Normally I would Edit To Add, as this is too related to last point, BUT THIS IS HUGE!

McCain actually said

we need more regulation.

He actually went against the GOP Official Talking Points.

Shit on a biscuit.

Either he is pandering and lying, or he has gone off the reservation.

Hey . . . 21 million dollar Golden Parachute Carly Fiorina is coming up next on Hardball. David Gregory is doing the honors. I hope he hits her with what John and Crazy Sara said today about basically declaring war on her and all the other of her ilk.

EDIT TO ADD and DELETE:

Because of the current crisis I decided to brush up on my knowledge base about Investment Banks, particularly (I had an inkling I might have mispoke), and I decided to take down the crack against Carly as the problem is not so much her misidentifying the SEC as primary regulatory authority (they of course regulate the selling of securities and licensing of brokers), but the fact that large areas of their operations are not exactly really being regulated BY ANYONE. As a matter of fact, just this summer the current head of the SEC asked for MORE AUTHORITY to regulate investment banks. And there seems to be a sort of a wishful power struggle between the Federal Reserve and the SEC to get the actual authority to regulate what was and is still now, the unregulated aspects of Investment Banking.

So I was right in calling out Carly as a liar, but I was wrong as for the part that I said was the lie.

For my part I mis-spoke. Yes, the OCC regulates the commercial banks, but does not have much jurisdiction over the pure investment banks, even if they do have jurisdiction over the mixed commercial/investment banks (those are the kinds of banks I have been dealing with on an antitrust lawsuit, for a large part of the last three years. Ironically, if things keep going as they are there the pure investment bank might be a thing of the past. Even Goldman took a bath this last quarter. Shit!)

In any event, as cousin Malcolm said, the chickens are coming home to the roost.

Here is a good article explaining how deep the problem is (and who likely caused it):

http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/690

And how's this for a damning quote:

"Whether the Bush administration really believed the economic lunacy of the Laffer Curve or Grover Norquist’s tax-cutting solution to all problems is a question for historians. What is important is the impact such policies had on the economy. They were summed up for me the day after the 2004 elections by a very drunk and prominent Republican lobbyist who staggered over to my table and proclaimed, “I’m going to get rich. My clients are going to get richer, and then we’ll have a one-term Democratic president because she’ll have to clean up the (mess) we leave behind.”

I have to wonder whether that particular Republican is on McCain's staff? (I had to say it. I really had to!)

Oh and by the way. I want someone to ask Crazy Sarah how much she knows about the theories of deadweight loss, and the Laffer Curve, in an interview sometime soon.

Now watching her fumble for a response should be quite entertaining.

Honestly, let me study up on Laffer. I mostly remember that it is (according to some) one of the lynchpins of voodoo econ theory. Oh ya. Here is my dig at Republican thinking. It is disturbingly humorous that some of the same people who disbelieve in the Scientific (as in supported by evidence, scientific) Theory of Evolution, can believe in that shit. Last time I did my reading on Laffer, I think the best evidence out there in favor of that nonsense was some small support of the theory playing out in the narrow band of taxes called "corporate taxes." But hardly anyone actually pays that anymore, so the theory is as valid as a belief that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back dinosaur.