For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Sarah smiles!
The media spin is on, and despite Sarah Palin's fabulous performance last evening -- she's receiving an A- rating from NBers compared to B- for Biden -- the usual suspects in the press are giving Joe the nod. What a surprise.
Regardless, how big of a night was this for the McCain campaign? Can her performance stop the recent bleeding which started with the implosion of the credit markets? Or do vice presidential debates have little impact, and McCain is going to have to do something himself now to get things back on track.
Comments Policy
Palin....
October 3, 2008 - 09:30 ET by pwozForget "Barracuda". Palin's new nickname should be "The Bus Driver" because she took Hairplugs McGaffe to school!
biden got schooled
October 3, 2008 - 09:44 ET by play21cwbiden got schooled
I will let this out now that phase 2 is in play
October 3, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Lame CherryI ask people to remember John McCain lecturing Barack Obama on the difference between strategy and tactics, because for those who think Gov. Palin has been hidden away I will let you in on a few things.
Gov. Palin has been appearing to local crowds as in 60,000 people lining up for blocks. Gov. Palin was deliberately baiting Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, to which Gov. Palin being on point has now drawn out the cocktail crowd like Letterman into a frenzy of filth in exposing who they are.
Joe Farah today published on WND how this 2008 campaign has been the end of the fossil media.
If you notice Mark Halprin (sp) now whining about McCain needing to be the happy warrior as John McCain is kicking the stuffing out of the press and booting Mo Dowd off his flight, that is what winning looks like in strategy and mission.
Sarah Palin invaded Normandy last night after receiving a London Blitzkrieg from the Nazi Obama press........and guess what she has smiling Joe Biden joining the McCain Palin campaign as this was planned a long time ago to exploit the Obama Biden rift.
Do not think John and Sarah are just sitting around. They are hunters. McCain quotes the hunter poem and Sarah hunts. They know this business and are conducting themselves exactly as they need to.
I applaud McCain in finally kicking the stuffing out of the press and taking Obama to the woodshed. People like Chris Matthews might get suckered by Biden using his dead family for votes in crocodile tears, but Biden plans that too as he bawls on Clinton cue allot to "soften his image".
Sarah Palin could have cried too about Trig, could have cried about her ex brother in law who was going to murder her dad, could have cried about the ex bro in law going to murder her in threats, but she doesn't stoop to gimics.
Sarah Palin is a Field General and she implements strategy and tactics so far ahead that the liberal press missed it and so did all bloggers.
I only reveal this part now as Obama can not do a thing about it now as they have spent their resources and now are reacting fearfully wondering what John and Sarah have planned next to pole axe them.
I will only let this slip out. John McCain from the start of this has only gone on missions of devastation on the Obama campaign. There is no probing. When he comes, he takes off Obama's head and outflanks him shearing a decimated 10 percent (that is what it means Chevy Chase) off of Obama.
That is what Sarah Palin accomplished last evening by God's Grace.
They are coming again, and again, and again and again for a continuous supply of surprises for Obama who has absolutely no defense and Joe Biden just joined the McCain Palin team last night along with a host of Democrats.
The BBC on Wednesday night ran a story on Democrats for McCain and how McCain was winning that state as those Dems will not vote for Obama.
Don't get your information from the press in America as they are not bright enough to understand a military campaign.
Big John and Sarah are coming and to quote Patton it is going to be like the 3rd Army going through a goose.
God bless
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Just My Two Cents, But ...
October 3, 2008 - 09:35 ET by TakeaRightThat's two big national appearances for Sarah, and two home runs. I think the campaign would be well served to let her loose in as many appearances as possible.
She's the one who connects with the people.
Good job, Sarah, we're proud of you.
Wake Up John McCain
October 3, 2008 - 09:50 ET by GothampcShe really does connect with the people and McCain needs to realize that.
I think the McCain camp is so worried that she'll make a huge mistake, but she really is humble enough to say "I've made a mistake and I've learned from it."
Reverse the ticket
October 3, 2008 - 09:38 ET by iveseenitallIt should be Palin/McCain! She is a rising star!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Not a McCain fan, but----
October 3, 2008 - 09:41 ET by misterbillNot a McCain fan, but----I felt that Sarah , based on 100 points, won 65 of them. She was calm under fire. Whether she just learned some of the answers or not she was spot on 90% of the time. She was far more gracious in pointing out differences whereas Biden was on that attack nore often. Also, I am not knowledgable enough to have caught it, but this morning's news exposed a lot of gaffes by Biden.
If she did indeed , just learn some of the answers, then she is a quick study and that is the kind of mind needed in key positions.
Lastly. I wasn't sure if Biden's smile was sincere or if he was showing off his caps.
PS I must admit Ifill was reasonably neutral. I felt she did a good and fair job--to my surprise.
REASONABLY neutral ...
October 3, 2008 - 10:05 ET by Meanderingis right. She did better than I expected, but there were a few times she cut Palin off right when she was on a roll. She was hitting Biden and Obama with good solid topics and in the middle of it all Ifill stops her and said we have to go on, but Palin being the classy lady that she is acknowledged it and let it go. So Ifill did do a good job, but that and the gay marriage/rights issue was a weird question to ask VP's and should have been a home run for Biden, but Palin came out the victor on that topic sticking to her guns and beliefs and not appoligizing for them. Biden did a good job not correcting Palin on the General's name, which impressed me. Overall Ifill was fine, but you could still see her Obama loving ways.
So Ifill did do a good job,
October 3, 2008 - 10:39 ET by Dan The Man 2So Ifill did do a good job, but that and the gay marriage/rights issue was a weird question to ask VP's and should have been a home run for Biden, but Palin came out the victor on that topic sticking to her guns and beliefs and not appoligizing for them
I loved it when Ifill asked her if she was for Gay marriage and she said a marriage was between a man and a woman and then Ifill said something to teh effect that Palin was for gay rights as the left wants them and she affirmed she was for marriage btween a man and a woman not affirming what words Ifill placed in Palins mouth.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I caught that too.
October 3, 2008 - 10:56 ET by MeanderingShe stayed the course as per her beliefs. However, Biden also stated that he did not want to change the marriage definition between a man and a woman as well, which could alienate the gay populas.
Mathews and the crew were
October 3, 2008 - 09:44 ET by nicksmith112Mathews and the crew were dazed by her performance.
"She's been well coached...she didn't answer some questions.. "
To me that means she is finally a politician!!!
What the viewers witnessed is that she is not a boob as the loony left has painted her and Biden is clearly not the statesman as the corrupt media has portrayed him.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
They Were'nt Prepared!
October 3, 2008 - 10:03 ET by ChasvsThey just weren't prepared for her to be so good!
I bet they were busy ripping up all their cue cards with the smarmy comments on how miserably she did!
Talk about dumb-founded bumbling by the morons on MSNBC!
Is that their best shot at her performace?
Gee, Anytime you can keep Mathews from frothing at the mouth you know you did good!
Sarah, you go girl!
A+ Another donation is on it's way!
"she's
October 3, 2008 - 10:48 ET by TruthMonger"she's well-coached"
exactly what matthews said about obama, right?
f*ck*n a**h*le...
I may be starting to get sick of this twit
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
The Velvet Punch
October 3, 2008 - 09:45 ET by GothampcSarah is an expert at the velvet punch. And you know it's effective when others try to copy it.
In the debate, Sarah remarked to Biden about ancient history and we had to look ahead. In the post-debate wrap-up, Sean Hannity was asking Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz about something and she tried the same line about "that's history and we need to look ahead."
McCain will definately
October 3, 2008 - 09:46 ET by SeashellMcCain will definately have to take the ball and run with it. I think he needs to start running ads on Obama's past relationships: Ayers, Rezko, Wright. These are legitimate issues that people need to know about. Had the MSM put this stuff out there as they should have before the primaries, he would not be here today. Anyway, Hannity is doing a piece on this subject Sunday night (I think) so it would be a perfect opportunity for McCain to start talking about it on Mon.
One more thing, going back to Chris Matthews, has anyone even noticed how he always has "spittle" on his lips when he's talking? Disgusting.
Outside of the Bill O.
October 3, 2008 - 10:08 ET by nicksmith112Outside of the Bill O. interview, when has Obama been grilled or not asked softball questions that contained the answer in them.
during the Bill O. interview Obama denied any knowledge of Wright's anti-American, anti-white, anti-semitic tendencies while going to his church.....Oprah knew and got the hell out.
Bill O. has been more than fair to Obama. Bill is hedging his bet with the thought of getting President Barry sit downs.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
I agree, i think its time to
October 3, 2008 - 09:49 ET by play21cwI agree, i think its time to let her shock and awe everyone in the media. I think this was the plan all along though; The October Surprise for the McCain camp is to have her go crazy with interviews and appearances that she will 'Capture' the spotlight of the media (like she did when McCain announced her as his VP pick) and could there be a better time to do it? with about a month left before the election, she will steal Obamas spot light, capture votes and take the election.
Expect To Hear
October 3, 2008 - 09:51 ET by JDWLibs claiming that the election is, of course, not going to turn on the vice-presidential debate.
Emails have been sent.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
'Hey Chuck, Stand Up!'
PALIN ROCKS!
October 3, 2008 - 09:59 ET by MeanderingIncredibly, NBC news stated Palin won. ABC news said Biden won, and I'm not sure what CBS or PBS or any other news team said, but to me she kicked butt! Biden impressed me too and I would rather have him running at the top of his ticket than Obama. Anyway, Palin has been under the microscope since she was placed in the VP spot and the media has not let up. She delivered tonight and the regular people in America saw what she was made of and she rallied us conservatives with her performance.
The Tax Foundation went looking for bacon in the BO bill.
October 3, 2008 - 10:04 ET by R D HelmWhat they found was enough pork to feed a medium-sized nation.
This insanity must be stopped.
-And this is just the tax break portion of the bill.
-Dave
Palin/Anybody other than McCain in '08
Last night Biden responded
October 3, 2008 - 10:02 ET by BDLast night Biden responded to Palins call for a surge of forces into Afghanistan coupled with a change of mission to sweep, clear, and secure key locations with a claim that that would not succeed. He went so far as to take the Commander of forces in that theater out of context to try and indicate that the military concurred with his point.
Yet even during the same five minutes he called for - wiat for it - a flow of new troops into country to perform the exact same mission. That coupled with every liberal on the planet who has been saying that additional troops should be committed to "The Central Fronton the war on Terrorism" for the past four years.
WHAT THE HELL??????
Talk about the ultimate conundrum that can only reside in a liberal mind where emotion overrules logic.
When he said that, I paused the TV and had to take a little walk as I felt like doing the old "Turn around buttstroke to the chin series" with an M-16.
Yep. I felt the same way
October 3, 2008 - 10:14 ET by c5thenI was disappointed that Gov. Palin didn't point out that obvious double talk.
"So let me get this straight, Senator Biden...A surge won't work in Afghanistan, but what we need is more troops? So more troops is not a surge? Or is it that we just can't use that term, 'surge'? Where I come from that's called double talk and gets you kicked out of office or never elected."
Biden wasn't answering questions either!
October 3, 2008 - 10:30 ET by MeanderingThe question Ifill asked to Biden which was asked to Obama and McCain last week, was what would they have to leave out of their plan due to the economic issues facing us now and Biden said what they wouldn't do that McCain is doing. That was not the question, but nice try pulling one over on us.
Gov. Palin did OK -
October 3, 2008 - 10:05 ET by j. frank wilsonClearly her performance exceeded what many people thought she could do. As Mark Shields put it after the debate, a great many Republican strategists are breathing a whole lot easier now. She wasn't able to shoehorn some of her approved answers to fit Ms. Ifill's questions - regarding nuclear weapons for example.
Personally, I was very excited that Ms. Ifill asked about Vice President Cheney's unique contention that his office is not part of the Executive Branch of the Federal government. That was the question I hoped to hear. Gov. Palin either didn't understand it or didn't have a prepared response - she clearly did not answer the question. Sen. Biden took it on directly and gave an excellent answer.
To me the most important part of the 90 minutes was at the end when Sen. Biden said he learned during his first year in the United States Senate, never question another's motives. Judgment yes - motives, no. That is a very common failing here on NB. People who don't toe the party line (yes, like myself) are un-American, Socialists, communist, etc.
This very unforunate trait - a gift from Newt, GOPAC, and Tom DeLay - is not going to help unite this nation behind the winners on November 4th. This country and this world have more than enough problems and issues that need to be addressed. And we're all going to have to work together to get the job done.
Maybe you should join your
October 3, 2008 - 10:19 ET by Captain RepusMaybe you should join your brother Plugs Biden and spend a little time educating us plain folks on which constitutional ammendment we could read to understand the VP issue. I personally get so confused between all those numbers between 1 and 2.
Captain Repus:
October 3, 2008 - 10:33 ET by j. frank wilsonIs it more important to memorize the number of the Article or to understand what the Constitution says? If you are voter you may decide that for yourself.
Why didn't Gov. Palin answer the question she was asked? Or is that not important, either?
Seems to me that since
October 3, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Captain RepusSeems to me that since there are quite fewer ammendments to the constitution than the number of years Plugs has spent as a full time senator he should not only have them memorized, he should be an authority on them.
But, you are right, it is much more important to worry about how to effectively bring our troops home in shame again and turn our clinics into DMV offices.
Capt. Rebus:
October 3, 2008 - 11:46 ET by j. frank wilsonYou duck the question - just like Gov. Palin did.
Advantage Captain Repus - I
October 3, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Captain RepusAdvantage Captain Repus - I don't care what you think
Capt. Repus:
October 3, 2008 - 12:43 ET by j. frank wilsonIf you vote hinges on a perceived confusion about Article I vs. Article II, go for it. If you are fortunate, your vote will even be counted.
Meanwhile, I prefer a ticket that actually understands who is in charge of Iran. And doesn't structure another foreign policy folly based on wrong information. Sen. Biden demonstrated he knows who is in charge of Iran. Gov. Palin demonstrated she can parrot her talking points.
Listen to Robert Baer's very interesting interview on this weeks' Fresh Air if you want to learn how the government of Iran is structured. As he said - listening to the idiot quoted by Gov. Palin and thinking he is running the country would be like listening to Tailgunner Joe and concluding he was in charge.
We've had enough misguided foreign misadventures for my lifetime. We sure as heck don't need any more reckless cowboys out there running wild and getting us into another quagmire.
A little refresher for you
October 3, 2008 - 13:29 ET by Captain RepusA little refresher for you my friend. Biden NOW understands who is really in charge since his father, Obammy was called on his ACTUAL LANGUAGE that he would sit down and chat with AKMANINUTJOB HIMSELF without pre-conditions.
Yup, plugs and barry learn fast when they are confronted with their own words, don't they.
As for my vote counting, I have no doubt that it will as it must in order to help offset the votes of illegal aliens, corpses and dogs that will pull the handle for barry and plugs.
A little refresher for you
October 3, 2008 - 13:29 ET by Captain RepusA little refresher for you my friend. Biden NOW understands who is really in charge since his father, Obammy was called on his ACTUAL LANGUAGE that he would sit down and chat with AKMANINUTJOB HIMSELF without pre-conditions.
Yup, plugs and barry learn fast when they are confronted with their own words, don't they.
As for my vote counting, I have no doubt that it will as it must in order to help offset the votes of illegal aliens, corpses and dogs that will pull the handle for barry and plugs.
It's not about who's in charge...
October 3, 2008 - 14:13 ET by retroconIt's about their policies.
The iyatolahs (sp?) pull the nutjobs strings.
He doesn't say anything that isn't approved by them.
Meanwhile, I prefer a
October 3, 2008 - 14:38 ET by BDJ Frank:
Meanwhile, I prefer a ticket that actually understands who is in charge of Iran.
Listen to Robert Baer's very interesting interview on this weeks' Fresh Air if you want to learn how the government of Iran is structured.
We sure as heck don't need any more reckless cowboys out there running wild and getting us into another quagmire.
J FRANK!? Where are
October 3, 2008 - 16:16 ET by BDJ FRANK!? Where are YOU?????
Blonde: J frank seems
October 3, 2008 - 16:21 ET by BDBlonde:
J frank seems to be fleeing my fire. Sad for me, he is such an EASY target to engage and destroy.
True, BD
October 3, 2008 - 17:35 ET by BlondeBut he's got a pea shooter....and well, you've got an arsenal.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Frank ... speaking of ducking questions
October 3, 2008 - 13:41 ET by LionKingPot, meet Kettle.
Frank, do you remember dodging these questions?
J.Frank ... the question dodger
October 3, 2008 - 16:41 ET by LionKingWe need a better class of troll. -- Blonde
»→ LionKing
October 3, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Cool ArrowDag-Nabbit it's your day to watch him.
Last time we didn't find him until we smelled the mess he was making behind the couch.
We kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon - Joe Biden
Okay, who has trhe receipt
October 3, 2008 - 18:05 ET by BDOkay, who has trhe receipt for J Frank. We must find out who lost him....
depends on what your
October 3, 2008 - 11:00 ET by TruthMongerdepends on what your sensitive to, frank
if you have been indoctrinated properly by liberals - then biden brilliantly answered the question by slandering Cheney's brilliant VP accomplishments
if not then Palin's answer was spot on
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Afetr a careful literal
October 3, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Dan The Man 2Afetr a careful literal reading of the Constitution it does not say one way or the other. The VP must be ready to assume the duties of the President. It also says the VP presides over the Senate. So the VP does not have any otehr power other than that. He cannot make laws, cannot sign any laws and cannot make judgements on any laws. So that means he is not part of teh congress or executive branch or legislative branch. The Constitution alludes to teh fact he is indeed loosly tied to teh congress but has no ability to make laws only to break ties.
So the debate rages on and will rage on as the debate about how much power each branch has. It has been ongoing since the founders and will continue. The powers of each branch will grow and wane with each new year and new people.
In otehr words there is no definition of the VP except the one at the moment and decided on by all the parties concerned.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
dan the man 2:
October 3, 2008 - 11:45 ET by j. frank wilsonSo from George Washington to Bill Clinton this wasn't an issue. Two hundred years later it suddenly is?
If Vice President Cheney is part of the Legislative Branch, then all his papers would be open to Congressional inspection without limit, wouldn't they? How could he claim any sort of "Executive Priviledge" if he isn't part of the Executive Branch? So we can finally see into the inner workings of the famous first Bush Admnistration energy task force?
Folks have already gone to court to prevent our VP from destroying documents and records. Now that won't be necessary - Congress can just wade in there and look at whatever they want! Great!
Meanwhile, your theory provides new meaning to the phrase "living Constitution."
As I recall, the initial
October 3, 2008 - 12:08 ET by BDAs I recall, the initial VP's were selected from the Legislative branch as were the Presidents.
Does give one pause to wonder if Cheney is not correct if initial principles were considered.
If you will look at my
October 3, 2008 - 14:45 ET by Dan The Man 2If you will look at my original post I said a literal reading so where do you get this trash “Meanwhile, your theory provides new meaning to the phrase "living Constitution." And there has been no real concern for the last 2 hundred years because the congress has not been as combative and stupid as it is now. The Dims have politicized it to the nth degree and only in the last couple of years, as far as I know, has the question come up.
From what I understand about Executive Privilege, which is possibly very little, is that the President can extend it to just about anyone he comes in contact with. This is too make sure he can confide in those people for making decisions and get the unvarnished truth of what they think. If the President cannot count on his advisors or confidants then he might as well kiss his life goodbye. Now executive privilege is of course suspended as in when President Clinton committed a federal felony by perjuring himself in front of a Grand Jury.
The Constitution has never been “living”, it however is in small ways up to interpretation by SCOTUS. In fact the Constitution says SCOTUS is responsible for making sure the laws are Constitutional and by some small extension Presidential Privileges and actions.
Thanks for playing Frankie try again later and take the home version as a consolation prize.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan the Man 2:
October 3, 2008 - 15:07 ET by j. frank wilsonSorry to see you are one more NB commentor who must award victory to yourself - afraid no one else will?
Since you know the Constitution so well, kindly tell us where it states that the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to decide which laws are constitutional? After all, you wrote "In fact the Constitution says SCOTUS is responsible for making sure the laws are Constitutional..."
You will, of course, be hard pressed to find it because it is not there. Chief Justice John Marshall created that responsibility for the Supreme Court when he ruled - correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not looking this up - in Marbury vs. Madison.
Your previous comment talked about how various interpretations of the Constitution evolve over time. Now you are saying that is not the case at all.
Frankie this passage says
October 3, 2008 - 16:07 ET by Dan The Man 2Frankie this passage says it. Now does it say specifically, no? But like I said it is one of those small corrections that the parties have agreed on.
Article 3:Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Now if Congress so wishes they can pass laws limiting some of the executive privilege powers. But so far they have not and will not as they realize the folly of doing so. In my understanding of the Constitution any 2 branches can overrule the third branch as this was the intent of the founders. So if one branch gets really out of bounds they get their wings clipped.
The specified powers though cannot be taken away unless an amendment is added to the Constitution. As far as your assertion that SCOTUS ruling on other bodies is a new thing, it is wrong. The three branches have been jockeying for power as long as we have been a country. IMO SCOTUS needs its wings clipped due to some really lousy rulings
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
She did well.
October 3, 2008 - 10:07 ET by c5thenShe did better than a lot of people expected. But she's not quite good enough on her feet yet to "turn her loose".
For example...when they were arguing over the vote in the Seanate for funding the troops and she said that Obama voted against it after promising not to and Biden pointed out that McCain voted the same way the first time becasue it had a time table in it...She should have come back and said something like:
I know most everyone here
October 3, 2008 - 10:12 ET by R D HelmI know most everyone here is pleased with Sarah's performance in the debate with Obiden last night. She missed a couple opportunities to really nail Obiden, as well as Obama, but overall I think she did pretty well.
Sadly, I don't think it will help McCain's chances in next month's election. There are just too many factors working against him, and one of those factors is himself.
-Dave
Palin/Anybody other than McCain in '08
Write-In Palin for President
October 3, 2008 - 10:13 ET by XJ.JonWhat are the chances we could get the word out for everyone to write in Palin for President and "Anybody but McCain, as long as it's not Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Biden, or Reid, for VP"?
Nick, welcome to the Right Side!! The wounds will heal. LOL
Nobama 08
I also wish we had her on
October 3, 2008 - 10:18 ET by bigtimerI also wish we had her on the top of the ticket... doggone it.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Bail-out Bill/Time is of the essence
October 3, 2008 - 10:14 ET by bigtimerWe have one hour left to call congress and let them know you are against the bail-out bill, if you are.
Please call, the switchboard is busy, just look up your congress-critters number and call, please, I got through to Roy Blunt and Rehberg already by dialing their numbers directly, Blunt said on Fox Business Channel that they weren't receiving as many calls from people against this...well folks call
They just voted on a rules vote, which gives a pretty good indication of how a vote is going to go on the upcoming vote on the bail-out, we need at least six or more members to get pressure and hear from us.
As to Palin, she did great last night, so did Ifil.
Here is the switchboard #202-224-3121
Still better to call directly, I couldn't get through to the switchboard, it is busy.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
sarah/ how McCain can stop the bleeding
October 3, 2008 - 10:26 ET by east tennessee johnMost real American politician since "give hell" Harry Truman, who wasn't an elitist, DC insider or even a college graduate. It's really up to McCain now and the issue really has become, whose policies can right the economy and what really happened with the melt down? Here's what I sent to McCain today:
You are getting slapped around by Obama's unrelently mantra of,"This financial crisis was caused by Republican and McCain policies of deregulation. Really? Why don't you ask Obama to cite SPECIFIC ACTS of deregulation that contributed to the credit crunch. There is, to my knowledge, only 1, the repeal of the Glass-StegallAct, which removed the "firewall" between investment bank and commercial bank investments that was inforce since 1933.Biden voted for it, Clinton signed it, and Obama advisor, Wall Street mega insider Robert Rubin, was a huge supporter of it being passed. The deregulation itself, though contributory, was not the full culprit. Greed, on the part of Wall Street investment bankers was. But how did it get this far? Afterall, the ultimate problem were risky, subprime loans that were used as the basis to fund and create derivatives and other risk associated investments. Just where, exactly, did these loans come from? Since 60-70% of these loans passed through Fannie and Freddie the issue becomes one of malfeasance and mismanagement, not deregulation.Afterall, was it deregulation that caused Freddie to pay a $125 million fine,in2003; was it deregulation that forced it to pay $400 million to settle shareholder lawsuits?; was it deregulation that compelled the Federal Election Commission to fine it $3.8 million for improper political fundraising? No, it was the actions of its management. What about Fannie Mae? How was it permitted to misstate earnings by $10.6 BILLION between 1998-2004, deregulation? Obama sholud have a great answer since 2 of the main perpetrators, Raines and Johnson are his advisors. What happened was very simple: enough worthless "assets", crap as I like to call it ,was pushed through the system, on purpose, not because of deregulation but because of greed, malfeasance, mismanagement and the desire to socially engineer. How did Fannie/Freddie get the supply of such toxic waste? Perhaps former ACORN field trainer Obama can tell you, but misuse of the Community Reinvestment Act, not an act of deregulation, had something to do with it. It was another liberal feel good idea gone bad, not because the idea of housing is wrong, but the manipulation of that thought to achieve partisan political goals is. ACORN and related community organizations, had tremendous influence on the loan application process which already was fundamentally unsound because of the added risk nature of the loans. Add to it lloans that were illegally made or fraudulently made and the shaky foundation of the loan portfolio became even riskier. By the time they hit the investment bankers, who took GSE to mean government secured enterprise rather than government sponsored enterprise, the greed and lack of financial judgement overwhelmed prudence. Is this the fault of deregulation? Now I'm only a citizen but if Obama is going to insist this problem is one of deregulation rather than deliberate actions of the people involved,YOU MUST CHALLENGE HIM ON THIS . THE PUBLIC HAS AN IDEA WHAT HAPPENED, THAT THEY GOT SCREWED BY DC INSIDERS AND THEIR WALL STREET PALS. TRUE ENOUGH,BUT IT WASN'T DEREGULATION AND THE BUSH BOOGEYMAN THAT CAUSED IT. THIS WILL ESTABLISH OBAMA AS SOMEONE WHO REALLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED AND IS SATISFIED TO REPEAT LIBERAL/SOCIALIST SLOGANS
east tennessee john:
October 3, 2008 - 10:48 ET by j. frank wilsonYou have thoroughly mixed up the various home mortgage loans.
CRA did not mandate unsound loans. That's a rightwing urban legend.
Fannie and Freddie did not purchase the subprime loans that have imploded. Those were originated by non-Federally regulated mortgage brokers, securitized, and sold (generally overseas).
Fannie and Freddie did purchase some loans based on non-traditional underwriting. These were fixed rate (not ARM's) and full doc (not no doc).
Deregulation of the overall financial markets was a key ingredient in the ability of Wall Street bankers to securitize and sell the subprime assets.
Finally, Messrs. Johnson and Raines were not and are not economic advisors to Sen. Obama. Don't believe everything you read on the Internets.
You might have to correct
October 3, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Captain RepusYou might have to correct me on this but based on my RE Finance class last semester (I am a 65 year old full time college student) Fannie and Freddy dictated lower standards for banks to qualify borrowers, bought these loans (which I believe now did include variable rate notes) and packaged and resold these notes as mortgage backed securities.
Red flags were raised by McCain and other republicans over 2 years ago about these practices, but ignored by the politicians who were on the Fannie/Freddy payroll.
Captain Repus:
October 3, 2008 - 11:52 ET by j. frank wilsonThe subprime neg am option ARMs that imploded were not agency paper. That entire market was created because Freddie and Fannie (the agencies) would not buy it.
Freddie and Frannie had a limited program to purchase loans based on non-traditional underwriting. There were full doc fixed rate (often at below market rates). They were fully amortizing (not balloons) and some had an interest only payment period as well.
They have not produced a failure rate higher than the remainder of their portfolios.
Politicians have never been on the Freddie Fannie payroll. Rick Davis, presidential campaign manager for the senior senator from Arizona, did make $30,000 per month as the president of an astroturf lobbying group founded and funded by Fannie and Freddie. They shut that down and then paid his lobbying firm just $15,000 per month until the government takeover. Other members of the McCain Campain received hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby for Fannie and Freddie. Is that the payroll you refer to?
The fact that those successful lobbyists are now working for Sen. McCain doesn't bother you, does it?
As long as they aren't
October 3, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Captain RepusAs long as they aren't setting off terrorist bombs at the pentagon, aren't saying GD my country, race baiting or any other anti-American comments/actions and aren't trying to convert my country to socialism/communism, I have no problem with them.
I am not sure the sub-prime
October 3, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Captain RepusI am not sure the sub-prime paper is the bulk of the problem. Most of the paper F&F underwrote was simply standard conventional notes that were issued under improper F&F qualifying guidelines to 1)speculators/flippers and 2)financially unqualified buyers.
The second part of the problem is folks walking away from mortgaged property that has dropped in value instead of taking responsibility to pay back the loan they signed for.
Um, um, um...
October 3, 2008 - 13:17 ET by retroconResearch is easy...
did you happen to notice that Fannie Mae collapsed? Guess they were doing all the right things...
and...
"Politicians have never been on the Freddie Fannie payroll."
Oh, reeeeealy....
Fannie Mae leadership:
James A. Johnson, Fannie Mae CEO 1991-1998 : Campaign manager for Walter Mondale, Chaired VP selection for John Kerry, participated in VP vetting for Obama. Political. Never really worked in finance biz prior to becoming CEO of Fannie Mae.
Franklin Raines Fannie Mae CEO 1998-2004: Political appointee under Carter and Clinton Administration Budget Office. Politician. He left Fannie Mae Dec. 21, 2004 while under investigation for "accounting irregularities. VP vetting for Obama, and, according to some, a finance advisor for him, as well.
Daniel H. Mudd, CEO Fannie Mae 2004-2008: Son of TV anchor Roger Mudd, but he actually did work in the finance biz. Not sure of political partisanship, but probably not difficult to guess.
Jamie Gorelick, Vice Chairman Fannie Mae 1997-2003: No finance experience (attorney by training). Clinton Appointee as general council for DoD. Politician.
Fannie Mae was, without doubt, the enabler that let banks and mortgage companies get into the subprime/less-then-qualified credit lending practices. Without Fannie Mae being there (to buy, guarantee, encourage, whatever the loans), lending institutions would not have done those loans. That's history, not speculation. Lending institutions are not without fault, they did encouraged Fannie Mae to do it, but again, if Fannie Mae weren't a "politicized" organization, and were run properly, they would have refused to do so and we wouldn't be in the fix we are now. Lenders only took the risks because Fannie Mae was there enabling them.
Lot's of places to find this info, but here's the facts from a lib paper that was extoling the virtues of destroying the mortgage market back in 1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
retrocon:
October 3, 2008 - 15:16 ET by j. frank wilsonYou really don't understand the residential mortgage market, do you?
How could Fannie and Freddie have prevented mortgage brokers licensed by the individual states from originating and selling subprime mortgages? Just how would that work?
I never said Fannie and Freddie were without flaws. I said they did not purchase the subprime, neg am option ARM no doc loans that imploded. That is a fact - and you have no proof that is wrong because I'm right.
You bring up the 1999 New York Times article? Is your calendar broken? We have a little news flash for you - this is 2008. The financial markets are a completely different world now. The entire subprime securitization market that grew up outside the agency world because the agencies would not buy that paper is largely responsible for this mess.
Meanwhile - one more time - the loans Fannie and Freddie purchased based on non-traditional underwriting were full doc fixed rate (often below market rate, by the way) loans. They were not subprime neg am option ARMs with no doc "underwriting."
Here's a little hint: Do you notice the term "subprime?" Do you know what that means? In layperson's terms - probably still over your head, but I'll try - that means not eligible for agency purchase. Fannie and Freddie are the agencies. So if it's subprime they couldn't buy it - see how it works?
Mr. Raines' misdeeds were largely involved in understating profits. Do you think that is what did in the agency - it made too much money?
I did notice you ignored all the lobbyists who worked for Fannie and Freddie who now work on the campaign for the senior senator from Arizona. I can certainly see why you would care to do so.
Frank, my friend, since
October 3, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Captain RepusFrank, my friend, since Retro seems to have stepped away I will inject some comments on his behalf.
1. Just to help you understand what you think you know, mortgage brokers DO NOT MAKE LOANS. They simply shop lenders on behalf of borrowers to find funding for them. Once the loan is acquired, the mortgage brokers DO NOT SELL THE LOANS; the lenders sell them to the secondary market.
2. Your original argument implied that F&F held little or no responsibility in the mortgage mess. You couldn't be more wrong. F&F SETs the qualification standards for lending banks, and they SET the standards at such a low level totally unqualified buyers were given loans, then these unqualified loans were BOUGHT by F&F who then issued worthless MBS's to investors, mostly overseas investors who could lose their shirts as far as I am concerned.
Sure, the off-prime lenders triggered the basis of the problem but, based on the volume of unqualified loans encouraged by F&F standards and their greed in buying them back and selling them to investing dupes, they are by far the leading cause of todays problems.
Also, I still take issue with your earlier comment that F&F do not buy up variable loans - I believe they do.
Enjoy - PS, it does not help your argument to insult the intelligence of the person you are responding to. The tenor of your comments reflects an insecurity on your part, probably based on your mother rejecting your breast feeding efforts.
Captain Repus:
October 3, 2008 - 16:12 ET by j. frank wilsonActually, many mortgage brokers are also table funders, drawing on lines of credit to initally make loans and then sell them whole, servicing released. Other brokers are not bankers as well - they simply shop loans for people who used to be in the business, such as New Century and about 200 more.
At least they did during the time we are discussing.
How did agency guidelines encourage "unqualified" loans? What's the default rate on Frannie and Freddie loans? And precisely what is wrong with their underwriting standards?
What in the world are "off-prime" loans? Did you just make that term up?
I never said the agencies didn't buy ARM's. Of course they did. While almost all subprime loans are ARM's, by no means all ARM's are subprime. Is that too difficult to follow?
There were two basic residential mortgage pipelines - agency and non-agency. If what you wrote were true then there never would have been a huge international market in subprime loans - it would have all been agency paper. But then it wasn't, was it?
In response, I quote that
October 3, 2008 - 16:24 ET by Captain RepusIn response, I quote that leading authority in this subject; j. frank wilson on 10/3/08 at 11:48 in his message to east tennessee john: (facts are such pesky little devils, aren't they)
east tennessee john:October 3, 2008 - 11:48 ET by j. frank wilson
You have thoroughly mixed up the various home mortgage loans.
CRA did not mandate unsound loans. That's a rightwing urban legend.
Fannie and Freddie did not purchase the subprime loans that have imploded. Those were originated by non-Federally regulated mortgage brokers, securitized, and sold (generally overseas).
Fannie and Freddie did purchase some loans based on non-traditional underwriting. These were fixed rate (not ARM's) and full doc (not no doc).
Captain Repus:
October 3, 2008 - 20:12 ET by j. frank wilsonRegret to report that you are progressively making less and less sense...
Forgot to mention
October 3, 2008 - 13:11 ET by retroconall the politicians in congress on their payroll
Starting with the number two receiver of political dollars from them, yes, you guess it, Barack Hose-us-on-taxes Obama.
Some unpoliticized input...
October 3, 2008 - 13:27 ET by retroconRead this nice article from 2004... i wouldn't trust anything written in 2008, because, obviously, it will be politicized.
When you see words like "government mortgage support programs," read "fannie mae" at least in part.
http://www.federalre...
j frank.. you lie like 0'biden, not the same lies,
October 3, 2008 - 14:13 ET by upcountrywaterCRA did not mandate unsound loans. That's a rightwing urban legend.
What's the meaning of "unsound"
like "is" is i guess...
skate you will on that one..
NOW WE WILL HAVE JUDGES DETERMINE WHAT A "FAIR" MORTGAGE IS...thank you "bailout one"
the bailouts shall continue..
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
The Scabs
October 3, 2008 - 12:22 ET by JDWDodd took millions from now failing finance firms he oversees
Obama: Next to largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie and sen ACORN
Liberals: What they said about Fannie/Freddie
Blaming this mess on Bush? Only biased news media and the insipid left.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
'Hey Chuck, Stand Up!'
SurelyThis Will Front Page News Media
October 3, 2008 - 10:28 ET by JDWBiden Tells 14 Lies During Debate
JDW
DAILY WAVE
'Hey Chuck, Stand Up!'
Tales of the odd and unusual
October 3, 2008 - 10:29 ET by