is making hay out of John McCain's record of voting with Bush 90 percent of the time, and Maine Democratic US Representative Tom Allen is trying to do the same as he works to unseat incumbent Republican US Senator Susan Collins. One of his most recent TV ads blames the present economic meltdown on Bush's efforts to deregulate the economy, and then says "Susan Collins supported the Bush economic policies that hurt Maine and created a national crisis." For her part, Collins is trying to distance herself from Bush: A recent ad avoids the word "Republican" entirely, calling her "an independent voice for Maine."

---

But there is a gulf between Collins and Allen, and it becomes very apparent when looking at how their positions align with Bush's (or don't). Congressional Quarterly, a nonpartisan news organization covering Congress, has calculated a "presidential support score" for every member of Congress, looking at how often they voted with or against President George W. Bush's wishes throughout his term to date - Collins voted with Bush 77 percent of the time; Allen just 18 percent.

The Phoenix does a great job breaking down the voting records on a large number of issues that are important to Mainers of all four members of Maine's delegation to Congress (they did forget to mention two of Allen's bills regarding Iraq - one that banned funding for any permanent bases there, and the other to create a war profiteering commission - both vetoed via signing statement by Bush).

Check it out.

I want to quickly followup on this post from yesterday about Sam Alito, judicial temperament, and the important role played by senators in confirming nominees to our nations Federal courts.

Much of the focus on Sam Alito has been in regards to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but there is much, much more to have been concerned about. Collins Watch has an excellent series on Alito (part seven can be found here, which has links to Dan's previous six posts on the subject), but all of this information was available before the confirmation vote, and in fact was discussed at the hearing held by the Judiciary Committee. Many of you listened, at least in part, to that hearing.

Before his confirmation hearing in January 2006, People for the American Way (PFAW) produced an exhaustive look at the judicial record of one Samuel Alito (156 pages - see here - pdf warning). Alito spent sixteen years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and so had formed a long history that would provide an accurate depiction of his views regarding the law. The PFAW report is conveniently separated into seven sections of law (Congressional and Executive Authority, Discrimination and Civil Rights, Reproductive Freedom, Police Power and Individual Rights, Environmental Protection, Corporate Power and Individual Rights, and The First Amendment), and includes a final chapter on his credibility. From the executive summary:

If confirmed as the next Associate Justice, Judge Samuel A. Alito would bring dramatic, sweeping change to the Supreme Court. While his words are carefully chosen and his
demeanor is measured, Judge Alito's ultraconservative judicial philosophy is nothing
short of radical. He would join Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia at the center of a radical right-wing bloc that would change the direction of the Court and the country for decades to come, and threaten fundamental rights and legal protections.

---

As a judge, he has rarely sided with individuals seeking relief from discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, or disability, and he has opposed efforts to redress the historic effects of discrimination in the workplace. Indeed, in civil rights cases where the Third Circuit was divided, Alito advocated positions detrimental to civil rights 85 percent of the time.

---

He once wrote that high government officials should be absolutely immune from liability in cases involving the illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens. And he endorses broad powers for law enforcement, once writing a dissent that would have upheld the strip search of a ten-year-old girl who was not named in the search warrant.

---

Judge Alito's quiet demeanor cloaks a far right ideology that places him among the most conservative judges on the federal bench. If he replaces Justice O'Connor, he would be a consistent vote to turn back the clock on decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties,
health and safety, environmental protection and religious liberty. His extreme judicial philosophy threatens fundamental rights and legal protections for all Americans -- for decades to come. The Senate should reject his confirmation to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

I urge you to go to and read some of the case studies included in the PFAW report, and then remember that all of this was available to Susan Collins as she sat in her offices, assessing how she would vote on Alito's nomination. Post your findings in the comments to this diary.

Susan Collins claims that she votes for the people of Maine one hundred percent of the time, and in literal sense that is true. But does Collins vote for the best interests of the people of Maine?

I think the answer to that is no.

Somehow these two news items seem to go together:

Sen. George Mitchell has endorsed Barack Obama. This should come as no surprise, but still it is important news.

And Todd Palin is coming to Maine! From the PPH:

Todd Palin, husband of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP's vice presidential nominee, will visit Palmyra for a barbecue and social event on Saturday, then do the same with people up in Presque Isle on Sunday.

I don't know if these events are open to the public, but I'm going to guess that they are not.

An open thread.

In their story about Planned Parenthood's endorsement of Tom Allen for Senate, Tom Bell reports:

Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley said that the Collins campaign was not surprised by the endorsement. Because Planned Parenthood has become increasingly involved in partisan politics, he said, Collins did not seek an endorsement from the organization.

I wish there was HTML code for "British accent," because I need to channel Owen Bennett Jones of the BBC here: RIIIGHHTT!

Collins Watch contacted PP about this, and in a written response Chris Quint replies:

It has been our understanding all along that Sen. Collins wanted and was seeking our endorsement in this election cycle.

Regardless, it is unfortunate that Sen. Collins does not want the support from an organization that is the most trusted provider of reproductive health care in our state and country. Planned Parenthood is proud of our record of bi-partisan support over the years and proud of our support of Congressman Allen in this election.

I am reminded of how sought, and did not get, the endorsement of the Maine Educational Association, which was the subject of Mike Tipping's first post at Maine Politics:

Collins managed this neat trick through some good preparation. First, she fought hard for the MEA nod, according to Tom Major, president of the South Portland Teacher's Association, who writes about the process on his blog. In the end, Allen won on a  divided ballot.

When that didn't work, the Collins campaign had Plan B ready to go. They had scrounged up 70 teachers willing to support the campaign and had a press release and a website page written and waiting. Suddenly, on the day of the MEA endorsement, Educators for Collins was born and its 70 members were getting just as much ink as the MEA's 25,000.

I guess the Collins camp wasn't able to cobble together a women's rights group that it could slap a name on and then have it give her their endorsement.

I just started a retirement account about 21 months ago. So it's not like my balance is anything I have to hide.

Total amount of money I've paid into it: $3,477.54

Total amount of money it's worth right now: $2,337.42

Amount lost: $1,140.12. As a percentage? 32.7%. That's original dollars put in... and what they're worth now.

Where's my fucking bailout, hunh?! HUNH?!

Across the country, people are opening these financial statements... and they're feeling a lot like me right now.

During this morning's debate, responding to a question regarding future nominees to the SCOTUS, Collins had this to say:

I'm a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade, and a woman's right to choose. I believe that Roe v. Wade is part of the bedrock, settled law of this country, and that it is extremely unlikely that any future Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe. It is settled law.

When I look at nominees for the Supreme Court, I look at their professional qualifications, their judicial temperament, their integrity, their background. I look at their respect for settled law, for precedent - that's extremely important as far as respecting Roe.

In his followup, Tom Allen cites Collins' vote to confirm Sam Alito, who you may recall joined the court last year.

I really disagree with Susan on this, because my memory on this is that Sam Alito refused to say that Roe v. Wade was settled law. And there are many ways that you can chip away at a ruling like Roe v. Wade without actually overturning it, and he did that as part of a 5 to 4 majority during his first term.

You can determine for yourself if Alito thinks that Roe is settled law by reading through his testimony to the Senate's Judiciary Committee:

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?

JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So it's been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, and I discussed those yesterday. And it is my-and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes, in Casey based on stare decisis.

And I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons. First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. And secondly, I think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices, who take the same oath and are scholars and are conscientious. And when they examine a question and they reach a conclusion, I think that's entitled to considerable respect. And, of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to. And that's my view of that. So it's a very important precedent that-

DURBIN: Is it the settled law of the land?

ALITO: It is a precedent-if "settled" means that it can't be re-examined, then that's one thing. If "settled" means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect of stare decisis and all of the factors that I've mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.

Further, as Collins Watch noted in the second of his series, Alito wrote:

Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help advance legal positions to which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court...that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion...

Collins showed poor judgment regarding the nomination of Alito. His positions on abortion were just the tip of the iceberg, and all of this was known before she voted to confirm him to a lifetime appointment.

WGAN Radio has put this mornings debate up on their website here.

Give it a listen if you did not hear it, or are not in the Portland area.

[Update]: I'm listening.

I do have to give Collins some credit - she is very good at trying to make something sound much worse than it is. Whichever member of her staff finds this stuff and then creates the frame for her is good at what s/he does.

Responding to a question about where the blame for the financial meltdown lies, Collins once again lays it at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (it is rather odd that the lenders that actually made the bad loans that created the Big Shitpile escape her blame). Fannie and Freddie, according to Collins, are responsible because an attempt by Congress in 2005 to provide more regulation failed. Collins said:

In 2005, there was a very weak House bill that was passed [H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005], - there were two attempts to strengthen the bill, and unfortunately those two attempts were rejected - Tom voted no. One would have required the regulator to establish capitol standards. the other said that the new regulator could require Fannie and Freddie to dispose of any asset or liability that posed a systemic risk to the financial markets, the housing markets, or the capital markets. Unfortunately, this wasn't done.

Allen is prepared for this, as he ought to be - Collins has been brought up this lie in two previous debates:

Those two amendments really have no significance to this debate at all. One of them got thirty-six votes on the floor, and one of them got 76 votes on the floor...There was overwhelming opposition to those two amendments. The fact is I voted for the legislation that was passed in 2005, it was bipartisan legislation, legislation driven by the Republican Mike Oxley, the chair of the Finance Committee, supported by Barney Frank, passed the House, went to the Senate and it died.

And it died for lack of support from the White House lack of for lack support Republican members of the Senate. Susan Collins has no record of support for that bill. It was a Chuck Hagel bill, she didn't co-sponosr it, she didn't make any statements.

The first amendment to which Collins refers is one put forth by James Leach (R-IA) (H.Amdt. 599), which was rejected by a vote of 36 to 378. That's right - only 36 members of the House voted for it (8% in favor, 87% opposed, 4% not voting).

The second amendment to which Collins refers is one put forth by Edward Royce (R-CA) (H.Amdt. 600), which fared a little better but still rejected by a vote of 73 to 346 (17% in favor, 80% opposed and 3% not voting).

Bear in mind that this was a tightly controlled GOP House.

The bill's sponsor, Richard Baker, said this at the time:

"There is nothing in the bill as written that would stop the new regulator . . . from pursuing exactly the same policies on portfolios that the administration is calling for," Baker said in a statement. He added that the overall legislation should not be derailed "by minor disagreements over a portfolio issue that nobody was even talking about six months ago." [CQ Weekly, Banking & Financial Services, 5/30/05, Page 1453]

One of the bills cosponsors, Michale Oxley, had this to say about it in The Financial Times (9/9/2008):

"The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.  He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. "All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this," he says. "What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute."

Collins followed up by repeating her original claim:

The fact is that the administration threatened the veto a 2005 House passed bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie because it was so weak.  Because they said it wasn't strong enough.  And I think it's really important that that fact be clarified.

I don't know Senator - seems that the two men most involved with the bill say you are wrong.

A curious thing happened on Monday, and at first I wasn't going to write about it. But then it happened again yesterday, and this time it wasn't so funny:

Somebody(s) impersonated me at PolitickerME.

One or more people set up at least two user ID's there purporting to be me, and had a debate between themselves. A third user ID, this one not pretending to be me, but from the tone, was likely also created by the perpetrator. It seemed relatively harmless to me, and I added my own comment to acknowledge that I was aware of things.

And the curious thing was that three people wrote to tell me about it, including Lance Dutson from Susan Collins campaign.

The incident from Wednesday was not so harmless, to the point where a professional group wrote to ask if the comment was indeed from me (it wasn't).

I'd like to thank those that had my back, and also to note that despite political differences, even in the heat of of the last few weeks Mainers will reach out. Thanks.

An open thread.

Things are moving fast now - it seems that folks are just starting to accept that a huge amount of "money" is simply gone - not in the sense that it fell out of your wallet or didn't survive the trip through the washer - but imaginary money that has been fueling our economy - money that never really existed - is gone.

And that is much worse than losing some that did exist.

Hard on the heels of the $37.8 billion to AIG, the NYTimes reports that the Fed is going to inject cash directly to banks - not loan it to them - but give it to them:

The American recapitalization plan, officials say, has emerged as one of the most favored new options being discussed in Washington and on Wall Street. The appeal is that it would directly address the worries that banks have about lending to one another and to other customers.

This new interest in direct investment in banks comes after yet another tumultuous day in which the Federal Reserve and five other central banks marshaled their combined firepower to cut interest rates but failed to stanch the global financial panic.

In a coordinated action, the central banks reduced their benchmark interest rates by one-half percentage point. On top of that, the Bank of England announced its plan to nationalize part of the British banking system and devote almost $500 billion to guarantee financial transactions between banks.

The coordinated rate cut was unprecedented and surprising. Never before has the Fed issued an announcement on interest rates jointly with another central bank, let alone five other central banks, including the People's Bank of China.

Yet the world's markets hardly seemed comforted. Credit markets on Wednesday remained almost as stalled as the day before. Stock prices, which had plunged in Europe and Asia before the announcement, continued to plummet afterward. And stock prices in the United States went on a roller-coaster ride, at the end of which the Dow Jones industrial average was down 189 points, or 2 percent.

I think Atrios pointed me to this site, but it doesn't matter - this is exactly what was predicted:

Let's back up. For the past month the debate about how to deal with the collapse of the debt-trading portion of America's financial markets has been between two plans: the Paulson plan and the Elmendorf plan:

The Paulson Plan: Have the government buy up distressed securities at market value, thus reducing the supply of high-yield debt securities that the private sector must hold. When you reduce the supply of anything you raise its price. Hence the Paulson plan's $700 billion purchases will push the prices of risky debt securities up, and so companies will then be able to sell their bonds again and so hire more workers, and depression will be averted.

The Elmendorf Plan: Have the government directly invest in and take an equity stake in troubled banks, thus reassuring their depositors and creditors that they are sound. The banks will then be able to profit by buying up distressed securities--hence raising their prices--and by directly lending to companies that will then be able to hire more workers, and depression will be averted.

The argument for the Paulson plan was that the Elmendorf plan was socialism.

Hhh-hhm.

It doesn't matter how I got there, what does matter is that it was written in direct response to what McCain proposed in last night's debate.

Read it.

(My apologies to Ed - I saw this and couldn't help myself.)

If it wasn't so despicable, it would be hilarious. From the NYTimes (link):

The Federal Reserve Board said Wednesday that it would provide up to an additional $37.8 billion to the insurance giant, the American International Group, to help the company deal with a continuing liquidity crisis.

The additional funds come atop $85 billion in credit that the Federal Reserve Board extended to A.I.G. about two weeks, just as the current financial crisis was unfolding. At the time, the bailout of A.I.G. was the most radical intervention ever by the central bank in a public company.

The money comes one day after two of A.I.G.'s former executives, Martin J. Sullivan and Robert B. Willumstad, answered critical questions from lawmakers about business and pay practices and outsize spending after the initial lifeline from the government. One particular point of contention during the hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was a weeklong retreat that a life insurance subsidiary, AIG General, held for its top sales agents at the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif. The $442,000 in expenses included $150,000 for food and $23,000 in spa charges, according to documents obtained by the committee.

Attention members of Congress: we've already given these scumbags 85,000,000,000 of our tax dollars, and then last week we gave their friends 700,000,000,000 more - with $150,000,000,000 of goodies on top to the freaking wooden arrow importers and others.

And now, after these scumbags spent $442,000 getting their nails done and their backs rubbed and their golf and their drink on - we're giving them $37,500,000,000 more?

EXCUSE ME, BUT WHERE THE FUCK DID THE FIRST 85 BILLION GO???

Poof - like magic it disappeared.

Some friggin' strongly worded letters aren't going to do it. Obviously, these scumbags knew that you weren't going to come and take their 3rd or 2nd homes, otherwise they wouldn't have been so brazen as to fly to California for a week of relaxation.

So now - go and take their shit away, the shit the bought with money stolen from others.

The median family income in Maine is $45,888 (2007) - this is the median, not the average. It would take nearly ten years for a family from Maine earning the median income to make what these scumbags blew in one week.

ONE WEEK.

Here is the video of yesterday's debate between Tom Allen and Susan Collins, hosted by the Bangor Regional Chamber of Commerce and area Rotary Clubs:

I have not seen it yet, but wanted to put it up there.

Listening to the call in with Tom Allen.