I like the dignified podium sign:

Far be it from me to question anything that campaign did/has done, but their insistence on labeling/"branding" everything is a little creepy, IMO, and will probably eventually backfire (even worse than the primary campaign faux-Presidential seal... think "Mission: Accomplished").

TenuredVulture wrote:One of the stranger Franken moments was when he had G. Gordon Liddy on his show (or maybe Franken was on Liddy's show) turns out they were both collegiate wrestlers, and they talked a lot about that.

They became friends when Liddy was on Franken's Late line sit com (which I did not like so much). He had Liddy on his show from time to time. I think what they hit it off about was the fact that both really hated Bill O'Reilly.

The thing about Buffett is... the skillset that he has (able to recognize great companies that are undervalued) and the skillset needed to be Treasury Secretary do not necessarily overlap. Now successful, smart people tend to be successful and smart at a lot of things. But this assumption that we just bring in an obscenely rich liberal dude to run the show and everything will be peaches and cream may be oversimplifying the problem by an order of magnitude.

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:

I ...hoped he was really an air-America leftist. I'm tired of "Leftist" being some kind of bad branding.

Left --- Right
Right -- Wrong

Yes, of course, the standard to which all reasoned arguments should take a back seat

I've come to love PtK's posts because they serve such a useful reminding/humbling function for me. Whenever I start feeling too partisan or smug, there he is...

Franken's center-left orientation is a virtue, not a bug, for me. But it wasn't so much that I thought he was a raging lefty. I consider Paul Wellstone one of two the greatest public servants of my lifetime, and he was well to my left. (Moynihan was the other, and he was probably much closer to my own views, perhaps very slightly to my right.) It was that I'd forgotten--and speaking of reminders, phdave was on the money with his post about Franken's show, which I occasionally listened to in its first year and to which I had a similar reaction--that he's a serious guy.

In a sense, we should love it when someone like that--a non-career politician--throws his hat into the ring. Citizen-officials was the original (or at least 19th century, post-universal male suffrage) idea, after all. The problem is that with a few exceptions in a few places--like Wellstone, who was a college professor in Minnesota--you have to be loaded to choose politics as a mid-life undertaking. Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger, even Reagan to a degree. I'd probably rather see some of you guys run, but taking wealth and fame as disqualifiers is as silly as jumping on them as positive qualifications.

i was surprised to read phdave's comments about franken's show. i've never liked him beause i always got the sense (a) he was angry and (b) he thought he was better than me, ie the average semi-intelligent schmoe who tunes out probably talking points habitually. i listened to his show a couple times -- maybe 3 -- and never heard him say anything much deeper than "people who think that way are stupid". granted, this was a few years back. i even, out of pure boredom one day, put on franken and limbaugh on the radio/iinternet and had them going at the same time at the same volume. it was half rush blowing him away in a professional broadcasting sense and half franken talking over radio commercial after commercial. it was as dumb an experiment as it sounds.

now, that being said, if his show was or has become the Charlie Steiner model of deferrence to expertise, then that's a good show. i would listen to that, as long as it's not the bill mahr format of "can't we all agree those awful people over there are awful?" for that reason, i kind of like huckabee's tv show. he makes almost too much effort to be concilitory, but he's on the right track anyway. my measuring stick pretty much boils down to "can you name something the other side has done right?" if they can't, it's pretty safe to say they're a committed partisan and not really worth listening to.

guys like Moynihan or Gov Casey don't come along often enough. it was too bad to see Shays get beat in CT too. he was a guy that fought against wasteful spending for the most part.

I do think it would be a good idea for the Secretary of Treasury to have Buffett on speed dial.

jeff2sf wrote:But this assumption that we just bring in an obscenely rich liberal dude to run the show and everything will be peaches and cream...

Yeah, sounds too much like Dick Cheney (if you substitute conservative for liberal).

Liddy's a wildcard. He's nuts and yet kinda grounded in other ways. His show's not really that exciting, but he seems like all in all a pretty cool dude. Like a Louis L'Amour throwback or whatever.

gr wrote:Liddy's a wildcard. He's nuts and yet kinda grounded in other ways. His show's not really that exciting, but he seems like all in all a pretty cool dude. Like a Louis L'Amour throwback or whatever.

Liddy is a thug and a felon.

jeff2sf wrote:The thing about Buffett is... the skillset that he has (able to recognize great companies that are undervalued) and the skillset needed to be Treasury Secretary do not necessarily overlap. Now successful, smart people tend to be successful and smart at a lot of things. But this assumption that we just bring in an obscenely rich liberal dude to run the show and everything will be peaches and cream may be oversimplifying the problem by an order of magnitude.

I think you're oversimplifying Buffett's skillset by an order of magnitude.

Possibly so, Wertz, but the point is simply that just because you've earned the title Oracle of Omaha does not mean you've got the skills to be a good Treasury Secretary. Doesn't mean he'd fail, just that it seems like we've oversimplified to "put the richest liberal in charge that didn't inherit all his money".

Interesting op-ed by Ranesh Ponnuruin the Times today about the Republicans' next steps.

The party needs to “move to the middle” less than it needs to move to the middle class: to go back to representing the interests of voters in the middle of the income spectrum.

John McCain and movement conservatives, so often at odds, have been complicit in neglecting these voters. He somehow believed that he could win a presidential election without a coherent middle-class economic agenda, and conservatives never thought to demand one from him.

Yes, Mr. McCain’s plans would have cut taxes more than Mr. Obama’s for a lot of middle-class families, but Republicans rarely bothered to point that out. Mr. McCain’s campaign smartly promised to double the tax exemption for children, but the candidate seemed unfamiliar with the idea, repeatedly describing it incorrectly. Likewise, he had an innovative health care plan, but he rarely explained how it would help the average voter.
...
Most conservatives were preoccupied in this campaign with cultural issues: flag pins, 1960s radicals and the like. These issues are legitimate, and certainly easier to understand than the details of health policy. But they have never been enough to win over most voters. Barack Obama offered a better life to most voters. Without challenging that claim, Republicans were never going to be able to portray him as out of the mainstream.

Though I doubt he'd put it this way, this strikes me as along the lines of my point that the Democrats won in large part because they seemed more serious about governing. Of course, focusing on policy arguments rather than flag pins and 1960s radicals probably helps give this impression.

gr: +1 about Shays. My wife, who's from that district and is otherwise probably more liberal than I am, was pretty upset to hear that he went down Tuesday night. He's a good man and someone I'd like to see in the administration, though I have no idea if he'd be interested.

I agree with your point, but what skillset DOES indicate that you'd be good at that gig?? Fed board member?? Serious question, not trying to be a jerk.

dajafi wrote:gr: +1 about Shays. My wife, who's from that district and is otherwise probably more liberal than I am, was pretty upset to hear that he went down Tuesday night. He's a good man and someone I'd like to see in the administration, though I have no idea if he'd be interested.

Hines' entire campaign was essentially an ad that featured a soundclip of Shays asserting his belief that "our economy is fundamentally sound" - paired with the soon-to-be-ex-resident saying the same thing.

other than that, platformwise Hines is Shays but with zero seniority, so the district's voters effed themselves tossing Shays out.

jeff2sf wrote:Possibly so, Wertz, but the point is simply that just because you've earned the title Oracle of Omaha does not mean you've got the skills to be a good Treasury Secretary. Doesn't mean he'd fail, just that it seems like we've oversimplified to "put the richest liberal in charge that didn't inherit all his money".

His resume is "I may be the smartest financial mind in recorded history." Beyond being the best investor in modern equity markets, he also saved Solomon Brothers saving it from imminent collapse. He trades in the bonds markets, currency markets, as well as equity markets. He's far from a niche investor who just knows how to read a balance sheet. I don't agree with his politics, but to suggest he's unqualified is pretty laughable to me. Now, I read his biography, so I guess you could claim I'm biased, in that I know a lot about him. Because it seems like the more people know about him, read about him, and get to know him, the more respect people have for him.

jeff2sf wrote:Possibly so, Wertz, but the point is simply that just because you've earned the title Oracle of Omaha does not mean you've got the skills to be a good Treasury Secretary. Doesn't mean he'd fail, just that it seems like we've oversimplified to "put the richest liberal in charge that didn't inherit all his money".

money is psychology, and we're all nuts most of the time - but particularly now.

buffett is less nuts most days than almost everyone else.

if this is some elliptical setup to plump for Larry Summers, well, whyn't just come out & say so

FTN wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Meanwhile, Obama is showing no early signs of innovation in his planning and thinking nor any fresh faces from the outside. Can we get a head of the Fed who is not a Wall St insider? I posted yesterday the interview with Dean Baker and his mention of republican Bair for the Fed.

I really can't speak to Larry Summers' qualifications to be Treasury Secretary. He had the job once before, so I imagine he'd be at least adequate. But I was really disappointed not to hear the name Warren Buffett as a candidate.

But maybe Buffett is the kind of guy who has so many options that you don't float his name until/unless he tells you he wants the job.

There is no way Buffet would take the position. Having him as an adviser is fine.

I'm on the fence on Summers. I'd prefer Volcker. And the concept of not having an "insider" take the job is pretty ridiculous. These are not positions where you want the common man off the street taking charge. This isn't like balancing a check book, you need someone who understands the complexities of everything involved. Summers was a disaster at Harvard, but he understands Wall Street.

Yeah well don't be simple about this. The complexity of some of tehse financial instruments are part of the problem. Bair is more than qualified and not even a Dem. The give-aways to Wall St are ridiculous. They had agreed to 12% and Paulson dropped in to 5%. Thanks for looking out for the tax payer citizen.

We need people who do not think regulations are an oppression but rather a necessity and a positive for everyone.

TheDude24 wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But this assumption that we just bring in an obscenely rich liberal dude to run the show and everything will be peaches and cream...

Yeah, sounds too much like Dick Cheney (if you substitute conservative for liberal).

Well, except for the fact that much of the Bush/Cheney cronyism seemed to have very little to do with finding people of merit. Whereas Buffett's merit in the financial area is difficult to dispute.

drsmooth wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Possibly so, Wertz, but the point is simply that just because you've earned the title Oracle of Omaha does not mean you've got the skills to be a good Treasury Secretary. Doesn't mean he'd fail, just that it seems like we've oversimplified to "put the richest liberal in charge that didn't inherit all his money".

money is psychology, and we're all nuts most of the time - but particularly now.

buffett is less nuts most days than almost everyone else.

if this is some elliptical setup to plump for Larry Summers, well, whyn't just come out & say so

Beyond the fact that I think that Summers may be underrated due to some, ahem, poor word choices, I'd in no way be happy with him being selected - it goes against the whole change theme. I'm not even saying I'd be displeased with the choice of Buffett, just that he may not have the temperament/skills for this.

Basically, I view Buffett as the freaking god of microeconomics but I'm not sure he's got the macro skill set.


Remember tho, smoothie, I speak plainly. If I was "plumping for Sommers", I simply would have said so.

Werthless wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Possibly so, Wertz, but the point is simply that just because you've earned the title Oracle of Omaha does not mean you've got the skills to be a good Treasury Secretary. Doesn't mean he'd fail, just that it seems like we've oversimplified to "put the richest liberal in charge that didn't inherit all his money".

His resume is "I may be the smartest financial mind in recorded history." Beyond being the best investor in modern equity markets, he also saved Solomon Brothers saving it from imminent collapse. He trades in the bonds markets, currency markets, as well as equity markets. He's far from a niche investor who just knows how to read a balance sheet. I don't agree with his politics, but to suggest he's unqualified is pretty laughable to me. Now, I read his biography, so I guess you could claim I'm biased, in that I know a lot about him. Because it seems like the more people know about him, read about him, and get to know him, the more respect people have for him.

Not unqualified Wertz, just not perfect for the job. Sorry, I really didn't think this was such a controversial statement.