George Lakoff is back selling his particular brand of "political discourse." He has always claimed Obama as a disciple (no one told Obama I think.) Lakoff's thinking is not exactly harmful but it is cloying. In a dkos diary, he writes:

[T]here will be a vision of America—a moral vision and a view of unity that the pundits often miss. What they miss is the Obama Code. For the sake of unity, the President tends to express his moral vision indirectly. . . . [Obama] connects with his audience using what cognitive scientists call the “cognitive unconscious.” Speaking naturally, he lets his deepest ideas simply structure what he is saying.

(Emphasis supplied.) Um, ok. I especially like the whole "express[ing] his moral vision indirectly" thing. Not the Straight Talk Express I take it. Anyway, this is all hooey. Obama did not invent the Post Partisan Unity Schtick though he is an especially fine practitioner of it. He is no Gladstone that's for sure. But the idea of seeking "unity" by ignoring actual policy is a particularly absurd Lakoffian conceit. Lakoff writes:

When I discuss President Obama's standing with the American People, I want people to understand the difference between political skills and political opportunities now and what the use of this political power to effect policy will mean come election time. Thus, when I write in a post below "Obama in command," it is not to endorse his policy initiatives to date (some I like, some I find inadequate), it is to describe the political moment. In their article discussing their latest poll, the NYTimes captures the moment as I see it:

President Obama is benefiting from remarkably high levels of optimism and confidence among Americans about his leadership, providing him with substantial political clout as he confronts the nation’s economic challenges and opposition from nearly all Republicans in Congress, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

How President Obama uses this political clout (hopefully to enact efficacious policies), particularly on the economy, will determine his fate (political and historical). His FDR opportunity remains, in no small measure due to his immense political talent. Let's hope he does not squander the opportunity.Speaking for me only

By now we all know CNBC's Rick Santelli is a buffoon. And NBC is the network for buffoons. But even NBC should take action for this:

CNBC’s Rick Santelli appeared on at least two radio programs today to promote his “rant” against President Obama’s housing program. On G. Gordon Liddy’s radio program, Santelli called attention to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’s response to his tirade. He cropped a quote from Gibbs to suggest the White House was pursuing a campaign of intimidation against him[.]

To put it bluntly, Santelli is lying. Let's repeat that - an NBC "reporter" is going on right wing radio shows and lying. This merits action by NBC. More . . .

I know we have all been sweating the vacancy at Commerce, but Political Wire has the reassuring news:

President Obama has chosen former Washington Gov. Gary Locke (D) as his nominee to be Commerce secretary.

We can all breathe now. BTW, Judd who?

Speaking for me only

This dkos diary has me chuckling because well Tweety had to go a decade ago really. But I also think it really misses something that has happened in President Obama's first month in office - at least imo - he has forged a relationship of trust with the American People. He is a tremendous politician. The cable chatter and the Media chatter do not matter, as his poll results demonstrate.

I think we have to agitate for our views (see Digby, Jane Hamsher and Greenwald all the time), but at this point, President Obama's political fate (and historical fate for that matter) will be completely determined by the efficacy of his policies. Anyone watching his masterful performance today in his presser at the end of the silly "fiscal sensibility" conference could see it - it was President Obama in command. It is how it feels and how I think the American People perceive it.

[More...]

Andrew Sullivan:

Now we see the real struggle for the soul of this administration. Obama wants to tackle the insolvency of the big three entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These three programs, especially Medicare, will destroy the fiscal future, unless we pare them back now. . . . The GOP will have to accept some tax hikes and the Dems will have to accept some entitlement cuts.

Paul Krugman:

What makes the projections you actually see so scary is the assumption that “excess cost growth” in health care will continue — that is, health spending per person will continue to rise at close to 2 percent faster than GDP per capita. . . . So if excess cost growth in health care can be brought under control, the entitlement problem is manageable. If not, even savage cuts in Social Security will make little difference.

(Emphasis supplied.) Who you gonna trust on this, Krugman or a Sully the Don Luskin fan? I'll go with Krugman.Speaking for me only

If nationalization of the banks does not interest you, you may need one of these, an Open Thread.

This is an Open Thread.

NYTimes:

The Obama administration put the nation’s biggest banks on notice Monday that the government could become their biggest shareholder if regulators decide they are not strong enough to weather a deeper-than-expected downturn in the economy. In an unexpectedly assertive joint statement, the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and federal bank regulatory agencies announced that the government might end up demanding a direct ownership stake in major banks after they undergo a tough evaluation of their strength, which is to begin shortly.

[More...]

Via Atrios, here is the latest proposed ripoff of taxpayers for Citibank's benefit:

Citigroup (C) has proposed that the US taxpayer and other preferred shareholders convert up to $75 billion of preferred stock into common stock, thus bolstering the company's tangible equity and putting it in less desperate need of a complete takeover. And what will the US taxpayer get for this preferred stock conversion? 40% of the company for some of its $45 billion of preferred, say reports. The reports add that Citigroup's goal here is to keep the US's ownership under 50%, so this won't be a de facto nationalization.

[More...]

Krugman today:

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman — and a staunch defender of free markets — actually said was, “It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring.” I agree.

The case for nationalization rests on three observations. First, some major banks are dangerously close to the edge — in fact, they would have failed already if investors didn’t expect the government to rescue them if necessary. Second, banks must be rescued. The collapse of Lehman Brothers almost destroyed the world financial system, and we can’t risk letting much bigger institutions like Citigroup or Bank of America implode. Third, while banks must be rescued, the U.S. government can’t afford, fiscally or politically, to bestow huge gifts on bank shareholders.

Who disagrees with this? Besides shareholders in the banks? What does Santelli think?

Speaking for me only

Jane Hamsher writes on Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece on WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, where Emanuel defends himself from criticism of how the stimulus package was handled. Lizza quotes Emanuel:

“They have never worked the legislative process,” Emanuel said of critics like the Times columnist Paul Krugman, who argued that Obama’s concessions to Senate Republicans—in particular, the tax cuts, which will do little to stimulate the economy—produced a package that wasn’t large enough to respond to the magnitude of the recession. “How many bills has he passed?”

To me the obvious question is how many difficult bills did Emanuel pass before this one? I think the answer is none. Besides, I thought Emanuel had already admitted mistakes in the handling of the stimulus bill:

Via Digby, apparently George Soros does not think so:

Renowned investor George Soros said on Friday the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis. Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union. . . . "We witnessed the collapse of the financial system," Soros said at a Columbia University dinner. "It was placed on life support, and it's still on life support. There's no sign that we are anywhere near a bottom."

It is a little late to be talking about institutions being "too big to fail." They already failed. Oh by the way, apparently Paul Volcker was equally gloomy: