Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMy bottom line on Friday's debate: Barack Obama failed to step up to the historic moment. He made perfunctory remarks about the massive banking bailout facing the political system, but he decided not to speak to the American people with anything resembling forceful honesty and clarity. McCain wasn't any better. Both men faced a gut check in their campaign and both of them flinched.
The explanation, I suspect, is that Barack Obama and John McCain know they are going to wind up voting for this outrageous package, probably sometime next week, so why pretend to be thinking independently? McCain had flirted with the idea that he could speak for the public's anger and reap big benefits for his troubled candidacy. Someone advised him not to go down that road. He folded.
Obama has offered critical comments on how the bailout should be redesigned for greater equity, but it seems clear he won't press the point. Left-labor groups are pushing Democrats to address the burdens of indebted Americans and the swooning economy with substantive measures. But party leaders are resisting - reluctant to slow down the bankers' bonanza with complicating issues.
Obama is standing on the establishment's side. In governing circles, this is portrayed as the "responsible" position. Responsible to whom?
Obama has real leverage in this political drama, but declines to use it. He's not president yet, just a young senator from Illinois. Why stick his neck out? If Barack Obama does become president (and I hope so), I predict he will come to regret that he missed this moment to be his own man..
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night's debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better."
http://tinyurl.com/49csf5
who won the debate?
WHO WON THE DEBATE?
obama won the debate. by two scores...by points and almost comfortable so...
OBAMA WON.
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:07pm
one down, three to go.
"he's so hung up on dignity...its frustrating to those of us looking for a killer soundbite"
some talking head on msnbc...
really? what does THAT say about the reliability of the punditocracy?
lol!
after the last 16 years...huzzah for dignity!!!!
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:11pm
We can't forget that the financial crisis was CAUSED by Republican policies and philosophy of deregulation.
Let REPUBLICANS attempt to clean up their own mess, and if the fail, then Democrats should step in and put this deregulation philosophy to rest permanently.
Obama CAN'T lead on the bailout without great political risk since he had nothing to do with the root causes and Republicans have not stepped up to the plate with anything other than a bailout for Wall Street.
I think the "guidelines approach" of Obama is smart, leaving him room to reject the package if it doesn't follow the guidelines.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/27/2008 @ 12:18pm
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:07pm – in part
WHO WON THE DEBATE?
There are currently 3 posts on Friday's debate on The Nation site by Katrina Vanden Heuvel, William Greider and Robert Dreyfuss. Each casts Obama's performance, at best, as a missed opportunity. If his most staunch supporters hold that oppinion, well you know the rest.
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 12:27pm
obama's playing it very smart. he doesn't want to push away moderate republicans or independents by sounding like he's *too* outside the establishment, or converseley, too inside the mindset of we Lefties. he already has the progressives and moderate democrats in the bag, so there's no need to say what they want to hear at the moment. he needs to sound, for lack of a better word, like he's normal and midwestern. and a friend of israel.
Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2008 @ 12:29pm
The debate was tepid considering the events of the week. Obama should have nailed McCain on the economy and he should have been relentless on McCain's complete lack of understanding of what was going on as well as his disgusting political ploy of using the bailout as media moment. He lied about suspending his campaign, he makes up stories and tells half truths on the events defining this moment.
McCain was for invading Iraq before George Bush after 9/11, he is a dangerous man in regards to international affairs.
Obama was confident well poised, however he needed to do more and he did not.
I think it was a a pretty even score, Obama won on the economy and McCain scored on his bogus Teddy Roosevelt thing.
About this the Teddy Roosevelt thing that McCain thinks he is resurrecting. It reminds me of the movie Arsenic and Old Lace, the film form the 40's with Cary Grant. The two sisters who kill men have this nutty brother who thinks he is Teddy Roosevelt. This how I think of McCain...
Posted by jeffe at 09/27/2008 @ 12:31pm
Greider, I'm sympathetic and felt Obama 'lost' for similar reasons, BUT I'm also sympathetic to Obama's plight, which amazingly comes down to NOT BLOWING IT.
He has the weight of world on him. Obviously -in my eyes- he knows of what you speak, deeply. But it's wiser on balance for him to rely on his most-developed skill set, the polite, calm, articulate, cool, the 'quiet force' demeanor. I too fear the downside of not connecting with redneckia, BUT trust me those same jerks would move quickly flip to fear darkie mode if he showed his colors!
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 12:31pm
Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2008 @ 12:29pm – in part
….he needs to sound, for lack of a better word, like he's normal and midwestern. and a friend of israel.
In contrast to actually being normal and midwestern.and a friend of israel.
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 12:35pm
McCAIN came across as a crotchety old sob. He gave new definition to the term "bully" pulpit. Obama's wide grins were a little much. He should tone those down a tad.
Posted by StayLeft at 09/27/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by Zero at 09/27/2008 @ 12:49pm - in part
...because our political class does not wish the broad public to grasp truth.
Tis true tis true
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 12:54pm
Surely, you're not surprised.
Would Obama be where is, if he spoke, say, John Edwards' lines about US poverty? Or echoed Kucinich on the trashing of the Constitution.
Get serious.
Posted by sloper at 09/27/2008 @ 1:09pm
Support for the bailout is at 24% !!
NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!!
What was this thread about anyway? Oh yeah, Greider thought Obama won the debate. Wow wee, that's news!!
NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!!
Support for the BAILOUT is at 24%!!
The approval rating lower is Bush's!!
Huh, lower than Bush's.... CONGRESS!! at 9%!!
Well pass the BAILOUT bill you chickenheads then watch what happens!!
NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!! NO BAILOUT!!
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/27/2008 @ 1:10pm
Yep our goose will be cooked by the money and power leeches on Capitol Hill... they're gonna sell us down the river, I have no faith in them. When given a chance to do either the right thing or what is demanded my Big Money, guess what does NOT get done? (A hint: the right thing) To my (and my wife's ) eyes neither looked very good, and I can't BELIEVE one of those two is going to be President. We're all f***ed, I tell you. I'm voting for Nader, at least my conscience will be clear. T'hell wit the two-party system. ..
Posted by ucnick at 09/27/2008 @ 1:17pm
What a shock, HAPP focuses his bluster-negativity on Obama.
AND Posted by sloper at 09/27/2008 @ 1:09pm
What does it say to you that the Nationers keep playing this tune?
Could be in-group extremism, the pull for mutual admiration from the standard bearers.
Anyway, IMO it's frozen in time and didn't help in 2000 or 2004.
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by Zero at 09/27/2008 @ 1:08pm - in part
I think Sean Penn had some good points to make...
Jeff Spicoli? It always amazes me when people think expertise in one area of endeavor automatically translates to expertise in other areas. While of course Mr. Penn is entitled to his views, I am in no way, shape or form required to afford them any credence.
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 1:19pm
Happy-When do they ever get into the kind of detail that you want during a debate?It would take hours to answer all those questions,if not days.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 1:22pm
Bush knew a lot about parting and baseball, for example.
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 1:22pm
Bush knew a lot about being rich, partying and baseball, for example.
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 1:23pm
Happy-It seems like all you want to do is remind us that Obama is a magic negro and the rest of your post is just meaningless filler.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 1:23pm
It always amazes me when people think expertise in one area of endeavor automatically translates to expertise in other areas.
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 1:19pm
yeah, just listen to john mccain talk about the economy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 1:25pm
what darla said......
obama did quite well. issues mean nothing.
he was calm and looked at the camera.
he could have been white!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 1:26pm
- And how it will turn Pakistan into an America-as-Shining Beacon-on-the-Hill just like the 1960s'-----Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 1:05pm
You mean sound like YOU guys on Iraq???
Why would he do something stupid like that?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 1:27pm
Fantasy Obama lines...
Yes John, it's true you're not Ms. Congeniality. Far from it. In fact, your temperament and shoot from the hip anger is a very serious concern across America and in particular with veterans.
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 1:31pm
Fantasy Obama lines...
Look, it's not a maverick but a professional politician, the ultimate incumbent that sways back and forth telling people what they want to hear. The big tough neocon one day and some sort of bipartisan the next. That's just tired old incumbent politics.
You tell the neocon's they can expect four more years. You tell others you'll work across the aisle.
I think it's impressive that you claim everyone as a friend, a friend of 35 years, whatever. How about Dick Cheney. Is he your friend, of course! And you've worked in lockstep with him as he and Bush have nearly wrecked our democracy. You're too late to these positions you're claiming to have any credibility.
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 1:42pm
Fantasy Obama lines...
All this severe talk on spending is straight out of the Carl Rove playbook. (Looking at camera) listen America, you heard this same garbage in 2000 and 2004. Remember, anyone questioning their power grab was unAmerican.
Well they sure grabbed the power and then they used it to corrupt our democracy. The rush to war, the huge giveaways to multinationals, running up the debt for generations, selling bonds to the Chinese while sounding nationalistic. You all know the truth. You know the reality. You know that a claim to country first should really mean something. And please, you know how to vote to give all of us a chance to repair the damage.
When you go to vote, just ask yourself if you're better off now. Is America better off?
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 1:55pm
HAPP, mmhmmm, and what does Obama's middle name mean to you?
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 1:58pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 1:25pm
yeah, just listen to john mccain talk about the economy
and Obama talk about capital gains tax
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 2:02pm
Happy-It seems that your response was pointless and you only responded so that you could remind us about Obama's middle name.In fact,all of your posts about Obama only mention that he is a magic negro and to tell us what his middle name is with the rest being meaningless filler.Some of the detail is on his site.Some of your questions can't be answered because war is an unknown.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 2:12pm
Dear SooHappy,
Enough with the "Magic" and "BHusseinO" references. All of the code words and feigned civility are a waste of time. Admit that you're afraid of Senator Obama because he's black, scream the N-word at the top of your lungs repeatedly, and get it out of your system. I'm hoping Senator McCain will do the same thing on-camera, so we can close out this election and begin the future ASAP.
Posted by Be Good at 09/27/2008 @ 2:17pm
"In contrast to actually being normal and midwestern.and a friend of israel."
exactly my point.
that's how conservatives think (backwards).
Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2008 @ 2:42pm
"In contrast to actually being normal and midwestern.and a friend of israel."
exactly my point.
that's how conservatives think (backwards).
So it is backwards to be normal, midwestern and a friend to Israel? I don't think articulating that view would result in greater support for Obama.
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 2:51pm
Happy-My Messiah isn't running for anything.Why did you believe that He was?Are you that uninformed?That was a very strange respone.I did not imply anything about Obama nor did "libs" say that one can know everything when one goes to war nor do I care what "libs" say..What I said was that you don't fight war on the cheap and I was correct.The military will put out estimates of troops deaths when they know who is CIC and knows what the exact plan is which can't be told right now because neither is POTUS and things will change by next Jan.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 3:05pm
What's matter, silly? Can dish out w/McBush, McSame, McInsane, McOld.....etc. but can't take it?
Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 2:49pm
Silly? Something's silly alright. Please note that I referred to the candidates as Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Name-calling is juvenile and used to mask a lack of maturity and ideas.
Also, there's no such thing as a "biological" or "genetic" American. All humans arrived here from elsewhere. McCain is not more biologically or culturally "American" than Obama. Your concern is not with international parentage, but parents from places where people generally have dark skin pigmentation (If Obama's father was from Scotland, would you hold it against him?). I take real offense at your trying to legitimize your racist viewpoint using scientific terminology.
Posted by Be Good at 09/27/2008 @ 3:23pm
HAPP, you choose not to explain what you perceive to be important about Obama's middle name.
For ex., McBush connotes "4 more years".
What do you mean to connote?
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 3:41pm
Bottom line, Imma leery of the Afghan War more so than the Iraq War, so, please tell me how much this Right War on Obama Time will cost, when it will end, how many Americans (no, I admit I'm not as concerned with Enemy Combatants) will die and what will Afghanistan look like as far as a `victory' looks like?
Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
We don't have a clue. Just playing it one day at a time. An extra 20,000 troops isn't going to cut it. Where does the manpower come from? Iraq? We are talking about losing the "war" in Afghanistan for several years before being able to establish a significant enoough troop presence to maintain control. Meanwhile, we are losing our paid for goodwill in Pakistan. Arm chair quarterbacking for politics.....Our true enemies are ramping up sensing we are staggering under squandered military campaigns, a squandered treasury, and an electorate that despises the power elite. I am predicting a continued rise in "terrorist" acts in the weeks ahead.
Posted by OneVote at 09/27/2008 @ 4:04pm
We can't forget that the financial crisis was CAUSED by Republican policies and philosophy of deregulation. Let REPUBLICANS attempt to clean up their own mess, and if the fail, then Democrats should step in and put this deregulation philosophy to rest permanently.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/27/2008 @ 12:18pm
Metteya, you couldn't be more wrong.
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders."
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people"
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' Source:
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 4:44pm
He's not 100% American...by paperwork, yes.....but sorry, biologically and genetically, that's just the fact...see last night's transcript when he mentioned Kenya!----Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 2:51pm
HAPP, what is the "genetic" qualification for being an "100% American"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 4:47pm
Source: NYT, September 30, 1999
I'm surprised the NYT hasn't written a follow-up to this prescient article from 1999. Actually i guess I'm not too surprised.
So, let's put the blame where it belongs, with Clinton and Raines, Obama's economic advisor. The Bush administration tried to rein in Fannie Mae in 2003, but was blocked by the Dems.
Let's face it, I've been surprised by the lack of activity by the Dems in Congress over this whole mess. After all, every time there is any hint of Repub misbehavior (Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, start of the war) the Dems have touched off committee investigations to "get to the bottom of it". With the current meltdown, i understand why the Dems are not interested in digging too deep, after reading this article.
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 4:58pm
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i admit to being a tad taken aback by the editorial response, which contradicts the popular response.
oh well. opinions and assholes, everyone's got one!!!
but i think the popular opinion is the best guage - thats who elects after all...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 5:30PM
Tis True, tis true
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 5:37pm
Twillie,
You are making a frequent error. You are introducing facts, and expecting them to sway a Democrat or two.
I am , and I suspect you are, just as apt to throw out a Republican bum as you would a Democratic bum. Find the facts and let the chips fall.
Dems don't work that way. They are much more prone to put up hefty walls to block out any facts or conditions that upset them, discredit their flock, or otherwise hurt their cause. Witness the left's positioning with regard to Rep. William Jefferson, Marion Barry, Ward Churchill, or fund-raising from Buddhist monks to name a few. Nah, lets shift the topic, go on the attack, or claim that everyone does it.
Now if Dems were to act like Republicans, they would start looking into the dealings within their own house. Dems, on their way to a Bush bashing bash hosted by ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, et. al., they might do some pub hopping and have a pint of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Clinton. They might even want to check out the congressional record to see who raised the red flags about the idea of granting no-down mortgages.
I say dig, dig, dig. Dig fast. See what comes up out of Fanny and Freddie.
But this won't happen. The party in power knows very well they might (note - I didn't say "will") uncover far more Donkeys than Elephants.
How odd that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are in the best position to be the diggers. They own oversee the graveyard and have control over the shovels.
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 6:00pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 6:00pm
Bush and the GOP Congress (2003-2006) being HELPLESS to stop them, right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 6:04pm
crtclthinker-You forgot to mention that twillie only gave those facts that backed up their view,but forgot to mention the years from 2003-2006 nor have any of you shown that the republicans had a plan that would have done anything.Get back to us when you guys have all the facts rather than selective facts.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 6:09pm
Greider:
"McCain had flirted with the idea that he could speak for the public's anger and reap big benefits for his troubled candidacy."
Yes. This is what anti-neocon Repubes, Jeff Rense radicals, hard core anti-government conservatives and others were pulling for. He must have got an earful of it Thursday. Of course he would try to have it both ways, which is why he would not answer Lehrer's pointed question, and is surely still trying to figure out how to both speak for the anger and 'do what is necessary even while not wanting to.
" Someone advised him not to go down that road."
Let's all say "Lieberman". The anti-bailout forces, if they could caucus, would include some real anti-Zionist Jew sentiment, justified, in my opinion, by evidence of a vast bold-faced conspiratorial manipulation (the evidence is in the Sign-uses, e.g., 9.11.01 -- 7 yrs -- 9.12.08 -- $700bln; narrates as one story, from "CLEAN BREAK" '96 =>PNAC => AEI/AIPAC/ Iraq ...post '06 SURGE => etc 9.12.08). The pattern of government/finantial institutions fi... --returning to the scene of the crime to sweep up the foreclosures, so ownership of the wealth has been transferred to government, business, military, and derivatives
He folded.
And necessarily. If not: 1. there goes his psychotic hate-Ahmadinejad smash for Zion;
2. there goes his psychotic pressure-on-Putin, who has acted rationally and honorably throughout the provocation of the West's muppets lies.
3. There goes vast outlays of missile defense, delusional star wars military spending, profiting Raytheon in Tuscan, you can bet.
And all 4. Foxhole theologian's Goddamnizers, yew betcha. McCain has had this done to him so much he never had a chance on this one. He comes into the room bent over
Posted by jones at 09/27/2008 @ 6:24pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 6:
Yup. Bush also couldn't get social security privatization passed (which, contrary to the myths being repeated ad nauseum by the left, would have privatized a small portion of SS, not the whole thing.) Being in power doesn't mean you get your way all the time.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 6:09pm
I just provided you with a boatload of facts. Why not address those, and we can move on to other facts, hmmm?
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 6:48pm
twillie-You posted the usual selective facts that we all like to post in order to back up our views.I've read stuff from both sides on this and both sides have presented a boatload of facts to back up their view.What that means is that it isn't as clear cut and simplistic as you people are trying to make it.I have no interest in who is to blame because I'm not partisan and there is tons of blame to go around.A republican is POTUS and republicans did have control of congress and the white house for three years.We can spread the blame around.That's, usually, the way it is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 7:42pm
Mr. Nobody and Maskdelta
"Get back to us when you guys have all the facts rather than selective facts."
You are right. At least partially. (Perhaps it is bad form to say that in a blog) People tend to focus on selective facts. I do that, and I venture to say that, you and everyone else does that.
What we can rarely do is have "all the facts". Nobody I know has time or the attention span for all the facts. We tend to (and should) sort through the facts and toss out the ones that insignificant, minimally significant, or unproven. Of course, items that turn out untrue... are not facts. The goal being to arrive at the essence of the problem in order to help us prepare to find a solution. The screw ups of the other guys are always easier to notice and deal with.
What does not help is all the primarily emotive rants and digs.
The whole lot of "them" clearly screwed up. But "We the People" (Right, left, center, rich, middle class and poor) screwed up too. We were asleep at the wheel. Too busy watching Paris Hilton, the Broncos, the Red Socks, What Not To Wear, Oprah, the X-box, and Dr. 90210.
Please feel free to help those of us who you consider "you people" to identify facts that you see are salient.
The good thing is that when you look at what is currently going on, we "you people" and you "you people" are actually working together to put pressure on the "those people".
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 8:40pm
Yes, twil, CT, it IS quite amazing that a DANGEROUS financial time-bomb was left....
almost unmentioned and put on the back burner by Bush for more pressing things like...
Terri Schiavo and trying to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court!
It's almost ...and I know this is impossible...like they didn't care!?!?!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 8:48pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 8:40pm
Salient fact: dems like to blame the issue on deregulation and Reagan, but fail to mention that Carter started the ball rolling with...if I remember right...the trucking industry and aviation(?)
Salient fact: dems like to blame the crisis on "predatory lenders" but fail to mention what you have pointed out...that Clinton pressured the mortgage industry to extend loans to people who couldn't afford them...and former Fannie Mae chief, Franklin Raines, is one of Obama's economic advisors.
Salient fact: the "predatory lending" got kicked off once again by Carter with his "community reinvestment act."
Posted by usc1 at 09/27/2008 @ 9:45pm
HusseinHappy can't explain even to himself his "logic". Xenophobia much?
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 10:09pm
Posted by usc1 at 09/27/2008 @ 9:45pm
Well crafted usc1. Easy to understand. Sound bite form. Kept the "tone" to an acceptable level. Good launch point for further research and fact verification.
Certainly better than the typical, and oh-so-informative item below.
Salient point: "Bush is stupid and was in office for 8 years so it must be his fault."
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 10:18pm
Watching the debates, my first reaction was that Obama blew it, he didn't go after McIdiot. But after sleeping on it, Obama won it hands down.
All that McCain had any success at was out yelling over Obama which made him look like a child throwing tantrums. McCains recourse was to talk louder into the microphone and bully his way, but he came off as a jackass trying to bully his way through a conversation.
Obama acted as an adult, and McCain acted like a child. You'd think after raising children McCain would know better, but evidently he's still stuck in his Navy days where he graduated 894 out 899.
He may have been to a lot of places in the world, but he hasn't learned a damned thing in all of those years. McCain's main theme is military spending , defense spending, military spending, defense spending and that's about it. As far as his conecern about veterans, he's screwed them at every turn.
His earmark thing, as I've pointed out before is B.S. McCain doesn't have to put earmarks into any legislation. Look how much money the state of Arizone gets in defense contracting. AZ is in middle of nowhere where testing bombs, tanks, helicopters, jets etc. mimics the middle east...at least as well as any other place in the U.S., that state gets a ton of defense contracts. Don't believe me, take a trip to Phoenix and see how many defense contractors have set up shop there.
McCain's state is the hub of guaranteed earmarks. He doesn't have to write in legistlation to get federal funding, it's built into the system. He's nothing more than a yes man who used to where the Navy Uniform. Now he's just a millionaire used car salesman pretending he's still one of the guys in the Navy.
The guy is a friggin fraud!! He's selling out wounded veterans!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:20pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 7:42pm
Hey, I'm OK with spreading the blame around. But reread metteya's post. He/she wanted to pin the mess SOLELY on the Repubs. Sorry, but that is not the case.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 8:48pm
It was not left on the back burner by Bush. His administration tried to reform Fannie Mae in 2003. They failed. The Dems blocked it.
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 11:01pm
In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.
Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on "deregulation." This is a canard. There has indeed been deregulation in our economy -- in long-distance telephone rates, airline fares, securities brokerage and trucking, to name just a few -- and this has produced much innovation and lower consumer prices. But the primary "deregulation" in the financial world in the last 30 years permitted banks to diversify their risks geographically and across different products, which is one of the things that has kept banks relatively stable in this storm.
As a result, U.S. commercial banks have been able to attract more than $100 billion of new capital in the past year to replace most of their subprime-related write-downs. Deregulation of branching restrictions and limitations on bank product offerings also made possible bank acquisition of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, saving billions in likely resolution costs for taxpayers.
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 11:09pm
As a result, U.S. commercial banks have been able to attract more than $100 billion of new capital in the past year to replace most of their subprime-related write-downs. Deregulation of branching restrictions and limitations on bank product offerings also made possible bank acquisition of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, saving billions in likely resolution costs for taxpayers.
If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 11:12pm
"If Barack Obama does become president (and I hope so), I predict he will come to regret that he missed this moment to be his own man.."
For God's sake, man, how in heaven's name can you say you hope that Obama becomes president and feel that he missed a moment to be "his own man"? Whose man is he in these missed moments, his paymaster's? I think that's clear enough. Believe me, I won't have to wait very long to regret that "he missed a moment to be his own man". What's especially regretable is that the American people are faced with the likelihood that this shmendrik will spend the next four years missing "moments to be his own man". That's what we need in a President, missed moments. I'd encourage you to vote for Nader but with a grasp of the kind you have we'd probably find you unconscious from the authenticity if you did.
Posted by john lowell at 09/27/2008 @ 11:13pm
He's not 100% American...by paperwork, yes.....but sorry, biologically and genetically, that's just the fact...see last night's transcript when he mentioned Kenya!
Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 2:51pm
I been working so hard Keep punching my card Eight hours, for what? Oh, tell me what I got I get this feeling That time's just holding me down I'll hit the ceiling Or else I'll tear up this town Tonight I gotta cut (Chorus) Loose, footloose Kick off your Sunday shoes Please, Louise Pull me offa my knees Jack, get back C'mon before we crack Lose your blues Everybody cut footloose You're playing so cool Obeying every rule Dig way down in your heart You're yearning, burning for some Somebody to tell you That life ain't passing you by I'm trying to tell you It will if you don't even try You can fly if you'd only cut (Chorus) Loose, footloose Kick off your Sunday shoes Oowhee, Marie Shake it, shake it for me Whoa, Milo C'mon, c'mon let go Lose your blues Everybody cut footloose FIRST - we got to turn you around SECOND - You put your feet on the ground THIRD - Now take a hold of your soul FOUR - Whooooooooa, I'm turning it Loose, FOOTLOOSE (Chorus)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 04:07am
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 11:01pm
Well, why didn't he try again in 2004?...or 2005?...or 2006?
And why did he waste time on "Social Security reforrm" and not on something that would cost us SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS??!??!?!
By the way, how is it that "Bush saw the financial crises coming, but the Dems stopped him"....but he DIDN'T see the need for the Surge until 2006???!??!?
Oh, and do you REALLY think people outside of the 28% Club (who still support Dubya) are going to buy this revisionist history?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 08:59am
Confession Time.
I know a lot about some things, but I am fairly ignorant with respect to economics in general. But I do cook, so I know that sub-prime refers to a cut of beef that is not well-marbled.
I also do not know how many husbands Liz Taylor had, who won America's Next Top Model, or who is NFL's all-time best pass-rusher. But I can quickly Wiki or Google that stuff.
All the complex economic mumbo-jumbo is just not my cup of tea. I expect the politicians and overeducated Harvard types to keep us out of this mess. A bit naive.
Meanwhile, now here I sit, commoner that I am, trying to sort it all out.
I am smart enough to note worthy points.
Reading the blogs here and hunting around, I found a couple interesting and understandable articles that others here may wish to read.
At a conservative site (Heritage) - "The Democrat Majority's Fuzzy Logic" at http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/26/the-democrat-majority's-fuzzy-logic/
At a socialist/liberal site (Counterpunch) - "Democrats and Corporate Bailouts" http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon09252008.html
I'm sure somewhere out there, there are well-written, easy-for-a-commoner-to-comprehend , rational, fact-focused articles (non-emotional, vile-spewing, Bush hating rants) that articulate follies by the right. When I search for such articles, I keep running into either froth-at-the-mouth, loaded word, sputum, or Wall-St-Geek-Speak. Very hard to sort through all that.
Still looking
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 09:50am
"By the way, how is it that "Bush saw the financial crises coming, but the Dems stopped him"....but he DIDN'T see the need for the Surge until 2006???!??!?"
Who says "Bush saw the financial crisis coming"? Bush saw a government sponsored enterprise, that had been involved in accounting irregularities, entering into dubious territory. He tried to correct it. he failed.
"Oh, and do you REALLY think people outside of the 28% Club (who still support Dubya) are going to buy this revisionist history?" Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 08:59am
Revisionist? The NYT article predicted trouble with FM in 1999. That trouble is here and now. Why doesn't the NYT do a follow-up article to that one ? The facts were there, they were ignored. The presentation of these facts now is not revisionism. It does make it inconvenient for shameless lefties to pawn it off on Bush and those evil neo-cons (the new favorite boogeyman of the left.)
Posted by twillie at 09/28/2008 @ 10:19am
Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 1:52pm
You are turning into a caricature.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 11:26am
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/28/2008 @ 09:50am
It would help, in addition to actually trying to live up to your chosen name, to provide accurate information. For example, the Counterpunch article you link to is called, "The Timebomb Who Would be President" not "Democrats and Corporate Bailouts".
It also misses the fact that these articles are about including Democrats in the culpability - since the culpability of Republicans is assumed.
"These Democratic Party powerbrokers have certainly been privy to the inner workings of the financial feeding frenzy that has unfolded on Wall Street over the last two decades and are as complicit as any Republican in enabling the same firms now being bailed out with taxpayer dollars. It could also be argued that their liberal rhetoric is a key component of the selling job now needed to contain a popular revolt against the unbridled greed that has brought the U.S. financial system to the brink of collapse."
Critical Thinker, indeed. It does have a nice Orwellian doublespeak to it. I'll give you that.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 11:34am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person
the prtnts twt should buy a vowel. or two
Posted by emile duBois at 09/28/2008 @ 12:03pm
Revisionist? The NYT article predicted trouble with FM in 1999. That trouble is here and now. Why doesn't the NYT do a follow-up article to that one ? The facts were there, they were ignored. The presentation of these facts now is not revisionism. It does make it inconvenient for shameless lefties to pawn it off on Bush and those evil neo-cons (the new favorite boogeyman of the left.)
Posted by twillie at 09/28/2008 @ 10:19am
Top subprime issuers in 2003
Market share '03 (billions) Change from '02 Ameriquest 15.1% 30.7 244% New Century 9.1% 18.5 154% Lehman/SASCO 9.% 18.2 71% GMAC-RFC 7.2% 14.7 28% Option One 6.5% 13.3 55% CS First Boston/ABSC 6.20% 12.6 20% Countrywide Financial 5.8% 11.7 135% Chase Mortgage Finance 3.6% 7.3 79% First Franklin 3.5% 7.1 110% Washington Mutual 3.2% 6.5 10% Novastar Mortgage 2.9% 5.9 260% WMC Mortgage 2.4% 4.9 300% Citigroup 2.2% 4.5 NA Household Financial 1.9% 3.9 -52%
FANNIE MAE 1.9% 3.9 -16%
Fremont Investment 1.5% 3.1 304% CDC Mortgage Capital 1.5% 3.0 81% Equity One 1.3% 2.7 63% C BASS 1.2% 2.5 29% Morgan Stanley 1.2% 2.5 9% Saxon Mortgage 1.2% 2.4 13% Terwin Advisors 1.1% 2.2 NA Centex 1.1% 2.2 2% Goldman Sachs 1.0% 2.0 -46%
Accredited Home Lenders 1.0% 1.9 160% Total for the top 25 92.8% 188.2 73% Total for all issuers 100.0% 202.9 51%
≤≤≤≤≤≥≥≥≥≥
FANNIE MAE
1.9% market share
3.9 billion
-16% change from '02
sure, they repackaged. but ultimately a bit player.
blame the republicrats and the democans for this mess.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 12:55pm
Posted by twillie at 09/28/2008 @ 10:19am
Interesting comparison...
You say Bush only say "dubious territory"...
but in 1999, the NY Times "predicted trouble in the FM" and "The facts were there, they were ignored."
So either Bush wasn't THAT concerned (more concerned to fly back to DC to weigh in on Bill Frist's "remote diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo) and trying to privatize Social Security...
or he never read the New York Times!
LOL
Again, you guys really think you're going to convince people to just let Bush 'walk away' from his legacy blameless??!??!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 12:58pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 11:34am
I was wrong here. You did give it the correct title. You didn't, however, share the fact that the argument is that Democrats shared culpability rather than owned it. Perhaps it was an oversight.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 1:08pm
FZ:
"If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them. By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans."
"If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing? The answer was their affordable-housing mission. So it was that, beginning in 2004, their portfolios of subprime and Alt-A loans and securities began to grow. Subprime and Alt-A originations in the U.S. rose from less than 8% of all mortgages in 2003 to over 20% in 2006."
"In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse."
Let me emphasize for you, FZ: THEY BECAME THE LARGEST BUYERS OF SUBPRIME AND ALT-A MORTGAGES BETWEEN 2004 and 2007.
Again, you guys really think you're going to convince people to just let Bush 'walk away' from his legacy blameless??!??!?? Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 12:58pm
Let me break it down for you: There. is. lots. of. blame. to. go. around. If you attempt to pin it all, or mostly, on Bush, you will earn the utter contempt of anyone on this blog who respects the truth.
Posted by twillie at 09/28/2008 @ 6:13pm
Every time I see Chris Dodd in television, for some reason I think of molluscs. All species of the phylum Molluscs have a complete digestive tract that starts from the mouth and runs to the anus.
Posted by sntauri at 09/28/2008 @ 6:48pm
"It was not left on the back burner by Bush. His administration tried to reform Fannie Mae in 2003. They failed. The Dems blocked it.
Posted by twillie at 09/27/2008 @ 11:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
Rubbish. H.R.2575 died in committee, a committee run by Republicans. In 2003, the Republicans had just come off a mid-term election where they had actually gained seats--having a 229-204 majority. It seems rather clear that this legislation didn't get anywhere because the Republican leadership, even at the committee and subcommittee level, wasn't interested in it. The Senate counterpart didn't get out of the Republican-run committee either.
Further, much of the legislation consists simply of moving control of these GSEs from HUD to Treasury. The phrase "by striking `Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development' and inserting `Federal Enterprise Supervision of the Department of the Treasury" occurs a great deal. In fact, it even had a provision keeping the director of the HUD division on until his term expired.
Finally, I would be obliged if you could give me any indication that Bush's White House did any lobbying in support of the bills in question.
Posted by brunowe at 09/28/2008 @ 7:53pm
If you attempt to pin it all, or mostly, on Bush, you will earn the utter contempt of anyone on this blog who respects the truth.----Posted by twillie at 09/28/2008 @ 6:13pm
Really?
You think DARING to lay a large percentage of the blame on Dubya, on the "The Nation" blog is going to earn me contempt?!?!?!?
or with the 70% of the ENTIRE UNITED STATES who think he's doing a lousy job?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 9:01pm
It seems rather clear that this legislation didn't get anywhere because the Republican leadership, even at the committee and subcommittee level, wasn't interested in it. Posted by brunowe at 09/28/2008 @ 7:53pm
I guess you're wrong.
"In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent." From wsj online, cited above
"You think DARING to lay a large percentage of the blame on Dubya, on the "The Nation" blog is going to earn me contempt?!?!?!?"
Yeah, I do. From anyone who cares about the truth, liberal or conservative. And what do Bush's approval ratings have to do with the truth?
Posted by twillie at 09/28/2008 @ 9:20pm
It seems like we have a little bit of "two ships passing in the night." What many posters are claiming, and has NEVER been responded to, is that Democratic administrations and Congressmen possess at the very least a substantial degree of culpability for what has happened. Though posters like Mask have made fair criticisms of Bush for ignoring the problem, it's important to note that NO ONE has answered the fundamental claim: Democratic housing initiatives helped to CREATE the problem. Again, with limited economic understanding, I don't claim this position definitively, but I do think it's interesting that NO ONE has responded to it.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2008 @ 10:05pm
"All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it."
Since the Republicans were in a majority at the time, how exactly did the Democrats stop this legislation by voting against it.
Posted by brunowe at 09/28/2008 @ 10:10pm
And what do Bush's approval ratings have to do with the truth?-----Posted by twillie at 09/28/2008 @ 9:20pm
That "the truth" isn't what 28% of the country thinks of him...which is you.
You're not going to "redeem" Dubya with "He tried, he REALLY tried" b.s. that has no true reality to it. If financial reform was as important to him as you claim, he would have DEMANDED it in every State of the Union.
This is all revisionist history and partisanship from folks who see the end coming and the replacement of Jimmy Carter with George W. Bush as one of the worst Presidents in modern history.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 10:40pm
Jimmy Carter
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 10:40pm
But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.
One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.
Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.
We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.
If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.
We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:07am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 12:07am
FROST, you can debate the VIRTUES of Jimmy Carter....but even if you wish to absolve him of blame, the fact is that in the post-Hoover 20th Century, no Presidency was worse than Carter's. The economy sucked, Soviet expansionism was in full-swing, and 400 hostages were held by a bunch of militant thugs. Even Johnson with a disaster in 'Nam, had a roaring economy (if you wish to be cold-hearted about it).
But, if you like, Carter atleast has now been surpassed in terms of total damage and total failures by Dubya.
The Right may try, but I don't see anyway they spin Dubya up from the low 30s, even with 20-30 years to attempt it.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 09:05am
just sayin' mr. carter was prescient about energy policy.
and that is THE issue today.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 11:18am
Time to move on. And BTW, I see no one responded to Thrawn.
Posted by twillie at 09/30/2008 @ 9:39pm