I don't see much reasoned argument in the article, just a lot of rah rah rah for "our" side. To me stuff like this is what keeps real progressives from making much headway in real-world influence. Sirota has become the director-general of the circular firing squad. Too bad -- it deafens one to the the sharp observations he sometimes makes and makes Open Left less attractive (to me, at least).

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

I agree that a huge amount of money was misplaced in the first half of the TARP distribution and that means there should be muuuch more transparency and forethought this time. Good thing everyone agrees and is well on point with all that.

Declaring the bottom is the only way back up..

What are the third and fourth order consequences for attaching the name "progressives" to a vote against authorizing the TARP funds?

He's trying to take credit for good old Blue Dog/GOP obstructionism as a "populist outburst" and trying to slap a "progressives caused this!" nametag on it.

It's a nice try.  Sirota is virulently against any more bailout funds, and he's trying to make himself feel all cool by saying the House vote against it is a "progressive victory" the way John McCain's loss in November was a "Victory for true conservatives" or something.

I dunno.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

I think some people speak for progressives without knowing what most progressives think.

You don't understand, Boo.  David's a nationally syndicated columnist.  It's like Matt Taibbi's comment about Tom Friedman: Once he says it, the argument's over.

In all seriousness, look, the first $350bn round was a major fuck-up, from everything I've seen.  I think Benny and the Inkjets have done more to unfreeze the credit markets than the bailout.

I probably would've voted Yay on it, personally, but I'd want a lot of strings attached.

The real thing I think we're missing in the discussion is this: Obama needs to simply nationalize the banks and clean up the mess.  The Sweden Program, I guess we could call it.  It's a pain in the ass, yes, but let's do it right, or at least in a way that we know will work, rather than simply throwing money at it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

I think you need to figure out who's progressive and who's not.  Sirota is right.

Let me flip the question on you.

How can someone like Barney Frank call himself a progressive if he's willing to meet with Citibank before he advocates mortgage cram downs in bankruptcies? Where is the proposal for pro-consumer, pro-average-American, bankruptcy reform to at least get us back to before 2005?  Where's my bailout?  Do you really believe Barney Frank and the other Democrats are not in the banks' back pockets?  The banks made huge sums of money when the Democrats agreed to deregulate (in fact those Democrats that were influential in this are now influential in the administration) and now they are simply giving us the same Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bernanke, Greenspan, Rubin solutions of throwing money at banks--a top down solution that so far has been an abysmal failure.  This is a huge waste of our precious little public resources and an immense crime.  It's a crime covering up a crime.  I don't know what worse.  The crime (the corporatist takeover of our government and economy) or the cover-up (e.g., throwing a T.A.R.P. over the body, or something).  I can't believe you don't see the folly and injustice . . . . and goddamit the criminal intent.  Where is the American people's bailout?  Where is my bailout?  When do the rules get changed in the average person's favor for once?  Why is everything top down?  Throw money at the banks and hope they fix things.  That hasn't worked thus far and the real damage has not yet been ascertained (or, more precisely, the full extent of the crimes have not yet been determined, but, they are clearly numerous and mounting).  

If you took a Democratic party member from 30 years ago and showed him or her how the Democrats have pretty much caved-in on consumer protections, especially when it comes to banking, he or she would shocked that the modern Democratic party even pretends to support consumers (i.e. the average American).  Look at the predatory lending and the usury that is rampant in this country.  Look at the credit card industry.  Look how the Democratic party has adopted top-down Reagonomics and has given the banking industry everything it wants.  It still meets with the banking industry before in proposed legislation.  I don't know what "progressive" means but I thought it meant standing up for those with little bargaining power, the average American, that takes out a credit card or a loan from a bank or a mortgage or goes through bankruptcy.  

You're onto something though.  There are sloppy definitions and people are confused.  

But eventually you'll figure out the scam as Sirota has figured out the scam.  We're talking about the biggest transfer of wealth in history--taken from you and me and we the people and given to bankers (they got the majority of the ill-gotten profits on the way up and got the first and most massive amount of public funds on the way down--now the rest of us will be fighting over the scraps as soon as we realize there are only scraps left).   Call yourself a progressive or not but the two words we should all wrap our heads around are these: SUCKERS and CROOKS.  Right now that's all I see around me.  And the Democratic "progressives" like Barney Frank may be both.