Elizabeth Warren for President
Beyond monitoring how the government is mopping up after the financial crisis, Warren is pushing a proposal that could help prevent the next one: creating a Financial Product Safety Commission to protect consumers from abusive lenders. Mortgages and credit cards, she wrote in a 2007 journal article about the proposal, “should be subject to the same routine safety screening that now governs the sale of every toaster, washing machine, and child’s car seat.”Straightforward as that sounds, it would represent a fundamental shift. “Regulating financial products based on fairness, simplicity, and appropriate risk is an entirely new paradigm,” notes Reid Cramer, director of the New America Foundation’s asset building program. In the wake of the financial meltdown, the idea has gained traction in Washington, thanks in part to Warren’s plainspoken advocacy. “Almost unique among people with deep financial insight, Professor Warren speaks a language that ordinary people can easily comprehend,” says Laurence Tribe, a colleague at Harvard Law. For example, when testifying before a congressional committee in June, Warren summed up the shift in banking this way: “Today’s business model is about making money through tricks and traps.”
via Bank Buster: Elizabeth Warren is Wall Street’s Worst Nightmare, Mother Jones (via CommonDreams.org)
Elizabeth Warren prepares to testify before the House Budget Committee in June 2009 (Jonathan Ernst/Getty)
We’re coming up on the one- year anniversary of Barack Obama’s election. I think it’s maybe time that we asked ourselves how he’s doing.
He didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, and not only didn’t reject the idea of pre-emptive detention but added spice to his own new version of pre-crime prosecution, “prolonged detention.” He promised health care reform and campaigned on a public option, and we all know how that is going to turn out.
But most importantly, he came into office amidst sweeping crises in the financial sector and did not do what needed to be done, and what had been done the last time the U.S. was sent careening into a depression because of Wall Street: he failed to push for tough financial reforms. Barack Obama needed to be the FDR figure who remade the American capital markets and made them fair again, and he barely laid a finger on the whole scene.
Instead, he put the people who created the problem in charge of fixing the mess, and ended up bailing them out instead of the rest of the country, at huge current and (presumably) future cost.The total bill for the Bush-Obama bailout is certainly above ten trillion at this point — Inspector General Neil Barofsky thinks it might hit nearly $24 trillion ultimately — and this went through without much fanfare. Meanwhile, the congress is stuck in the mud, panicked at the thought of paying three or four trillion over a decade or so for a health care program.
None of this is new news. What is new is the question of what to do about it. I’m personally of the opinion that our main problem lay with the fact that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is more afraid of losing the financial support of Wall Street and the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry than it is of losing progressive voters. In fact, I think I’ve put that wrong, because it implies that the Democratic Party pushes the agenda of industry insiders out of fear. That is a misread of the situation, I think.
I think they prefer those people to their voters. I think they feel more comfortable with them. I heard a story recently from a Democratic Party operative who tells me that certain members of one of the president’s cabinet departments only got wind of how hard it is out there for ordinary people to pay their bills when they invited in a major corporation to give them a presentation about their financial outlook for the holiday season — and through that report found out that this company’s prospective customers were spending less because large numbers of them had been laid off, or had huge medical bills, or had maxed out their credit, and so on.
Letters from customers, survey answers and such, were read to the cabinet group. And they were shocked. This is how they find out about the economic reality of this country — accidentally, from a major campaign contributor! That’s how out of touch these people are.
On these financial issues, not just the issue of financial regulation on Wall Street but the larger issue of income distribution and what kind of country we want to be — the Democratic Party no longer has a policy that makes any sense. They do not seem to understand or even recognize that real wages in this country have not grown for most people for decades. Or if they do understand, they refuse to imagine any solutions that are not in some way a compromise with their major campaign contributors. They talk about closing tax loopholes and phony corporate addresses in the Caribbean as solutions to economic problems, policy initiatives as absurd and inconsequential as then-comic Al Franken’s fictional decision (in the novel Why Not Me?) to run on a campaign promise of “ending ATM fees.”
This is all a long-winded way of saying that we have problems whose solutions involve taking on powerful interests, political challenges that will necessarily involve prolonged and hard-fought conflicts, but what we have in the Democratic Party is an organization dedicated to avoiding such conflicts and resolving issues in the manner of a corporate board, in closed meetings with the chief cardholders where things get hashed out to the satisfaction of everyone present.
The problem from the standpoint of the typical voter is that he is not terribly present in those discussions. When Rahm Emmanuel met with Billy Tauzin and Merck and Pfizer in the Roosevelt Room (how ironic!) of the White House earlier this summer to work out the details of exactly how much of a bite the new health bill was going to take out of the pharmaceutical industry — the answer turned out to be none, and all the insane subsidies of big Pharma are going to remain in the final bill — were you there? Was anyone representing you there?
The Democrats feel safe in leaving you and me out of that room for two big reasons. One, our main electoral alternative is the party that put George W. Bush in office. Two, the last time significant quantities of Democrats decided to buck and send the party a message, they helped get George Bush elected by giving Ralph Nader the deciding votes of what turned out to be the tightest of elections. Or at least that’s the storyline that’s been popular since that incident. The Nader “debacle” forever closed the notion of third-party progressive challenges to mainstream Democrats, at least in the minds of the Democratic Party bigwigs, anyway.
It seems to me then that the only hope of getting any of these problems is to get ourselves a national candidate who on the one hand is a mainstream politician and on the other is willing to embrace the notion of an open protest against the Democratic Party doctrine. We need for someone who has some legitimacy with both the media and the Democratic Party constituents themselves to come out and publicly campaign to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it. We need someone who understands the finance stuff (which automatically reduces the pool of possible applicants to a small handful), will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
The question I have lately is, why not draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president? And I don’t mean in 2016, I mean in 2012.
This sounds like a crazy idea for a couple of big reasons. One, a primary challenge to Barack Obama will almost certainly fail and may hurt Obama enough to get a Republican elected to the presidency. The other is that if this is done as a third-party run, it’ll probably achieve the same thing.
That all might be true. And it may, indeed, be a terrible idea. If it is, I’m genuinely open to hearing the reasons why, and I’m sure it’s a long list.
But I’d like to see it get talked about anyway. The way I look at it, the problem with the Democratic Party is not the voters, it’s the 19 or 20 people who are paying for the campaigns and sitting in at those meetings with Rahm and Billy Tauzin. We have to get rid of those people, herd them all to the edge of a very tall cliff and push them off and be done with it. I think this can be done by electoral referendum if we actually put it all on the table openly and let people decide for themselves. And maybe it takes an electoral cycle or two to get it done, but it has to get done. This stuff won’t get fixed otherwise.
We need someone in there who is willing to run one this one issue: who owns the Democratic Party? Is it the voters, or is it Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and United Health Care? There are plenty of candidates out there who’d fit — Toledo’s Marcy Kaptur got a nice bounce from the Michael Moore movie, and Jan Schakowsky is another who comes to mind — but Warren to me makes the most sense for the simple reason that it will be virtually impossible for the Democratic Party hacks to dismiss her as a fringe character, given that they themselves gave her such a big public position as chief of the Congressional Oversight Panel.
This is a woman who understands the finance issues as well as we can hope to expect from any politician and moreover seems to connect the dots when it comes to dissecting the problems on Wall Street:
I just don’t think we could talk yet in terms of a recovery. I think the right way to understand this is that we stabilized the patient. No one goes to bed at night wondering when you wake up in the morning and will this financial system have collapsed. We clearly are past that point, but we have to remember the way we stabilized it. We stabilized it by saying the American government is going to put its money, its guarantees, the taxpayers’ money behind our financial system to hold it up…
And that may have given, you know, some cheery news to investors in the stock market who say I want to invest in some of those companies that have those sorts of government guarantees to back them up, but it doesn’t tell us that the economy itself is turning around. It doesn’t tell us that there are good jobs out there or even that we’re starting to build the infrastructure that’s going to produce those good jobs.
I think someone needs to put a scare into the Democratic Party leaders. Someone needs to make it clear that the progressives in the House might really kill the Health Care bill if it comes out of the Reid-Pelosi consult sucking as much as we expect it to, but even more importantly, someone needs to let Barack Obama know that someone else’s face is going to start being silk-screened on t-shirts at political rallies if he doesn’t get real on the finance stuff.
Barack Obama ran an incredible campaign last year, managing to turn himself into the stuff of political iconography — he captured and owned amorphous and happy concepts like “hope” and “change” through a brilliant 18-month run of painstakingly careful imageering, and through the force of his own remarkably genial and patient personality. He took a country which historically has always been divided powerfully by race and he managed to win a hotly-contested race with grace and class and in that sense advanced the cause of racial tolerance to an incalculable degree. He made the racist electoral strategies of Karl Rove and Mark Penn outdated. And he gets credit for restoring respect for the American presidency abroad.
But he also inherited a terrible financial crisis and he completely whiffed on it, siding with the financial status quo, who happen to be the bad guys. And in general, policywise, he has turned out to be eerily in sync with the previous administration, even down to some of the more obvious and egregious stuff, like the Guantanamo business and his amazing, perhaps illegal, and completely inexplicable refusal to investigate the ICRC (Red Cross) claims of systematic torture there.
And because of that, he can now be attacked on the iconic level just as he as once elevated there, made now into a symbol of anti-change — which in fact is beginning to be what he represents. We need some courageous politician to step up and offer us a symbol not of reassuring pablum but of that spirit which is needed at the moment, revolt and a return of political power to the voter. And when people coalesce around that image, it will throw the real meaning of the Obama phenomenon into relief. This will be too bad, given the historic import of Obama’s amazing run, but it’s just necessary, unfortunately.
We need someone who will run on one very basic principle — the refusal to accept corporate money. That someone will have to be willing to be a symbol of voter empowerment. If someone like Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want that responsibility, well, she shouldn’t have gone into office and gone on TV making all that sense and shit. She’s pushed for transparency in the Fed, is openly furious about the misuse of bailout money, and seems to take personally the chicanery that credit card companies and banks use to game the suckers out there. I simply cannot see her suddenly flipping and holding $2000-a-plate fundraisers with Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon.
And sure, a good loyal party member would never step up and take an axe to a powerful and popular incumbent. Maybe that kind of disloyalty is not what Elizabeth Warren wants to be known for. But someone out there on the landscape has to be willing to take that step. Because really, what’s the alternative? How can we keep voting for these guys, when they never, ever deliver?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
My understanding of Nader’s 2000 campaign was that the bare minimum votes “Gore should of gotten to win,” were also dispersed to many other third party candidates. For example, I think he needed 5,000 in some Florida areas, and Nader was one of many third parties that took in 5,000, so the blame was erroneously shifted onto him.
Personally, after having voted for Obama, I think I want to return to my Nader vote, but I suppose you think raising Warren is easier then raising Nader to the task?
Finally, have you considered Kucinich? He seems to match most of the descriptions of your ideal candidate.
Brooksley Born should run as her V.P. She was profiled is “The Warning” on Frontline that can be viewed on their site. It is an amazing story and Born should get the medal of freedom for her battle with Wall Street and Greenspan.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ve been reading that a lot today, ladd. And the thought has occurred to me: It’s really so nice to have more than just Hillary Clinton to think about for the highest offices. So very nice.
In response to another comment. See in context »How about a Kucinich / Warren (or Warren / Kucinich) ticket.
With that much integrity and competence on one ticket the MSM cameras would melt.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ditto on Nader. Matt, your description of the needed candidate kept echoing all Nader’s campaign points.
He gave an anti Wall street speech at a rally just prior to the election. His voice was weak but the words were on fire. I kept thinking if this speech were broadcast at prime time he would have won.
I wrestled til the last minute about voting for Obama over Nader or Kucinich. But Obama had to happen for the psychic health of the country. I tell myself casting my vote for him was the most powerful weapon I could wield against racism. Now we can get on with the other problems…
As to Elizabeth Warren and Marcy Kaptur their power shouldn’t be wasted in the presidency. These are the kinds of people that need to be put into powerful positions affecting policy. They should be the Mandarins…
Mr Taibbi you are a breath of fresh air. Hunter Thompson is a hard act to follow.
In response to another comment. See in context »Perhaps I am not scrutinizing the situation closely enough, but from a big picture point of view, this all seems a bit nit picky. The executive order to close gitmo has been signed, the market has rebounded, deep financial depression avoided, the international community regards the U.S. more highly than it did under the Bush admin and we are taking major steps toward universal health care, something no one thought was possible in the U.S. This all in like 6 months.
The guy’s the president, not god…there are still diplomatic realities at play and opposition that must be negotiated with.
I think a lot of people writing about Obama are just too afraid to create post after post that says, “hey, I am really excited about this guy still, even though he has tons to contend with.”
“The executive order to close gitmo has been signed,”
Meanwhile the order to build a 40acre, $100million upgraded prison in Bagram has been signed as well. The conditions in Bagram prevent any outside officials, like the ICRC from coming in and reporting findings. Also indefinite detention has been signed – even Stalin had show trials, we are skipping that step.
“the market has rebounded,”
A market has rebounded – the financial industry. Meanwhile unemployment continues to rise as the dow rises as well. Moreover, homes are being foreclosed on at typical untenable rates. There’s a fundamental flaw in your presumption that ‘market rebounding’ is good for the country – when at the moment it’s good for a few.
“deep financial depression avoided,”
For a few.
“we are taking major steps toward universal health care,”
Both bills in the House and Senate do not cover everyone, therefore the healthcare is not universal – despite congress best attempts at doublespeak.
“The guy’s the president, not god…there are still diplomatic realities at play and opposition that must be negotiated with.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Right but as Matt pointed out, he has yet to negotiate ONCE with regular john q public.
I’m with you, ldkriz.
The fact that the market has rebounded only pisses me off more. That has nothing to do with how the economy is doing. It means the government has stepped into prop up that market and has not stepped in to help actual people.
The president has expressly refused to back away from Bush’s detention policies, and health care reform is a joke that has been sold off to the highest bidder to such an obvious degree that PhRMA is spending $150 million to pass it!
This isn’t about the opposition scoring a couple of runs in the first inning. It turns out, see, that Obama IS the opposition scoring those runs.
And yes, I do think that Elizabeth Warren would have a better time than Ralph Nader. I don’t think the two things are the same. I think we need to have a public debate about who owns the Democratic Party. Is it owned by the people actually voting? Or is it owned by the people paying for the ads?
We need to put that issue out in the open. Put one candidate on one side and one on the other. We know which side Obama is on by now. That’s the point.
In response to another comment. See in context »On a health care note, to vindicate your point – I snail mailed Obama, Grayson (my rep), and Max Baucus, asking how the Obama plan would cover me, given my present situation – FT student, whose living is entirely subsidized by the government via loans and grants. Because of that financial situation I do not qualify for medicaid, because I’m ‘too rich/young/healthy and white,’ but it also appears as if I do not qualify for anything in any of the present bills. Moreover, the way things are shaping out, I’m now obligated to throw my student loan money into an insurance company just to be covered (while breaking my living budget)…Basically acting as a middle-man for the government to line more insurance pockets. No surprise, Grayson, Obama, and Baucus, wrote back distorted replies with no substance.
Now that’s change I can really….dig between the couch cushion for to mail away to AETNA.
In response to another comment. See in context »Wait a minute. Are you saying you would qualify for Medicaid if you weren’t white?
In response to another comment. See in context »Cruss, sorry for the indirect reply, the board will not give me the option to do a direct reply.
No with that particular comment I was being facetious – sorry for the misunderstanding, I have to keep the dark humor going to retain sanity
In response to another comment. See in context »The crux of what I was saying is that I do not qualify for medicaid, albeit I could be considered at the poverty level since my income is strictly student loans, which are abysmal, and not really income but debt :/
…you mentioned you were a full time student.
Funny, I was just reading an article on Oprah visiting Denmark, supposedly the happiest people on our big rock. It said the Danes are PAID to go to college. Damn social democracy, with their happiness and making people smart and treating people fairly!!
In response to another comment. See in context »ldcriz, I understand. The phrasing just looked kind of bad.
About your insurance situation, mine is similar. After a long career, I no longer have an employer and have to manage insurance for myself. I have a high-deductible with enough savings, hopefully, to cover the costs up to the deductible for at least for a couple of years. With the Baucus plan, they are going to make me buy a “health care club” plan which will cost a lot more. And to think Obama promised that, unlike Hillary, he would not mandate insurance. Obama has been a huge disappointment to me.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m in the same boat, no employer coverage for five years: high deductible basically for some kinds of cancer, seems like most everthing else is excluded; I belong to a community health group where I pay about $100/month so I could go to a doctor for little problems; holding savings to go to Mexico for any major dental or non-immediate treatment. (Really if you need more than $2000 dental, its cheaper to spend a week in PV or Cabo or Mazatlan and get the work done there)
In response to another comment. See in context »Under Baucus and every proposal my high deductible will go way up, by thousands, without much more covered. At best, just paying the fine will be cheaper?
I don’t know how old you are but in most of the plans I’ve read about, students 26 years old and younger can stay in their parents’ family insurance policy as dependents. Who knows if this will remain in the final bill, but it’s a nice feature for young people.
In response to another comment. See in context »Outstanding points all, and it is so sad that there are still Americans who don’t realize we no longer have an economy, but that we are living through the Great Financialization, where the US Treasury technically went bankrupt in 2004, the banking system collapsed in 2007, and that the majority of US corporations are majority-foreign owned.
Americans are truly lazy stupid…..
In response to another comment. See in context »Without campaign finance reform, is it even possible anymore for someone to win a presidential election without being in the pocket of corporate special interests? I mean, I know Obama raised a lot of “grass roots” money and all, but he is still on the payroll of Goldman and whoever else. I’m not saying that’s the way it should be, I’m just pointing out that it seems to be the way it is right now. Unfortunately, like any good system, this one is going to continue to perpetuate itself. So, how can this pattern of corporate interest buying presidential candidates be broken from the outside?
In response to another comment. See in context »The Washington Post changed its original position on the 2000 election and put out a major report that shows that if the count had continued, it did not matter how it was counted, Gore would have won. Gore would have won even though 80,000 minorities were taken off the roles. There was an expert on Democracy Now who said that Obama would have won another 7 million votes, except for Republican cheating. I highly recommend that you study the writings of detective Michael Ruppert, who helped bust Iran Contra, in order to get to the truth about what is happening. William K. Black, who was also in the Moore film, said that what has happened to the stock market could only have happened because of mass corruption. You need to read Michael Ruppert’s writing about the CIA and Wall St. to understand how deep the problem is. Obama is dealing with murderous people in the CIA who can give people cancer if they don’t like you or take down his plane like they nearly did last summer.
Yes, Elizabeth Warren for President. I have been saying this since she gave her first interview seven months ago. She would beat any other candidate hands down. The problem is having the media cover her. They dropped Dean as soon as he said that he would repeal Clinton’s Telecommunications Act. I would love to talk more with you about a ton of issues. You could read what I wrote yesterday on the Huffpo by using the link below and reading the quotes from history and the points I made about the Lawrence O’Donnell article yesterday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/blueskybigstar?page=3&action=comments&display=all&sort=newest
I am so glad you wrote this.
In response to another comment. See in context »I consider myself a member of john q public and things are certainly looking better, economically speaking, in my area. the drop in housing prices is leveling off, fewer and fewer of my friends are being laid off and more and more of them are going back to work. health care, as with most things where there is a legitimate opposition, is going to have to be done incrementally. That it is being done at all, I count as a victory.
It is my impression that the recession could have gotten much worse. obviously, economies don’t rebound over night, it will take time for the housing and job markets to balance. is there anyone who really thinks that unemployment would be at 4% after a few months?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m glad we’ll just skim over the fact Stalin had heightened moral standards regarding prisoners. Fair enough, cognitive dissonance is painful. One thing at a time I suppose.
Your area very well may be doing better then mine. I’m in Florida, the new equivalent of a rust belt state, since our entire economy was real-estate based. A market that is most likely never going to return to past standards.
I don’t see how a leveling in derelict housing prices is a good sign? It’s not as if these houses are being grabbed up and comfortable moved into (except maybe by some overseas Chineese companies). Worst of all, foreclosures still aren’t slowing down, so even if we reach a leveled price, we still haven’t reached a stop in increased poverty and homelessness due to cheaper homes. Worst of all, the evidence is in, the money the tens of billions the treasury set aside to distribute towards saving foreclosed homes was, as expected, not used for such.
I’m sure less and less of your friends are being laid off – unless you have 300million friends, there comes a point where statistically you run out of friends left to lose a job! As far as more of them going back to work, last I read there was 1 job open for every 6 people looking, unemployment was still on the rise in September, and poverty was an inexorable increase since three years ago. But the DOW has been gradually rising since Obama took office. Telling isn’t it?
Healthcare may have to be done incrementally, but Obama during his joint session of congress speech said he was hopefully going to be the first and LAST President to reform health-care. Now of course he cannot see into the future about other Presidents, but that rhetoric does not show signs of being an incremental process under his administration.
You’re right that the recession could of been much worse. You’re not pointing out though that it could of been MUCH better. If you’re hedging your bets between shit and diarrhea, we have different standards of government and market roles.
In response to another comment. See in context »Stalin? what?!
In response to another comment. See in context »Dude, to those of us who have been paying attention over the past decade or two — not the typical Ameritard (no offense, but you sure sound like it) who retracts his or her head from their butt to gaze around every few years, or after some specific has affect their life enough to alter their normal focus on TV sports —- this is just the beginning of the super deleveraging which should continue on for a number of years (ten to thirty plus, as Obama and crew haven’t done anything to alter the previous administration’s disassembling of what is left of the economy). We are, at present, simply in the calm eye of the financial hurricane, and the bad guys are simply cleaning up (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Morgan Stanley, the unholy trinity) until the next windstorm erupts.
Things may be appearing slightly better to you, but the BLS study of a few weeks back indicated that the private sector had generated zero job grown from July 1999 to July 2009, expressly indicative of critical mass point having been reached in American jobs offshoring.
American jobs for American workers — what a concept!!!!!
In response to another comment. See in context »So wait, he’s not fighting enough for john q public, who are just mostly just ameritards losing their jobs to foreigners who don’t deserve them anyway? none of you guys are sure who you are fighting for. I feel like I am debating college students with a minimal grasp on the real world…oh wait…i am
In response to another comment. See in context »I mean, seriously, Nader? Can you see that guy trying to negotiate this mess?
Yes when he’s given airtime he’s quite coherent, rational, and primarily concerned about the well-being of john q public.
I would suggest going to democracynow.org and listening to his stance on the health care bill. Here’s the transcript:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/14/you_dont_cut_deals_with_the
If you find something in there that makes him appear unstable, or inane, let me know.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam Richards and greychampion, nhdogmom. nhdogmom said: RT @greychampion: newStream ©: Elizabeth Warren for President http://bit.ly/2NIka9 [...]
Matt – - -
Very good post, but……
You may be premature in your criticism. We don’t know yet where Obama is going. He has been in office for almost 9 months – Lincoln didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863. The election was in 1860. Many abolitionists thought in 1861 and 1862 that he wasn’t going to free the slaves because of his inaction.
Lincoln was widely criticized during the first two years for tolerating people who were “part of the problem”, people who had views seemingly at odds with what people thought they had voted for. He basically was lining up his ducks, but people were impatient with him.
We can also compare Obama to Andrew Jackson, who opposed the Second Bank Of the United States from the start, didn’t take action until the fourth year of his first term when he vetoed the renewal of its charter and the first year of his second term when he withdrew government deposits and spread them among the state banks.
I feel the banking crisis has been mishandled so far, but this is an event that will be played out over years, not months. We are in the first scene of the first act of a three act play.
We need to keep on the ballfield. Just because the opponents scored a couple of runs in the first inning doesn’t mean the game is over.
I don’t think that what you have discussed has passed us by. You are talking about some of the things that can and should be done in the next 9 months. The “emancipation proclamation” phase of the crisis and the redefinition of the structure of the financial system may still come later, just as with Lincoln and Jackson.
Don’t stop writing about where we have to go, though. And Elizabeth Warren may yet have a bigger role to play.
“We don’t know yet where Obama is going.”
We most definitely know where Obama is going — as we do any any and all presidents — by their appointments. One doesn’t appoint Diana Farrell (McKinsey Global Institute, Goldman Sachs), the individual who literally wrote the book on jobs “offshoring” – if one has any respect for the voters of this citizenry. One doesn’t appoint Laura Tyson (Morgan Stanley, original ardent supporter of NAFTA) – if one has any respect for working Americans.
One doesn’t appoint Geithner, Summers, Gensler, Schapiro, and re-appoint Bernanke if one is truly trying to clean up the economic sh*t storm they walked into. One doesn’t appoint Holbrooke (AIG, Perseus, Kissinger protege) if one is serious about a change in foreign policy. One doesn’t appoint Robert Hormats (Goldman Sachs, worked on PetroChina business) if one is serious about a change in foreign policy.
I could go on for several more pages, but….
In response to another comment. See in context »Don’t forget Robert Gates and Jim Jones (Board member of Chevron and Boeing)! But I suppose foreign policy choices may be straying from the topic.
In response to another comment. See in context »Whoops! You’re right, and I forgot Rahm Emanuel (formerly with private equity firm Wasserstein Perella, and number one recipient of hedge fund donations when Rahm was in congress) and Tara O’Toole, former lobbyist for pharmaceutical industry…..
In response to another comment. See in context »Good points all. Two thoughts to add:
1. Lincoln brought in many dissidents, and look what he did to them. Those that he didn’t get value from in the first two years were gone. The rest were converted. I am not ready to write Obama off as a whore yet.
2. Give a thought to the old expression: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. That hasn’t worked with Republicans in the House and the Senate (Obama tried), but maybe it will elsewhere?
Anyway, when a painting is started, you shouldn’t say it has no blue in the sky when the only thing painted are some bushes and trees.
In response to another comment. See in context »Andrew Jackson is burning in hell right now for a number of reasons. One such reason: The Indian Removal Act of 1830, or as we all know and love it, The Trail of Tears. He signed that one into law just one year after taking office. I think it’s best we leave him out of this conversation.
In response to another comment. See in context »The problem with Kucinich is that his image has become too goofy to be credible with most voters. Warren inspires the kind of very broad-based attention and respect that Matt describes. But I can’t imagine that she would want to basically give over the rest of her life to fill that role – look at what it did to Nader.
Obama and FDR: there are 2 big differences that make me no longer hopeful, though still respectful. I watched the PBS documentary on FDR recently, and realized what an outsider he had always been – growing up, he was ostracized by most if not all of his social peers, and had worked through much of that pain. He was happy to be a traitor to his class, and (2d difference) the woman he chose as his other half was also an outsider, and had found herself through working in a settlement house. Obama is said to have spent 1/3 of his hiring interview with Geithner chatting socially, and I think has said that he just felt really comfortable with TG, as a kindred spirit. You would think that the more a person had been embraced by the establishment, the more ready he would be to lead it in a more long-term-feasible direction, but it seems to work the opposite way. To take on the system, we’d need someone who, like FDR, has learned to live both inside and outside its embrace. Obama, despite his absent father and contention with racism, has been coddled from the start.
Only curious,
“The problem with Kucinich is that his image has become too goofy to be credible with most voters. ”
Do you think that can be fixed? I remember during the initial Democratic debates on CNN, and other stations, Kucinich was not the most popular, but when he spoke, without a doubt he drew the loudest amount of applause (for his points/ideas). Usually leaving the other candidates looking chagrined. Shortly after a few of these moments there was that article where Clinton and Edwards were overheard saying they needed to remove some of the other candidates, like Kucinich from the debates. No surprise, the next two or three debates only had questions thrown at him about UFOs….Then he was debarred, and blackballed, while meeting legal requirements to participate in future debates. Clearly his daffy image went through a process of manufacturing. Could this be reversed?
In response to another comment. See in context »As I am a fan of Kucinich, any more these days and after the ‘Change we can believe in’ campaign, my gullibility levels have depleted faster than fossil fuels, but just a little bit slower than a naked short sale…
Ohhh and i liked what Alan Grayson stood up and said to congress, but as each day goes by he just strikes me as he has nothing left but jokes, well in front of a camera that is. I still and will for a long time get some kicks from watching his interrogations of FED and AIG board members…if i lived in Orlando (Tampa) id vote for him.
…and after just reading ‘The Great Derangement’ im just a little too depressed to feel any incumbent politician can change Washington. LOL sorry Matt, as good as the book is, its depressing…
In response to another comment. See in context »You hit the nail on the head here, ldkriz. If Elizabeth Warren becomes a serious contender for a major elected office, we will all of a sudden start seeing four-page articles about how she had electro-shock therapy in 1981, she mistreats her illegal Mexican maids, and how her proposal for a per-transaction stock trade tax would lead to a much worse financial disaster than anything we’ve seen so far. (Oh wait, I’m sorry, those were accusations leveled against _past_ political candidates; I’m sure we’ll get a whole slew of _new_ accusations in the press against Ms. Warren. Nobody living on Earth really has zero skeletons in their closets.)
“Progressive” Democrats will be certain that these smear campaigns originate from Republicans when in fact they will be paid for by perfectly egalitarian, apolitical financial interests who would be threatened by reform. But as these stories are repeated endlessly over and over in the press, the “Progressive” Democrats will start worrying that they’re taking hold in the electorate, and soon “Progressive” Democrats will begin explaining to rank-and-file voters that Elizabeth Warren is a “One-Issue Candidate” and we really have so much more to worry about than socialistic corporate reform. Aren’t you worried that abortion will be criminalized, the Supreme Court will be disbanded, that the US will declare war on Turkmenistan? So that’s why we have to support the honorable Joe Biden’s Presidential bid in 2016 against John McCain’s Pickled-Brain-In-A-Vat, or Jeb Bush, or the Moosekillin’ Mommynator, or whoever. Because Biden may be terrible on corporate reform, but at least there’s a possibility that he might pick slightly less disagreeable Supreme Court justices. Doesn’t that thought keep you awake at night?
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course Obama and Geithner chatted socially, Obama’s mother had been awarded grants from Geithner’s father at the Ford Foundation for her anthropology work, dude!
Geez, no offense, but catch a clue!
In response to another comment. See in context »that could account for a couple of minutes, max, but not “1/3 of the interview,” as was reported.
In response to another comment. See in context »I first fell in love with Warren streaming this Frontline special:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/interviews/warren.html
I can only imagine the character assassination she’s going to undergo if she makes it out of that spotlight limbo she’s been carefully kept in (advisor with no actual power) and into the honest-to-God spotlight. Still, yeah, brilliant and fair lady who somehow manages to understand complex issues while not coming off like a female Alex P. Keaton.
Of course you’re being facetious, but she should at least have a top spot at the SEC or the FTC or the like. Stuff Goolsbee in Treasury while you’re at it and clean out Summers. The list goes on and here comes Pride in the backstretch.
She’s been mentioned as a possible successor to Ted Kennedy, but apparently she’s not running.
Her Dr. Phil appearances may come back to haunt her. Just sayin’.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, thanks kindly for your work on this. I’ve been following you since The Exile.
Sadly, there is no hope for change. Southern Pacific Railroad v. state of California (1886) finished us, from a democratic standpoint.
You’re right. This is an asset stripping scheme writ large. Health policy, financial policy et al are designed to remove as much wealth from the middle class as possible.
I like Warren. She’ll never be president. She wouldn’t raise enough money. Final answer. Nothing can be done. It is what it is.
Oh yeah, add Brooksley Born somewhere in there too. And Eva Mendez, but mainly because she’s hot.
Ms. Warren’s position does not even merit ‘canary in the coal mine’ status.
She’s talking her position very well, but the Treasury/Fed Reserve of NY run the show.
A more pejorative way to describe it She’s in Administrative Gitmo along with Mr. Volker.
[...] makes a good case for drafting Elizabeth Warren to run for President. A party that put Elizabeth Warren at the top of their ticket is one I’d regard as [...]
Being a born pessimist, I don’t believe even an ideal candidate would have much of an affect on the system we have now because there are no real checks on money. As long as lobbyists with boatloads of it have access to the people who make the rules, everyone else is an afterthought. To pass any significant changes, a large majority in Congress would have to give up on their re-election all on the same day because they’d have no money for campaigning.
Thanks for riding this story like a rented mule…
“the only hope of getting any of these problems is to get ourselves a national candidate who on the one hand is a mainstream politician and on the other is willing to embrace the notion of an open protest…”
Isn’t this what we thought we had in Obama? Our best bet, seems to me, is to change the political expediency calculus – what we have here is the first, best populist issue in a long time; we ought to exploit it.
If Obama came out tomorrow and said, “I made a mistake. I was misled. Now I see the light. No more bailouts. America believes in the free market; but for too long everyday Americans have shouldered a disproportionate share of the risk. Under X plan, corporate America will operate by the same rules that families and small-businesses have for generations. As any good small business owner knows, you must be able to look your customer in the eye; if you can’t, your doing something wrong. Today, we’re going to grab these CEOs by the ears and make them face their responsibilities like everyone else.
It won’t be easy. As we’ve seen in the health care debate, Congress is incapable of doing the Job. They don’t represent the interests of their constituents. So I am asking for your help….”
It wouldn’t be easy, for sure. It would require dummy-proof packaging. Congress would have to lay down on the only thing they stand for – corporate interests. It would be an unprecedented moment in the history of the American Experiment; an overwhelming majority would have to see their own interests, and have the patience to see it through.
It’s not clear that we’re capable of anything like this. But if it’s going to happen, Obama has to be the one to do it.
We don’t need Elizabeth Warren to run — we need Obama to listen to her over Tim and Rahm. Like I said, not easy. But far more likely that electing Nader or Kucinich.
(Side note: someone should be pointing out the effects of the ultra-low corporate tax rate — the one McCain, Gingrich and others were touting in 2008 — on the Irish economy, which is in the terlet.)
Hey Matt, loved the article, but family members I’ve shared it with describe your numbers as being pessimistically aggressive to the point of undermining your credibility. Why would you say that your assessment of the outside numbers is more credible than those coming from the persons driving the process?
Excellent article…once again.
Any chance you will interview her in the future?
You could ask her if she’d consider a candidacy but
then, if she said yes, she’d be another Brooksley Born, and thanks to PBS’ Frontline, we now all know what
happened to her.
Still, I wish you’d interview…
LMAO ldkriz, dude, i was about half way through the post thinking to myself, ‘i wish ralph nader would run for president….err wait…again’ for the umpteenth time.
essentially, im right there with ya
If Nader wants to be a politician, when he wasn’t elected as president he should have looked into running for a lesser office and worked his way up. Sure, Nader has good ideas, but he’s not a great debater, even given a forum to voice his opinion fully and freely. I just cannot take him seriously as a potential elected official. Back to Mrs. W.
In response to another comment. See in context »What debates is he even allowed on? I’ve never once seen him on prime-time tv, debating all the other candidates….I have however seen him debating on youtube….
In response to another comment. See in context »Nader ‘debated’ Gingrich in Portland, Oregon years ago, in front of a packed house, and Gingrich mopped the floor with him. Nader walked out carrying/hiding behind a stack of books (which had no apparent purpose), and mumbled throughout. Incredibly, Gingrich came off as smarter, funnier, more articulate, and even generous. It was awful.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think your being a little naive Matt. I don’t think Obama can afford to take on the CIA, the military and Wall Street. He doesn’t have the power base. “Mandates from the people” don’t mean much in the end, as George W. Bush showed. This is Obama’s Achille’s heel, and Warren wouldn’t actually be any stronger. It’s a problem for any progressive – power comes from the end of a gun, either explicitly (as in Russia) or implicitly as in the US. The Democrats have lost all their traditional power bases – labor unions are toothless, the kind of working class white tough guy who might have once spooked the ruling classes into concessions has been coopted through race and culture politics into a Glenn Beck supporter, and the media are too spooked about losing their paychecks to take on anyone. The best a Democrat can do is hope to gain the allegiance of some of the smarter and more farseeing of the ruling class and nibble at the edges, but you can’t overturn entrenched interests and hope to stay alive, literally. Look at the impunity with which a criminal like Cheney swaggers about like a respected statesman. He knows he’s protected. Obama knows he can only go so far, and I don’t think he wants to be a martyr.
There’s a fundamental difference from “not being able to take someone on” and doing their bidding with alacrity. So far he’s the letter.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ditto to that! President Obama is the latest “face” in the White House — from Davy Rockefeller’s boy, Jimmy Carter, to the running dog of Wall Street, Bill Clinton (I’m not leaving out the R-Cons, but everyone realizes they should all be taken outside and shot!) the last real democrat in the White House was John F. Kennedy, who was the last to wrassle the insurance industry to the ground, forcing them to sign a Consent Decree in October of 1963 to cease and desist on their price fixing. He was also the last president to actually appoint someone to secretary of labor who was connected to labor (Arthur Goldberg). And to appoint a real progressive economist (John Kenneth Galbraith) not simply Wall Street lobbyists (Farrell, Geithner, Summers, Gensler, Schapiro, Paterson, Allison, Orzsag, Holbrooke, Emanuel, etc., etc.) and pharaceutical lobbyists.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes and no to your post. It depends on your perspective. JFK increased the size of out forces over in Vietnam, remember? I’ll be posting more about putting the screws to our elected officials further down. Here, I’ll just say that a lot of people really though Obama was a liberal. I felt he was the most liberal of the last 3, then last 2, but he’s a moderate. That’s still to the left of the neo-cons, but it ain’t where most of us would like him to be.
In response to another comment. See in context »You have to remember “President” is just a title, it doesn’t convey any actual power unless you have the muscle and allies to back it up. Kennedy had labor unions on his side back when they counted for something. He also had a significant portion of the crazy white Southern populists, the same good ol’ boys that Fox News and friends are getting riled up to keep Obama in check. How long would a Warren or Kucinich last in office really? The media would be undermining them from day one. The stockmarket would tank, not coincidentally, and then we’d have to listen to endless bleating about “a crisis in confidence – crisis in the White House!”. Any move to change our detention policy or move the US away from imperialism is attacked by all the high and mighty as weakness, and how does a President combat active Generals going on the news to express their “concerns”? Electing a real liberal is not the solution, it can only be the final result of what has to be a long grassroots process. We can’t sit around and wait for Obama to take on Wall Street, for example, the left needs to organize and take on Wall Street. And this may require a left that is more populist than a lot of progressives feel comfortable with.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes. And we all know what happened to him.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not exactly with you on JFK. His foreign policies (all of latin america and vietnam) were as Hawkish as Obama’s, but like Obama now, don’t muster the scrutiny and vitriol of a Nixon or a Bush Jr – as they deserve.
Of course I’ll admit my bias, I think an executive branch is not exactly ideal for democratic governance, so I tend to dislike all presidents
In response to another comment. See in context »Kennedy deregulated greed when he reduced the top tax rate from 91% to 70% (something that Eisenhour refused to do) and I will never forgive him for it. When Reagan doubled down by reducing the top marginal rate to 36% the country was on the road to perdition. And that’s where we’ve arrived.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] if this is plausible, but it sure sounds like a good idea, and there are so many things i love in this post i can’t even excerpt them all. just go read [...]
The reason the market has rebounded is because Goldman reinvented itself as a bank to get bailed out and then now is running a hedge fund with our money and the knowledge if they screw up again we must bail them out because they are bigger now than before. All the banks we bailed out are buying stocks rather than loaning money.
Great idea about Warren, but why not push to have her replace Timmy Geithner at Treasury and put the hurt on Wall Street now? I do not think we can wait until 2010 or 2012 we must push Obama to do the right thing and clean up this mess before it is too late.
>why not push to have her replace Timmy Geithner at Treasury and put the hurt on Wall Street now?
I like this. Another option, down the road: isn’t Biden getting up there? He looks old anyway. Maybe we could work Warren in as VP in 2012, setting her up for POTUS in 2016. If she were given some actual duties as veep, progress may start churning. (yes, “may”; I’ve long returned to political cynicism).
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for yet another outstanding blog/article, Mr. Taibbi! Elizabeth Warren sounds like a fantastic idea, but perhaps unrealistic until the citizenry park a guillotine outside the halls of congress and on Wall Street and utilize it with abandon.
And thanks for that incredible article, Wall Street Swindle in the latest RS.
I hadn’t realized the naked short-selling taking place on Treasury notes, and had been perplexed as to why Goldman, Morgan Stanley & JPMorgan had financed ELX Futures.
Now it all makes sense……
Outstanding commentary as usual Mr. Taibbi. Given the superhuman gauntlet that must be run to elect someone outside the “system” I have to conclude that the better option is to put pressure on Obama, rather than engage in the pipe-dream of trying to elect some stripe of “true progressive” — or whatever you want to call a candidate who indeed poses a threat to the status quo.
The neat trick would be to somehow persuade the ignorant tea-bagger crowd to finally realize their own political & economic self-interest and join forces with the informed electorate that’s mostly considered “left.” If these two blocs could work together to uproot the moneyed elite that is currently pulling the strings then ‘change we can believe in’ might actually come to pass.
Sadly, the brain-dead faction is so saturated with FoxNews propaganda that it seems hopeless to think they could ever be persuaded how they are being gulled by slick demagoguery.
I think there is one area where common ground needs to be found with the tea baggers, an area we can sympathize with – they do not trust the government. Now I know most of tend to prefer to government acting to our will to regulate the private sector, and keep the populaces interest in mind – something the teabaggers do not prefer – but it’s hard to find any fault in their overall distrust of government, albeit their solutions are hazardous to themselves.
In response to another comment. See in context »I understand where you’re coming from Matt, but I also feel that it may just not matter who’s in office at the moment. The grass roots momentum that built up during the election seems to have faded without Obama’s leadership, but he seems to be flagging with the lack of Democratic leadership, another factor that you noted above.
The grass roots movement needs to realize that the strength came from within. WE need to be pushing our officials on these agendas, so they’ll at least be thinking about keeping their seats next election. We need to keep putting the screws to them, and journalists like Matt need to keep needling them.
I also feel that the Bush tautology of “You’re either with us or against us” has lead the electorate to feel that if they criticize an elected official, s/he must be de-throned. In some instances, that is decidedly the case. I’m not ready to go that far with Obama yet, although I would like him to be more (even just a little bit more) of the socialist that the neo-cons make him out to be. It’s out job as citizens to voice our complaints and take action when we can. The crappy economic situation makes this both more necessary and more difficult to do, as most people are doing their damndest to keep their heads above water.
As for solutions, I would like to see 2 things take hold:
1) a solid progressive 3rd party. We could even move to a 2-party system as the blue dogs move over to the Republicans and the yellow dogs team up with the liberals.
2) Instant Run-off elections. While the outcomes may not change for 5-10 years, it would be a tremendous help in reducing the money involved in elections. This would slowly pave the way for more 3rd party candidates who may not have a lot of political backing.
If more people feel as those posting in this blog feel, then real “change” just might be possible. I only “hope” that I’ll see that in my life time.
Elizabeth Warren – Alan Grayson 2012.
I’d contribute for that one.
I have been a supporter of both Democrats and Republicans (most recently) in the past. But, after 30 years of both them alternately promising real change, only to get more of just slightly different crap, I have pretty much given up in disgust with both of them. Nader was right about their just being different sides of the same coin, as was Ron Paul.
Both of these parties have become irretrievably-corrupted. Both are in bed with big-money, and each has powerful beneficiary groups they are beholden to. The winner always pays off those allied groups in some way, when they win, the losing party finds its members cushy spots in some foundation or “think tank” until the next shift.
When one party gets booted and the other re-enters, the spoils just go to opposing beneficiary groups and the middle class gets to pay for it either way (heads = politics as usual wins; tails = taxpayers lose).
Whether its foreign military adventures or domestic bungling in financial or regulatory matters, neither party appears up to the task. They really are much more alike than they are different and we need to wake up to that while there is still something left to fix for our children and grandchildren.
To read this call for a third party due to dissatisfaction with the party most recently failing your hopes, and on a site that appears to be of a liberal bent, I find both quite humorous and familiar. (And I feel your pain…:)
The Republican party marginalized Ron Paul, much as the Democratic party marginalized Kucinich. The purpose being that those candidates would both be dismissed as crackpots by the public(and they were).
This is what our major political parties (financed primarily by Wall Street and big business) and their major media accomplices do to anyone who might actually has the audacity to try to serve the comprehensive interests of the country at large. Sarah Palin also got worked over and is still being demonized by these same forces, whether you got a thrill from that, or not.
Hindsight being 20/20, I would probably rather vote for Ron Paul, Kucinich or Nader over either either major party candidate at this point. Looking back, one can see that Paul, Kucinich and Nader were the only one’s telling us the truth after all.
Yeah, I could support a 3rd party ticket with Warren on it. She appears to have those same flaws of integrity and telling the truth that few do, although I don’t know that she has the experience for the top spot.
And hopefully, she is not just another opportunistic poser that succumbs to the trappings of power and money, as most politicians appear to do. Seemingly good people going in, seem to become corrupted and self-serving in very short order. Maybe that is why that “Constitution” thing exists… Maybe we could bring that back?
Recently I read Ron Paul’s “The Revolution” and belatedly discovered what all his (apparently-nuts) supporters were so excited about last year. Ooops, my bad…! Probably should have supported him after all.
As Matt mentions, Ron Paul has consistently held the same postures for years, regardless of who is in the majority (anti-war, anti-fed, anti-big government). We should have been paying more attention to him, Nader and Kucinich and stop letting the major parties and major media outlets make caricatures of people who really do give a damn what happens to this country.
I think we can count on both parties continuing to do pretty much the same as the other would do: Rip off the taxpayers, posture, distract the masses with trivia and contrived differences. Stir up left and right with gross distortions and lies (with the help of both liberal and conservative big media), put the other’s throats, rinse, repeat.
As another poster mentioned, Warren will probably never really go anywhere, because she at least appears to be too honest to really make it big in politics.
I plan on voting against every incumbent of either party in 2010. It’s really hard to see how we could get more poorly-served by government than we already are. Third party, why not?
Before we get to 2012, voters should send a message to the Democratic Party by mobilizing in support of Republican challengers to people like Harry Reid and the Nelson Twins. If ActBlue or MoveOn and some others explicitly went all out to unseat these guys and succeeded, it just might shake the rest of them up.
Or it might not, since they may have run for office solely to get to the money trough. No one leaves national politics without becoming a lot wealthier than a federal salary would seem to make possible.
“Before we get to 2012, voters should send a message to the Democratic Party by mobilizing in support of Republican challengers to people like Harry Reid and the Nelson Twins. If ActBlue or MoveOn and some others explicitly went all out to unseat these guys and succeeded, it just might shake the rest of them up.”
Don’t worry. You won’t need ActBlue or MoveOn for that to happen. 2010 will be a bloodbath for the Democrats regardless of what the partisan idiots at those organizations do or don’t do between now and November of 2010.
As evidenced by his ever sinking approval numbers there are more and more people every day who are coming to the realization that they got royally punked by Team Obama.
At this point in time anyone who doesn’t now know that he really is just an “empty suit” deserves the bucket of ice water they’ll get thrown on them in the mid-terms.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for all your hard work Matt. We appreciate it.
I’m gonna defend Obama here, though. Sort of…
I didn’t vote for Obama in the primary or the general for the very reasons you listed above. I think he ran a pretty centrist campaign (Even if desperate people got swept up on “hope” and “change”, whatever that meant)
In my opinion, he is governing just how he campaigned. A Doubling/tripling down on Afghanistan, a half-assed stance on health care, no mention of breaking up TBTF, and a general/typical party line stance on climate change all the while his biggest contributor was none other then Goldman Sachs. And that’s what Obama is doing now. I’m not surprised.
Just like i thought, Obama’s “leftist” policies are being rejected and we now run the risk of having someone even farther to the right being elected in 2012. That’s the biggest shame of all.
You nailed it, Bobtim, and since Matt acknowledged Obama’s effective “imageering” (I called it “sloganeering”) I would say only those swept up in the sloganeering could possibly be surprised now. As a state senator Obama undermined his own bill to help protect his constituents from nuclear waste at the behest of the nuclear power lobbyists, and as a US Senator he completely flipped on his promise to hold the telecoms accountable for spying on Americans and gave them immunity. These are just a couple of examples that made it evident to anyone actually paying attention that the image his fevered followers held on Obama was completely fabricated. His actions now should not come as any surprise. Strongarming the Dems into increased funding for Bush’s war on terror, the continuation of rendition, exoneration for torture, expanding Bush’s faith-based office, nontransparent meetings with big Pharma, and so on, were utterly predictable. And, given the silly Fox News distractions on both sides, you are right regarding who is going to suffer in the future: progressives, for being blamed by the stealth continuation of Bush policies by this Trojan Ass.
In response to another comment. See in context »LOL
Brilliant idea – just don’t forget the plastic bags and zip ties! Can’t have their wings coming out – they’ll just fly back to The Pit for new instructions.
Matt, I’ll preface this by saying I love your work and thanks for peeling back the feces-encrusted rock on Goldman Sachs, but I think you left out the elephant in the room, which is campaign financing and the cost of getting elected. Until we have a ban on corporate financing and do away with the bs that corporate money is somehow speech, the paying off of politicians will continue.
Elizabeth Warren is fantastic, but I hope you will pay attention to what “going werewolf” Alan Grayson is doing. He is standing up and saying out loud a lot of things that need to be said and just set up a “money bomb” for November 2. Economically, this is the worst time for Americans to put their hard-earned money into political campaigns, but by the same token, it’s the most crucial time because every dollar we spend will potentially offset the vast sums of money corporations throw at corrupt candidates. Just a thought. Please keep up the great work.
I agree with you creepus, I work for a public finance advocacy group (common cause) and I can honestly tell you that if the proposals we tried to push through state governments were adopted, things would be drastically different. This holds even truer for local and municipal elections, where there are the same local big money figures that stand almost no chance of being overthrown by local grassroots movements. So two silver bullets here, public financing and increased participation in state and local elections.
Unfortunately I do not think either of these scenarios are likely, just from personal experience. Constructing scenarios where the populace wakes up and takes charge is as fun as it is fruitless. Not to say it couldn’t happen, but I think if it does happen, none of us will be able to predict when or why.
In response to another comment. See in context »First off, I agree with everything you wrote. That said, I’m not optimistic our problems can be solved politically. A true solution would result in a level playing field — and that is not something the movers and shakers in either party really want. (Do they want smart, anonymous kids from smalltown America getting accepted into Harvard over their own children? Do they want smart, honest guys sitting on boards of directors rather than former politicians?)
I had hope that Obama might bring real change, but I never had any hope that the Democratic party would support him. The Democratic party establishment fought tooth and nail to push the nomination to Hillary. Hillary frequently bemoaned Obama’s lack of experience, but I saw it as a positive; he was not going to have tight buddy-buddy relationships with all the wrong people in Washington.
But Obama wasn’t a fighter. He tapped out the first time someone pushed him. In retrospect, hiring a tax cheat (sorry, there’s no other way to put it) to head the Treasury was an early warning signal.
Whoa! What primary election did you attend, cruss! The Party planned Obama’s nomination far in advance. That’s why they moved the convention to a completely different month than traditional, years in advance, to fall on the anniversary of MLK’s “I have a Dream” speech. What part of simply handing over delegates to Obama from a state where he wasn’t even on the ballot don’t you get? The party gifted delegates to a man who pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan. Simply took votes and reassigned them. You don’t get any more affirmative action than that. And, in 2008 as in 2000, I prefer my candidates elected, not selected. But hey, that’s me. One of the last standing in the community formerly known as “reality based.”
In response to another comment. See in context »“I think we need to have a public debate about who owns the Democratic Party. Is it owned by the people actually voting? Or is it owned by the people paying for the ads?”
I think we had that debate already: the guy, Dean, actually had real voters paying for his real campaign (not a media stunt) and he was undermined, not just by the opposition, but by his own party who worked with the Republicans to cement his failure (see kamikaze Gephardt, Le Scream, Gibbs, ads in Iowa paid for by both Dems and Repubs and, well, search away).
The problem is not the Democrats; they’re just a symptom of an opportunistic disease that infects both parties. If we, America, can’t get our act together to form a third party, sooner or later we’ll start to see a credible threat of secession (think California rather than Texas).
It’s almost comical the way the armchair online pundits continually denounce the corruption of “both parties” and then conclude we need an umpteenth unnamed “third” party, which is always imagined as “new” and incorruptible. Oh, yes, the Magical Mystical Third Party will come riding up on a horse —no, make that pony—and save us all.
In response to another comment. See in context »Keep singing that establishment song. How does it go again? Oh, yeah…
Collapsing dollar traps Americans inside their country with NO INDUSTRY, NO JOBS, NO HEALTHCARE and NO MIDDLE CLASS DREAM to keep you warm at night.
But just keep choosing Chocolate or Vanilla until you are too fat to do anything about the problem.
Good solution, roby!
Terrific solution
In response to another comment. See in context »Suggested the same thing a few weeks ago. The non-mush-mouth communicator. Warren’s lack of pretense and arrogance combined with her ability to make the complex comprehensible is rare in politics. Rare because requires intelligence, expertise, competence, heart, and ethics.
Elizabeth Warren as the first woman President would be like a dream come true for at least one boomer feminist.
For the record I find Mrs. Warren Adorable. I like how she speaks to the issues. I agree that the discussion needs to be had….who owns the Democratic Party? I donated 200+ dollars to Obama’s campaign and while he’s high on talk he’s low on substance. I didn’t donate to support bipartisanship. I did it to get the policies he ran on in place.
And i am one who does not thing Geithner and Summers need to have any say in economic policy after watch the latest fronline episode. These are the geniuses who got it wrong and they have been rewarded. It is a source of great anger to me that those 2 idiots are at the highest levels and people like Warren, Mrs Brooksley Borns and Krugman are not.
People need to recognize those who were right all along and tell the idiots to shut the fuck up.
Obama ran as a “post” partisan “Uniter” and praised Reagan. It’s a little late now to wish for a champion of a partisan, populist party. You more than missed your champion, you dismissed her. Hillary told us she was a fighter, and those hopped up on Hopium denounced that. Nice try at rewriting history, though. You got exactly what you paid for. Unfortunately, so did the rest of us. Thanks so much.
In response to another comment. See in context »2012 belongs to the candidate with the best jobs-creation story.
From OpportuniTV.com:
Want to catalyze a lot of job creation? Replicate Blogads.com, add two barter currencies, introduce complementary software and media, allow your company to be acquired by a media conglomerate that owns a broadcast TV network, introduce many online prediction markets, then an online market for customized education, then provide student loans, then become a bank, then introduce other financial services that complement said markets, then secure complementary reform of bank regulation.
…This site adapts a business plan that I developed as a byproduct of researching a premise for a Web sitcom. The plan has been praised by analysts at Microsoft, Amazon.com and top venture capital firm Draper fisher Jurvetson. Canonical research findings (i.e., 100% not mine) suggest that implementations of the plan will catalyze a lot of job creation, and will catalyze economic growth more generally.
Elizabeth Warren would be an awesome president. We need to pry our democracy back from the claws of big corporations. We need to keep telling the sordid truth of all the ways big corps manipulate our democracy for their benefit to our collective detriment.
I think progressives need to go for it. We can continue to have somewhat less horrible than Republican, Democratic governments for the foreseeable future or we get the real progressive change we need either by simply winning or picking up the pieces after more Republican devastation.
[...] question I have lately is, why not draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president? And I don’t mean in 2016, I mean in [...]
I presume you’ve read The Two-Income Trap?
I obtained the book about 3 weeks ago after I saw that Berkeley youtube lecture online, and I found it a surprisingly useful book, and one of the few things which can actually be used as an ‘argument’ against deregulation of the banking/lending industry. I’m not American, and as such have some trouble understanding how people can be so dogmatic on the issue of (de)regulation of markets when it’s so obvious – even from that outdated book the bible – that ‘usury’ is an evil that feeds upon itself and that banks shouldn’t be trusted to behave in such unequal relationships, but the fact that they wrote that book has given me the wonderful opportunity to point it out to people when they start talking about how “deregulation something you choose to be for/against, and actual data doesn’t figure into that decision”.
And because it’s a book (something other people can buy themselves and will put faith in just because of the form in which the information is presented. ;P), as well as being fairly rigorously argued and supported, it might even convince a few other people of reconsidering some of their held beliefs.
What saddens me, though, is how boringly transparent the critiques by the ‘other side’ are. I read a few critiques of the book, most notably (I guess) one by Megan McArdle on theatlantic, in which she refers to some twit at GMU who “criticized” the fact that she didn’t mention the fact that higher taxes mean that you lose a larger portion of your income to said taxes, and who she said is her biggest critic. (Whining about how she ‘covered up’ a “140% increase” in nominal taxes paid as though that means anything in a world without regressive taxation.) Pretty mind-numbing stuff, really.
Anyway, thanks for writing “Sick & wrong”.. It was an interesting demonstration of the importance of being able to frame issues (i.e., to be able to decide which alternatives will and will not be discussed) in a debate.
[...] Steven Perez to Steven’s feed, US Politics Matt Taibbi – Taibblog – Elizabeth Warren for President – True/Slant – http://trueslant.com/matttai…; [...]
Elizabeth Warren in 2012 ?? Please, God, let it be true.
She’s the only person the banks and their lobbyists fear. Her Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the reforms she proposes in THE TWO-INCOME TRAP would cost the banks billions in lost revenues. And they know she can’t be bought off.
Professor Warren, you’ve got my vote, my contribution, my volunteer time, whatever you need to make this dream come true.
Elizabeth Warren seems like a nice woman and, if she would like the chance to have her name dragged through the mud, then running for President would be it. I think this keeps many people out of politics on a national level who could and would change the course of our country. Progressives are really good at identifying problems but don’t seem to be ruthless enough to implement the solutions necessary to make a real differnce. I agree with what you wrote— the people in Congress (with a few notable exceptions) behave as if they’re in the House of Lords.
Reading this made me so distraught I had to go walk around outside for a little while.
Here’s a note I sent to EJ Dionne this morning in response to his column today:
Mr Dionne, You may not believe it but the base of the Democratic Party is “the left”, not “moderates and liberals” as you state – just as the base of the Republican Party is “the right”. Dem moderates and quite a lot of liberals have been swing voters for 30 years.
As of this moment, I plan to not vote in the next election for anyone who voted for the TARP bailout, or votes against public option in health care bill. In 2012 I will vote for any 3rd party candidate to the left of O-man, or not vote in presidentail race at all. All my liberal and moderate friends are looking with extreme prejudice on this bunch of criminals in Congress and Obama’s criminal lineup in Treasury and Fed. I’m 66, a retired rancher, living in CO.
———————————————–
This assumes that O-man will be the Dem candidate, of course. I admired Warren’s testimony immensely and would support her with my checkbook and my time (as I did Obama) were she to get in the race as a Dem.
I don’t agree with the premise that any political philosophy has a monopoly on fairness and righteousness, especially with regard to Wallstreet. There are conservative types that are just as pissed off about Wallstreet as the progressives are. A true honest conservative might not be compassionate, but can be tight-assed about fairness and legality. It comes down to both of the main political parties are full of sycophants. Democrats just tend to be a bit more hypocritical lately. The worst type of Democrat is the one who sees themself as part of the entitled elitist ruling class offering modest comfort to the stupid aimless mongrels as long as they don’t live in their neighborhood. Goldman Sachs are full of these types. I am still hopeful that Obama will break through the political barrier and start following through with his larger promises. However, patience will be gone with the electorate by next election season.
Really, Zaid? Reading Taibbi’s post made you want to “walk around outside for a little while”?
Well, shit. If that’s not insight, I don’t know what is.
I’m obviously pro-free speech, but as a contributor, you know the comments you make will be placed ahead of ours at the front of the line. Maybe you should actually try writing something of substance for once, instead of telling us that you took a walk today, or what you would do if you head your own TV show.
Honestly, I think a person outside of the Democratic or Republican party would fare very well. I haven’t done any surveys, but all the “lay people” I talk with, ALL are sick and tired of the Republican and Democratic congress. They might not be able to articulate why, but intuitively they know that the needs of the people in the society are not driving the agenda in Washington, and there is a general feeling overall that we have been unfairly saddled with this whole financial fiasco. I think, although I don’t know exactly how, but the internet and the communication it allows should somehow create a situation where a person totally outside of the main-stream in Washington could win. I believe there is an overriding sentiment for this to happen.
It has to be more than not accepting corporate money. This is something that Obama worked on doing, to some extent. And most of the Obama folks, from my work in DC, I know to be really trying to change stuff. But their method of change is kind of like some kind of detente with special interests. We give a little, you give a little, we all sink or swim together.
That’s not what we need.
We need people openly hostile to big interests and openly and fiercely partisan for average Americans.
That isn’t how DC has worked for decades upon decades, but that’s what we need if things are going to change. All this timid incrementalism might get something done in the long run, but in the long run, we’re all dead.
Who do you mean by “Obama folk,” Zaid? The followers who fell for the sloganeering? It’s a little late to be wishing for someone fiercely partisan, because that’s not what Obama ran as. I remember how rabid the reaction was to Hillary’s assertion she was a fighter. That’s not what the hopey-changey crowd wanted. So, if it’s what you all now want, let’s see it framed correctly: try it. Say, we were wrong. We thought we liked Obama’s message of post-partisan. We fell for the same line Bush used “I’m a uniter.” We denounced Hillary when she told us she was a “fighter.” We purposely chose the opposite. Now we’re wishing for a fighter. Now we’re cringing at the “timid” approach. Now we’re so upset we have to go take walks.
Go take another walk, Zaid, and think about this. I can’t wait till I see even one Hope-Change customer own up instead of blame “Washington” or “The Democratic Party.”
In response to another comment. See in context »I like your post very much! Well said.
In response to another comment. See in context »“We need people openly hostile to big interests and openly and fiercely partisan for average Americans.”
Right Zaid. However, we are, in this era of late capital, caught up in “the System,” whether we are “players” or bystanders injured by the latest bubble contrivance engineered by G-Sax. That is, without MOMENTUM from the rank and file–TOGETHER with a Warren or Kucinich or Nader–i.e., a real PRESENCE on the Mall in DC akin to, e.g., what turned out in 1995–the Million Man March. Politics aside on that event, we need that kind of collective show of WILL on the part of the electorate, + a populist executive: e.g., Elizabeth Warren.
That is, the participatory democracy needs—PARTICIPANTS! Direct action–versus direct commentary.
Once again: “We need people openly hostile to big interests and openly and fiercely partisan for average Americans.”
The “people” we need must exist in the rank and file as well–not solely in the political arena. Which of your neighbors have scruples about getting in with G-Sax–in order to, e.g., realize their “American Dream” come true!
And, which of your neighbors–isn’t that a quaint and obsolete term?–care about their neighbors’ well-being?
A participatory democracy needs participants, not Sheeple hoping to move up the pyramid in the 233 year-old Ponzi scheme called America.
The System has insinuated itself virtually everywhere and the stakes are in the stratosphere–it is an entirely different realm from the one FDR trafficked in–and to count upon yet another “charismatic” politician–this time as Superwoman–is more fatuous complacency on our part, not activism.
We need participants more than another “guide,” no matter how marketable they may seem at any given moment. If we STILL count on the change coming from the top down, we have not learned a thing. “Top down” implies Power. I refer you to Lord Acton on that one.
the American Dream: a vulgar “piece of the action”
In response to another comment. See in context »I too think that Elizabeth Warren is presidential material, but she could use a little help in the looks department. So I’m willing to volunteer my time to doll her up with a new dress and ‘do that’ll make men drool even more than they did over the Barracuda Babe.
Like they say, sex sells, and I’ve got the skills to sex Liz up a bit.;~)
Elizabeth Warren is my hero–Can we get Brooksley Born for VP?, watch her go up against the free market brain trusters who got us into this mess on PBS “The Warning” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/ as head of the CFTC. Alan Greenspan had to admit he was wrong about the world, but I didn’t see him apologizing to her. Larry Summers and Tim Geitner were a part of that “brain” trust–very enthralled with their own brilliance.
Chris Hedges’ article puts it best:
“Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.”
Read the rest here, this isn’t new and many saw this coming, you shouldn’t be surprised, we are a 1 party system and have been for quite a long time…wake up
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090503_buying_brand_obama/
Yep, Barrack “Hope” Obama was a brand, but does that excuse voters for being “duped?” It shouldn’t, and that includes Matt Taibbi. I remember.
In response to another comment. See in context »I watched the Elizabeth Warren interview on Yahoo [http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/355739/Wall-St.-Is-Winning-Elizabeth-Warren-%22Speechless%22-About-Record-Bonuses?tickers=XLF,FAS,FAZ,JPM,GS,BAC,C] and was astonished to hear someone in a position of power speak honestly. She all but called Geithner a liar (which he is) while politely saying that the Goldmans and AIGs stole taxpayer money, went to Vegas, and won — knowing if they lost they’d get bailed out all over again. Warren understands the game is fixed. A lot of us do. The question is how we change it. Sad to say that I have lost faith in Obama. As you say, we needed an FDR. Obama talks a good game, but so far it’s been all talk, and there is no reason to think that is going to change.
Jon: I couldn’t agree more with your comments regarding Elizabeth Warren. Her clarity and honesty are such a breath of fresh air. I’m afraid Pres.Obama’s “change we can beleive in” is wilting away under that stale air that exists under the Washington bubble.
In response to another comment. See in context »See, that wasn’t so hard.