Obama reelection 2012

[bryanbutler]

C'mon, you're ignoring the apparent hypocrisy that even many liberals have noted on this board. The Obama administration routinely condemns big banking and investment interests, and then routinely brings them into the administration. They'll attack Romney on his Bain experience...and then bring in a head of OMB with Bain experience, and have Dems accept more money from Bain than the GOP.

Of course, if Zients can file his own tax return competently, that'll put him ahead of Geithner.

i'm not ignoring it, i'm just pointing out a fact. you do know what the OMB actually does, right?

[chancellor]

i'm not ignoring it, i'm just pointing out a fact. you do know what the OMB actually does, right?

I do, and don't have any surface objection to bringing in someone with Zients' background. But if you're going to play the "all bankers are evil" card, you have to face the inevitable hypocrisy charge when they're brought in to manage budget/cost related issues.

From a campaign stanpoint, I love that he has Bain background.

[DMT]

I do, and don't have any surface objection to bringing in someone with Zients' background. But if you're going to play the "all bankers are evil" card, you have to face the inevitable hypocrisy charge when they're brought in to manage budget/cost related issues.

From a campaign stanpoint, I love that he has Bain background.

I don't recall hearing Obama claim that 'all bankers are evil', please explain.

[chancellor]

I don't recall hearing Obama claim that 'all bankers are evil', please explain.

Lessee, we have the "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks" quote. And the "Banks can't be competing on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices or, you know, derivative cocktails that nobody understands and that exposed the entire economy to enormous risks" quote. And this one: "For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn’t afford."

And there's more from the '08 campaign. And there's a fair amount of truth in them.

But reality is that his campaign and Dems readily accept their money (note where Goldman Sachs and recent reviews of where Bain donations are going) and hires in Wall Street and banking execs readily.

Your mileage may vary, but it's awfully hard to see his financial leadership team as pure as the driven snow.

[OaklandA's]

Lessee, we have the "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks" quote. And the "Banks can't be competing on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices or, you know, derivative cocktails that nobody understands and that exposed the entire economy to enormous risks" quote. And this one: "For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn’t afford."

As you said, all of those things are true. But the reality is that anyone qualified for a top economic post will have worked for big corporations and/or Wall Street. If they haven't, they probably aren't qualified for the position.

There is nothing inherently wrong with criticizing the financial industry and then appointing people from that industry - not everyone on Wall Street behaved the same way. The industry as a whole made mistakes, but that doesn't mean that every individual who worked there is guilty.

[Cobain's Ghost]

well, which particular bank aside, who would you pick for director of OMB but somebody with a lot of history with money? and, well, successful investment bankers are going to be wealthy - why would you be surprised at that?

i wouldn't be surprised at that. which is why i said:

no surprise - obama announces his new director of the office of management and budget today, and he is a wealthy investment banker.

i just thought it was funny that he worked at bain because so many of the left's media minions are currently hyperventilating about romney's bain capital experience.

[onejayhawk]

that doesn't seem defensible. afghanistan was clearly started by GBA. the only one you could stretch to would be libya, if you even *call* that a "war."

This is at least as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Nixon's. A little consistency please.

if Zients can file his own tax return competently, that'll put him ahead of Geithner.

Point.

Obama is a Republican. There's your answer.

As if.

J

[Erik]

Obama is what the Republicans USED to be.

[chancellor]

Obama is a Republican. There's your answer.

LOL. I wish. Neo-con, yes. The most prolifigate neo-con to hold the office, and that includes GWB, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy going backwards in time.

[onejayhawk]

Obama is what the Republicans USED to be.

There is some justice to this. What we now call the GOP base, we used to call Reagan Democrats.

That being said, the President is much too devoted to wealth distribution to qualify as a Republican. The GOP line is still that private people make better use pf money than the government does.

LOL. I wish. Neo-con, yes. The most prolifigate neo-con to hold the office, and that includes GWB, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy going backwards in time.

You mean something different when you use "neo-con" than most people. Somehow you apply it to both Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.

J

[B-Fly]

I'd like to see Mitt Romney sing a few bars of "Let's Stay Together" at the Apollo Theater.

[chancellor]

You mean something different when you use "neo-con" than most people. Somehow you apply it to both Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.

I can't speak for most people, but execution of policy in this regard has been surprisingly similar. Neo-cons, in general, are pro-large government, pro-expansion of executive branch authority and pro-aggressive foreign policy. There's wide variety among neo-cons in terms of social policy, so when one looks at a politician who espouses social policies traditionally affiliated with the left (say, pro-choice, pro gay marriage) and one on the right (say, just the opposite on abortion or gay marriage), they don't put them in the same camp.

But in reality, they're simply two sides of the same coin.

[Wonderboy]

An over-generalization, but neo-cons started with peace and actively took us into war despite the facts. Obama was given the war and has moved slowly towards peace. I don't even see this as the other side of the coin.

Obama is playing the hand that was dealt him -- neo-cons stacked the deck.

(Note I am talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan, which was fully justifiable.)

[onejayhawk]

An over-generalization, but neo-cons started with peace and actively took us into war despite the facts. Obama was given the war and has moved slowly towards peace. I don't even see this as the other side of the coin.

Obama is playing the hand that was dealt him -- neo-cons stacked the deck.

(Note I am talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan, which was fully justifiable.)

Sorry, but that is blind partisanship.

If this administration had played the hand he received, we would have a long term presence in Iraq. It was very advantageous, and the administration used it as long as they dared, then through the asst away for purely political reasons. Conversely, Afghanistan would have a fraction of the current force.

J

[Don Quixote]

No, I really meant Republican. The distinction that many right wingers attempt to draw between "real" Republicans and neo-cons is just not there. Either that or there has never been a real Republican.

There used to be a distinction between "mainstream" Republicans and the neo-con wing, at least on foreign affairs. The former group has literally died off, leaving the neo-cons in control of the party, at least on the national level.