U.S. Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell have filed a bill that would essentially re-instate Glass-Steagall. While the Department of Treasury has officially been nicknamed Government Sachs by Mother Jones and the White House’s attempts at moving beyond partisanship have failed miserably and undermined most of the bills it’s passed, we have a bi-partisan proposal to deal with one huge mess.The McCain-Cantwell proposal would undo Gramm-Leach-Biley -- which undid Glass-Steagall, which was put into place back in the 1930s to stop financial institutions from doing the kind of crap that got the whole damn world into such trouble. The bill would
prevent deposit-taking banks from underwriting securities, engaging in proprietary trading, selling insurance or owning retail brokerages.More than that: The proposed new regs would deep-six Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. How will that play out?
As you know, we've heard a very different regulatory suggestion from Barack Obama, the public spokesperson for the Lloyd Blankfein administration. (Blankfein is the CEO of Goldman Sachs, the firm currently running our government.) The administration has modestly proposed that the taxpayers should henceforward back all of the wild shenanigans of the too-big-to-fail financial firms -- a move which would, in essence, institutionalize the TARP bailouts.
Incidentally, Blankfein -- who says that he is doing God's work (I'm not making this up) -- has won the Financial Times "Person of the Year" award because GS "not only navigated the 2008 global financial crisis better than others on Wall Street...but is set to make record profits, and pay up to $23BN in bonuses to its 31,700 staff."
Is there a Charles Manson Award for "best murderer of the year"? Perhaps that prize and the one from FT can be given out during the same ceremony.
Back to McCain:
Even though he has staked out a position to Obama's left (how do you like them apples, proggies?), McCain is under attack from the likes of Maureen Dowd. She calls him a knee-jerk "obstructionist" and a partisan hack. In essence, she accuses him of being a teabagger, or something parlously close to one.
Meanwhile, a real teabagger -- an evangelical right-wing radio reactionary named J.D. Hayworth -- will vie for McCain's seat. Most observers think Hayworth has no chance. I'm not so sure.
This turn of events illustrates why I disdain the baggers: They claim to be populist, but in practice, they have targeted for removal one of the few senators who wants to re-impose the necessary Wall Street regs. Most right-wing populists hold to the insane delusion that regulation caused the problems, which is a bit like saying that insufficient gasoline causes fires.
Sorry. I know that my attitude toward teabaggers (and even my use of that term) alienates some readers. But although I remain a staunch Obama opponent, I refuse to break bread with his foes on the fringe right. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Show me a Keynesian teabagger and I'll show you a leprechaun.
28 comments:
They should be called teabaggers and they should be alienated. I refuse to defile the word "patriot" by applying it to such entities. A patriot actually cares about his or her fellow Americans.
I did vote for McCain because, when all was said and done, that was the only weapon I had against the corruption of the DNC. My only regret is that I had but one shot to fire. I hope McCain doesn't lose his seat to some far-right nutcase. However, I'm not so sure myself as the Republican Party seems to be in the midst of a purge and there is no room for anyone moderate.
Let's be honest: both parties are busy purging.
I keep waiting for the day that Maureen Dowd gets her comeuppance. Sadly she always seems to to be just as repulsive and nutty as ever. She is as awful as Phyllis Schlafly and twice as ugly.
I think the day I started to suspect that she was nuts was when she wrote a piece about how Howard Dean stood her up for an interview and then went into a ramble about his stale old socks. I can actually recall feeling odd and thinking-something is not right with this woman's mind...
Seth, how about "balls-on (nose) Patriot," would that be a suitable replacement for teabaggers?
I AM A HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTER and I approved this message of support for John McCain.
The Tea Partiers are mostly alienated white guys, with a significant number of white gals, and almost nobody else. In this, they resemble virtually all nutty political enterprises in America. Republicanism, libertarianism, the Tenthers, the 9/11 Truthers--these are essentially white-male phenomena.
The Tea Partiers see themselves as nonpartisan, but I see them as confused right-wingers. They have a pathological attitude toward government and authority figures in general.
They call themselves patriots, but they seem more like what used to be called cop-haters.
The Tea Party folks believe a harmonious society can come about only when we all join together in mutual hatred of government. They would flunk a simple quiz on the subject.
McCain is just being McCain. He has always been a bit of a maverick and sometime moderate. He has been a thorn in the side of Republicans for years especially on issues like campaign finance reform and immigration. He was never ideologically pure enough for the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. Which is why five million fewer Republicans voted in 2008 for President? They gave this election to Obama.
I support McCain and Cantwell in their effort to re-install Glass-Steagall.
As for the teabaggers, there is strong opposition in the country to Obama and to the direction he is taking the country. However, sadly that movement has been co-opted by the extreme far and ultra-right wing of the Republican Party for purposes I do not support. However, if there was a viable and moderate third party alternative in the country right I would join in a nano-second.
Sadly, these days both parties have been taken over by their extreme factions. Both parties are purging moderates and centrists. That is why this is such a dangerous period for the republic.
Why do the Republicans hate McCain so much? I know lots of people hate him personally - and I suspect that he isnt a nice guy. But the Republicans really hate him. In fact they apply far more resources to damaging him than they apply to damaging Obama.
What does that make you think?
Harry
I voted for John McCain. This is the first time in 35 years of voting I have voted for a Republican and I resent my party being so taken over by "pragmatists" that I was forced to leave. I don't agree with most of what McCain stands for, but I do trust him to try to do what he believes is right for the country. Remember, when John Kerry was running for President many Democrats urged him to choose McCain as a running mate. Four years later the same Democrats were calling him a crazy old man. We could have done worse for this country than a war hero who knows the horror of torture.
McCain may be just trying to be obstructionist, but so what? He is on the right side of this argument. I worry because Gramm was his economic advisor, and don't know how this flies with his previous economic positions. I don't care, as long as he sticks with it.
It's not ike Obama never changed his position on any issue. I can't even keep count.
apishapa
It is impossible to trust any of these "snakefaces" so McCain does not interest me in the slightest with this latest gesture.
How many of those senators like Sanders and Franken did we praise for standing up to the healthcare fiasco who promptly did an about face and voted "yes" anyway immediately following their claims that this was a fiasco from start to finish.
McCain is just grabbing the spotlight and personally I feel nothing but contempt for most of those fools in DC who flip flop all over the place and put this nation at risk with their grandstanding for the cameras and the folks back home.
Baucus leads this group for the most embarassing performance but they all can take credit for being the most untrustworthy group of representatives ever to gather in one place in their sellout to their corporate masters. The whole lot of them, along with many who seek to replace them, are nothing but shills.
A pox on all their houses.
Really, Anon6:15? A Pox? I sure you're talking about great Pox, and not that 'ol Variola (that we handed out in blankets way back when)... But even then; 'a' pox? why just one? Why just one purulent skin eruption and not many on their houses?
Yes they all suck ass. But you're still reading about it, so what are you going to do about it (aside from calling on the spread of syphilis around their homes)??
I did vote for McCain/Palin after registering Dem just to vote for Hillary in the primary. I'd vote for either of them again vs. Obama.
Emailed both Senators and my Representative here in PA. I asked them if they supported MaCain/Cantwell or were bought and paid for shills of Wall Street.
Calling half the population that you don't agree with your enemy or belittling their belief set isn't constructive. Frankly, I suspect both parties are cheering that they can continue the "great divide" longer and continue to loot our government because your afraid you might get cooties from the "teabaggers"
I voted for McCain. The first time in my life I've ever had the chance to vote for a real American patriot who is probably the most honest person in politics today. I had the chance and I grabbed it. He was way to the left of Obama on pretty much everything. Anyone with any semblance of sense knew this. Had to know this. Now that isn't exactly the same thing as actually being a lefty is it?
Look, if a politician lies on the campaign trail then you cannot trust him to fulfill his promises. We will have 3 more years of a guy who lies with impunity. No matter what label a politician wears if they lie and obfuscate as much as Obama then he cannot be relied upon, ever.
As for the teabaggers I have nothing in common with them. Nothing. They don't represent honesty, integrity or any of the values that I find appealing. This whole thing seemed to come about just because some people with fairly low income were about to get health care coverage supplemented by the government. Being a liberal, I find insurance repugnant and completely inadequate, but I would never begrudge someone actually getting something that would make their lives better.
Teabaggers seem to want the less fortunate to wallow in misery and to always be without. It is as if their whole world view is challenged because the working poor, the indigent and the inferior are going to be on a more even footing. For some reason, these people are only concerned with themselves and to heck with the rest of us. They bought into the cannard that someone is poor or disadvantaged because they are immoral or lazy. Maybe they should go and meet some of these poor and lazy people. It would be an eye opener for them that is for sure.
The people that participate in the teaparty protests are not necessarily aware of the people who have claimed leadership of their movement(Beck, Limbaugh come to mind). Most people out there with signs are standing up to taxation without representation. They are not happy with Goldman Sachs running our government and their only organized outlet for protest has been these co-opted rallys. The Democrat and Republican parties no longer represent any of us outside DC. They only protect their status, pocketbooks and seats. We are invisible. I'm not going to knock those protestors. They need education of what is being done in their name and leadership that goes after the crooks in our government.
As a once life-long republician, I am looking around for a place of refuge from both the Dems and the Repubs. The only difference I now see between them is the labels on their poisons.
I sat out the last election, since neither McCain nor Obama was - to me - worth a tinker's damn: Both liars, both bought-out scum.
All the other fringe parties are not much more than a collection of single issue malcontents, so it's looking like I'll be sitting it out for a long time to come.
The tea baggers? They are generally law-abiding people who just want to be left alone to live out their lives. Leave them alone - leave their kids alone. That they actually gathered together in those massive groups - even once - is amazing.
One thing about them... If they aren't left alone, they will - one fine day - go to their closets, pull out their hunting rifles, and with a terrifying calmness, blow your head off.
I believe the federal government knows this and is teriffied beyond reason, because they do not have a clue as to what the trigger will be.
So I reccommend that you not be one who stands out as a person who spit in their faces or butt-fucked their kids. They are slow to act, but when they decide to step outside the law, there will be no barriers left at all.
Personally, I hope to not live to see that day.
It seems to me (reading the comments) that everyone has valid points. However, as is the problem with any democracy/republic each valid point can be knocked out by another's just as valid point. It also seems to me that the problems America faces politically/ financially/ socially are much more complex than which political party or candidate would have been better or on which side of the imaginary political divide one must stand. I am not even sure we can have any kind of constructive dialogue using lables that have been corrupted beyond recognition. Who are Democrats or Republicans? Are Libretarians Social Conservatives or Fiscal Conservatives or both? Teabaggers seem to be both Socially and Fiscally Conservative, so why don't they just call themselves Libretarian? Are Liberals all Socialist? And are all Liberals Democrats? The only one I know of that brands himself Socialist is Senator Sanders but he also calls himself Independent. If John McCain and Blanch Lincoln are both Centerists, do they always vote the same on every bill or do they side with their respective parties? Some Right Wing Republicans and some Liberal Democrats held thier noses and voted for McCain because they both disliked Obama more, but can you honestly imagine these two groups agreeing on anything else?
Bob has a point but I will definitely endorse Alessandro's position. I voted against O'Precious and I will continue to oppose him.
That is an amazingly icky post, Bob, and I'll bet you BUCKS you're all for dictating what your sister-citizen can and can't do with her uterus, for all your rot about leaving others alone.
Joseph, you are so droll. Don't you know? According to the wagging tongues, we all supported Palin. Who is this McCain you speak of? Some also-ran?
I would guess that Pat Buchanan supports McCain on Glass Steagall.
In response to Alessandro's post.
That whole clip was a right wing smear on George Soros, not a left wing "let us take our party back" video. Consider this article
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122010.html
or more specifically "...So why is Fox picking on Soros? I don't know for sure, but we do know that Sean Hannity, Tony Blankley and Bill O'Reilly have proven part of a nasty disinformation campaign to slander Soros with anti-Semitic codewords and images and attack his religious beliefs on Fox and elsewhere. Hence the loaded term, "left-wing billionaire currency speculator," which would have fit perfectly into any Nazi propaganda pamphlet about Jews. (Blankley has actually criticized Soros for being both Jewish and surviving the holocaust, and has passed along poisonous, unsubstantiated accusations that Soros' family cooperated with Hungary's Nazi occupiers.)"
This video says why I couldn't vote for Mccain, and what little obi has done about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwbJuw7dY1k
No way could I vote republican. No way I can vote democrat. What's a human to do?
purenoiz
The fact that the Republicans hate/hated McCain was a plus in my book. I'm a Dem and I did vote for John McCain. I didn't even hold my nose. Did I agree with him in all things? No. But I agreed enough, and despite being called all manner of foul things by the Obamatrons, John McCain was the only reasonable choice in the 2008 GE.
My first choice? Hillary Clinton. But the "New" Dems squashed that possibility to their everlasting shame.
Thumbs up to McCain for his support of Glass-Steagall. If Obama was anything but a corporate hack that would have been a first step in righting the boat.
But once a fraud, always a fraud. In fact, it warms my heart to see the Obamatrons scurrying for excuses and explanations now. It would be funny except the country itself is in such ragged shape.
Btw, who in the hell takes Maureen D. seriously, she of the literary allusions and fictional conversations? I'd take my dog's political opinion over hers or the NYTimes.
Jeez....
Too many Bobs.
Since the 22nd is my birth date, I'll call myself Bob22 from now on.
Bob22
Yes, you liberals... I was born, not hatched.
Zee said:
"That is an amazingly icky post, Bob, and I'll bet you BUCKS you're all for dictating what your sister-citizen can and can't do with her uterus, for all your rot about leaving others alone."
LOL... I don't give a tinker's damn over what you call a "sister-citizen" does with her uterus.
If one of our liberated and free "sister-citizen" American females wants to spend a lifetime medicating the case of Herpes she got in college while expressing her unfettered freedom of choice?
Hey, fine by me.
The world contains about three billion uteruses right now, far too many for any one man - even me - to be concerned about.
So, how many BUCKS you want to put up?
And... It may be an "icky" post to you, but there is more truth behind it than you - living the sheltered life you do - will ever care to admit.
Bob22
"I believe the federal government knows this and is teriffied beyond reason, because they do not have a clue as to what the trigger will be." Bob22
"The people that participate in the teaparty protests are not necessarily aware of the people who have claimed leadership of their movement....." glennmcgahee
I wonder if the Republican Party and the real organizers of the teaparties (not just the faces on TV) are aware of the fact that unleashing the anger of the public may have un-intended consequences!
I think a lot of us on the Left are considerably more interested in caricaturing the conservatives who objected to the bailout than in finding out what their real objections were. Might I suggest that listening to the rank-and-file would be better than:
1) assuming that self-aggrandizing blowhards like Limbaugh and Beck actually speak for them, or
2) dismissing them out-of-hand (by tagging them with a homophobic slur, no less)
The folks who protested the bailout objected to handing over a trillion bucks of public funds without oversight to a bunch of compulsive gamblers who nearly destroyed the world economy.
Fine - so do I. It seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Insulting them doesn't change the fact that they're right.
As for the invective on both sides, ask yourself who really benefits from the polarization? The easiest way to eliminate popular opposition to corporate control of politics is to use wedge issues to divide the opposition. Like it or not, we've all been had.
Lefties who refer to "teabaggers" are no better (and certainly no less foolish) than Righties who refer to the Corporatist in Chief as a "socialist:
George Soros, whatever else might be said of him and even his motives for doing what follows in mention, has been at times sharply critical of Israel. This and only this is what gives the pro-Israel neocon GOP right free rein to hit out at Soros the way depicted above. And yes, he has been called a "self-hating Jew."
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200608090015
and even by Jews.
McCain does one (most likely impotent) thing, which is contrary to his entire history in office as a free-marketeer Friedmanite deregulator, as a cynical publicity/political move to cozy up to the Arizonan anti-McCain teaparty partisans who need to be co-opted to keep JD at bay, and Joe SWOONS??!!?!?
Whoo boy!
McCain had already long ago revealed himself as having no authentic core values when he cast aside so many past positions to remake himself into a Bush acolyte to gain the nomination, especially considering the treatment he and his family received in the South Carolina primary from the Bushies. He revealed his lack of patriotism when he cynically did not consider Country First!, but McCain First, in picking Ms. Palin despite the patent danger to the republic
Since the election, he's been continuously opposing things in his own just prior election platform.
One cannot credibly oppose Obama for the same behavior and praise his prior and continuing chief opponent as anything perhaps but right in this one instance when his behavior is the same. And it is far from clear he's right in any case.
What is the case for Glass/Steagall's repeal being neither the cause, nor its reinstatement any cure, for this financial debacle? (Which is Bill Clinton's recent position, and why he says he still was right to sign the repeal?)
Until that case is examined. and proven wrong, the well known fallacy of argument known as post hoc ergo propter hoc is the basis of any support for McCain's current and all too convenient position.
XI
Post a Comment