Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Jim Bunning, Rand Paul and the Fix Endorsement Hierarchy

Jim Bunning just pulled a Rudy. Big time.

Bunning, the outgoing Republican Senator from Kentucky, threw his endorsement to ophthalmologist Rand Paul's Senate candidacy on Wednesday and, in so doing, served up a heaping slice of revenge pie to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

"Kentuckians need a strong principled conservative to stand up to the liberals and establishment politicians that run Washington," Bunning said in a statement. "Dr. Paul will be his own man in Washington, not beholden to the special interests and beltway insiders who come looking for handouts on a daily basis."

While McConnell isn't mentioned anywhere in the statement, it doesn't take a terribly close parsing of the statement to understand that this is Bunning's payback for being unceremoniously ushered out of the race by McConnell (and other Republican leadership types) last year.

By backing Paul, who has overtly -- and successfully -- run against the party establishment in the runup to the state's May 18 primary, Bunning is sticking a finger (heck, maybe two) in the eye of McConnell who is tacitly but not publicly supporting Grayson.

Bunning's backing of Paul is a quintessential example of a "what goes around comes around" endorsement (or, as we have nicknamed it, "pulling a Rudy" in honor of Rudy Giuliani's endorsement of Marco Rubio) in the Fix Endorsement Hierarchy. (Full list of our endorsement hierarchy is after the jump.)

That puts it in the middle of the pack when it comes to influence in endorsements -- neither decisive nor easily dismissed.

Bunning, despite the fact that polling showed that he simply could not win re-election this fall, still retains a somewhat considerable following within conservative circles in the state -- the very people who both Paul and Grayson are trying to appeal in advance of what is expected to be a relatively low turnout election next month.

Bunning has also come to symbolize for some Kentucky Republicans the face of the opposition to McConnell who is widely acknowledged as the godfather of GOP politics in the state. To the extent there is dissatisfaction with McConnell within the Republican rank and file, Bunning's endorsement is likely to crystallize the idea that a vote for Paul is a vote for a new kind of politics in the state.

Bunning's endorsement won't win the race for Paul. But, it certainly provides him a bit of momentum with conservatives heading into the race's final month.

The Fix Endorsement Hierarchy (ranked in order of influence)

* The Symbolic Endorsement: Ted Kennedy backing Barack Obama during the 2008 primaries.
* The In-State Statewide Endorsement: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist throwing his support to John McCain just before the Sunshine State presidential primary in 2008.
* The Celebrity Endorsement: Chuck Norris for Mike Huckabee in 2008.
* The Newspaper Endorsement: The Washington Post endorsing state Sen. Creigh Deeds in the 2009 Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary.
* Out-of-State Statewide Endorsement : South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint endorsing former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the 2010 Senate primary.
* The What Goes Around Comes Around Endorsement: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani endorsing former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the 2010 Florida Senate primary.
* The Obligatory Endorsement: Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran endorsing McCain's presidential bid in 2008.
* The Non-Endorsement Endorsement: Former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder passing on state Sen. Creigh Deeds in the 2009 governor's contest.
* The Pariah Endorsement: Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D) endorsing anyone.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 15, 2010; 10:26 AM ET
Categories:  Fix Endorsement Hierarchy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jim DeMint: Leading the conservative revolution?
Next: Tommy Thompson says no to Wisconsin Senate race

Comments

sliowa1

I am all there!
My two little guys,
6 and 7, my wife,
thats my life.

The rest is all work, or talk,
but I like it.

Good luck to you with your little gang of two.


Cheers

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

@sliowa1 - I'm getting back to this a little late. New threads and such.

I wouldn't be troubled if Magnetar realized that the CDOs were due to fail and shorted them. The problem is that Magnetar became instrumental in creating these instruments so that they could make money by betting against them. The analogy to my mind is for a company to create an IPO so that they could short it. There is a real difference between betting the market would fall and inflating the market so that you could make money when it fell.

With regards to the car companies, it's a bit simplistic to cast this as unions favored over shareholders. Both Chrysler (well, Daimler Chrysler) and GM had pension fund obligations. That meant that the unions were secured creditors, or rather, their pension funds were. That puts them at the status of bond holders. When a company is liquidated, the shareholders are last in line.

Second, if the companies had been liquidated, the costs would fall onto the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. The government would have wound up covering those costs ANYWAY.

Finally, it's a cold hard judgement as to the value of liquidation (minimal) vs. a going concern. GM has had a remarkable turnaround in the quality of what it's producing. I'm not so sure about Chrysler, though the minivan and SUV businesses are solid. One could have predicted what would happen when Daimler-Benz took Chrysler over. BMW had exactly the same experience when it purchased Rover.

With regards to the rest, we're in general agreement. It seems that the government has come to the conclusion that some of this was illegal.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 16, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Shrink,

Thanks and I agree with your sentiment about Goldman Sachs and I hope they receive their just rewards.

In terms of your statement “…when a betting system can not help or in any way facilitate the wealth creation process, but can easily destroy wealth, then that market should not exist.” I actually agree with you philosophically (we are not far off). Thanks for the discussion.

Note having two small boys keeps me busy thus I did not reply sooner. If you see me replying late into the evening its most likely I am on a business trip.

Posted by: sliowa1 | April 16, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

It works,
thanks sliowa
it is good to debate a conservative that can track an argument and not explode into a shower of talking points.

I still say, when a betting system can not help or in any way facilitate the wealth creation process, but can easily destroy wealth, then that market should not exist.
Thus I agree with you 100% on the lottery, a tax on stupidity should not exist.

Meanwhile, maybe fraud is illegal?
This Goldman Sachs lawsuit is, obviously, a big deal.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: shrink2 | April 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

BB and shrink,

“They reasoned, correctly, that the market was overvalued. Then they were instrumental in creating financial products that increased the overvaluation so that they could cash in. To the cost of tens of billions of dollars. Do you think that was right? Do you think it should be legal?”… tens of millions of Americans in peril because of this. Doesn't this set of circumstances cry out for more regulation?

First off when you get to the hedge fund level of investing you have some problems (Ethically in many ways) since you are expected to get high returns on the dollar. You are expected to take risks with the hopes of big rewards. What if the fund manger was wrong and the market was not overvalued. What if as they said we went into another paradigm shift and our economy continue to grow who would have gotten the short end of the stick? There are no safety nets at the level they are investing. However, to your point these fund mangers did see the overvalue of the market and exploited this weakness. Do I think it was right, no and do I think it should be illegal, no but with some reservations. These hedge fund mangers and investors should know what they are getting into, obviously one did while the others did not.

You talk of billions lost and people are in peril, yet where is your outrage whenever you see a Lottery commercial in which billions are taken for those least able to afford. Do we not sneer at those in long lines hoping to win the Powerball when it approaches 300 million. Where was your outrage when the Obama administration stepped into the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies and award disproportionally to Unions over bond holders? Crony Capitialism at it best.

The point I was making earlier was against Drindl was here inference that the whole bubble could have been avoided if the government intervene. Part of the market problem was that the government was already intervening in many ways to over inflate market value. The market collapse would have happen with either D or R in control due to government policies. The Hedge fund managers only exploited this weakness they did not create the collapse in our economy. I dare say the next bubble will be averted by current regulations.

Posted by: sliowa1 | April 16, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: anudda great post. Good points on the Untouchables.

But I think it's a little different here. I don't think the lower orders who vote against their interests have any real hope of changing places with the Romneys and the Bushes, I do think they instead like to identify with them and pretend they have the same interests.

Remember Dallas and Dynasty? Doting on the fictitious lives of obscenely wealthy and gratuitously cruel people?

And then there is the money religion which you correctly alluded to, thirty years of market infallibillity and animism, thirty years of Norquist propaganda about supply and demand and the anathema of regulation. People actually buy that crap, and no number of failures will talk them out of it.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 1:50 AM | Report abuse

How about the 10 jobs in fewer years?

Must be personality conflict.

Or productivity shortcomings.

==

I had a period like that. I was contracting. And making a LOT of money. I prefer it to full-time work ... as long as times are prosperous (meaning, the Democrats are in power).

How is it you don't know that?

Posted by: Noacoler | April 16, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

If I were a Hindu,
I'd be a soldier of Hanuman.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Noa, funny how you mention the caste system. It actually reminds me of the traditional caste system in India. You have these large groups of religious untouchables who are basically the doormat of society. Just treated like garbage. This is less the case today in modern cities, but in rural areas, it's still a reality. But the untouchables accept it. Why? They are told that if they behave, they will move up in the next life.

It works like that here. So many people are convinced to vote against self-interest because they are told if they accept the upperclass tax cuts that the money will trickle down and they will all become millionaires and can enjoy those tax cuts themselves. But they need to behave and play along and vote the right way. Never mind that these policies are hurting them in the present. Never mind that these policies severely reduce social mobility. Money is a religion in this country and the untouchables have bought into it. Now of course, money is an irreplaceable medium of exchange and a free market economy is generally the way to go. But there's nothing about a free market economy that predicates an idiotic tax system or running up huge deficits during prosperity.

And StIowa is totally wrong about Republicans being anti-regulation being a straw man. Didn't you all catch what Scott Brown's opinion was on financial regulation? He was against it because it created another level of regulation. He didn't make a point about the specific regulation or whether it does too much or too little or strangles the industry or whatever. He was against regulation because he is against regulation. In other words, keep things as they are.

And the middle class that has been trampled on by these industries?

Well, they better just keep their f*cking mouths shut and vote the right way. Otherwise the money gods will never promote them to Brahman status.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 15, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

hey zouk, moonbat, drivel -- show us your resume. let us know you are who you say you are. what are you afraid of?

exposure that you are a fraud?

come on, moonbat. show us...

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The tedious, mindless and shallow Pes has returned from his 3 dollar lunch. How were the termites au gratin?

Are you ready to brag about the community college you are alumni from?

How about the 10 jobs in fewer years?

Must be personality conflict.

Or productivity shortcomings.

Or even the notion firmly entrenched in your own mind only that you were not getting paid what you were worth

guffaw. Tehe.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 15, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

You might call market safety socialism.
I do.

==

Everything having to do with economics makes my eyes glaze over but about 20 years ago I read an article in pre-Barnes New Republic that I swear by: capitalism works best when highly regulated and highly taxed. Corroborated with data, not just bunya type bland assertions.

Based on what the free market zombies believe, Eisenhower era should have been economic calamity. It was the opposite.

But the wealthy and the executive castes are greedy and don't like taxes, and of course they resent regulation, so we get this shuck and jive about the animistic marketplace and the infallibillity of market forces. It's just simplisitc enough that it resonates with the simpleminded and NO amount of evidence will ever change a believer's mind. Deregulation leads to collapse? Then we didn't deregulate enough. Just get government out of the way and the magic money spirit will solve everything.

I think anyone who buys that crap should be taken out into the woods in the dead of winter and have his hand nailed to a stump.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I don't suppose it occurred to the Fix that Bunning, who is leaving politics, simply endorsed the candidate whom he thought the better choice. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Bunning has never been afraid to do what he thinks is right, and the consequences be damned.

==

Yeah consequences like "a lotmof people In Kentucky being outnof work" and "Kentucky getting a Senator who obsesses over magic money spirits and gets nothing done."

There are no consequences for Bunning. He's retiring. He's just being irresponsible.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

BBye, I think the operation was a success, but we may have lost the patient.

I hate it when that happens.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! The federal reserve caused the great depression. Ben Bernanke even admitted it. Just like it was the root cause of the rescission we are in now. There can be no free market when there is a central bank. Where did you learn history?

==

If you believe in the magic of the marketplace and self-regulation and all that BS then you are a complete idiot. That is fairy dust. Market forces are less evidenced than aboriginal spirits of the hunt.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

@sliowa1 - I do suggest that you check out Propublica's report on Magnetar. Boiled down to a nutshell, Magnetar backed the riskiest part of the CDOs so that they would make it to the market and then purchased insurance (technically, credit default swaps) that more than made up for these losses. They realized that the market was overvalued and also a way to make money off the collapse.

Here are a couple of salient points:

According an independent analysis commissioned by ProPublica, 96 percent of the Magnetar deals were in default by the end of 2008, compared with 68 percent for comparable CDOs. The study was conducted by PF2 Securities Evaluations, a CDO valuation firm.

Even more important. There was nothing illegal in what Magnetar did; it was playing by the rules in place at the time. And the hedge fund didn’t cause the housing bubble or the financial crisis. But the Magnetar Trade does illustrate the perverse incentives and reckless behavior that characterized the last days of the boom.

How on earth is that relevant to the price of tea in China? Sorry, natural gas in the Netherlands.

What Magnetar did was entirely legal. They reasoned, correctly, that the market was overvalued. Then they were instrumental in creating financial products that increased the overvaluation so that they could cash in. To the cost of tens of billions of dollars. Do you think that was right? Do you think it should be legal? We're both comfortably employed and so can argue from the relative safety of our keyboards. There are, however, tens of millions of Americans in peril because of this.Doesn't this set of circumstances cry out for more regulation?

I think the founders had it about right. A well-regulated market, being necessary to the economic health of the nation…

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 15, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sirs,
Sarah Palin showed her contempt, for the primary process, when she endorsed a third party candidate after the primaries.
Spiro Agnew pulled the same stunt.
Abraham Lincoln believed in government by the people.
No wonder he bolted from the Republican party to form the Union party!
Clifford Spencer

Posted by: yankeefan1925 | April 15, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Yeah I hate straw man arguments, like 2nd guessing the dot.com bubble. But as a foil, that had all the right elements of disaster, the moral hazard, the fungibility, the work ethic.

Let me explain.

Markets need moral hazard, the people who are putting up the money have to be able to actually pay when they lose. No really, they have to pay the people whose money they lost.

Wealth transfers have to be transparent and accounting accuracy has to be backed by force. There is a reason Bolivia, the Saudi Arabia of Lithium, is still an economic tragedy. No one can tell whether a contract today will be a contract tomorrow.

On the other side, lets ask the US Marines, the Grace Line, United Fruit et al about the origin of the term 'banana republic'.
You could make the argument Reagan was going back to the old view of "free markets" in the Nicaragua situation. You could argue Bush/Cheney were still trying in Iraq.

If wealth can be stolen, disappeared, degraded, inflated or otherwise mutated by force...there is no good. Fungibility means predictability, over a long time.

Finally, there is work. A work ethic is at least as important as moral hazard and fungilbility. These three things are in fact coequal as well as interdependent.

If people think feeling good about the process, greasing the right palms, cleaving unto the right religion, you get my point, equals work, they should lose. Hard work has to pay. The joke on socialism is the workers pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. It isn't funny, its true, ok, it is funny too.

The dot.com disaster had moral hazard, all the people who should have lost money did. The people who should not have, did not.
The fungibility was there, no one had to freak out about toxic assets, or unwinding anything. The work ethic, did people get something for nothing? Yeah, until they lost it all.

Did people lose money they worked for? Sure. You can't have moral hazard unless you can lose money you worked for if you were greedy or stupid.

So, in the next installment, we can go on to why our economy is a Ponzi scheme and what we can do about that. After all, when I make money betting on stocks, whose money is that?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

This is an important point -


If 98% of the black community supports Obama OK - you might be OK with that - but let's just say for the purpose of this thought, you are OK with that and the blacks are all supporting Obama because he is black.

The point is: there are few blacks left to go to the Tea Party Rallies.

Even if you are OK with the blacks supporting Obama based on race - then you have to be OK with any opposition group lacking black support.


So this charge that the Tea Party Rallies "are not diverse enough" is really really bogus.


It is the blacks who are separating themselves out by race FIRST.

Because I can assure you there is a diversity of opinions WITHIN the black community.


If there was a white President - or if the black community was polled based solely on government spending and taxation - perhaps one would have to take a poll from a few years ago before Obama was on the scene - one would EASILY see that the black community has A WIDE RANGE OF OPINIONS ON FISCAL ISSUES.

I'm not going to say that the black community would have the same break-down on fiscal issues as the country as a whole - however one is GOING TO FIND MORE SUPPORT FOR THE TEA PARTY ISSUES WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY COMPARED TO ONE MIGHT SEE WALKING THROUGH A CROWD.

I believe this is reasonable and logical -


and therefore, to blame the Tea Party Movement for not having enough blacks and diversity is ridiculous.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

'I dare say any R is for total free markets so what we are talking about is the degrees at which markets are regulated.'

Well, exactly. A lot of us here are saying that these new, exotic financial instruments are intrinsically dangerous due to their very nature and should be regulated to prevent another meltdown, that's all.

It's about transparency, or lack of it. You ought to be able to know exactly what it is you are investing in and how risky it is. These make that impossible.

I'm not against capitalism either -- just the abuse of it.

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd wrote:

things like striking a balance between total free market and totalitarianism government, it annoys the hell out of me that this is something that even needs to be explained.


___________________________________

What are you talking about ? If you don't like the country, buy a plane ticket to a pinko communist country and leave.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

“It's just when people like shrink write about things like striking a balance between total free market and totalitarianism government, it annoys the hell out of me that this is something that even needs to be explained.”

What annoys me is the straw man argument often thrown up on people who have objections to D policies. I dare say any R is for total free markets so what we are talking about is the degrees at which markets are regulated.

Posted by: sliowa1 | April 15, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

“market safety socialism”

Please in a perfect world with hindsight we can do a lot, but this is not a perfect world and surely we lack insights into bubbles. We could go on and on, but no one has created this “safe” capitalism since few ever understand the nature of bubbles until they are about to pop. What were people saying about the dot.com bubble, it was a “new paradigm shift” in capitalism only to find out that the old ones were fairly good at predicting the future. I am not saying there is no need for regulation only that many of the measures that Dodd and others are proposing will do little to stop the next bubble and many will entrench those too big to fail organizations.

Posted by: sliowa1 | April 15, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

More helpfully, the example towards the end is convoluted, which is tough to repair, as the nature of what you're describing is a bit convoluted as well. Perhaps names rather than A B C and X.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 5:11 PM
-----------------------------
Thanks for this suggestion. I knew it was twisted, but then, so are CDS. I'll rework it.

Other than than, what do you think of regulating the CDS market? I'm just choosing this small slice of the financial world because it is fairly easy to evaluate.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 15, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I might just still be recovering from SRLC as well as fighting severe sleep deprivation, so a lot of things piss me off in terms of Republicans and teabaggers.

One of them is their f*cking need to oversimplify the world into these goddamn slogans.

laissez faire doesn't work. It just doesn't. Trickle down doesn't work. There's more to quality of life than economic efficiency.

And even when the teabaggers decide to use some nuance (deficits good under Bush and bad under Obama) they get it backwards! And of course some idiot is going to ask me why it's better for the Fed to be running deficits now and not under Bush.

I don't really have a point and even if I did, 37th will just fuc*ing carpetbomb the place in an hour or so. It's just when people like shrink write about things like striking a balance between total free market and totalitarianism government, it annoys the hell out of me that this is something that even needs to be explained.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 15, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"...suggest changes to make it more understandable."

Sure I have to work for a few hours here so it will take awhile. Quickly, the question starts with whether people should be allowed to place bets on money that is not theirs. We say yes, because that is what investment and credit is all about.

The collection of other peoples' money is what the bank loans us when we buy a house with a mortgage. The bank is betting we can pay back the other peoples' money with interest, while we bet the house will be worth more than the cost of the interest... everyone wins.

On the other hand, when a betting system can not help or in any way facilitate the wealth creation process, but can easily destroy wealth, then that market should not exist.

later

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Could I prevail on you to read my prior post @ 4:37 about CDS and suggest changes to make it more understandable."

Precede it with the last two years of Gretchen Morgenson articles.

More helpfully, the example towards the end is convoluted, which is tough to repair, as the nature of what you're describing is a bit convoluted as well. Perhaps names rather than A B C and X.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

@shrink,

You and I are totally synched. Safety, which is another way to say transparency, is what most of us want.

Could I prevail on you to read my prior post @ 4:37 about CDS and suggest changes to make it more understandable.

I can't imagine that reasonable people would differ on what to do about the CDS market, which is such a good example of what CAN happen in a totally unregulated market.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 15, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"...what economic system created all the wealth in the first place that was so quickly lost but the free market system. If the free market was so evil, why does shrink boast about investing in it and reaping its rewards? What type of economic system do you advocate a Corny (sic) Capitalism in which government picks its winners and losers..."

This is my favorite topic. So instead of boring you to death, I'll be brief.

I hate crony capitalism, it is the worst alternative we could have. That is what China, India, Brasil, Russia, America, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, in short, all the
largest countries and or largest economies have. Corrupt politicians regulated by corporate sponsors. Then there is Northern Europe, New Zealand and a few others which are experimenting with a different form. Their results are too socialist, in my opinion, or I would live there, as I did for a couple years, long ago.

Too socialist is a disaster, too capitalist also a disaster. America is and will continue to blend the best of both. This is why I bet on America. And so far, yes, it is working. Try it.

Work hard, save money, invest, that is the system, but that is not about free markets, it is about safety to do so, the fungibility of wealth...is not about socialism or capitalism, it is about safety.

I don't stockpile gold and ammo and as of this week, I have made back all the losses
I took at the end of the Bush/Cheney era. Dad's retirement program is back in black.

But generating wealth? The government free market generates Somalia, that is not a joke. All wealth generating markets are regulated very carefully. The key to effective market regulation is the rule making process. It should be called safe, not free markets, but that sounds like big brother or guaranteed good deals, so we don't say that. But it is true that fair oil prices depend of the safety of the market, do they not?

Iran sinks a tanker or two in the Persian Gulf and thousands if not millions will be incinerated over oil prices. The price of oil depends at least as much on the safety of the market as it does on supply and demand.

You might call market safety socialism.
I do.


Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Love the Fix Endorsement Hierarchy, but I think you blew this one. This is definitely a In-state Statewide Endorsement, by a sitting Senator no less.
While this certainly could, and probably does, have elements of pulling a Rudy, there is no question that Bunning is far closer to Paul ideologically then Rudy was to Rubio. In fact, I've been expecting this endorsement from Bunning, because it is so clear that Paul lines up with him on the Fed Reserve, on spending and national debt, on pay-go, health care, etc.
Finally, an in-state endorsement from a state-wide elected sitting Senator who still carries a support base with exactly the voters either candidate needs to win this upcoming primary is huge. That, and that alone, should have bumped this up in the hierarchy. Bunning wields the most influence in the primary.

Posted by: lajdawg | April 15, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

For those of us arguing whether some basic financial regulation makes sense, here's a real life example of a free market scheme gone wrong. And keep in mind, NOTHING done was illegal.

Credit default swaps (which were totally unregulated, in fact there was a measure inserted into an appropriations bill in December 2000 that blocked any agency from regulating them) are bets about the possibility of corporate bonds going bad.

Anyone can buy or sell a CDS. You don't have to own the bond, own the corporation, or have any reason at all, to enter in CDS contracts.

One way to look at sellers of CDS is that they are insurors. If the bond goes bad, they have to pay the owner of the CDS.

Traditionally, insurors are highly regulated (need to have reserves on hand, etc.) Not CDS sellers--totally unregulated. The CDS "insurors" could take the money and invest it in anything it wanted, no reserves, no guarantees. And, guess what, that's just what they did.

So, 2008 rolled around, and bonds started going bad. The prices of CDS started going up (bonds going bad more likely). Losses mounted. Remember toxic assets? This only got worse as banks, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman, started failing, and people who had sold CDS on their debt faced even larger losses.

To complicate things even further, the CDS market was a bunch of companies writing guarantees on each other and turning around and getting guarantees from each other.

If Bank B bought a CDS from Bank C on the debt of Company X, and Company X defaults, Bank B thinks it has a payment coming to it from Bank C; but if Bank C doesn’t have the cash, Bank B won’t get its payment. Even worse, let’s say Bank B bought a CDS from Bank C, and then sold a different one to Bank A. Bank B thinks it is perfectly hedged, and Bank A thinks it has a payment coming. But if Bank C can’t pay out, Bank B may not be able to pay Bank A – and these chains can go on and on and on.

Makes your head swim.

That's why as each bank failed, all the others were being pulled down because of this web of CDS, where they were all cross guaranteeing each other. Once the banks went down, other large companies (like GE) were next to circle the drain.
-------------------------------------------

Now, should this $62 trillion CDS market continue to be unregulated? Should it exist at all?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 15, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The Wicked Witch said, as she was melting, "What a world. What a world."

Rand Paul has spoken in favor of health care reform very much like that which passed into law and has said that we should understand America's presences on middle eastern soil as part of the reason we are under terrorist attacks. Both statements suggest a centrist point of view. So how is it ultra conservatives Sarah Palin and Jim Bunning endorse him? I guess this is just some of that "common sense" that eludes most of us.

Should be a good time on the veranda here in Kentucky leading up to the primary.

Posted by: KingGeorgeIII | April 15, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"Good column, but...[I hate you!]"

Posted by: easysween

I thought I'd do the broadwayjoe thing and tighten up the message a bit for you, have a great day.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

“I feel sorry for you, silowa, that you so much wnt to beleive in Santa Claus, I mean 'free enterprise' that you can't face facts.”

Face the facts…please what economic system created all the wealth in the first place that was so quickly lost but the free market system. If the free market was so evil, why does shrink boast about investing in it and reaping its rewards? What type of economic system do you advocate a Corny Capitalism in which government picks its winners and losers. I have been to Europe and I have met with some business man and I asked them what this or that cost and they laughed. Their answer was it depends on what the government decides (I was in the Netherlands). I asked them to explain and they told me that the government regulates or taxes at varying rates and businesses work around those decisions. For example: it was cheaper to grow tomatoes in greenhouses using natural gas than to sell natural gas in the market since the tax on natural gas was so high. Thus a government policy and tax code led to certain business decision regardless if it made any sense (it did make dollar and cents).

I would also add as government places more regulations the cost of business goes up (regardless if they are good or not) and who benefits more as the cost of business goes up but the large corporations since they are the ones who can absorb those cost. Do not complain about the large corporations then create policies that strengthen them. You make rather silly statements like “What caused the Great Depression”…free markets is rather stupid. What economic systems lead to the fall of the Soviet Union? I do not think it was free markets. And how is Venezuela doing with its Corny Capitalism? I am not saying the free markets are prefect, but its better than anything out there currently.

Now I know there is no such thing as Santa, but the tooth fairy that’s gotta be real (my seven year has made some bucks in the past several months…see I told you free markets works)

Posted by: sliowa1 | April 15, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

As the wicked witch said as she melted, "What a world. What a world." Ryan Paul has spoken in favor of health care reform that passed into law and has said that we should understand America's presences on middle eastern soil as part of the reason we are under terrorist attacks. Sarah Palin and now Jim Bunning have endorsed him. I love it! Should be a good time on the veranda here in Kentucky on primary election day.

Posted by: KingGeorgeIII | April 15, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

CC: Just wanted to say that I have always thoroughly enjoyed your Endorsement Hierarchy.

Posted by: acasilaco | April 15, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Good column, but I wish you'd lay off the gratuitous insults of John Edwards. He's paying dearly for his sins. And despite the 4H's -- haircuts, hedge funds, house & a hussy -- Edwards has been the only serious Democratic candidate to make poverty an issue since Jesse Jackson. It's also lazy journalism to focus on gossip & personal peccadillos; it keeps people from paying attention to war, unemployment & recession, poverty, coal-miner deaths & diseases (i.e. black lung), short-changing our public schools & the concerns that honestly plague us every day. Next time you look in the mirror, Chris, try on this moniker: Chris "Cheap Shot" Cillizza.

Posted by: easysween | April 15, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Good column, but I wish you'd lay off the gratuitous insults of John Edwards. He's paying dearly for his sins. And despite the 4H's -- haircuts, hedge funds, house & a hussy -- Edwards has been the only serious Democratic candidate to make poverty an issue since Jesse Jackson. It's also lazy journalism to focus on gossip & personal peccadillos; it keeps people from paying attention to war, unemployment & recession, poverty, coal-miner deaths & diseases (i.e. black lung), short-changing our public schools & the concerns that honestly plague us every day. Next time you look in the mirror, Chris, try on this moniker: Chris "Cheap Shot" Cillizza.

Posted by: easysween | April 15, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Good column, but I wish you'd lay off the gratuitous insults of John Edwards. He's paying dearly for his sins. And despite the 4H's -- haircuts, hedge funds, house & a hussy -- Edwards has been the only serious Democratic candidate to make poverty an issue since Jesse Jackson. It's also lazy journalism to focus on gossip & personal peccadillos; it keeps people from paying attention to war, unemployment & recession, poverty, coal-miner deaths & diseases (i.e. black lung), short-changing our public schools & the concerns that honestly plague us every day. Next time you look in the mirror, Chris, try on this moniker: Chris "Cheap Shot" Cillizza.

Posted by: easysween | April 15, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

nunya --

"I believe you. What you describe sounds illegal, it also sounds like somebody allowed them to do it."

It's not illegal -- it's what hedge funds *do* -- hedge their bets. What I beleive in is that government can, and should, help protect people from huge and vastly wealthy corporations that prey on them.

The point of this new financial regulation is to make certain things like the above illegal -- and prevent this kind of meltdown from ever happenng again. If we don't regulate them they will do it again -- greed wins every time.

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't suppose it occurred to the Fix that Bunning, who is leaving politics, simply endorsed the candidate whom he thought the better choice. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Bunning has never been afraid to do what he thinks is right, and the consequences be damned.

Posted by: jdadson | April 15, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

We see the world a little differently that's all. You all see the government as the solution. I see their interference as part of the problem. You see big corporations as the bad guy. I see government discreetly protecting big corporations. I view big government the same way you view big corporations. I do agree with you that big corporations are greedy and should not be allowed to screw the people. However I do believe corps. get away with it because somebody in government is protecting them. If you live in a small town and Walmart comes in and starts ruining your town. Do you ask the government to do something, or do support the mom and pop stores? I support the mom and pop stores. Even if it is a little more expensive. That is where we differ. Big bad companies will fail with out support.

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Attention mainstream media journalists:

Politics is like covering sports -- until the fun and games stop and the covert domestic torture begins. Are YOU among the "targets?" Are President Obama and other political leaders, now, or in the recent past?

***

Victims of nationwide federal-local silent microwave/RF assault demand:

"MR. OBAMA, TEAR DOWN THOSE HOMELAND CELLULAR TORTURE TOWERS!"

"Project Geneva" -- You cannot wait. You must act now. The operatives running this covert system will not stand down unless they are forcefully and publicly TAKEN DOWN.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. Silently..." and "Gestapo USA..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 15, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

hey, good way to get off the hook for writing an actual column- just recycle that so-so list for what? a 5th or sixth printing?
You know , other people would be happy to do your job.

Posted by: newagent99 | April 15, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"In Sept. 2008, in what was “by far the largest bank failure in American history,” the federal government seized savings and loans giant Washington Mutual (WaMu) and later sold its assets to JP Morgan Chase. Politico reports that two years earlier, with WaMu at the center of the expanding subprime-mortgage bubble, company lenders gathered at a retreat in Hawaii to celebrate their wealth — by rapping.

In a “Karaoke-style ode to greed – complete with faux WaMu rappers tossing play money into the crowd,” lenders re-mixed the 1992 hip-hop hit “Baby Got Back” into their own “I Like Big Bucks”:

“I like big bucks and I cannot lie/You mortgage brothers can’t deny,” sang the WaMu rappers.

The presentation, which included cheerleaders moving in time to the music, and choreographed moves by the singers, continued:

“That when the dough roles in like you’re printin’ your own cash/And you gotta make a splash/You just spends/Like it never ends/“

WaMu bankers also staged a mock funeral for their competitor, Countrywide Financial, which had already fallen under the weight of its own high-risk loans.

WaMu, however, soon followed. Indeed, a new federal investigation to be released Friday concluded that the agencies tasked with overseeing WaMu “feuded so much that they could not even agree to deem the company ‘unsafe and unsound’” until a week before it collapsed."

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

armpeg, no one has asked for you to be banned, nor scrivener, nor any number of people who do and don't make sense, or are all over the place, or who post constantly.
It isn't a political problem. Can you see that there is something different going on, something particularly annoying in this case?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Was it a fastball, a screwball or a changeup-when he threw his endorsement, that is?

Posted by: mesondk | April 15, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

It figures that all the Obama--worshipping far-lefties, like LABC et al want 37&O off of this, and every blog for that matter, so that only their Socialist Communist opinions are heard. Just like their "Hush--Rush" bill, dishonestly called the 'Fairness Doctrine' what these anti--Constitution, anti--Americans want is total control of all speech that isn't approved by them. When that happens Barack Obama's and the Democrap Socialist's dream of a Obama--led Police State becomes a reality.

Posted by: armpeg | April 15, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

@d: although the baggers' main cover issue is opposition to "big government," it seems almost all of these sccios receive some form of federal assistance. So much for consistency. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 15, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"Industrial production rose 0.1 percent in March, its ninth straight monthly increase."

This has given the markets a reason to rise again, even after yesterday. These are people like me, betting on American businesses.

These poor fools who keep voting Republican can not figure out why this money never trickles down to them. They think it is because government sucks it all up. Sorry, but the suckers are the people who don't realize that hard work does not pay off in this corporate labor market, but investment, betting in other words, certainly does.

Does all the wealth siphoned out of American productivity by the betting, the slicing and dicing of betting products, a process that never actually creates wealth, but sure can destroy it, does that bother the conservatives? No. They have no idea how it works and they just don't believe how pernicious it is. Free market. Hah! Freedom ain't free and neither is the market, never has been and never will be (except in Somalia, the best ongoing example of what a people who can tolerate no government can do for themselves).

What in some bucolic ideal of the pastoral South? Tell that to the people who did the work in those days. How about the industrial revolution North? Robber barons, wasn't that just a passing phase?

No, the brief American experiment with middle class prosperity is not in the Constitution. It is an historical anomaly. As it fades, the downwardly mobile are angry and they are simply too foolish to figure out how their corporate masters duped them into voting Republican, again and again and again.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately the wingnuts are the ones who drive up this place's hitcount, so he's loathe to do anything about it.

It reminds me of one of his weekly chats where he bemoaned the lack of intelligent discussion on his boards. Apparently it bothers him more than he can know.

Well, we don't know how much it bothers him, but we do know that he isn't interested in doing much about it. The guy spams every single board.

Someone should spam the place with pro-Obama stuff. Let's see who eventually gets the hammer.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 15, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I join in the chorus of can you do something about 37? He drives people away from your blog in droves.

nunya, you are beyond help. please continue to live in your alternate universe/cocoon.

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris: I am all for doing something about 37&O - he is an abusive poster who needs to have his endless posting curbed. He makes it very difficult to enjoy any reading experience involving your blog.

Posted by: LABC | April 15, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris: I am all for doing something about 37&O - he is an abusive poster who needs to have his endless posting curbed. He makes it very difficult to enjoy any reading experience involving your blog.

Posted by: LABC | April 15, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The 'free market' was also the cause of the Great Depression.

Posted by: drindl

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! The federal reserve caused the great depression. Ben Bernanke even admitted it. Just like it was the root cause of the rescission we are in now. There can be no free market when there is a central bank. Where did you learn history?

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Who would listen to an nasty old rightwingnut creep who possibly has alzheimers? Oh yeah, other rightwingnuts. Never mind.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 15, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris:


This is the only Hierarchy that matters:


1) Victoria Secret Model


2) Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model


3) Fox News Babe.


That is the only Hierarchy that matters.

Case closed.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that group would include anyone who finds ALL CAPS posting tedious. Perhaps we should take up a collection to get 37th's caps lock key fixed.

On topic. I wonder if McConnell would like his plate of Rudy served cold.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 15, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

nunya, the mess happened because the government didn't interfere enough -- because the hedge funds were legally able to bundle together a bunch of risky investments, hoping to see them fail, and then bet against them, so they would make money from the failure. Did you know that?
Posted by: drindl

I believe you. What you describe sounds illegal, it also sounds like somebody allowed them to do it. That somebody was? Government? Who? All I'm saying is, as soon as we allow government to regulate; we have created a position that can be bribed. And as everyone knows, some people are just bad. Keep government out and let bad companies fail. We will all be better for it.

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD

You are a part of a group of 7-8 people - and you post under mulitiple names."

37th, you crazy nut, why don't you tell us who you think are in this "group of 7-8 people."

This should be good. LOL

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 15, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"The Financial Times writes:

The Magnetar controversy centres on how it financed its bet against the triple-A tranches of CDOs that Citi trusted. Magnetar became the “sponsor” of 30 subprime CDOs during 2006 and 2007 by buying the riskiest slice of equity in them – the “toxic waste” from which others shied away. That enabled the underwriting banks to sell the “low-risk” parts to others.

The catch is that Magnetar was simultaneously going short of not only subprime securities in general, but the higher-rated slices in the deals that it had helped to introduce."

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Larry King is a dog.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I feel sorry for you, silowa, that you so much wnt to beleive in Santa Claus, I mean 'free enterprise' that you can't face facts.

"The hedge fund helped create mortgage-based securities, pushed for risky things to go inside them and then bet against the investments, resulting in billions in losses for investors and ultimately making the financial crisis worse.

Note: Many CDOs were made up not of actual mortgages but side bets on them."

"A hedge fund, Magnetar, helped create arcane mortgage-based instruments, pushed for risky things to go inside them and then bet against the investments."

"At just that moment, a few savvy financial engineers at a suburban Chicago hedge fund [1] [1] helped revive the Wall Street money machine, spawning billions of dollars of securities ultimately backed by home mortgages.

When the crash came, nearly all of these securities became worthless, a loss of an estimated $40 billion paid by investors, the investment banks who helped bring them into the world, and, eventually, American taxpayers.

Yet the hedge fund, named Magnetar for the super-magnetic field created by the last moments of a dying star, earned outsized returns in the year the financial crisis began.

How Magnetar pulled this off is one of the untold stories of the meltdown. Only a small group of Wall Street insiders was privy to what became known as the Magnetar Trade [2] [2]. "

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe:


A FALSE CHARGE OF RACISM is not VICIOUS ???

What is wrong with you???


And you still have not said anything about the democratic operatives who have said that they would like to PLANT FALSE EVIDENCE AT TEA PARTY RALLIES.

So, who is vicious ???


Isn't it you who is supporting these tactics ???? Again, what is wrong with you ???? You must be being held involutarily at some mental facility somewhere.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

more funny:

"According to a new poll from CBS and the New York Times, 92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism -- but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it.

Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare. In fact, nearly half of them either benefit from Social Security or Medicare or have somebody in their immediate family who does. And about one-third are directly beneficiaries at least one of the programs, compared to about one-fifth of the population at large."

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Here's one of the biggest organizaers and backers of 'tea parties':

'Kansas-based Koch Industries, one of the largest private companies in the world, with a hand in everything from chemical production to commodity trading, and associated foundations plow millions into right-wing causes including climate change denial and pro-corporate economics research.'

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


In reference to your post at 1:07 - I just made a post which was not.


so you are wrong again.

You still have not commented on Obama's statement which indicated that Obama did not like that American was the world's dominant military power.

So, you agree that you don't like it, which close to all Americans would find extremely UNPATRIOTIC.

If Obama does not like American being the dominant military power in the world, he should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY. That is not a vicious attack. It is a simple fact - the man has no business being Commmander in Chief with and attitude like that. He should be out.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

37, it may have something to do with Tea Party pResident and founder Dale Robertson waving a misspelled n-word sign and the baggers spitting on black congressmen while screaming the n-word, but who knows...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 15, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Lazarus" endorsement: pResident Jeff Davis for Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 15, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Dirndl,

“the mess happened because the government didn't interfere enough -- because the hedge funds were legally able to bundle together a bunch of risky investments, hoping to see them fail, and then bet against them, so they would make money from the failure. Did you know that?”

Yes, a capitalist conspiracy theory with evil hedge fund mangers at its core. Hey if you could throw in a few health insurance companies and maybe an oil company you will have have a trifecta against the axis of the evil capitalists. Wait lets think of a way to tie it to the Reagan and we not only show the evil of free markets but tie it to their leader. I like this…keep up the good work. I see that journalism degree was not wasted.

Posted by: sliowa1 | April 15, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"In Madison, Wis., some tea party members angry over the planned appearance of former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson decided to boycott the event."


Speaking of Tommy Thompson, here's one comment from a WI newspaper article...

"TT is becoming the Brett Favre of politics."

That is not a flattering comparison in Wisconsin.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Eugene Robinson on MSNBC just basically called the Tea Party Movement racist.


NOW again - this is a false charge.


This is a false charge that would only be leveled against whites - so therefore Eugene Robinson is racist.

OK - the black community is supporting Obama because it is black.

So wouldn't it follow that the opposition would be nearly all white ??? This is a DIRECT RESULT OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY SUPPORTING OBAMA BASED ON THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN - IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, IF THE BLACKS MADE THEIR DECISIONS BASED SOLELY ON POLICY, THERE WOULD BE MORE BLACKS AT THE RALLIES.

SORRY, EUGENE, YOU ARE THE RACIST.

I'm really sorry but this racism stuff is totally out-of-control.

LET ME BE CLEAR the democrats ARE NOT mature enough to have a BLACK PRESIDENT.


THE DEMOCRATS CAN NOT HANDLE HAVING A BLACK PRESIDENT WITHOUT MAKING FALSE RACISM CHARGES.


Plain and Simple.

.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The 'free market' was also the cause of the Great Depression.

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"margaretmeyers, I think you were right, and I was wrong"

Yeah, when I saw that, it made me cringe.
The wing nuts can not see the contradiction between their problem with corporatists and their problem with the role of government.
They see less or no government as a way to solve the problem of corporatists interfering with the free market. Less government to them means corporatists go away and then the free market fixes everything.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

dd, the reason your complaints about "the Corner" are falling on deaf ears may be that 100% of his posts are vicious attacks on our 44th President. Just speculatin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 15, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I think this endorsement should rank higher on the hierarchy at the "The In-State Statewide Endorsement" because Bunning has won statewide races. Of course, the intent of the endorsement is fairly clear, but the "What goes around comes around" endorsement category doesn't actually tell us much about how much it matters, just how it was motivated. Does it really matter why Bunning endorsed Paul? Or does it matter more that he still has substantial support in the state and can move voters?

Posted by: sfcpoll1 | April 15, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"If the government had not interfered this mess would not have happend."

Which interference?

Government interference began because corporations were screwing over the rest of us - the workers, the customers & the competition. An absolutely free market is tantamount to anarchy, where no rules apply, might makes right and every man (or personified corporation) is for himself. Unless you find that appealing, the only thing left to do is determine what level of regulation is appropriate.


p.s. margaretmeyers, I think you were right, and I was wrong.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Please read the 10th Amendment and get back to me.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Heh, heh, accelerant on the fire...like I said and as some of us predicted a year ago, its flames sure are burning brightly, but for the downwinders*, it smells nasty; hope there was nothing toxic in the Republican dumpster.

Has anyone called the fire dept? I mean, are there any Republicans serious about putting this thing out? Republicans are getting singed now, but some could really get hurt. They all seem preoccupied with either congratulating themselves or blaming others for setting the fire.

*we are all downwinders

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Oops, forgot to add one thing:

While this is likely payback (what goes around comes around), I'd be more likely to classify this as an In-State Statewide Endorsement. Bunning is a Kentucky politician and still has some following within Kentucky. Him endorsing Paul is a much stronger endorsement than Rudy (a has-been non-Floridian) endorsing Rubio from afar simply as payback.

Posted by: Gallenod | April 15, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

nunya, the mess happened because the government didn't interfere enough -- because the hedge funds were legally able to bundle together a bunch of risky investments, hoping to see them fail, and then bet against them, so they would make money from the failure. Did you know that?

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1

His name is Randall Paul. His parents called him Randy when was young. When he turned 18 he started calling himself Rand. Just because something is said over and over does not make it true.

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I remember watching Jim Bunning pitch Philadelphia to a 4-2 win over the Chicago Cubs 34 years ago. During that game he also hit a home run that provided the margin of victory. As a baseball player he earned a reputation as a guy who gives it all for his team.

Bunning's fame as a baseball player and his reputation as a conservative got him elected to the Senate from Kentucky. While his behavior has been erratic over the last few years, there are likely quite a few Republican primary voters who still think of him as a great baseball player and as a conservative who represents their interests against the political establishment.

His endorsement of Paul gives those among Kentucky Republicans who don't like McConnell a rallying point. Yes, it won't likely be decisive in the contest, but he's just thrown a little accelerant on the fire that is the Kentucky Republican Senate primary.

Posted by: Gallenod | April 15, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Gail Collins on baggers:

"Let us stop for a minute and consider this “take our country back” mantra. Some people believe it is the cry of angry white men who don’t like seeing a lot of blacks, women and gay people in positions of power.

I prefer a less depressing explanation, which is that all this yearning for the golden days of yore has less to do with Washington than with the fact that so many of the Tea Partyists appear to be in late middle age. I think they just want to go back to the country that existed when they were 28 and looked really good in tight-fitting jeans. Which is no longer the case."

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1

If the government had not interfered this mess would not have happend.

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"In Madison, Wis., some tea party members angry over the planned appearance of former Republican Gov. Tommy (the guy with the Sharpie eyebrows on here yesterday) Thompson decided to boycott the event. They expressed worry their grass-roots movement may be co-opted by the Republican Party."

It's about time these people realize they are being used by corporate interests. You know, when oil and insurance companies are picking up the tab for your events--buses, hotels, food -- when the Tea Party Express is run out of a Republican PR firm -- well, you think it might give you a clue.

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Dodd says "my patience is running out."

Your term is running out.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, bsimon1, I missed the sarcasm. Nunya1, I apologize.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 15, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

So instead of working on the economy - Obama and ddawd want to silence their opposition - putting out FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.


Meanwhile, unemployment claims go up - foreclosures go up.

We hear SILENCE from Obama on his supporters who say they are PLANTING RACIST EVIDENCE at the Tea Party Rallies.

IS THIS AMERICA ?


OR SOME COMMUNIST STATE ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Hey margaret,

You are wrong. America could trade with other countries that didn't have a free market. What the hell are you talking about? The free market would be our economy, and it would NOT matter what the rest of the world did.

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

nunya, Rand Paul is allegedly named after Ayn Rand, who ain't / weren't a dude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers writes
"Nunya1 has got a "real world soultion" to our economic plight. We'll just undo everything since 1870."

I read nunya1 as having the opposite perspective - see the paragraph about 'corporatists' making all the rules.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

So a psychotic, failed politician endorses a guy whose Daddy named him after a woman...sounds all Voyeur-ey to me, but REAL 'Merican RepubliKKKan.

Posted by: bgreen2224

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

His name is Randall Paul. I have never met a woman with the name Randall or Paul. Maybe those are names of "women" you date? Here is a hint do an Adams apple check before you ask "her" to dance. Unless you’re into that of course, and by the way there is nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned...

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

More news of the Republican grease fire.

"In Madison, Wis., some tea party members angry over the planned appearance of former Republican Gov. Tommy (the guy with the Sharpie eyebrows on here yesterday) Thompson decided to boycott the event. They expressed worry their grass-roots movement may be co-opted by the Republican Party.

"It is a big problem for a lot of us," said Tim Dake, organizer of the Milwaukee-based tea party group the GrandSons of Liberty. "Tommy is representative of the old boy network way of doing things."

"Elected Republicans and candidates as well as party officials have been a mainstay at tea party rallies all over Wisconsin in the past year but no GOP candidates or office holders were on Thursday's agenda."

Yes. Now we can watch Mitch McConnell suck up cash from re-enriched bankers...in exchange for killing reform.

At least the TEA people are aware of who paid the price for the Bush/Cheney lost decade and its subsequent financial disaster: the American middle class, its working people did, not Wall Street and not Republican fat cats. I hope the TEA movement can finally open the country's eyes to what the Republican Party is all about.

Sure it is not about government regulating business, it is all about business regulating government. Is that what anyone wants? Is that in the Constitution? Is protected corporate speech = pay to play in the Bill of Rights? The Republicans think so (I suppose so did Jefferson, Blago, and many other past and present corrupt Democrats, they probably love Citizens United too, just to be fair).


Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

nonya1 writes
"I'm not sure what you are saying bsimon1. There HAS NOT been a free market in this country for almost a hundred years."


What I'm saying is the same people who want a free unregulated market with zero government interference are blaming the government for a lack of jobs and increasing rates of foreclosure. Yet the growth of profits in corporate america seems to imply that the market is working freely enough. If 37th & O can't find a job, he/they better get out and make him/themself marketable - don't blame the government for not finding a job, or for not paying the mortgage. Grab them bootstraps and start pulling.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Abso, Margaret. Bring back the leeches.

"The Tea Party Express is run from the same building as a Republican political consulting firm."

what a surprise, eh?

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Nunya1 has got a "real world soultion" to our economic plight. We'll just undo everything since 1870. That'll be a snap. Then we can all enjoy the benefits of a Real Free Market. Except we'd have to get all the other world economies to do this, too. Hmmm.... we might have to use force. But it would be all for the good, I'm sure. Well worth the effort and inconvenience. Because we could finally prove that the Free Market is the Best Market.

Everyone else on board?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 15, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The only logical reason why the liberal/communist dems continue their utterly destructive ways is this: Martial Law after total chaos. Then we will have no elections and a total dictatorship.

==

You're about thirteen, right?

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

.. about sums it up:

"This reference to the Constitution in the Tea Party Contract from America is simplistic, but at least I understand why it’s there:

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

This reference is crossing the line into the realm of Constitution-as-fetish:

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

What’s next?

“Legislation should be inscribed on vellum using a quill pen—the writing materials of the original Constitution.”

“Government-run health care should be replaced with leeches and bleeding—the medical care provided to the writers of the original Constitution.”

I’m sure you can think of others."

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bsimon1
"Meanwhile, unemployment claims go up - foreclosures go up."

My friend, that is the free market at work. See?

"Wondering what’s behind those recent jobless recovery numbers?

1. Fortune 500 companies tripled their profits to $391 billion in 2009.

2. They also slashed their payrolls by more than 800,000 jobs."

*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

I'm not sure what you are saying bsimon1. There HAS NOT been a free market in this country for almost a hundred years.

What we have is corpratisim. This happens when the government starts taking bribs from corporations, and lets them start making the rules.

Get it right.

Posted by: nunya1 | April 15, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

@bison: I worked for ten of the last 21 years at Microsoft, six gigs from 1989 to 2009. The decline of the place is literally shocking.

In 1989 you saw people at their desks at 8:30 PM because they loved their work and they were appreciative of their treatment. As the company grew it went from a software business to a business business, and even by 1992 it had become quite repressive.

In 2006 you saw people at their desks at 11:30 PM, not because they loved their work, but because they were terrified for their next performance review. And with good reason, new managers often introducing themselves to their teams with "I'm going to fire ten percent of you, guaranteed."

Morale-building, huh?

You can bet that a lot of Fortune 500 companies are telling their workers that 60 hour weeks for 40 hour salaries are "the expectation" and reminding them how grim the job market is.

I will probably never have to interview again, but being Set For Life over here in VN enables me to have a MOST cathartic interview at MS should I want to get just one more gig before I bail, one where I tell them flat out that I don't "do" consistency and where they can stick their standards and what they can do with that Design Patterns book.. Itching for a fight? You bet.

"Dude, if I was working for a company that hadn't had a single significant success in seven years I wouldn't be puffing out my chest about 'how we do things around here'"

Oh bring it OWN.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The only logical reason why the liberal/communist dems continue their utterly destructive ways is this: Martial Law after total chaos. Then we will have no elections and a total dictatorship.

Posted by: bboodry | April 15, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The GOP had better be careful of these rogue lawmakers endorsing extremist candidate over their electable foes.

Bunning, DeMint...they're all going to lose the general elections for the party with these wacky endorsements.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | April 15, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

A word of advice, Chris.

This "Endorsement Hierrchy" thing needs to follow "The Most Important Number in Politics Today" into the night. Just sayin'

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Meanwhile, unemployment claims go up - foreclosures go up."

My friend, that is the free market at work. See?

"Wondering what’s behind those recent jobless recovery numbers?

1. Fortune 500 companies tripled their profits to $391 billion in 2009.

2. They also slashed their payrolls by more than 800,000 jobs."

http://washingtonindependent.com/82327/jobless-recovery-explained-in-two-simple-statistics

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

So instead of working on the economy - Obama and ddawd want to silence their opposition - putting out FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.


Meanwhile, unemployment claims go up - foreclosures go up.


We hear SILENCE from Obama on his supporters who say they are PLANTING RACIST EVIDENCE at the Tea Party Rallies.


IS THIS AMERICA ?

OR SOME COMMUNIST STATE ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

LSo a psychotic, failed politician endorses a guy whose Daddy named him after a woman.

==

Yeah a woman whose snooty family got taken down a peg bybthe Bolshevika and whose remaining life is entirely explained by her resentment of lost hauteur.

Who put a negative sign in front of Marxism and thereby declared herself an original thinker.

And used her unearned notoriety to get young men into bed.

And who actually wrote a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness," which the filth keep under their pillows.

And whose magnum opus is the most unreadable tripe ever printed between two jackets.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

McConnell -- Buddy Number One to Wall Street

"This morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) declared his opposition to the financial reform bill before the Senate. McConnell claimed to have principled objections to the bill, saying that it “institutionalizes” bailouts of Wall Street and that it would give the Federal Reserve “enhanced emergency lending authority that is far too open to abuse.”

What McConnell did not mention was that, last week, he traveled alongside National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn (TX) to New York City for a private meeting with elite hedge fund managers and other Wall Street executives. The purpose of the meeting between the top Republicans and the financial executives was to enlist “Wall Street’s help” in funding Republican campaigns in the fall and killing any tough financial reform:

As a financial reform bill starts to take shape in Washington, two key lawmakers came to New York City last week to explain what it means for Wall Street, and how financial executives might help prevent some of its least market-friendly aspects from becoming law by electing more Republicans, FOX Business Network has learned.

About 25 Wall Street executives, many of them hedge fund managers, sat down for a private meeting Thursday afternoon with two of the most powerful Republican lawmakers in Congress: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and John Cornyn, the senior senator from Texas who runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, one of the primary fundraising arms of the Republican Party. [...]

In order to assure [Republican electoral] gains, and add even more, McConnell and Cornyn made it clear they need Wall Street’s help."

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

So a psychotic, failed politician endorses a guy whose Daddy named him after a woman...sounds all Voyeur-ey to me, but REAL 'Merican RepubliKKKan.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | April 15, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse


Instead of complaining - I would certainly like to see some of the posters on this blog CONDEMN THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY WANT TO PLANT RACIST EVIDENCE AT TEA PARTY RALLIES.


Let's hear that.


Or is there silent agreement ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"So who is flooding the board?

Posted by: 37thand0street"

YOU ARE.

CAN I HAVE A SECOND ON THIS?

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD

You are a part of a group of 7-8 people - and you post under mulitiple names.


So who is flooding the board ?


It is your group - and it has been going on for years.

Unfortunately, you would prefer to silence your opposition - rather than state your opinions and debate.


Your position is UNAMERICAN. Please leave the country immediately.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 15, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

How much love and respect does Bunning enjoy in KY? From where I sit, it has a bit of pariah to it; but maybe for KY GOP primary voters it does not...

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 15, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone know if the younger Dr. Paul wanted Bunning's endorsement? If he asked for it, he got what he deserved, I'm sure. If he did not, this might actually be an unbidden pariah endorsement.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | April 15, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Well, Chris, you know Bunning better than most of us, but, I dunno, maybe he's not playing politics on this. A guy like Bunning, you get the feeling he's not always toeing the party line -- he might just be going rogue and endorsing with his heart.

Posted by: dognabbit | April 15, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Uh Oh, someone threw more water on the Republican grease fire. The flames are warm and pretty to watch, but that oily cloud kinda stinks.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Chris, in case you think I'm a nutjob for complaining about 37th+O so much, others have joined in if you want to check out the previous comment section.

Also, a bit of prescience from the Greyson thread.

Is a Bunning endorsement even a boost? Isn't the whole reason there even is a primary is that Bunning was forced out due to his unpopularity?

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 5:14 PM

If you want to keep stealing my ideas, can you please get rid of 37th?? (kidding about the idea stealing, of course)

Posted by: DDAWD | April 15, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Bunning, the outgoing Republican Senator from Kentucky, threw his endorsement to ophthalmologist Rand Paul's Senate candidacy on Wednesday and, in so doing, served up a heaping slice of revenge pie to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Secretary of State Trey Grayson."

More fun.

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company