Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hey stephanieVanbryce
Got your PMs but can't respond
Was banned from the other board
Please PM w/ another email addy where we can keep in touch
Eddy
O'S DANGEROUS PALS
BARACK'S 'ORGANIZER' BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES
By STANLEY KURTZ
Chutzpah: ACORN's drive to lower mortgage standards paved the way for the meltdown - yet last week, it was holding protests like this one in Florida, trying to get a cut of the financial-market-rescue bill.
Chutzpah: ACORN's drive to lower mortgage standards paved the way for the meltdown - yet last week, it was holding protests like this one in Florida, trying to get a cut of the financial-market-rescue bill.
Posted: 3:53 am
September 29, 2008
WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.
In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.
In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.
THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.
Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.
Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.
ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.
Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.
In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.
IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.
Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.
By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.
And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."
What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."
Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.
IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.
When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.
He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.
In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.
More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.
That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.
MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.
Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."
Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?
The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.
And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.
In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."
IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.
Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.
Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0
Missouri truth Squad official incident report
Which incident(s) are you reporting? (Check all that apply)
They mocked, questioned or satirized Obama (with or without styrofoam Greek columns).
They mentioned Obama's questionable citizenship/elibility for the presidency.
They mentioned Obama's questionable religious background.
They mentioned Obama's 20-year affiliation with a racist, anti-semitic Church.
They mentioned Obama's many affiliations with extremists and those tied to terrorists.
They mentioned Obama's career was launched and orchestrated by terrorist Bill Ayers.
They mentioned all of Obama's missing records (medical, collegiate, birth certificate, etc.).
They described Obama's blatant lie about infanticide that was even recanted by his handlers.
They described Obama's many ties to Fannie Mae executives and the mortgage meltdown.
They showed me pictures of Obama's stunning results as a "community organizer" and state senator.
Who are you reporting? (Check all that apply)
My parents
My sibling
Neighbors
My boss or co-worker
A friend or acquaintance
A radio talk-show host
Sean Hannity
Governor Matt Blunt
A wingnut blogger
Other
How did you find about their relationship to these untruths? (Check all that apply)
They sent me a chain email
They sent me a link to a wingnut or Rethuglican website
I happened to notice it on their laptop while sitting behind them on a bus, train or plane
I overheard them whispering
I installed a key-logger on their computer
I read their blog
I installed a network sniffer that monitors all traffic coming into and out of the neighborhood
I went "war-driving" and/or employed wireless monitoring tactics
How long would you recommend that we detain the subject(s)? (Check only one)
Until after the election
Until 2012
Until 2016
Until they graduate from Re-education Camp
Until prisoners start starving in the O'Gulags
Do not set release date
How dangerous is/are the subject(s)? (Check one)
Harmless/crackpot
Mildly annoying
All bark, no bite
Typical Pennsylvanian who clings to guns and religion
Other NRA member
NRA member with concealed-carry permit (a CCW)
Lifetime NRA member with three or more firearms, a CCW, and a Class III permit
Typical Texan
Chuck Norris
Email your completed form to Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce or County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCullough (or email him here).
Again, you're getting bogged down in the minutae.
The intent it so intimidate. They are obviously using their ( supposedly non political ) positions to attempt quash free speech
Interesting that the libs aren't as concerned with veracity when the dirt is thrown the other way- ie Obama's campaign possilbe involvement in the Palin smear viral video nonsense
IF the roles were reversed, the liberal whining would be ear shattering
Here ya go:
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
Too funny- imagine that a misleading TV ad- how shocking
YEah they're taking the high road- except for those viral videos run by Obama operatives about Paling not being the mother of her last child and being in the secessionist party in ALasks
Doesn't it make you the least bit uneasy that they choose to use these fascist techniques?
Then why are the state Prosecutors threatening to bring suits?
It's not about ultimate legal results- it's about threats to suppress free speech.
I'm sure you're all in favor of attempting to keep unflattering ads off TV, attempting to keep dissenting views off of radio shows, not allowing any posters at colleges when he's speaking
Liberal fascism isn't any better than right wing fascism
Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?
Photo of Warner Todd Huston.
By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
September 28, 2008 - 03:53 ET
* [Email this to friend]
* [Printer-friendly version]
Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program. (Download radio show HERE)
TRANSCRIPT
Brian Jopek: Because of some of the negative feedback she's gotten on the Internet, you know Internet blogs, you know people accusing her of... or accusing Obama of trying to get votes doing it... and that sort of thing.
Radio Host Moberg: Yeah
Jopek: She has turned down any subsequent interviews with the media because she just didn't want it to get turned into something that it wasn't. She had told me in an email that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet any more at any of his public appearances. Which I don't think he's...
Moberg: It has been a while since he's brought it up.
Jopek: Right. But, the other night I was watching the news and he was on, uh, speaking somewhere and he was still wearing it on his right wrist. I could see it on his right wrist. So, that's his own choice. I mean that's something Barack Obama, that's a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to... Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn't want to do anything to sabotage his campaign, so, if he's still wearing the bracelet then, uh, that of course is entirely up to him.
Moberg: Maybe there's a difference between wearing it and making a point to bring it up in your speeches?
Even the snow job that the radio host tried to pull off to cover for Barack's refusing the wishes of the family of the KIA soldier who's bracelet he wears doesn't pass the smell test. After all, now that Obama has made it a big point in the debates, I guess the silent observance of Sgt. Jopek is no longer so silent and Obama is back to exploiting the death of a soldier even when he was asked NOT to do so by that soldier's parents.
To pile insult onto injury here, the Mother doesn't even want to force the issue of telling Obama to stop exploiting her son because she wants to see him win the election. Obama is not only taking advantage of this brave soldier's death, he is taking advantage of the good wishes of the man's Mother who doesn't want to hurt the campaign.
This all makes Obama look pretty calculating and blood chillingly callous, doesn't it?
And, why is the media not playing this story? The radio show on which this interview is heard happened all the way back in March. How is it the media missed this? Is it because they are also don't want to hurt Obama's campaign?
I can only say that if the parents of the soldier whose bracelet John McCain is wearing had said in public that they want him to stop wearing their son's bracelet the news would have been coast to coast, and wall to wall, not just ignored in Madison, Wisconsin.
Obama's use of this soldier that fell in the line of duty is tainted by his ambition and callousness. And the media is letting him get away with it.
(H/T D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/28/family-told-obama-not-wear-soldier-sons-bracelet-where-media
I have no need to one up you on contact with black people over my life
The point is that regardless of what sources you have available to you, you have no idea who I am and my life experiences
Jumping to wild conclusions based on no knowledge is a dangerous thing- but then again it's a large part of most posts on the board
oh -- and I know blacks far better than you ever will, and have for decades
And you know this how exactly??
Does your Mitsubishi Alpha include a world wide see everywhere past and present feature?
Breaking: Gov. Matt Blunt Releases Statement Condemning Barack Obama's Missouri Goon Squads
Missouri top prosecutors announced this week that they will threaten and prosecute critics of Barack Obama.
St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt released a statement moments ago on the news this week that leading Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs supporting Barack Obama were forming "Truth Squads" to intimidate and threaten his critics.
For Immediate Release:
Gov. Matt Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”
Previously:
Missouri Sheriffs & Top Prosecutors Form Obama "Truth Squads" & Threaten Libel Charges Against Obama Critics
American Issues Project Responds to Obama's Missouri Goon Squad
posted by Gateway Pundit at 9/27/2008 11:20:00 AM
9 Comments:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/breaking-gov-matt-blunt-releases.html
I noticed no such thing
Try adjusting the color on your set
And please save the canned outrage= as if mentioning skin color is never supposed to happen.
I can tell you that African Americans notice and talk about it all the time- it was an African Americnan friend that pointed it out to me
From Crony Capitalism to Crony Community Organizing: "Profit” Loophole in Bailout Bill Doesn’t Require Net Profits.
Much of the blogosphere is up in arms because of the provision in Senator Dodd’s financial bailout bill that might funnel profits from the bailout plan to ACORN Housing (related to the disreputable activist group ACORN), and other more reputable service organizations.
I have read Dodd’s proposed statute and in some respects, it is far worse than has been reported. Senator Dodd has placed a loophole in the bill that is explicitly designed to siphon off tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund even if there are no net profits in the $700 billion venture.
Here is the provision that has already been widely noted:
d) TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.-
(1) DEPOSITS.-Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) USE OF DEPOSITS.-Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)-
(A) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
(B) 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).
(3) REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.-All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
The biggest problem here is that the 20% is not taken from net profits, but rather from any profit in the sale of each and every individual troubled asset.
For example, assume that the new Agency buys three troubled assets for $1 million each. One is sold for $2 million, while the other two are sold for $300,000. Thus, $3 million in investments are sold for $2.6 million, representing a $400,000 loss.
But Senator Dodd’s bill does not provide for losses to offset gains: “Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset” must be given to the two housing funds, so $200,000 of the $1 million profit on the one asset that made a profit must be siphoned off to the housing funds, despite the $400,000 net loss on the three deals taken together.
As an analogy, imagine a regular trader of stocks who takes lots of hedged positions and had net losses of 25% this year, but couldn’t offset his gains with his losses, instead having to pay 15% income taxes only on his gains.
How much might be siphoned off under the Dodd bill? It all depends on how long the new credit Agency is in force, how often it turns over its portfolio, and how variable its returns are.
If the agency is in force for 4 years and turns over its portfolio every two months, then it would generate about $15 trillion in sales overall (650 billion x 6 x 4 = 15.6 trillion).
Let’s assume that $7 trillion of sales generate a profit of $2 trillion and $8 trillion of sales generate a loss of $2.1 trillion, leaving a net loss of about $100 billion.
With a net loss, one might think that nothing would be funneled to the housing funds for service organizations, but that is not what the statute says or means. One looks only at the sales generating gains to determine the size of the payments to the housing funds. With $2 trillion in profits and $2.1 trillion in losses, the housing funds nonetheless get $400 billion dollars in “profits.” (This is over 40% of a typical year’s US total federal income tax receipts.) And that is the result if only 20% of "profits" are skimmed; the statute puts no upper limit on the skimming, so long as they come from profits (not net profits). Theoretically, the new Agency could potentially siphon off $2 trillion to the two housing funds, more than its $700 billion portfolio limit.
400 billion dollars may be a high estimate for the housing fund payments, but if they turn out to be only a tenth as large ($40 billion), they would still be huge. To reduce this massive skimming required by the Dodd statute, the new government Agency would have the incentive to engage in fewer transactions and do less to create a public market for troubled assets, thus significantly undercutting the chance that the bailout will work.
I was mildly in favor of the bailout until I read Dodd's proposed statute. The way that the statute is drafted is so tricky and its definition of profit is so unsophisticated and nonsensical that the statute smells more of graft than of an honest attempt to solve the financial crisis. We are moving from failed "crony capitalism" to failed "crony community organizing."
Other posts will deal with other provisions in the Dodd bill and whether ACORN Housing will actually apply for any funding.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_21-2008_09_27.shtml#1222499614
Anybody else notice that Barry was about 3 shades darker than normal last night?
WE know he hasn't been spending a lot of time outdoors....curious
It had to have been makeup, but to what purpose?
Sorry, but I don't see the analogy here.
Georgia and Ukraine have opted for a democratic govt through hard fought elections ( including poisoning of one of the candidates )
They want to establish ties with other Western nations through admittal to NATO
Russias actions make it clear they have designs to return to the imperialistic ways.
The US is working towards increased trade with Chile and others
If you're a Latin American country ( except the one led by a socialist dictator ) who would you welcome in to your country
Their muscle was fed by the blip of petrodollars- the flow of which has slowed. They have economic problems of their own and can't come close to matching us in military might. Any attempt to do so would be met with results similar to the last time they tried.
The huge difference is that the OrangeRose revolutions were not imposed on Ukraine and Georgia- they were a result of Russian tyranny and the superiority of democratic government
the only ones who haven't taken the money are the ones not in office anymore.
What about Biden? He's been able to feed at the trough for 30 years and his net worth is 70K?????
Either he's incredibly ethical of incredibly stupid
Based on is career and his gaffe-a-thon since being nominated, the smart money is on stupid
" stand up Chuck "
Friends of Angelo get new invitations — to a federal grand jury
posted at 10:10 am on September 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
Countrywide Mortgage CEO Angelo Mozilo offered sweetheart deals on loans to his “friends”, who just happened to be people who had oversight responsibilities on his business. People like Fannie Mae CEO/chair Jim Johnson, Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, and others got below-market-rate loans from Mozilo through a “Friends of Angelo” program at one of the main lenders at the heart of the subprime collapse. Now a federal grand jury wants to talk to Angelo’s circle of friends to determine whether indictments for corruption are in order:
Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest U.S. mortgage lender, made large, previously undisclosed home loans to two additional executives of Fannie Mae, the government-chartered firm at the center of the U.S. credit crisis.
One of Countrywide’s previously undisclosed customers at Fannie was Jamie Gorelick, an influential Democratic Party figure whose $960,000 mortgage refinancing in 2003 was handled through a program reserved for influential figures and friends of Countrywide’s chief executive at the time, Angelo Mozilo. Ms. Gorelick was Fannie Mae’s vice chairman at the time.
Another Countrywide client was recently ousted Fannie Mae Chief Executive Daniel Mudd, though it isn’t clear whether he received special treatment on two $3 million mortgage refinancings he made when he was the company’s chief operating officer. …
Countrywide loans on preferential terms to influential figures are the subject of a federal grand jury investigation in Los Angeles, according to people involved in the inquiry. Prosecutors subpoenaed records of many of the so-called “Friends of Angelo” loans in August, lawyers and others familiar with the matter said. …
While Countrywide was developing a closer working relationship with Fannie Mae, the company also had created a special path to handle loan applications from influential figures. The “Friends of Angelo” program channeled loan applications from celebrities, public figures and sports stars — often singled out by Mr. Mozilo — to a department where the borrowers received special treatment, sometimes including lower interest rates and a reduction in fees.
It’s been a while since we’ve heard from Jamie Gorelick. The former 9/11 Commission panelist wound up being one of the focal points of the dot-connecting afterwards, as she pushed for further separation of law enforcement and intelligence efforts in the years prior to the 9/11 attacks, even while al-Qaeda attacked American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. Now she turns up at Fannie Mae, taking the same kind of insider loans while having oversight responsibilities for the GSE and the manner in which its business got transacted with other firms, including Countrywide.
Gorelick claims she never knew she got preferential treatment. For that matter, Barack Obama’s campaign adviser Jim Johnson says the same thing. However, both got loans a full point lower than market value at the time, after going outside the normal channels to get their loans handled. Are we to believe that the CEO of Fannie Mae and a member of its board were completely ignorant of the going rate for residential loans at the time of their application? What business did they think they were in, anyway? The rate for residential loans is the center of Fannie Mae’s business.
The notion that they were ignorant of their preferential treatment insults both their intelligence and ours. I suspect that a federal grand jury will feel the same way if Gorelick and Johnson try to use that line in their testimony, assuming they don’t just take the Fifth when called.
Gorelick hasn’t had any role in the presidential campaigns, but Johnson has been a high-level adviser to Barack Obama — and still is. Chris Dodd has taken leadership on the bailout bill negotiations on Capitol Hill. With two Democrats this closely tied to a federal grand jury action, they’d better hope that the grand jury takes its time in assessing the evidence. This to me seems a lot more worthy of an investigation than a dismissal of a political appointee in Juneau.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/friends-of-angelo-get-new-invitations-to-a-federal-grand-jury/
Interesting that Dodd is on the list and he's now at the forefront of the dems efforts to unravel the mess he and his friends created
Figures. Media Ignores Biden's Outright Lie About Iraq... Focus on Visiting African 'Witchcraft" Pastor At Palin's Church
In October 2007, Senator Joe Biden introduced and sponsored Amendment 2997 in the US Senate.
It was an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and its purpose was- "To express the sense of Congress on federalism in Iraq."
MSNBC described Biden's federalism bill:
In a strong rebuff to the Bush Administration on Iraq, the Senate overwhelming approved a plan by Biden that essentially calls for breaking Iraq into three sections: Kurd, Sunni, and Shia... The measure also calls on the five permanent members of the United Nations and members of the international community to convene a conference to help the Iraqis set up the federal regions.
The bill passed.
The Iraqis were furious. They protested in the streets and called a special meeting in parliament to reply to the U.S. Congress resolution on the division of Iraq into three Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni entities.
Now, Joe Biden is denying he ever pushed the federalism bill.
Sweetness and Light caught this outright lie by Senator Joe Biden earlier this week:
So what is the liberal media saying about this outright lie by Joe Biden?
--Nothing.
Instead they are focused on the visiting African pastor at Sarah Palin's Church who blessed her and prayed over her asking God to keep her safe from witchcraft- a common practice in Africa.
There were at least 410 articles published this week on Palin and witchcraft.
MSNBC even tried to equate this event to the 20 years Barack Obama mentored with G-Damn AmeriKKKa Jeremiah Wright.
In response, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League lashed out the Palin bashers in the media and the Far Left.
This was so good that I am reprinting the article here.
The Catholic League reported:
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments today on news reports that an African minister once asked God to protect Sarah Palin from witchcraft:
“In 2005, Sarah Palin went to church and found that a visiting minister from Kenya, Bishop Thomas Muthee, was doing the service. He offered a prayer asking Jesus to keep her free from ‘every form of witchcraft.’ Palin said nothing—she simply kept her head bowed throughout the blessing. Why this is newsworthy is one issue, but why it has quickly become the subject of scorn is another.
“For the past two decades, Americans have been lectured by educators and the chattering class that we must respect cultural, religious, racial and ethnic diversity. It seems that exceptions to the creed of multiculturalism are only made when it suits the ideological agenda of the left. Enter Keith Olbermann: He exploited this incident last night as a club to paint Palin as an extremist. Moreover, he used this single blessing to unfavorably contrast the African minister to Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The MSNBC commentator incredibly said that Wright—who spewed hate speech before Obama for 20 years—‘seems pretty mainstream’ by comparison.
“Witchcraft is a sad reality in many parts of Africa, resulting in scores of deaths in Kenya over the past two decades. Bishop Muthee’s blessing, then, was simply a reflection of his cultural understanding of evil. While others are not obliged to accept his interpretation, all can be expected to respect it. More than that—Muthee should be hailed for asking God to shield Palin from harmful forces, however they may be manifested. And for this he is mocked and Palin ridiculed?
“We know that many cultural elites have a hard time embracing religion, but is it too much to ask that they at least show some manners when discussing subjects which most Americans hold dear?”
Well said.
Liberals just don't get it.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 9/26/2008 04:53:00 AM | 2 comments links to this post
**Financial Crisis Timeline** Dems Scoffed at Warnings-- Schumer Singled Out (Video)
Democrats Were Warned & Consistently Blocked Reform--
Way back in 2001 The Bush Administration raised red flags.
In 2008, Bush warned the Democratic majority 17 times that there was a looming crisis and that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed reform.
In 2003, former Treasury Secretary John Snow testified before the House Financial Services Committee and said this:
SNOW: We need a strong world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSEs and the safety and the soundness of their financial activities.
In 2005- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.
Sadly, in every instance since 2001, Democrats either ignored or blocked any attempts at reform.
Even Bill Clinton admits it.
Yesterday, FOX News put together a timeline on the crisis and attempts at reform.
Senator Charles Schumer from New York was singled out for his defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
No wonder we're not seeing the liberal media squawk about who's to blame.
More... Terry Jones at Investor's Business Daily reported "How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable."
posted by Gateway Pundit at 9/26/
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Time for the dems to manup, hey F6??
Using your own criteria, they have the votes and should be held responsible if the deal doesn't get done, right?
Doesn’t Hang Together
Jennifer Rubin - 09.26.2008 - 7:59 AM
The Democrats need to get their story straight. On one hand, it is beyond dispute at this point that Congressional Republicans were never on board. It is equally clear that the Democratic majority won’t act without the ”cover” of a substantial number of Republican votes–that is they demand that this deal not be done, in Chris Dodd’s words, ”on a three-legged stool.”
So several things follow. First, this is precisely why Hank Paulson and Harry Reid summoned John McCain–to get Republican cover for the Democrats who despite the looming crisis can’t bring themselves to govern (that is, to vote on and pass a bill which they believe is essential). Second, that is why McCain presented but did not endorse the GOP’s wish list of conservative suggestions in the White House meeting. That is how one cajoles and drags along a recalcitrant party–by allowing them to have their say. (From reports it appears that the hyper-empathetic Barack Obama attempted to corner the Republicans, not a comforting sign that he knows how to negotiate with people who are in fundamental disagreement with him.) Third, while it would be nice for the Democrats to drag more Republican votes along, it is highly unlikely that they need as a mathematical matter all 100 Republican votes they have asked for. Whether they get 50 or 100, Democrats almost certainly could pass the Paulson bill in a form acceptable both to the White House and the Senate. But they don’t want to–Chris Dodd told us that.
Time for the dems to manup, hey F6??
Using your own criteria, they ahve the votes and should be held responsible if the deal doesn't get done, right?
And finally, if there is no deal, if the stock market drops hundreds more points, if there is no abatement in the short term credit crunch, and if more banks and other institutions fold today, we’ll see if running off to a debate and lifting whatever pressure exists to make a quick deal seems like such a good idea. Having spent over twenty years as a labor negotiator I can tell you: unless you provide contentious parties with a deadline, no matter how artificial, they will never reach a deal.
The Democratic ACORN bailout; Update: Video added
posted at 7:55 am on September 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise. One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:
In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.
“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”
Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”
Graham told Greta van Susteren that Democrats had their own priorities, and it wasn’t bailing out the financial sector:
And this deal that’s on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can’t believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn’t work.
Here’s the relevant part of the Dodd proposal:
TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.
1. DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
2. USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)
1. 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
2. 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).
REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
Profits? We’ll be lucky not to take a bath on the purchase of these toxic assets. If we get 70 cents on the dollar, that would be a success.
That being said, this section proves that the Democrats in Congress have learned nothing from this financial collapse. They still want to game the market to pick winners and losers by funding programs for unqualified and marginally-qualified borrowers to buy houses they may not be able to afford — and that’s the innocent explanation for this clause.
The real purpose of section D is to send more funds to La Raza and ACORN through housing welfare, via the slush fund of the HTF. They want to float their political efforts on behalf of Democrats with public money, which was always the purpose behind the HTF. They did the same thing in April in the first bailout bill, setting aside $100 million in “counseling” that went in large part to ACORN and La Raza, and at least in the former case, providing taxpayer funding for a group facing criminal charges in more than a dozen states for fraud.
It’s bad enough that taxpayers have to pay the price for Congress’ decade-long distortions of the lending and investment markets. If we realize a profit from the bailout, that money should go to pay down the debt or get returned to taxpayers as dividends from their investment — not to organizations committing voter fraud, and not to restarting the entire cycle of government meddling in lending markets. I’d support a rational bailout package, but anything that funds the HTF needs to get stopped.
Update: Here’s the video with Graham:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-democratic-acorn-bailout/
GOP conservatives present rescue alternative
Sep 25 08:30 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
Write a Comment
WASHINGTON (AP) - A group of conservative Republicans in the House on Thursday proposed a financial rescue package of tax breaks and a new government-sponsored insurance program for mortgage-backed securities as an alternative to President Bush's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
Instead of the government buying the toxic mortgage securities, banks, financial firms and other investors holding them would pay premiums to the Treasury to finance the insurance coverage.
The idea is that the insurance would give investors enough confidence to buy the illiquid securities and establish a market for them.
Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the plan would be to remove the burden of the bailout from taxpayers and instead place it, over time, on Wall Street.
"Instead of a purchase scenario where you have the government injecting $700 billion right up front into the markets, what you have here is an insurance plan," Cantor told reporters. "In order to get this insurance, the banks with these failed assets would have to pay for the government backing, pay for the insurance."
The plan emerged after it became clear that House Republicans in large numbers weren't coming around to the approach favored by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which is to have the government buy up the troubled securities, hold them, and eventually sell them off.
Under the House conservatives' plan, institutions holding stronger assets would pay lower premiums for the government backing; higher-risk securities would require higher premiums.
Robert Litan, an expert on banking and finance at the Brookings Institution, called the framework unworkable, saying it would not achieve the basic goal of creating a market—and establishing prices—for mortgage securities no one's willing to buy.
"Everything depends on how you value the security," Litan said. "If you do the deposit insurance scheme, there's nobody out there to know what the right price is."
The House conservatives' plan also would:
_Offer temporary tax relief to free up capital for companies to lend one another.
_Temporarily suspend dividend payments by financial institutions.
_Require participating firms to disclose to the Treasury Department the value of mortgage assets on their books, private bids on them in the past year and their last audit reports.
_Forbid government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from issuing securities on unsound mortgages.
_Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the performance of credit-rating agencies.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93E2S100&show_article=1
Yep ,much better to be a show pony like Barry and just sit around looking pretty
The house reps are trying to get a better deal passed. They want the govt to offer insurance for the bad loans that the companies who mismanaged would actually have to pay for.
A much better deal than the bailout and the taxpayers subsidizing poor management and greed
But, go ahead and reflexively criticize any action by McCain. Nah, there's no urgency here, it's just that if a deal doesn't get done the international markets will melt down on Monday. A foreign policy debate is much more important and Barry has all his talking point memorized and is afraid he will forget them
JUst like you criticized the reps for not passing added oversight of Fanny/Freddy in '05 when they controlled Congess, if you were fair, you'd criticize the dems now. THey control congress and can pass any bill they want. They'll load it up with porkm but are scared to lead and won't do squat w/o cover from the reps.
Congressional Democrats Show Us What Leadership Is All About
Hurricane Warning for Tomorrow's Financial Markets
Posted by: Blackhedd
Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 10:40PM
67 Comments
Published reports have it that Congress couldn't get a deal done on the Paulson bailout plan. Sketchy reports at mid-day said that Congressional leaders had the outlines of a plan in place, with a raft of what appeared to be largely extraneous changes to the structure of the deal.
Evidently those modifications were intended to give Congress a way to second-guess the progress and implementation of the bailout. Financial markets figured that half a loaf was better than nothing, and they finished the trading day with moderate gains.
But tonight, the news is that there's no deal after all.
Reliable information from Capitol Hill seems to have been blacked out for most of the day. The tenor of the published stories is that a small handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives are torpedoing progress.
My guess is that the Democrats, who are in total control of the proceedings, are well aware of both the critical need for this bailout, and also of the politically-inconvenient fact that the American people are disgusted and want no part of it whatsoever.
Consequently, it would make no political sense at all for the Democrats to pass the legislation on their own. They badly need a way to blame Republicans for it.
One supposes that the Democrats want the bailout to pass with just enough Republican support so they can call it a Republican bill that they were dragged into, kicking, screaming (and pork-barrelling) all the way.
That's regardless of the facts that the bailout is needed to stabilize financial markets in the near term, and also that expert opinion is steadily moving in support of the idea that the bailout actually will improve conditions in the real economy.
It's also regardless of the fact that the Democrats control both houses of Congress.
We're not talking about a filibustered vote in the US Senate here. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank are the key players in this saga. They can do anything they damned well please with this legislation, and they need approval from not a single Congressional Republican to do it.
For the Democrats to blame a few Republicans for the failure to act is a craven lack of leadership. The country gave these people control of Congress in 2006 expecting they would do a better job than the Republicans.
And this is what we get, instead.
At this hour, markets are open in the Far East, but the critical credit-markets in London are not yet open for Friday trade.
Hours ago, when New York trading ended, it appeared that money markets were under extreme stress but not at the edge of panic.
The Fed funds rate centered around 1.5% for much of the week, averaged below 1.2% last night. The Fed's target for this rate is 2%. There's a distinct possibility of an emergency cut in policy interest rates, as early as the wee hours of this morning.
I would also look for additional emergency measures such as expanded currency swap-lines with foreign central banks, before New York opens for trading, a mere ten hours from now.
This is a hurricane warning. There is heavy weather ahead in financial markets. We've made an awful lot of history in the past ten days. We may be about to make some more.
-Francis Cianfrocca
The Curious Incident of Reid and Pelosi In A Crisis
"Guys, Call Me If My Leadership Is Needed. Guys? Hello?"
Posted by: Dan McLaughlin
Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 10:32PM
4 Comments
Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
In politics, actions speak louder than words, and inaction sometimes speaks even louder. With John McCain leaving the campaign trail to go to Washington to join the negotiations over the Paulson bailout bill, there's a fair debate about exactly how important his presence there is, as I will discuss below. But judging by the actions of everyone involved, there's no doubt that even his own Democratic colleagues recognize that Barack Obama is completely irrelevant to the process.
As I noted yesterday, nobody really wants to support the bailout, but the White House and many in both parties on Capitol Hill feel it's necessary, and will back it if and only if a consensus bipartisan deal can be put together. John McCain, of course, has made a career in Washington of being the man in the middle who holds the key to precisely such sorts of bipartisan compromises.
The Democrats' Congressional leadership has zigzagged repeatedly on whether they want or need that help in building a consensus. Wednesday morning, we were hearing that Harry Reid was alternately begging for McCain's help and claiming he already had it to press Republicans unhappy with the deal into supporting it:
Media reports indicate congressional Democrats and Republicans alike are anxiously looking to Sen. John McCain for cues on his stance on the financial bailout package. Stories suggest the GOP nominee's stance on the legislation could prove decisive to its passage. ABC World News, for example, reported McCain "may hold the fate of the $700 billion bailout proposal in his hands. Even with Vice President Dick Cheney lobbying hard for the bill today, top congressional Republicans say if McCain does not support the bill, it will likely die" and "Democratic leaders have told the White House a deal without McCain on board will mean no sale. They say they fear McCain will, quote, 'demagogue' the bill and Democrats on the campaign trail." Roll Call adds, "According to a Democratic aide familiar with the discussions," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Treasury Secretary Paulson "this week that 'if McCain didn't come out for this thing and come out for it quickly, it was going to begin bleeding Republican votes.' Democrats 'have a very real concern that opposition [from McCain] is going to drive away potential Republican votes,' this aide said."
However, there are conflicting signs in the media on the level of McCain's support for the package. The AP reported McCain "hinted he might vote against" the bill yesterday, calling the price tag "staggering." However, The Hill reports Reid "announced" that McCain would support the package, saying last night, "I got some good news in the last hour or so ... it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this."
More here.
McCain at this point was in the midst of negotiating with Obama a bland joint statement of the need for bipartisan consensus, without saying what it was they wanted consensus on. McCain had, shortly before the announcement of the Paulson plan last week, released his own bailout framework on Thursday the 19th (see here and here), which appeared to lean more in the direction of loans to shaky companies rather than purchases of their inventory, but hadn't firmly committed himself on the deal still being worked out between the White House and the Hill Democrats. But then Reid's call for help was echoed by a summons by Paulson, relayed through Lindsey Graham, that McCain's aid was needed:
Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.
That's the point at which McCain decided to "suspend" his campaign and return to Washington, even arguing that Friday night's debate in Mississippi should be postponed so as not to interfere with the negotiations in DC. After Obama refused to follow suit, Hill Democrats hastily scrambled to downplay McCain's importance. Barney Frank sneered that "McCain is Andy Kaufman in his Mighty Mouse costume - 'Here I Come to Save the Day,'" while Reid reversed course and said that neither McCain nor Obama would be helpful:
[I]t would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation's economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.
Eventually President Bush invited both McCain and Obama to a joint meeting with both parties' Congressional leadership at the White House. The Democrats' insistence on McCain's unimportance didn't last any longer than Reid's original statement. Congressional Quarterly today reported that
McCain's unilateral decision to break off his campaign and return to Washington to push for action on a rescue plan scrambled the political world Wednesday but by Thursday was seen by some Democrats as a way to potentially help line up Republicans behind the final proposal.
Reid himself announced:
With the economic news only getting worse each day, I call on the President, Senator McCain and Congressional Republicans to join us to quickly get this done for American families.
In other words, Reid recognizes the basic reality: McCain is a player in this debate and needs to be a part of any resolution.
But what about Obama? In contrast to McCain's plan, Obama had released lists of general principles on the crisis, but no detailed plan. Obama told the press Wednesday that
what I've told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere, anytime.
Neither Reid nor Pelosi has called for Obama to do anything; there has been no groundswell among Hill Democrats for Obama to get involved, and so far as I can tell, nobody is much discussing whether the plan being worked out does or does not satisfy Obama's "principles" or whether Obama's ultimate support or opposition will affect how they vote. And Beldar explains why that silence says everything about what Obama's own colleagues think of his usefulness in a crisis:
What's already abundantly clear in this crisis...without the need for any hindsight, is that Barack Obama has failed to lead.
Indeed, when the crisis engulfed them, those who've had the best first-hand opportunity since January 2005 to watch him try to do his job - his fellow senators, even the leaders of his own party who mouth the words about him being "the next President of the United States" and the hope of a new generation - didn't call a halt to everything and send out a plea for his personal presence in Washington. Their actions and in particular, this inaction, shows that they know in their hearts that Obama is no real leader. They know he's simply a well-cut, slick, but empty suit onto which the trappings of leadership have been projected. And when it comes to putting their own careers, their own modest places in history, on the line, they certainly didn't look to him for guidance.
The only reason for Obama's abrupt 180-degree pivot today was to provide his campaign and his party with a fig leaf: Now they can pretend that both his and McCain's presence and participation in Washington were essential to the striking of any deal. To do otherwise would be to cede the election to McCain outright.
Nevertheless: Except for the sole purpose of maintaining his campaign's dignity, Barack Obama is today the single most dispensable member of Congress.
Oh, well. At least they will get their gold coins with Obama's likeness on them. That's undoubtedly worth more than his leadership or his ideas.
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/25/the-curious-incident-of-reid-and-pelosi-in-a/
I'd love to hear the libs defend this from team Barry:
Barack Obama’s campaign is trying to silence the National Rifle Association’s latest ad campaign using strong arm tactics by threatening them with possible legal action if they run the ads:
Failure to prevent the airing of “false and misleading advertising” may be “probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility” Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
So basically, stop running NRA’s ads, or your broadcast license could be in jeopardy. They detail the WaPo’s FactCheck.org repetition as proof. This is Chicago politics at its finest folks. If you can’t win fair, win dirty. This is not how a free society is supposed to function. This is not the kind of man I want leading my country.
Besides, every bit of what NRA claimed is true. It’s the Obama campaign and the news media that’s lying.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/09/25/obama-silencing-voice-of-gun-owners/
Really scraping the barrel here. IT's seriously deranged
Witch doctors and now $1,000 contributions
How about the $100K that Obama earmarked for a park that never got built with 65k ending up in the pocket of his friend????
Obama awarded $100,000 for park never built
09/25/2008, 11:30 am
Comment on this story | Print this story | Email this story
The Associated Press
SPRINGFIELD -- The Illinois Attorney General is investigating a state grant awarded by then-state Sen. Barack Obama for a park that was never built.
The $100,000 grant for a botanical garden in the impoverished Englewood neighborhood in Chicago was awarded by the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000. Officials are not investigating his actions in awarding the money.
The grant went to a one-time Obama campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association. The Chicago Sun-Times obtained documents that show Kenny B. Smith wrote $85,000 in checks to his wife and his wife's construction company. Print this story
http://www.daily-journal.com/archives/dj/display.php?id=428044
How about this:
Ho hum: Obama’s lawyer threatens TV stations that run NRA ad
posted at 5:56 pm on September 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
I’m surprised. Usually in cases like this, Obama has his cult followers inundate the offending station with irate, semi-coherent phone calls, like they did recently to try to knock hatemongering smear merchant David Freddoso off the air for the crime of committing journalism critical of The One. For whatever reason they’ve decided that won’t work here, so they’re opting for Plan B. Straight out of the Democratic handbook Harry Reid used to threaten ABC’s broadcast license for showing the “Path to 9/11,” here’s Obama lawyer Robert Bauer warning station managers not to air the NRA’s new anti-Obama “Hunter” ad if they want to stay in the FCC’s good graces. Follow the link and read his letter and the NRA’s rebuttal for point/counterpoint. Is the NRA attributing gun policy positions to Obama which he no longer holds? Hard to say. Is there such a thing as a consistent Obama gun position? He flip-flopped opportunistically on the D.C. gun ban and was caught lying a few months ago about whether he’d ever seen that 1996 questionnaire in which his campaign claimed he supported a total ban on guns. Read Dave Kopel’s painstaking response to FactCheck’s piece on the NRA ads for more cases of obfuscation, noting particularly Obama’s habit of speaking of gun regulations not in terms of what he does or doesn’t support but what is and isn’t “politically practicable” at a given moment. No wonder Guy Benson’s worried about him bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. What happens when a deep blue Congress make that “politically practicable” too?
Surprised not to hear the libs whining about civil liberties here
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/ho-hum-obamas-lawyer-threatens-tv-stations-that-run-nra-ad/
Probably infinitesimal compared to the deaths that would have beencaused by civil war if we had cut and run
The exit strategy of the surge has worked and will leave a much more stable Iraq and a more stable critical part of the world.
THe relevant point is, do you defend his actions in slandering those Marines for political purposes?
Busted!... Obama-Rezko Buddy Blagojevich Caught In Scandal!
More Hope and Change...
Federal agents announced today they have the goods on Illinois Governor Blagojevich.
The Kennedy's, the Blagojevich's and the Obama's enjoy a night out in Illinois. (Flickr)
Federal Agents announced today that they have enough evidence to indict longtime Obama friend and close associate Illinois Governor Blagojevich.
WJBC reported:
Sources tell CBS 2 News Chicago that Federal agents claim to have enough evidence to indict Blagojevich on fraud and conspiracy charges. However, the report says the investigators aren't the ones who make the decision to prosecute. That would be up to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and the Justice Department in Washington.
WBBM reported on a possible Rezko connection:
Prosecutors also mentioned Blagojevich in an indictment as the intended beneficiary of at least one extortion attempt by Blagojevich fundraiser and businessmen Antoin "Tony" Rezko.
Rezko was convicted June 4 on 16 of the 24 counts against him. He awaits sentencing in October on mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering convictions. He still faces two more trials.
The Chicago Sun-Times has reported Rezko could cut his prison time significantly by cooperating in investigations of other public figures.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 9/25
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
MURTHA SUED!... Innocent Haditha Marine Files Slander Charges Against Outspoken Democrat
**There's a news conference at 1:30 PM EST.**
Breaking via WHP-CBS:
A Marine Corps lance corporal from Pennsylvania has sued U.S. Rep. John Murtha, saying the Democrat lawmaker slandered him by saying he and other marines killed 24 Iraqis in Haditha in "cold blood." Justin Sharratt has filed the suit in federal court in Pittsburgh. In the lawsuit, Sharratt claims the comments Murtha made in 2006 about the Haditha killings also violated the Marine's constitutional rights to due process and presumption of innocence.
Exonerated Haditha Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt filed charges against Rep. John Murtha today in Pennsylvania.
7 of 8 marines who have now had their charges dismissed.
One marine awaits justice.
Photos via Defend Our Marines
John Murtha slandered the Haditha Marines when he gave several interviews after the inaccurate story broke in TIME Magazine saying that the US marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.
Pittsburgh Live reported:
A Marine from Washington County today plans to sue U.S. Rep. John Murtha for publicly claiming his unit slaughtered innocent Iraqi civilians, according to the man's attorney.
A lawyer for Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg on Wednesday announced plans to sue Murtha, D-Johnstown, for comments he made to news outlets concerning the November 2005 killing of about two dozen people in Haditha.
Murtha repeatedly said Sharratt and seven fellow Marines "committed cold-blooded murder of innocent women and children," according to lawyer Noah Geary, who scheduled a news conference for 1:30 p.m. today to announce the lawsuit.
Here is a powerful ad running in Pennsylvania by William Russell who is challenging John Murtha this year for his House Seat:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Video: Fox News hammers Democrats again for Fannie/Freddie mess
posted at 12:42 pm on September 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
Via Ace, who properly calls it awesome. This makes two segments in as many nights on Hume’s show on the roots of the crisis, and as with the first, there’s little you don’t already know. Even so, the archival footage of one of the Democrats’ nastiest demagogues reassuring America that everything’s peachy keen with the subprime mortgage industry is worth its weight in gold, especially after he thoughtfully paused this morning to snark on McCain for trying to help clean up the mess he himself did so much to make.
Joining Fox News in acknowledging the left’s role in the crisis: Newly minted right-leaning independent Bill Clinton.
The video shows McCain warning of the potential problems in 2003 and Frank and Chucky Schumer saying there was no risk and that Fanny should be doing MORE bussiness
Priceless
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/video-fox-news-hammers-democrats-again-for-fanniefreddie-mess/
Fox News Blames Democrats for Financial Crisis, Bill Clinton Agrees
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 25, 2008 - 11:25 ET
* [Email this to friend]
* [Printer-friendly version]
Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans' fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" (video available here, relevant section at 2:45).
Whether he knew it or not, Clinton was going against virtually all press outlets that have been pointing fingers at Republicans since this crisis began, and likely much to the dismay of such folk actually agreed with a Fox News segment aired on Tuesday's "Special Report" (video embedded right):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
BRIT HUME, HOST: In the recent spate of government bailouts, buyouts and rescues, the federal takeovers of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arguably the biggest of them all. And those two firms are also arguably the biggest reason for the credit crisis in the first place. So the question arises -- how did this come to be? Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM ANGLE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There is one nagging question behind all the debate over how to get out of this mess.
CHRIS DODD (D-CT), SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE CHMN: American taxpayers are angry and they demand to know how we arrived at this moment.
ELIZABETH DOLE (R), NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR: My constituents, and indeed taxpayers across the nation are asking how we arrived at this crisis. It is infuriating.
ANGLE: But Senator Dole and others think they know the answer, and it's something the Senate tried to fix three years ago but was thwarted.
DOLE: To the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was made possible by weak oversight and little accountability.
MEL MARTINEZ (R), FLORIDA SENATOR: A lot of what we're dealing with today has its origins in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
ANGLE: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, backed by the federal government, buy mortgage loans from the lenders who make them. But four years ago, both were in trouble over shoddy accounting. Fannie Mae Chief Franklin Raines, President Clinton's former budget director, was fired. To placate those in Congress who watched over them, Fannie and Freddie promised to do more to help poor people get mortgages. That led them to buy riskier and riskier home loans from private lenders creating incentives for everyone to make shakier loans.
PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The problem is that they encouraged very bad mortgages to be made by banks and other institutions, because Fannie and Freddie would buy them.
ANGLE: Eventually, they bought trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, a substantial portion of them based on poor credit, then resold many of them to financial institutions who thought they were safe because the federal government was behind them.
WALLISON: As a result of this appearance that they were backed by the government, people never paid very much attention to the assets they were acquiring or the risks they were taking.
ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.
WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad -- these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.
ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, "We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANGLE: Which turned out to be exactly right, but because Democrats blocked it, those new regulations never got consideration by the full Senate and died. So that's how we got into this mess, and how we missed a chance to avoid it. Getting out of it now, of course, will be a lot more difficult -- Brit.
HUME: Oh, boy. Thanks, Jim.
Two days later, former President Clinton agreed:
CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?
BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Imagine that!
Kudos to Cuomo for asking the question, and kudos to Clinton for being so honest, especially in an election year.
The only question remains whether other news outlets will follow suit and begin telling the American people just how many proposals Republicans have made in the past decade to impose tighter regulations and oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and how such efforts were routinely thwarted by Democrats.
Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBuster
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/25/fox-news-blames-democrats-financial-crisis-bill-clinton-agrees
The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, for himself and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain on April 6, 2006.[1] After a "secret hold" was revealed and removed, it was passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and by the House on September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, 2006.[4]
On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Carper, Coburn and McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006
McCain blows Barry out of the water in terms of legislative accomplishments and bipartisanship
Yeah, it;s not like McCain has ever been involved in consensus building to pass legislation
oops.... campaign finance reform- bipartisan bill
oops.... bipartisan " gang of 14 " agreement on judicial appointments
And Barry on the other hand???
Has not authored any kind of legislation, much less reached across the aisle for anything- he votes 97% dem party line
The dems need repub cover/assistance to pass the bill. They won't go out on a limb in the case the bill has disasterous results. They won't do anyhting if it's not bypartisan. They need the reps- therefore they need McCain.
Again McCain is the alpha male and Barry is shown up for lapdog he is
Who is the bigger issue, Rick Davis or Jim Johnson?
posted at 11:20 am on September 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
I have to profess amusement at the media and the Barack Obama campaign in attempting to make an issue out of Rick Davis, one of John McCain’s advisers on the presidential campaign. Obama has been trying to cast McCain as a tool of lobbyists, and Davis has become Exhibit A over the last few days. At issue is whether Davis’ firm has taken lobbying money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last two years while Davis works for McCain, and whether Davis profits from the business. This began with a New York Times report on Sunday:
Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.
“The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae, who said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together paid Mr. Davis’s firm $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis “didn’t really do anything,” Mr. McCarson, a Democrat, said.
Shortly after that, allegations that Davis continued to profit from Fannie Mae connections into this year arose, prompting the McCain campaign to issue a sharp rejoinder:
Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.
In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.
Further, and missing from the Times’ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.
Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.
Well, let’s just say for the sake of argument that all of the allegations were true (they’re not), and that Davis continued to profit from his partners’ work with Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac. How exactly does this make Davis a villain? There is nothing illegal about lobbying, and Congress never bothered to block Fannie or Freddie from availing themselves of lobbyists. They had the authority to do so, as they demonstrated this summer after bailing both GSEs out.
And who got most of the attention from Fannie and Freddie? It wasn’t John McCain, who averaged $1,000 per year in contributions from Fannie/Freddie sources over the past two decades. Chris Dodd, the chair of the Banking Commitee, averaged $8,000 a year in contributions from those same sources. Barack Obama, though, set records. In less than four years in the Senate, he received more than $120,000 from Fannie/Freddie sources, at a rate of over $30,000 per year.
In 2006, McCain tried to move legislation with Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, and Elizabeth Dole — all Republicans — to bring tighter regulation and more oversight on Fannie and Freddie. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd took their money and did nothing to support that effort. Regardless of whether McCain relies on Rick Davis or not, Fannie and Freddie knew who their friends were, and made sure they invested in them.
Team Obama wants people to think Rick Davis is the villain of the Fannie/Freddie failure because he worked at a firm that did lobbying for them. Meanwhile, Jim Johnson busies himself working for Barack Obama and giving seminars on the lending industry:
Former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson was dumped from Obama’s vice presidential search team, but he’s still playing a behind-the-scenes role on the campaign.
Former Senator Tom Daschle, a top Obama backer, emailed a select list this afternoon that he and Johnson would be leading a briefing intended largely for Clinton’s campaign brain trust next month.
“Jim Johnson and I have scheduled another informal breakfast discussion and update on the campaign early next month,” he wrote to a list including Senator John Kerry, James Carville, and Richard Holbrooke, as well as Clinton’s former top campaign aides, including Howard Wolfson, Geoff Garin, and Harold Ickes.
Who is Jim Johnson? He’s one of the people behind its fraudulent business practices, as auditors discovered:
[Fannie Mae] failed to disclose to OFHEO in a timely manner a post-employment agreement with former CEO James Johnson that provided him with substantial compensation in addition to that already provided upon his termination as a Fannie Mae employee….
Shortly after the release of the September 2004 OFHEO report, an article in the December 23, 2004, Washington Post entitled “High Pay at Fannie Mae for the Well-Connected,” suggested that 1998 compensation for former Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson “was [reported to be] $6 million to $7 million a year,” in 1998. The total compensation in 1998 for Mr. Johnson was, in fact, substantially more.
An initial review of the 1999 Fannie Mae Proxy Statement “Summary Compensation Table” suggests the source of the Washington Post figure on 1998 compensation for Mr. Johnson. A close read of that proxy, including footnotes, shows that the Table itself listed only a small portion of the actual 1998 long-term compensation of Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson used a program available to only very senior Fannie Mae executives (Executive Vice President and above) to defer a sizable amount of earned Performance Share Plan shares. Fannie Mae disclosed in a footnote to the Summary Compensation table that Mr. Johnson deferred 111,623 shares; the actual value of the shares did not show up in the Summary Compensation Table.
Fannie Mae disclosed his compensation at the time as $2 million. The actual value of his compensation? Twenty-one million dollars. Why did Johnson and Fannie Mae hide that cost from its shareholders and government auditors? Nor was this his only peccadillo. As it turns out, while CEO of Fannie Mae, he took sweetheart loans from Countrywide Mortgage under a “friends of Angelo” program initiated by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo:
These borrowers, known internally as “friends of Angelo” or FoA, include two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of Countrywide’s mortgages, say people familiar with the matter.
One was James Johnson, a longtime Democratic Party power and an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign, who this past week was named to a panel that is vetting running-mate possibilities for the presumed nominee. …
There is nothing illegal about a mortgage firm treating some borrowers better than others. But if Fannie Mae officials received special treatment, that could cause a political problem for the government-sponsored, shareholder-owned company.
Its code of conduct, a spokesman said, “requires the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and prohibits acceptance of substantial gifts, including loans with preferential terms, from an organization seeking to do business with the company without prior review and approval by the company.” The spokesman said the code has been in effect since the early 1990s.
In other words, Johnson hid his compensation and broke his own rules at Fannie to profit at the expense of oversight. Countrywide was one of the main failure points in the sub-prime market collapse, and Johnson and Fannie Mae should have been watching it closely. He apparently had two million reasons to look the other way.
Now let’s compare Rick Davis, as painted by the media and the Obama campaign, and Jim Johnson. At worst, Davis may have recently and indirectly profited by lobbying performed by partners at his firm that made its value increase — lobbying welcomed by Barack Obama in his short tenure in national office to the tune of $30,000 per year in contributions. On the other hand, we have one of the chief architects of the massive failure in the credit markets, one with a clear record of unethical behavior, still actively giving economic advice to Obama, apparently designed to get Obama through a crisis he never attempted to stop and for which Johnson bears significant responsibility.
Objectively speaking, which of these matters most?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/who-is-the-bigger-issue-rick-davis-or-jim-johnson/
Schieffer: Paulson Pleaded for McCain to Save Bailout
Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
September 25, 2008 - 07:53 ET
* [Email this to friend]
* [Printer-friendly version]
So much for a "stunt."
John McCain got involved in the bailout negotiations after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday that the bailout plan would fail unless McCain came in and brought balky Republicans aboard. That's what Bob Schieffer reported on this morning's Early Show. Schieffer's account stands in stark contrast with the allegation by Dems like Barney Frank and their MSM cohorts that McCain's moves of yesterday were nothing more than a political "stunt."
Here was Schieffer speaking with the Early Show's Maggie Rodriguez at 7:05 AM EDT today:
BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.
Continued Schieffer . . .
SCHIEFFER: He has gotten what he wants, he's going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I'm told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this.
And that's where McCain comes in.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
[Recommend story on Digg.com]
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/25/schieffer-paulson-warned-bailout-would-fail-unless-mccain-got-invo
He's gonna front and center- he gets the deal done and will be active in shaping the bill tangentially, but his role will be in shaping consensus and getting it done
Whether it turns out to be a good thing is debatable- especially if the dems load it up with pork for their constituency.
Barry will be ( as usual ) a fringe p[layer.
O STUMPS AS JOHN TRUMPS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN McGANN
Posted: 4:08 am
September 25, 2008
FACING a postconvention fall in the polls, John McCain once again reshaped the dimensions of the race by suspending his campaign and calling for postponement of tomorrow's debate.
This bold move could have an impact on the race akin to McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Defensively, McCain had to act to stop the fall in his poll numbers.
Offensively, he has placed himself at the epicenter of the only issue on the national agenda - proactive action to stop a total international financial collapse.
Obama's response to McCain's initiative is lame. As with his initial reaction to Sarah Palin, Obama has miscalculated. While he tries to spin McCain's move as a mere response to his initiative, it was the Republican who first issued the call for a suspension of the campaigns.
Both McCain and Obama will now go to Washington. McCain on his own initiative. Obama as a result of the president's call for an economic summit.
But it is McCain who will play the proactive role. Obama will come to Washington, but will keep one foot outside the Beltway.
Even though the president has called both candidates to Washington to save the country, Obama continues to campaign. Politics as usual.
He doesn't want to cancel the debate. He would debate while the markets burn.
McCain is going to work while Obama is phoning it in.
Oddly, McCain and Obama agree on the bailout package. But it is only McCain who can pass the bill. Only McCain can deliver the administration and the Republicans.
McCain will be at the center of the process, managing it through to success while Obama lingers on the outskirts, irrelevant and uninvolved.
McCain will pass Barack Obama's bill (which parallels his own proposals), and will get the credit for it.
There are compelling reasons why McCain may be saving his campaign by this bold move.
McCain's entry into the legislative foray personalizes the economy issue.
As long as McCain stayed away from Washington, it was the Democrats against the Republicans. Polls give the Democrats the edge. But voters trust McCain personally more than they trust Obama to manage his way out of a crisis.
By showing up in Washington, McCain makes the issue personal, not partisan.
And the rescue legislation will pass. Washington has no alternative but to act. And it probably will work. The markets will calm down. The bailout legislation will have done it.
Including the Democratic amendments, it will become a fairly popular piece of legislation and it will have been McCain's bill. Obama can claim authorship, but it will have been McCain who will have brought the Administration into line.
Once the bill is passed, McCain will have the credentials to go on the offensive and warn of the impact of Obama's tax increases on the recovery.
Had McCain not acted, Republican opposition to big government might have doomed the economy and destroyed Republican hopes.
By going to Washington, McCain makes it imperative that the Republicans pass the legislation. His presence makes it an issue of party survival in a way that lame duck Bush could never do.
As Woody Allen said "half of life is just showing up."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/o_stumps_as_john_trumps_130637.htm
Interesting that you damn the public with " stupid is as stupid does " and in the same post think that that clown Letterman is gonna produce a big swing
The polls I have read show that Palin is doing great in pulling independents over.
Bottom line- McCain showed leadership in his decision. Just as with Georgia- he came out with a strong principled stand immediately while Barack hemmed and hawed and eventually agreed with McCain. Barry was gonna depend on a UN security council decision- not even realizing that Russia held veto power ( yeah McCain is really scared to debate him on foreign policy- NOT ).
McCain decided to go to Washington to deal with a serious crisis. Barry, in his typical passive/aggressive metrosexual style said " wellllll, if they really need me, I'll go "
Look at who had to backtrack and is going to Washington- Barry.
Hmmm, wonder if we'll hear about this all over the MSM???
Somehow I doubt it
Johnson to lead Obama briefing
Former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson was dumped from Obama's vice presidential search team, but he's still playing a behind-the-scenes role on the campaign.
Former Senator Tom Daschle, a top Obama backer, emailed a select list this afternoon that he and Johnson would be leading a briefing intended largely for Clinton's campaign brain trust next month.
"Jim Johnson and I have scheduled another informal breakfast discussion and update on the campaign early next month," he wrote to a list including Senator John Kerry, James Carville, and Richard Holbrooke, as well as Clinton's former top campaign aides, including Howard Wolfson, Geoff Garin, and Harold Ickes.
Johnson's involvement comes at a moment when political association with the failed mortgage giants is particularly toxic. He was already the subject of a McCain ad attacking Obama.
The October third breakfast is also a mark of the continuing effort to bring the ex-Clintonites into the Obama fold.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Johnson_to_lead_Obama_briefing.html
In the current financial crisis, only McCain is indispensible
Posted by: Bill Dyer at 2:00 AM
(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)
Hugh's summary of today's events, posted earlier tonight, is exactly accurate, and I agree with it all. With his, and your, indulgence, here's my own very similar (albeit far more wordy) take:
*******
A politician can declare that he is a leader. His political party can declare that he's a leader. And hundreds of thousands of acolytes around the world can swoon devotedly at his feet, and he can rack up all the trappings of leadership. But none of that in fact makes him into a leader if he actually isn't one.
Crises reveal, make, and define leaders. When the crisis is over, it's easy to recognize in hindsight who the leader was, even if there was some doubt as to that during the crisis itself. Looking back, we can recognize a leader because he's the one who the other potential actors and decision-makers actually followed.
I do not care what anyone says today, or what buffoons like Michael Moore said at the time: George W. Bush led through the ruins of 9/11/01 and kept us safe from further attacks on our soil for the seven years thereafter. However much nuance future historians may put on his two terms in office, that will be the one-sentence verdict of history as understood and remembered by the public. Well-educated eighth graders in 2088 will know that even if they know nothing else of his presidency.
More one-sentence verdicts which we also all know: Washington gave this nation its birth of freedom in the Revolutionary War. Lincoln saved it from self-destruction in the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt brought us recognition as a world power. FDR led us from Pearl Harbor through the defeat of fascist empires in Germany and Japan. Truman stood fast at the beginning of the Cold War. And Reagan won it.
Sometimes the one-sentence verdicts of history are not flattering. Grant, a great general, was an inept president unable to control corrupt cronies. Hoover lost the country's confidence that he could deal with the Depression. Carter collapsed when America was first confronted with radical Islamic terrorism. And Clinton, in a time of no particular external crisis, nevertheless let his ego and appetites rule him, in the process bringing shame to the Office of the Presidency.
*******
Now is a time of crisis too. I don't think it's remotely as great a crisis — not yet, anyway — as those mentioned above. But it's the biggest one we've faced since we were confronted with the immediate prospect of a humiliating defeat and surrender in the post-war occupation of Iraq.
John McCain shares credit, with Bush-43 and a far-sighted general named Petraeus, for surmounting that crisis too. And therefore it should be no surprise that when this one abates — when a deal is struck, a bill is passed and signed, the markets calm, and the nation gratefully exhales — we'll see that McCain once again put his campaign, his potential presidency, and his entire legacy at risk in order to exercise responsibility. And we'll see that when he did that, others from both parties followed.
I'm acutely aware of John McCain's many flaws and faults, and I have a list as long as my arm of mistakes I think he's made in the past and instincts that I think he needs to guard against in the future. He'll make more mistakes; he'll infuriate me and many others from time to time; he'll get some things wrong in the future, too. But I have no doubt whatsoever that John McCain is a genuine leader, one who other decision-makers will actually follow in a crisis — even if they're from the opposing party, even if they don't particularly like him, even if they're not at all sure that he's right and they're mostly just grateful he stepped up because it helps them cover their own precious butts.
When immediate action is essential, John McCain will act, and they will follow. And thus, in the present financial crisis in September of 2008, now that everyone agrees that immediate action is essential, John McCain is simply the one indispensable man in Washington.
It is vastly premature to try to predict the one-sentence verdict of history on a McCain presidency. But we can be entirely confident that it will not be: "He froze, he panicked, he ducked the responsibility, and he talked a good game but let precious and fleeting opportunities pass him and his country by."
Such is my prediction. I am on record. Amen.
*******
What's already abundantly clear in this crisis, however, without the need for any hindsight, is that Barack Obama has failed to lead.
Indeed, when the crisis engulfed them, those who've had the best first-hand opportunity since January 2005 to watch him try to do his job — his fellow senators, even the leaders of his own party who mouth the words about him being "the next President of the United States" and the hope of a new generation — didn't call a halt to everything and send out a plea for his personal presence in Washington. Their actions and in particular, this inaction, shows that they know in their hearts that Obama is no real leader. They know he's simply a well-cut, slick, but empty suit onto which the trappings of leadership have been projected. And when it comes to putting their own careers, their own modest places in history, on the line, they certainly didn't look to him for guidance.
The only reason for Obama's abrupt 180-degree pivot today was to provide his campaign and his party with a fig leaf: Now they can pretend that both his and McCain's presence and participation in Washington were essential to the striking of any deal. To do otherwise would be to cede the election to McCain outright.
Nevertheless: Except for the sole purpose of maintaining his campaign's dignity, Barack Obama is today the single most dispensable member of Congress.
That doesn't mean McCain will win in November. But it means that he should.
— Beldar
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/4a065fd1-b000-45cb-abf3-1a1c3ba5aacd
The Taranto Principle
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 9/25/2008 12:08:24 AM
WASHINGTON -- Years from now, in journalism schools, they will call it the "Taranto Principle." At least that is what they will call it, if they still have journalism schools years from now. In the future, the great republic may only have blog schools, those being schools where students are taught to sit in their underwear in front of their luminescent laptops and pound out semi-literate diktats to an -- for the most part -- unobservant world. The amalgamation of all this indignation is today called "The Blogosphere." Its competing rants are occasionally treated as significant in the media, though lunatics howling on street corners are not...very curious.
What is the Taranto Principle? It is a principle laid down by the Wall Street Journal's perceptive editorialist, James Taranto. Taranto, in his column "Best of the Web Today," surveys the media and reports daily on their output with special emphasis on their contradictions, hypocrisies and -- most deliciously -- imbecilities. Like all other thoughtful observers of American media, Taranto recognizes that they are heavily biased toward the Democratic Party and the left in general. Yet, while many who hold that this advances the Democratic Party and the left, Taranto believes that that it has a harmful effect on left-wing politics, often causing left-wing candidates to lose at the polls.
According to the Taranto Principle, the media's failure to hold left-wingers accountable for bad behavior merely encourages the left's bad behavior to the point that its candidates are repellent to ordinary Americans. According to Taranto, in 2004 the media quietly went along with Senator Jean-Francois Kerry's exaggerated claims to heroism and military prowess, thus encouraging his braggadocio and leaving him utterly unprepared when his fellow vets stepped forward and demonstrated that he had been a dreadful showoff in Vietnam. Officers who had fought alongside him served up evidence that his exploits were embellished and sometimes completely made up. They cast doubt on his medals and most damningly reminded us that in testimony on Capitol Hill Kerry accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes. The vets reproduced the video, video that any journalist could have laid hands on.
The vets' assault on Kerry is now called "Swift Boating" by left-wingers and journalists alike, who insist the vets' charges were "lies," though four years later it is apparent that the so-called lies composed an accurate rendering of blowhard Kerry's war record. Had the media treated his initial boasts with some skepticism, he might have been better prepared for the vets' response. The left-leaning media spoiled Kerry and brought out the worst in him to the revulsion of enough voters to lose him the election.
Now the Taranto Principle can be seen in the reporting on Governor Sarah Palin. As a former mayor and sitting governor, she has about as much experience as former President Jimmy Carter had in 1976. Moreover, she obviously has more executive experience than the Democratic presidential candidate. Yet the media have let her experience become a vexed issue. Worse, at the highest level of media she has been subjected to unwarranted scurrilities that are without precedent in a presidential election. Just the other night an idiot comedy show portrayed her daughter and husband in an incestuous affair. The consequence of this is that Governor Palin is running away with the women's vote and doubtless picking up sympathetic men also.
According to this variation of the Taranto Principle, the media circulate infamies that encourage leftists to confect greater infamies, thus causing the defamed candidate to cop the sympathy vote. That vote will have consequences in this increasingly bizarre election.
Meanwhile the press continues to treat the inexperienced and gaffe-prone Senator Barack Obama as though he is the next JFK. Among the howlers is the presumption that he is an orator of great gifts as JFK was an orator of great gifts. In truth, the Prophet Obama suffers one of the strangest oratorical disabilities I have ever seen in a presidential candidate, to wit: his dependence on the teleprompter. We know of politicians who depend on the teleprompter for fluency. Senator Obama, however, relies on a teleprompter so that he will not be heard talking down to the electorate. If he is not lecturing with his nose in the air he is all uhhs and ahhs. Perhaps if he had served as mayor in a small town he would have gotten over this revealing disorder.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13938
Gotta love the interviews with the Alaskans that hate her- meanwhile her approval rating is above 70% while the dem controlled Congress" is in single digits
Alcee Hastings: Anyone who hunts moose “don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks”
posted at 4:16 pm on September 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
From a man who’s no stranger to abject disgrace comes one of the purest examples of racial demagoguery we’ve seen from either side during this very long campaign, duly laughed at and applauded by the same group that worked so hard last week to get Palin disinvited from the anti-Iran rally. His party will love him for it, I assure you.
Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”
“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. Hastings, who is African-American, was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/24/alcee-hastings-anyone-who-hunts-moose-dont-care-too-much-about-what-they-do-with-jews-and-blacks/
Great move politically for McCain
IF the markets are melting, it's priority one to get them back on some semblance of normality
He's now put himself in the forefront in trying to find a solution. Barry has to go along
Do you really think McCain is afraid of debating Barry?? On foreign policy???
He's gonna mop up the floor with him ( Barry is just not very good w/o the teleprompter )
I guess you missed the part where McCain challenged Barry to 10 town hall type debates and Barry didn't man up to accept the challenge, huh?
----------------------------------------------------------------
PS
Friday Night [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Obama evidently sees no reason to suspend campaigning. A reader suggests:
If Obama insists on a Friday debate, he should debate Biden. They can
talk about coal, gun control, the vote on the Iraq war, inappropriate
political ads, etc.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Could Barack Obama have possibly found a more direct route to self-contradiction in the span of one sentence than this?
The security of our ally Israel is too important to play partisan politics, and it is deeply disappointing that Senator McCain and a few of his allies in Congress feel otherwise.
( Biden, the gift ((joke)) that keeps on giving )
As Yossi Melman suggests in Haaretz, Russia’s decision not to support another round of sanctions against Iran means that the sanctions regime will now collapse:
The UN’s sanctions on Iran have collapsed. That is the only conclusion one can draw from Russia’s announcement earlier this week that it is no longer willing to support the Security Council’s permanent members’ proposal for a new set of sanctions, the fourth of its kind, against Iran.
Melman is right, of course, when it comes to the UN. And one should bow to Iran’s incredible diplomatic skills. They have, after all, signaled to their Western interlocutors that they are ready to consider the “freeze-for-freeze” proposal–a deal where Iran would freeze enrichment in exchange for a freeze on sanctions. Their willingness to discuss this idea has gained them additional time for negotiations. And Russia’s veto has made that offer futile: Iran has obtained a freeze on sanctions without conceding anything. Now, emboldened by this turn of events, Iran will come up with a long list of pretexts and excuses to lengthen negotiations further.
In one fell swoop, two out of three potential instruments of pressure on Iran are gone. The Bush administration is not going to take action in its remaining four months–certainly not in the direction of a military action both Pentagon and State are likely to oppose. And the Security Council is blocked by Russia’s obstructionism. The EU is the only force that can now exact a high price from Iran–through tougher EU sanctions.
This would be the hour of Europe, then–the only power left to impose sanctions that can truly hurt. The EU has, to their credit, been making the right noises lately on Iran’s nuclear program. But don’t hold your breath: in a year of high energy prices and financial meltdown, no Western government is going to ask their companies to make further sacrifices. The road to nuclear weapons lieswide open.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions