Brookings Firing Exposes Rift Between Elizabeth Warren And Hillary Clinton Supporters

[Unknown Beatle]

The resignation of Robert Litan from the Brookings Institution has exposed some of the fault lines within the Democratic Party. Litan resigned shortly after Senator Elizabeth Warren took issue with Litan testifying before Congress against a conflict of interest disclosure regulation for Wall Street, based on work funded by The Capital Group, a Wall Street firm with an interest in killing the disclosure regulation.

~Snip~

A group of former Clinton Administration economic advisers then attacked Senator Warren claiming that, by citing Litan’s paymaster and clear conflict of interest, Warren had been engaging in an “ad hominem attack.” The group openly worried that other economists who worked for Wall Street or various corporate interests might face the same critique that Litan faced.

~Snip~

While Senator Warren challenges Wall Street’s power in Congress and Senator Sanders decries a government controlled by plutocrats on the presidential campaign trail, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton avoids making even modest critiques of the Wall Street establishment. As Bloomberg notes, Clinton continues to claim, incorrectly, that the 2008 financial crisis was brought on by shadow banking, not Too Big To Fail mega-banks like Citigroup, JPMorgan, or Goldman Sachs that are part of Clinton’s fundraising base.

Hillary Clinton is still considered by many in the establishment press to be the presumptive nominee, but it is unclear why the populist faction of the party would be interested in a Clinton candidacy on its own merits. The saving grace for Clinton might be that the Republican Party will offer a candidate so offensive to progressive cultural sensibilities that the populist faction will hold its nose and vote for her to deny the office to someone worse.

More: Shadowproof formerly FireDogLake

[peacebird]

1. Yet another reason we need Bernie, not Hillary, in the oval office. She is owned by Wall$treet

[djean111]

2. This is the theme, isn't it -

A group of former Clinton Administration economic advisers then attacked Senator Warren claiming that, by citing Litan’s paymaster and clear conflict of interest, Warren had been engaging in an “ad hominem attack.” The group openly worried that other economists who worked for Wall Street or various corporate interests might face the same critique that Litan faced.

Any sort of criticism is labeled an "attack". Some sort of strategy, I suppose, but becoming very worn and threadbare. And obvious.
Playing the victim card makes whoever is playing it, politically, look weak.

[stillwaiting]

4. Warren clearly hates Litan. nt

[AlbertCat]

11. Warren clearly hates Litan.

Is that what you are getting from this thread?

Oooooo...She just HATES Litan.


You do realize this isn't high school, and he did just testify against what he was supposed to be supporting, right? HE resigned.



Or do you know them personally? Have more info?

[stillwaiting]

18. Left the sarcasm tag off my post, but I thought my post before the one you replied to indicated

where my thinking on this matter resided.

It's ridiculous the number of posters around here that say that someone HATES someone because they are critical of them, even if highly critical (of their policies, their actions, or their inactions). It's extremely sad that some people reduce all opposition to HATE.

Have a great weekend.

[AlbertCat]

20. It's ridiculous the number of posters around here that say that someone HATES someone ...

.... because they are critical of them."


We ARE on the same page!


Disagreement = hate! or something...

[questionseverything]

21. clinton picking a fight with warren is a gift

lol

how out of the loop could hc possibly be to try denouncing warren to us <rolls eyes>

from the article....

They said Warren's approach and Brookings' "complicity with it threatens ad hominem attack on any author who may be associated with an industry or interest whose views are contrary to hers."

"Those who differ with Litan instead should offer a substantive rebuttal to the paper in question, which would do much more to clarify the issue than implicitly depicting him as being inherently corrupted by the sponsorship of his work," the economists wrote in a letter submitted to The Washington Post but first obtained by The Hill.

The letter was signed by former Clinton economic advisers W. Bowman Cutter and Everett Ehrlich; Harvard University international trade and investment professor Robert Z. Lawrence; former Clinton chief budget economist Joseph Minarik; and former Clinton economic adviser Hal Singer, who co-authored the report in question with Litan.

"Businesses sometimes finance policy research much as advocacy groups or other interests do," the economists wrote. "A reader can question the source of the financing on all sides, but ultimately the quality of the work and the integrity of the author are paramount."

[stillwaiting]

3. Team Warren. Period. And it's time to take a stand and take back this Party. nt

[RiverLover]

19. Damn straight!!

We need to bring back our party to Stand Up for People again!

One party representing moneyed interests & corporate rule is bad enough. Both parties? Unacceptable. Its ruining our once great nation.

[FlatBaroque]

5. LIZ, YOU ROCK! Thank you for

outing a vile Clintonista from his warm corporate teat. Truth is WINNING. Clintonism is LOSING.

[Eko]

15. See post 14.

Thanks.

[Baltimore18]

6. Run the bus over Barney Frank some more times:

Barney Frank, the former Massachusetts congressman of Dodd-Frank fame, backed up Clinton’s view, saying the crisis wasn’t about how big the banks were. It was about the derivatives activity, he said in an interview, adding that non-bank lenders “were much worse than the banks.”

“She’s actually right to say that it was not the traditional banking,” he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-02/hillary-clinton-lets-big-banks-off-the-hook-for-financial-crisis

[AlbertCat]

12. Perhaps he's wrong too.

And I think he is.... but no one is running anyone over with a bus.

Especially with the role of deregulation in the crisis. Seems we should be championing legislation that regulates banks (big or small) more...especially when it comes to transparency.

And this bus thing is ridiculous since Frank has nothing much to do with the primaries.

[Baltimore18]

16. It reads like a NewsMax smear piece:

&feature=youtu.be

She was calling for Wall Street regulation as far back as 2007.

[Armstead]

25. Bigness is the problem

Thee institutions are far too big and weild far too much power and have become far too unwieldy money gobbling monsters.

We need to re-diversify the economic base, with actual competition and choice -- and we have to stop allowing them to become so large that they can tank the economy.

[jkbRN]

26. Barney Frank sits on Signature Banks board of directors

THAT is why he backs clinton's rhetoric

[haikugal]

31. He's all in for Clinton too.

[KoKo]

7. Recommend! Elizabeth's Voice is a Voice for Change!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

8. I've seen a few Hillary supporters claim the big banks didn't cause the financial crisis....

Now I know where they got it.

[jfern]

9. Warren got McCain to team up with her to re-instate Glass Steagall, but Hillary opposes it

Of course Sanders supports it.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. ??? I could swear that I read, right here on DU, that Warren already endorsed Clinton!

This is so confusing to my tiny little brain.

[GoneFishin]

13. "... the populist faction will hold its nose and vote for her...". It's not a lie if you believe it.

[Eko]

14. Yes, that would be an ad hominem attack.

I fail to see how stating the truth is somehow an attack on Warren. Def-(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Backstory,
" Warren raised concerns earlier this week that Robert Litan, a nonresident and unpaid economics fellow at the think tank, was using Brookings to peddle an industry-backed study that was critical of a financial advice regulatory pitch championed by Warren and the White House.
" The study raised concerns to Warren because it was industry backed. "Those who differ with Litan instead should offer a substantive rebuttal to the paper in question, which would do much more to clarify the issue than implicitly depicting him as being inherently corrupted by the sponsorship of his work," the economists wrote in a letter submitted to The Washington Post but first obtained by The Hill." "Businesses sometimes finance policy research much as advocacy groups or other interests do," the economists wrote. "A reader can question the source of the financing on all sides, but ultimately the quality of the work and the integrity of the author are paramount." They praised Litan's quality and integrity as having been "impeccable over a career of four decades." "In keeping with those standards, he has been completely transparent about the support for, and conduct of, the study in question, as both Brookings and Senator Warren were well aware from the day he first testified before the Congress on the matter," the economists wrote. "To attack him as being 'bought,' or to sever ties with him over an incidental bureaucratic issue, is below the standards that support free and open policy debate," they wrote."
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255726-dem-economists-attack-warren-over-brookings-firing


This is classic journalistic smearmongering and the argument the economists are using is sound. I also don't like hearing people being called Clintonistas as was used further down in the comments just as I wouldn't like to hear Sandernistas used. If you have to resort to using words that give pejorative connotations against someone to get your point across you have bought into what you despise.

[questionseverything]

22. please keep attacking warren

that will definitely be a winning strategy for clinton





dear fellow bernie supporters, i know i should not be tipping hc' campaign off but this is just toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo freakinggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg funnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[Eko]

33. I must of missed

where Clinton attacked Warren. Feel free to educate me.

[artislife]

17. Some like the whole victim thing

I love Liz, she is straight forward and fearless. We have not problem knowing where she stands and what her priorities are.

[Utopian Leftist]

23. Hillary Clinton does not "get it."

She doesn't understand the true passion of liberals, that we have been holding our nose to vote for mildly-Democratic candidates for decades, and that we are sick and tired of being forced to do so! Oh, how my soul has ached for a nationally-electable candidate like Bernie, who is brave enough to own the liberal label.

While Hillary has reaped the benefits of mass recognition, the ideals for which she supposedly has stood, have been secretly eroded, our party has been surreptitiously moved to the right; the hopes of those whom she was supposed to represent have been dashed and the American Dream quietly dismantled and sold to the highest corporate bidder. Meanwhile, those with actual, reasonable, science-based ideas, otherwise known as the progressive wing of the party, have been labeled as the "loony left" by the corporate propaganda machine.

Well guess what? Things have got so bad that even the heartland is at the point where it is desperate enough to call itself Socialist, if that means getting food on their table and saving their asses from the next natural disaster. Bernie is an unstoppable force, and his is a message whose time is come TODAY, YAY!

[rhett o rick]

28. Are you suggesting that H.Clinton might win the presidency if she simply switched parties?

Of course you didn't. But it might work. The corporate oligarchy could simply tell the nitwit Republicon party leaders to embrace her as they see eye to eye on lots of issues, and to tell the ignorant R-Cons grassroots voters to support her. Benghazi was really Sen Sander's fault.

[Utopian Leftist]

29. LOL, well

I do think they'd cut off their collective nose to spite their own faces.

Of course, if they really had any awareness, they'd be terrified of Bernie, whose message is entirely anathema to everything they stand for. But I think they hate Hillary too much to ever forgive her for (breathing? anything, really) and I believe that she would face more competition from herself than from anyone opposing her. Don't ask me why, I couldn't tell you. But they hate her that much.

[haikugal]

32. Yes! ^^^^THIS^^^^!!!!!!!!!

[rhett o rick]

24. I liked this exerpt:

While Senator Warren challenges Wall Street’s power in Congress and Senator Sanders decries a government controlled by plutocrats on the presidential campaign trail, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton avoids making even modest critiques of the Wall Street establishment.

And this:

The saving grace for Clinton might be that the Republican Party will offer a candidate so offensive to progressive cultural sensibilities that the populist faction will hold its nose and vote for her to deny the office to someone worse.

How naive does one have to be not to recognize that the Republicons, who are owned lock-stock-and-barrel by the oligarchy, falling off the cliff, is intentional. Hello. Our two party system has been destroyed by the corporate oligarchy. One party has been turned into a laughing stock while the other party has bee co opted by the corporate oligarchy. We must take our Party back from the 1% corporate oligarchy and their puppets.

[cantbeserious]

27. Why Hold Ones Nose - No Citizen Need Vote For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[Babel_17]

30. An important issue in play (K&R)

No more peddling of polite fictions. The money coming to our party is from those who wreaked havoc on our economy.

[ChiciB1]

34. Wouldn't It Be Fantastic If She Would Endorse Bernie?

I understand why she may not be able to, but it would be a dream come true for me.