Run, Ted, Run!
Joan Walsh over at Salon.com has been delighted listening to our Senator become one of the leading voices on banking reform. And she wants him to run. Ms. Walsh is late to the party here, but she’s got it right (mostly):
Yes, Kaufman could be seen as complicit in that arrangement, which might hamper his standing with Delaware voters. But while he’s had the seat, he’s voted his conscience and he’s led in the ways Biden would have – and maybe even more aggressively, when it comes to bank reform. Some might say that Kaufman is only free to be so aggressively progressive because he’s not running for reelection, but I’m not that cynical. I hope Kaufman reconsiders, now that he sees what the job requirements are: strong values, and a little courage. Democrats need more fighters.
I don’t know if Biden would have taken this position on these banks — I strongly suspect not — but that takes nothing away from Senator Kaufman and his extraordinary leadership on this issue. Congress would do really well to listen to what he has to say and act on it. He understands completely the risk of Too Big to Fail as well as the shenanigans bank will pull to make sure that they continue to socialize all of the risks they take. Senator Ted was on Countdown last night discussing the Goldman Sachs testimony, which was highlighted in UI’s post this AM. And he has been just everywhere talking up the idea of tough reform.
It is too late for a Draft Ted movement, I imagine, but it is fun to see our local hero on banking reform get this kind of attention.
Tags: Bank Reform 2010, Ted Kaufman
Hear, HEAR!! Thanks, Cassandra!
Can I put that Run Ted Run on the front bumper? His bill would just enrich the Clearinghouses like Goldman Sachs, I have two posts on it so I won’t bore you with details. Read them if you like.
Typically dumb-ass David. Because greater regulation would help GS, it must be bad. The article he links to basically calls for a self-regulating market. This is the problem with dumb people — they think they’re smart enough to understand what they’re saying.
Look, DAvid — just because nobody with much sense will engage you at your website doesn’t mean you’re welcome to spread your sludge here.
It’s not even the stupidest post on the first page. That honor belongs to his praise of the Arizona immigration law, which he places in the great American tradition of (I kid you not) of the Charles Lindbergh-led, Nazi Germany-sympathizing movement to keep the US out of WWII, and McCarthyism.
Why should this man be humored?
The new wing nut Mantra “Dems enrich GS” is BS! 🙂
More people are talking about it on my site than here. I didn’t know that you took over this site. That would be a shame because you can’t read well. It must be your reading glasses. The Arizonia immigration law piece had no mention of Lindbergh or anything else you mentioned.
There was an article on the tea party in which I warned it not to make the mistakes of other legitimate movements and tie itself to flawed causes. America First was a legitimate concern, but it was so emotionally opposed to war that it did not realize that it was fighting the last war and did not see the evil in front of it. Its legitimate concerns were discredited for two generations by its short sightedness and knee jerk reaction. If it had not been we would have not been stuck in Viet Nam. My warning to the movement was to avoid extremist elements that can discredit it.
Now G wants to claim that it was “praise for the Charles Lindbergh-led, Nazi Germany-sympathizing movement to keep the US out of WWII.” Can you not read or is it an intentional distortion?
There is no long term reader who isn’t aware that I believe Joe McCarthy was a hero and history has shown him right. I also believe that he fell into excess. The House and prosecution in the courts proved extensive communist infiltration. My point was that he got sloppy and his sloppy approach to a real concern allowed his opponents to destroy him. It was also a warning not to tie your fate to one person. The anti-communist movement prospered and won.
Given that much of the financial contagion was fueled by uncertainty about counterparties’ balance sheets,” Goldman Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn wrote in a letter at the beginning of the annual report, “we support measures that would require higher capital and liquidity levels, as well as the use of clearinghouses for standardized derivative transactions. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Goldman-rallies-for-Obama-in-Wall-Street-_reform_-90957879.html
Joe McCarthy has only been *proven* right in the reimagined histories being peddled by such noted historians as Ann Coulter. Given your own inability to read other people’s posts, you are in no position to criticize anyone else. Especially since your criticism is Exhibit A, B, C and D of your inability to read honestly what other people write.
Oh please, Geezer can’t even remotely keep a post straight. There was not even a mention of immigration and America First and the America first comparison was exactly the opposite of high praise. I can’t even call him a joke because he is not even funny.
The Army officer in the hearing was a commie. Hollywood was infiltrated with Commie writers. The state department had a commie writing the UN charter and gave the Soviet Union 3 votes and a place on the Security council. They stole our secrets. They endangered our people. It is because of the infiltration that we spent 40 years in a nuclear standoff. Yet, you say Joe was the problem. I beg to differ. He was an American hero for calling the scum out. The people who tried to stop him to prevent their own embarrasment should be the ones who bare the shame of their negligence.
Keep it up — this entire site is an apparent adjunct to your own Museum of Stupid. If you had just one bit of grace you would have re-read what Geezer had to say. Because you completely didn’t get any bit of it.
But that is your usual MO, right? Just go back to your place where the bar for sensibility is very much lower.
Comment by Republican David:Can I put that Run Ted Run on the front bumper? His bill would just enrich the Clearinghouses like Goldman Sachs, I have two posts on it so I won’t bore you with details. Read them if you like.
I’ll skip your posts on your foolish belief that Ted’s bill would enrich GS, not because they would bore me, that’s a given, but because it’s pure BS, however, I will take a couple “Run Ted Run” bumper stickers!
scrolling, scrolling, scrolling
I sing it to the tune of the old Rawhide TV show jingle. Most of you don’t remember when Clint Eastwood was very young and on TV, but the song went, “rolling, rolling, rolling, keep those dogies rolling, Raw – Hide.”
We should be so lucky, that and Castle would piss his pants!
It’s a pity because I think Kaufman might have defeated Castle.
Anonone was channeling Frank Luntz talking points:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-luntz/why-the-dodd-financial-se_b_556225.html
I know Ted. I love Ted. But don’t you think he is able to take these very populist non-Delaware Way anti-banking positions BECAUSE he is not running? Having worked in Democratic HQ in a year when Biden was running and David Plouffe was running Oberly’s campaign, Biden’s folks (more DiClemente than Kaufman) were always trying to back Plouffe down from some of the more in-your-face anti-DC-status-quo positions that Sen. Kaufman is now free to take himself.
JM: Does anyone read Frank Luntz at face value? His job is to spin things pro-Republican — why should I believe a word he says? Why does anyone?
Does anyone read Frank Luntz at face value? … why should I believe a word he says? Why does anyone?
Exactly the point. Anonone was adopting Luntz’ unfounded faux populism in opposing the $50 billion liquidation fund, paid for by a tax on banks, to finance the orderly liquidation of large financial services firms, claiming, without resort to facts, “it is the taxpayers and customers who will pay for this $50 billion dollar fund.”
http://delawareliberal.net//2010/04/21/i-feel-like-ive-heard-this-song-before/#comment-184797
They’ve already switched to the claim that “higher costs for banks will be passed on to consumers, so it operates like a hidden tax.”
I love this propensity to call businesses passing on the true costs of things to consumers a “hidden tax.” As if trying to curb pollution, for example, shouldn’t be part of the cost.
The real “hidden tax” is whatever a business decides to keep as profit, as it’s the one accounting line completely in a business’s control.
I do not oppose the $50 billion fund. What I oppose is having that alone without any other teeth in the bill such as derivative trading controls, limits on leverage, and criminal penalties for violations.
Nevertheless, if you don’t think that consumers are ultimately going to pay for this because banks are just going to lower their profit margins to absorb the costs instead, you’re simply nuts.
http://delawareliberal.net//2010/04/21/i-feel-like-ive-heard-this-song-before/#comment-184809
A1 reprises his role as bill-killer, meanwhile not understanding that the market sets interest rates.
John, where did I say to kill this bill? I never said that. And if you think that banks only make money from interest rates, you’re truly naive.
And what sensate biped ever suggested that “banks only make money from interest rates”?