What we've witnessed over the course of the last week is something of a perfect storm. With the financial sector teetering on the brink, and election year politics in full swing, reason, foresight, and an orderly distribution of life preservers, have been sacrificed for tantrums of the here and now. Who is to blame for the economic mess we are only starting to glimpse? Everyone. You, me, Wall Street, the Bush Administration, Congress, television pundits, the whole lot of us. A pox on all of our houses!

Americans have long been living on credit. Not just the poor, who often didn't qualify in the first place, but all Americans. As our economy shifted away from manufacturing to a service-centric model, we should have raised a red flag. When we all started playing the stock market back in the 1970's, by tying our retirement savings to Wall Street performance, we didn't blink. When we grew to expect double-digit growth on the value of our homes every single year, we convinced ourselves we'd settled into a new paradigm. In a way, our obsession with the housing and stock markets was itself a big smokescreen for the fact that Americans no longer make things.

Politicians on the left and the right were only too happy to feed the illusion that said, because the Titanic hasn't yet hit an iceberg, it will not hit one anytime soon. Well, we've hit it. And, surprise, there aren't enough lifeboats. To make matters far, far worse, this crisis comes in an election year. Every one of the members of the House of Representatives, and many in the Senate is up for re-election, so forget about them doing what's right for the country, it's political expediency time.

The Corner:

We are in the greatest financial crisis of our lifetimes.
Congressional inaction has put every American and the entire economy at the gravest risk. Yesterday the country and the world looked to Washington for leadership, and Congress once again came up empty-handed.

I am disappointed at the lack of resolve and bipartisan good will among members of both parties to fix this problem. Bipartisanship is a tough thing; never more so when you're trying to take necessary but publicly unpopular action. But inaction is not an option.

Ugh, sigh. Excuse me while I bang my head against the desk.

BANGBANGBANGBANG.

OK, I'm a little calmer now. 35 days before an election. On a day when the public was expressing its overwhelming contempt for Congress and the attempt here to giveaway $700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to Wall Street banks. A move that has never been promised to ultimately fix the problem.

McCain keeps pounding on this mealy mouthed mushy moderate crap that even most of his own party and 40% of the Democrats can't handle.

Does he wonder why he keeps going down in the polls? As Rush Limbaugh said today, bipartisanship is not hard. All you have to do is sell your principles down the river. And keep in mind that McCain's poll numbers were never higher than when he and Sarah Palin were pushing their message that was very partisan.

Yes, I do believe that inaction is not an option here. But inaction is better than bad stupid, throwing-money-down-the-drain and not solving the problem action. God bless the House Republicans and the 95 Democrats who couldn't swallow this plan.

It's up to the Senate tomorrow.

This time, Obama is preying upon Latinos, running an ad which falsely smears McCain as anti-Hispanic. The Spanish-speaking ad accuses McCain of "intolerance" and of "insulting" Latinos, of "abandoning" them in favor of "special interest."

The ad quotes Rush Limbaugh in an insincere attempt to link the firebrand commentator to McCain. Firstly, McCain and Limbaugh have long been at odds on immigration and Latino issues, so the comparison is a false one. Also, Limbaugh's words, while indelicate, are both misquoted and taken out of context - one of the two quotes was obviously spoken in sarcasm, in an attempt to express absurdity.

Obama's ad is obviously erroneous, and seems to have been the product of an intentional desire to deceive and smear. However, it follows on the heels of (and was likely inspired by) a preceding McCain ad which laid the blame for failed immigration reform at the feet of Obama and congressional Democrats (though Obama himself voted for the McCain-Kennedy bill). The difference, however, is that McCain attacked policies, whereas Obama smeared character. The difference is substantial.

And so goes the immigration debate: low and dirty and in Spanish - so as not to rile any feathers up north, where the issue has gone stale. But perfectly targeted at the Latino audience which yet counts the matter as paramount. Immigration will soon disappear from the radar again - but the smears and negative ads, I'm afraid to say, are here to stay.

Rush, on his show yesterday (via Politico)

If you run around and you make a big deal out of trying to distance yourself from George W. Bush, you are going to pay for it in ways that you can't understand, because the one thing, of many, that separates Republicans and conservatives from those mealymouthed little creeps and kooks and wackos on the left, they respect a leader who they think has done his best. And they are loyal. And the one person, the one thing that is threatening Republican Party loyalty right now is the very McCain campaign, not George W. Bush. So if you think that you gotta run around and distance yourself from George W. Bush, and if that's how you have to get elected, think again. You may not have to run around and embrace him, and you may not want to run around and have him fund-raise for you in public, and you may not want to be seen in public with him, and you may not want to have to praise him, but I warn you, do not publicly disrespect him. It will kill you. You won't go anywhere. The voters on our side are not going to put up with that because he's not disliked, he's not despised, he's not hated. You Republicans that don't have the guts and the courage to separate yourself from what you read in the media and listen to the Democrat candidates say had better realize, this president is not hated, he is not disliked. Big difference in that and being unpopular.

And that's absolutely correct. McCain and his advisers should not mistake ambivelance about Bush to a retreat from core Republican principles. And to the extent that McCain is to the left of Bush, especially on stem cells and global warming, McCain will inherit that ambivelance. Remember, there are still about 30% of the population that publicly approves of Bush, and those are, or should be, McCain's base of support. McCain absolutely positively cannot win without those thirty percent.

The best advice came from Patrick Ruffini, and that remains that if the McCain advisers are worried about their stance with Bush, it's simple. Ignore him. He's not the issue. If Obama brings it up, all McCain has to say is that he is not so concerned with what has happened but what will and should happen.

After months of advising his listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton in open Democratic primaries, ultra-conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is changing his tune by urging Democratic superdelegates to force the issue and make Barack Obama their nominee. From CNN:

"I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees," Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. "I now urge the Democrat superdelegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama."

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people," Limbaugh said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

But Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and Obama supporter, disagreed, saying the Democratic Party has "the best coalition to go out and talk to people across racial lines, which are the unions."

Limbaugh's plan to interfere in the Democratic Primary process, dubbed "Operation Chaos," was given legitimacy yesterday when Obama supporter John Kerry attributed Hillary Clinton's victory in Indiana to the gabber's tactic. What is behind this reversal? Is Rush being sincere? Is he mad at Bill Clinton for "hitting on" his "date?" Or is it all some kind of triple-reverse psychology?

As I reported here last week, Rush Limbaugh has instituted something called "Operation Chaos," wherein he urges Dittoheads (a pet name Limbaugh uses for his fans) to vote for Hillary Clinton in open Democratic Primaries in order to prolong the party's nominating process. Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton sent this out last night via email:

According to the latest exit polling data, 17% of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain matchup.

41% of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election.

That comes out to just under 7% of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a "Limbaugh Effect."

I checked it with a calculator and everything. On today's Obama campaign conference call, Senator John Kerry brought it up, too:

If it hadn't been for republicans taking democratic ballots, he likely would have won Indiana. Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary and the GOP has clearly delcared that they want Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

With only a 2 point margin in Indiana, it makes sense for the Obama campaign to point this out, but it begs the question of whether or not they are legitimizing Limbaugh's tactic. I contacted both campaigns for this story, but, as yet, have not received a response.

While John McCain clearly moves to the center. Actually, scratch that. He's always been at the center, there's not much movement necessary. There is a gaping ideological hole on the right side of the political spectrum in 2008. Bob Barr wants to fill that hole. And at this point, given that I can't stand either of the two Democrats or John McCain, I have to say that voting for the Libertarian or the Constitution party is very, very tempting:

Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate - as a Libertarian.

...

A run by Barr could be to John McCain "what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore - ruinous," wrote George Will in Newsweek. Some party experts believe Barr could siphon off essential conservative votes from Sen. John McCain, about whom many rightward voters have been less than enthusiastic.

I don't think that Barr will get the support of Limbaugh, other talk radio or mainstream conservative venues. While these are more or less dismayed by the outcome of the 2008 Republican nomination race, I don't think they are ready to chuck the GOP. Not yet. Maybe after four years of John McCain. Still, in a 50-50 nation. John McCain cannot afford to lose two or three percentage points from his base. And if he doesn't remember this, he should talk to Al Gore.

Perhaps, in the best case scenario, Mr. Barr will keep McCain from straying too far from the conservative roots of the GOP. When McCain asks the conservatives who else they might vote for, they might have an answer.

What do you expect from guys who don't even know where to put the steering wheel?

The UK Telegraph, today, unveiled the final 10 names on its 50 Most Influential Pundits list, and the erstwhile MC landed in the #1 spot.

Dubbed the "architect" and "Bush's brain", Rove plotted to rise of George W Bush and departed the White House after the disastrous 2006 mid-term elections. Successful punditry is a combination of real political experience, intellectual nimbleness, a provocative turn of phrase and a coherent point of view. Rove, a Fox News commentator and contributor to Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal, has all these qualities.

Isn't being called "Bush's Brain" is a bit like being called "Lou Dobb's Sexual Magnetism?"

Rove is unquestionably influential as a strategist, but I don't see that he's really made his bones yet as a pundit.

The balance of the Top 10 leans heavily on size and loyalty of the respective pundits' audience. With the exceptions of perhaps #8 Jon Stewart, #9 David Brooks, and #5 Politico, the Top 10 may be recognizable, but they don't have a big influence on political thought. Matt Drudge at #6 is less a pundit than a pundit birdfeeder.

#4 Rush Limbaugh has a huge and loyal audience, but his influence begins and ends with them. #3 Sean Hannity and #2 Chris Matthews both have brash personae, but don't go much deeper than the surface.

After the jump, the full list and coverage up to date.

Yesterday, on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the self-described Commander-in-Chief, US, Operation Chaos, issued new orders to his army of Dittoheads:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am calling an operational pause in Operation Chaos. We have a week to figure out now what's best to do...My gut reaction here, after hearing Obama, was to issue orders changing directives, i.e., vote Obama in remaining primaries. But I'm holding back.

He went on to explain that he wants to see how the mainstream media covered Barack Obama's reaction to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's fresh gems from the National Press Club meeting.

Still, coming as it does on the heels of the commencement of Operation RonDemption, the plan to give Ron Paul a state primary victory while damaging John McCain's campaign, one has to wonder if the Dittoheads are quaking in the face of the combined might of the Ron Paul Revolution and Idaho Democrats Who Didn't Caucus.

Being a liberal, I'm more comfortable with Head of the Operation RonDemption Steering Committee, and I have some new plans, too. After the jump, a little more on both "Operations," and Limbaugh's assessment of the Democratic race.