Tweet
(I’ll be on the Dylan Ratigan Show today at 4pm ET talking about Wall Street reform.)
This is an amazing ad by Blanche Lincoln. Amazing in that she’s almost entirely clueless about what’s really going on with her own bill:
“It’s why I’m taking on Wall Street, with the toughest reform bill of anyone in either party, and it’s gonna pass.”
This is an absurd statement. I mean totally absurd. Let me go back to my earlier post on this today. Maria Cantwell noticed a huge loophole in Lincoln’s “tough” reform bill, and vowed to oppose cloture until it was fixed. Lincoln did not. Everyone and their brother knows that the provision spinning off the swaps trading desks from the big banks is going to get cut. Heck, Mark Warner told Andrea Mitchell today that the derivatives language “will be out” of the final bill. But to Blanche, “it’s gonna pass.”
Why, it’s almost as if she doesn’t care at all about the substance of the legislation, and just wants something to brag about to the folks back home so she can save her bacon in a primary!
I hope the Halter campaign has a response to this.
UPDATE: Apparently this ad came out on May 3, but the sentiment remains the same in her comments after passage. She’s talking about a “tough bill” that “will pass” when everyone is saying it won’t.
UPDATE II: Wow, I just actually saw the full context of this, and it’s even worse. Not only because Warner uses the ever-present “unforeseen consequences” excuse, and whines that the spin-off would make it impossible for banks to “hedge risk” (no, it wouldn’t, they’d just have to maintain enough capital). But listen to the question:
Mitchell: Well the White House said some of the rest of you don’t want this derivatives provision, that Blanche Lincoln put in it. No one has stripped it out. We were told that Chairman Dodd was going to strip it out this week, on Tuesday, that didn’t happen. Who’s going to be man or woman enough to stand up to populist sentiment, if you will, and take this part of the bill out, or is it going to end up in the final bill, despite the White House’s preferences?
Wow, slip showing much, Mrs. Greenspan? Why isn’t she recusing herself from this discussion entirely, being married to the man who destroyed the economy and all of his credibility?
10 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Blanche Lincoln reminds me of Governor Tracy from the Chris Farley movie Black Sheep.
Blanche Lincoln reminds me of Mr Drysdale’s feckless secretary, Miss Jane Hathaway, on The Beverly Hillbillies.
Except when she gets whiny and entitled, then she’s more Laura Bush.
(can’t wait to see you my teevee machine, DDay!)
Hey, Dylan said your name right, I think! Progress! Up next on MSNBC.
… and Josh Rosner leads with the panelists Error of First Magnitude: “Well, look….”
Always sets my teeth on edge. We are looking. So is the host.
David, please speak with Tiffiniy Cheng of ANWF; she thinks Lincoln’s amendment will make it thru the conference.
I wrote to her following reception of an email stating “We won!
The bill passed in the Senate tonight with our demands for a real structural reform measure — to make banks break up from their riskiest bets and to end taxpayer subsidies for them. It is far stronger than anyone believed we could have in the bill. People doubted that some structural reform was possible, but instead we can write to say thank you! Thank you to everyone who wrote in and called and fought for the American public.”
I wrote her back (after writing her that it will be ‘scrubbed’) “But it will be as it’s not in the House bill and “Some prominent members of the Administration, including Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, have come out in opposition to section 716. Chairman Bair’s concern was that forcing derivatives dealers out of banks would move the business into less regulated and more leveraged entities. While saying that banks should not engage in speculative activities, she argued that banks have an important role in creating markets for their customers while needing to hedge interest rate risks related to their core lending business. Chairman Volcker, too, took the position that providing derivatives is a normal part of a banking relationship with a customer and should not be prohibited.” —-from here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/safer/passing-the-lincoln-amend_b_578555.html
Simply stated, the Obama Admin wants a ‘fig leaf’ of financial reform, not real
reform; just look at their actions re Merkley-Levin and Cantwell. This is kabuki just like HCR was and as the addressing of the BP oil spill is.
But I do appreciate ANWF efforts, it’s just tough to work ones way out of
quicksand.”
And she mentioned you and FDL in thanking others.
Dylan tried to pick a fight based on DDay’s “I’m surprised the bill is as good as it is.” Then Josh, without much evidence, claimed all the ‘good’ parts would be removed in conference, without David having a chance to explain that, in conference, measures that are aligned between House and Senate versions can’t be messed with.
Discouraging to see Dylan following the Ed Shitz model for ‘panels’ — giving the guy in the studio with him all the airtime, which results in a DC-centric show.
But well done, on balance, David. Despite the circumstances.
dayum, missed it !
hope to see video soon
Though Halter is no Progressive, there is a chance that he might be a DEMOCRAT. Lincoln sure isn’t.
I don’t think Josh is totally wrong, although the LeMieux amt on rating agencies basically mirrors House language, so that’s staying. It’s largely huffing and puffing conjecture on his part, but I’m not going to argue with it.
Clearly the opportunity exists for weakening, and it’s up to activists not to say “I told you so” but to exact a price if it’s weakened further from its already weakened state. Reid and Lincoln should be the big targets.
David, Dylan just tweeted this Bloomberg article…