In GOP heaven, St. Ronnie is lonely

Most GOP presidents in this century have helped advance American prosperity and security in enduring ways. Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts. Eisenhower kept the peace while keeping the military-industrial complex under control and building our modern transportation infrastructure.  Nixon opened China to the US, helping to sap Soviet strength and provide an engine for global growth that's still chugging. Reagan helped feather down the Soviet Union peacefully, as did Bush Sr., while turning back Saddam's aggression and helping to lay the foundation for the balanced budgets of the 1990s.

Lots of twitterers, including James Fallows and Ezra Klein, have noted that while Bill Clinton mentioned George W. Bush three times in his speech last night, mostly positively, none of the GOP speakers in Tampa mentioned him by name. That's not surprising. Bush was a disastrous president on all fronts -- busting the budget, getting tens of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians killed and maimed in two botched wars, permanently compromising U.S. civil liberties, massively eroding the nation's soft power. Not even Republicans can defend that record of faillure.

Brave, brave Sir David Cay

Most commentary on the proposed bailout falls into one of a few broad categories: flawed but the only responsible alternative; fat-cat bailout or "socialist" market maket makeover; drop in the bucket.

David Cay Johnston, in a short post at TNR, offers perhaps the smartest response I've read: practical, prudent, brave, sceptical -- and most of all, genuinely creative in that it asks some foundational questions that seem to have occurred to very few observers:

1. Are there cheaper alternatives?

2. Are there temporary measures that might keep the credit markets liquid while alternatives are examined?

3. What risks does borrowing $700 billion pose to our future, especially if the bailout is not enough to lubricate the credit markets?

4. What is the backup plan?

It's the "cheaper alternatives" and "temporary measures" that really seem to let in some conceptual daylight. It's not that any single one hasn't been proposed elsewhere. It's the frame -- what package of measures might produce an effective impact with less risk and less long-term power formally allocated to the Federal government?