• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Propertius on What’s in a Team Na…
    William on What’s in a Team Na…
    jmac on What’s in a Team Na…
    William on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
    William on What’s in a Team Na…
    William on What’s in a Team Na…
    William on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
    Beata on What’s in a Team Na…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – December 4, 2022
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – December 4, 2022 by Tony Wikrent   Professional Management Class war on workers Railroading workers [Popular Information, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-29-2022] “The dispute boils down to one issue: paid sick leave. … Railroad companies have adamantly refused to include any short-term paid leave. That means rail wor […]
  • Top Posts

Economics Food Fight

Matt Taibbi

Finally we have something fun to talk about. This could save us from wallowing in the horrors of Obama’s health insurance company bailout bill all weekend long. Matt Taibbi’s latest piece came out in Rolling Stone weeks ago, but was only available to subscribers until recently. Suddenly there is a fascinating back and forth going on between Taibbi and Obama apologist Tim Fernholtz at American Prospect. Fernholz nitpicked Taibbi’s article in a much-discussed critique. Then Felix Salmon stepped in to add his two cents to war of words. Then, Taibbi put his own response to Fernholz up on his blog. And finally, the latest: Fernholz has a new response to Taibbi’s response and he includes a couple of digs at Salmon too!

Here are links to all the relevant articles with some highlights:

Taibbi’s original RS story: Obama’s Big Sellout

Taibbi’s main argument is that Bob Rubin and people closely connected with him are running Obama’s economic policy–ensuring that deregulation and free-trade will continue to be the order of the day, rather than efforts to control an out-of-control Wall Street.

It is bad enough that one of Bob Rubin’s former protégés from the Clinton years, the New York Fed chief Geithner, is intimately involved in the negotiations, which unsurprisingly leave the Federal Reserve massively exposed to future Citi losses. But the real stunner comes only hours after the bailout deal is struck, when the Obama transition team makes a cheerful announcement: Timothy Geithner is going to be Barack Obama’s Treasury secretary!

Geithner, in other words, is hired to head the U.S. Treasury by an executive from Citigroup — Michael Froman — before the ink is even dry on a massive government giveaway to Citigroup that Geithner himself was instrumental in delivering. In the annals of brazen political swindles, this one has to go in the all-time Fuck-the-Optics Hall of Fame.

Wall Street loved the Citi bailout and the Geithner nomination so much that the Dow immediately posted its biggest two-day jump since 1987, rising 11.8 percent. Citi shares jumped 58 percent in a single day, and JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley soared more than 20 percent, as Wall Street embraced the news that the government’s bailout generosity would not die with George W. Bush and Hank Paulson.

Fernholz’s critique: The Errors of Matt Taibbi

Matt Taibbi has done it again — written a nightmare of a story for Rolling Stone on Obama’s economic sell-out of his campaign. The piece is a factual mess, a conspiracy theorist’s dream, doesn’t even indict Obama for his real failures (which I’ll discuss in a post later today) and of course invokes the cold hands of Bob Rubin like a bogeyman at every turn. This is pernicious for a lot of journalistic reasons, but politically it’s bad for progressives beacuse conspiracy theories stand in the way of good policy analysis and good activism, replacing them with apathy and fear.

Salmon’s critique of Fernholtz’s critique: Fernholtz vs. Taibbi

Tim Fernholz’s intemperate attack on Matt Taibbi and his latest article is getting a lot of attention in the Twittersphere. It turns out that a lot of journalists don’t like Taibbi, and love it when he gets taken down a peg.

But Fernholz’s attack is weaker than it looks at first glance; a lot of it is simply a matter of slant and opinion.

Taibbi’s response to Fernholz: On Obama’s Big Sellout

So I fucked up with that line — “a former Clinton diplomat” — and for that I certainly am sorry, among other things because Rolling Stone’s fact-checkers are the most rigorous in the business (much more so than any other newspaper or magazine I’ve worked for) and I think actually this was my error and not theirs, a late-stage mixup near press time.

Now, that said, it was indeed Bob Rubin’s son Jamie who worked with Michael Froman in the Obama transition team. Had it not been Bob Rubin’s son, that would certainly have qualified as a serious error, because then we’d be making an argument based upon a factual error.

But the basic argument of the article was that an enormous number of people with ties to Bob Rubin and/or other Wall Street insiders had assumed positions of responsibility in the Obama transition and White House. And Jamie Rubin is Bob Rubin’s son, and he was a headhunter for Obama’s economic hires from the first days of the transition. So the meaning here is really not significantly different. The fact that this heads the Prospect’s list of complaints says a lot about the substance of this criticism.

Fernholz’s response to Taibbi’s response and Salmon’s critique of his critique of Taibbi: Lighting Round

So yesterday’s post on Matt Taibbi’s latest in Rolling Stone got a bit more attention than I had anticipated, including a response from Felix Salmon that I thought was worth addressing. Salmon defends Taibbi — I’d accuse him of some logrolling in our time thanks to his appearance in the piece, but Salmon is better than that — but it’s not a very strong defense….

Here’s my point: Taibbi has written an article arguing that Obama has sold out his campaign-era economic populism by surrounding himself with Bob Rubin’s lackeys and giving away the farm to the bankers — “one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history.” Only it turns out, though, that many of the Rubinites he identifies don’t work on the things he says they work on, or don’t take the positions he applies to them, or aren’t as influential as he thinks they are. The people he says were “banished” from Obama’s inner circle, like Austan Goolsbee, weren’t. He manages not to mention any of the populist decisions Obama has made.

And Andrew Leonard at Salon is threatening to get involved–he sounds like another Obama apologist.

Is it my imagination, or does the attribution “spent 12 years as an executive at Goldman Sachs” now carry with it the stain of the scarlet letter? Nothing more need be said.

I will return to this theme later today when I tackle Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone assault on President Barack Obama but let’s note here for the record that this is yet another case of the White House proposing a sensible piece of regulatory reform — anything that quacks like a financial services banking duck should be regulated like a financial services banking duck — that has been watered down by Congress.

Back and forth–who will be heard from next and will they come to blows?


Here is the promised attack on Taibbi by Andrew Leonard: Matt Taibbi goes Obama scalp hunting

And, another voice pipes up from the peanut gallery, Big Media Matt, king of the apologists, Blame Obama First h/t MABlue


Salmon returns Leonard’s serve: Don’t Ask Taibbi to be Krugman

But where does Salmon get the idea that we have a “left-leaning government now?” What is he smoking?

digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

121 Responses

  1. Great job BB.

    I have actually spent the last hour reading everything about those back and forth.

    Since no new Tiger Woods’s mistress came out today, this here is a pretty good ersatz.

    • I just updated the post with relevant excerpts from each piece.

      • Tim Fernholz’s Lightning Round is a little strange He didn’t really address Taibbi’s response to his critique. He chose to focus on Felix Salmon. I was really interested in his response to Taibbi’s response because the latter did a very good job in addressing the main part of Tim’s critique.

        I like how Tim Fernholz complains about the fact that Taibi didn’t about what HE sees as Obama’s sellout and that Taibbi

        manages not to mention any of the populist decisions Obama has made.

  2. I asked Salmon about Taibbi’s 20 trillion number on the bailout outlays and guarantees. He says Taibbi is using Barofsky’s numbers and implicitly backs it up. Holy cow.

    • Do you know who Andrew Leonard is? Is he an economist?

      • Now I go by the more illustrious title of “senior technology writer” for Salon.com.

    • And John Carney of Business Insider responded similarly.

      The $23 Trillion isn’t Taibbi’s number. It is Neil Barofsky’s estimate of total max outlays from current bailout commitments. @threewickets

      • Taibbi said it was a worst case scenario–but so what? The administrations worst-case scenario for unemployment was something like 8.9%

        • There in lies the rub. These worst-case scenarios seem to have a nasty habit of happening and not being worst-case at all.

  3. I wonder why, in all this chest bumping, there was no mention of the 36% of Citi that was bought by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubuai and Japan. (Although, I gather Kuwait has now sold theirs – to whom?) What does that international rescue effort really mean? What, besides, profit, was the motive for them? How do these international plays affect our efforts to fix what is broken?

  4. OK, here is the promised attack on Taibbi by Andrew Leonard at Salon:


  5. What I find less important than whodunit is what they done.

    • Example from the Leonard piece linked above:

      Let’s start with a minor nit, Taibbi’s treatment of Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economist who was one of Obama’s chief economic advisors during the campaign. Taibbi describes Goolsbee as a “populist” who was exiled to “Siberia” after the election. Meanwhile, Taibbi also criticizes Obama for retreating from his campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA. Left out of the story is that Goolsbee achieved notoriety during the campaign precisely because he told Canadian government officials not to fuss about Obama’s NAFTA promises — dismissing them as just rhetoric. That’s hardly the stuff of populism. It also might have been fun to ask Goolsbee what he thinks of Taibbi’s overall thesis, since he’s been one of the toughest and most eloquent defenders of Obama’s overall strategy to date.

      Why fuss over Goolsbee? The important fact is Obama lied about NAFTA

      • Exactly. Taibbi is nuts if he thinks Goolsbee is a populist. Goolsbee wants to privatize social security! But that isn’t the point. None of these guys wants to blame Obama for his own policies. At least Taibbi is starting to get it.

    • No kidding. But the Obama apologists aren’t gonna go there, so they nitpick instead.

      This is from from Yglesias’ post:

      Having briefly zeroed-in on the problem, which is not Obama or his Wall Street crony advisors, but rather the members of congress who take okay ideas and make them worse, the very next sentence is “The White House’s refusal to push for real reform stands in stark contrast to what it should be doing.”

      According to him, Obama can’t get anything accomplished because of Congress. Excuse me? The Dems have a supermajority. And Obama has been getting exactly what he wants from Congess anyway.

    • And now Salmon back on Leonard. (This is like playing twister. Getting confoosed.)


    • Isn’t that pretty obvious by now? Growth doesn’t exist on Main St. America.

      • Yeah, well, if they’d look away from their computer models and textbooks and self-reinforcing society every once in awhile and just take a DRIVE down any average Main Street, they might know what is FUCKING OBVIOUS to the rest of us.

        There is no economic activity other than that generated by Ben frantically pedaling on the Fed’s hamster wheel. That’s fine and good if all you need is the spark to jump-start the private sector. But if you think you can generate enough power for an entire economy from that, you’re dreaming.

        The thing that differentiates this recession from others is the DEBT. We pulled out of the last one because consumers went out and SPENT. But what they spent was their credit, their equity loans, their home values. They can’t do that this time. They are flat busted, over their heads in debt, can’t borrow another dime, and have no jobs. If the PTB are waiting on the American Consumer to rescue them this time, they are living in la-la land. Ain’t gonna happen.

  6. Matt Yglesias:

    For example, the name “Ben Nelson” doens’t appear in the article. Nor will you read about Olympia Snowe. Nor Blanche Lincoln. Nor any of the other pivotal actors in the senate, whose decision to vote “yes” or “no” defines the limits of what’s possible. Near the end of the article, Taibbi seems to be finally getting on track.


    The implicit theory of political change here, that pivotal members of congress undermine reform proposals because of “the White House’s refusal to push for real reform” is just wrong. That’s not how things work. The fact of the matter is that Matt Taibbi is more liberal than I am, and I am more liberal than Larry Summers is, but Larry Summers is more liberal than Ben Nelson is. Replacing Summers with me, or with Taibbi, doesn’t change the fact that the only bills that pass the Senate are the bills that Ben Nelson votes for.

    The problem here, to be clear, isn’t that lefties are being too mean to poor Barack Obama. The problem is that to accomplish the things I want to see accomplished, people who want change need to correctly identify the obstacles to change. If members of congress are replaced by less-liberal members in the midterms, then the prospects for changing the status quo will be diminished. By contrast, if members are replaced by more-liberal members (either via primaries or general elections) the prospects for changing the status will be improved. Back before the 2008 election, it would frequently happen that good bills passed congress and got vetoed by the president. Since Obama got elected, that doesn’t happen anymore. Now instead Obama proposes things that get watered down or killed in congress. That means focus needs to shift.

    Funny, but it seems to me Obama got everything he asked for from Congress regarding Wall Street. They’ve been fighting and nit-picking healthcare reform for months now, but TARP and the stimulus sailed through in a matter of days.

    • He did. Yglesias seems to be conflating the health care fight with the bank bailout. Ironically, Obama is getting exactly what he wanted from the blue dogs in the House and convservative Dems in the Senate too. I guess Yglesias thinks when Obama lies, he’s actually telling the true and then getting beaten down by Congress


    • Exactly, he’s blaming the Blue Dogs for what the Fed and Obama’s Treasury has been free to do in the past year. It’s defend Obama first, then support with whatever pretzel logic. Makes no sense. Congress is miles behind this runaway train. It’s the Administration and the Fed trying to pull off some magic trick with the capital markets. Someone (like Volcker) needs to step in and inject some reality.

    • Obama’s minions had no problem corraling the superdelegates by threatening to “primary” them. So how come he has no way of influencing them now that he’s, oh, the prez?

  7. The idea that Obama is being led astray by his advisers is premised on his lack of knowledge and experience. That’s inescapable.
    I agree he lacks knowledge and experience, but I think he’s corrupt too.

    I figured that out last year during the primaries.

    • I remember the same sort, the Bush apologists, continually said the same BS about the Bush white house, that he was being led astray by bad advisors.

      I but if you looked you could find the very same Obama apologists calling BS on that notion when it was about Bush.

      I have to say, this is rather fun to watch. What a bunch of asswipes.

    • hey, remember Ronkseattle? He was one of the first co-bloggers on TC. He wrote this very clairvoyant post last year in January 2008. It’s all about Goolsbee. Obots should have seen this coming but would they listen?!?!?The audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics
      When the bonus class saw Goolsbee on Obama’s advisor list, they knew exactly what they were getting. Ronk tried. But the Obots had their fingers in their ears singing, “R@CISTS, R@CISTS!!!”
      And now we’re stuck with him. Thanks for nuthin’, kos.

  8. Reminds me of kids:

    Kid #1: You suck!

    Kid#2: No, you suck!

  9. Politico:

    President Obama is taking a sharp, populist tone with Wall Street and scolding the ways of Washington as he once again looks to the Senate to follow the House and pass one of his top legislative priorities: sweeping financial regulatory reform.


    “Just last week, Republican leaders in the House summoned more than 100 key lobbyists for the financial industry to a ‘pep rally,’ and urged them to redouble their efforts to block meaningful financial reform. Not that they needed the encouragement. These industry lobbyists have already spent more than $300 million on lobbying the debate this year,” the president said. “We can’t afford to let the same phony arguments and bad habits of Washington kill financial reform and leave American consumers and our economy vulnerable to another meltdown.”

    How much of that $300 million went to Democrats? What were administration officials saying to Wall Street in private? Was it anything like Goolsbee said to Canada about NAFTA?

    “Don’t worry about the rhetoric, we got your back”

  10. I like this comment on the second Fernholtz apologia:

    go back to The New Republic, you hack.

    i was going to donate $$$ to TAP for its fundraising drive, but after reading this jagoff’s drivel, i’d rather donate the $$$ to tiger woods to help him out in his time of need.


    Posted by: Go Back to TNR | December 12, 2009 3:01 PM

    Other commenters want to know why Fernholtz isn’t responding directly to Taibbi’s post. Um…because Taibbi made Fernholtz look like a fool?

  11. Didn’t get a chance to comment on the shock doctrine, but wanted to say:
    Who are those four men on horses I just saw riding past my house?
    Yea, I’m feeling a bit uneasy about things. Dak, if you find your way to Canada, make room for the rest of us.

    • actually, this time around I’m buying land and I’m intending to be a refuge … that thought was for tibetan and nepalis, but hey, come on up to the katfarm!!!

  12. BB
    you wanted something to cheer you up today. Try this.


    Every time I feel like things are bad and it is useless to keep trying , This great lady Hillary Clinton gives me a reason to believe.



  13. Digby:

    Taibbi’s apparent belief that Obama ran as an economic progressive rather than a fairly doctrinaire Rubinite undermines his piece a little bit, I think. But that’s a criticism that could apply to many people who ignored Obama’s essentially moderate record or chose to believe that he only said the things he said during the campaign in order to get elected. As for the rest, I lean toward Taibbi’s interpretation.

    Yeah, only a fool would have taken Obama for a progressive.

    • Digby. I have a lot easier time forgiving Taibbi than Digby. She actually has a lot more influence actual voters than he does.

      • Yeah–if it’s common knowledge Obama is a fairly doctrinaire Rubinite, then I have to wonder for the billionth time why the primary was such a bloodbath and why anyone who stood between us and the One Last Hope for Civilization had to be destroyed.

  14. From Wingnut First Class Glenn Reynolds:

    CAN I CALL ‘EM, OR WHAT? Back in September, noting a continuing pattern of White House incompetence, I predicted: “Expect this to play out in thumbsucker columns on whether America is ‘ungovernable.’”

    And, right on cue, here’s Matthew Yglesias: “The smarter elements in Washington DC are starting to pick up on the fact that it’s not tactical errors on the part of the president that make it hard to get things done, it’s the fact that the country has become ungovernable.”

    Funny, that dumb cowboy Bush seemed to get a lot done with fewer votes in Congress. . . .

    Plus, from the comments: “There have been no major institutional changes in the United States government in recent history that have caused it to ‘become ungovernable.’ There just isn’t enough political support to enact various news laws and policies that you favor. Tough. If you hadn’t become seduced by the delusion that Obama is a ‘progressive’ and that last year’s election represented some kind of historic realignment in favor of ‘progressive’ policies you might have seen this coming.”

    Or, as Ed Morrissey noted a while ago: “Who could have warned us that a man who served seven years in the state legislature and three years in the Senate would not have been prepared for the toughest executive position in the Free World? We did. Repeatedly. So did John McCain, and for that matter, so did Hillary Clinton.”

    But those smarter-than-everybody-else Obots couldn’t see it coming.

  15. Premature ejaculation has become a medical condition.


  16. It might be easier to swallow Yglesias’ “It’s all Congress’ fault” excuse if Obama were out publicly campaigning for, and using his bully pulpit rousing the public in favor of, real reform. But he’s not, and I’m not surprised.

    The only time I ever saw him light up with genuine emotion and passion is when campaigning for HIMSELF, when talking about HIMSELF, and how HE was the Golden Child who would change everything.

    Even during the campaign his passion was never when speaking of policy, of the nitty gritty, of what we needed to do and how we’d do it. He was always flat and bored sounding on policy. He recited those lines by rote. The much-hailed passion and “magic” was only there when speaking of himself.

    Any idiot could have seen that he was caught up in dreams of me-as-president – with-fawning-believers-hanging-on-my-words, not concrete goals for our country. Obama’s passion has always been Obama, and any dreams regarding this country have ever and always been merely the vehicle most handy, the set and scenery for the star player in his inner drama.

    • When we have the Very Historical Doris Kearns Goodwin saying Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech was his transition from candidate, and the Very Serious David Gergen saying it was also his transition from Citizen Obama to President Obama… apparently this is all happening in some fantasy world where Obama has only been president for one day that just goes on forever and ever.

      • Like a nightmare that never ends?

        • Catch this one from The Daily Beast:


          Barack Obama wasn’t ready to be president, and he better figure out what he’s doing before it’s too late.

          As the first year of the Obama era draws to a close, the president is losing the battle for America’s hearts and minds. It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for him, given the disastrous state of the economy when he took office and the many smoldering international crises that keep flaring up. President Obama’s predecessors deserve plenty of blame for his woes—as Obama and his advisers never tire of reminding us. But their not-so-subtle digs at President George W. Bush paper over their own unforced errors.

          The most glaring and consequential unforced error came in how the Obama administration framed the health-care reform debate. The mantra of “bending the cost curve” was tailor-made for conservative and moderate intellectuals who preach the gospel of entitlement reform. If passing health-care reform were fundamentally about winning over the think tanks, the green-eyeshade approach might have made sense. But of course the real goal was to overcome the fear of the large majority of Americans who are insured and who deeply, desperately, and sometimes irrationally oppose anything that would change the status quo. A large number of those Americans are elderly Medicare recipients, and they vote in large numbers.

      • They are just pining for the halycon days of Candidate Obama, and don’t want to let go. Sort of like the woman who sits around reading the love poems her now abusive and philandering husband used to write her years ago – trying to convince herself that thats who he really is

      • Doris Kearns Goodwin and David Gergen. Makes you wonder whether all of their other analyses have a shred of truth to them.

    • You say this so clearly and well and it fits like the proverbial glove with everything we have seen, see now and can possibly project to see in the future about O. Can you move to NV for awhile and run for Harry Reid’s senate seat?

    • It’s called fait accompli’

      • Lieberman bragged about Obama not mentioning the PO, and the Opologist commenters on Huffpo consoled themselves that a PO would be introduced as a budgetary issue in reconciliation.

  17. At least Taibbi is telling it like he sees it. I dare say, most of the others report from the WH lense.

  18. OT —

    Elizabeth Warren has been nominated for the 2010 MSN butterfly award, you can vote for her here:


  19. Spammy got my comment.

  20. WSJ: Goldman Fueled AIG’s Gambles

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. played a bigger role than has been publicly disclosed in fueling the mortgage bets that nearly felled American Insurance Group Inc.

    Goldman was one of 16 banks paid off when the U.S. government last year spent billions closing out soured trades that AIG made with the financial firms.

    A Wall Street Journal analysis of AIG’s trades, which were on pools of mortgage debt, shows that Goldman was a key player in many of them, even the ones involving other banks.
    Goldman Sachs Fueled AIG’s Gambles

  21. If all these Obots are upset about Taibbi, imagine how they would have reacted to Hunter Thompson in his prime.

  22. ZOMG! Obama takes a brave and controversial stand:

    In its strongest statement yet, the Obama Administration condemned a homophobic Ugandan bill that would carry a death sentence for acts of homosexuality in some cases.

    “The President strongly opposes efforts, such as the draft law pending in Uganda, that would criminalize homosexuality and move against the tide of history,” read the White House statement that came late Friday in response to an inquiry from The Advocate.

    Oh, wait:

    The White House statement came on the heels of a week flooded with conservatives who took strong stands against the legislation. Obama supporter and Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren called on Ugandan religious leaders to stand against the measure.

    Obama didn’t speak out until after even the fundies were condemning the Ugandan bill. Some “fierce advocate” for LGBT’s, huh?

  23. As this national disaster unfolds, I can not help thinking that we are imprisoned by a fog of meaningless and unworkable political/ideological labels. I do not think that we can restructure and reframe politics until we recognize that being a “liberal” or a “progressive” or a “socialist” or a “conservative” or God knows what has become irrelevant and damaging to us and meaningful discourse. These labels have been shredded of any real meaning through all kinds of distortion and misuse. Problems are not solved by getting the right label stamped on a solution; they are solved by policies that can work in the long run. We have a USA that has a whole bunch of policies that came out with conservative, liberal labels on them and they have failed us over time. We need to elect gardeners to the WH and to congress—they understand a thing or two about “tending to the crops”.

    • Well the administration, progressives, conservatives are not genuinely pressing for bank regulations and they’re not addressing housing and jobs head on. Even a year ago, those items were on top of Hillary’s list. In fact, she had programs ready to go.

  24. BTW: medicare prescription drug plans DO NOT pay for Viagra. Medicare does pay for mamograms, pap smears and cervical cancer screenings.

  25. I’m shocked!:

    Mortgage rates in the United States have dropped to their lowest levels since the 1940s, thanks to a trillion-dollar intervention by the federal government. Yet the banks that once handed out home loans freely are imposing such stringent requirements that many homeowners who might want to refinance are effectively locked out.

    Who could possibly have seen that coming?

  26. Off-topic blast for a mini-sec: Go Annise (for Houston’s next mayor) GO! 🙂

  27. “left leaning government”? What an euphemism! Sounds like someone leaned on Salmon- who originally agreed with Taibbi on substance.

  28. 1% reporting

    * Parker
    * 51%

    * Locke
    * 49%

  29. All these Obologists remind me of Madoff’s interior decorator defending Bernie for having old furniture.

  30. By the way, where were the fauxgressive Obamapologists when in Obama’s May 21 speech in front of the constitution he proposed his new policy of prolonged detention (i.e., indefinite imprisonment without trial). Not just your average power grab, but worse than even GWB’s. Seriously, after that I can’t understand how even the most powerful kool-aid IV can keep you in hopeyville. They’re truly loony.

    • And talk about irony. Right in front of the constitution. It’s change, and you can fucking believe in it. Suckers.

    • 0zero is far worse — because his cult followers will forgive and offer excuses for things that if GWB were the one to push the envelope on trashing the Constitution — these same 0bots would be out protesting.

      The democrat party is dead and buried in Chicago — where the grave robbers are busy.

      What we see is the Zombie Dem party — for the Zombies who follow their messiah.

  31. Thanks so much for the post, BB. Now if only Taibbi – who was only too happy to pied piper Rolling Stone’s readers over the cliff for Obama – would finally do his due diligence and actually RESEARCH Barack “Barry Soetoro” Obama and his history, as he should have done in the first place. Taibbi might actually have the cajones to do the story, and it would be the story of the century!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: