Will the Democrats Lose in 2010 (or 2012) Because They Won’t Pass Real Financial Reforms?

Yesterday, Elliot Spitzer said that the White House’s defense of the financial status quo will give Republicans powerful ammunition in the 2010 elections.

Democratic cheerleader Markos Moulitsas (the “Kos” behind Daily Kos) wrote the following about the Democratic losses in several state elections:

Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

… If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes…

If you forget why you were elected — … financial services … reform — you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we’re not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We’ll turn out if we feel it’s worth our time and effort to vote, and we’ll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home.

People elected Obama in the hope that he would be different from Bush. But in the most important ways, he is just continuing Bush and Clinton’s (think repeal of Glass-Steagall) worst policies.

Both the Republican and Democratic party leadership have become lapdops for the big banks and the status quo. Neither are open to real reform or change.

The Democrats haven’t broken up the too big to fails. They haven’t restored Glass-Steagall. They haven’t really reined in credit default swaps. They haven’t pushed for honest accounting or forced the giants to put their toxic SIV-hidden assets back on their books.

People are sick and tired of both parties’ catering to the big boys. Indeed, given last night’s election results and the Dems’ utter failure to institute any real financial reform, trend forecaster Gerald Calente’s prediction that a third party candidate will win the 2012 presidential election is sounding a little less crazy.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Exactly, George. The best line I've heard is that Obama is Bush in black-face. I describe it as the left and right arms of one oligarchical body.

  • Progressive über-statistician Nate Silver weighs in here and here with details.

  • Kind of you to read Kos and Spitzer so the rest of us don't have to.

  • There's not a dime's wotth of difference between the two parties and I don't believe there ever will be. Time for some *real* change, starting with all the politicians, all the lawyers, all the international corporate CEOs and banksters.

  • GW sez:""""The Democrats haven't broken up the too big to fails. They haven't restored Glass-Steagall. They haven't really reigned in credit default swaps. They haven't pushed for honest accounting or forced the giants to put their toxic SIV-hidden assets back on their books."""" Unfortunately, if the Democrats – or anyone else – forces these things, the markets will crash. All the above reflect expedients inserted to prevent market failures in times past.Furthermore, neither party has a clue as to how to actually govern. The GOP's 'easy answer' approach cannot possibly succeed! It denies the heart of the problem, overconsumption leading to decreased availability of an essential resource, this being crude oil.Water, topsoil and waste- carrying capacity are also shrinking in availabitlity.Our economy is based on wasting extremely cheap inputs, the political 'struggle' of the past 30 years has been to keep these inputs cheap so they can continue to be profitably wasted. The markets are speaking and pricing inputs much higher. Oil is priced almost 700% higher than it was eleven years ago. What is the easy answer or 'ideology' for that?The correct anwser is there is none. (Over-) consumption has been brought forward, consequences have been kicked down the road. The future – and the past – is now.

  • Jim

    Why assume the third -or fourth- party is Progressive?