There's no real reason for my sense of optimism today. No new polls out that say one way or another that things have substantially changed in this campaign. There's some evidence of a slight shift towards Obama (mostly national polls that see him up by a point or three) and other evidence that things are going the way of the good guys -- mostly state polls that show McCain/Palin making tight races of states that should long ago have been wrapped up by the Obama-Biden team.
I can't help thinking that the economic scare and its aftermath works to the benefit of McCain although I certainly understand the counterargument. Here's my thinking: first, when crises hits who do you want at the helm, the hand of experience or the neophyte whose impulse is to increase taxes and hamper business with more and more regulations borne of academic theory not life experience?
Further, the strong and swift hand of the current administration in turning around the immediate crises so that, by the end of the week's trading, the market (an indicator of the beliefs of the professionals about the short-and-medium term future of America's business and economic climate) was down a grand total of 34 points, says that experience does, in fact matter and that the pros in the Republican camp have showed their ability to handle crises.
Further, still, Obama's close ties -- both actual and philosophical -- to the disastrous (but high-minded) Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, speaks volumes about the disastrous policy that is likely to be Obama's should he win in November. These connections are only amplified by Obama's silence in the days after the crises broke, something he's selling (again) as "high minded" but which is, in effect, Obama voting "present" yet again on the tough issues. The guy who has run for almost two years on two words -- "hope" and "change" -- would not or could not give any more information when crises hit.
I am also confident because, as despicable as was Charles Gibson's efforts to destroy Sarah Palin, the fact that she didn't hit it out of the park is what people saw. It's like the fruits of the poisoned tree. Yes, everyone recognized that Gibson was a dishonest (and factually wrong) player for the left but that doesn't change the fact that Palin did not equal (or even approach) the image we had had of her prior.
That being said, not all future interviews are going to be with such morally and intellectually corrupt actors as Gibson and there are events yet to come -- most notably the debates -- where the leftists won't be able to edit the footage the way ABC News did the Palin interview. Further, Governor Palin is only going to get better and better as she quickly learns to deal with a national media that has its own, pro-leftist, agenda. This means that any damage that Gibson in his questions and ABC News in the editing room might have succeeded in doing to Governor Palin is the worst of it and, with a month-and-a-half to go, the Governor's numbers are only going to go up and up.
Finally, I think that the Obama camp's threats against Jewish organizations if they didn't do as they say and "disinvite" Governor Palin is going to do severe damage to the leftists. More and more the true character of today's Democrat Party is coming out and more and more Jews (such as this one) are recognizing the Democrats to be exactly the opposite of what they claim to be (and the leftist media has promoted). One prominent Jewish Democrat compared the Obama threats as "McCarthyism." These are the kinds of things that bring sea changes to people's politics.
I suspect, pending the opening of the stock market next week and if the economy continues to show overall strength -- that the national numbers will return to McCain's favor as the blue states continue to turn redder and redder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
I think it's wonderful how the recent polls have given us all the opportunity to reacquaint ourselves with the friendly face of Leftism.
And nothing can be more energizing to the Republican base than to bask in the sunshine of brotherly love that the Daily KOS & netroots activists exude with their "in your face" style of rational political discussion.
Newton's third law is as true today as ever. As Sir Isaac would likely remark, "This election's in the bag".
You're mentioned today in a comment to an article by Bruce Walder at
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_lefts_crooked_umpires.html
Bruce Walker is the author of Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and the recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.
And I've heard Senator Obama referred to as Senator Present. I thought that was eloquent.
Of course, racist Democrats are going to cost Obama the election, according to the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004—about 2.5 percentage points.
Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.
More than a third of all white Democrats and independents—voters Obama can't win the White House without—agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.
Sounds like they finally captured some of our current troll's opinions about blacks on one of their surveys...
Joe Klein: Following the lead of his buddy, and probable Secretary of the Treasury, Phil Gramm, McCain has been a vehement deregulator. Here is the deathless quote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah...hep me please hep me I cant stop hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
Hi Evan, I suspect you're correct. As for McCain, check out the RECORD. He has a record of at least honestly trying to head off the problems we've recently seen but Congress squashed it. He's typically for deregulation except when it's apparently needed.
Here's the Bill that's part of his RECORD of trying to make change happen: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
Trying and failing is WAY better than voting "present", waiting to be told what to do or for the "right" answer to appear so you can say that's what you thought all along.
:-D
Even at this stage most people are paying little attention to the election, and in this environment the media can be relatively influential over the opinion polls - people parrot what they hear on TV news until they've taken the time to check it out themselves, closer to the election.
That's why Obama would need to be at a much larger advantage in the polls at this stage if he were to have a chance in November. At this time, a good fraction of the poll results are just reflecting the MSM spin. It is ever thus.
Republicans Call Administration World's Greatest Socialists:
Republican frustration runs deep.
The chairman of the 100-strong conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, said that the administration has stumbled down a road that makes many conservatives uncomfortable.
“It’s time to bail out the taxpayers from bailout mania,” Hensarling said. “Neither the secretary of the Treasury nor the Fed has articulated a clear standard” for who gets bailed out and who doesn’t. “We’ve given a blank check to the secretary of the Treasury.”
Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky was more blunt.
“To say I am outraged by this would be an understatement,” Bunning said. “The greed on Wall Street is only exceeded by the stupidity of the Treasury secretary and the chairman of the Federal Reserve.”
Bunning compared the federal government’s interventions with the actions of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez — and not favorably. “The only difference between what the Fed did and what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela is Chavez doesn’t put taxpayer dollars at risk when he takes over companies — he just takes them,” he said.
Another small-government crusader, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), complained that “failed government policies” allowed the financial crisis to occur in the first place.
“Our leaders need to wake up, exercise some real discipline.”
The Club for Growth, a guiding light for fiscal conservatives, celebrated the weekend’s announcement that Lehman Brothers would be left to die, saying, “Resisting another bailout was a smart move.”
The group was silent Wednesday in the wake of the $86 billion AIG intervention.
Apparently, there are still actual conservatives in the GOP, as opposed to party hacks like we see here who will back anything Bush does even when it's the greatest government intervention in the "free" market since the Great Depression.
This pack of hypocrites does not believe in one thing...they will eagerly throw every principle out the window if the administration does.
Well. Looks like racism might cost Obama the election after all.
lookee here:'
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004—about 2.5 percentage points. "
Yup. Racism.
Of Democrats.
No surprise. They're the party that insist upon the unfair advantages and disadvantages of race alone (which are in the eyes of the beholders).
!!!!!!!The insane crackpot factor has become too much even for Republicans...
ABC Panel Tears Into McCain: Not Presidential, Age Should Be An Issue
The panel discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos could not have been more brutal.
Minutes after conservative columnist George Will declared that the Senator was decidedly un-presidential is his unexpected call for the firing of SEC Chairman Chris Cox, Sam Donaldson, the long-time ABC hand, said that McCain's erratic message on the economy again raised questions about his age.
"I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience," said Will. "The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said 'let's fire somebody.' And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate."
Donaldson then jumped in: "It was two days after the he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. His talking points have gotten all mixed up. And I think the question of age is back on the table."
It should be noted that McCain's call for the firing of Cox was dismissed right off the bat, as the president does not have the authority to axe an SEC chairman. The criticisms that Donaldson raised concerned the fact that McCain started the week by touting the fundamentals of the economy, before pivoting into fits of populist mantra and calling for increased regulation of the markets - position at odds with McCain's traditional economic philosophies.
"When I say age," he explained, "I don't know the difference between finding your talking points and not delivering the right ones, we have seen him do this frequently but this last week was the worst. Between two stops in Florida, as you say, he had to revise his thinking about what he wanted to say about the economy, wanted to feel the pain suddenly than say everything is great."
The whole, painful, episode crested with Will leveling an even harsher blow.
"John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."
The whole, painful, episode crested with Will leveling an even harsher blow.
"John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."
Meanwhile... as Obama's advisors pretend that the Obamessiah is still "studying" the problem, Republicans are stepping into the void in real time to deal with it. Six months after the financial system gets restored to stability, Obama will announce that we never should have gotten into the financial mess to begin with... and that he was right all the time about the need to avoid similar crises... and that George Bush McCain was responsible.
They're witting or unwitting tools. What we're seeing is an execution of a campaign tactic that's trying to invert the benefits of Mac's superior experience and the wisdom and principles that famously comes with age (unless you're a liberal with arrested development) versus Obama's flip-flopping-uh-oh-ah-uh-uh lack of principle and cluelessness by emphasizing Obama's charismatic JFK-esque youth and good looks (which, along with his race, are the only things they got for the gimmick) while hinting at the negative associations that sometimes comes with age, like enfeebledness and dementia.
Mac tried to nip the charge of being too enfeebled for the job in the bud by proving a clean bill of health by the providing of his medical records (like all good Republicans, but unlike Clinton, Kerry, and now Biden)videoed documentation of him hiking the Grand Canyon with his strapping young son (and keeping up, if not actually leading), trotting out his sharp and spry 91-year-old mother (drawing the obvious conclusions), and, last but not least, showcasing his stunning, milfy wife.
They wouldn't be so crazy as to accuse McCain of being unfit for the presidency by his war scars (his crowning glory) to make their case for enfeebledness (although I wouldn't put it past them to blurt it out), but they almost stepped on that rake when they interpreted Mac's confession that he wasn't handy with a keyboard as another opportunity to attack him for being "out-of-touch" (with the 21st Century) when the reason that he wasn't handy with the keyboard was because it's a little tight for him to assume that position (precisely because he assumed other positions in Vietnam).
They (the smarter ones, anyway) dropped that one real quick when they figured it out.
So, anyway, they (and who "they" are requires no explanation here, methinks) retreated on trying to associate Mac's august age with the physical infirmities that often come with it, so to compensate they stepped up the offensive on trying to make the associations with Mac's age and dementia stick (they tried to pull the same stunt with Reagan, but he kept outsmarting them).
And all that is the only reason why there's been an upticks in salvos against Mac's acumen (suggesting that it has deteriorated and deteriorating more daily), and in tandem with the attack on Palin's own acumen with the sneering jeer of "bimbo."
The intended effect of that is to suggest--if not explicitly insist--that the brains of the campaign--think what you will about the party or policies--must be with Obama/Biden.
But it's a futile maneuver.
Biden's not springtime (don't let the hair-transplant fool you) and already had two brain aneurisms (if you want to get physiological about it, and exploit ignorance).
But he was just a dumb jock to begin with, almost getting expelled from college for plagiarizing (costing him an F in the class), and plagiarizing again while senator (costing him a potential nomination for president in the 88' campaign when it came out).
And now he's doing what many insiders new he would do: Say DUMB things.
And then there's Oh-Uh-Ah-Oh-bama, who shore sounds great in front of teleprompter and orating in words that could just as well have come out of JFK's own mouth (but only because JFK's speechwriter put them there), but he's saying dumber things than Bush did when he was campaigning for the presidency, and there were books written about them.
But I do recognize Obama's wisdom last week during the economic crisis:
When you really don't know what the hell you're going to say, it's best to just keep your mouth shut (and if you're a politician, it wouldn't hurt to strike a pose of just being the strong, silent, but pensive type, especially when you can be damn sure that you'll be presented precisely in that manner by big-mouthed allies in media).
hahahaha...don't these geniuses know it's REPUBLICANS saying these things about McCorpse?
LOL! Even Obama himself doesn't think he's ready to be president. That's not Democrats talking... that's his OWN conscience talking.
wrong again, evan says:
I can't help thinking that the economic scare and its aftermath works to the benefit of McCain although I certainly understand the counterargument. Here's my thinking: first, when crises hits who do you want at the helm, the hand of experience or the neophyte whose impulse is to increase taxes and hamper business with more and more regulations borne of academic theory not life experience?
baltimoresun.com
Financial crisis seen tilting race against McCain
By Paul West | paul.west@baltsun.com
September 21, 2008
WASHINGTON
As the credit meltdown became a full-blown crisis, it wasn't just a nightmare on Wall Street. It also was one of the worst things that could have happened to John McCain's presidential candidacy.
When times are bad, voters often choose to throw the bums out, and McCain's party is in the White House. On top of that, economics has never been McCain's strength, and some of his responses - calling the fundamentals of the economy sound one day and proposing a commission to study the problem while the financial system teetered on the brink of collapse - seemed less than sure-footed.
Polls this weekend are flashing the latest changes in the '08 contest, which has swung back to Barack Obama. The Democrat leads McCain by six percentage points in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, after trailing at the start of the week.
The abrupt shift in what campaign veterans are calling the race of a lifetime underscores how external events can overturn the shrewdest strategy and make the difference in a highly competitive contest.
Obama has regained the advantage at a key juncture. Starting this week, the candidates and their running mates will meet in a series of four televised debates. Strategists on both sides say they could decide the election.
"The debates are going to be huge," said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster, who contends either man can lock in a win after the last debate in mid-October.
Heading into those encounters, Republicans fret that the financial crisis has reinforced a devastating link between McCain and the economic policies of President Bush, whose job disapproval rating has just matched the all-time worst for any president in the history of the New York Times' poll.
Some Democratic strategists, meantime, argued that renewed focus on pocketbook issues could not come at a more opportune moment for Obama.
These Democrats, sharply critical of Obama behind the scenes, fault him for jousting with McCain and Sarah Palin over who would be more likely to change Washington rather than focusing on the economic concerns of independent swing voters.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a top Obama supporter, put it more gently when he said the financial crisis may have signaled a fundamental change.
"It is indeed a turning point," the Baltimore Democrat said. "It has brought a very significant jolt to the American people, and I think it has reminded them that who we have in the White House can have a direct effect on your immediate future and perhaps on the rest of your life."
That said, he agrees Obama "needs to be talking about the economy much more. ... He's got to show people how he will help, because people are very, very insecure."
It is advice the congressman said he gave directly to Obama during a recent conference call.
"I told him he's got to go back to looking voters in the eye and telling them, 'I'm with you,'" said Cummings, who co-chairs the campaign in Maryland. Obama, he added, needs to offer solutions to voter fears about losing a job or their house or whether the bailout of an insurance giant might keep them from collecting insurance when a relative dies.
Obama's ability to maintain his new edge in the polls is something even the wisest guru can't know for certain. It is, at best, an educated guess, like forecasting where the stock market is headed - and as recent events have shown, the Dow Jones average and the Gallup poll seem to be tightly linked.
Matthew Dowd, chief strategist of Bush's re-election in 2004 and now an independent analyst, says the financial crisis could reset the campaign to the Democrat's advantage.
"The real things that could adjust the race are outside events like what happened this week that cause people to say, 'Wow, we really have a sad economy, and the Republicans really haven't been doing anything to deal with it,'" Dowd said.
McCain wants the election to be about foreign policy and an overseas crisis "where the phone rings at 3 a.m," said Dowd. But if the election is framed around the economy, "McCain knows that's where Barack has the advantage."
For months, voters have indicated that the economy was their top concern, and the financial crisis merely "underlines and bolds it," he added.
Until recently, McCain, riding the Palin surge and a solid convention bounce, seemed to have the upper hand. But some of his comments, as the crisis deepened, drew criticism from his own backers.
On the day that Wall Street investors suffered their biggest loss since the 9/11 attacks, McCain said the nation's economic fundamentals were "strong." An economist might approve of the statement, but it seemed to put the candidate at odds with many voters.
Republican pollster David Hill said the financial crisis could hurt McCain in places, such as closely contested Florida, where older retirees will be unsettled by volatility in the stock market and its potential impact on their lifestyle. But those votes might go into the undecided category, rather than to Obama, he said, and McCain can win them back if he's able to make the case that he's "the mature, steady hand on the tiller" in a turbulent economic time.
McCain lashed out at what he called corrupt financial manipulators and reckless behavior by Wall Street firms, while arguing that the Federal Reserve needed to get out of the corporate bailout business. He also called for a new federal agency that would lend money to shaky financial institutions.
Obama expressed general support for the bailout , without offering a specific remedy of his own. He insisted that he was "less interested at this point in scoring political points than I am making sure that we have a structure in place that is sound and is actually going to work."
Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement today that Congress will take action this week, while adding that Democrats want more oversight of the proposed federal program. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama also said lawmakers must insist on more oversight.
LOL! Oversight? THEY WROTE THE LAWS THAT BROKE THE SYSTEM.
NOW they want "Oversight".
American public to Congress: "Get out now, before we tar, feather and run you out of DC on a rail!" Who knows, stay too long and lynchings might come back into fashion.
here's some good reading for you guys:
mccain
Not so interesting, if you start the day locked up and end the day locked up and in the middle you have no control over your life I think anything you may do or say is likely to be considered as being done under duress. Where was Kerry's duress here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/20/91603.shtml
Or Mr Obama's here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
Just wondering.
Now, me, I want a happy moron who tells us "the fundamentals are strong" while the house collapses.
Face it; the old fool has become a joke...and a horror even to Republicans.
It's the economy, stupids:
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Says Don't Bail Out Wall Street Free Market Risk Takers on the Backs of Middle Class Taxpayers! Exactly. “This proposal as presented is an unacceptable attempt to force middle income families (and our children) to pick up the cost of fixing the horrendous economic mess that is the product of the Bush administration's deregulatory fever and Wall Street's insatiable greed,” Sanders said. To pay for the bailout, he proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would yield more than $300 billion in revenue to cover losses the government will incur when it resells troubled mortgages it acquires from banks.
On the Financial Crisis: "This isn’t March 1933; this is more like November, 1932, when things were beginning to really disintegrate in earnest, and the president, while brighter and better intentioned then the present incumbent, could only flutter his hands helplessly and take bad advice from his cabinet, who believed that tight credit and laissez faire economics – the main things that got America into that mess – would surely get it out of that mess. The Congress was much like the Congress we have today, filled with complacent old hacks with a sense of entitlement and a willingness to please the people who funded them first and their constituents later, if there was time." 9/22
Is the Wall Street Bailout Plan Another GOP Ripoff of American Working Families. What Difference do Tax Breaks Make, When Working Families Will Pay Out More than $7,000 Each to Bail Out Wealthy Financial Entities and Share Holders Who Blew It and Should Pay the Consequences?
Joan Venocchi: "WHEN YOU are too big to fail, you are bailed out. When you are too small to save, you are down and out on the street. Some aspects of the Wall Street crisis are tough to understand. But one economic principle is pretty clear. When a really big company goes bust, the little guy pays with his home or job. But those CEOs and money managers who boldly march their corporate empires into bankruptcy just get paid millions and millions of dollars more." Socialism for the Rich Corporate Barons and Stockholders; Free Market Poverty for the Rest of Us.
Context on the economy from Harold Meyerson: ' ... as Wall Street turned its back on America, so did government. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans (John McCain among them) kept American incomes low by opposing hikes in the minimum wage; helping employers defeat unionization; and shunning policies to modernize infrastructure, make college more affordable, and boost spending on basic science and research. ... And by the measure of their contribution to America's economic strength and well being, both Reagan-age government and Wall Street's investment banks plainly deserve to die.' 9/22
Imagine if All the Billions and Billions of Dollars Spent on Bailing Out Financial Institutions that Took Risks and Failed Were Spent on Universal Healthcare? 9/21
Taxpayer-Financed Bailout Out of Wall Street Would Give Paulson "Dictatorial" Powers to Spend Our Money
Joe Klein: Following the lead of his buddy, and probable Secretary of the Treasury, Phil Gramm, McCain has been a vehement deregulator. Here is the deathless quote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
"Now that the delusion of creating wealth out of paper shuffling is over, the thieves on Wall Street point to the victim’s bad judgment in taking their offers as the culprit. Workers who were achieving the highest level of productivity in the history of the planet were subjected to falling wages while corporate profits reached record levels. Cold calling, emails and letters coaxed consumers with more offers then a military recruiter to a high school senior, all done with government blessing." 9/22
Larisa Alexandrovna: Welcome to the final stages of the coup...The Abdication of Congressional Control Over Our National Financial Policy
Congressional Republicans "Warn" Democrats Not to Help the Middle Class. The GOP Believes that the Middle Class Must Help Bail Out Rich Risk-Taking Financial Corporations, But That the Republicans Believe Working American Families Deserve No Relief, Just a Bill for the Malfeasance of Wall Street.
In Economic Crisis, Nest Eggs Vanish, as Do Long-Held Dreams. It's the Republican Way: the Eroding Middle Class Bails Out Wall Street, While the Republicans Tell Dems Not to "Stall" Taxpayer Subsidy for the Wealthy with Amendments that Would Assist Workig Americans. Shameful Beyond Comprehension. 9/21
Welcome to merely the latest and entirely predictable consequence of Republican rule: "[T]he price tag could easily be $500 billion," reports the New York Times about you-know-what. "Outside experts predicted that the bill could exceed $1 trillion."
McClatchy: "The next president will take office in January with little hope of getting his pet programs enacted quickly, if at all, because of already-massive budget deficits likely to balloon even further from the hundreds of billions expected to be used to bail out Wall Street." 9/21
Who's the pathetic moron who says "they" wrote the laws????
lol
Does the dink think the same congress sits for decades?
hahahahaha...god these fools are just tooooo hilarious.
Funnier than hell to see them run like mice from their own deregulatory "philosophy."
Then there are an increasing number of honest ones who admit that the Bush plan is the biggest government intervention in their beloved "free" market (which they suddenly don't care about, anymore) in history.
But these morons don't even recognize the irony of their great leader rapidly becoming a lesser version of Hugo Chavez ...as Jim Bunning says.
Why are you participating in the dissemination of lies? The investigation McCain participated in regarding Fannie Mac concerned a $5 billion accounting scandal. It had nothing to do with confronting the deregulation that led the US to the brink of financial disaster.
This debacle has everything to do with the actions of McCain's top economic adviser and former senator Phil Gramm. In 1999 he introduced the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , which deregulated the $62 trillion Credit Default Swap (CDS) market that is spurring Wall Street's collapse. John McCain voted for that bill and worked hard in Congress to make sure it was passed.
Where do you get your information? Do you know who Rick Davis is?
"Rick Davis was in charge of the Homeownership Alliance, a Fannie/Freddie lobbying group that was aimed at stopping "unfounded fears about risks to the housing system," according to its website. Rick Davis is now running the McCain campaign. (Oh and—at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Freddie and Fannie in recent years.)"
SOURCE LINK
Why not expose your readership to the truth behind the obfuscation? Evan Sayet, why have you offered your efforts in the service of misleading propaganda?
Well it was good enough for Biden at the time Senate Vote on Conference Report: S. 900 [106th]: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
And the Fannie Alumni are part of Obama's team as well, made some pretty good $$$ "running" the place, now they help "manage" his campaign, he better keep an eye on the books.
Better to tell both sides don't you think?
:-D
Sorry, forgot to include this:What McCain said at the time
:-d shea,
Are you parroting the same old accusations leveled in the deliberately dishonest McCain campaign ad featuring the alleged association between Franklin Raines and Barack Obama? Be specific.
I agree with you about presenting a balanced account of culpability, but unfortunately that's not something that I see on Evan's site. That's why I have taken the personal initiative to address it.
Your McCain link simply reinforces what I said previously. He was endorsing a Bush administration investigation into an accounting scandal. He was not concerned about deregulation of sketchy financial scams like credit default swaps. That entire investigation was political retribution for the pressure the Dems put on foremr Enron executives. It certainly reinforces the perception that McCain is a partisan politician.
Biden was wrong to have voted in favor of Gramm's bil. The difference between Biden and McCain is that Biden has realized his mistake. McCain is still endorsing irresponsible deregulation. Meanwhile McCain refuses to rule out Gramm for the position of treasury secretary in a presumptive McCain administration.
This says it all...and must be reposted for the retarded:
"John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."
Of course, that was from uber liberal, mega Marxist GEORGE WILL!!!
Duh you mean that some Democrats are not pure?
No shit?
We've been trying to dump the scumbags for years.
But you love your lunatic small gov, dereg assholes and just want more and more of them.
Well, lessee...from what I see here, this siko has got a dozen readers, mostly liberals who come here for some kind of sport, and a couple of the most laughable clowns in the dying reich.
George Will has got several million.
Who cares what this guy's got to say? Well, other than as an example of what makes these lesser beings tick?
Would a higher being spend all their day denigrating lesser beings? I don't think so. It kinda sounds like something a lesser being would try and do.
No merge divide, he's just demonstrating how ridiculous your charges against McCain are by citing the record itself rather than vague generalization's and inferences made by you.
ps- The housing bubble didn't begin to materialize in '99. You'd have to go back to '95 for the start of THAT fiasco.
I totally agrees. That's why I usually spend about three minutes on a post.
Which is probably about what the others spend.
Then there's the entertainment factor. That's worth spending a little time on.
And the fact that lesser beings can be very important in a certain kind of way.
Like when there are enough of them to be malignant and dangerous...
PESTS.
I mean, think about it, luddite monkey.
Those goofy scientists spend their lives on one celled organisms.
Like you.
Speaking of Franlin Raines...
From the Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1999:
It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.
These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.
That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.
This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.
What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.
But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.
All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.
Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.
In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.
The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.
But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.
The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.
Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.
All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.
If Slick Willy gets the CREDIT for the "Housing Phenom" of the 90's... why doesn't he deserve the blame when all the paper that created it proves an ephemeral bubble?
So now you're a one celled organism? That sounds about right.
lol everytime they try to tell one of these lies, they not only get caught but the cookie jar lid slams down hard on their pudgy, little hands:
News Flash
McCain camp quite touchy about being pegged as liars. Very upset at the NYT for revealing that Rick Davis got $2 million from Fannie and Freddie to help them fight off tighter regulation.
According to McCain enforcer Steve Schmidt, reporting on Davis' Fannie/Freddie connection means the Times "is not today by any standard a journalistic organization."
In addition, the so-called connections of Obama to Fannie Mae consists of a couple phone calls someone somewhere in some part of his campaign made to Raines.
I guess Schmidt is pining for those 2002-2003 lickspittle days.
I'm with the scummy Vermin infestation above, Davis HAS GOT TO GO! I s'pect he's the idjit that's pushin' for Cuomo to chair the SEC and makin' all those ridi'klus McCain pronouncements last week 'bout firin' the current SEC chair.
Several sites have McCain lie counters...like this one:
http://filthyrag.com/blog/2008/09/the-john-mccain-lie-counter-long-read/
It warns you that it's a long read.
Republicans Allege McCain Covered Up His Collaboration with the North Vietnamese While a POW:
http://www.alternet.org/election08/99663/
Thank you, Anus.
How's that mule dick?
Well, we all know he made propaganda for the commies.
That's the GOP definition of a hero.
To a pack of yellow ass chickenhawks it seems like bravery that he held out for two weeks while he read their script they wanted him to sign.
fj,
Still trying to peddle your dopey, racist crap again, eh? The mortgage crisis is now credited to all the blacks and Latinos defaulting on their loans? You really are too much.
Do you even read the articles you cut-and-paste? Last week you were blaming everything on Franklin Raines because McCain tried to associate him with Obama in his latest broadcast lie that you guys called an "ad". Now you post an article that has Raines trying to resist extending more risky loans, and HUD director Andrew Cuomo making a counterargument that Raines just wants to make profits. Cuomo is pushing Raines to make more subprime loans in your article.
Do you ever watch the news? If you did you likely wouldn't be posting that article...
John McCain is advocating making Andrew Cuomo the new SEC chairman. Let's say that you have identified a key factor in the current mess- why would you be extolling the virtues of the candidate promoting Cuomo?
I'd call you a "tool", but I fear you are completely useless. Throughout it all, you still refuse to do your research. I'm just trying to bring some light into your sheltered little world.
Phil Gramm
Rick Clark
Deregulation
Credit Default Swaps
Address these things and I'll show you some mercy.
How's that mule dick?
Well if you ever took it out of your mouth for a minute, maybe he could find out!
Raines was originally charged by law with making 42% of his loans to moderate and low income clients. Cuomo "upped" his minority loan target as HUD Secretary to 50%. That's when Raines started having to cook the books and added $3B in profits on loans never made so that he'd max out his bonus. He and his buds got caught with their hands in the cookie jars but then bailed with golden parachutes.
And the LA Times reporter tries to make Raines & Cuomo out as "gladiators", but both men were opposite sides of the same coin playing for the Clinton Team, just like when the SecDef plays adversary w/Lockheed Martin's CEO and later serves 20 years on their board of directors w/him.
It's a game of musical chairs at HUD, too.
As for McCain's offer to put Cuomo on top of the SEC ticket, I never said that the Republicans were any less corrupt or stupid, only McCain's top advisor on this issue used to lobby for Fannie and is a tool, himself. McCain needs to clean house and FIRE his ass, too.
As for mercy, go f*ck yourself. The day I need mercy from you is the day I jump off the Golden Gate bridge.
The only reason why I can see McCain backing Cuomo for the job at SEC was if his campaign manager had bought a seat on the NYSE and wanted to make a killing...
shooting feesh said...
lol everytime they try to tell one of these lies, they not only get caught but the cookie jar lid slams down hard on their pudgy, little hands:
News Flash
McCain camp quite touchy about being pegged as liars. Very upset at the NYT for revealing that Rick Davis got $2 million from Fannie and Freddie to help them fight off tighter regulation.
According to McCain enforcer Steve Schmidt, reporting on Davis' Fannie/Freddie connection means the Times "is not today by any standard a journalistic organization."
In addition, the so-called connections of Obama to Fannie Mae consists of a couple phone calls someone somewhere in some part of his campaign made to Raines.
I guess Schmidt is pining for those 2002-2003 lickspittle days.
I never said that the Republicans were any less corrupt or stupid, only McCain's top advisor on this issue used to lobby for Fannie and is a tool, himself. McCain needs to clean house and FIRE his ass, too.
So which part of the above did you fail to read, anon?
And don't you mean... a few calls and a 1/3 stake in "vetting" Obama's VP? LOL!
"As for mercy, go f*ck yourself. The day I need mercy from you is the day I jump off the Golden Gate bridge."
Have a nice swim.
Apparently you forgot to read this part:
In addition, the so-called connections of Obama to Fannie Mae consists of a couple phone calls someone somewhere in some part of his campaign made to Raines.
There was no connection. There is no equivalency.
Then who is Jim Johnson and why was he originally picked by the Obama Campaign to select his VP?
Anony, i think the only alternative to arguing with them as if they were equals, equally capable of intelligent, logical debate, is to leave them alone. And if you leave them alone
Actually, that is faulty logic. There is at least one other alternative, and that is: KICK. THEIR. ASSES. I certainly hope Obama doesn't debate McCain like this...we gonna lose fo sho. Also, you are probably right about one thing: they can't "debate" (hahahhah) and watch FOX at the same time.
Anony, i think the only alternative to arguing with them as if they were equals, equally capable of intelligent, logical debate, is to leave them alone. And if you leave them alone
Actually, that is faulty logic. There is at least one other alternative, and that is: KICK. THEIR. ASSES. I certainly hope Obama doesn't debate McCain like this...we gonna lose fo sho. Also, you are probably right about one thing: they can't "debate" (hahahhah) and watch FOX at the same time.
p.s. I'm not the sort of person who fights over women.
That seems like kind of a red neck idea.
Anony, i think the only alternative to arguing with them as if they were equals, equally capable of intelligent, logical debate, is to leave them alone. And if you leave them alone
Actually, that is faulty logic. There is at least one other alternative, and that is: KICK. THEIR. ASSES. I certainly hope Obama doesn't debate McCain like this...we gonna lose fo sho. Also, you are probably right about one thing: they can't "debate" (hahahhah) and watch FOX at the same time.
p.s. I'm not the sort of person who fights over women.
That seems like kind of a red neck idea.
Anony, i think the only alternative to arguing with them as if they were equals, equally capable of intelligent, logical debate, is to leave them alone. And if you leave them alone
Actually, that is faulty logic. There is at least one other alternative, and that is: KICK. THEIR. ASSES. I certainly hope Obama doesn't debate McCain like this...we gonna lose fo sho. Also, you are probably right about one thing: they can't "debate" (hahahhah) and watch FOX at the same time.
p.s. I'm not the sort of person who fights over women.
That seems like kind of a red neck idea. Sorry, I neglected to italicize the portion to which I was responding.
Whoops. Sorry about the multiple entries--the site indicated that the post wasn't accepted.
"The only reason why I can see McCain backing Cuomo for the job at SEC was if his campaign manager had bought a seat on the NYSE and wanted to make a killing..."
So wait, you're implying that McCain's campaign manager is corrupt?
Implying? No. Stating unequivocally. Unlike the Left, the Right does not follow der Leader off the cliff and into the sea. We don't take the "socialism or death" pledge typical of diehard dhimmicrats.
The only reason anyone on the Right backs McCain is because the alternative is suicidal lemming worship (Obama). And when McCain starts nominating idiots like Andrew Cuomo to run SEC... it's time to rein him and his nutjob advisors in.
Implying? No. Stating unequivocally. Unlike the Left, the Right does not follow der Leader off the cliff and into the sea.
hahaha...how did you get that out with all that salt water in your mouth?
You dingbats have been making excuses for the greatest disaster monkey in history til you finally found yourselves actually over the cliff.
I found the 19% approval rating for the Bush Baby to be amazing, though.
It appeared that there was a rock bottom at about 28% of morons who would never admit shit. But, it's gotten so catastrophic that a bunch finally peeled off.
Too bad they were eight years too late. And you know they really haven't learned a goddamn thing and will vote for the next GW to come along all over again.
We'll take King GWB III over Lenin's clone, ANY day of the week.
What does that link to...Free Republic?
Don't bother me.
"And when McCain starts nominating idiots like Andrew Cuomo to run SEC... it's time to rein him and his nutjob advisors in."
Yet it's still okay to elect him?
Given the limited choices, it's always best to choose the lesser of two weevils
How right you are, fj!
Post a Comment