I have not watched the Palin/Biden debate yet, but I can only assume Palin has done very well indeed. The reason I say this is that listening to the BBC’s coverage of this event on the Today programme this morning the entire tone was that Palin had not fouled up. Essentially the BBC line was that “gaffe-prone” Palin had managed to just about hold her own, though she wobbled “a bit” on climate change and Iraq. Biden was painted as having glided serenely through the debate. So, if we believe the BBC, instead of being a total train-wreck, Palin just about got through. Talk about raising and lowering expectations. The BBC, like their soul-mates in the Democrat Party, are scare senseless of the values Palin stand for and so they have spent the last several weeks mocking her. Meanwhile, back in the real world, I can but assume that Sarah walloped slow Joe.
THE TROUBLE FOR SARAH.
Bookmark the permalink.
Martin:
“Spot ON” dittos!
betyangelo: If McCain needs some one to hold his jacket. I’m his man.
whitewineliberal | 03.10.08 – 9:53 pm |
But where exactly did any of her questions exhibit a pro-obama stance? She seemed utterly cowed by the publicity beforehand. Justin Webb was with David Preiser on this one though.
Please be careful how you characterize my remarks. I said that Ifill was mostly fair, and I qualified that by saying there were a couple of questions which seemed geared to take Gov. Palin down,
Ifill also mentioned the dreaded Dick Cheney, which was an obvious partisan setup for Biden. The Obamessiah supporters hate Cheney even more than Bush, so that was a pretty blatant partisan question. Which Ifill chose herself. That equates to pro-Obamessiah behavior. Of course, Biden got his facts slightly wrong about the VPs powers, and Ifill didn’t say a word to correct him. It was a pretty lame question, seemingly chosen only for Biden to score points, but didn’t hurt Palin any.
I also pointed out that Sen. Biden seemed to get the last word more often. If I remember right, there was one question where he went first, and also got the last word. That’s not kosher for debates (although these things barely resemble proper debates anymore).
Webb agreed with me that Ifill should have been removed because of her book deal. That’s the only place in which he and I are in agreement, other than that Ifill wasn’t totally unfair. Ol’ Justin did not report that on air, though (unless I missed it somewhere), which he most certainly should have done. He only mentioned it on his blog.
Speaking of getting the last word on questions during the debate, I kept thinking that he was going to get the final word at the end of the debate too, and he did.
Not sure if anyone stayed up to watch Hannity and Colmes last night. I did.
Check out http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=KJh-fOQf3hA as Dick Morris takes Leftie Loon Colmes apart and calls him a few choice words.
Brilliant
> the irony is that many of these old
> friends are IN THE BBC and asking me
> if what is being reported about the
> USA in the UK is true. Can you f****** > believe it?
> A case in point: they ALL thought the > recent $400b bail-out was a noble
> Democratic initiative being blocked by
> nasty right-wing Republicans.
Ha ha! what do they do when you tell them that the bail-out was actually a proposal by the Bush administration?
Tony:
My friends know me well enough (having been trained in the BBC when ‘objectivity’, as far as there can be such a thing, was valued) to know that though I have conservative views I always give as many sides of the story as I can for THEM to make up their minds about a topic. I leave “ya-boo debates” to the more childish partisans like you.
For the record, I find the Bush proposal very disappointing. Go gloat over that.
John Bosworth | 04.10.08 – 3:24 am |
The whole bail-out deal doesn’t sit well with conservatives, John. I’d like to know what GWB has been smoking the past few years but he certainly hasn’t helped the Republican Party.
It would be a miracle if the McCain / Palin ticket won the election but it would be a disaster if Obama / Biden won. That’s all I can say.
David Preiser
You say Biden got things slightly wrong on the role of the Vice President. My understanding is that he got it terribly wrong. He mixed up Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution – even though he is a part-time lecturer on Constitutional law. And he said that the VP is the President of the Senate (ie the Chairman?) only when there is a tied vote – not so, the VP is ALWAYS the Pres of the Senate, Article 1 of the Constitution makes him so. It is just latterday practice that the VP spends most of his time on the Executive (Article 2) side of the fence, and would only go to the Senate (and take his proper place as President there) if voting is tied or looks likely to be.
Please correct me if I am wrong. But I bet I know more of the US Constitution from reading it 50 years ago than Justin Webb does from being paid a bundle by us to know about it. He was blogging the debate, he did not pick up this serous error of fact, and he seems to have missed the whole string of errors or downright lies that Biden made.
Biden flat-out lied about Obama and his own positions on Iraq. He lied in denying that Obama had suggested negotiations with dictators without preconditions. The list goes on – 14 clear lies on the generally-agreed count, 20 lies on the last count I saw. Not bad – 20 lies in the 45 minutes he was debating.
The best one was his reference to a local restaurant, he made out he could go there right now to find how ordinary people think. But it has been closed for 20 years. The sort of Biden utter nonsense that the BBC never plays up, it would rather deal with Palin and gynacology.
dis…german
Don’t give up on McCain / Palin yet.
Obama is only 5 to 6 points ahead on the RCP poll averages – after 2 weeks of dreadful economic/financial news, and 2 weeks of pain for Palin. Obama has still not crashed through the 50% level.
Allowing for a simmering down of anxiety over the economy, Palin’s strong debate performance (watched by 70 million people, worth 2 points ?) plus margins of error and the Bradley effect – I think it is still all to play for. There are still 2 more debates between McCain and Obama.
Also – McCain is a known quantity, Obama may fail the final-weeks test of “What do we really know about this guy, who is he, what does he stand for ?”
It appears that TeamMcCain deliberately held back on Obama and the Dems being in the pocket of Fannie Mae, until the Bill got through. Even Sarahcuda held back on that – maybe under orders ? The stuff on Fannie Mae looks very damaging to the Dem ticket, even Clinton blames the Dems for the policy of slackening prudent requirements for granting mortgages – and there are reams of TV clips of Dems defending Fannie Mae when McCain was wanting stronger regulation. The question is – can TeamMcCain now get people to connect the dots ? They only need to sway a few percent of people on this criticl issue.
And meanwhile even the New York Times has been forced to run an article on Obama and Ayers – “Nothing to se here, move along” kind of piece, but th details are starting to come to the surface.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
A few examples of Joe Biden’s lies during the debate – he makes all this stuff up as he goes along !
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/10/the_vp_debate_bidens_distortio.html
Biden and his lies during the debate are all over the US press plus wider political commentarym and there is an official TeamMcCain ad on them.
Will Justin Webb tell us this ? Will pigs fly ?
I have finally brought myself to read closely the Justin Webb live-blog on the debate. It truly is patronising towards Palin, and Webb seems to accept every lie that Biden told as Gospel truth and therefore bad for Palin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/
Commentators in the US immediately jumped on the Biden lies. Webb is so damn ignorant, so damn biased, he cannot see even the most blatant lies.
I do like his stuff about Gwen Ifill the moderator being in the tank for Obama, should have been debarred from the job. But he fails to see the real sin – Ifill did not declare about her Obama book beforehand. Webb is so unctious – BBC reporters could not possibly be biased, of course, could they ? Several weeks of bile by Webb against Palin is simply “objective reporting ” ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/
JohnA | 04.10.08 – 5:16 am |
I do hope you are right, if only to get the lying MSM finally face the consequences of their dereliction of duty.
joe biden’s alternate universe
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/35261
Quentin Letts called Palin a “Dingbat Mum” in the Mail the other day. Derision for Palin is not limited to the left in the UK; nor in the US it has to be said.
I don’t know many Moms who can call out high-level corruption in their own party, win a succession of elections against well-funded incumbemnts, get a grip on the budget of an entire state, face down the multinational oil companies etc.
Quentin Letts is similar to some of the toffee-nosed East Coast intellectual rightwingers, the essayists, guys who have never had any of the executive repsonsibility Palin has had.
It keeps coming back to – how come this “dingbat Mom” gets 80% approval rating in her home state ? How come she rocked at the convention, rocked in the VP debate, rocks huge crowds everywhere she goes ?
whitewineliberal: There are plenty on the right that don’t like Palin. They are the same right whingers though that mince around at the BBC (Letts is always on the BBC as he’s ‘their type’ of right winger, just like Ken Clark)
Th eproblem is there is NO balance inthe output by the BBC towards the corruption around Obama.
Most of the crap written about Palin is just utter bollocks.
But what you fail to understand winerackliberal is that the BBC is funded by a national compulsory tax. The BBC has an additionla duty to be balanced in it’s output.
I saw an article the other day, very long, that detailed all the trouble Palin had fighting her own party in Alaska – years and years of fighting, to get rid of the deadbeats. At one stage she resigned a well-paying job to tackle the corruption – 9999 out of 10,000 would have kept their heads down, carried on taking the salary.
And it also mentioned the one strong trair she has – hands-on management. She fires people who just sit around and don’t get with the programme, she tries to veto any expenditure that looks suspect or unnecessary – she just won’t put up with all the old crap. Plus she charges far less exenses than any of her predecessors.
No sign that she had tried to impose her religious views – she simply wanted her town and then her state to be managed better, to ditch the corruption and shady deals between the good ole boys.
She actually came across even more clearly as a stronger, more clear-minded politician than McCain. Clean. And in a far superior league to Obama, let alone Biden, both of whom are corrupted by years playing along with the tainted system, and always adding to the tax burden.
FWIW I was very impressed. Palin should be let loose to rip into all Obama’s shady dealings that the media won’t discuss.
whitewineliberal | 04.10.08 – 10:25 am |
Would it be possible to have a URL link in the RH column that leads to a simple articulation (I am sure there are many to choose from and the best could be voted upon – I’m sure those who ‘know better/what’s good for us’ would benefit from seeing how this process works) of the notion that ‘two wrongs don’t matter squat on this blog’.
The British public have to pay for a licence fee to own a broadcast device, and at the very least should expect our national news and entertainment broadcaster lives up to its own blooming rules and remains objective.
Quoting what anyone else does in the media infirmament matters not one jot, and cranking examples out ad nauseam is just a waste of space.
Then one can just cut and paste ‘see here [demo only, see above for details]’ as required.
ps: Another for those that start or end “I don’t see it” as if that is the concern of any but the poor writer, would be nifty too:)
“Palin should be let loose to rip into all Obama’s shady dealings that the media won’t discuss.”
You guys just don’t get it.
Palin wouldn’t have the first clue how to “rip into Obama’s shady dealings”. We’re talking about a person with no previous interest or background in national politics (or foreign affairs for that matter).
Read more than right-wing websites. Watch more than Fox news.
The fact that you guys think that Fox is more “objective” than the BBCis genuinely hilarious.
Here is the very detailed article on Palin and her work in Alaska. There is more meat in this piece by a blogger than in all the media stuff I have seen or heard.
Bottom line – she is bright, forceful, and above all she has integrity.
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2008/10/politics_the_in_1.php
ptet
Obama has mixed with a whole crowd of dodgy people, up to his neck in dirty Chicago politics.
Palin of all people knows from hard experience the smell of corruption, she would not hold back from lashing Obama and all his works.
And Obama has had damn all experience or knowledge of foreign affairs until he got int the senate, he has hardly attended there anyway. He has shown himself to be appallingly wrong on the surge, to be appallingly naive on how to deal with foreign dictotors, he doesn’t even know how many states there are in the Union.
Obama is a machine politician, has never fought his own party, has never crossed the aisle. His resume is a load of exaggeration – or cover-up of all his dodgy dealings, he has no significant achievement anywhere on anything. A demagogue – a who pretends to be what he isn’t and therefore dangerous.
Plus – an utter narcissist – also dangerous.
JohnA
Just think about this.
Can you think of any POSITIVE qualities Obama has? Can you think of any NEGATIVE qualities Palin has?
If you can’t, then you might like to consider that you’re not dealing with real opinions, you’re just regurgitating Fox-style propaganda.
“he doesn’t even know how many states there are in the Union.”
Really? You really think that? It wasn’t that he meant to say 47, but he started saying “fifty-” and he didn’t say “forty” because he was tired? have you actually watched the video of it happening?
After all that, do you REALLY think Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union?
Or are you making some sort of political joke?
Seriously, anyone on this board whi thinks Palin didn;t ake a total fool of herself in the Couric interviews needs to seriously examine their thinking. And that’s not “Pro Obama” talk. Plenty of commentatrs on the right said the same thing.
Sheesh, some people on the right even got death threats for saying that…
p.s. I read a long and thorough post from a psychologist on Crooks & Liars saying Palin exhibits classic signs of narcissism, especially given her inability to answer questions she doesn’t like. ‘Course, you wouldn’t read that cause its a left leaning blog.
Shrug. Politicians are narcassists. that’s hardly surprising. What’s important, surely, is how they deal with difficult situaitons. Did you watch Obama on Bill O’Reilly? Even if you still think Obama sucks, can’t you give him some credit for how he handled that interview? Or will your head explode if you think anyhing other than “Obama Bad Palin Good”…
ptet
Yes, Obama was OK on the O’Reilly interview. I did not find him at all convincing, just smooth.
But he and his party now needs to be nailed on all the Fannie Mae stuff.
Which won’t even be raised by the BBC – because the BBC is in the tank for Obama, has been for months now. You surely don’t deny that ?
Hi JohnA
Good. See, we can discus things sensibly.
Fine, you find Obama smooth but unconvincing. if he winds the election, tho, are you prepared to give him a chance to prove himself?
As for Fannie Mae… *Boggle*. You do realize that McCain’s Campaign Manager is up to his neck in doo-doo over all that!? And you do realize that the “Financial Crisis is all the fault of the CCA” right-wing thins is just lunacy?
Sure – Congress should be ridiculed for letting the financial crisis get so bad… But congress has been Republican for most of the last 8 years… And the large majority of dodgy sub-prime loans made over the past few years weren’t even covered by the CCA.
As for the BBC… *Boggle* again. Yes, I deny the BBC is “in the bag” for anyone.
You know, it’s an organization of over 20,000 people. Do you think all of them are secret Obama supporters? Or maybe you think they put some sort of mind-control drug in the water there?
The way people speak on this website, it’s like peering into the mind of paranoid conspiracy theorist fantasists.
It’s depressing just being here.
I read a long and thorough post from a psychologist on Crooks & Liars
ptet | Homepage | 04.10.08 – 1:09 pm |
Only brainwashed people believe in the crap “psychologists” spout.
Read more than left-wing websites. Watch more than Al Beeb.
The fact that you think that Al Beeb is more “objective” than Fox News is genuinely hilarious.
Hi disillusioned_german
“Only brainwashed people believe in the crap “psychologists” spout.”
Yeah, who needs that book-lurning’. What do these ivory tower egg-heads know about anything anyways? It’s fine for the pro-Palin people here to call Obama a “narcissist”, but god forbid anyone should actually have a professional opinion on the matter…
“Read more than left-wing websites. Watch more than Al Beeb.”
I follow Fox, the NRO, Powerline, and several conservative blogs. But thanks for making my point about how only morons refuse to read anyhting which disagrees with them.
“The fact that you think that Al Beeb is more “objective” than Fox News is genuinely hilarious.”
I’ll leave that comment hanging.
JohnA | 04.10.08 – 4:59 am |
You say Biden got things slightly wrong on the role of the Vice President. My understanding is that he got it terribly wrong. He mixed up Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution – even though he is a part-time lecturer on Constitutional law. And he said that the VP is the President of the Senate (ie the Chairman?) only when there is a tied vote – not so, the VP is ALWAYS the Pres of the Senate, Article 1 of the Constitution makes him so. It is just latterday practice that the VP spends most of his time on the Executive (Article 2) side of the fence, and would only go to the Senate (and take his proper place as President there) if voting is tied or looks likely to be.
I was being slightly sarcastic when I said “slightly”. Biden made a few errors, but if Sarah Palin didn’t pick up on them, he doesn’t lose any major points. She got him on some, and all he did was talk to the press and pundits covering the debate. In other words, they both scored points for their base. The whole VP question was a dreadful partisan move by Ifill. All Biden had to do was hit the “Dick Cheney” softball lobbed in there for him. He garbled Cheney’s own tortured logic enough to make his point, and slopped over the rest of it because he’s, well, a sloppy thinker.
Please correct me if I am wrong. But I bet I know more of the US Constitution from reading it 50 years ago than Justin Webb does from being paid a bundle by us to know about it. He was blogging the debate, he did not pick up this serous error of fact, and he seems to have missed the whole string of errors or downright lies that Biden made.
Justin Webb can’t expected to know anything about the Constitution or the government or anything else. He’s a storyteller, and his beat is the folksy stuff. He covers politics, but only from the talking head point of view. Webb has never been known for getting into the substance of anything. He deals mostly in the superficial stories, and never gets into the wonky details.
Webb wasn’t covering the debate to catch factual errors, or even proper debating skills. He was there to watch body language, stage presence, and button pushing. Biden was speaking to him during the debate, and Palin was speaking to actual civilians. And remember, Webb actually believes a couple of the fibs Biden told. He doesn’t like a word that comes out of Palin’s mouth, because he doesn’t approve of her religious beliefs. Everything she does is tainted in his eyes. It doesn’t mean she was perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it does mean that he sees artifice sometimes when there isn’t any.
ptet: Nice to see you don’t mention the Democrats up to THEIR neck in the Fannie & Freddie mess.
Franklin Raines for example who was CEO of Fannie Mae under Clinton.
The truth is Fannie & Freddie were used as tools for social engineering by the liberal sot enable the poor to own homes they couldn’t afford.
David Preiser (USA): I wonder how Webb ‘blobgs’ these debateS?
I suspect he simply scans the hate sites like Huffington Post Mediamatters moveon etc to see what folks are saying there.
The idea this brainless dickhead has any ability to do analysis is probably an insult to dicks.
Webb is hopeless and out of his depth. His only saving grace is that Frei and fatty Kay are even worse.
ptet
You are seriously wrong on the legislative background on Fannie Mae. Even Bill Clinton says it started with well-intentioned liberal ideas, the CRA introduced inder Carter and then the sharp change made under his own administration. That is what put the banks in an armlock – they were pressured into issuing tons of mortgages that were unsound, and Fannie Mae made the whole thing worse by guaranteeing them and then bundling them and selling them on as derivatives – which no-one now can value.
There were serious warning flags raised about Fannie Mae, the Government auditor raised this but was accused of racism for his temerity – just watch the YouTube clips on how he was browbeaten by Dem congressmen. Bush asked for better regulation in 2003, but either side can block legislation unless there is some bipartisan fix – the Dems blocked things. It is not possible for either side to ram a Bill through.
McCain then co-sposored Bill S190 in 2005 / 2006, stating at the time that there were risks of very serious financial problems with Fannie mae – systemic problems with wide ramifications for the US. Once again this was blocked by the Dems.
And the pattern is that the Dem Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, – and Obama himself – took big contributions from Fannie Mae, and the equivalent Chairman in the House, Barney Frank. is on plenty of clips spluttering his defence of Fannie Mae and blocking proper regulation – plus his partner has a senior position there.
Please don’t pretend you don’t know all of this.
NONE of this – absolutely none, has been reported by the BBC, even though it is all over the Net and has now been appearing in major US media – and also in UK media.
BBC reporting is both shallow and biased.
ptet,
You are swallowing a democrat progoganda peice about McCains campaign manager being up to his neck in fannie.
Educate yourself.
Mailman
Webb wasn’t covering the debate to catch factual errors, or even proper debating skills. He was there to watch body language, stage presence, and button pushing. Biden was speaking to him during the debate, and Palin was speaking to actual civilians. And remember, Webb actually believes a couple of the fibs Biden told. He doesn’t like a word that comes out of Palin’s mouth, because he doesn’t approve of her religious beliefs. Everything she does is tainted in his eyes. It doesn’t mean she was perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it does mean that he sees artifice sometimes when there isn’t any.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 04.10.08 – 4:17 pm
Excellent, David.
Jeez louise.
Who says I absolve the Dems from everything? But certainly the CCA was involved with a minority of the dogy loans made. I’ve seen bad financial coverage of this on the BBC, and I’ve seen good coverage. It rather depends on the programme I’ve been wathcing or listneing to. To pretend that all of the BBC coverage is bad is just silly. to pretend the BBC is biased (against what exactly?) is just paranoid.
McCain did call for regulation of FM&FM. But even that’s odd – he always called for deregulation of everything else.
The bottom line in all of this ia (a) I am nothing like the obama-loving-dem-robot you all seem to think anyone who disagress with you must be; and (b) you all sound like a bunch of paranoid, drooling idiots when you see the world purely thru “McCain must be right about all things” eyes.
Quite separately, anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is seriously a suitable candidate for VP of the USA … Needs frikkin’ help. Oh yeah – unless of course it’s because she “knows jesus” (wink wink).
ptet
That is the central point – McCain called for proper regulation of Fannie Mae – warning of serious financial trouble. The Dems blocked it. The BBC has NOT reported on this clear difference between the two tickets.
The original CRA stuff was misguided but understandable – but the failure to at when trouble was looming is not defensible.
People don’t want Palin on account of her religion – they want her because she has a record of strong executive action. Something neither Obama nor Biden ever had. Plus – she is not another damn lawyer.
And there is none of the unquestioning worship for McCain among Republicans that Obama gets from his gullible crowds.
You say you are not a robot – have you ever examined Palin’s track record closely, or do you just follow the Dem talking points ?
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/trial-of-sweet-fannie-obama.html
BOD: Perhaps you’d like to hear about one of those “professional” polls.
I found this comment at a PUMA site (Party Unity, My Ass!), a very LARGE group of former Hillary Clinton supporters who are FOR Sarah Palin.
One of them received a call from the CNN polling service. The call went like this:
CNN: Did you watch the Biden-Palin debate on CNN tonight?
PUMA: Yes.
CNN: Are you a Democrat?
PUMA: Not any more!
CNN: (click!)
So we gather two bits of info from this call:
One; CNN was looking ONLY for people who watched the debate on CNN, which would be overwhelmingly Democrats by default. Republicans tend to watch Fox.
Two; CNN was looking for Democrats who were in the tank for Obama. Period. Note that they hung up on a Democrat who was voting Republican.
The same problem exists with Fox and with the Drudge web site. Those entities have a mostly Republican clientelle.
Someone commented that it’s going to take about a WEEK to get serious information about how the debate was seen by the general public. That is the truth of the matter. Those little “flash” polls done directly after a debate are worse than useless– they are completely misinforming because the networks “weight” their polling data by their typical audience sample. Most of the US networks are overwhelmingly watched by Democrats, so their polls WILL weight toward any Democrat who is in the poll.
That’s just the way it is.
“People don’t want Palin on account of her religion – they want her because she has a record of strong executive action.”
Balderdash. Palin was an unknown until very recently. Her performance in interviews since shows she has no grasp of national issues.
“That is the central point – McCain called for proper regulation of Fannie Mae – warning of serious financial trouble. The Dems blocked it. The BBC has NOT reported on this clear difference between the two tickets.
I’ve heard it mentioned on the BBC that McCain called for regulation. I’ve also heard that McCain’s campaign chief’s firm was getting money from FM for doing “nothing”. I’ve heard these on all news outlets I’ve read & seen. Oh and yeah – the Republicans controlled congress for most of the last decade. Sheesh.
“CNN was looking ONLY for people who watched the debate on CNN”
Do you think maybe they have quotas of dems & republicans to meet for their polls?
“CNN was looking for Democrats who were in the tank for Obama. Period.”
Your paranoia is painful to watch.
And you guys think *Fox* is fair!?
The stupidity here is really too much to bear.
“Balderdash. Palin was an unknown until very recently”
Unknown to you obviously but well known to the conservative base of the Republicans.
“Oh and yeah – the Republicans controlled congress for most of the last decade. Sheesh.”
But who controlled it for the last two chaotic years ? That’s right – the Dems.”Seesh” indeed…your painfully limited knowledge of American politics is obviously cobbled together from Al-BBc reports and Democrat talking points. You probably think that Obama and Bill Ayers were “just neighbours” !
“And you guys think *Fox* is fair!?”
It’s as balanced as Al-BBC and fairer than CNN, MSNBC, AP, NYT, WaPo, Time,
Newsweek (you have heard of those haven’t you?)
“The stupidity here is really too much to bear.”
I presume you’re talking about your own comments… perhaps you’d be better off at Al-Beeb’s “Have Your Say”.
ptet | Homepage | 05.10.08 – 2:42 am |
I’ve heard it mentioned on the BBC that McCain called for regulation. I’ve also heard that McCain’s campaign chief’s firm was getting money from FM for doing “nothing”. I’ve heard these on all news outlets I’ve read & seen. Oh and yeah – the Republicans controlled congress for most of the last decade. Sheesh.
Corrections. Rick Davis’s dealings with FMac, while certainly not squeaky clean, aren’t any where near as serious as you make them out to be:
Unsevered Ties? Regulatory filings indicate that McCain campaign chief Rick Davis remains officer with his lobbying firm.
Newsweek is not a McCain-supporting publication. Everyone can read this and decide for themselves just how bad Davis’s situation is/was. Not as bad as being the #2 on their cash list, in my opinion. I have to say, though, that The Obamessiah has barely been in the Senate, and really doesn’t have any responsibility for what started this meltdown. He just hasn’t shown good form.
McCain certainly tried to address the situation back then, so his current employment of Rick Davis has no bearing on his history of dealing with this.
McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac•known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs•and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
It doesn’t matter what you think he did or didn’t do regarding deregulating anything else.
In this speech, McCain managed to predict the entire collapse that has forced the government to eat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Bear Stearns and AIG. He hammers the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom have worked as advisers to Barack Obama this year. McCain also noted the power of their lobbying efforts to forestall oversight over their business practices. He finishes with the warning that proved all too prescient over the past few days and weeks.
What was this bill? The act would have done the following:
(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8 ) reporting.
McCain’s resolution was killed in committee. It doesn’t matter what other Republicans did or didn’t do. McCain wasn’t acting as part of the party establishment. Individual pols can start whatever they like, and their party isn’t just going to rubber stamp it. They could have controlled the government for the previous millennium and it wouldn’t matter.
Congress isn’t a cartoon, one-party-takes-all, rubber stamp system. The Republicans sure couldn’t do anything about this in 2004:
Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004
You can point to any tangential connection between McCain and FMae & FMac all you like. It doesn’t hold a candle to The Obamessiah’s #2 spot as recipient of their largess, nor the fact that he called the former FMae chief to run his VP search, nor that he showed no leadership or usefulness and let Barney Frank and Chris Dodd deal with the situation – like asking the fox to mend the hole in the chicken coop.
David Preiser
Now the gloves are off, I am waiting for all the Fannie Mae blame to be hammered home by Palin – and also McCain in his debates with Obama. Just line up the mugshots of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Obama.
BBC World Service radio has now reported the Palin remarks in Cali about Obama and Ayers. But will Justin Webb or Matt Frei give us the full background ? I bet not.
Guys,
Just checked the RCP Poll average:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Looks like that Obama has gained support over the last days. Could this mean that Palin hat no impact?
Could it be that Sarah walloped Joe, as David Vanced deducts without checking the evidence?
Looks like that Sarah’s impact was close to Zero in the debate. But, hey, what is evidence if you can produce hyperbole.
David Vance, one question.
Who is funding you?
Who is funding you?
gunnar | 05.10.08 – 11:27 am | #
PATHETIC.
“And you guys think *Fox* is fair!?”
It’s as balanced as Al-BBC and fairer than CNN, MSNBC, AP, NYT, WaPo, Time,
Newsweek (you have heard of those haven’t you?)
You people are beyond delusional.
You people are beyond delusional.
ptet | Homepage | 05.10.08 – 11:56 am | #
And you live in a parallel looniverse. You dumb leftist twat.
Gosh — I never realized how cathartic it is to mindlessly insult people. I feel a lot better now. Thank you ptit.
Hey Jack
Yeah, get the anger out. All that Hannity has poisoned your soul.
P
ptet
Most of the US channels are and have been liberal = left slanted.
That is what gave Murdoch his chance , that is why Fox was such an immediate hit. Lots of people were sick of the endless bias on the other channels. And that is why right-wing talk radio has been so successful – not just clever presenters, but lots of Ameicans wanting to hear the other side of the issues, sick of liberal bias in the main US networks.
CNN – founder was very leftie
MSNBC – Chris Matthews and that loon Olbermann have been so blatantly biased in favour of Obama that they have had to be taken off election-anchor work.
CBS – In a word – Rather.
ABC is the only major traditional network that has shown reasonable balance in this election.
And by the way – I do not watch FoxNews. I simply watch clips on YouTube from all the networks.
And all that Colmes has poisoned your mind.
LOL.
The BBC, CNN, AP and every other major news organization are “in the bag” for Obama, and only Fox News gives fair & balanced coverage. The world according to “Jack Bauer…