Getting the populist message?

Commentary By Ron Beasley

The other day I wrote:

Change is not possible because the oligarchs control the politicians
and the media - the D's and the R's are irrelevant.  The only
optimistic development I see is yes, the "teabagger" movement.  It may
have been created by the oligarchs to attack Obama but in many cases
they are upset about the same things we progressives are.  

• Their jobs going overseas - "free trade"


• The Wall Street/bankster bailout

There may be an element of bigotry and for the most part the
teabaggers are under informed and don't really understand what
socialism and fascism mean but in the end it's the two bullets above
that have them upset.  This is an energy that we can harness.

Well perhaps Obama and the Democrats are getting part of the message.  As we saw yesterday Obama may be listening to Paul Volcker more and Tim Geithner less.

For much of last year, Paul Volcker wandered the country arguing for tougher restraints on big banks while the Obama administration pursued a more moderate regulatory agenda driven by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

Thursday morning at the White House, it seemed as if the two men had swapped places. A beaming Volcker stood at Obama's right as the president endorsed his proposal and branded it the "Volcker Rule." Geithner stood farther away, compelled to accommodate a stance he once considered less effective than his own.

The moment was the product of Volcker's persistence and a desire by the White House to impose sharper checks on the financial industry than Geithner had been advocating, according to some government sources and political analysts. It was Obama's most visible break yet from the reform philosophy that Geithner and his allies had been promoting earlier.

Senior administration officials say there is now broad consensus within the White House and the Treasury for the plan advanced by Volcker, who leads an outside economic advisory group for the president. At its heart, Volcker's plan restricts banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. He has argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis. The administration also wants to limit the ability of the largest banks to use borrowed money to fund expansion plans.

And the Democrats in the Senate are having second thoughts about Ben Bernanke's FED.

Amidst the voter anger at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., ABC News
has learned that the Senate Democratic leadership isn't sure there are
enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of
the Federal Reserve.

Bernanke's term expires on Jan. 31.

The White House did not respond to many requests for comment.

"The American people are disgusted with the greed and recklessness
of Wall Street," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with
The Associated Press last month. "People are asking, 'Why didn't the
Fed intervene at the appropriate time to stop the casino-type
activities of large financial companies?'"

Sanders, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Sen.
David Vitter, R-La., have all put holds on Bernanke's nomination,
requiring 60 votes to proceed to a vote.

Voter anger is of heightened concern to members of Congress given
the surprise victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., who rode a
tide of voter discontent and economic anxiety to an upset victory in a
special election earlier this week.

Last month, the Senate Banking Committee voted in favor of
Bernanke's nomination by a vote of 16-7, not exactly a reflection of
overwhelming positive feelings towards the Fed chair given the fact
that he was first appointed in 2006 by President George W. Bush and
nominated by President Obama for a second term last August.

In addition to be the right think to do it puts the Republicans in a position where they must decide their real constituency - the corporate Oligarchs or the populist movement they have created to fight Obama.