dagblog - Comments for "A Shameful Attack"

Yeah you can give Clinton 1

ocean-kat — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:12:37 +0000

Yeah you can give Clinton 1/450 of the blame. At least I think we can agree that he couldn't have stopped it with a wave of his magic veto pen.

It's amazing to me the amount

ocean-kat — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 17:49:37 +0000

In reply to No worries Kyle Flynn. Ocean

It's amazing to me the amount of time you want to spend talking about words like fuck and bullshit. Especially when by now you must realize I don't give a fuck.

Party insider? I've got less

HSG — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:58:00 +0000

In reply to Hal, being a Party Insider

Party insider? I've got less juice than a California citrus grower whose water rations were cut. On balance, I slightly prefer Biden to Hillary since I believe he'd be a less hawkish and more redistributive President than she. Still, she'd probably have a slightly better chance in the general election.

Without any special knowledge, I don't think Biden will run for the following reasons: 1) As Ramona pointed out in an excellent blog Please Joe Don't Run he sure doesn't seem to want to. 2) I don't see how he'd distinguish himself from Clinton sufficiently to make the case that he should be the Democratic candidate. 3) Hillary's struggling but she's clearly still very strong. Unless he thinks the nomination will be a cakewalk, I don't think he'll run.

Accepting your premise that the next President will be a Republican, I don't see that it much matters which Democrat loses in the general election. The only three who, I think, have a chance are Clinton, Sanders, and Biden. All are at an age where they can't realistically expect to run again. In 2020 - or 2024 if your premise is wrong - we can hopefully look forward to a fresh slate of Democratic candidates. Possibilities in no particular order - the Castro brothers, Chris Van Hollen, Kamala Harris, Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo (yuk), Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar.

Hal, being a Party Insider

Peter — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:59:30 +0000

In reply to No worries Kyle Flynn. Ocean

Hal, being a Party Insider what's your opinion about Biden's chances for the nomination? The Party Moneybags are calling for him to run and with HRC's poll numbers slipping and the Bern stuck in the 20% doldrums the time may be ripe for some new enthusiasm to spice up the race.

The odds and history say that the next pres will be a Republican so it's as important who the Dems pick to be the designated loser as the winner.

No worries Kyle Flynn. Ocean

HSG — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:54:06 +0000

In reply to I'm not sure who it is you're

No worries Kyle Flynn. Ocean-kat called my post "moronic" or was it "idiotic". I can't remember any more and I have neither the time nor inclination to go back and reread. I do wonder though about the folks who casually throw these terms around or drop "s" and "f" bombs like stevedores and fishwives (apologies to stevedores and fishwives). Who do they think they are they persuading?

Hows about we break up the

kyle flynn — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:28:43 +0000

In reply to Repeating my comment above

removed.

I agree with you 1000%.

kyle flynn — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:22:44 +0000

In reply to I'm not sure why people keep

I agree with you 1000%. Repealing Glass-Steagall enjoyed broad and deep bipartisan support, including Bill Clinton. And I recognize that it's a bit ridiculous to imagine BC standing up to the legislation. It's fantasy. It's not who he is now or was then. Which is the point. Clinton was in on it. He wanted it. He signed it and bragged about it. To claim he had nothing to do with it is crazy talk.

I'm not sure why people keep

ocean-kat — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:01:14 +0000

In reply to I'm not sure who it is you're

I'm not sure why people keep quoting the party line vote on the senate bill. Since 44 of 45 democrats voted against the senate bill I don't think Clinton entering the fight would have had any effect. Don't you pay attention to how congress works. They knew it was different than the house bill. They knew it had to go into reconciliation. It's not uncommon for parties to vote in a block in that situation to give them more power when negotiating the reconciliation bill. It's just politics and tells us nothing about a senator's view of the bill or what their final vote would be. 36 democrats changed their vote after some minor changes during reconciliation. Are you seriously saying they all had a change of heart? Most supported Glass-Steagle repeal and only voted no as a negotiation tactic as it went into reconciliation.

Repeating my comment above

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 07:18:46 +0000

In reply to I do remember Bill being

Repeating my comment above-The Senate bill passed 54-44, 1 dem approving. The reconciled Bill passed 90-8(?) I'd guess they wouldn't override a veto.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105

But the move to repeal in 1998 was in full swing and I still think Bush's activist non-enforcement of the law and completely allowing all the mortgage, poisonous assets, and other malfeasance to occur. If Glass-Steagall were on the books in 2003, Bush would have gutted it in practice or through repeal. You can have a million laws under mayor Daley or Tammany Hall.

I'm not sure who it is you're

kyle flynn — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:18:41 +0000

In reply to I won't. Bill (using first

I'm not sure who it is you're insulting here, but I think it might be me. To be clear, I'm not the author of the quote you've included. Maybe you're insulting Hal. Maybe both of us. Anyway, I've made one narrow criticism of a singular statement you've made and repeated: that Bill Clinton hd nothing to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. This is simply and purely false. I don't blame Bill Clinton for it. Plenty of people, as you've pointed out, are responsible. He's one of them, though, without a doubt. He wanted it, He worked for it (just ask his Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers), and he doesn't show a solitary sign he regrets it. He was for it before he was for it. Robert Reich takes it another step. He thinks Bill Clinton "led the way." Clinton said this during the signing ceremony:

I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves…today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority. This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition.

Furthermore, your repeated citation of 90-8 vote in the Senate isn't the whole story. That's the final vote after Conference. Months earlier the Senate passed their version with a modest majority of 54-44. There was a fight. Had BC been among the opposition, who's to say.

Finally, NCD is right. There is hardly consensus on the consequences of the legislation. It's interesting, however, who comes down on which side of the debate. We all trust who we trust, I suppose. Here's one argument. Of course the future, in this case, counts for more than the past. What matters to me is that HC defends this history and won't commit to reinstating Glass-Steagall. Bernie Sanders stood up to repeal it then and stands up for reinstating it now. Not a surprise. Just for fun, here is how the Times reported the story on 11/5/1999.