Friday, March 30, 2018

Now, Why Oh Why Would Schumer Refer To Congressional Democrats As "Namby Pamby?"


New Dems are taking over the Democratic Party and moving it right

One of the Blue America candidates was told by the DCCC that they would consider backing his campaign if he joined the Blue Dogs. He told them he's joining the Congressional Progressive Caucus because his policy agenda and their policy agenda are in synch and because he doesn't agree with the Blue Dogs' reactionary approach. The DCCC didn't endorse him. In the last couple of days a couple of Blue America-backed candidates applied for and received the endorsement of the New Dems, the heart of the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party, which caused us to reassess our relationship with them. It also caused me to sharpen my argument about why joining the New Dems was incompatible with a progressive approach to governance. Basically, the New Dems represent special interests-- especially Wall Street special interests-- and not the legitimate aspirations of working families.

A good real life example is expected to play out in Congress over the next week or two, when Ryan has the House take up a banking deregulation bill passed by the U.S. Senate two weeks ago (with the help of way too many conservative Democrats who take Wall Street bribes). The legislation would roll back many reforms created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that were designed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown. The Senate Democrats who voted with the GOP for this earned themselves a new caucus-- the Bailout Caucus. The bill guarantees more taxpayer-funded bailouts and fails to protect American consumers from a litany of financial abuses and exploitation schemes. Public Citizen has been doing great work in explaining the threat of what this bill will do once Trump signs it:
Exempt 25 of the nation’s largest banks from needed regulatory oversight;
Allow banks to engage in the kind of risky behavior that caused the 2008 financial crash;
Enable more predatory lending to homebuyers;
Immunize Equifax from lawsuits to hold the credit reporting agency accountable;
Reduce the reporting of racial discrimination in mortgage lending; and
Make taxpayer-funded bailouts more likely.
Joining the Republicans to pass this kind of thing is the heart and soul of what the Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems is all about. And as I explained to a member of Congress yesterday, just about every single Blue Dog is also a member of the New Dem Coalition. These are the candidates the New Dems are backing so far this year:
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Greg Stanton (AZ)
Dave Min (CA)
Josh Harder (CA)
Katie Hill (CA)
Hans Keirstead (CA)
Harley Rouda (CA)
Josh Butler (CA)
Jason Crow (CO)
Lauren Baer (FL)
Nancy Soderberg (FL)
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL)
Mel Hall (IN)
Sean Casten (IL)
Brendan Kelly (IL)
Paul Davis (KS)
Elissa Slotkin (MI)
Dean Phillips (MN)
Angie Craig (MN)
Kathy Manning (NC)
Dan McCready (NC)
Brad Ashford (NE)
Jeff Van Drew (NJ)
Tom Malinowski (NJ)
Mikie Sherrill (NJ)
Max Rose (NY)
Anthony Brindisi (NY)
Susie Lee (NV)
Chrissy Houlahan (PA)
Archie Parnell (SC)
Jana Lynn Sanchez (TX)
Lizzie Fletcher
Ben McAdams (UT)
Elaine Luria (VA)
Abigail Spanberger (VA)
RD Huffstetler (VA)
Lisa Brown (WA)
Dan Kohl (WI)
The conservative Democrats whose names are boldened also applied for and received the endorsement of the Blue Dogs. Several of these candidates are also NRA-Dems, who stand with the gun lobbyists in opposition to banning the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic military-style weapons. But these are the candidates who will give the Republicans an operating majority, at least on financial legislation even after "the Democrats" manage to take back the House in November. Jacquie does the Blue America Facebook page and she put this up a day or two ago:

She was basing it Charlie May's piece at Salon from last summer, Blue Dogs plot a comeback in Congress just as Democrats push a more populist “Better Deal” plan. "The Democrats." he wrote, "are working on a new identity, but the conservative Blue Dog Coalition is looking to gain power." The New Dems are far more of a threat since most people don't know who they are yet.

Schumer, he wrote, admitted that congressional Democrats are "too namby-pamby" and noted in a NY Times OpEd that "Americans are clamoring for bold changes to our politics and our economy. They feel, rightfully, that both systems are rigged against them, and they made that clear in last year’s election. The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers. Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly-- so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for. Not after today. Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people-- and that we stand for three simple things." Nambily-pambily, he called for increased pay, a reduction of everyday expenses and increased resources "to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy." Meanwhile a few months later, he was conspiring with 17 senators, listed on the right, to tank Dodd-Frank.
The Democrats seem to be looking to embrace factions of the party that staunchly support ideas championed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT)...

But it will be hard for voters to take the Democrats seriously, especially if they give rise to a smaller faction of the party that has dwindled over the years. The Blue Dog Coalition is a "group of moderate and conservative Democrats," according to Politico, and they are planning a comeback:
And with Democrats eager to woo the white working-class voters who flocked to [President Donald] Trump, the coalition is prodding party leaders to support Blue Dog-backed candidates, saying that’s the key to taking back the House in 2018. It’s a push that is quickly running into conflict with the party’s energized left flank.
"The DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] recognizes that the path to the majority is through the Blue Dogs,” Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) chairwoman of the Blue Dog PAC, said, according to Politico. "For the first time since I’ve been in Congress, the DCCC has partnered with the Blue Dog Coalition so that we’re recruiting candidates who fit districts that we need to win to take back the majority," she continued. "We are able to convince folks who normally wouldn’t vote for a Democrat to vote for this Democrat.

"Blue Dog Democrats stand for "a mix of fiscal responsibility, strong support for defense and some conservative social views shunned by the left wing of the caucus, say it’s not just their message they think will appeal to many Trump-aligned voters," Politico reported. Leaders of the Blue Dogs have already "met with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and other top Trump aides on tax reform. Last week, the Blue Dogs sat down with Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue," Politico reported.

However, some Democrats have spoken out against the Blue Dogs and said that their strategy isn't a recipe for successful elections.

"I don’t think Blue Dog politics are necessarily winning politics everywhere," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) notable progressive and deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said, according to Politico. "I just don’t buy the premise that being on the right side of the Democratic Party makes you more advantageous, more attractive to voters, than being on the left side of the Democratic Party."
Last time the Democrats got swept into power in a wave election (2006), Rahm Emanuel was DCCC chair and, like Ben Ray Lujan today, he crushed the aspiration of progressive candidates and managed to put dozens of Blue Dogs and New Dems (many of them independently wealthy, stinking of corruption and several so-called "ex"-Republicans) in as the Democratic nominees. They benefitted from the anti-Bush wave and wound up in Congress (as did a handful of progressives who Rahm failed to defeat). Today, many of the progressives are still serving in Congress but NONE of Rahm's candidates are still in the House. Almost all spent their time in Congress voting with the Republicans and letting down Democratic voters who had been tricked into backing them. Almost all were defeated in the in the next midterm, when the GOP tanked the Democratic Party leading to the catastrophic situation we have in Congress today. Lujan, the stupidest man to ever run the DCCC-- thanks Nancy-- is literally trying to replicate Rahm's formula: creating a "nambier-pambier" congressional majority this November that will disappoint grassroots Democrats in 2019 and be swept out of power in the 2022 midterms. Advice: don't support any Blue Dogs or New Dems, at least not in the primaries.

On Wednesday, Thomas Hoenig, the outgoing vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) warned greed-obsessed New Dems against voting like Republicans to tamper with Dodd Frank in ways that will lessen the stability of banks if another crisis hits. "Too big to fail is getting more and more pronounced. You cannot have the footprint of these institutions and expect that you’re going to have one of them fail without catastrophe... Memories are short and with an improving economy, these laws and regulations-- which early in the recovery are viewed as essential-- are eventually recast as burdensome constraints that need to be eased or ended. The Volcker Rule should continue to apply to all banks that benefit from deposit insurance... Custody banks are integral to the financial system, highly interconnected to the capital markets, and relied upon as safe havens in times of stress. These trusted custodians must remain pillars of strength and should be retaining capital, not reducing it."

So, which House Democrats have accepted the biggest bribes from the banksters so far this year? The 3 top are crooked New Dems who are willing-- eager-- to help the GOP destroy Dodd-Frank on behalf;f of the criminal banksters who finance their careers:
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)- $1,144,251
Josh Gottheimer (NJ)- $869,074
Joe Crowley (NY)- $726,037

Labels: , , , ,


At 5:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The bill guarantees more taxpayer-funded bailouts and fails to protect American consumers from a litany of financial abuses and exploitation schemes."

The "bill" only makes abuses and fraud (exploitation) easier. They were already guaranteed. Dodd-Frank did diddly squat to PREVENT another 2008.

In fact, even the architects of the bailouts and QEs have said as much in a book and a group interview on NPR that I heard a couple of weeks ago.

The key factor that guarantees bailouts, even WITH D-F (by design), is TBTF. D-F didn't do shit about TBTF. With entities this big, failure would collapse world finance, therefore, cannot be allowed. The FACT that those TBTFs are now bigger means those guaranteed bailouts must then be that much bigger as well.

I would also point out that D-F didn't prevent or even discover the Wells-Fargo millions of cases of fraud nor anything D-Bank was doing wrt money laundering. D-F also didn't do dick about making sure that any future (same ones as in the past) criminals would be prosecuted.

Articles like this one are important -- to ID pedantically who the ballsiest and most corrupt democraps are.
But implying that THIS bill is a bridge too far is a bald-faced lie. You really should be honest about the current situation of our finance casinos.
Lefty voters were made to feel warm and fuzzy about finance because dodd and frank passed an illusory piece of shit. That should never have been the case. The ONLY net plus in D-F is the CFPB, which has done some good. But it won't prevent the next collapse, huger bailouts nor put criminals in prison.

At 6:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still more evidence that there is no chance of capturing control of the "democratic" Party from within. Anyone who advocates this fallacy has to be at least in sympathy with corporatist rule over this nation.

At 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If dodd and frank were still in congress and not today lobbying and giving paid talks to bankers, BA would be begging to keep them around so they could chair their banking committees again (should the democraps screw the pooch and fall into majorities again).

Fact is both were long-time chairs of their committees; both took shit-tons of wall street money; and both committees under their gavels never once stood in the way of any bank fraud scheme. ever.

Both committees under their gavels had subpoena power in 2009 and could have put motherfuckers in prison. They put on show investigations to no effect... by design... just like the R chaired committee that "exonerated" trump from all Russian collusion.

The democraps have been at least as bad as the Nazis since at least 1998 when they passed the deregs of banks and finance that led to 2008. And dodd and frank were big parts of that badness.


Post a Comment

<< Home