Goldman Smear on Warren

"Goldman Smear"? The writer of the editorial worked at Goldman nine years ago.

The linked HuffPo article is admirably factual and unsensational. The thread starter here? Not so much.

Yes, my mistake. "Goldman/WSJ Smear on Warren." Although that is a bit redundant.

eliz warren is an excellent person, with an excellent agenda---no dirt on her or what she wants to do

that she has been targetted may well backfire, if the public can get a grasp of any of it--what a woman...she has held up so admirably well in the face of the worst, dirtiest attempts to discredit and demoralize

sb goldman/wsj/murdoch/koch

I think w81's point is that it's not Goldman's voice, but merely that of one person who (presumably) has had no affiliation with Goldman for years. So "WSJ" isn't needed in the SE post, but "Ex-" is. It's a fairly minor point, though.

I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren, but rights? really? for people? people who consume? really? No way! I'm glad the GOP is fully committed to attacking her person, and making sure everyone has the god-given right to exercise their god-given right to make incredibly bad personal financial decisions when heavily marketed to by unscrupulous free-marketeers and Liberians.

Well, yes, your are right that it is an ex-Goldman person, but the whole point of the article -- hence the headline referring to Goldman -- is that Goldman is behind it. I have no doubt about that.

But it is a minor point, as you say, and I completely agree with you that the GOP attack only helps to show that she is on track. By the way, did you mean Libertarian in the last line or do the residents of Liberia bear a special animus towards Liz?

West 81 -- I believe that you are saying that I am unfactual and sensational. Thanks; that is a very nice thing to say. I like to think that I am fabulous, but I'll take sensational.

f'ing ugly the gop performance at congressional hearings she was subjected to this week--shame--our vanishing middle-class doesnt see this shlt---disgraceful---all soundbite-style, rude attack--i was so proud of the way she kept her dignity and effectiveness

How is Goldman behind it? You think Corzine and Paulson agreed on this topic? Epic fail.

MidtownerEast: By "thread starter", I just meant the opening post of this discussion - and more specifically the title - not you personally. The link to Goldman is tenous; even HuffPo doesn't play it very heavily.

Anyway, I agree that you are fabulous, in several senses of the word.

Typo: tenous ==> tenuous

Why, thank you, West81st. Seriously, your posts, especially those on comps and other number-crunchy things -- are really good stuff and I can tell that people really appreciate them.

Sorry for the two "reallys." I got really carried away.

Without knowing or caring much about the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, I just watched Wednesday's hearing on C-Span for a few hours.

It's disheartening to see our representatives, in this case most of the Republicans, be so obnoxious and so willing to appear unthinking and unsubtle in towing the party line. Really, and I mean really, depressing.