Wishful Thinking or Fractured Fairy Tale

Once upon a time in a magical land, there lived a charming young knight who gained prominence for slaying the old dragon named Cannon. This young knight had his legions of fans and many detractors. These detractors, tried their hardest to take the gleam off of the young knights armour by spreading many falsehoods about the young knight - or his twisting words in such a manner that the words had no resemblance pf what the young knight had really said.

Freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz says several GOP state convention delegates are urging him to challenge fellow Republican Sen. Bob Bennett for his seat next year, and Chaffetz is keeping the door open to that possibility.

"I don't have any intention of doing that (running against Bennett)" now, he told the Deseret News. "But I guess I like to keep my options open. Never say never."

Emphasis mine.

All story telling aside, this has to be one of the lamest attempts at stirring up controversy that I have seen out of the media in these parts. I do know that there are conservative activists who are trying to talk Jason into running against Senator Bennett AND/OR Senator Hatch. Here are just a couple of reasons why the timing is not right in 2010....

1) As a freshman in Congress, Jason has had more media recognition than most freshman Congresspeople could dream of. He has also had a couple of pieces of legislation see the light of committee which for a freshman in the MINORITY PARTY is huge. However, he still does not have the track record that he would need to make the step to the Senate. A couple more years in the House would be a plus.

2) With redistricting on the horizon, Jason stepping aside to run for the Senate would probably open up his seat for Democrat to pick up. Let's not forget that part of his district includes a portion of Salt Lake County. Dividing Salt Lake County between Matheson's district and the new 4th District will open the door for one almost guaranteed pick-up. Depending on how badly the 3rd and the 1st get gerrymandered to create the 4th, the Republican strong-hold of Provo could essentially be wiped out by one of the few liberal enclaves in the state.

3) A protracted primary fight could (if the Democrats actually put up a serious candidate which is always a wild card) leave the Republican Party divided enough to hand that seat over to the Dems as well. While I realize that this was a reason why Jason should not run against Chris Cannon, there is a reason why it is still "conventional wisdom".

4) Firebrands like Jason tend to do better in the House than the do in the Senate. That, my friends, is a fact of legislative life.

However, I suspect that this is yet another made-up media fairy tale. The field (to challenge Sen. Bennett) is already a crowded one with a couple of candidates that stand a chance of "pulling off a Chaffetz" in this race. The need (by the media) to throw out the possibility of a Chaffetz campaign will (the thinking goes) chase a couple of these more talented challengers off out of respect for a Congressman that they know, like and respect. In doing this, the media secures another term for Senator Bennett.

Grilling Bernanke

The New York Time takes a lot of heat (quite rightly) for editorializing news stories. However, today they deserve a lot of kudos for for watching the sausage being ground - one of their reporters live blogged the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee testimony of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the Fed's involvement in Bank Of America's take-over of Merrill Lynch. For those that don't know why this is an issue, the best thing to do is scroll to the bottom and read the preview first...

Mr. Bernanke has come under heavy criticism for his handling of Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch. The House committee is investigating how the deal turned into an enormous second bailout of Bank of America and Merrill, and lawmakers are examining how Mr. Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. pushed the bank to complete the transaction after it discovered billions of dollars in additional losses at the securities firm.

Bank of America’s chief executive, Kenneth D. Lewis, told the committee earlier this month that federal officials had pressured him to go through with the Merrill deal and acknowledged that his job had been at risk if he did not.

Mr. Paulson is expected to give the committee his side of the story next month.

The House investigation is heavily colored by partisanship. President Obama is seeking formidable new powers for the Fed to regulate giant institutions, including Bank of America, that could pose risks to the financial system.

Republicans, along with some Democrats, argue that the Fed already has too much power.

The apparent point of contention (in the hearing) was pressure that BOA CEO Lewis says that the Fed exerted on them when they talked about exercising the merger agreements "material adverse effect" or MAC clause. I'm not going to relay the whole thing - you are going to have to go to the NYTimes website to read it all but I wanted to highlight a couple of specific questions.

10:39 a.m. | More on the MAC: Was the MAC clause in the Merrill deal just a “bargaining chip” that Mr. Lewis used to get federal assistance? That’s what Mr. Issa asks Mr. Bernanke, who replies that, in his view, the MAC could not have been invoked to cancel the deal, and if it were invoked, it would have caused a near-collapse of the financial system.

So in otherwords, yes it probably was. I have no doubt that if the Fed believed that invoking the MAC would cause a "near-collapse" of the economy that they relayed that information to Mr. Lewis.

10:50 a.m. | ‘Was Mr. Paulson Lying?’: There’s a blunt question from Dan Burton of Indiana, who wants to know if Mr. Paulson was lying when he testified that Mr. Bernanke told him to threaten BofA’s board and management if the bank tried to walk away from the Merrill deal. “I didn’t tell him anything like that,” Mr. Bernanke says.

Asked about a conversation with Jeffrey Lacker, another Fed official, Mr. Bernanke says he can’t remember the details. In summarizing the conversation in an e-mail, Mr. Lacker has said Mr. Bernanke was going to make it clear that BofA’s management would be gone if they tried to invoke the MAC.

Ouch - that is going to sting.

Utah's own Jason Chaffetz asked a very interesting question...

11:12 a.m | What Makes a Threat?: As with the previous hearing starring Mr. Lewis, there is plenty of discussion today about whether or not threats were made to keep the Merrill-BofA deal intact. Jason Chaffetz of Utah wants to know how Mr. Bernanke’s questioning of Mr. Lewis’ management and judgment could not be perceived as a threat.

Mr. Bernanke tells him that the Fed did not control Mr. Lewis’ destiny. If he had decided to invoke the MAC “and the company had prospered. we would not have the basis to do anything,” he says.

I would be interested to know how Mr. Bernanke would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. Would he have "assumed" that the Fed's had no "basis" to punish him or not? I would venture to guess the answer is "NOT"....

While there was a couple of dips into the conspiracy theory pool (see Marcy Kaptur's non-question at the 11:28am mark) there were a lot of very indept probing questions including this one by Peter Welch of Vermont...

12:17 p.m. | Too Big to Exist?: Peter Welch of Vermont ask whether institutions that are too big to fail should “be too big to exist.” Mr. Bernanke said that it was legitimate to discuss that possibility, but that big banks had an economic role and businesses around the world.

and this one by Dennis Kucinich of Ohio...

1:02 p.m. | What About Those Losses?: Mr. Kucinich continues to believe that Bank of America knew about the losses in mid-November. He also asks if the Fed knew about the losses before it approved the deal at the end of the November, even though the central bank was getting daily updates of Merrill’s financial condition. Mr. Bernanke replied, “We didn’t know about the $14 billion.”

“It’s difficult to know what these valuations are unless they are done by professional asset managers,” he said.

Overall this exercise (by the NYTimes) was well worth it as they provided the country with an insight into the mechaniations that take place in DC. The more light that is shone on how legislation gets done (in DC or in the state capitals) the better it is for ALL citizens. For the more we know about how political business gets done, the more educated the voters will be when they next go into the voting booth - and that is a very good thing!

A Perfect Fit

Not just a perfect fit, this is a tailor made to perfection fit.

The National Republican Congressional Committee’s volunteer program, “Call to Arms,” will host its first event of the cycle next month.

An invitation to the July 15 reception asks guests to enroll in the volunteer program or donate $50 to the NRCC. Freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) heads the CTA program, which targets potential volunteers in the Washington, D.C., area.

Given how well motivated Rep. Chaffetz' volunteers were in the last campaign there is no doubt that he is perfect for the job.

More RNC Stupidity

The 'net is abuzz over the latest RNC web ad. You can view it here for yourself....




Now some of the reaction has been a bit hyperbolic, but that still does not excuse the abject stupidity of the ad. I mean does anyone under the age of 50 know who "Pussy Galore" is? However, Utah's newest Congressional representative put it about right when he said...

"I thought it was reprehensible, irresponsible and unpersuasive. If we're going to regain the credibility of the American people, we're going to have to stop with silly antics like that. It may get a snide chuckle inside the Beltway, but it offends most people. We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction," he said of the video.

I say he has it about right because I think calling the ad "reprehensible" is a little over the top. However he is spot on about the ad being irresponsible and completely and totally unpersuasive! I argued loud and long with the MNGOP during the last election cycle over their continued attacks on Al Franken - arguing that if the GOP did not talk about substantive issues that they would lose the election AND THEY DID!

Rather than worthless resolutions trying to rebrand the opposition or trying to connect to the popular culture of 30 years ago, the RNC needs to be focusing on issues that are facing the country today! It's really that simple.

I don't know who the idiots responsible for these kinds of ads are, but the RNC could do much better if they would just fire them and concentrate on issues instead of personalities!