Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it. – Theodore Roosevelt
The Wall Street Journal is a good source for no-nonsense news. The reason is simple – its readers are sophisticated and accept nothing less. They are the true ownership society, and as owners of most of our wealth and as people having large investments all over the globe, they need straight talk.
So when Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation took over ownership of the Journal, I wasn’t worried that he would ruin it. I expected that its news would still be the best in the country, and that its right wing editorial page would stay right wing. But odd things are happening – the Journal has opened up its pages. It is allowing opposing views in the editorial room on a limited basis.
Thomas Frank, author of “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” is now a regular contributor. Today he has a piece called “It’s Judgment Day for McCain“. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would read such a screed in the hallowed pages of the Journal.
Speaking of McCain, Frank suggests that in advocating for a commission to find out what went wrong on Wall Street, that he pull over the “Straight Talk Express” and interview the people aboard. He suggests that he interview 1) himself, 2) Phil Gramm, and 3) Phil’s wife, of Enron fame, Wendy Gramm. Each of these people have been part of the deregulatory mania that has gripped this country since Jimmy Carter set the airlines free in the late 1970’s.
Frank also suggests that McCain interview one of his senior economic advisers, Kevin Hassett, who in March of this year declared that the financial crisis was the result of “out-of-control government regulation”.
Frank also mentions the unmentionable, something that should be part of our campaign dialogue, and is not for reasons that are unfathomable:
Maybe the McCain Commission on Deregulation can kick off with a statement from the candidate himself. It will be helpful for the public, if painful for the senator himself, to hear about Mr. McCain’s own close brush with one of the towering figures of financial deregulation, Charles Keating, the master of Lincoln Savings and Loan. Keating had a special, urgent interest in getting Big Brother off our backs: in 1986 some meddlesome agency suspected him of massive violations of S&L regulations. Keating fought back by recruiting a handful of legislators, including Mr. McCain, to pressure S&L regulators to leave his S&L alone. A few years later, Lincoln became one of the largest financial failures in U.S. history.
John McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal is not part of the current campaign discussion. That’s a monumental failing on the part of the Obama people. What scares them?
John McCain is a deregulator, and has been for all of his time in Washington. He’s attempting now to change his spots now for the LIV’s – low information voters – who don’t know his past. Thomas Frank’s piece in such a prominent publication as the Wall Street Journal is a big boost for Obama. It’s not a great piece, it doesn’t cover new ground. It’s just that fact that it is carried now in the most prominent and prestigious newspaper in the country.
Thank you, Rupert.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, I really think that every once in a while you need to relax and recognize the truly ugly facts of life in American society, rather than work so hard to blame those who care for the ills of the day.
Nader could get away with pointing a finger at the Keating scandal … oh wait, he does. Obama cannot. Underneath the facade of racial acceptance still lurks the idea of the “angry nigra”, and for Obama to go heavily negative feeds that narrative. He’s kinda screwed if he does and screwed if he doesn’t. It ain’t pretty, but it’s true. You asked what scares them; that’s it. Take it or leave it.
I’m certain that your more … pleasant … commenters will troop on in to claim that I’m playing the ‘race card’. Let ’em. They’re the ones ignoring the elephant in the living room, not me. They’re the ones who will say nothing about about the McCant campaign’s commercial falsely tying Obama to another uppity nigra who is tangentially tied to this horror of economic distress, while ignoring McCant’s profiting from the architects of our financial woes.
So maybe, just maybe, Mark, you might want to back off accusing the Obama campaign of successfully walking a razor’s edge while disappointing you for their lack of rat-f*cking (Rove’s term). You might want to accept what The Editors, at the Poorman Institute, have so clearly defined: These rats ain’t gonna f*ck themselves, and Obama shouldn’t do that. That’s our job, so let’s do it. This post was a very good start. I just think ya’ oughta’ lose a little of the Obama disdain. You know who would be better for the country, and it ain’t McCant.
Remember, these rats ain’t gonna f*ck themsleves.
LikeLike
It sort of sounds like the common Democratic election strategy, pretending not to be liberals, is being applied to things in general – pretending not to be offended by anything. That’s a strategy? A generation has passed since the S&L crisis, but it doesn’t hurt at all to remind people that this McCain guy was part of that bubble too.
But WTF – what do I know. Seems to me that there’s a lot of strategizing going on there, to the point of cutting off his balls.
Have you noticed that Rachel Maddow’s show is taking off? 1) she’s a liberal, and not pretending to be objective, 2) she has liberal guests, 3) she’s partisan, and 4) she’s not angry. Is there a lesson here? Has all of the squeamishness about being liberal ever really brought in a harvest?
LikeLike
~sigh~
Mark, I see you fail to acknowledge that Obama’s difficulty isn’t liberalism, but rather the perception regarding the color of his skin.
And for the record, Maddow rocks. We TiVo it. She is that good, and so are we. That still has nothing to do with us being uppity nigras, ’cause, were just not black.
LikeLike
The whole strategy behind McCain’s attacks on Obama has been to draw out the angry nigga – I get that. I’m just saying they are cutting off his balls in the process.
Aside that, who said he has to bring up these issues?
LikeLike
“He” as opposed to a surrogate.
LikeLike