UPDATE: Looks like YouTube banned the previous video claiming copyright infringement by Time Warner Group for the background music. I wonder why…
September 26th, 2008 11:38 am
September 18th, 2008 8:40 pm
Let’s just take stroll down memory lane and see who was doing what in Washington, oh say, about 5 years ago….
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
Remember this when Democrats try to blame President Bush and Republicans for the current economic fiasco.
And if that’s not enough, how about this:
Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.
Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.
A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.
Hope and change, my friends… hope and change.
Now remember, he’s only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn’t afford them
UPDATE: Since the media seems unconcerned with Obama’s affiliations with domestic terrorists and convicted criminals, maybe they’ll ask a few questions about Obama’s ties to the mortgage/financial crisis:
Don’t hold your breath, though…
UPDATE 2: More from Bloomberg:
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that’s worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
September 2nd, 2008 10:25 am
Ever since John McCain announced Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Democrats have been running around talking about inexperience. Not really a subject the Democrats should be putting front and center in their campaign that features a candidate at the top of their ticket who’s biggest accomplishments are “community organizing” and a speech in 2002.
Nevertheless, experience is suddenly an issue for them in the campaign as they attack Palin’s experience… which happens to be more executive experience, and more experience on energy and troop command than either of the two guys on the Democrat ticket.
And the MSM is also suddenly concerned about experience in the Presidential race… and in their breathless support of their Democrat candidates they’re trying to paint the Presidential matchup as being between the Republican VP nominee and the Democrat Presidential choice - because they know John McCain has more experience than Obama has years on this earth.
It’s ironic that they’re questioning the McCain/Palin ticket because the V.P. might not be ready to lead this country, while they’re supporting a ticket where the TOP of the ticket is equally, or more, ill-equipped to lead the nation.
But it seems even the Democrat candidates themselves are trying to, subconciously or not, confuse the American public as to who’s actually at the top of their ticket.
Here’s Joe Biden this weekend:
“I will be back, I’ll be back to campaign in earnest,” Biden said, “but today is not the moment for me to campaign. Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what’s happening down there” in the Gulf Coast.
And here was Obama introducing Biden as his running mate:
“So let me introduce to you the next president…
Maybe they figure they’ll catch some folks not paying attention who will vote for the Biden/Obama ticket. Then again, they think their base is made up of idiots, so it might work.
UPDATE: Obama responds to the issue that McCain’s VP choice actually has more executive experience than he does by claiming that his running for President makes him more qualified to be President. Huh?
“Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years. Uh, and certainly, in terms of, uh, the legislation that I’ve passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak indicates to extent to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.”
As Ed puts it:
By that standard, anyone who ever ran for any public office has executive experience — and that also kills their own experience argument against Palin anyway.
It is interesting, though, that everytime the Democrats refer to Palin’s executive experience, (aside from forgetting that the highly experienced John McCain is running against Obama at the top of the ticket) they point to her experience as a Mayor of a small town and completely ignore the fact that she’s been governor of a state for several years. And the motive is obvious.
August 29th, 2008 9:33 am
It’s now confirmed that John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Here’s her bio on wikipedia.
This was a smart pick on a number of levels. It shows the McCain camp has been listening to conservatives. Palin is a strong conservative candidate. She’s a reformer who even took on some in her own party and cleaned up governement in Alaska. She’s a member of the NRA and pro-life. She supports drilling in ANWR and she’s a tax reformer.
It exploits the opportunity created by Democrats in their snubbing of Hillary Clinton. A side benefit might be that while she’s a great public speaker and will hold her own in the debates, you’ll see a big contrast between her and bitter Biden. If he attacks too hard, it could cost him points with female voters.
She’s also a Washington outsider. If people are looking for hope and change from the status quo of Washington, D.C., she brings more credibility than either of the insiders on the Democrat ticket.
It also takes some of the hype off of the Messiah’s campaign in that this election will be historic if either side wins now. The timing of the announcement is great, too. Coverage of the pick is overshadowing the MSM’s lovefest for Obama in some respects. (Though they’re trying hard not to let “news” get in the way of their salivation over The One.)
It also brings youth to the ticket. Of course, CNN is already claiming she’s too inexperienced… which is wildly amusing considering the “experience” of their candidate of choice. But consider this… of the 4 principles on the two main party tickets, she’s the only one with executive experience.
Good job, McCain campaign.
UPDATE: So let’s think about this. While the Democrat Convention seemed to focus so much on women’s rights and breaking glass ceilings… which party has a woman on the ticket? HotAir has a good roundup of the benefits of the Palin choice.
UPDATE 2: Once again showing that they’re long on talk and catchy slogans and short on substance when it comes to treating women with equality, the next Democrat talking point, as promoted by CNN, is that by running for V.P., Palin’s neglecting her son, Trig, who was born with Down’s Syndrome. Of course, if she were a Democrat, they’d be praising her “progressiveness” and running supporting stories of how her disabled son serves as an inspiration for her political career. Sorry, sweetie.
August 28th, 2008 6:58 pm
August 24th, 2008 2:40 pm
In an effort to show that Barack Obama wants to change Washington, D.C. from being run by old, white D.C. insiders, he announced yesterday that he was selecting an old, white, D.C. insider as his running mate.
And what does the old, white, D.C. insider think of Barack Obama for President?
Stephanopoulos, to Biden: “You were asked: ‘Is [Barack Obama] ready?’ You said, ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’”
Biden: “I think I stand by the statement.”
If his own running mate doesn’t think he’s ready or has the experience, why should the voters?
The best that Obama’s running mate can muster to say about him is that he’s the first “clean” black candidate. That ought to win over some swing voters.
But don’t worry. Biden wasn’t just targeting Obama with the “clean” comment… apparently he’s an equal opportunity racist. (Though the NY Times now thinks being a racist is a “strength” - I kid you not)
August 4th, 2008 7:47 pm
Here’s another example of why Democrats can’t be trusted on… well, anything.
John Kerry is on the campaign trail trying to sell the benefits of candidate Barack Obama by attacking Obama’s opponent as “dangerous“…
For his part, Kerry was deeply critical of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. “He doesn’t get it,” Kerry said. “He’s even dangerous, I think, for the direction of this country.”
What makes this statement so ridiculous is the fact that this “dangerous” guy was courted by John Kerry himself as a running mate just 4 years ago.
John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly and personally asked Senator John McCain, the independent-minded Arizona Republican, to consider being his running mate, but Mr. McCain has refused, people who have spoken to both men said Friday.
Mr. Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, made his first direct overtures to Mr. McCain about three weeks after locking up the Democratic nomination in March and approached him again, in person or by telephone, as many as seven times, as recently as last week, according to one person who has discussed the issue with both.
So if we’re to believe John Kerry, he’s either slandering a man he thought was qualified to lead this country not so long ago to score political points for his party in the current campaign…
…or he’s admitting that he wanted a running mate who was “dangerous” for the direction of this country.
Either way, his word appears to be about as good as a Clinton wedding vow.
July 24th, 2008 9:53 pm
Face it, there’s a liberal bias in mainstream media. The actions of the New York Times this week in publishing an editorial for their darling, Barack Obama, while initially refusing to do so for John McCain is just the latest evidence. In addition, McCain is getting the standard election-cycle treatment by the media, enjoying 1 minute of coverage for every 3 minutes for Obama… to say nothing of the fact that much of that single minute is negative coverage to boot.
Of course, the liberal media defends itself with claims that the “liberal” charge is merely an unsubstantiated rightwing talking point. They also casually dismiss the charges by claiming Obama is simply “more newsworthy“. They want us to think that Obama’s “historic” campaign is the bias-neutral reason for the slanted coverage, yet the coverage has been slanted for many campaign cycles, so there’s got to be another reason. Unfortunately for them, it’s the reason that undermines the credibility of their profession. Bias, plain and simple.
- The amount of money “journalists” contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans.
- 235 journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
- Other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
- Discounting contributions to Paul and Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain) - a ratio of 100-to-1.
And it’s not even like the Democrat candidates need these overwhelmingly lopsided campaign contributions, because the very people making such donations are responsible for providing hours and hours of free, positive campaign coverage for the candidates anyway.
It’s not bias… it’s, it’s… deliverance!
July 2nd, 2008 7:35 pm
While the world waits for Democrat John Murtha to apologize to soldiers he accused of “killing Iraqi civilians in cold blood” now that they’ve been fully exonerated, up pops another Democrat, Wesley Clark, attempting to diminish John McCain’s military service, saying McCain’s military service lacks the requisite “executive experience” to qualify him to become Commander-in-Chief. Of course, he makes these comments in an attempt to bolster the campaign of the candidate he supports, Barack Obama, who not only lacks said “exeutive experience”, but lacks even a day of military experience.
As usual, the Democrats show their utter lack of respect for military service, while simultaneously trying to claim they’re actually showing respect for the very soldiers they attack. But this shouldn’t come as any surprise. Hell, the Presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2004 was a man who accused his fellow soldiers of unspeakable war crimes while they were still in harm’s way.
And speaking of John Kerry, it wasn’t so long ago that Wesley Clark was praising his military service in Vietnam as qualifications for the White House.
John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.
He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.
John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too.
John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. And John Edwards with his leadership and extraordinary intelligence, he’s going to be a great member of that command team.
John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares.
John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.
What a difference a campaign cycle makes. When confronted with his inconsistency, Clark showed his true colors in trying to explain it way…
ROBERTS: But when it comes to that same type of qualification, you were very robustly behind John Kerry’s military experience…
ROBERTS: … in your speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, where you talked about his experience of being there under mortar fire.
ROBERTS: And let’s listen to the way that you summed that up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLARK: John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: So, you said it’s what we need in a commander in chief. And I’m wondering how different was John McCain’s experience from John Kerry’s?
CLARK: Well, a lot, because John McCain basically served honorably and well in uniform. He did everything the country could have asked.
What John Kerry did is John Kerry got out of the uniform. He took a judgment, a judgment I didn’t agree with at the time, but he had the moral courage to stand up for himself and oppose the conflict in Vietnam.
As John Hindraker correctly points out, “So Kerry’s military experience was better than McCain’s because after serving for four months in Vietnam, he returned to the U.S. and falsely accused his fellow servicemen of being war criminals.”
That sounds about right for a Democrat.
March 6th, 2008 7:46 pm
Lifetime of experience…
As AP says:
“…does flying jets over Vietnam and spending 20 years in the Senate really compare to picking out drapes for the White House and doing air kisses with Suha Arafat? Don’t sell yourself short, Hillary.”