Appearing on MSNBC, Monday, to promote his new special on Barack Obama, Chris Matthews attacked “older white people” for still holding bigoted feelings against the first African American President. Lavishing praise on younger Americans, he added, “And I think that's a generalization and I'll stick with it. I think younger people do not see race as an obstacle.” He then touted the “non-judgmental” attitude of Obama voters, fawning, “In fact, they say [race is] irrelevant and don't even notice it, whereas older people notice it all the time.” If “older white people” are focused on race, Matthews could certainly be one of them. On January 27, 2010 , after Obama's State of the Union address, he oddly alerted, “You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour…I was watching, I said, 'Wait a minute. He's an African-American guy in front of a bunch of other white people, and there he is, President of the United States, and we've completely forgotten that tonight.'” [See video below. MP3 audio here .]
Continue reading …During an impromptu reunion of CNN's “Crossfire” Friday, Pat Buchanan told his old sparring partner Bill Press, “You’ve got to get beyond being a fringe talk show host.” In the middle of a very heated debate on MSNBC's “The Ed Show,” Buchanan strongly cautioned the host and his liberal guest, “I think this last week, there’s been a climate of hatred built up against [Sarah Palin] who did nothing and I tell you, if she does run for president of the United States, I pray to the lord she’s given secret service protection from day one” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. The “Battleground” story tonight, I guess you could say, Sarah Palin is doubling down. She has no regrets, she’s not apologizing. And she’s not going to back down from what she said. Palin set off a firestorm of controversy this week releasing her now infamous video where she never apologized, played the victim, and outraged a lot of people by using the term, blood libel. Today, “The Daily Beast” reports that she signed on to be the keynote speaker on the program convention in Nevada after the shooting tragedy in Arizona. A lot of folks aren’t going to like that but the righties are gunning up, I guess you could say. She’s also scheduled to do her first live interview with Sean Hannity on the republican FOX News Channel Monday night. She’s not backing down. I think we’ve got that, and she still has her sights set on 2012 and I think she’s had a pretty tough week but let’s see what these guys think. Bill Press, nationally syndicated radio talk show host and Pat Buchanan, former presidential candidate and MSNBC political analyst. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. BILL PRESS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Ed. SCHULTZ: Pat, I almost had to get out the external defibrillator here in the office. My wife is a nurse because I heard you say earlier this week, you think Sarah Palin is a victim. Do you believe that, Pat? PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that for the last week, she’s been a victim, Ed, in one the saddest smears that I’ve seen in a long, long time. From the very moment, they picked up those wounded and dead at that incident, she’s been charged with moral complicity in a crime which she had no responsibility whatsoever. It is been day and night. Day and night. Until finally, the president of the United States went out there and did a magnificent job I think in Arizona and said, put a stop to it, incivility is not responsible for this tragedy and let’s not uses it as what means to start up the wars, one against another again. Nicely stated by Buchanan. Now watch Press's pathetic response. PRESS: Hey, Ed, look, if Sarah Palin’s a victim, I’m an astronaut. Let me tell you something the victims are lying on the ground outside of the Safeway last Saturday in Tucson. Sarah Palin is a political figure, she’s a person who has used a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, nobody starting with you, Ed, me, not the president, nobody blamed her for what happened in Tucson, but they did say that she’s one of the ones who’s used a lot of gun-filled rhetoric including putting out that map with the crosshairs, she’s called it bull’s eyes and telling people to reload. You know it would had been so easy for Sarah Palin just to say, as I thought you said, Pat, all of a sudden, think about her language and maybe not use that gun- filled imagery anymore. Instead she whined and she called people, accused them of blood libel, it’s disgusting and I think her political career is over. BUCHANAN: Well, you’ve thought a lot of people’s political careers are over, Bill and they won 63 seats in the house last fall. President of the United States, Barack Obama said 19 — what was it 2008 when the Republicans bring a knife to a fight, we’re going to bring a gun. That’s over the top rhetoric. It had nothing to do with what happened out there in Arizona. And neither did Sarah Palin. You talk about her whining, she’s come out tough. She’s not only defended herself but she’s gone on the attack and that’s why you folks are out here talking about her tonight. PRESS: But that’s the problem, Pat. She went on the attack. Thank you for saying that. That’s exactly what she did. That’s not what they. BUCHANAN: Right. PRESS: Wait a minute, let me finish, please. That’s not what the American people wanted to hear. BUCHANAN: How do you know what the American people want? Great question, especially given recent polling data finding a small percentage of Americans believe the media was right for blaming this tragedy on heated political rhetoric. Not surprisingly, facts weren't interfering with Press's view of things: PRESS: Because, because, Pat, you look at the response to that memorial service where the president hit absolutely the right tone. Sarah Palin is tone deaf, at some point she’s got to go beyond being a fringe candidate, Pat. She had a chance. She missed it. She blew it. She’s done. BUCHANAN: Look, you’ve got to get beyond being a fringe talk show host, Bill. Here’s what happened. (LAUGHTER) PRESS: You’re a fringe TV talker. Come on, Pat, you can’t — why can’t — can you get away from the personal attacks? SCHULTZ: All right. Let’s go back to this, gentlemen, let’s go back to this. BUCHANAN: All right. Let me go back to the basic point. SCHULTZ: Pat, you bring up the point about what the president said. The president ought to apologize for that. He said it was the wrong use of words, he shouldn’t have done it. Sarah Palin’s apologized for nothing and I have to ask you, is it appropriate to put these crosshairs up and granted the Democrats have done it in the past but in the environment that we’re in right now, doesn’t this deserve you know, maybe I shouldn’t have done that? She can’t even bring herself to do that, Pat. BUCHANAN: Well, look, she’s got nothing to apologize for because she did nothing wrong. SCHULTZ: OK. BUCHANAN: Going forward, Ed, going forward, because of this, the Democrats showing the bull’s eyes on the stage, the crosshairs in the states, that goes out. But, Ed, look, why are you talking. SCHULTZ: How about blood libel? Is that going forward, Pat? Let’s play this sound bite, here it is right here. BUCHANAN: OK. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SARAH PALIN,FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Pat, was that appropriate? BUCHANAN: It is appropriate. I’ll tell you what, when Alan Grayson says, Republicans want you to die quickly — that is a smear. SCHULTZ: I’m not talking about Grayson. I’m talking about Sarah Palin, was that appropriate? BUCHANAN: She’s got the same right to use that phrase as Alan Dershowitz did. SCHULTZ: OK. BUCHANAN: As Andrew Sullivan did. As Michael Barone did. As Ann Coulter did. SCHULTZ: Ann Coulter, there’s a source for you. PRESS: Oh, boy, oh, boy, oh, boy. BUCHANAN: You know, let me tell you this. You know, Ed, look, you talk about a climate of hate. Now I think this last week, there’s been a climate of hatred built up against this woman who did nothing and I tell you, if she does run for president of the United States, I pray to the lord she’s given secret service protection from day one. Great point, especially given reports on Wednesday that Palin is now receiving an unprecedented number of death threats: (CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: I tell you what, I hope that she has all of the protection in the world. Go ahead, Bill. I’ll give you — go ahead. PRESS: Just let me get in here, look, all people said is that among with a lot of other people, Sarah Palin used an imagery that was inappropriate. It would had been so easy for her to say, you know what, I didn’t intend any harm to anybody and I know she didn’t. I don’t accuse her of that. BUCHANAN: Why you’ve been talking about her for a week for? PRESS: But she could have said. BUCHANAN: She came out and did a tape. PRESS: Hey, Pat, hey, Pat, hey, Pat. I know this is cross fire but give me a shot. Listen, she could have said that was inappropriate. I wouldn’t use that language again, that’s all people wanted to hear and then move on, instead she missed that opportunity, Pat. The president saw the opportunity. And I really think that she made a fatal mistake in terms of her political career, just like going to this gun show, Pat. She’s already got that crowd. What’s that going to get her? Nothing but more inflammatory rhetoric. BUCHANAN: The last person — Sarah Palin is a national sensation. The second-most beloved woman in America after respected after Hillary Clinton. She’s got great success on the circuit. Eighteen of the 20 districts. PRESS: Fine. BUCHANAN: She targeted. She won those races. She doesn’t need your advice, Bill. SCHULTZ: OK, all right, Pat. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) PRESS: Let her stay on FOX News, Pat. SCHULTZ: Did she have a good week? Did she use proper judgment in using blood libel? That will not politically come back to haunt her in your opinion, yes or no? BUCHANAN: Ed, you decide in your own way whether things come back to haunt her. You guys have been working this line and working this thing continually. SCHULTZ: I didn’t release the tape, Pat, she did. I didn’t release the tape, she did. BUCHANAN: She released that tape five days after this smear campaign began and I think she had every right to do so. SCHULTZ: The right to use blood libel. BUCHANAN: She has the first amendment right just like do you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Go ahead, Bill. PRESS: Shame on you, Pat. You know what that word means, that word has no place in American politics whether she knew what it meant or not, it’s stunningly. SCHULTZ: Buchanan and Press, great to have you guys with us tonight. Gentlemen, time-out. Thanks so much. BUCHANAN: Alan Dershowitz say, it was fine to use it. PRESS: Who cares about Alan Dershowitz? We’re talking about Sarah Palin. We’re talking about Sarah Palin, Pat. SCHULTZ: All right. We have to go. Thanks. Pat Buchanan and Bill Press, you guys are great. Yeah, you are talking about Sarah Palin, Bill. Seems like that's all you liberal media members want to talk about. Makes you wonder why more people don't want the former Alaska governor to become president just to show up all the so-called journalists that have been tearing her limb from limb since August 2008. Exit question: will liberal media members like Press and Schultz ever admit they were wrong for immediately tying Palin to this awful event, or will they continue pointing their fingers despite the evidence? (H/T Right Scoop )
Continue reading …Click here to view this media This weird segue popped up the other day in the Twilight Zone between Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show and the Glenn Beck show immediately following. Cavuto was running that crazy mug shot of Jared Lee Loughner and intoning thus: CAVUTO: I want you to look at him. Look at him closely. Maybe you recognize this guy. But I don’t. Maybe you think this guy is all of us. But I don’t. I just see a nut. We didn’t make him. He made and then unmade himself. The image then seamlessly becomes this one — and the resemblance is remarkable: enlarge The script works for that guy, too! And the more I think about it, the more the daily rants from Glenn Beck start to eerily resemble Loughner’s YouTube offerings . Which is maybe why Driftglass provides us with this telling Photoshop : enlarge I know! Let’s start a rumor that Loughner is actually the secret love child of Glenn Beck (who in fact used to work in radio in Phoenix). And it will have every bit as firm a foundation as your average “Barack Obama is a secret whites-hating Marxist who is trying to destroy America” rant. Get out your chalkboards!
Continue reading …In light of all existing evidence, any attempt to blame “heated political rhetoric” for Saturday's shooting in Tucson is simply a lie. While most reporters are done peddling the lie that Sarah Palin caused the Tucson massacre, they've now moved on to this more nuanced lie. At present it seems that Jared Lee Loughner's hatred for Gabrielle Giffords, apparently the intended target, stemmed from the congersswoman's inability to answer some incoherent question Loughner asked her in 2007 . There is no evidence to suggest he was driven to violence by political rhetoric of any kind. Liberal media types have been peddling the lie that conservatives and their “heated political rhetoric” are responsible for the recent Tucson shooting. But why such insistence on an obviously false story line? The answer seems to be, at least in the case of some, that Tucson could be to Barack Obama as Oklahoma City was to Bill Clinton. read more
Continue reading …enlarge “My tears are flowing and I am stunned and angered that Gabby Giffords was savagely gunned down while performing her congressional duties.” So said Minnesota Republican Representative Michele Bachmann in response to Saturday’s mass killing in Tucson . But less than a year ago, Bachmann called for resistance to cap and trade legislation, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue,” adding, “Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.” Sadly, when it comes to the casual incitement to violence, Michele Bachmann has plenty of company among the leading lights of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. While the motivation (and mental health) of the alleged Tucson mass killer Jared Lee Loughner remains unclear, his bloodbath served to once again highlight the most dangerous development in American politics: Whether concerning guns, abortion, gay Americans, immigration or judicial appointments, the line connecting the now commonplace rhetoric of the Republican Party to right-wing terror is a very short one. Increasingly, the conservative movement finds its strongest support at the dark nexus inhabited by gun rights advocates, religious zealots, white supremacists, anti-immigrant xenophobes, pro-life activists and anti-government crusaders. The Growing Right-Wing Body Count In October, Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade declared, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” Of course, Timothy McVeigh , the killer of 168 Americans in the worst act of domestic terrorism prior to 9/11 was no jihadist, but an anti-government extremist and militia member. And his heirs have a growing body count of their own. That includes men and McVeigh worshippers like Bruce and Joshua Turnidge . The father and son team of right-wing terrorists killed two policemen and wounded two others in their botched December 2008 bombing of a Woodburn, Oregon bank. Convicted and sentenced to death last month, their trial revealed that the Wells Fargo explosion in the days just after the election of Barack Obama allegedly had a much more sinister motivation than mere cash: Bruce and Joshua Turnidge had long harbored anti-government feelings, but the November 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama served as a “catalyst” for the father and son to plant a bomb at the West Coast Bank and plan a bank robbery, prosecutors said today. The two men feared that the Obama administration would impose a slate of new restrictions on gun ownership, Marion County deputy district attorney Katie Suver said in opening statements in the aggravated murder trials for the two men. Bruce Turnidge, years ago during the Clinton administration, had similarly anticipated a crackdown on Second Amendment rights and sought funding to start his own militia, she said. In July, Byron Williams planned an attack on the offices of the Tides Foundation, a group which Glenn Beck described as “bullies” and “thugs.” Williams’ hoped-for bloodbath was averted only by a shoot-out with police in which two officers were wounded. Williams claimed he wanted to “start a revolution” and explained, “I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn’t for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind.” And in just the months since Barack Obama’s inauguration, the Turnidges have been accompanied by fellow travelers, though not while making the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. Another father and son act, Jerry and Joe Kane , featured supposed sovereign citizens who killed two cops in West Memphis in May. Holocaust Museum killer James Von Bruun declared, “Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do.” Richard Poplawski , who murdered three Pittsburgh policemen in April 2009 was said to have feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” And aspiring Maine dirty bomber James Trafton “had filled out an application to join the National Socialist Movement and declared an ambition to kill the President-elect.” And these decidedly non-Muslim terrorists fly planes into buildings, too. Take the case of Joseph Stack , who piloted his small craft into an Austin IRS office, killing himself and an agency employee. Stack’s radical anti-tax rhetoric may have been shocking (“Well Mr. Big Brother IRS Man, let’s try something different, take my pound of flesh and sleep well”), but little different from Republican leaders in the 1990′s who charged “The IRS is out of control!” and decried its ” Gestapo-like tactics.” Then there’s Scott Roeder . The assassin of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller made no secret of his political aims, which did not include the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate. Roeder was inspired by Shelley Shannon , who in the 1990′s torched abortion clinics across Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and California. (In 1993, she shot Dr. George Tiller in both arms in a failed assassination attempt.) And as the New York Times recounted in 1995, Shannon was quite clear as to whether she considered her crimes terrorism: Handcuffed and nondescript in jailhouse blues, Shelley Shannon, a housewife from rural Oregon, stood before a Federal judge here on June 7 and admitted waging a terrorism campaign against abortion clinics and doctors. Judicial Intimidation In December, right-wing radio shock jock and past Sean Hannity regular Hal Turner was sentenced to 33 months in jail for his on-air threats against federal judges in Chicago. But when Turner posted information about the judges online and declared, “Let me be the first to say this plainly: these Judges deserve to be killed,” he differed only in degree and not kind from some of the biggest names in the Republican Party. The not-too-thinly veiled threats to American judges offer a particularly telling example. In June 2007, Judge Reggie Walton was only the latest to receive threatening calls and letters, just days after he handed down his sentence in the Scooter Libby case. Sadly, many of the leading lights in the Republican Party have it made clear that judicial intimidation is now an acceptable part of conservative discourse and political strategy. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), himself a former Texas Supreme Court Justice, has been at the forefront of GOP advocacy of violence towards members of the bench whose rulings part ways with conservative orthodoxy. Back in 2005, Cornyn was one of the GOP standard bearers in the conservative fight against so-called “judicial activism” in the wake of the Republicans’ disastrous intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair. On April 4th, Cornyn took to the Senate floor to issue a not-too-thinly veiled threat to judges opposing his reactionary agenda. Just days after the murders of a judge in Atlanta and the spouse of another in Chicago, Cornyn offered his endorsement of judicial intimidation: “I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country…And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence.” As it turns out, Cornyn was merely echoing the words of the soon-to-be indicted House Majority Leader Tom Delay. On March 31st, Delay issued a statement regarding the consistent rulings in favor of Michael Schiavo by all federal and state court judges involved: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.” The impact of tacit conservative endorsement of violence against judges cannot be dismissed. After all, it extends to members of the Supreme Court of the United States. In March 2006, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor were the targets of death threats . On February 28th, 2005, the marshal of the Court informed O’Connor and Ginsburg of an Internet posting citing their references to international law in Court decisions (a frequent whipping boy of the right) as requiring their assassination: “This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom…If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.” Neither O’Connor nor Ginsburg are shy about making the connection between Republican rhetoric of judicial intimidation and the upswing in threats and actual violence against judges. Ginsburg noted that they “fuel the irrational fringe” O’Connor blamed Cornyn and his fellow travelers for “creating a culture” in which violence towards judges is merely another political tactic: “It gets worse. It doesn’t help when a high-profile senator suggests a ’cause-and-effect connection’ [between controversial rulings and subsequent acts of violence.]” When anthrax spores were mailed to the Supreme Court in 2001, it did not require a leap of imagination to speculate on the ideological persuasion of the culprit. Aided by best-selling conservative author and media personality Ann Coulter , who joked in January 2006, “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” the right-wing endorsement of retribution against judges increasingly permeates the culture. Pro-Gun and Anti-Government A year after Michele Bachmann made her now infamous “armed and dangerous” call to action, Nevada Senate candidate and Tea Party darling Sharron Angle suggested her supporters would turn to bullets if ballots failed them. If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies. As Barton Gellman detailed in a Time feature titled, ” The Secret World of Extreme Militias ,” that process is already well underway. And in Tennessee, a follower of conservative hate merchant Bernard Goldberg cited the author’s writings as justification for his July shooting at a Unitarian church. In his suicide note, the shooter James Adkisson informed Americans his was a “hate crime” against “damn left-wing liberals”: “This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book. I’d like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn’t get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It’s the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence.” While Poplawski, Trafton, Adkisson and perhaps Loughner may have existed on the fringes of the conservative movement, some of their rhetoric parrots the words of mainstream Republican politicians and right-wing pundits. Anti-Abortion Terrorists On perhaps no issue is the seamless continuum from Republican incitement to right-wing violence more pervasive – and dangerous – than abortion. Long before the assassination of Dr. Tiller, the man Bill O’Reilly repeatedly called “the Baby Killer,” anti-abortion extremists were producing a mounting death toll across the United States even as GOP leader provided them with rhetorical aid and comfort. In December 2004 , for example, anti-choice forces cheered as Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) were placed on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Brownback has been among the prime architects of so-called “fetal pain” legislation would have required a woman seeking an abortion to be told that the fetus might feel pain. Coburn, the freshman Senator and and obstetrician, has advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions. The logical leap from Coburn’s office to the legions of anti-abortion extremists is a short one. No doubt, Atlanta Olympics and family planning clinic bomber Eric Rudolph or James Kopp , killer of doctor Bernard Slepien, would applaud these Republican leaders. To paraphrase Tony Perkins, “It is hard not to draw a line between the hostility” the conservative movement foments towards reproductive rights advocates and the violence of 2007 would-be Austin, Texas clinic terrorist Paul Ross Evans . Of course, to former Republican vice presidential candidate and conservative heartthrob Sarah Palin , the likes of Rudolph, Kopp or Evans don’t qualify as terrorists. While even Attorney General Ashcroft used the “T” word to describe Rudolph upon his arrest in 2003, during an October 2008 interview with NBC’s Brian Williams Palin refused to similarly brand violent right-wing radicals as the terrorists: WILLIAMS: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor? PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there. But we should. As Charles Blow suggested in a New York Times op-ed which coincidentally appeared the same day as the carnage in Pittsburgh, the “hotheaded expostulation” of Chuck Norris, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann and their ilk isn’t “all just harmless talk.” Sadly, what David Neiwert branded the conservative movement’s ” hate talk ” hardly ends there. Immigrants, gay Americans and Muslims have all been on the receiving end of right-wing venom and violence. And Republicans leaders and their frothing-at-the-mouth Tea Party faithful apparently find the whole thing funny. At an August 2009 tow hall meeting, California Republican Wally Herger warned, “Our democracy has never been threatened as much as it is today.” And as the Mt. Shasta News reported: One speaker said he could trace his ancestors back to the Mayflower and said “they did not arrive holding their hands out for help.” “I am a proud right wing terrorist,” he declared to cheers. Herger praised the man’s attitude. “Amen, God bless you,” Herger said with a broad smile. “There is a great American.” Those supposedly great Americans who fumed when the Department of Homeland Security released a report on the threat of right-wing terror that April (and just weeks after Rep. Giffords received death threats and had her office vandalized over her health care vote) were laughing at it just months later. By the time the midterm election was heating up, , Sarah Palin mimicked the online target lists of anti-abortion extremists by showing Democratic districts in her crosshairs . After the carnage in Bloody Arizona, no one should be laughing anymore. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …enlarge So it looks as though Facebook plans to go public sometime next year, thus rendering irrelevant any questions about whether it can have Goldman sell its shares to other investors and still remain a private entity. On the other hand, as William Cohan notes in his New York Times column, Goldman’s investment in Facebook certainly seems to be a violation of the ” Volcker Rule ,” which you may remember as the (murky, loophole-ridden) part of the financial reform bill that bars banks with access to the Fed’s discount window from proprietary trading. The goal of the rule was to basically force banks to make a choice: They could either have access to free money from the Fed during times of crisis or they could run a gambling casino, but they couldn’t do both. Cohan comments: Despite the high price of its investment, Goldman sees in Facebook a business bonanza, a nearly perfect nugget of investment-banking opportunities. First, Goldman’s cost of capital is close to zero — as a bank holding company, it can borrow from the Federal Reserve at negligible interest rates — so any capital gain it makes on its venture in Facebook will be sheer profit. Second, Goldman has almost certainly locked up the role of lead manager of the inevitable Facebook initial public offering. Fees for underwriting public offerings are generally about 7 percent of the value of the stock sold. Facebook could easily sell $2 billion of stock or more, generating fees to Goldman and the other underwriters of at least $140 million. The other benefit for Goldman in leading the public offering — aside from major bragging rights — is that it can use its marketing, sales and distribution muscle to make sure the value of Facebook at the time of the offering exceeds the $50 billion valuation at which Goldman invested. Goldman has also won from Facebook the right to offer an additional $1.5 billion of the company’s stock to its private-wealth clients. According to The Times, Goldman will be creating a “special purpose vehicle” to sell the stock to its wealthy clients and then will charge them a 4 percent initial fee plus 5 percent of any profits. As anyone who knows the history of the Internets knows, betting on hot websites to stay hugely successful over more than a few years — Geocities! MySpace! Friendster! — is a dubious venture. But as Cohan notes, there’s not much risk and a lot of reward for Goldman for investing in Facebook since it can borrow money from the Fed at extremely low rates. So if Facebook does indeed go the way of Pets.com, it’s no big deal since Goldman can run to Daddy Fed for more free money. Anyone else see a wee bit of moral hazard in this scenario? Felix Salmon also explores this issue a bit. And for some amusement, check out the Wall Street Journal’s comparison of Goldman’s Facebook investment pitch with a similar pitch from the deposed ruler of Nigeria. Onto some daily news! Jobless claims for the past month are at the lowest they’ve been in nearly two-and-a-half years. If you want to make a case that the real economy (versus just the stock market) is improving, this is some pretty good evidence. But even if tomorrow’s jobs figure comes in around the +297,000 figure the ADP reported this week, we’ve still got a long way to go. Since so many people have been out of work for so long, it’s going to be very difficult for many of them to find jobs. It would be nice if our government decided to simply hire people to build critical infrastructure like it did in the 1930s, but apparently we have to rely on the benevolence of our corporate masters instead of doing things to directly fix problems. Welcome to modern America. Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation is criticizing President Obama’s decision to hire Bill Daley as his new chief of staff. He persuasively argues that Daley will make Obama’s policy toward Wall Street suck even greater quantities of ass: The President once told a meeting of bankers that he was “the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks.” That apparently wasn’t good enough. Picking Daley would send the message that the pitchforks–normal people–matter less than the continued flow of campaign donations from the uber-wealthy. Barack Obama raised $39 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector in his 2008 bid for President, the most raised from this sector by anyone in one cycle seeking political office in the United States ever. Even more problematic than the need to corral donors for 2012 is that Daley’s presence would allow him to control the time of the President. Daley could choose who the President sees and what information gets to the President. Based on the praise the financial sector has for the Daley selection, it is clear who those people are and what that information would be. In essence, Daley would act as a stovepipe for the interests of Wall Street, as if bankers didn’t have enough influence already. At this point progressives need to stop being “disappointed” in Obama and see him for what he really is: A standard Clintonite neoliberal who won’t look out for the interests of working people. Sure, we’ll get some token appointments of people like Elizabeth Warren but the people who will really be calling the shots are the Tim Geithners, Bill Daleys and Larry Summerses (is that a word?). Expecting anything but the worst in terms of economic policy from this point forward would be foolhardy. And finally, we have some interesting news on the foreclosure fraud front: Sweeping evidence of the case the state attorney general’s office has built in its pursuit of foreclosure justice for Florida homeowners is outlined in a 98-page presentation complete with copies of allegedly forged signatures, false notarizations, bogus witnesses and improper mortgage assignments. The presentation, titled “Unfair, Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts in Foreclosure Cases,” was given during an early December conference of the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers by the attorney general’s economic crimes division. It is one of the first examples of what the state has compiled in its exploration of foreclosure malpractice, condemning banks, mortgage servicers and law firms for contributing to the crisis by cutting corners. In page after page of copied records, the presentation meticulously documents cases of questionable signatures, notarizations that could not have occurred when they are said to have because of when the notary stamp expires, and foreclosures filed by entities that might not have had legal ability to foreclose. It also focuses largely on assignments of mortgage, documents that transfer ownership of mortgages from one bank to another. Mortgage assignments became an issue after the real estate boom, when mortgages were sold and resold, packaged into securitized trusts and otherwise transferred in a labyrinthine fashion that made tracking difficult. As foreclosures mounted, the banks appointed people to create assignments, “thousands and thousands and thousands” of which were signed weekly by people who may not have known what they were signing. In one example, a signature by someone named Linda Green is said to appear on hundreds of thousands of mortgage documents from dozens of banks and mortgage companies, but in varying styles. In another example, the signature of Scott Anderson, an employee of West Palm Beach-based Ocwen Financial Corp., appears in four styles on mortgage assignments. I know I’m becoming a broken record on this, but can our government pleasepleasepleaseplease PLEEEEEEEAAAASE start throwing some people in jail over this crap? Fraud that is this blatant and destructive is not something that can be solved by a bit of “oopsie!” cash. And for God’s sake, if you do throw people in jail, make sure they’re fairly high up on the food chain, OK? I don’t want to see you throw the book at Billy Bob the Robo-Signer and then tell me that justice has been served. Happy Friday, everyone!
Continue reading …Photo: US Coast Guard The presidential oil spill panel is gearing up to release its final report on the BP disaster , and it isn’t pulling any punches. Chief among the findings is that one of the primary causes of the spill were “bad management” practices from all the companies involved, and a lack of good government oversight on drilling procedures. Few of the panel’s findings will surprise anyone who has even cursorily followed the spill, but they serve as a final confirmation (and condemnation) that companies soug… Read the full story on TreeHugger
Continue reading …Appearing on Wednesday's “Morning Joe,” Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward dismissed the significance of the accession of Rep. John Boehner to the post of Speaker of the House of Representatives, saying that Presodent Obama's inauguration dwarfed Boehner's. Politico's Mike Allen had reported that Capitol Hill had “the air of a Presidential Inauguration” Wednesday with a new Speaker of the House and 87 new Republican congressmen coming in. A few minutes later, Woodward tempered Allen's enthusiasm. “I think Mike Allen's one of the best in the business, but to compare the Boehner coming to the Speakership with the Presidential Inaugural – four busloads, Mike? I mean, for Obama, for any president – c'mon, they had hundreds of busloads.” read more
Continue reading …The “White House is constantly grabbing for more power, seeking to drive the people's branch of government to the sidelines,” Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) thundered in June 2007 following a report on President Bush's use of “signing statements.” “The administration is thumbing its nose at the law,” Rep. John Conyers agreed, as noted at the time by the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman. Signing statements made their way into the presidential campaign, with then-candidate Obama telling voters that “We’re not going to use signing statements to do an end run around Congress.” Now three years later, congressional Republicans are concerned President Obama may do just that as regards a law Obama will sign which prohibits transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay stateside for trial. The Washington Post has the story, but placed it at the bottom of page A8. What's more, writers Peter Finn and Anne Kornblut failed to mention that then-Senator Obama was critical of President George W. Bush for his alleged misuse of signing statements (emphasis mine): read more
Continue reading …