The real war emerges. The real war showed itself this Sunday the moment the first poll ever showed Edwards with a lead. Greenspan attacked on Edwards and Populism on national television (very unusual for Greenspan). The arrogance and pressures of international capital back at work in the United States starting with ABC pushing Alan Greenspan as rebuttal to Edwards Sunday morning on George Steph. This should not surprise, but for those that perhaps didn't notice, pay attention. The devil is certainly in the details in this case. Greenspan already promoted his book a month ago. What would call for such a prized appearance on ABC Sunday morning? Certainly it's not to speak on the month old mortgage crisis he caused with his failure to implement early regulatory measures after he was warned. He's been chatting the crisis up for weeks. George's first question to Alan was: "What do you think of Edwards economic plan?". Canned all the way. It was a bad moment for George and ABC. Call it an in-kind contribution to the other mainstream Federal Reserve approved candidates, because that is exactly what it was.
Greenspan appeared on ABC to deride Edwards and all 'populist' impulses. He said very directly, after Edwards had spoken and was cut, that Edward's economic plan would "hurt America". Don't worry what the people of Iowa think; Alan said it so it must be true. Of course, Greenspan has never been elected to any office and held an office that real conservatives like Milton Friedman wanted to see dismantled. However, let's set that aside. Greenspan purported to have such gravity on ABC amid an economic crisis created by his own failure to regulate after warned. His remedy mostly is to feed the people who created the crisis: cash.
Perhaps Greenspan was just off-topic, a lone wolf attacking a candidate seeking high office although the attacker never being elected and fundamentally representing a constituency of international bankers and capital that has less in common with Iowa than San Francisco. So, what else happened on the same Sunday....
Punch Two:
William Buckley released an attack-article on Edwards and 'populism' in the National Review. Same day, same topic. What on earth would suddenly garner such important attention to Edwards? Perhaps the first poll to date showing Edwards leading in Iowa released just days before. Prior to this, this strategy toward Edwards was simple: don't mention his name, hope he goes away. They changed their strategy, which ironically should come as good news to Edwards.
Quick response time by Greenspan, ABC, and Buckley and the concentrated capital lobby. Greenspan is growing into a problem, even in retirement, not necessarily because he's Alan Greenspan, but because he feels the need to inject his never-elected self into a primary without fully explaining who his real constituents are. ABC is guilty of airing such a conflicted person to bookend Edwards. Alan is better left to interest rates and explaining how he really didn't support Bush's tax cuts (mendacity). But lately I have noticed his usual academic arrogance being unusually injected into politics, directly. This is not his typical methodology. This is highly unusual, a tacit Fed rule. Alan is breaking it for a reason. Follow the money, you fully realize that Greenspan thinks profoundly about everything he says before he says it. He is extremely deliberate and usually deliberately vague. On Charlie Rose, he claimed no desire to discuss the current candidates, as a 'rule'. However, this was taped several weeks ago. On Charlie Rose he was happy to discuss how the Federal Reserve has the 'most PhD’s per square foot than any place in the world'. This contextual arrogance, of course, is the natural opponent of populism, and more ironic, doesn't naturally fit the 'conservative movement'. However, things aren't always the way they appear in the 'conservative' party. It's half-Huckabee, half-Greenspan (Good luck with that). Arrogance, such as Alan's, is not necessarily wrong unless it produces the wrong results, which it has. I believe Alan is running a bit of a confidence game with his reputation, the mortgage crisis, and the emergence of this cross-party populism.
Greenspan has recently become somewhat an icon, with the help of a publishing company. However, he has wrought serious problems he fails to address while he skips out to promote himself and demote others. How do the PhD’s in the Federal Reserve respond to such problems? They set interest rates and when that doesn't work, they create money and inject it into the system (top-down). Quite a remedy, huh? Their remedy, quite simply, is to invent money and throw it at the problem and the people who caused the problems. That problem is currently a mix of a liquidity crisis created by negligent lack of regulatory oversight (Greenspan) and even more dangerous fundamentals that underlay this crisis. Inventing non-earned money obviously dilutes your money (inflation). The dollar is falling drastically and has been for years. The big holders are moving their investments out of dollar-denominated securities (see China). Alan might want to address this instead of presidential candidates. I suppose that is why Ron Paul has a vigorous following. These economic wonks see the illogic. They know Alan is not all he cracks himself to be. The Fed has injected more 'invented' money (not productive dollars) into the system in the last 7 months than they did after 9-11. Therefore, this is serious becuase injecting unearned money carries great risk. Every move they make has a potentially dangerous outcome. Do nothing, liquidity crisis and recession (populism rises). Flood unearned money covering the bank shortfall and you might push a back a recession (past the primary season: key point) but you invite inflation, dilution, corruption and falling dollar. The FED knows every action to further manipulate the market has an opposing reaction. They boxed us all in with their brilliance.
I don't believe the Greenspan/Buckley attack this Sunday after the Edwards poll was coincidental or incidental. My fundamental theory is that Edwards represents the biggest threat to Greenspan's private constituents (international capital and international banking). Edwards is running a campaign similar to Sherrod Brown in Ohio (much unnoted 2006 landslide in a Bush 2004 state). Democrats know Sharrod has the real game plan to win, but the FED and Greenspan have rejected the game plan in advance and tacitly communicated to Clinton and everyone else.....'Use the Sharrod game plan, we're coming after you.'
Edwards decided to use it. I believe it's mostly authentic and rings true to his 2004 campaign, just with more edge. I think Edwards 'gets it' which must make that smile all the harder to produce. As Edwards rises, the Greenspans take this very seriously. Greenspan and Buckley are serious people with serious friends. Greenspan essentially represents large moneyed private constituents. No secret, no conspiracy, just bankers and large corporations that are big enough to play in the Fed's backyard and are big enough to be directly affected by liquidity crisis, regulations, lack-thereof, etc.. They are the 'directly affected'. Greenspan's constituents are also not necessarily 'of American origin', a concept that is under-analyzed and under-reported. His real constituent is capital, whereever that my be, no flag, no nationality. (I am also a capitalist, but I vote against corrupt capital concentration, which is the current state of affairs). This is somewhat ironic considering Alan's Ayn Rand background. Greenspan represents the Bank of England or the Bank of Indonesia more so than he represents any average American worker in Ohio or Iowa. That is my opinion and I haven't seen any evidence which would convince me otherwise.
Bottom-line, the attacks on Edwards are not frivolous or off-the-cuff. Greenspan and his sponsors at ABC knew he was book-ending Edwards the day after his best poll (perceptions). When he had the most air, they send their best form of perceived gravitas, Alan Greenspan, to attack him directly.
Punch Three...
Within a few days of Edwards poll, the Drudge report is leading with an Edward's baby story (fake). I don't believe for a minute that this story emerged and broke 'naturally' (I also saw people discussing the substance here, unfortunately). I believe this story was held late to hit any poll that showed an Edward's move. The game is on regarding Edwards; he's most people's second choice in a state where second choices matter. Greenspan could care less if Clinton or Obama win the nomination. Clinton and Obama do well with the Fed class. Greenspan's doting on Bill in his book and doting on the DLC makes his Clinton-position clear. Greenspan's constituents have one clear and present danger: Edwards. They know whoever wins the Democratic nomination has a clear and inherent advantage in the 2008 general. That's why so much capital-class attention is given to this Democratic primary. That's why nice-Alan breaks his Fed rule and sandbags sunny-Edwards on a Sunday morning with a clear assist from ABC. The real war lurking behind this primary is now officially on. They essentially have one real fight, with Edwards. If they stop him, they can relax. Then the general will be mostly fun, games and transactions with a soft downside. But, if they fail to stop him now, they will have to fight real populism through the entire general and likely for the next four years, every single day. This is serious and don't be surprised by the cross-fire if Edwards gets more traction.
I conclude at this time....
Edwards scares the right people.