New York Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Who Thinks “Afghanistan Attacked Us”
Yesterday the New York Post Daily News endorsed Reshma Saujani over Carolyn Maloney in the NY-14 Democratic Primary.
Their reason? “The board criticized Maloney as a booster of President Obama’s $800 million [sic] stimulus program.”
Well, I think it was $800 billion, and Reshma herself says the stimulus and the bank bailouts were “necessary measures.” So I’m not sure what they’re even talking about.
But the editorial goes on to note that the board “cheered” Saujani’s view on Wall Street, and her experience as a Hedge Fund hack. And I think that gets to the heart of it.
Maloney worked to push through the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights, which will cost the credit card industry about $10 billion a year. But even that is too much for Zuckerman and his fellow oligarchs Jamie Dimon, Steve Rattner and Jerry Speyer, who are financing Reshma’s campaign as a way to punish Maloney for not fighting to make the financial regulation bill even more toothless and weak.
Zuckerman wants a puppet whose lips start moving whenever he wiggles his hand. Reshma ought to fill that bill nicely.
In an interview with FDL’s Michael Whitney, Reshma said she opposed derivatives regulation that progressives fought for, namely forcing banks to spin off their swaps trading desks into separately capitalized subsidiaries.
FDL: What about the derivatives?
RESHMA: I think we have to have more…uh, more regulated, more of the derivatives being traded on the exchanges. So I support that.
FDL: But spinning off into the separate….?
RESHMA: Well that to me I am less supportive of, because…what does that really do for, uh, for businesses here in New York, right?
FDL: Well, it only affects 25 out of 8000 banks who trade on the derivatives market.
RESHMA: Right. But that’s….those are the answer to those questions that I want to know. And also, what does that do for systematic risk?
I’m pretty sure she means “systemic risk,” but whatever. It’s clear that she doesn’t understand the entire concept. So much for the value of that Ivy League education she keeps touting.
But how does Zuckerman justify endorsing anyone who is so gobsmackingly bereft of any knowledge of what happened to New York City on 9/11?
Reshma recently had this exchange with an attendee of one of her public forums (video above):
Q: What is your stance on the war in Afghanistan? Do you know Congresswoman Maloney’s stance ? Is it different?
RESHMA: I don’t know what Congresswoman Maloney’s stance is on Afghanistan, and on a lot of national security issues.
Since she’s running against Maloney, maybe she should check out her website and find out. But let’s not digress:
RESHMA: You know it’s funny, when I started running, people were so focused on domestic issues. And recently, there’s really this sense that you know that we want to be out of these wars. You know, especially right now when the country’s broke and a lot of the money we spend is obviously in Afghanistan and Iraq, and listen, you know, when a, you know, when (sigh)…it’s a really, it’s, you know, it’s, um, a really hard, hard issue, because you know we went to Afghanistan because they attacked us, and we wanted to send a message, that if you attack us, we attack back.
Seriously? This is the person Zuckerman thinks should be representing New York as a member of Congress?
I’m sure someone at the Daily News must know that fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon and one was from Egypt. That leaves exactly “zero” from Afghanistan who “attacked us.”
Hell, even George Bush didn’t make that claim. In his speech before the joint session of Congress following 9/11, he said the Taliban must “hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.” He insisted that overthrowing the government wasn’t the goal of the U.S. when he announced “Operation Enduring Freedom,” and invited the Afghan people to join the US in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.
Nothing about “hey Afghanistan, you did this, and now we’re gonna kick your ass for it.”
I feel like I lost a few IQ points just transcribing that.
But it’s typical Reshma, whose entire campaign is completely incoherent. As Wayne Barrett notes, she says she’s running against those who are ‘demonizing Wall Street’ and simultaneously accusing Maloney of doing their bidding. Even Chris Matthews wanted to know what the heck she was trying to say by claiming she’s free of the taint of PAC money — while taking money directly from the Masters of the Universe who set them up.
There is no way anyone sits in a room and interviews her about politics and comes away thinking “wow, this woman should really be in Congress.”
But there is no apparent limit to the the depths that Zuckerman and his Oligarch Pack will sink to in order to find a loyal toady who will deliver for them. Less than a decade since 9/11, and they already find it acceptable to let someone represent New York City who has absolutely no idea what happened on that day.
Or maybe they’re all just laughing their asses off at the idea that there’s no limit to what they can install in congress at will. Maybe Reshma is just Wall Street’s latest inside joke on America.
Update: The New York Times sees things a little more clearly, though even they, perhaps, fail to get Wall Street’s joke:
[Maloney] has been a stalwart in fighting for women’s rights, financial reform, health care for workers at ground zero and better protections for credit card users. Ms. Saujani agrees with Ms. Maloney on these issues, but Ms. Maloney has already acted on them in Congress, at considerable political risk.
The Times endorsed Maloney for re-election in NY-14.