Malpass for Senate ?
Via Bruce Bartlett, I introduce you to the next Senator from the great state of New York, David Malpass.
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
As many of you know, I believe strongly in our country’s future, but have been dismayed at the decisions Washington has been making and their impact on New York state. The problems go across the board – astronomical debt, out-of-control spending and taxes, federal decisions that undermine our security, health care legislation that would appall the drafters of the Constitution, and more.
As a result, I’ve been exploring a run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Sen. Gillibrand and wanted to give you an update. I’m thrilled to say that we are making great progress on several fronts: I’m assembling a top-notch team, we’re reaching out to party members and county chairmen around the state, and we’re taking the legal steps necessary to launch this huge effort in coming days.
In the past month, my motivation to run has intensified—not only because of the great reception I’ve been getting from family, friends, longtime colleagues and new supporters around New York, but also because I believe the Obama administration has defiantly and wrongly continued to move our country down a perilous path for New York and the nation.
I’ll be writing you more in coming days about the issues and the campaign. It’s going to be a hectic eight months, and I will deeply value your views and encouragement throughout.
Best regards,
David Malpass
>
DISCUSS:
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
March 8th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Previously:
You Know Things Are Bad When The WSJ Trots Out Malpass and Wesbury In The Same Week (August 2007)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2007/08/you-know-things-are-bad-when-the-wsj-trots-out-malpass-and-wesbury-in-the-same-week/
Fantasy-based Economics (March 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/03/fantasy-based-economics/
March 8th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Only a moron would want to run for senator in the middle of the Grand Depression. IMHO David should wait until the markets bottoms, like FDR did.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Barry….I thought this was a Financial Blog and where Finances cross roads with Politicians and Wall St….it all makes sense.
But, this post of your injects “Candidates” into the mix.
Are you saying this site is now open to your “Peeps” to do posts about Candidates running in THEIR STATES?
Why are you changing the tone and emphasis of your blog? Or, did I read this wrong?
March 8th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
BR – thanks for this notice. Way out here on the West Coast, I don’t see much on the political front until it’s already old news. US Senate seat representing New York is an important post, almost as important as the Massachusetts Senate race. Again, thank you.
To the posters above who disapproved of your post, I’d just say that politics and finance are more intertwined than they have been in quite some time. We need to stay informed.
PS – I liked his talking points. Just what the doctor ordered.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
‘Nuff said.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Barry Ritholtz Says:
March 8th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Previously:
You Know Things Are Bad When The WSJ Trots Out Malpass and Wesbury In The Same Week (August 2007)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2007/08/you-know-things-are-bad-when-the-wsj-trots-out-malpass-and-wesbury-in-the-same-week/
Fantasy-based Economics (March 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/03/fantasy-based-economics/
—–
Okay…I’m kind of slow…but I went to your links. I might still be slow…but my read is that Wall St. is now “Actively Picking” who they want to run for Congress? They’ve been picking them for awhile…but now it’s BLATENT/OPEN “IN YOUR FACE” that they are sending this Political Crap out to all folks in the Financial Community they think might have influence to get some “block voting?”
Am I slow? You saw this as the “Crossroads” of Wall St. Influence having tentacles into the whole financial economy?
That’s why you posted this? An Alert? (I was offended at your post …until I saw the links)….so I’m assuming that you found it as offensive as many of your “Peeps” who read here here would?
Without any meaningful regulation….I guess we need to get used to this kind of thing. But, as I said….at least they feel so confident they don’t have to “hide who they work for,” anymore. (Rolling Eyes)
March 8th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Are they going to hold an election or just push her out first? When was the last time anyone in NY was elected anyway?
Just like Cuomo this guy has a winning resume. Bad opinion, bad policy and he has worked at the highest levels of failure.
There really is no where else to promote him- on to senator.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“Bought, Paid For…tied up in Pretty Ribbon with Bankers Names imprinted” and sold as GREAT FOR NEW YORK. Bruce Bartlett has spoken.
It does cause some queasiness in the gut…for some. But, it’s not to be worried about. It’s just “Bidness as Usual.”
March 8th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
I know you are pulling out leg, BR. Malpass got the crisis very wrong. And having Bear Stearns on his resume isn’t going to win him any friends.
March 8th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
In the past month, my motivation to run has intensified—not only because of the great reception I’ve been getting from family, friends, longtime colleagues and new supporters around New York, but also because I believe the Obama administration has defiantly and wrongly continued to move our country down a perilous path for New York and the nation.
Is Malpass going to run as a Teabagger? I’d love to hear why he thinks Obama is moving this nation down a perilous path. Is he pissed that Bear Stearns wasn’t bailed out?
March 8th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
What Invictus said: Malpass contributed to the demise of Bear Stearns but is also a factotum and apologist for plutocrats.
It is one among many interesting ironies of our times that those who toil in the fields of spin also play a role in destroying that which they putatively defend.
A clue that perhaps neither the milieu nor the agenda are clear.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Would be nice to have a Democrat in the Senate who knows something about economics.
Malpass would make a good Senator, provided that he did what he believed was best for NY, and for the country.
But if the Dems retain control of the Senate after November, Malpass may just do whatever the Senate Majority leader tells him to do.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Alan Greenspan should run. He’s got experience in Washington, name recognition, he’s an ‘outsider’ to politics, what’s not to love?
March 8th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Dow,
Ha, Ha.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
… and a miasma of cynical skepticism emanated from the Genteel Readers …
Appropriately.
As if even a single “Perfect” senator could alter the river of corruption and decadence that courses through the veins of our Goobermint.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I misunderstood. Malpass is running for the Republican nomination, and not that he’s going to challenge Gillibrand in the primary.
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2010/03/08/malpass-files-for-u-s-senate-run/
March 8th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
All I can say is “from your lips to God’s ears!” As a Democrat, I cannot imagine anyone (OK, maybe Harold “Yoo hoo” Ford, but he’s gone) that I would rather run against than the former chief economist of a bankrupt Wall Street firm!
March 8th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I wonder if he is short cash, and she’s paying him to run?
March 8th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Schiff and now this broken record… Are we witnessing the first Corporate foray into unfettered political discourse? Both are paid contributors of CNBC
I am sure Kudlow is up for a VP or maybe Treasury Secretary.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:10 am
I remember this discussion about an Act-up meeting, I kept trying to figure out how the meeting was supposed to proceed if everyone was all about acting up. Apparently that wasn’t a problem for these activists as long as you acted up properly, it was considered a success. That is a painfully the state of politics in our capitols today.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:12 am
hahaha…was that the big picture laugh track I just heard? Malpass for senate? Must be the joke of the week.
P.S. BR think you might be able to add a laugh track button for our amusement?
March 9th, 2010 at 12:47 am
@Dow Says
Alan Greenspan should run.
The only running I want to see Greenspanic do is from the hounds when we release them
March 9th, 2010 at 1:04 am
Ah, come on. Where’s your sense of adventure?
March 9th, 2010 at 2:42 am
Malpass, the former Bear Sterns economist, never took a bailout uh… since they were BKed …so he’s got that going for him, but…
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/08/the-chutzpah-of.html
…being one of the “credit crunch is contained” guys might bring a less-than-glowing commentary or two from the blogosphere.
However he might look good in one of those Tea Party costumes.
March 9th, 2010 at 5:59 am
His track record as an economist is so bad, the only thing he is qualified to do is run for office.
Ask any former Bear Stearns traders what PUNTA means
March 9th, 2010 at 9:18 am
It never ceases to amaze me how this tremendous furor has been worked up in the public’s mind about the horrible, terrible, awful deficits the govt has now run up. This apparently only happens under Democrats.
I recall vividly how when Reagan was running up record deficits one heard over and over again in the press how the deficit was too abstract an issue and the public just would never be excited about it. Recently Cheney opined that Reagan “proved” deficits don’t matter. When W was running up his huge deficits and playing games with keeping a lot of his spending out of the normal budget little was said. Now we have a Democrat in the White House so the press, the Republicans and the Tea Party movement are all up in arms about this abstract issue that no one could get excited about. Just another example of how the right is able to manipulate the American people given America’s national psychosis: anti-government attitudes.
These go back to the Pilgrims escaping religious authority, the revolutionary war against the George III government and the individualism and don’t tread on me attitudes encouraged by the fact that with such a vast “frontier” available anyone who was unhappy in the east could just go West young man, go West.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Here’s an article on Malpass’ record:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/too-shall-malpass
March 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
What’s next, Ben Stein and Don Luskin running for office?
March 9th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Boy, he sounds like he has some original ideas.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Another one, just like the other one. Obama bad. I’m good!
March 9th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I would appreciate some more context. Without the context of the Bartlett link, you are just running a campaign ad. The links are like footnotes in a financial statement: nobody reads footnotes unless they are looking for loopholes.
The supply-siders are all a bunch of welfare queens, and Malpass is the worst of them: They want all the benefits of living in America, but they don’t want to pay for any of it. Teabaggers want to have public roads, public beaches, public libraries and so on, but they think only other people should pay taxes. Once Malpass and his friends exclude themselves from all tax liability, that leaves just poor people to carry the burden of police, military, social security, medicare, and now Malpass’s salary.
March 9th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Pardon me?
“astronomical debt”?
“decisions that undermine our security”?
“appall the drafters of the Constitution”?
When the Republicans took control of the Federal Government in 2000, they inherited budget surpluses and a mild recession due to the dot.com bust. Their “cure” for the mild recession was to run up huge budget deficits. By the time Bush left office in January 2009, they had effectively doubled the national debt and pursued economic policies which created the Great Recession.
When the Democrats took control of the Federal Government in 2009, they inherited a $1 trillion deficit and the Great Recession. Any Republican who waited, until after Bush left office, to complain about deficits and debts has ZERO CREDIBILITY on matters concerning “astronomical debt”
After 9/11, the US enjoyed global support in it’s war against Islamic Extremism, Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. Even IRAN supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. But the Republicans squandered our chance for a global alliance to defeat Islamic Extremism and capture Osama Bin Laden; they chose to go after Saddam and Iraq’s oil wealth. In doing so, they not only fractured new and unprecedented alliances, they also strained old alliances.
Any Republican who did not speak out against the diversion of war against Al Queda and Bin Laden into a ruinous pursuit of Saddam Hussein has ZERO CREDIBILITY on matters concerning “decisions that undermine our security”.
Finally, any Republican who did not speak out against Bush’s wholesale shredding of the Constitution with:
“Unitary Executive power” (Article I and Article III shredded)
“revocation of habeas corpus” (Article I, Section 9 shreds are burnt)
“warrantless wiretapping on millions of Americans” (Amendment IV shredded)
“military tribunals” (Amendment V and VI shredded)
“waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme rendition” (Amendment VIII shredded)
….that Republican has ZERO CREDIBILITY when it comes to matters which would “appall the drafters of the Constitution”
March 9th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
What @bondjel said: Deficits don’t matter. Cheney said so.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:07 am
“When the Democrats took control of the Federal Government in 2009..”
xynz,
didn’t the (D)s have majorities in both Houses of Congress, by ’007?
and, while this: “Finally, any Republican who did not speak out against Bush’s wholesale shredding of the Constitution with:
“Unitary Executive power” (Article I and Article III shredded)
“revocation of habeas corpus” (Article I, Section 9 shreds are burnt)
“warrantless wiretapping on millions of Americans” (Amendment IV shredded)
“military tribunals” (Amendment V and VI shredded)
“waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme rendition” (Amendment VIII shredded)..”
is, too, True (and an abbreviated list, at that) How does that give the “Democrats” any pardon, whatsoever?
and, worse, those Policies have been extended, and/or expanded, under 44.
This isn’t a (D)/(R)-thing, this is, truly, bi-partisan. Both Parties are complicit in these Treasons.
~~
see:
“That 56 percent of all Americans “think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens” isn’t really all that surprising. After all, ever since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government’s “right” to read our e-mails, seize our property, hold us as “enemy combatants,” and otherwise trample on the Constitution has been expanding at an exponential pace. What’s really shocking, however, is that, according to this CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll, released on Feb. 28, most of the people who believe this are overwhelmingly … Republicans. That is, they are self-described supporters of the very same party which impaled the Constitution on the sword of the “war on terrorism.” According to the poll, “only 37 percent of Democrats” believe this, as opposed to “63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans.”
Is it just me, or was it only yesterday that the Democratic base was outraged by “Bushitler,” and the “Cheney-PNAC” alleged neo-fascists who were taking over the country and driving dissent underground? How quickly they turn!
Adding to the irony, the poll was taken on the same weekend the extension of the PATRIOT Act passed the Democratic-controlled Congress – without debate, without a peep of protest from the “progressives” in Congress, and disguised as a vote in favor of a Senate amendment to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act. Bravery is not something we see much of in Washington, D.C. As one blogger put it:
“So, if you heard the news of a Patriot Act vote, and went looking for the roll call, you wouldn’t find it. You’d see roll call # 67 for this year, but would reasonably conclude that the vote is thoroughly unrelated to the Patriot Act. If you hadn’t heard of the Patriot Act extension, and just wanted to see what legislation had been voted on yesterday, you would come away still ignorant of what the House of Representatives had actually done.”…”
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/02/28/the-road-to-dictatorship
March 10th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Why would you want to run? Unless you are going to follow libertarian constitutional principles (i.e. small federal government, power rest with the states, separation of banking, finance and the state – no fed and maybe having a constitutional council made up of an elected official from each state to review federal court decisions to see how well they align with the constitution), you would just be like every other congressman in Washington except Ron Paul.
March 10th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Thank you Mark E Hoffer, for pointing out the dishonesty and clueless of Republicans:
——————————————————————
(Mark asks): “didn’t the (D)s have majorities in both Houses of Congress, by ‘007?”
——————————————————————
Mark and the rest of the Republicans would like everyone to forget that George W Bush was President in 2007 and 2008. He would also like everyone to forget that Republicans are the main culprits in the sad state of the nation. Oh yeah, they certainly had help from key ConservaDems in putting the pieced in place. But this clusterf#ck was specified and designed by Republicans.
Mark cites a single recent poll government to “prove” that Republicans have always been consistent in disavowal of big Government, while Democrats have flip-flopped.
Sorry Mark, you’re going to need at least 6 years of Democrats acquiescing to Democratic mismanagement before Democrats even come close to Republican levels of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
——————————————————————
(Mark says):
“Adding to the irony, the poll was taken on the same weekend the extension of the PATRIOT Act passed the Democratic-controlled Congress – without debate, without a peep of protest from the “progressives” in Congress, and disguised as a vote in favor of a Senate amendment to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act.”
——————————————————————
Mark wants you to believe this is a blanket extension of the entire Patriot Act. Too bad he doesn’t bother to tell anyone it’s only an extension of three provisions. Ah, since when did a Republican ever let the facts get in the way of a good talking point?
From the http://bit.ly/18WepC Washington Post article:
“The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill Thursday that would renew *portions* of the USA Patriot Act in an effort to address administration concerns about protecting terrorism investigations.”
From the http://bit.ly/8FvWo Wapo article:
Those provisions allow investigators to use “roving wiretaps” to monitor suspects who may be trying to escape detection by switching cellphone numbers; obtain from third parties the business records of national security targets; and track “lone wolf” suspects who may not belong to a terrorist group but may be planning attacks.
——————————————————————
(Mark also said): [this legislation passed] “without a peep of protest from the “progressives” in Congress,”
——————————————————————
More quotes from the WaPo articles:
“But several Democrats and civil liberties advocates said the [extension] would do little to strengthen privacy protections.”
“Democratic lawmakers are pressing the Obama administration to strengthen civil liberties protections against surveillance methods used in counterterrorism investigations, but senior Justice Department officials this week declined to endorse or reject their calls.”
“Under legislation introduced last week by Democratic Sens. Russell Feingold (Wis.) and Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the FBI would also have to show that people whose records are sought have some connection to terrorism or espionage. Both bills would also, to varying degrees, strengthen requirements for the use of other surveillance tools.”
From the http://bit.ly/c6wBfP Christian Science Monitor:
Both [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy] and [House subcommittee on the Constitution chairman Jerrold Nadler] said Tuesday that they would not seek to end the practice, but would press for changes. Leahy said his bill “would require the FBI to include a statement of facts articulating why the information it is seeking … is relevant to an authorized investigation.” He also said he planned to seek a change that would call for disclosing these searches in some cases.”
——————————————————————
Is Mark Hoffer just another Republican who is lying through his teeth? If so, has he done it so often, that he needs to wear a special mouth guard to keep his teeth from rotting?
—————————————————————
BTW, check out Mark’s “primary source” (antiwar.com):
They proudly portray themselves as isolationists from the Old Right, Pat Buchanan, “America First” wing of conservatism. These are the same people who wanted Roosevelt to stay out of WWII and let the Nazis have their way in Europe.
“The America First Committee (AFC) was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 members, it was likely the largest ANTIWAR organization in American history.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
Have you ever wondered why American Conservatives always praise Winston Churchill, as if he was one of their own? Have you ever wondered why they can’t praise an American Conservative who was Churchill’s contemporary? Well, now you know why.
Once again, I want to thank Mark Hoffer for giving me a golden opportunity to expose the long and odious history of Conservative Republican hypocrisy
March 11th, 2010 at 9:10 am
xynz,
this is some nice agitprop, do you get wholesale rates?
note: Welcome! You’ve arrived at the home of the world-famous World’s Smallest Political Quiz — the ORIGINAL Internet political quiz. The Quiz has been taken over 14.3 million times online, and the Washington Post said, “The Quiz has gained respect as a valid measure of a person’s political leanings.” See how YOU score!
http://www.theadvocates.org/
and, from the link you were deriding:
“…“The president’s reversal on Patriot Act reform is a major travesty,” says Michelle Richardson, the ACLU’s legislative counsel, a bit of phraseology that just about sums up the first year of Obama’s reign. All those liberal hearts, broken by that seductive love-’em-and-leave-’em Chicago smoothie – except no one’s complaining.
The Associated Press reported the vote in terms that can only be described as odd:
“Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to the nation’s primary counterterrorism law, stymied by Senate Republicans who argued the changes would weaken terror investigations. The proposed protections were cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them.”
The Democrats have … retreated? Since most of them voted for the “PATRIOT” Act to begin with, I wouldn’t exactly phrase it that way.
As the Democratic majority gets ready to ram an immensely unpopular “health-care reform” bill through the Congress without a “super-majority,” one can only wonder at their priorities. Is it really more important to force poor Americans to buy insurance they can’t afford than it is to save our constitutional liberties from being crushed underfoot?
Apparently so.
Passed in a time of “emergency,” and touted as a temporary measure, the “PATRIOT” Act has, like all such measures, become routine: part and parcel of the legal-political landscape, which no one really questions. The “right” of the government to impound our records, seize our property, jail us, fine us, and haul us before a military tribunal – all of this has now become “normal.”
Did you know that a recipient of a “National Security Letter” – say, your Internet provider – must not only hand over all records, documents, and what-have-you to the Feds, but must also refrain from talking about or otherwise revealing the existence of the letter? Just like they can simply take you in the dead of night, throw you in a cell– and, yes, even torture you, if they feel like it – and no one need ever know.
Accepting this as a fait accompli is now “normal” in Washington, D.C. No wonder the majority of Americans consider the federal government a dangerous enemy – and they’re all too right about that…”
as I was saying, these Treasons are bi-partisan, irrespective of Timeframes..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irrespective
so, does the Washinton Post, the ACLU, and AP meet your approved vendors criteria?