Goldman Sachs and the politics of financial reform

Last night, I couldn’t fall asleep so I ended up mulling over the fraud case against Goldman Sachs (GS) for about 3 hours. Here’s my (totally uneducated) take:

Bottom line, this case against GS is not a gamble by the government. The administration wants financial reform much more than they want to “get” GS, but because midterm elections are around the corner and Democrats are already expected to lose a fair number of Congressional seats, the administration really can’t afford to have Republicans running around telling people that financial reform is Maoism in disguise (or in the best interest of the banks…with the Republicans still auditioning opposition strategies, it’s like amateur hour on the Hill). So. What is to be done? How do you pass real financial reform in this political climate without more than a mock brawl? Apparently if you’re particularly savvy, you bring a charge against the most loathed bank on Wall Street based on a disclosure issue that may not actually be technically illegal, but that very clearly sounds like something that should be. The ambiguity of the law is the SEC/administration’s ace in the hole. Either GS settles or loses and financial reform happens because the issue is very clearly illustrated for the public by one great example, or GS wins and financial reform happens because the entire country is incensed that whatever GS did isn’t illegal. Either way, financial reform passes.

McConnell: Message Is Fine, Messengers Not So Great

Washington Wire‘s Susan Davis reports this story:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t believe the Republican Party has the wrong message, just the wrong messengers.

“We don’t think it’s a flawed message as much as we haven’t had the right candidates out there to put these races in the win column and we’re working very hard to turn it around,” McConnell told reporters today at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Senate Republicans have lost about a dozen seats in the previous two election cycles, and now control just 41 seats unless Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman scores an upset in the ongoing recount battle against Democrat Al Franken.

McConnell identified candidate recruitment as the biggest challenge the party has faced in recent years, noting that it was “really hard” to convince Republicans to run with an unpopular Republican president in office and a sour electorate.

He said he is working with Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who is running the campaign operation, to turn it around in 2010. “I’m optimistic that we’re going to do a lot better in candidate recruitment in this cycle than we have over the last two,” he said, “And it’s kind of a statement of the obvious that the better candidate you have the more likely you are to win. So I think that’s the starting place.”

McConnell likewise expressed frustration at the lack of diversity in the Senate Republican ranks. “I’m not happy with the fact that our only Hispanic member of the Republican Conference has retired,” he said of retiring Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, “We don’t have nearly as many women senators in the Republican Conference as we’d like to have. We’re working on all of those things.”

The minority leader was less candid, however, when asked about home state GOP Sen. Jim Bunning, who has publicly clashed with Cornyn and the press in recent weeks over his re-election bid. Some Republicans believe the party will have a better chance to hold on to the seat if Bunning, 77 years old, retires.

“I don’t have any observations on that,” McConnell said.

So…what’s the message? Low spending, low taxes? Was McCain unable to deliver this message? I thought I heard it loud and clear. If I’m wrong, if there’s a significantly more comprehensive and perhaps fresher message that I have yet to hear articulated, I think Senator McConnell should do the honors.

At the same time, I feel it odd that Senator McConnell seems to be stressing that the candidates his own party put up for election, candidates I want to assume the GOP thought would do a good job, were just…well…bad.

Perhaps the inability to recruit real talent  and the quality of the message are somehow related…

Heath Shuler Not Running In 2010. North Carolina Erupts Into Spontaneous Celebration.

According to Poltico’s The Scorecard, it has  been confirmed by a Shuler sposkesperson that Rep. Heath Shuler  (D-NC) will not be running against Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) in the 2010 NC Senate race.

Phew! As much as I would like to see a Democrat take that seat, I’m not entirely convinced that Heath Shuler would be a better representative for North Carolina than Burr…and that’s saying a lot. 

So who’s left?

In my mind, there are two potential Democratic candidates for that 2010 race, but only one viable one (sorry Brad Miller). I’ve prepared a short bio below:

Rep. Bob Etheridge– This guy is LITERALLY salt of the Earth. A Representative from NC’s 2nd district (essentially the area in the middle of the state slightly east and south of Raleigh), who has really put in his time:

• Served in the U.S. Army

Exactly

• Small tobacco farmer and hardware store owner by trade

This may or may not be Etheridge and his wife.

• Served as Hartnett County Commissioner for 4 years

Trust me, it's a good one.

• Served 4 terms in the NC House of Representatives

Mythical

• Elected North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction (2 terms)

I have not been able to confirm that Etheridge wrote this himself, but it's not entirely unlikely.

• Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1996 and still there

And thus, Bob enters the big game.

• Member of the New Democrat Coalition

(Need New Logo)

Fun Fact: “Bob” is not short for Robert, but rather for “Bobby Ray.”  This is not a joke.

How can North Carolina not fall in love with this guy?

Forget Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. Johnathan Krohn/Unmonitored Volcano 2012!

For a night cap, I present the next leader of the Republican Party:

What Is The Republican End Goal Exactly?

Let’s say, for a moment, that the Republicans succeed in thwarting President Obama’s and Congressional Democrats’ agenda. They prove their point that the Democrats are being extraordinarily wasteful and are able to shut down much of Obama’s very ambitious plan for the next two years, rendering the government essentially paralyzed.

What platform do the Republicans then run on in 2010? We stood by our principles, we shut down Obama, now elect us and we’ll do it again for the next two years? Is this a winning strategy? 

 

The Inevitable