But, but, but: Greenwald Puts Greg Craig on the Hotseat on This Week

Elena Kagan's nomination to the SCOTUS was at the top of the list (or at least a close second to the BP disaster) of the Talking Heads Sunday this morning. I watched MTP and didn't find it very enlightening on the discussion about Ms. Kagan's nomination, especially when Sen Chuck Schumer couldn't really defend her except perhaps she's a New Yorker and he represents her as a constituent. When NBC News puts up the transcript, I'll link to it here.

The more animated conversation took place on ABC News' This Week, and I was very happy to see Glenn Greenwald (who is garnering more respect as real progressive/liberal and not being criticized for it by other journalists) represent a real ideological view, along with George Will and Ed Gillespie --Ed being the big ideologue from the Rethugs--(I bet Glenn had to wash hands immediately after having to sit next to him) and Greg Craig, a centrist/moderate who was an adviser to Obama recently. Mr. Craig asserted that Ms. Kagan was the most qualified nominee in his lifetime.

Greenwald repeated the reasons for his opposition, posited from last week and added that she would have to share a little more of her legal viewpoints. Mr. Craig tried to counterpoint by saying that Greenwald preferred a judicial nominee. Greenwald was allowed to do something very different from Democracy Now nor on Rachel Maddow's show, which was to ask directly to Mr. Craig to point out anything that would illuminate Ms. Kagan's views. Here's the Youtube, courtesy of Firedoglake:



Like Larry Lessig and other Kagan supporters, Mr. Craig failed to be able to point out any clues, but instead that repeated her resume. I think Greenwald nailed it when requested specific articles and Mr. Craig, who took a very defensive tone--instead of one of a healthy debate--she taught students, administered law professors (I guess he was trying to make a weak argument that administration of faculty is equal to law clerks??), but he failed by not being able to point out one solid article she had written in this past decade.

To follow other discussions, Firedoglake has one here, and at Salon, Greenwald has unedited portions of that roundtable up on his page.

Even George Will complemented Greenwald at the end for bringing the left to the debate, but in a thoughtful way. I guess the two hadn't met before.

One note that hasn't been pointed out: Ruth Bader Ginsburg also said very little about her views during her hearings, except about privacy. And she was criticized for not hiring more women and minorities, similar to this year's nominee. I guess many of the Obama supporters are hoping the same on this nominee, but as Greenwald would likely point out: Ginsburg came from the Appellate.

Congrats to Glenn Greenwald, blogger and now a budding talking head liberal on a traditional network news platform. Some of the bloggers at Open Left think this may be the only time we see Greenwald on the bobbleheads. I disagree. I think he harbored a lot of goodwill as he was intelligent, but calm, and was after facts, not just bomb throwing. Of course, one could say he was a grown-up at the table--for opposing this nominee without a lot more answers, but the difference between him and the GOP is still from a liberal perspective, not just to blow more hot air in the room.

A Healthy Debate about Elena Kagan's Nomination

I've been following Glenn Greenwald's opposition to the "blank slate" nominee, Elena Kagan, to the SCOTUS. Larry Lessig, Ms. Kagan's good friend, has her back.

BW readers probably can tell that I'm on Glenn's side on this issue (especially as I pointed out and Glenn has since done the same of problems pointed out by Jonathan Turley and Jeffrey Toobin), but as mcjoan at the Daily Kos pointed out this afternoon, this is a healthy debate. Like mcjoan, I hope progressives such as Bernie Sanders, Al Franken and Jeff Merkeley will pick up on these points in forcing Ms. Kagan to take some positions, whether we agree with them or not.

President Obama is squandering a golden opportunity when we have many Democrats who could carry a nominee forward without a single Republican vote. I would prefer a very progressive candidate to hold a candle to the many years Justice Stevens was on the court. If a nominee is too timid to say what's on her mind or fails to address her meager record, our POTUS should withdraw her nomination. Frankness and transparency, which candidate Obama promised, are at stake here and will mark his legacy to be characterized more like W's--more of a unitary executive--instead of a complement of three branches.

Stay tuned. I'm still looking for more opinions besides the ones I posted yesterday and today.

Update: as promised, I found some more opinions and facts via Alternet and Mother Jones. Very discouraging indeed.

Second update: Nate Silver at 538 has an angle regarding actuaries.

Ugh --more Centrists for the SCOTUS

Most of the time, I am asleep at midnight. Tonight I have many issues I am trying to think through as I have too many details to attend to on a local basis.

One of the thoughts I wish I wasn't having was about Obama's second pick to the SCOTUS and that is Elena Kagan as the nominee. Ugh, another freakin' centrist. One can tell Larry Summers was at the top of the advisor list with this one. She is going to be for corporatists and not for the true theory of justice--Harvard Law dean or what. I don't care if she is a woman or not. That doesn't count as much as views, and all of this is politics--and who can get through. What happened to rulings? This woman has almost NONE.

I worked at Harvard. I respect Harvard. But I have little respect for cronyism, Mr. President. I guess you do.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/its-kagan----obama-makes-supreme-court-selection.php?ref=fpblg

Update: see Glen Greenwald's commentary about Kagan.
Second update: see Jeffrey Toobin's piece in the New Yorker today. His comment about Ms. Kagan & comparing her to her nominator:

But on the Court, Kagan will have to do something she’s not done before. Show her hand. Develop a clear ideology. Make tough votes. I have little doubt she’s up to the job, but am less clear on how she’ll do it.

H/t to Desmoinesdem at Bleeding Heartland

Another update: Jonathan Turley nailed it about why progressives like me find this pick very disheartening.

"Obama’s record on civil liberties has long been attributed to a rather cold calculus that liberals have no where to go and that he should continue to play to the middle and right of the political spectrum. I am not so certain. There is no evidence that Obama actually believes in some of the principles that Stevens fought for, particularly in the area of terrorism. What is clear is that he has selected someone who will honor that legacy by dismantling a significant part of it."


Personally, I'm tired of sellouts. But I knew this president would do it.

Financial Elite Are Bankrupting Our Gov't With Larry Summers' Help

BW Reader Cherbium posted this bit of news (from HuffPo) on another thread. I am republishing it on this thread, along with hers, my, and Glenn Greenwald's comments.

Summers Received Hundreds Of Thousands In Speaking Fees From TARP Recipients


Aside:
(Larry Summers is not being investigated. He is being embraced. )

Barack Obama's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees last year from firms that have direct financial interests before the government or are intimately involved in the White House's bank relief programs.

The White House released late Friday the personal financial disclosure forms of many high-ranking administration officials. The document provided for Summers, who serves as one of the president's closest confidants, underscores just how close some of these officials are to the industry over which they now have oversight.

Among the firms that paid Summers large amounts in speaking fees include J.P. Morgan Chase. That bank offered the former Harvard president and Treasury Secretary $67,500 for a February 1, 2008 engagement. It has received $25 billion in government bailout funds.

Citigroup, which has received $50 billion in taxpayer help, paid Summers $45,000 for a speech in March 2008 and another $54,000 for a speech that May.

Goldman Sachs, which has received $10 million in bailout funds, paid Summers $135,000 for a speech on April 16, 2008 and another $67,500 for a speech on June 18, 2008.

Summers also received about $5.2 million over the past year in salary from the major hedge fund D.E. Shaw. (note from Benny: many folks have worked for hedge fund companies, including JRE, but not for this much money)

The speech payments will undoubtedly raise questions as to the impartiality of the economic advice Summers is providing to the president. Already viewed as too favorably disposed to Wall Street interests, the lavish payments for speeches will provide further fodder for those who think the administration has been forgiving in their approach to the banking industry.

In a prepared statement, spokesman Ben LaBolt said that, "From the first days of the administration, we have bolstered accountability over banks and reformed the TARP process so that taxpayers can see how their money is being spent, the influence of lobbyists is curbed, executive compensation is reined in, and firms are required to show how they will preserve or expand lending using government funds. Dr. Summers has been at the forefront of this administration's work to shore up our nation's financial system and to put in place a regulatory framework that will strengthen the financial system and its oversight - all in an effort to help the families across America who have paid a very steep price for risky decisions made by Wall Street executives."

Below is a list of the notable speeches given by Summers last year, the amount he was paid, and the date of the address. Further down is a PDF of Summers' Personal Financial Disclosure form, released on late Friday afternoon. Tell us what you see.

Skagen Funds, $60,300, (1/9/2008)

Skagen Funds, $60,300, (1/10/2008)

Skagen Funds, $59,400, (1/11/2008)

JP Morgan, $67,500, (2/1/2008)

Itinera Institute, $62,876 (1/8/2008)

Citigroup, $45,000 (3/3/2008)

Goldman Sachs Co., $135,000, (4/16/2008) --and as Glenn Greenwald noted, that was for one day.

Associon de Bancos de Mexico, $90,000, (4/3/2008)

Lehman Brothers, $67,500, (4/17/2008)

State Street Corporation, $45,000, (4/18/2008)

Siguler Guff & Company, $67,500, (5/7/2008)

Hudson Institute, $10,000, (05/28/2008)

Citigroup, $54,000, (5/30/2008)

Investec Bank, $157,500, (6/13/2008)

Goldman Sachs, $67,500, (6/18/2008)

Lehman Brothers, $67,500, (7/30/2008)

Tata Consultance Services, $67,500, (9/21/2008)

State Street Corporation, $112,500, (10/2/2008)

McKinsey and Company, $135,000, (10/19/2008)

Charles River Ventures LLC, $67,500, (11/112008)

Pricewaterhouse Coopers, $67,500 (9/9/2008)

American Chamber of Commerce In Argentina, $135,000 (10/7/2008)

American Express, $67,500 (5/7/2008)

Greenwald also observed:

And the payment was made at a time -- in April, 2008 -- when everyone assumed that the next President would either be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and that Larry Summers would therefore become exactly what he now is: the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government (and the $45,000 Merrill Lynch payment came 8 days after Obama's election). Goldman would not be able to make a one-day $135,000 payment to Summers now that he is Obama's top economics adviser, but doing so a few months beforehand was obviously something about which neither parties felt any compunction. It's basically an advanced bribe. And it's paying off in spades. And none of it seemed to bother Obama in the slightest when he first strongly considered naming Summers as Treasury Secretary and then named him his top economics adviser instead (thereby avoiding the need for Senate confirmation), knowing that Summers would exert great influence in determining who benefited from the government's response to the financial crisis.

Yes, the Financial elite owns our government, and that is why it is taking all of our money. Might as well nationalize the damn banks, get rid of the idiots who made it crash, not just saving it from further ruin, and sell the good assets. Either that or let AIG go into bankruptcy. Either way, Larry Summers is behind this gig, and something is smelling pretty rotten with Geithner too.

Breaking: Obama Orders Treasury Sec to Block AIG Bonuses

From the NYT:

“In the last six months, A.I.G. has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury,” Mr. Obama said. He added that he had asked Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner “to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”

In strongly-worded remarks delivered in the White House East Room before small business owners, Mr. Obama called A.I.G. “a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed.”

“Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay,” Mr. Obama said. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

Thank you, Mr. POTUS. The Board of Directors ought to be held accountable for this too.

Oh, and if you wish to sign the petition to bring these clowns to be held accountable by Congress, go to FireDogLake.

Watch the video here (courtesy of Daily Kos TV):


And it sounds like there are some options. Glenn Greenwald has more on it here.

Congress Helped Bankers Get Into the Mess

If you want a chronology of how Congress allowed deregulation to exploit consumers on the credit side, read Deviltower's piece at Brand X, Three Times is Enemy Action.

You also know that the Bush/Paulson robbery plan to help their friends is bad when even Newt says Congress should be asking a lot of questions. Cue Newt:

Congress had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy.

Imagine that the political balance of power in Washington were different.

If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a “no” vote.

I concur with Glenn Greenwald that bi-partisan debate is healthy.

I still trust no Bush.