Today’s edition of quick hits.
* I’m worried: “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress that the nation is in for a period of sluggish business growth and sent a fresh signal Wednesday that interest rates will again be lowered to steady the teetering economy… Since Bernanke’s last such comprehensive assessment last summer, the housing slump has worsened, credit problems have intensified and the job market has deteriorated. Bernanke said that the confluence of these factors has turned people and businesses alike toward a more cautious attitude toward spending and investment. This, he said, has further weakened the economy.”
* This should be interesting: “The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed inclined to reduce the $2.5 billion award of punitive damages to victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Several justices indicated they think the amount approved by a federal appeals court is too high, although there was no apparent consensus about how much Exxon Mobil Corp. should have to pay for the 1989 accident in which its 987-foot tanker ran aground on a reef and dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska waters.”
* This hasn’t generated much attention, but it’s shaping up to be an interesting legislative fight: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled Wednesday that Democrats will not back down on their commitment to a controversial bankruptcy provision of their ‘housing stimulus’ package, even if it means the defeat of the measure…. ‘I have no expectation of reaching any kind of agreement with the White House,’ Reid said at a press conference, when asked about efforts to win support from President Bush. ‘So we’re going to do what we think is best for the country. If we get 67 votes, that’s great.'”
* A little more background on this: “On the Hill, the controversy on this housing bill as focused entirely on the section that would change the bankruptcy code to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. But the administration finds a lot more wrong with the legislation. The White House ‘strongly opposes’ giving $4 million to state and local governments to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; it just ‘opposes’ increasing funding for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.”
* Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that waterboarding is not humane and not consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
* Hmm: “A new Zogby poll finds that 67 percent of Americans ‘believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.’ Forty-eight percent say that their primary source of news and information comes from the Internet, an increase of eight points from a year ago. The public also views citizen journalism (77 percent) and blogging (59 percent) as important for the future of journalism.”
* Sam Zell, the billionaire who owns, among other things, newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, blames the national economic slowdown, at least in part, on Obama and Clinton: “We have two Democratic candidates who are vying with each other to describe the economic situation worse.” Zell described the problem as a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
* Should be interesting: “Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has agreed to testify to Congress about a multimillion-dollar no-bid contract steered to his consulting firm by the Justice Department under an out-of-court settlement between federal prosecutors and a medical-supply company, Congressional officials said Tuesday.”
* The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which claims to be bipartisan, launched a bizarre ad campaign blasting House Democrats for not passing the Senate surveillance bill. In response, Donna Brazile, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) all resigned from the group’s board of advisors.
* Lanny Davis, who frequently appears on the cable shows as an unofficial Clinton campaign surrogate, told MSNBC this morning that “it’s very hard to criticize Senator Obama without being accused of playing the race card.” I have no idea what Davis is talking about, and he offered no specific examples.
* And finally, many probably remember that David Broder, just one year ago, predicted a “political comeback” for Bush. Today, in an online discussion, Broder he was asked about how wrong he was. “That was certainly one of my less astute observations,” Broder said. “He has been less flexible in the past year than I expected after the 2006 election, and I think he continues to pay a price for his rigidity.”
Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.