Ezra Klein Reviews “Confidence Men,” and Finds it Sorely Lacking

Posted: November 5, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Team Obama, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 44 Comments

Ezra Klein, AKA Beltway Bob

Ezra Klein (AKA Beltway Bob) is really coming up in the world. He somehow managed to get a gig writing a review of Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men for the New York Review of Books. I’m impressed, I must admit.

As you probably guessed already, Klein is quite critical of the book. In fact he thinks Suskind should have written a completely different kind book instead–maybe even a couple of different kinds of books.

As I see it, Suskind set out to write an interesting and entertaining political book about Obama’s economic advisers, how they interacted with each other and the President, and how administration economic policy took shape over the first couple of years. The book is gossipy and very much focused on the people involved and their relationships with each other. As a psychologist, I found it fascinating to read Suskind’s insights.

Klein admits that

The work that went into Confidence Men cannot be denied. Suskind conducted hundreds of interviews. He spoke to almost every member of the Obama administration, including the President…He takes you inside…the Oval Office. He heads to Wall Street and back. He quotes memos no one else has published. He gives you scenes that no one else has managed to capture.

But that isn’t good enough. Klein disapproves of the gossipy, personality-centered tone of Confidence Men. He wants Suskind to provide evidence for his personal assessments of people. For example, Klein objects to Suskind’s description of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s appearance at Obama’s announcement that Elizabeth Warren would be working with Geithner to set up a consumer agency that she had first conceived of and then fought for. Although Warren didn’t know it yet, she would never head the agency, because Geithner had already made a deal with the bankers: they would accept a consumer agency as long as Warren wasn’t put in charge.

Here’s the passage that Klein found offensive:

This has caused discomfort not only for the president, but also for his top lieutenants, including the boyish man in the too-long jacket at Obama’s right hip, bunched cuffs around his shoes, looking more than anything like a teenager who just grabbed a suit out of dad’s closet. That’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, looking sheepish.

Klein so objected to this paragraph that he felt he had to go watch the announcement again himself, to see if Suskind’s description was accurate.

I prefer to verify. So I went back to the tape. I rewatched the September 2010 press conference where Obama introduced Warren to the country. I paid special attention to Geithner. Suskind’s right: his suit is too big. But he doesn’t look sheepish or ashamed. He looks, by turns, bored and interested. He clasps his hands behind his back. He nods attentively. He tries not to fidget. He looks like every experienced bureaucrat looks when they’re asked to stand like a prop near the president. Blank, and trying not to make any news. He failed.

But Klein doesn’t offer any evidence for his observations either. How can he know what Geithner was thinking–that he tried “not to fidget” and tried “not to make any news?” He can’t. Klein has shared his own observations and interpretations, just as Suskind did.  But Klein finds it annoying. He didn’t want to read a book about people, based on the close observations and opinions of its author. No, Klein wanted a book about policy, and he felt that

…any account of what he [Obama] has done wrong, or what he could do right, needs to provide, first and foremost, a persuasive case of how the White House could have done more to promote an economic recovery over the last three years, or could do more to accelerate one now.

Klein wanted a wonky book, heavy on policy and light on human interest, and he can’t understand why Suskind wrote something different. Quite honestly, I think Klein should go right ahead and write a book like that if he wants to. It wouldn’t be as much fun to read as Suskind’s book, but it might make people like Matt Yglesias and Brad DeLong happy.
Read the rest of this entry »

Warren faces down Misogynist Heckler

Posted: November 3, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Women's Rights | Tags: , | 24 Comments

A video has emerged of Elizabeth Warren being called a “socialist whore” by an unemployed tea party activist who also manages to get in a birther meme at the same time.  Ms. Warren stayed classy.

Moments into a speech before volunteers here Wednesday evening, Elizabeth Warren was interrupted by a Tea Party supporter who hurled a gender-based epithet at the Senate candidate. The man, who said he’d been unemployed since February 2010, objected to Warren’s expressed affiliation with the frustrations of Occupy Wall Street, and argued that the Tea Party has been protesting Wall Street excess for longer than the nascent global movement.

The crowd tried to shout the man down, but Warren told her supporters to let him speak. “No, no, it’s alright. Let me say two things,” she said. “I’m very sorry that you’ve been out of work. I’m also very sorry that the recent jobs bill that would’ve brought 22,000 jobs to Massachusetts did not pass in the Senate.”

Speaking in a packed VFW hall, Warren went on to address his question about her association with Occupy Wall Street. “I’ve been protesting what’s been going on on Wall Street for a very long time,” she said, but added that the movement has its own independent agenda and will proceed along its own course.

“Yeah, so has the Tea Party,” the man said, before losing his cool.

“Well, if you’re the intellectual creator of that so-called party,” he said, “you’re a socialist whore. I don’t want anything to do with you.” The crowd shouted him down as he added that Warren’s “boss,” presumably referring to the president, was “foreign-born.” He then attempted to storm out through a side door. Finding it locked, he retreated out the back of the VFW hall instead.

In April, before President Obama released his “long form” birth certificate, 43 percent of Republicans said that the president was either definitely or probably born in a foreign country, according to a Gallup survey. After he released the birth certificate, the number dropped, but still held at roughly one in four when polled in May.

Warren took the challenge in stride. “So, we are here to do work, and I think we have a reminder that we have a lot of work to do,” she said as the heckler struggled with the door.

You can watch the video over at HuffPost.  Warren sympathized with the man’s unemployment situation and talks about her efforts to restrain Wall Street before he goes off on her.  The meeting was held in Brockton, Mass and was supposed to be for volunteers.  It was obviously an ambush.

Elizabeth Warren: The Woman Who Would Throw Stones, Radicalize Your Firstborn And Make the Streets Run Marxist Red

Posted: October 26, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Republican politics | Tags: , | 14 Comments

It’s becoming clear that Elizabeth Warren is viewed as a major threat by the Republican political machine.  She’s never been a Wall St. favorite and was neatly disposed by a President too weak, too fearful of or beholden to the financial districts’ money to fight the good fight.  Obama would not and did not appoint Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency she developed and nurtured into being.  And so, rather than going quietly into that good night, Warren surprised many by tossing her hat into the political arena in Massachusetts, running for Ted Kennedy’s old seat and pitting herself against a Wall St. darling, the handsome pinup, Senator Scott Brown.

Personally, I don’t have anything against Brown.  He seems a decent sort from my long-distance view in Red State territory.  But Warren is my kind of candidate, even though she’s not as liberal as I am nor as liberal as many disenchanted, politically homeless Democrats.  Where she’s won hearts is through her consistent support for the middle-class, America’s working men and women. The working class is the spine of this country.  We lose them, we lose everything.

But now, Elizabeth Warren has really done it, committed another unpardonable sin.  She’s publicly stated that she supports Occupy Wall St.  She’s openly said that her work in the past set the groundwork, laid down the fundamentals that the Movement took to heart and rallied around.

Some people, perhaps a number of Democrats, would take issue with that.  A former Republican, Warren made a rather clumsy statement about OWS early on about people needing to follow the law.  Critics took that to mean she supported the police in all matters, public grievances be damned.

But this is minor in comparison to the reaction Warren’s most recent statement inspired:

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she says. “I support what they do.”

OMG.  How could she?

For some progressives this statement has the whiff of conceit.  Far too Gore-like, they wail—Al Gore of the ‘I created the Internet’ fame.  An idiotic wail IMHO, but a complaint nonetheless.

But for the GOP?  We’re in major meltdown territory.  If Warren supports OWS, then the unreasonable can conclude she supports general mayhem, political overthrow, blood running thick and red through the streets.  Because creating hysteria and destructive class warfare is what OWS is all about.

Hello?

This ongoing spew of misinformation is laughable.  But also dangerous.  Trying to paint Elizabeth Warren as some fuming Marxist and the Occupy Movement as a bunch of mindless revolutionaries [or spoiled brats with romantic revolutionary notions], sets the stage for a political division we have not seen since those grand Red Scare days.  I wasn’t a conscious human being [beyond sucking my toes] during that infamous period, the glorious McCarthy years–our political witch burning era–but I’ve read enough to know we don’t want to go there.  Too many ruined lives, too much shameless posturing and a myriad of unAmerican activities transformed into a hideous art form by righteous accusers who saw Commies and Traitors and a sprawling Red Menace everywhere they looked. And pointed.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee [NRSC] hoping to reelect Scott Brown in 2012 jumped all over Warren’s OWS support statement:

“Warren’s decision to not only embrace, but take credit for this movement is notable considering the Boston Police Department was recently forced to arrest at least 141 of her Occupy acolytes in Boston the other day after they threatened to tie up traffic downtown and refused to abide by their protest permit limits,” wrote NRSC spokesman, Brian Walsh.

You can see where this twisted language logic takes you—Warren supports OWS.  Therefore, Warren is responsible for the police ‘forced’ to arrest 141 of her ‘Occupy acolytes.’

Can we take a break here?

The police acted independently of Elizabeth Warren.  They arrested citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free assembly to voice grievances against a Government and financial system that has betrayed them, betrayed us all.  They were arrested because they threatened to tie up traffic? Did they or didn’t they?  And as we all know refusing to abide by protest permit limits is a major offense.  Off with their heads!  Oh, and let’s not overlook that sweet phrase: ‘her Occupy acolytes.’

Holy Smokes!  Elizabeth Warren is not only an OWS supporter, she’s the Pope of Mayhem.

“Politics is a blood Sport.”

That quote is credited to a 20th century Welsh politician, Aneurin Bevan.  I recall Bill Clinton saying the same thing a number of years ago.  It’s probably true.  He or she who withstands the battle of a thousand tiny cuts, wins.  But let’s not confuse honest criticism with smarmy, unsubstantiated attacks and accusations.

Elizabeth Warren is not Marxist, anymore than the Occupy Wall St. movement is dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States. Are there some radical elements swirling around the edges of Occupy?  Probably.  Like moths, the fringe is drawn to the swirling lights.  But one would need to question who is on the side of violence with what happened in Oakland over the last several nights.

What Warren and OWS protesters have in common is a cry for economic justice, a return to the Rule of Law in a country where our Government and financial institutions have been overtaken by Big Money and corporate influence.  Warren and OWS’s support for middle-class equity and fairness is as American as Old Glory.

But here’s another reason I like Elizabeth Warren:

Because she really drives the GOP wild and highlights the shallow, ridiculous nature of their arguments and propaganda.

You go, Sister!

Elizabeth Warren: The Woman Who Would Throw Rocks

Posted: October 14, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Democratic Politics, Republican politics, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

What is it about Elizabeth Warren that makes Republicans foam at the mouth and turn apoplectic?  Surely her tenure as a presidential adviser and creator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought her into direct fire and criticism for anyone singing the corporate/banker tune.  Though the Bureau was presumably a joint venture with Treasury, it soon became apparent that Timothy Geithner was a less than enthusiastic partner in Warren’s brainchild, an agency to protect consumer interests from confusing, often unfair financial contracts.

To many in the public, Elizabeth Warren was and has been a vocal advocate of the 99% before the 99ers were a twinkle in anyone’s eye.  She had famously said she would fight for the Bureau’s legitimacy and was willing to leave “blood and teeth on the floor” to make that happen.  That attitude and her frank support for middle-class, every-day concerns made her wildly popular in the public arena.

Well, that was then and this is now.  Warren would not receive a permanent position to head the Bureau she created and breathed into life.  That would have entailed a fight from this Administration, something for which President Obama has shown little talent or willingness.

Instead, as we all know Elizabeth Warren is running for the US Senate in Massachusetts, the seat held by Ted Kennedy for nearly 47 years, now occupied by Scott Brown, who was swept into office primarily over Obama’s botched healthcare plan.

I suspect that the GOP’s real problem with Ms.  Warren is she did not go quietly into that good night, otherwise known as:  back off and shut up.  Not only is she running for the Senate but she’s giving talking tours, explaining the current financial crisis and serving up some very inconvenient truths about what Bush’s eight-year stint of failed economic policy actually did to the country.  Remember?  Cut taxes; run two, hideously expensive, unfunded wars; and create a Medicare drug program out of thin air and magic money.

Ms. Warren’s unforgiveable sin is simply this:. Tell the truth.  Not only that, but then suggest the rich have an obligation to pay their fair share, to give back to the society that made their success possible. Known as pay it forward.  And if you’re going to go to Hell, why not go out in true glory?   Warren went on to suggest that no one who has become rich did it all on their own.  Her statements went viral.

Republican and Libertarian heads exploded in short order. Blasphemy must be punished, they screamed. Bring the woman to heel.

The new Republican assault is as predictable as it is laughable.  Elizabeth Warren is now charged with a ‘collectivist agenda.’  She is an enemy of free enterprise, a threat to capitalism [which needs redefining because as I recall Banana Republic economies are hardly free, nor dedicated to capitalism].  And so we come to the rather pathetic campaign ad that declares Ms. Warren is calling for violence, the overthrow of the State itself.

She is the Woman Who Would Throw Rocks.

Personally?  I hope her aim is deadly.

Send in the Clods

Posted: October 6, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Elizabeth Warren Campaign, Women's Rights | Tags: , | 21 Comments

There was a debate in the Boston area for senate candidates that included Elizabeth Warren.  She was one of many candidates but had some fun stand out answers to some lighthearted questions.  She got a sizable laugh when asked which super hero she’d like to be when she explained that her choice was Wonder Woman because of the bracelets.  Another interesting question was put to her about how she paid for university. She mentioned that it wasn’t by taking her clothes off. That wasn’t the only direct hit she scored on incumbent Scott Brown, however.

“Forbes magazine named Scott Brown Wall Street’s favorite senator. I was thinking, ‘That’s probably not an award that I’m going to get,’ ” said Warren when asked about reforming Wall Street.

“What this is all about and what it’s been about from the beginning for me is America’s middle class. . . . This is what I work on. This is my life’s work.”

The six Democratic candidates vying to unseat Brown faced questions on job creation, campaign viability and even their favorite superhero. Students questioned the candidates for more than 90 minutes as UMass-Lowell Chancellor Martin Meehan moderated before an audience of about 1,000 people in the university’s Durgin Hall, and thousands more viewing the debate’s live-streaming video online at bostonherald.com.

Warren, a Harvard Law professor who quickly became the Democratic front-runner after entering the race two weeks ago, clung to her role as middle-class warrior but struck a more moderate tone in comparison to the other candidates.

When asked if she would encourage her children to join the military, Warren said she already had.

“This isn’t a hard question for me,” said Warren, in contrast to City Year co-founder Alan Khazei, who expressed difficulty when he thought about “my own daughter or son putting their life on the line.”

Warren also rolled with some of the curveball questions, joking that unlike Brown’s centerfold spread in Cosmopolitan magazine, “I kept my clothes on,” and relied on student loans to pay her way through college.

So, what was the snappy come back from Brown?  Well, he relied on a sexist retort explaining how relieved he was that she’d kept her clothes on. It was tacky and mean even once you got past the sexism.  Doesn’t this imply Warren with a distinguished academic career and  record of public service is ugly?

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) doesn’t think anyone should have to see Elizabeth Warren naked.

At Tuesday night’s primary debate, Warren, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to challenge Brown, used a question about how she paid for tuition to take a jab at the freshman Senator. “I kept my clothes on,” Warren said, referring to Brown’s famed nude Cosmopolitan spread.

Brown could have brushed off the attack, but instead, he decided on the worst possible course of action. According to Boston journalist Joe Battenfield, Brown said “Thank God,” in response to Warren’s jab.

If Brown is expecting to hold on to women voters, he’s going to have to develop a different approach.  There’s more than a few journalists that noticed the insult.

@ABWashBureau Rob Blackwell
Macaca moment? RT @NickBaumann @matthewstoller Scott Brown calling Elizabeth Warren ugly is probably not the best idea.

Josh Marshall
Not Smart: Sen. Brown says “Thank God” Eliz Warren didn’t take her clothes off 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/scott-… via @TPM

There’s also this one from Slate’s Jessica Grose that has me scratching my head.

When I first heard that Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown had said on a morning radio show, “Thank God” his potential opponent Elizabeth Warren didn’t take her clothes off to pay for college, like he famously did in the pages of Cosmopolitan, I was appalled but not surprised: Attacking older female politicians for the way they look is straight out of the anti-Hillary Clinton playbook. Then I read that what he said was in response to some comments that Warren made at the Senate primary debate about Brown’s Cosmo spread, I wondered if they both deserved some blowback—she shouldn’t be denigrating him for posing nude, just as he shouldn’t be dissing her looks.

This man is the father of daughters who has already proved exactly how shallow he is about women when announcing his daughters were “available”.  This came after a reporter found pictures of the two girls on their Facebook pages in bikinis.  If I were a woman with a vote in Massachusetts, I sure would want this guy out of office.  I just wonder if he’s going to adapt the campaign theme of  “boys don’t make passes at girls that wear glasses” next.  What a schmuck!!!!

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →