Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Brad Jackson joins Ben Domenech for the Friday, November 6th edition of Coffee & Markets, a series of brief morning podcasts on politics and the marketplace, now appearing as well on WashingtonTimes.com.

Today’s podcast takes another break from market and economic coverage to focus on the ramifications of this week’s elections: who are some of the winners and losers who might not be obvious? What are some of the unexpected lessons? TNL’s Brad Jackson offers his take.

Items discussed include:

Michael Barone on Suburban Voters

Economically, the Obama majority was a top-and-bottom coalition. The Democratic ticket carried voters with incomes under $50,000 and over $200,000, and lost those in between. As the shrewd liberal analyst Thomas Edsall has noted, there’s a tension between what these groups want. High earners in non-Southern suburbs have been voting Democratic since the mid-1990s largely because of their liberal views on cultural issues; low earners vote Democratic because they want more government money shoveled their way.

Tuesday’s elections suggest those whose money gets shoveled are having second thoughts about this odd-couple coalition. In Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell carried affluent and immigrant-heavy Fairfax County, which Barack Obama carried by 21%. In New Jersey, Republican Christopher Christie cut Democrat Jon Corzine’s margin in demographically similar Bergen County from 16% in 2005 to 1%. A Republican was elected county executive in Westchester County, New York, and the Republican candidate for state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania carried the four-county suburban Philadelphia area—turf that voted 57% for Barack Obama in 2008.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Francis Cianfrocca joins Ben Domenech for the Thursday, November 5th edition of Coffee & Markets, a series of brief morning podcasts on politics and the marketplace, now appearing as well on WashingtonTimes.com.

Today’s podcast focuses on Sen. Chris Dodd’s proposal for a vast overhaul of the banking regulatory framework, weakening the Federal Reserve, and Rep. Barney Frank’s letter putting pressure on bank regulators to loosen up capital flows.

Items discussed include:

Fallout From Rep. Frank’s Letter

Dodd’s Reform Plan Sparks Disagreement

A key Senate lawmaker is readying legislation that would dramatically redraw how the financial system is regulated, setting the chamber on a collision course with both the House of Representatives and the Obama administration, which have championed markedly different approaches.

The bill, which is being readied by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), would strip almost all bank-supervision powers from the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., according to people familiar with the matter. In their place, the bill would create a new agency in charge of supervising all banks and bank-holding companies, even the country’s largest and most complex institutions.

Mr. Dodd’s proposal also would create a powerful council of regulators, overseen by an independent White House appointee, charged with monitoring risks to the financial system.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Francis Cianfrocca joins Ben Domenech for the Wednesday, November 4th edition of Coffee & Markets, a series of brief morning podcasts on politics and the marketplace, now appearing as well on WashingtonTimes.com.

Today’s podcast focuses on Nouriel Roubini’s controversial arguments on the state of the marketplace, the ramifications of the Federal Reserve’s meetings today in Washington, and the fallout for Democrats after Republicans swept key gubernatorial races by wide margins in Virginia and healthy ones in New Jersey.

Items discussed include:

FT: Mother of all carry trades faces an inevitable bust

Since March there has been a massive rally in all sorts of risky assets – equities, oil, energy and commodity prices – a narrowing of high-yield and high-grade credit spreads, and an even bigger rally in emerging market asset classes (their stocks, bonds and currencies). At the same time, the dollar has weakened sharply , while government bond yields have gently increased but stayed low and stable.

The dollar and the sterling have weakened against a host of other currencies since the summer, promoting speculation that they could become the next carry trade currencies and supplant the yen as the ‘funding currency’ of choice.

This recovery in risky assets is in part driven by better economic fundamentals. We avoided a near depression and financial sector meltdown with a massive monetary, fiscal stimulus and bank bail-outs. Whether the recovery is V-shaped, as consensus believes, or U-shaped and anaemic as I have argued, asset prices should be moving gradually higher.

But while the US and global economy have begun a modest recovery, asset prices have gone through the roof since March in a major and synchronised rally. While asset prices were falling sharply in 2008, when the dollar was rallying, they have recovered sharply since March while the dollar is tanking. Risky asset prices have risen too much, too soon and too fast compared with macroeconomic fundamentals.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Special guest James Urbaniak — the mellifluously voiced star of stage, screen, and hit cult TV show The Venture Bros — joins Ben Domenech for the latest edition of a podcast trilogy, featuring a discussion on Hollywood, Comic Con 2009, and most importantly, what it’s like being Rusty Venture for four seasons.

Check out previous podcasts here:

Urbaniak on Alec Guinness, Charles Laughton, and Hollywood
Urbaniak on Sarah Palin and Politics

Sequels are always better. Listen and learn!

[tweetmeme]

Americans took to the polls today for the first time since the hope and change of the 2008 elections. In three key races — a special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, and races for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia — Republicans look to begin their comeback, while Democrats looked to defend their territory. The White House and national democrats have inserted themselves directly into all three of these races in an effort to try and reenergize the throngs of voters who came out for Barack Obama and company just a year ago — but they did so for flawed candidates, none of whom have the appeal factor of Obama himself. Perhaps anticipating their pleas fell short, Democrat leaders spent most of the past few weeks spinning these off-year races as irrelevant.

In New York, the story has been that of a messy GOP fight between a liberal Republican and a Conservative, the former backed by national Republican figures in Washington, the latter a darling of the conservative grassroots, especially the TEA Party attendees that made such a splash earlier this year with nation-wide rallies against the principals and policies of the current administration in the nation’s capital. With Dede Scozzafava, the liberal Republican, having stepped down just a few days ago in the midst of the home stretch of this year’s race, NY-23 is now a contest between Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens. The seat, held by Republicans for ages, is open after it’s longtime Congressman left to serve the Obama Administration. A win by Hoffman would be a huge boost to the conservative movement in the Republican party and a testament to the philosophy that the party members still matter and that a party is not just it’s leaders in Washington but it’s members in the many counties, cities and townships throughout the country.

New Jersey looks like a dead heat with polling yesterday showing a neck and neck race between Republican Chris Christie and Democrat Jon Corzine. Governor Corzine is not exceedingly popular in his own state and has relied on the President to help boost his party base ahead of today’s election. Republicans have had the lead in statewide races in New Jersey before headed into election day and not come out ahead in the end, which may be due to flaws in polling, or in Republicans underestimating the Democratic machine in a labor-heavy state like New Jersey. More than a few dead people will be voting this evening in New Jersey for Corzine, you can count on it. Will that make enough of an impact at the ballot box to put Corzine over the top? We’ll see.

In Virginia, Democrat Creigh Deeds has tumbled in the final weeks of the campaign for Virginia’s Governor, turning what was a close race into one this evening that should be a solid win for the GOP’s Bob McDonnell. Recent polling had the Republican up by double digits going into todays’ vote, and some are speculating that McDonnell’s party could make a clean sweep of statewide offices in the Commonwealth. Deeds has also sought tried to leverage the Obama effect in recent weeks having the President cut TV and radio ads for him, and even getting some staff help from across the Potomac. Democrats have already begun posturing in this race to try and pin the blame on Deeds’ poor campaigning in an effort to distance Obama and Congressional Democrats from a bad loss.

President Obama’s direct appeal to voters and his close involvement in each of these races shows just how desperate the Democrats are to continue the illusion that their liberal policies of the last year are popular with the American public. A series of wins today by the GOP would show that all the unrest across the country over the current administration policies has finally begun to incur real world results at the ballot box, and depending on the margin, it could effect the outcome of Congressional fights on cap and trade and health care in the coming year. Regardless of the White House’s argument, these elections do matter in determining the course of the President’s agenda, whether he likes it or not.

Stay tuned below throughout the evening for election updates.

8:06 PM EST - MCDONNELL WINS VIRGINIA

Fox News is now calling Virginia Governor for Republican Bob McDonnell. They are also indicating that the GOP has won the Lt. Governor and the Attorney General races as well, giving them a sweep of the top three positions in Virginia state government.

8:21 PM EST - UPDATE ON VIRGINIA

Here’s an update on the other statewide offices in Virginia that are now being called for the GOP. Bill Bolling (R) has beaten Jody Wagner (D) for Lt. Governor. With 51% of precincts reporting, Bolling is up 59% to 41%. For Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli (R) has defeated Stephen Shannon (D). He’s up 60 - 40 with 52% of precincts reporting.

8:50 PM EST - EARLY NEW JERSEY NUMBERS

It’s still too early to call, but early results for New Jersey show Republican Chris Christie up 52 - 42 over Democrat Jon Corzine with Chris Daggett, the Independent, at 6%. If Daggett stays in single digits, it should be good news for Christie.

NY-23 polls close in ten minutes.

9:08 PM EST - NEW JERSEY GETTING CLOSER

The New Jersey race is getting closer. With 28% reporting, Christie is now up 50 - 44 - 6.

9:21 PM EST - NY-23 NUMBERS STARTING TO ROLL IN

Still way too early to call in NY-23 as the polls closed about 20 minutes ago, but numbers are starting to roll in. Conservative Doug Hoffman was just on Fox News and said he was, “cautiously optimistic” so far.

9:28 PM EST - CHRISTIE NUMBERS IMPROVE IN NEW JERSEY

There is now more than 37% of the New Jersey vote in and Christie has increased his lead to 52 - 41 - 6.

9:32 PM EST - SPOKE TOO SOON IN NEW JERSEY

Oh, New Jersey, you sure keep it interesting. Now with 44% of precincts reporting the race is getting closer. Christie is only up 49 - 44 - 6 at this point.

9:57 PM EST - CHRISTIE INCHING HIGHER

Republican Chris Christie is moving up in New Jersey. More than 64% of the vote is in and Christie is up 50 - 44- 5.

10:17 PM EST - HOFFMAN BEHIND IN NY-23

Conservative Doug Hoffman is behind at this point with 27% reporting, Democrat Bill Owens is up 51 - 44 - 5.

10:19 PM EST - CHRISTIE PROJECTED AS WINNER IN NEW JERSEY

Change has come to New Jersey and the GOP is up 2 - 0 so far tonight. Politico, Fox News and other outlets have called Republican Chris Christie as the winner with 80% of the vote in, Christie is up 50 - 44- 6.

10:38 PM EST - HOFFMAN CLOSING GAP IN NY-23

Conservative Doug Hoffman is looking a little better. With 54% reporting, Democrat Bill Owens is up 49 - 46 - 5.

10:47 PM EST - HOFFMAN DOWN BY MORE THAN 3,400 VOTES

Democrat Bill Owens is ahead of Conservative Doug Hoffman by 3,443 votes at this point: 44,759 to 41,313 votes.

10:55 PM EST - REAL CLEAR POLITICS ANALYST THINKS HOFFMAN MAY LOSE

From RCP: “10:45 — Apparently Syracuse area is coming in. I think Hoffman’s probably going to lose. –SEAN TRENDE”

11:09 PM EST - NY-23 STILL TOO CLOSE TO CALL

It looks like it might be a tough haul for Conservative Candidate Doug Hoffman to make up the 3,000+ votes he needs to win, but there are several counties that will not report tonight and that may push him over the edge. Hoffman campaign folks still optimistic.

11:40 PM EST - HOFFMAN CLOSING ON OWENS

Only 2,500 votes now separate Doug Hoffman from Bill Owens in NY-23. Don’t count out Doug yet.

11:52 PM EST - NY-23 SWINGING BACK TOWARDS DEMOCRAT

Democrat Bill Owens is now ahead by more than 4,000 votes with more than 86% of the votes in. Hoffman is going to need a late surge to pull this one out, however, there are still as many as 10,000 absentee ballots left to count, so it’s not over just yet.

11:56 PM EST - FOX NEWS CALLS NY-23 FOR DEMOCRAT BILL OWENS

If this prediction holds, this is the one bright spot for Democrats tonight in what was otherwise an epic disaster for the President and his allies on Capital Hill. Conservative activists will surely call for the heads of the national and New York GOP figures who backed the liberal leaning Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Doug Hoffman come sunrise.

12:18 AM EST - HOFFMAN CONCEDES IN NY-23

It’s officially over in NY-23, Democrat Bill Owens will be the first from his party to represent that district in nearly 100 years. Conservative Doug Hoffman has reportedly called Owens to concede. Look for this to be a target race when the seat comes back up in 2010.

Brad Jackson is Senior Editor of The New Ledger.

[tweetmeme]

Spencer Ackerman appears to suffer from an affliction common to young American liberal writers like Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein — collectively referred to by my friend Noah Pollak as, in a term of endearment, the Juicebox Mafia — namely the belief that memorizing a series of establishment shibboleths somehow constitutes a deep and insightful knowledge of the world. In a recent missive, Mr. Ackerman expresses his despair over the fact that the Obama administration appears to have somewhat belatedly realized that alienating the entire population of Israel is probably counterproductive. Referring to Hilary Clinton’s remarks at her November 1st press conference in Jerusalem, he writes, “I can’t figure out if that’s an actual climb-down from the settlement freeze, but it certainly sounds like Clinton (and, through her, Obama) doesn’t have the heart to keep to the precondition.”

Unsurprisingly, this is manifestly not what Clinton actually said. She simply pointed out, quite accurately, that the issue of the settlements has never been a precondition for negotiations. As she rather clearly put it, “There has never been a precondition. It’s always been an issue within the negotiations.” Still, it really isn’t all that difficult to figure out that this is something of a climbdown, and one which should not have been unexpected to anyone who knows what they’re talking about when it comes to the Middle East. Obama’s attempt to overturn precedent and turn the settlements into a precondition has been a clear failure for awhile now, and he seems to have finally processed the fact that his attempt at leaping over the difficult preliminaries of any peace process by sheer force of his magnificent personality has only made the Palestinians more intransigent and the Israelis more mistrustful of any concessions whatsoever.

In keeping with the hysterical tendencies of his generation of liberal establishmentarians, however, Ackerman uses this rather innocuous statement of the obvious from the secretary of state as his cue to leap straight off the cliff. “Does the Obama administration get how precarious a moment this is for the Palestinian leadership?” he demands to know.

Some very smart and very moderate Palestinians — people who want peace, two states and nonviolence — recently explained to me that they get their legs cut out under them if they negotiate while Israel expands the settlements. Abbas said he wouldn’t do it. Now he’s expected to, thanks to Obama, from a position of greater popular weakness? What’s the U.S. giving to Abbas? Netanyahu knows what he’s doing. He’s pressuring an Obama administration that, as Gideon Levy writes in Ha’aretz, coddles Israeli intransigence in the naive hope of getting to negotiations, to create the conditions where negotiations are a non-starter; to say nothing of the nightmare that will befall the Palestinian people caught in between the occupation and the looming fanatical horror of Hamas government in the West Bank.

One doesn’t know where to begin with this kind of thing, which is not so much commentary as gurgling. Nonetheless, it is not too strenuous to point out that the Palestinians had an ostensibly smart and moderate leadership for years during the Oslo Process, which was presented with a compromise that would not only stop expanding settlements but remove them completely. This smart and moderate leadership’s response to this was a terrorist war. To the extent their legs have been cut out from under them, it is they who performed the amputation. Abbas, for his part, has been in a position of “popular weakness” for years, and is only getting weaker as theocratic Islamic continues to replace secular nationalism as the primary vehicle for Palestinian politics and political violence. It should also be noted that this theocratic Islam, in the form of Hamas, was freely chosen by and remains popular among the Palestinians, and many of them do not regard it as a “looming fanatical horror” or a “nightmare” but as an accurate representative of their political sentiments; which, I fear, it quite often is.

Nor is it at all clear how Netanyahu is “pressuring” the United States and, indeed, Ackerman never bothers to explain this point, I imagine because it is so transparently ludicrous. America may be in somewhat dire economic straits, but it remains the most powerful country in the world and is pressured by no one. If anything is pressuring Obama, it is the fallout from his own incompetence, which is probably why his young acolytes are rushing to blame it all on Netanyahu and his extraordinary powers of manipulation. “Netanyahu,” we are assured, “knows what he’s doing,” which means nothing but says a great deal about the conspiratorial mindset embraced by ostensibly mainstream (and ostensibly sensible) liberal commentators.

Every conspiracy theory, French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut once remarked, ends with the Elders of Zion; and indeed, the main purpose of Ackerman’s missive appears to be whipping his liberal readers into a state of seething frustration and hatred toward Israel, while giving due deference to popular leftwing fantasies about Israeli omnipotence. This is probably why he approvingly links to Gideon Levy, something that points both to Ackerman’s own sentiments toward Israel and his total ignorance of this country’s media and culture. Levy, a longtime columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, occupies a place in Israeli culture not dissimilar to that of Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal in American culture. His main purpose in life is spewing out vaguely coherent pseudo-moralistic rants that rely on the power of defamatory rhetoric and emotional blackmail to make up for their intellectual emptiness. In one recent missive, for example, he spat out several paragraphs accusing secular Israelis of racism because of their attitude toward religious Jews; blissfully unaware, apparently, of the fact that “racism” self-evidently refers to race and not religion.

It must be said, however, that Levy’s article does give us a good insight into the worldview of the young establishmentarians. It appears to involve a bitter and violent contempt for Israel which is part fantasy and part desperation. “Before no other country on the planet,” Levy writes, “does the United States kneel and plead like this.”

Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.

What Levy, and most liberals along with him, ignores is that Israel has already said no to the occupation. It was the Palestinians who said yes to it by saying no to an end to the conflict. And in saying no, they also said yes to war, yes to terrorism, yes to hatred; yes, in fact, to everything that liberals ostensibly deplore. It is this fact, that the endgame of the Oslo Process with all its messianic hopes was an absolute and incontrovertible no from the Palestinians is likely what drives Levy, Ackerman, and others like them to fantasies of Israeli malfeasance that violate even the most commonsense observations of the way the world actually works. The idea, which even they embrace (usually disapprovingly) when not dealing with Israel, that the United States is a massively powerful country that can do more or less whatever it wants to; or the fact that every development in Palestinian politics over the last decade has indicated a preference for war and not a readiness for peace; disappears behind the belief – as unshakable as a catechism – that the no never happened, because to acknowledge that it did happen would involve some terrifying soul-searching, and no religion (political or otherwise) likes to contemplate such a thing.

So, in the end, we are left with shibboleths: The Palestinians want peace and a state of their own, the Israelis are intransigent and unreasonable, the settlements are the primary cause of the failure of negotiations, and Israel has the power to coerce the United States into doing its will. That these beliefs run the gamut from dubious to deranged demands that the establishment that clings to them ensure their constant invocation, in hopes that repetition may ultimately triumph over reality. American liberalism has proven remarkably adept at manufacturing an echo chamber for itself, particularly on these subjects. That this also involves the promotion of petulant mediocrities is a price we must all unhappily pay.

Benjamin Kerstein is a Senior Writer for The New Ledger.

[tweetmeme]

This weekend’s report that the United States and South Korea have drawn up plans for the collapse of the North Korean regime is misleading in one sense — OPLAN 5029 has existed for years; what has changed is the reality of American military commitments elsewhere, the deepening misery of North Korea, the profound difficulty of any occupation, and the belated realization of the South Koreans that planning cannot be delayed any longer. The realization takes on new urgency with the obvious decline of Kim Jong Il’s health, but its impetus is the end of ten years of leftist rule in the South, and with it, the end of a head-in-the-sand approach to the Kim Dynasty’s failings, crimes, and fundamental instability.

(The week’s juiciest rumor has it, incidentally, that it was actually Kim Jong Il’s double who greeted Bill Clinton in Pyongyang in August.)

OPLAN 5029 first was written during the Cold War, before North Korea descended into economic and social collapse. By the late 1990’s, the Soviet bloc had collapsed and ceased to sustain North Korea with aid, resulting in economic collapse, a famine that may have killed 2.5 North Koreans (or 10 percent of the total population), and the destruction of much of the economic and social fabric of North Korea outside privileged Pyongyang.

Our contingency plans were obviously due for an update even before the beginning of major U.S. military commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet in 2005, leftist former President Roh Moo Hyun, who leapt to his death earlier this year, ended South Korea’s participation in 5029 planning out of fear that he’d give offense to the very people who reduced North Korea to a sooty, barren, diseased prison. Thankfully, South Korea’s current President, Lee Myung Bak, ordered his general staff to update 5029 shortly after he took office in 2008. Even so, it seems doubtful that America and South Korea have the combined will and manpower to stabilize and rebuild North Korea alone. Much of North Korea’s population outside of Pyongyang is chronically malnourished, psychologically traumatized, diseased, or stoned on crystal meth. Many of its women, denied other means of survival, have turned to prostitution. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children languish in a network of concentration camps.

If I haven’t discouraged you enough about what the 2nd Infantry Division would find on the other side of the DMZ, then perhaps Robert Kaplan’s analysis of what we face can. I also recommend Captain Jonathon Stafford’s article in the February 2008 edition of Military Review (here, link opens in pdf).

Who can restore civilization to such a place? The occupation and reconstruction of two failed states at a time may be all America can undertake. Yet in the increasingly unlikely event of a North Korean invasion, South Korea expects half a million U.S. troops to arrive. If that sounds unrealistic, it is. South Korea, unencumbered by any militarily significant contributions in Iraq or Afghanistan, would also face great difficulty pacifying the North if segments of the North Korean population or military opposed them. According to this 2006 RAND Corporation study, South Korea would need to commit as many as 440,000 troops to North Korea to stabilize it in the event of a civil war or insurgency, out of a total strength at that time of 685,000 (and at that time, Roh’s government had just announced plans to cut military spending and strength).

China, which has spend the last two decades sustaining Kim Jong Il’s misrule, probably views the prospect of an occupation of North Korea with a mixture of greed and dismay. The Chinese like North Korea’s minerals and its seaports, but aside from Sheyang’s brothel patrons, they have little use for its people. When it fears that refugees may surge across the border, China periodically increases troop strength in the area.

Yet persistent reports have it that in the event the North Korean regime collapses, the Red hordes will move in and establish the Outer Chosen Autonomous Zone or somesuch. China’s newly revisionist view of ancient Korean history has stirred fears in South Korea that China is preparing to claim that North Korea is, like Tibet and Xinjiang, historically a part of China. China promises to ”cooperate” with the West in the event of an “emergency” in the North, but admits that it might move into North Korea to “restore order,” or for strictly humanitarian reasons, of course (they’re such humanitarians, the rulers of today’s China). A Financial Times editorial calling for contingency planning notably includes China in the states to be involved joint contingency planning, but this wrongly assumes that China means us well and shares our interests in the region. It won’t participate in a spirit of cooperation or collegiality, and it will probably do its utmost to frustrate the goal of a unified and democratic Korea. But China doesn’t want war any more than we do, which should be an incentive for our diplomats to reach some quiet understandings about minimizing foreign intervention. After all, determined U.S. and South Korean opposition could fan much North Korean discontent against a Chinese occupation. The converse is also true.

An uncoordinated invasion of the North from multiple directions presents grave risks for all involved. There is the obvious potential for conflict among U.S., South Korean, and Chinese forces, perhaps aided by opposing factions of the North Korean military. For the Koreans, such an occupation could shatter their only plausible hope for reunification and split their country into a new set of occupation zones. North Koreans have been indoctrinated with nationalist and xenophobic propaganda, particularly against Americans and Japanese, but any foreign occupation creates a grave risk of a popular backlash and raises the risk of instability and conflict.

Where this leaves me is hoping that we are not overlooking the most important part of contingency planning: the North Korean people, whose discontent with the current regime boils despite the state’s efforts to stifle it. There are now 17,000 North Korean defectors living in South Korea. Among these, several thousand could be trained to as judges, administrators, policemen, military officers, and technocrats to assume key positions in a post-Kim Jong Il North Korea, and to lead those North Koreans who will be prepared to accept and assist a new Korean government. Much is left undone in broadcasting and otherwise disseminating information to North Koreans about the benefits of a democratic and capitalist system, and about the corruption of the one they endure now. Given the marginal force levels available to stabilize North Korea, it is difficult to believe that any nation could successfully pacify North Korea without a strong and immediate effort to “deprogram” and win the support of as many North Koreans as possible. That is just as well for another reason: the end of the current North Korean regime is the only plausible solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis, and to the humanitarian disaster Kim Jong Il has inflicted on the North Korean people. The solution to all of the problems we face in North Korea begins with a subversive outreach to its people.

Joshua Stanton is an attorney in Washington, D.C.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Brad Jackson joins Ben Domenech for the Monday, November 2nd edition of Coffee & Markets, a series of brief morning podcasts on politics and the marketplace, now appearing as well on WashingtonTimes.com.

Today’s podcast is a break from our normal discussion of the marketplace, with a conversation focusing on the lessons and potential outcomes of the off-year elections, including the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and the special election in New York’s 23rd District with TNL Senior Writer Brad Jackson.

Items discussed include:

Scozzafava Endorses Owens

Hoffman Leads Big

Scozzafava’s Campaign Manager Backs Hoffman

McDonnell Running Away With VA

Christie Leads by Six Points

Is Tim Kaine the Democrat Jim Gilmore?

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Francis Cianfrocca joins Ben Domenech for the Friday, October 30th edition of Coffee & Markets, a series of brief morning podcasts on politics and the marketplace, now appearing as well on WashingtonTimes.com.

Today’s podcast focuses on the fallout in the wake of yesterday’s GDP number, the reports this morning of the fall in Consumer Spending, and what the holiday shopping season could bring — both for good and for ill — to the American economy.

Items discussed include:

Consumer Spending Falls 0.5 Percent

McArdle: GDP Growing - Are We Out of the Woods?

Stocks Retreat From Thursday Rally

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Francis Cianfrocca joins Ben Domenech for the Thursday, October 29th edition of Coffee & Markets, a series of brief morning podcasts on politics and the marketplace, now appearing as well on WashingtonTimes.com.

Today’s podcast focuses on the latest Bloomberg report on the AIG backstory and Tim Geithner’s role in determining the size of the taxpayer bailout while President of the New York Fed, and a discussion on the latest GDP numbers — what they mean and what they don’t.

Items discussed include:

Bloomberg Report on AIG:

By Sept. 16, 2008, AIG, once the world’s largest insurer, was running out of cash, and the U.S. government stepped in with a rescue plan. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the regional Fed office with special responsibility for Wall Street, opened an $85 billion credit line for New York-based AIG. That bought it 77.9 percent of AIG and effective control of the insurer.

The government’s commitment to AIG through credit facilities and investments would eventually add up to $182.3 billion. Beginning late in the week of Nov. 3, the New York Fed, led by President Timothy Geithner, took over negotiations with the banks from AIG, together with the Treasury Department and Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s Federal Reserve. Geithner’s team circulated a draft term sheet outlining how the New York Fed wanted to deal with the swaps — insurance-like contracts that backed soured collateralized-debt obligations…

Part of a sentence in the document was crossed out. It contained a blank space that was intended to show the amount of the haircut the banks would take, according to people who saw the term sheet. After less than a week of private negotiations with the banks, the New York Fed instructed AIG to pay them par, or 100 cents on the dollar. The content of its deliberations has never been made public.