Politics Plus

Robert Reich’s column on this is quite good.

Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, scolded Wall Street representatives at a hearing Thursday for sending “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms” needed by the public. “The fact is,” Dodd said, “I am frustrated, and so are the American people.” He charged that Wall Street’s intransigence was the reason for Congress’s failure to pass any bill to regulate the Street. “The refusal of large financial firms to work constructively with Congress on this effort borders on insulting to the American people who have lost so much in this crisis.”

In other words, it isn’t Congress’s fault. It isn’t the Senate Banking Committee’s fault. It certainly isn’t Dodd’s fault. The reason more than a year has passed since the biggest bailout in the history of the world and nothing has been done to prevent a repeat performance — even as the biggest banks are doling out more than $30 billion of bonuses, even as Goldman Sachs is awarding its big traders $16 billion in bonuses (more than the $13 billion Goldman collected from taxpayers via the bailout of AIG), even as AIG itself is handing out bonuses — the reason is … what, exactly, Senator? Because the Street has sent an army of lobbyists to Capitol Hill?

Call me old fashioned, but I thought Congress was in charge of passing legislation, not Wall Street.

Dodd left out the most telling detail, of course. Wall Street is where the campaign money is. Dodd of all people knows that. He’s been on the receiving end of lots of it over the years.

Wall Street firms and their executives have been uniquely generous to both political parties, emerging recently as one of the largest benefactors of the Democratic Party. Between November 2008 and November 2009, Wall Street firms and executives handed out $42 million to lawmakers, mostly to members of the House and Senate banking committees and House and Senate leaders. During the 2008 elections, Wall Street showered Democratic candidates with well over $88 million and Republicans with over $67 million, putting the Street right up there with the insurance industry as among the nation’s largest equal-opportunity donors.

Some Democrats are quietly grumbling that all the tough talk emanating from the White House in recent weeks — the President calling the Street’s denizens “fat cats” and threatening them with limits on their size and the risks they can take, even waiving a watered-down version of Glass-Steagall in their faces — is making it harder to collect money from the Street this mid-term election year. And the Street is quietly threatening that it may well give Republicans more, if the saber-rattling doesn’t stop.

Congress isn’t doing a thing about Wall Street because it’s in the pocket of Wall Street. Dodd’s outburst at the Street is like the alcoholic who screams at a bartender “how dare you give me another drink when all I’ve done is pleaded with you for one!”…

Inserted from <Alternet>

He’s right.  We have the best Congress money can buy… and has.  The only way to return government to the people is 100% public financing, at least at the federal level.  Until and unless we accomplish that goal, Congress will represent those who bought them, not those whop voted them in.

One lone GOP Senator has placed a blanket hold of all of Obama’s appointees.  The reason for it will disgust you.  Now, what will the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, do?

Sen. Shelby of Alabama has done us all a favor through his brazen attempt to extort the Obama Administration by placing a hold on 70 critical appointees simply to obtain some financial pork for his state and key contributors.

It was no accident that the extortion happened on the first day of the new Senate – one with 41 Republicans. The filibuster proof Republican minority. It was the equivalent of a Dick Cheney F*ck You.

If anyone had any doubts whatsoever about the Republican minority feelings it’s oats and wanting to exercise power as if it were in the majority, I hope they are gone. Sen. DeMint’s reference earlier to making health care into President Obama’s Waterloo now seems almost quaint. How is this behavior not seen as treasonous by the press?

The question now has literally nothing to do with Shelby. One might have thought he would be ashamed, or that his peers would call him out. This is clearly not the case.

From my point of view, Sen. Shelby should surely be censured by the Senate for depriving the nation of much need talent. Can a censure resolution be filibustered?

The question now falls to Sen. Reid. He can continue to recognize the hold, although he has full discretion not to do so. Instead, he could publicize it, go on television to denounce the audacious selfishness of it, and ignore it. This would force Shelby and his compatriots to filibuster the 70 public servants in waiting, preferably on CSPAN.

The very worst reaction would be to honor the hold and to negotiate with Sen. Shelby in any way over his demands…. [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

To give you some background, According to TPM,Shelby got a $45 million earmark for a federal IED lab in Mobile.  Obama decided not to build it.  I think Obama’s decision is a good one, because US forces have encountered IEDs primarily in Iraq.  That war is winding down, so building the lab would be counterproductive.  In the process, it deprived Shelby a major slap of pork, and he wants it back.  I understand that he is claiming it’s needed to fight terrorism, but it’s clearly just a vehicle to transfer wealth from taxpayers to contractors in return for their support for Shelby.

Now you know the rest of the story.

Rachel Maddow covered this one quite well:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So the question remains, what will Leg Hound Harry do?  Were I a betting man, I’d put my money on the worst reaction: to hump the GOP leg, honor the hold, and negotiate with Shelby until he is sated with pork at taxpayer expense.

Moving ahead with her standard GOP mindset, Mooseolini is a complete hypocrite.

It seems that even the queen must bow to the king, in this, the latest installment of the "retards" controversy …

Let’s start with a brief recap: Last year, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used the word "retards." A few days ago, Sarah Palin caught wind of the story, clutched her pearls, screamed political gold my baby! and promptly wrote a Facebook [Mooseolini Delinked] entry, demanding that Emanuel be fired. Enter Rush Limbaugh, who in the course of mocking Emanuel, used the word repeatedly to attack liberals ("calling people who are retards, retards"). So Greg Sargent at The Plum Line asked the Palin camp for a reaction to Limbaugh’s use of the word and was told:

Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful."

Pretty mild, right? Especially when compared to the seven paragraph Facebook entry dedicated to Emanuel’s single use of the word, where Palin was reacting:

… as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better.

But apparently the mere suggestion that Palin would criticize Limbaugh for (repeatedly) using the word was enough to get the Palin camp fired up [Faux Noise Delinked]:

Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska, Republican mega-star and Fox News contributor, was quick to fire back at Washington Post blog, The Plum Line, for a report that Palin is at war with conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

… with the suggestion that it was a ploy by the Washington Post to "take the pressure off of the White House" (White House reaction: huh?). And then:

But Stapleton told POLITICO that the comment given to The Plum Line was not specifically aimed at Limbaugh.

Au contraire, says Mr. Sargent, who produced the email he sent, specifically asking about Limbaugh. Says Sargent:

I subsequently emailed her to be absolutely certain that it applied to Rush. She didn’t dispute this, answering that it applies to “anyone” who uses the term.

That’s how it happened.

Bottom line? Apparently perceived "mindless prejudice and discrimination" and "gratuitous insults" against her son only matter if Palin can make political hay out of them… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

First, was Caribou Barbie right to object to the use of the term “retarded”?  Yes, as much as it pains me to agree with her on anything, Emmanuel’s comment was insensitive at best.

Second, Should Rahm Emmanuel be fired?  Yes, but not for his comment.  He should be fired for being a corporatist pig and undermining the people who caused Obama to be elected.

Third, was the Dingbat Diva right to downplay Limbaugh’s far more egregious use of the term? No.

Fourth, does that make Snake Oil Sarah a GOP hypocrite?  Yes. 

Fifth, is the Alaska Asshole afraid Limbaugh?  I’ll leave that one to Keith Olbermann.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Are you now well armed on this topic?