Veterans’ Day Open Thread

Happy Veterans’ Day to my fellow vets, and happy Monday to all! I think Brent is playing hooky, so thought I’d fill in for him and try to start a new thread. What are you doing this 11/11? I’m driving down to Annapolis this afternoon to see how they do V-Day there; not quite ready to try to battle the influx into D.C. this year.

Semper fi, fair winds and following seas, and Airborne!

12 Responses

    • From JNC’s link:

      An awkward pause ensued, at which point Warren flared her eyes and thrust her head forward, as if to say, “Yes, this is really happening.” Until that instant, the regulators believed the world worked one way; suddenly, it was working another. One winced hemorrhoidally as he searched for a place to fix his gaze. The head of an agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) appeared to whimper before allowing that the threat of trial was unnecessary for keeping the banks in check—about as counterfactual a notion as the industry has ever produced. A third regulator chimed in affirmatively. For a few minutes, Warren looked like the only sane person in a mental ward. A video of the exchange has been viewed online more than a million times.”

      http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

      Without a specific circumstance to which she was privy to in the negotiations, the facts on the ground, the strength of the evidence, and the willingness of the bank to cooperate with its regulator, she may have been merely grandstanding. I think she was. I think this was like asking why there was no more security at Benghazi after turning down the State Department’s request for more consular security.

      This same line of questions asked of the USA for the SDNY would NOT irritate me. Asked of a regulator, I am totally suspicious of it.

      Were I the OCC director, I would have said that we investigated hundreds of complaints around the country, that we settled scores of them favorably to the public without referral to DOJ, and that we referred several to DOJ with whom we continued to cooperate in the assembly of the cases. For further answer, the Senator would have to ask various USAs for progress reports. If there was some specific case that piqued the Senator’s curiousity, we at OCC would be glad to provide a case history after the hearing. If the Senator thinks OCC needs more enforcement muscle in house we at OCC would be glad to work with her on the drafting of the new legislation.
      —————————————————-
      The more I read the fawning over her attacking regulators the less favorably impressed with her I become. These were no questions to ask in a public hearing. If she did not like what the Baltimore USA got for a result in 2012 after OCC’s 3 year investigation of Wells Fargo [a real case, I cite for context] she was sure barking up the wrong tree. And I mean barking.

      FAWNING: “…at which point Warren flared her eyes and thrust her head forward, as if to say, ‘Yes, this is really happening.’

      “Warren looked like the only sane person in a mental ward. ”

      This is actually what I would call bullying by her.

      The threat of a referral to DoJ and a trial looms over any regulatory issue. But the fawning article makes the assumption regulators sit on their hands and do not actually do anything, so Warren is the [self serving rookie] heroic defender of the little guy.

      The necessity for the right and the left to both find “villains” and castigate them amazes me.
      The assumption for public display by legislative committee members that other fed employees aren’t doing their jobs that underlies so much public committee work, rather than the search for how stuff can be made to work, seems endemic.

      Like

  1. From jnc’s link on a Sen. Warren vs Sec. Clinton run:

    There is no doubt that Warren takes a special interest in her public profile. According to a former aide, one of Warren’s greatest frustrations after arriving at the consumer agency was that the White House insisted on vetting all her media appearances. During her Senate campaign, Warren traveled with at least three staffers: Her body man and press secretary, as is the case for most candidates, but also a digital director, whose job it was to capture Warren’s choicest words on video, then upload the clips to YouTube and circulate them via social media. “She’s engaged in videos, e-mails, everything,” says an aide. “She plays an integral role in the content we send out.”

    That sounds to me like a politician just being a politician in the 21st century, rather than egotistical (anybody who runs for public office has to have an ego to some extent, and the higher the office the bigger the ego I think).

    This type of analysis [that if Sec. Clinton runs she’s going to get the nomination, so don’t run yourself] is almost always correct: It assumes that a politician will maximize her chances of getting elected president. But it fundamentally misunderstands Warren. While her ambitions are considerable, they have always been focused on advancing her economic agenda. Everything from her public denunciations of Clinton to her lobbying to lead the CFBP to her eventual Senate run was motivated by a zealous attachment to the cause that has preoccupied her since childhood [making the middle class stronger], not necessarily an interest in holding office. In October of 2010, Eliot Spitzer, the former New York governor, was launching a show on CNN and was thrilled to land Warren as his inaugural guest. But Spitzer planned to open the broadcast calling for Geithner’s head and worried that his monologue might violate some delicate protocol. Geithner was officially Warren’s boss at Treasury, after all. He held a key vote over whether she would run the consumer agency. But when Spitzer offered to skip the diatribe, Warren didn’t even pause to mull it over. “No, it’s fine with me,” she told him flatly.

    That was interesting. Having a president with an actual agenda (that they have a background in) other than simply wanting to be president. . .

    I’m far from thrilled with her age, since I’m still firmly of the belief that we need to elect younger–not older than the current office holder–politicians, but maybe her being in academia for so long has kept her more in touch with younger mindsets.

    Like

  2. Happy veterans day to all the ATim vets!

    Like

    • Last night Julia, one of my 4.7YO twin granddaughters, asked me “What is Vetrins Day, Nonno?”

      I told her it was a holiday and asked her if she knew what a “holiday” was. “Yes, Nonno.”

      I told her we celebrate this holiday to remember all the people who helped save our country from other countries that were bad to us.

      She said “I’m not old enough to understand that, Nonno. I don’t have to understand that.”

      Oh, well, maybe next year. I should get a dvd set of Victory at Sea and have it ready for the twins at some point.

      Like

  3. Mark, as noted, this is the alternative:

    “The question, though eminently reasonable, violated an unstated rule of committee protocol, in which members of Congress are allowed to rant and rave at length but generally abstain from humiliating appointees, especially from their own party.”

    I’d rather see the question answered directly than the usual Senatorial soliloquies. It seems pretty straightforward and germane.

    It may also be worthwhile to actually review the video of her asking the question. Scheiber could be exaggerating for dramatic effect.

    Like

    • OK – better than Roberts and Sebelius, or Biden and J. Roberts.

      Low bar.

      Wrong question to a regulator. Apparently she followed up in writing with very good questions. That tells me she was grandstanding in the open hearing. She knew enough to ask a legit question.

      Like

  4. Go old school and tell her it’s “Armistice Day” and explain the wearing of the poppies.

    Saw the rebroadcast of Band of Brothers last night. Hard to believe it’s been 12 years since it was first aired.

    Like

  5. That tells me she was grandstanding in the open hearing

    Would you expect a politician not to? 🙂

    Like

  6. “How many cases have you brought to trial” seems totally legitimate to me in light of the policy issue of whether or not settlements with no admission of guilt have an actual deterrent value.

    Now, if she didn’t send them questions in advance and ambushed them at the hearing then it’s grandstanding. If she sent them in advance and they simply weren’t prepared to answer, then that’s worth knowing.

    Like

  7. ‘Goose, what did you think of the Annapolis celebration?

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: