On July 1, my colleague Tim Graham accurately reported how the replacement of the sadly departed Tim Russert with Tom Brokaw brought a strong liberal tilt to "Meet the Press."
On Sunday, Brokaw shamelessly proved Graham's point by actually offering a McCain-bashing television ad that Democrats should air in the fall in order to get Barack Obama in the White House.
Speaking with RNC Victory 2008 chair and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, and Obama's national co-chair, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), Brokaw actually said the following (video of some of this interview added below the fold):
Both campaigns have had difficulty this past week with accusations of flip-flopping. Let me begin with Ms. Fiorina. You said that your candidate, John McCain, he's a man that the American people understands, that he walks the talk. But let me just share with you what I think could be a Democratic ad come this fall. The ad will begin, "Oh really?" after quoting you. "Here's a man who voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now he wants to make them permanent. Here's a man who is worried about global warming, now he wants to give American motorists a gas tax holiday so they can drive even more during the summer months. Here's a man who called Phil Gramm a trusted economic adviser, had him on the bus and in pictures with him. Now he disowns him. Here's a man who said he really wasn't up to speed on the issue of whether birth control should be covered by insurance policies; in fact, he voted against it."
Hmmm. A supposedly impartial journalist proposing a Democrat ad to a Republican campaign manager that included four possible flip-flops.
Yet, when it came time to show some balance and do the same to his Democrat guest, only one of Obama's flip-flops was addressed:
Senator McCaskill, your own candidate has had his own difficulties this past week in explaining his positions, sometimes in the same day. Let's begin with a well-known, now, sound bite about what he would do in Iraq.
The "let's begin with" was a smokescreen, for Brokaw never quizzed McCaskill about Obama's recent changes of heart concerning taking public funds for his campaign, telecom immunity related to FISA and terrorist surveillance, handgun rights, and the death penalty.
Why not, Tom? And why didn't you grill McCaskill about Obama's economic policies the same way you did Fiorina (video embedded below, Brokaw's question to Fiorina underneath):
Let's begin now with the economy and the federal budget. Both campaigns have different views of what they can do in the next four years and in the next eight years. To go back to Senator McCain for just a moment...First he said he could balance the federal budget within four years, and then he said no, it'll take eight years. Now he's back to four years again. If you were the CEO of Hewlett-Packard again and you were talking to Wall Street analysts and you would say, "I'm going to cut taxes. I'm going to continue to have wars in two countries. We have a housing crisis that we're probably going to have to bail out. We have a $410 billion deficit. We have entitlement costs that now represent 53 percent of our federal budget that are going up every year. But I can balance the budget," you'd be hooted off the phone, and they'd put a big sell sign on Hewlett-Packard the next morning, wouldn't they?
McCaskill wasn't confronted with anything close to this level of contentiousness. And, when she made the following historical gaffe, Brokaw let it pass (minute 6:00 in video above):
Some of the war dividend that we will get will go back right into the military, and Barack Obama has proposed that. But he will, in fact--and, and it was interesting that Carly referred to the boom years. That's when we had a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. Those were the boom years. And that's the, the years we want to get back to, where we can, in fact, have responsible economic policies that are fair to the middle class, give a square deal to workers, and get us back in a competitive mode by getting all our kids in college.
Why didn't Brokaw interrupt the Senator here to inform her that the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, and held it during the so-called "boom years" of the '90s? Russert likely wouldn't have let her get away with this.
Sadly, it's become very clear that not only has Brokaw's presence as MTP host moved the program decidedly to the left, he is by no means up to the task.
Frankly, the show has become dull and far less informative with Brokaw at the helm, and it will be interesting in the months to come to see whether ratings reflect this.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel, sadly, our country
July 13, 2008 - 13:09 ET by liberal_bug_zapperNoel, sadly, our country will go backwards before it will ever recover. The State where I live has so many new restrictions on freedom and liberty added to the huge number of restrictions on liberty by the Federal government, and you have a huge number of dupes in the country who believe this is a good thing.... these people are not convinced by decent argument nor are they swayed by the truth. They see the truth as just an opinion, and therefore write it off as mean spirited and wrong headed.
____________________________________________________
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." ~ Milton Friedman
I saw this crap. Brokaw
July 13, 2008 - 13:10 ET by stratmanI saw this crap. Brokaw appeared to not use notes or a teleprompter while "pitching" his McCain-bashing ad. I believe Brokaw himself came up with this commercial idea. He sure seemed to have it memorized.
While Brokaw did bring up a dicey topic or two for the Obama supporting senator, such as the Jesse "Nut Cutter" Jackson whopper, Brokaw rarely pursued any line of question beyond the superficial nor did he challenge a canned non-response response. It was basically mention the bad for Obama then talk about something else. Meanwhile, McCain's perjoratives were dwelt upon.
Pitifull bias.
RRAM Tough!
duplicate
July 13, 2008 - 13:12 ET by stratman.
"...that he walks the
July 13, 2008 - 13:15 ET by scamorama"...that he walks the talk."
Personally, I tend to consider anyone who mangles that expression in that way to be a complete moron.
The fact that Brokaw is a moron with some influence is especially worrisome.
Just when you think they
July 13, 2008 - 13:23 ET by motherbeltJust when you think they can't get any worse, they go and exceed your expectations!
Something tells me he didn't have any ideas for an ad that the Republicans could use against Obama....
I didn't see the show, but from what is posted here, I agree: Brokaw is not up to it. He's pretty much a newsreader, maybe even an "in-depth story" reporter; but definitley not an interviewer.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
News people creating the
July 13, 2008 - 13:45 ET by kgNews people creating the news for decades now.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Ok, so where's the RNC
July 13, 2008 - 13:21 ET by ThisnThatOk, so where's the RNC response? How about McCain's response? Do we have any Republican congressmen who would like to make a statement, a strong statement, on NBC's bias?
We know the MSM lefties will be doing this. Why don't we see a vigorous response? Don't tell me we have to take this, RNC -- tell me instead that you are ready and willing to fight. Use some humor; use some facts; use side-by-side comparisons; use their own words -- BUT USE SOMETHING. Don't rely upon NB to carry the load for you -- start growing a backbone, you spineless creatures!
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
ThisnThat
July 13, 2008 - 15:01 ET by okiehawk44Hear! Hear!
Stop funding any Republican or Republican group (RNC) -- they must now earn our money and our respect or they can shut up and sit down. They make me sick. We have a worthless presidential candidate who can barely talk (again) who doesn't seem to have a plan and can't easily describe any plan he does have. He seems like someone who just wanted to be the candidate (make up for 2000?) and now it's time for a nap, and he's almost even with the Messiah in the polls -- OMG where would we be with a real candidate.
All you weak-willed republicans (lower case "r" intended) go away.
Seconded
July 13, 2008 - 19:11 ET by Indiana JoeI second that emotion.
The Republican response should be a slam-dunk...
July 13, 2008 - 13:41 ET by geokster...McCain is not "flopping", he is adapting his positions based on changing, and even dire, circumstances:
- the economy is sluggish, so retaining the tax cuts is imperative to prevent choking it off even further
- the price of gasoline is off the charts, so he's trying to give the average citizen some relief at the pump with the gas tax holiday, not "encourage them to drive more" (what a spin that one was by Brokaw)
- worldwide growth of demand for oil and the increasingly unstable political climate in the Middle East means we have to drill here, now
Whereas Obama is changing his positions for strictly political reasons, to make his far-left views more palatable to the voters. On Iraq, he can only change his position marginally, and he'll have to flip-flop continuously and very carefully until the election, depending on who he is talking to, to keep his nutroots base from going ballistic.
The SS McCain, slow speed ahead
July 13, 2008 - 13:49 ET by Jack BauerPut me in the "I don't get it" camp regarding the so-called "McCain Campaign" so far. And I'm not even talking about whether I want him to win or not.
Here's my little analogy. McCain is the Titanic, or at least the Captain.
Obama is the Ice Berg, and though seven-eights of his agenda is hidden below the surface, everyone know exactly what it is.
It's just that the morse code operators won't SOS the socialist news to the folks on shore.
McCain is heading right for the ice-berg, he can see it coming from miles off.
The band is playing. The deck chairs are being shuffled around. BUT NOTHING IS HAPPENING. No course corrections, no speed changes. Nothing.
Remind me again... it was the ice-berg that sank when the Titanic hit it, right?
And afterwards, when the
July 13, 2008 - 13:56 ET by Free StinkerAnd afterwards, when the official inquiry is completed, they will blame the SS Californian (Conservatives) for the disaster . . .
"Why didnt you guys do something?"
no tv
July 13, 2008 - 14:16 ET by cocodrieBrokaw will be praised for his objectivity. Liberals will sit mesmerized while sipping their lemmingade then follow him off the deep end. My reading and enjoyment of my old music have increased a lot since I cancelled my Direct tv. Sometimes I sit and look at the dark screen and remember when truth was respected.
Free -- ha ha. That's good
July 13, 2008 - 14:45 ET by Jack BauerFree -- ha ha. That's good continuation of the analogy.
Of course, McCain has already thrown all the conservative idea over board.
Hey Jack, the difference
July 13, 2008 - 19:20 ET by JerryHey Jack, the difference is, everyone thought the Titanic was un-sinkable. Most people are surprised the SS McCain got out of the harbor to begin with.
Captain McCain is either just happy to be floating at all, or is afraid to do anything to rock the boat, knowing the little dinghy will sink, or he's counting on global warming to melt the ice berg.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Let the dems run brokaw's
July 13, 2008 - 14:09 ET by MidAmericaLet the dems run brokaw's ad. Of those topics only one will stick in the minds of most voters..... "Hey! McCain wants to lower my gas bill".
Brokaw was simply shamefull
July 13, 2008 - 14:20 ET by Gary HallSuch a pathetic lead from Brokaw - only his advertisement was less tastefull:
Yet, when it came time to show some balance and do the same to his Democrat guest, only one of Obama's flip-flops was addressed:
Notice that Brokaw only offered up Obama's prior flip-flop of a couple of weeks back, didn't offer up Obama's earlier positions (source - American Thinker):
January 30, 2007, Senator Barack Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 in a speech from the floor of the U.S. Senate. In describing the proposed legislation he said,
And here was a point, about which, that Brokaw would never have asked an Obama pundit:
Really? Noel - thanks for the post - I was steaming while watching Brokaw shrill for the Obama team.P.S. I also find the discussion on the cost of rebuilding the military very interesting. It's indeed a ligitimate issue, but interestingly, I tweaked by remembering that back in the 2000 campaign VP Gore, as a candidate was proposing spending more money for the military than was Gov. Bush -we all knew that in the years preceeding the military had been robbed to pay Mary, and was in poor shape; out of parts and not up to date.
"But let me just share
July 13, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Blazer"But let me just share with you what I think could be a Democratic ad come this fall."
- "I'm George Soros and I approved this message"
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
What Carly Fiorina should have said to Brokaw
July 13, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Gary HallWhat Carly Fiorina should have said to Brokaw (well, the civil response).
Now, Tom. Let's hear your ad attacking Senator Obama for the Republicans, this fall. Does it go like this?
I’m disappointed but not
July 13, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Rush FanI’m disappointed but not surprised. You can’t expect an old liberal like Brokaw to change. That’s why popular quotations such as “A leopard cannot change its spots”, “You can't teach an old dog new tricks” and “We did not change as we grew older; we just became more clearly ourselves” have meaning. Moreover, Brokaw is rich, successful and at the end of his career. Meet the Press is only a temporary gig. He could care less whether he is perceived as fair and balanced. His primary goal before he goes back into retirement to his ranch in Montana is to make it more difficult for Republicans so that Barack Obama is elected.
NBC had few choices to replace Tim Russert from its stable of liberal journalist. Chuck Todd would probably have been the most fair and balanced of all of them. Perhaps he will be selected to take the position after the election.
------------------------------------------------------
"They are actively promoting the decline of America." ~ Rush Limbaugh on liberals and Democrats
RF
July 13, 2008 - 15:42 ET by Noel SheppardRF,
Well, I'm disappointed, but not because of the bias. That I expected. I'm displeased with Brokaw's energy level and effort. He seems tired and unmotivated. He's just too bland.
Regardless of it's left-leaning bias, I really loved MTP with Russert. With Brokaw, we didn't only lose Tim, we also have apparently lost a good program. Too bad. ns
Todd
July 13, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Gat New YorkI agree that Chuck Todd needs to replace Brokaw ASAP.
I think Brokaw's performance today was shameful at best.
He clearly had not prepared as Russert used to be and relied ony on left wing talking points. I was also upset with his effort at a Dem commercial which was uncalled for. I was even more upset that he liberally used the left wing talking point of McCain claiming that we will be there 100 days - without it's proper context.
I was disappointed with Carly that she did not come right out and ask if he was already a paid advisor to Obama.
The susequent panel was even worse. There was one chair empty which would hve balanced out te 3:1 liberal to conservatie unbalance. That had to be intentional.
If NBC does not immediately pull Brokaw and replace him with Chuck Todd expect the ratings for MTP to pummelt and with it ad revenue. That alone will force NBCto fire Brokaw permanently.
Russert was a class
July 13, 2008 - 16:26 ET by BlazerRussert was a class act and right now I cant' think of anyone who could replace him. Its no secret that MTP leans to the left but at the same time before I got into politics and found out that Tim had worked for some prominent Democrats I had a hard time judging just what party Tim may have been affiliated with, but then again thats exactly the way it should be.
Lets face it MTP isn't going to have a conservative host, but on the shortlist I think Juan Williams would be an excellent choice, although NBC has taken an even sharper turn to the left since the days of hiring Russert and they may not go with a moderate.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Gat
July 13, 2008 - 16:32 ET by Rush FanI agree with you that Republicans must push back when they encounter the blatant bias displayed by Brokaw and other liberal journalist. I, too, would have liked to see Carly give Brokaw a taste of his own medicine. Unfortunately, if she had pushed back our presumptive nominee, John McCain, would have disowned her comments just as he did Phil Gramm's remarks. She would have been banished to an ambassadorship to Belarus (sorry that’s already taken by Gramm) or some other forsaken place.
Remember, our presumptive nominee, John McCain, wants to play ‘fair’, regardless of what the other side (liberal media and Democrats) does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which political party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?
A+
July 14, 2008 - 10:34 ET by mytwocentsAs Rush puts it so often:
"A snake is a snake - A liberal is a liberal". It is what it is.
Fiorina Was Pushed Because Many Statements Were False
July 13, 2008 - 16:24 ET by Linda51Brokaw exaggerated Obama flip-flops, but did not
give McCaskill an opportunity to response. McCain has made way more flip-flops. Brokaw did not mention McCain's many flip-flops.
Even
when Brokaw showed video clips of McCain statements, Fiorina continued to double
talk everything.
http://today.msnbc.m...
for the complete transcript
Carly Fiorina
continued with several false statements that she and McCain have previously
made.
Fiorina failed to mention McCain's plan for balancing the budget includes cutting Social Security and Medicare.
She stated that
Obama will raise taxes on small businesses and made it sound like it would be
all small businesses.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11611.html
"According to
the Tax Policy Center, only 1.4 percent of people defined by the Treasury as
small-business owners are in the top two tax brackets and could be subject to
Obama’s tax proposal."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
Republicans
claim Obama "voted 94 times for higher taxes." But their count is
inflated and misleading.
Carly
Fiorina continued with the pandering about a gas tax holiday, which McCain
knows Congress will not pass because it is a bad idea.
Why
hasn't anyone ever asked McCain when he is going to propose the bill.
She
continued the bull about McCain balancing the budget without any facts, except
using the money saved from stopping the wars without any plan for when the wars
stop.
Brokaw did not grill Fiorina on the details for McCain ending the war to balance the budget.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/11/mccains_budget_figures_dont_add_up/
McCain's
budget figures don't add up
Brokaw asked McCaskill if Obama didn't care about balancing the budget. Typical question when Obama doesn't pander to voters by making statements like McCain's balancing the budget and a gas tax holiday.
Linda... Are you
July 13, 2008 - 17:24 ET by bigtimerLinda...
Are you kidding?
Obama doesn't pander...
Surely you jest.
He is nothing but an empty sock-puppet....
Period.
I detest McCain, but for you to try to tell me Obama doesn't pander, and the show today wasn't fair to Obama and his sock-puppet Senator... well, that's pure BS.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Not to mention bt, Obamas
July 13, 2008 - 17:27 ET by BlazerNot to mention bt, Obamas over-inflated ego wouldn't even fit through the Brandenburg gate and I'll be surprised if he can squeeze it all into Invesco Mile High stadium.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blaze.... Bingo! The
July 13, 2008 - 17:49 ET by bigtimerBlaze....
Bingo!
The arrogance of the POS is horrendous, created by the msm, he loves it, just like McCain did years ago...
When will they ever learn...when will they ever learn?
Saddest part of all of this...we are stuck with these two.
God help us all.
Just my rant for the day.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Specific Examples of Obama Pandering?
July 13, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Linda51Tell me what pandering that Obama has done to fool voters.
Linda... Number
July 13, 2008 - 18:03 ET by bigtimerLinda...
Number one...
Open his mouth and utter any word.
Number Two....
Hope and change.
Just recently FISA.
Not taking the time to name all the other obvious flip-flops he has done.
If you are an Obama lover, you are on the wrong site sweetheart...which I am quite sure you know.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Typical "Whatever" That Cannot Discuss Two Sides
July 13, 2008 - 18:22 ET by Linda51"
Open his mouth and utter any word." No facts to support your statement?
Personally attacking someone is a sure sign that someone is to open to a logical discussion.
Hopefully, this past week will wake-up people that have listen to McCain tell one lie after another. That sir is a fact. Try doing some fact checks on the Internet. McCain's lies are serious because they affect everyone's life.
He has lied about his tax plan and balancing the budget. He has lied about supporting women's issues while he voted against bills concerning women's issues.
Yes, I am on the wrong site. Thought there might be some dialog, not just biased right or regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
There are plenty of sites like this, both left and right, neither one capable of listening or analyzing facts.
Hold on there Linda...
July 13, 2008 - 18:35 ET by Clear thinkerYou may not have noticed but we were not talking about McCain, we are talking about Obama!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Linda... Both are
July 13, 2008 - 18:39 ET by bigtimerLinda...
Both are flip-floppers.
Plain and simple.
I did answer you below on another subject if you read that far.
I know we are supposed to be oh so fair and balanced to you trolls that come on here and act so innocent with your cute oh so clever way of putting you diatribe....
well, it doesn't work for me...it doesn't get past me, so you carry on sweetheart, have others fall for your BS...
I'm not.
I'm also not wasting my time with the likes of you anymore...plenty of others will...which you depend on with relish...it's your job, it's what you do.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"Tell me what
July 13, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Blazer"Tell me what pandering that Obama has done to fool voters."
ROFL ! Keep em' coming, that was funny.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Linda... If you have to
July 13, 2008 - 18:16 ET by Clear thinkerLinda...
If you have to ask, you obviously have not been paying attention.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Linda. Trust me. I am a
July 13, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Cureboy675Linda. Trust me. I am a die-hard Obama supporter. At this very moment I am plotting and scheming to get my hands on a ticket to Obama's nomination at Mile High Stadium.
But even I am able to recognize that Obama might be changing his tune in certain instances to secure more support. The example that sticks with me the most is when Obama first said that states should be able to decide the issue of same-sex marriage. Not really the ringing endorsement I was hoping for from him. And then, he more recently says (to a gay newspaper by the way) that he rejects an attempt by Californians to amend their state constitution to rule out same-sex marriage.
And while his more recent announcement is the view that I prefer him to have. I can't help but wonder: Is he just saying that to get more support?
I mean, either way, it won't preclude me for voting for him. But it also unfortunately makes me view him as slightly less genuine than I originally thought.
So no matter what he says
July 13, 2008 - 18:26 ET by bigtimerSo no matter what he says or does you will vote for him huh Cb?
He's flipped on his position on ending the war and withdrawing troops too...the Second Amendment..blah blah blah....
Oh well, I understand though, my side of the aisle is voting for McCain no matter what too...
I guess we have no choice for the most part...
I won't be voting for McCain...I do have a choice, but I will be voting for all conservatives on the ballot...my question to you is, why would you trust Obama in the first place, then you say even if he doesn't mean it about gay issues you will vote for him anyway...
Why?
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Yeah. I'm not afraid to
July 13, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Cureboy675Yeah. I'm not afraid to admit it. I was one of the ones who originally got swept away by Obama-rama. I know, you're going to call me shallow and naive. Trust me, my Grandma lets me know that at every turn. As time goes by, that full-fledged infatuation seems to be turning into what might be called "strong approval"
I wouldn't say that I don't trust him. On the issue of same-sex marriage, I believe that most liberals are actually in favor of it. But people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are afraid of coming out and saying it for fear of being called too radical. I doubt you watched the "gay debate" they had last year for the Democratic Presidental candidates. But I did. I mean, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel came right out and said they were all for it. But, bless their hearts, where the heck are they now (but then again, those two were far left on a whole host of issues). Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards pretty much played it safe. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, boy oh boy did he play that crowd wrong.
But I digress. It would be selfish for me to vote based upon how a candidate feels towards gays, which only make up between 1% and 10% of the population. (I really don't know what the true percentage is. My gaydar doesn't work too good)
But, for me, I have to vote for the candidate that agrees with me as often as possible on the things that I feel are most important. I doubt I'll ever find a candidate who agrees with me 100%.
So you have no problem
July 13, 2008 - 18:52 ET by BlazerSo you have no problem with a candidate that has shifted right on just about every single policy since being nominated. I'm not letting McCain off the hook here either he's doing the same thing, I'll have to hold my nose to vote for him when I close the curtain behind me, if I even do.
Just keep in mind the only liberals that have ever been elected to Potus since Kennedy are moderate southern democrats and theres a reason for that.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Cb...Not to not-pick,
July 13, 2008 - 18:57 ET by bigtimerCb...
Not to nit-pick, you still didn't answer my basic question, which is you stated that Obama may be not telling the truth and just saying what gays want to hear to garner votes...
Why would you vote for him then...and what other issues that he has espoused besides hope and change do you agree with, he has already flipped on his withdrawal time of the war ect and other issues...for instance how do you feel about letting a baby die that would live after an abortion, he votes that is okay to do...on and on...
I just want to know just what issues you agree with this man on that you think are solid issue, that he is not going to change his mind in....know what I mean?
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I am afraid of answering
July 13, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Cureboy675I am afraid of answering this because I really really don't want to turn this into another long, drawn-out discussion about the war. But for me, that is really one of the most important issues. I just personally believe that it is time to bring our people home. And while Obama stumbled and misspoke and gave the impression of a flip-flop, I still believe he wants to bring this war to an end. Another is the economy. And I just personally believe that our country can't go on like this economically. So many good people that I work with have been let go in recent years and I frankly worry that I might be next. And I fear that McCain would just provide us more of the same. Like I said. I don't really want to turn this into a debate of why McCain's economic plan is actually better and so forth.
I'm not trying to be "trolly" (if thats a word) or start a fight. I'm just trying to answer your question.
Hey Cureboy
July 13, 2008 - 21:33 ET by exLibDo you know how many people lost jobs during the Clinton administration?
I knew dozens, if not hundred's of people of lost jobs during massive layoffs from 96-98 when the economy was tanking due to the Tech Bubble bursting.
In 2000 thousands lost their jobs due to the dot.com bubble bursting, all before Bush even took office.
Funny thing, you never hear about it.
I know a few people now who are having a hard time finding work but they are mainly people without a flexible skill-set. Blue Collar workers and such.
Obama cannot "Solve The Economy". Jimmy Carter presided over the worst economy possible and GWB still gets tagged with the worst President "ever" cannard.
There's a part of me that hopes Obama wins and that everyone can see the disaster of epic proportions that he will unleash on this country.
But I love the country too much to actually want it to happen, unlike the left right now who want Iraq to fail miserably and have been talking down the economy for 7 years until it finally is in bad shape.
BTW, IF Obama wins he will NOT want to be the one to take the blame for the disaster that will be the middle east when we pull out. Instead, it would be better for the Democrats to cut war funding NOW while GWB is in office, so they can blame the failure on him.
Mark my words, Obama wins and the Iraq war will become one of the biggest turnaround stories of the century. All of sudden all the good news that has been stiffled will start to get reported in gobs until all America thinks it's a Oasis in the desert.
Howdy exlib.... Boy...
July 13, 2008 - 21:45 ET by bigtimerHowdy exlib....
Boy... oh boy.... did you ever hit the nail on the head!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Actually I work in
July 13, 2008 - 22:13 ET by Cureboy675Actually I work in software. And I know the dotcom bust hit a lot of people. Actually, most of the people I work with got their jobs because of that whole Y2K fiasco. That was slightly before my time, career wise.
All I know about is what I see. And it is depressing as hell. For the past two years, on the last Thursday of March, July and September, more people get laid off. You can set your clock by it. I assume it has something to do with the end of each quarter. The exception being December, where my company finds its heart and does the layoffs the first week of December (we can't look cold-hearted and lay people off the day after Christmas).
The only reason I'm still around is I'm newer and therefore cheaper. Thats how they base it. And they replace the folks they've laid off with cheaper contractors in India and Argentina. And, hey, this is America. Everybody has a right to earn as much money as they possibly can.
But for our government to turn around and give tax breaks to these people. Why?? You really want to reward the shafting of the American worker. And its not just the federal government. Our state and city governments do the same thing. Our city promised this company the land (which some wanted to preserve as a landmark) at dirt cheap rates because the company promised to employ 4,000 employees. And yeah, they did that. For a while. Now, just ten years later, that 4,000 is less than 1,000 and they still get their cushy tax breaks. Insanity!
Am I ranting? Probably. I do that sometimes.
You Are Correct
July 13, 2008 - 18:34 ET by Linda51The
FISA and same-sex-marriage are probably changes. I have read Obama's
statement about FISA on his website and read counter arguments, but have not
had time to digest the details of the last bill. I do not remember his initial statement on same-sex-marriage. He has not flip-flopped on Iraq
I should have used the word lie or deceive instead of pander, which is what Fiorina did today and in the past few weeks.
McCain has done the same. When McCain says in Town Hall Meetings, if you want your taxes raised, Obama is your man. It is doubtful that anyone in his audience fell into the over $250,000 salary range.
Obama has had a couple statements that were not completely accurate, but they pale in comparison to McCain's statements.
Of course Obama has
July 13, 2008 - 18:42 ET by BlazerOf course Obama has to slide right, its the only way a liberal can get elected to Potus, Hillary was doing the same exact thing before she retired from the race.
Obama and Clinton were trying to out liberal each other during the primaries and then when Clinton saw that wasn't working for her campaign, she slid right to attract the moderates and undecideds.
Now that she's gone Obama knows that he'll have to get the middle, independant and crossover votes to win. Thats why he's switched just about every single one of his positions now that he's the nominee. America is not as liberal as the media wants everyone to believe.
With that said Obama is a far-leftist politician who will slide back to the far-left on every policy if he's elected. He needs the "bitter" vote now to get elected. Tell me how thats not pandering?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
You know what would be fun,
July 13, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Cureboy675You know what would be fun, in a demented psychotic kind of way?
Is to have two presidential candidates who are at the exact opposite end of the spectrum and don't even try to hide it. Like a Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic side. Somebody who is completely 100% liberal and won't pretend that they are not. (Or even better former State Senator Ernie Chambers from my home town, but nobody's ever heard of him)
I don't know who could be considered 100% conservative on the Republican side? Would that be a Newt Gingrich or a Mike Huckabee? Rush Limbaugh? I don't know. Pick somebody who is absolutely full-blooded conservative and won't pretend that they are not.
And let those two duke it out for President of the United States. At the very least, we would see complete and totally frank, honest comments from both candidates.
Cure
July 13, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Free StinkerI don't know who could be considered 100% conservative on the Republican side?
Mark Levin.
And you're right. That *would* be fun! ;-)
Your right that would be
July 13, 2008 - 19:07 ET by BlazerYour right that would be interesting, I'm sure the fire works would fly. Better yet, put em' in a cage and let em' fight it out in a deathmatch. However Obama is just as far-left as Kucinich in my opinion. He's just thrown his far-left persona under his bus until after the election.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Linda...
July 13, 2008 - 21:54 ET by Clear thinkerI normally connect flip-flopping with pandering and the Washington Post has a top ten list.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
Did I mention they are all Obama's?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Absolutely nobody should be
July 13, 2008 - 16:30 ET by bigtimerAbsolutely nobody should be surprised about Brokaw and his leftist agenda, he has always been this way, nothing new at all...that is why he was put there, at least until the election is over...
Period.
He is a POS.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Ignoring Seriousness of Phil Gramm's Impact on McCain & America
July 13, 2008 - 17:04 ET by Linda51Hopefully more main stream media will wake-up to what is happening to our country.
While Carly Fiorina does not think anyone cares about what Phil Gramm said, the Bush Adminstration is preparing to fix some of Gramm's legislation on our backs.
Rescue Power Sought for Fannie, Freddie
July 14, 2008
WASHINGTON — Alarmed about the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two
largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration will ask Congress to
approve a rescue package that would give the government the authority to buy
billions of dollars in stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and also lend to the
companies to meet their short-term funding needs, people briefed about the plan
said on Sunday.
http://www.nytimes.c...
Linda... OMG! I am
July 13, 2008 - 17:17 ET by bigtimerLinda...
OMG!
I am outraged about this...the msm stayed silent about the thieves running these organizations, which was far bigger than Enron ever thought of being, nothing happened to the plicks running it during all this time...and now this.
Enough already.
I had a rough day, heck a rough week and I am not looking for links to all of this, just google it if anyone is interested in the past with Freddie and Fannie...makes me mad the biggest a$$hole named by Clinton got away with tons of crap. Raines is name I think.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Enron is just one Phil Gramm's Disasters
July 13, 2008 - 19:19 ET by Linda51bigtimer condescending statements are telling.
There are a number of things that have led to current financial problems. Gramm is the only cause, but he is a primary cause.
History has shown repeatedly that were there is money strong regulation is needed. It is impossible for me to believe that lobbyists are allowed to spend money lobbying federal officials, which includes the heads of agencies that are supposed to be providing regulatory oversight.
Phil
Gramm's hidden Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) in
2000 deregulated financial derivatives.
The swaps were traded in the dark, which had more affect on the subprime
mortgage foreclosures than did the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.
The lobbyist issue is the number one thing that first attracted me to Obama.
I have watched Congressional Hearings for several years. I have heard Prof. Michael Greenberger warn Congress several times during the last few months that more banks/financial institutions were going under.
Greenberger has been telling Congress since at least 2002 about the issues caused by Gramm's actions. Congress did not take any action.
Greenberger has been before Congress many times during the last few months, sometimes several times in a week.
Congress just has more hearings.
Yea, and Obama
July 13, 2008 - 19:26 ET by BlazerYea, and Obama flip-flopped on taking public (lobbyist) campaign contributions and Chuck Schumer is directly responsible for the collapse of IndyMac the largest bank failure in decades your point?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
...Dodd and others with a
July 13, 2008 - 19:31 ET by bigtimer...Dodd and others with a 'D' after their name with CountryWide...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Linda
July 13, 2008 - 19:37 ET by Noel SheppardLinda,
Can you tell my readers which chamber of Congress actually had a roll call vote on CFMA 2000, what the vote tally was, and which chamber approved it by a voice vote with no objection? Also, who were the authors and co-sponsors of the real bill that was roll call voted on? And, which president signed it into law?
Furthermore could you tell us exactly what about CFMA 2000 has had a negative impact on America's financial institutions? Please be specific by referring to the actual legislation.
I await your answers with great eagerness. ns
Primary Author Was Walter Lukken for Sen. Richard Lugar
July 13, 2008 - 21:46 ET by Linda51Bush nominated Walter Lukken as a Commissioner in 2002
http://www.cftc.gov/...
"Prior to joining the CFTC, Acting Chairman Lukken served for five years as counsel on the professional staff of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee under Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), specializing in futures and derivatives markets. In this capacity, he was prominently involved in the development, drafting and passage of the CFMA (H.R. 5660). "
I am fully aware that Clinton signed the bill in December 2000 just before Christmas break.
I also know how it was pushed through Congress. There is plenty on the Internet where your readers can find the information. A good start would be Prof. Michael Greenberger's testimonies before Congress. No one has ever contradicted his statements.
It also does not matter whether Democrats or Republicans voted the for a bill. The major issue is that Congress took no action after Enron.
It is apparent from your condescending tone that you have no real interest in anything I have said.
Linda... You are already
July 13, 2008 - 21:56 ET by bigtimerLinda...
You are already over-using the word condescending.
I find you amusing...we all need a little laughter now and then.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Linda
July 13, 2008 - 22:19 ET by Noel SheppardLinda,
Condescending tone? Really?
Well, let's get passed that, shall we? After all, what does George Bush have to do with legislation signed into law in December 2000?
Be advised that I've done extensive writing on CFMA, including quite recently:
Please also be advised that I began advocating closure of this loophole almost two years ago well before this election cycle when folks on the left started blaming it all on Gramm and McCain. And, I've done so again quite recently.
Now, could you tell me how this legislation is at all responsible for the current financial crisis in this country as you suggested in your first post? Or are questions too condescending? ns
Linda51, you are
July 13, 2008 - 23:11 ET by jdhawkLinda51, you are misinformed. The CFMA was passed in 2000 and signed into law by Clintoon, but because the law didn't specify certain things, it didn't actually go into effect until August 2003. So your Greenberger reference regarding this subject is bogus.
What was the CFMA addressing? It was addressing specifically creating a futures market for stocks or as they are known in the trade, single stock futures contracts. It had nothing do to with deregulating financial futures contracts. What it did do was create a market for something that the Europeans were already doing and with US stocks. This was an effort to bring the business of single stock futures contracts back to the US.
See this link for a synopsis of this act: http://www.wisegeek.... .
----
July 13, 2008 - 19:30 ET by dahliatraversFranklin Raines was a budget director in Bill Clinton's administration, Bigtimer.
Fanny May lost $9 billion during his tenure (2001-2004) as CEO. Now more losses at Fanny May and Freddie Mack due to the mismanagement of officers and managers who clearly attained their position due to political connections and not financial savvy.
Under such circumstances, why should taxpayers have to bail them out?
http://mortgage-home...
DT
July 13, 2008 - 19:40 ET by Noel SheppardDT,
How deep of a depression, how high an unemployment rate, and how much loss in wealth associated with stocks and real estate are you prepared to accept in exchange for us finally making a point by not bailing out institutions so closely tied to our entire financial system? ns
Hmm...
July 13, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Indiana JoeThat is a toughie, Noel. While I appreciate the havoc that would ensue if the two FMs were cut adrift, there is also the question of how long can we keep bailing out these types of mis-managed institutions? In a free market (something we conservatives supposedly support), it's "sink or swim."
Maybe, to keep from continually having to lend support when a house of cards collapses, it would be better not to build the house in the first place. Or at least to let the builders know it's their house, and they can't count on the taxpayers to cover their risks.
How? Hell, I don't know, I'm no economist. Do we need to do something right now to save our economy? Probably. But there should be some mechanism to try to ensure a "never again" (or maybe "RARELY ever again") policy.
IJ
July 13, 2008 - 20:11 ET by Noel SheppardIJ,
Well, it is a toughie and was designed to be. After all, we aren't a Libertarian nation, as much as many of us might like that. We do create legislation designed to maximize opportunity and employment whilst minimizing consumer abuses. As such, when institutions fail, it is often because they were following regulations -- or deregulations -- enacted by Congress.
To be sure, we can trace some of the current problems to Gramm Leach Bliley. You may have read an article I wrote about this a few weeks ago. As such, if government had a role in creating the processes by which institutions fail, should we walk away when they do, especially if many other institutions -- some not even in the same industry! -- will suffer in their default?
We're a nation teetering on recession nay depression at the worst possible time in our history: just as the baby boomers are retiring. A serious economic downturn now, with a resulting decline in tax revenues, could set up a collapse like you've probably never considered. We NEED to prevent it at all costs. ns
Heres an interesting
July 13, 2008 - 20:33 ET by BlazerHeres an interesting writeup on the whole fiasco here. You can follow the link over to NYT-Jazeera for more depth on the story, although not a big fan of directing any traffic their way.
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=19990
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Noel, at some point, these bailouts must stop.
July 13, 2008 - 20:38 ET by R D HelmAfter all, we aren't a Libertarian nation, as much as many of us might like that.
You are correct, as we certainly aren't a libertarian nation now. However, we once were, and much of what we are facing today would not now be happening had the American people not realized they could vote themselves money that was earned by others.
I am now convinced that this nation is on the brink of reaping the consequences of the nanny state, the roots of which were planted in the 1930's.
Sure, this most recent bailout may temporarily plug the hole in the dike, but what happens next time?
The tab for all this is adding up at a rather brisk pace.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD
July 13, 2008 - 20:44 ET by Noel SheppardRD,
You're correct. This all began in the '30s under FDR, got worse under LBJ, and has now gotten out of hand. However, with the baby boomers retiring, and oil at $145, do we risk a total financial meltdown now?
With the size of this generation, and the unfunded liabilities owed to them, such a meltdown now could last decades. Is that worth the risk? Is that how you want to live for the next 20 or 30 years? ns
Noel,
July 13, 2008 - 21:21 ET by Indiana JoeWell, I can definitely see your point. But, it seems to me that this scenario just gets bigger and bigger. We're repairing the dam with bubble-gum in the cracks, and the river just keeps on rising. If the reckoning now would be 2 or 3 decades of "meltdown," as you put it, what will it be if it's put off for another generation?
We need a way to relieve the pressure on the dam, some kind of sluice gate to open. There will be consequences, sure, but better to lose a neighborhood than the whole valley.
Removing regulations that end up causing this kind of mess sounds good, but too little regulation has led to disaster, too. There must be a balancing-point, but where it is, I have no idea.
I hate to say it, but it seems the real-estate market had a big hand in this, with the runaway appreciation of homes in the recent past. Along with lots of people who didn't grasp the term "adjustable rate." The intrinsic value of homes was, well, over-valued. How does one regulate that in a free market economy? And at what point do we say "enough!" to those who can't manage their own finances?
Noel, seriously, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but...
July 13, 2008 - 21:50 ET by R D HelmWith the size of this generation, and the unfunded liabilities owed to them...
Unfunded liabilities approved by whom? Bureaucrats? Renegade congress critters? Stupid liberals?
Heck, I never approved any of these liabilities, not ONE, yet I am now being asked (forced?) to surrender an even larger portion of my income, against my will, btw, in order to fund them?
Why? Because our Imperial Federal Government (along with ACORN) dictated that mortgage lenders loan money to unqualified buyers or face crippling, if not fatal, fines?
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD...
July 13, 2008 - 21:58 ET by Clear thinkerYou rebel you!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ct, I don't know about you, but I am pretty much through...
July 13, 2008 - 22:20 ET by R D Helm...paying for the utter stupidity of other people.
I am truly sorry if the majority of the dumbMasses were forced to attend a government school their entire life, but I am not responsible for that.
If their parents could not afford to fund a decent education for them, then they should not have brought them into this world.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD... Thank God we still
July 13, 2008 - 22:23 ET by Clear thinkerRD...
Thank God we still have our guns and religion to cling to, heh?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ct,
July 13, 2008 - 22:43 ET by R D HelmHonestly, those may be the only things we have left, if we have, in fact, reached the juncture in I now believe that we have in our "history."
Hosed, we are.
LOL-and I do not consider myself an "alarmist" by any means.
Willing to learn?
Just perhaps. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD
July 13, 2008 - 22:29 ET by Noel SheppardRD,
Who voted for this is irrelevant, don't you think? It exists.
Of course, wouldn't it be wonderful if people today were allowed to vote on the various entitlement programs such as SS and Medicare? How do you think such a vote would go?
For instance, what if you were offered an SS and Medicare buyout with the following terms: as long as you continue to work, you will continue to pay into this system so that those currently receiving benefits and over the age of 55 will get everything they've been promised. However, your payment percentages are significantly reduced in return for you forfeiting all benefits payable to you in the future.
Would you take that? I would in a heartbeat. How many Americans would opt for this? ns
Noel,
July 14, 2008 - 01:09 ET by Indiana JoeAre you talking about an "opt-out?" Because a "buyout" would imply some kind of payoff on your investment, like a pension "buyout." And where would that money come from?
An opt-out would make sense for younger workers, maybe. But at 51, I'd have to really be convinced to walk away from my 35-year mandated investment in these programs. A true buyout would make that a little more palatable.
Btw, thanks a lot for making the cut-off age 55! Could you maybe delay implementation for about 4 years or so? ;^)
IJ
IJ
July 14, 2008 - 08:45 ET by Noel SheppardIJ,
Opt-out or buyout? Take your pick. In reality, you would be buying out because you'd still be paying into the system, right? In an opt-out, you wouldn't have to continue funding that which you've chosen to depart. In my proposal, citizens would be paying, albeit at a diminished rate, to opt-out. So, technically, it's probably some mixture of the two. ns
Noel,
July 14, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Indiana JoeSorry, no. A buyout would involve some kind of remuneration to you for your investment to that point. A pension buyout, for example, would consist of a lump-sum payment to you to relieve your employer of the burden of paying you a monthly pension upon retirement. It's like those JG Wentworth ads: Get your money NOW, instead of waiting for annuity payments. They pay you a (smaller) lump, then THEY get the annuity.
Whereas an opt-out would seem to be giving up any future benefits in exchange for a reduced tax rate. As I said, maybe a good deal for a younger worker, but maybe not so good for an old fogey like me, who has a huge investment already in the system.
IJ
----
July 13, 2008 - 20:39 ET by dahliatraversOh fine. Call my bluff, Noel.
I was speaking more on principle and out of exasperation at the actions of our not-so-public-minded public servants. No, I wouldn't want to kick the real estate and mortgage markets while they're down.
Can we at least rev up some Congressional hearings (asssuming that criminal charges are out of the question) and put some of these nit-wits at Fanny May and Freddie Mack on the hot seat?
DT
July 13, 2008 - 20:48 ET by Noel SheppardDT,
Sure, but it'll be a sideshow.
You know, my wife is a bank compliance officer, and we were discussing Fannie and Freddie last night at dinner. If you know how these entities work, loans that they guarantee are supposed to be a maximum size, and meet a variety of criteria such as front and back-end ratios, LTVs, etc.
Well, the belief in the industry is that a BIG part of the problem is that there were so many loans going through these GSEs that they couldn't all be reviewed by folks at Fannie and Freddie. As a result, many loans have been guaranteed that DON'T meet federal requirements. Isn't that nice? ns
Noel,
July 13, 2008 - 21:26 ET by Indiana JoeIf I understand you correctly, these regulations were being ignored? So, in that sense, it's wasn't really the regulations that were the problem, it was the enforcement, right?
It's all really above me, but seems like someone(s) screwed up somewhere(s).
IJ
IJ
July 13, 2008 - 22:43 ET by Noel SheppardIJ,
There's a HUGE number of screwups in all of this. Really pathetic actually. Let me give you another big one: what lender in their right mind would loan money to someone that couldn't afford the payments once the teaser rate expired and it fully indexed?
Nobody, right? Well, guess what's one of the BIG reasons we're in this pickle right now?
Ridiculous. ns
Exactly, Noel
July 14, 2008 - 00:58 ET by Indiana JoeBut these nitwits that took out the loans are presented as "victims" of the big, bad wol... er, bankers. And if they hadn't gotten the loans? "Victims" of racism, red-lining, sexism, you-name-it. With everyone having the "right" to everything they want (like "affordable housing"), the banks were really in a no-win situation, IMHO.
I never would have believed that the "adjustable rate mortgage" would have ever flown with so many people. The minute I first heard of one, I knew it was a bad bet. Like it's ever going to "adjust" down? But at the same time, the banks need some way to guarantee a profit on the loans that go bad. So the interest rate has to cover the write-offs. The "victims" that don't understand this (and their defenders, like Rev. Nutcutter) probably also think that the guvmint can solve all this by just printing more money.
Plenty of blame to go around here. But we're all going to be paying for it. Ridiculous and pathetic don't even begin to cover it. Disgusting and disgraceful come closer to the mark. Wish I could add "unthinkable" to the list, but it's clearly not true. Too bad.
IJ
dahlia... thank you so
July 13, 2008 - 19:46 ET by bigtimerdahlia...
thank you so much...
In answer to your last question....
WE SHOULDN'T!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I'm not surprised by
July 13, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Cureboy675I'm not surprised by Brokaw's behavior. This kind of thing has been commonplace for a long time, unfortunately.
That being said. Meet The Press is NOT the place to air that type of thing. Sadly, you can expect more of the same. Why else would they keep Brokaw at the helm until after the presidential election? Could they possibly be more transparent?
I completely agree that the press is out of control. Even if it benefits my own personal politcal beliefs. Journalism is not the place for that. My beloved journalism teacher, Mrs. Minton, is undoubtedly spinning in her grave.
Good point cure, a press
July 13, 2008 - 17:23 ET by BlazerGood point cure, a press dominated by one belief system running un-abated benefits absolutely noone in the long run. Heres the problem as I see it with the liberally slanted press, a majority in both houses whos senior leadership is far-left and the possible election of a far-left president the political engine in this country will be Chicago and San-Fran driven.
Most liberals are moderate and are not far-left, but their party has been hi-jacked. Heres one thing to keep in mind also, these are the people who scream for every right, that they would not even have , if they actually got the society that they want.'
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Absolutely. That is what
July 13, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Cureboy675Absolutely. That is what originally drew me to this website. The notion of pointing out bias in the media. Because these should be no bias in the media, period. Having only one opinion and one way of thinking encouraged by the media? Sounds a lot like the Soviet Union to me.
Now find me a genuinely neutral website that points out cases of both liberal and conservative bias in the media (and admittedly, there is a significally lower rate of conservative media bias), and I would be in hog heaven!
Surprise
July 13, 2008 - 19:13 ET by ScrapironIs anyone surprised that other left wing anti-american liberals hide in the Lame Stream Media? Blather Rather just scratched the surface. Like a snake chopped in half, the a** end refuses to die.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Doesn't Brokaw already have
July 13, 2008 - 21:33 ET by zfDoesn't Brokaw already have a show? Sheesh.
Love how democrats only care about deficits when they want to use it to attack Republicans. The other 99% of the time they can't get enough of them.
The Bush tax cuts didn't fail, the democracts ethanol bill is what sent food prices up and if we had been allowed to drill for more oil and build nuclear plants after the 70's oil crisis we wouldn't have such a big problem with fuels costs as we do now. It's all right to bitch about how much time drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants and new refineries will take and how much it'll cost now, libs, but where were you thirty years ago? Setting the goundwork for this to happen, that's what. Now they want to bail out mortgages, yup, that's a great way to solve the problem, insulate people from the negative effects of the bad decisions and the laziness that created the problem in the first place. Smart.
zf...
July 13, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Clear thinkerMan, your on a roll tonight. Go for it!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
sub-prime mortgage crisis, credit defaults, Gramm, Enron, CFTC
July 14, 2008 - 00:17 ET by Linda51Prof. Michael Greenberger
is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and the director of
the University's Center for Health and Homeland Security. Michael Greenberger, former
head of the CFTC’s Division of Trading and Markets, 1997-2001
April
2008
http://blog.sustainablemiddleclass.com/?tag=phil-gramm
links to:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89338743
Law professor
Michael Greenberger joins Fresh Air
to explain the sub-prime mortgage
crisis, credit defaults, the shaky future of other types of loans and what
we can expect from the U.S. financial markets.
Toward the end of
the above audio, Greenberger explains one of the major reasons regulators do
not provide adequate oversight. Jim Newsome, CEO, NYMEX and former CFTC
Chairman, leaves CFTC for several million dollars per year.
Enron Email discussing James Newsome, who became the Chairman at CFTC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Kean
To: wgramm@aol.com
Sent: 13/02/2001 at 15:55
what do you think?
----- Forwarded by
Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 02/13/2001 02:55 PM -----
Richard Shapiro
02/12/2001 09:49 AM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: CFTC Chair
Let's discuss.
---------- Forwarded by Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron on 02/12/2001 09:48 AM -----------
From: Lisa Yoho on 02/12/2001 07:37 AM PST
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc:
Subject:
CFTC Chair
Rick -- Let's discuss when you have a minute.
Thanks, Lisa
----- Forwarded by Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron on
02/12/2001 07:36 AM -----
Chris Long
02/12/2001 07:23 AM
To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lora
Sullivan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject:
CFTC Chair
Jim Newsome is currently the Interim Chair of the Commodities
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). He was appointed in 1998 to term which
expires in June 2001. Commissioner Newsome
visited Enron in 1999 and will again visit
Enron to meet with Jeff Skilling (also EnronOnLine executives) on
March 6, 2001.
The CFTC has 5 Commissioners. Commissioners Newsome and Spears are Republicans and Commissioners Erickson
and Holum are Democrats, with one opening. If Newsome becomes Chair, then there will be two open seats. If
Newsome if passed over, there will only be open seat.
Commissioner Newsome has the support of
Majority Trent Lott. He is well liked in industry because of his free market philosophy and belief in competition and deregulation. While not a technical expert, he is a
"known quantity" at the
Commission. Newsome played a major role
in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) which became law last Congress. This law brought legal
certainty and modernization to the commodity trading community. With Newsome, industry is consulted before regulations
are issued. Industry generally believes that Commission Newsome is the right
candidate to oversee the CFMA rulekmaking which is currently underway.
The other candidate for the position was
former North Carolina Senator Lauch Faircloth whose nomination was being
championed by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX). We have learned that Faircloth has
lost interest, because he would have to divest sizeable interest in agriculture
holdings. The concern now is that because
this is a third tier appointment, unknown candidates will suddenly appear
without industry input. A quick nomination and confirmation of Commissioner Newsome as Chairman is
recommended by many in the industry.
Do
you think it appropriate to have Ken Lay raise this
nomination with the transition team?
Commisioner Newsome's bio:
http://www.cftc.gov/...
For more information on the CFTC:
http://www.cftc.gov/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Greenspan
dented American idol: Bernd Debusmann
Apr 30, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService4/idUSL3082838820080430
A major milestone
on the road to "what is fast becoming the worst financial calamity since
the Great Depression," in the words of Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach, was
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) of 2000. The way it was written,
introduced and passed speaks volumes about the Washington intersection between
politics, finance, and lobbyists.
The 262-page piece
of legislation was added as a last-minute rider to an 11,000-page omnibus bill
on the afternoon of December 15, the Friday before the Christmas recess.
"I would say there was no one, except the drafters of the bill, who
understood what it did," said Michael Greenberger, who served in the Commodities
and Futures Trading Commission in the late 1990s. "And the drafters were Wall Street lawyers,
not legislators."
Where Were The
Watchdogs? Greenberger said, Congress calls CFTC and says you are slowing down
economy Enron 2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june02/watchdogs_2-22.html
The CFTC, Reluctant
Regulator, 11/26/2003, TheStreet.com, by Will Swarts
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10128874/1/the-cftc-reluctant-regulator.html
Regulator Delays
Overhaul Bid, Wall Street Journal - Feb. 6, 2004 http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040206_Headline09_McKay.htm
The Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will delay recommending overhauls for
exchange governance, pending comments from the public, and will order exchanges
and other futures self-regulatory organizations to reexamine their own handling
of audits and other functions. It seems extremely timid, Michael
Greenberger, JD, a professor in the School of Law and a former director of the
CFTC trading and markets division, says of the CFTC's action regarding exchange
regulation.
Futures Officials
Are Wearing Cones of Silence Wall Street Journal - Aug.
31 2004
Senior regulators
for the nation's futures markets are prohibited from most day-to-day
communication because of politics, a clash of recent personnel moves, and rules
intended to improve trading oversight.
The restrictions affect key officials at the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) and one of its largest regulated markets, the New York
Mercantile Exchange. "This is not the time to take a non-aggressive
approach, which is what's going on, in effect," says Michael Greenberger,
JD, former director of the CFTC's division of trading and markets, and
professor in the School of Law
http://www.oea.umaryland.edu/communications/news/inthenews/index.html?month=09&year=2004
July 6,
2007
Professor
Michael Greenberger http://www.law.umaryland.edu/faculty/inthenews_archive.html?year=2007&pg=43
The Daily Report – A U.S. Senate subcommittee is
investigating whether electronic energy exchanges should be regulated by the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Even if the CFTC is given that
authority, Michael Greenberger, JD, professor at the School of Law, director of
the Center for Health and Homeland Security, and a former director for trading
and markets for the CFTC, questioned whether it would be effective. "The CFTC Is a Captive of the
Industry It Regulates," Greenberger said.
June
25, 2007 – Before the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Regarding, Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas
Futures Market
CFTC Is In Desperate Need
Of New Commissioners Who Represent The Consumer Interest.
Excerpts
from the written testimony of Michael Greenberger, http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/STMTGREENBERGERMichael.pdf
The final point I want to make, is we keep saying the CFTC is not able
to find this out. Unfortunately, as the CFTC sits there
today, they don’t want to find this out.. The most critical
arguments made against looking at this market are by Commissioners from the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The CFTC is in desperate need of new commissioners who represent
the consumer interest. Congress can pass all of the laws it wants to ensure
that the energy derivatives markets are not overrun and made dysfunctional by
excessive speculation. If the CFTC commissioners do not believe in those laws, the American consumer will continue
to take a back (and highly uncomfortable) seat to the large banks, hedge funds,
and other market speculators.
May
8, 2006 - Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing “Lessons from Enron: An
Oversight Hearing on Gas Prices and Energy Trading”
Oh my Linda... ...I had
July 14, 2008 - 00:20 ET by bigtimerOh my Linda...
...I had to wait to quit laughing to post this.
Thank you...thank you very much.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
First of all, welcome to NB, Trollinda.
July 14, 2008 - 00:46 ET by R D HelmAs for the sub-prime mortgage "crisis" some now find themselves in, this is due solely to the fact that left-wing, nose-picking, booger-eating bed-wetters (such as yourself) insisted on "leveling" the housing "playing field."
As such, you, along with your ignorant, government-schooled LIBERAL brethren, insisted that the un-qualified be given mortgages, regardless of their ability to repay same.
You and your fellow travelers have only succeeded in putting thousands of Americans out of work (including many of my friends.)
What say you?
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD,
July 14, 2008 - 01:25 ET by Indiana JoeI don't think "bedwetters" is hyphenated.
;^D