Normally the Weekly Standard writers aren't too rash in their opposition to Democrats, so I normally give them a chance; then again, this writer says that Europeans need to assert some sort of cultural dominance to keep Muslim immigrants in line.
I don't think Obama's any deeper in the pockets of big banks than our last two presidents. Sure, Goldman Sachs was a significant donor to his party, but money doesn't demand control--one can easily see that from the government's own bailout of the banking industry. Caldwell seems to do this a lot in his article: He points out an interesting or thoughtful observation from his source, then takes the conclusion in a completely different direction from where his source is leading without even bothering to explain himself. He takes a statement that without nationalizing the big banks that America is doomed to bailing them out in the future and says it's why they should've never been bailed out at all. When Johnson suggests that Democrats are less willing to enact financial reform than they say, Caldwell immediately assumes that the Republican party is at all more willing to change the status quo.
Caldwell really doesn't say much of anything. He points out a few facts from his source, promotes the book a bit, and then goes off on a tangent about how Republicans get it too bad. I got the impression that 13 Bankers is a good read, not the article.
Author
Topic: A very interesting article on the American financial/political situation (Read 1780 times)