If Obama wins he will be the least prepared, least qualified person to ever occupy the White House. Observers wonder just how this individual has engineered such a remarkable escape from his past.
We along with others have detailed the likes of Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Rezko, ACORN, Chicago politics, all the rest. These are not just individuals or organizations who/which happened to be in the same place at the same time as Obama. These are people/groups he sought out, with whom he chose to ally himself for years and where on occasion serious money changed hands. These are allies chosen deliberately for a reason which most will admit says something about the person. Yet few are bothered.
His motto is about "change." But Obama was not on the side of "change" when reformers were trying to clean up the corrupt, machine politics in Chicago. Instead he came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates. Not a problem; instead of issuing explicit denials about his shady past, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and lofty that even rational people go for them. He preaches unity. But everything about Obama’s history shows he was a polarizer, not a unifier. That is what "community organizers" do, they polarize - create a sense of grievance, envy and resentment. And that is what he did when spending the money of the Woods Fund, bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. And that is what he did when he gave $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, or, were Wright’s sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up the message?
As a US senator he opposed the Republican effort to reform Fannie & Freddie. It was the aggressive buying of junk mortgages by the twins, the poor choices of these two GSE’s that are largely to blame for our current crisis. The twins were catalysts that drew in the sharks; crooked officials cooked the books to get giant bonuses and they got away with it by lavishing money on Democratic legislators. Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie. And Obama’s campaign sought the advice of the disgraced former CEO of Fannie, Frank Raines. The twins and Raines were at the center of our Heart of Darkness - the "mess in Washington" that Obama is going to try to clean up under the banner of "change". Too much. (Not happy with your 401K and want to vent? Start with Dodd, Frank and Obama.)
Nothing sticks to this charismatic charlatan. He’s not held accountable by a fawning electorate. Why? Simple. White liberal guilt trumps all of it. If Obama were a white guy he wouldn’t have a snow ball’s chance in hell of taking the White House.
That was easy.
Robert Craven
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
No Decency?
We have maintained that the core issue or trigger to the current crisis was the past decade’s enabling of the Fn/Fr twins by the Democrats. We have connected the dots for our readers to this Heart of Darkness. It’s all fairly obvious. Usually both are to blame, at least in shades; this time one party and one party only is responsible for the near-immediate 20 - 30% decline in the net worth of most Americans.
And we wondered - have the Democrats no decency? How can any literate Democrat not cringe? Even an acknowledgment would work as a start.
Sure enough, from Artur Davis, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable home ownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
Thank you Mr Davis.
Robert Craven
And we wondered - have the Democrats no decency? How can any literate Democrat not cringe? Even an acknowledgment would work as a start.
Sure enough, from Artur Davis, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable home ownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
Thank you Mr Davis.
Robert Craven
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
ACORN, Obama and This Mess
Background: The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act called on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods. At the outset it’s requirements were vague. Then in 1990 along came a group of community organizers called ACORN. ACORN eventually figured out how to lever the CRA against potential lenders. But they needed to change Fan & Fred policy too. From the Chi Trib, "Housing activists pushed hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from Fannie and Freddie." That is, ACORN’s early effort (‘90 & ‘91) to pressure banks was still being hamstrung by the twins’ then relatively conservative standards - the twins would not take lenders out of anything but pretty solid paper, not mortgages backed by welfare payments or the neighborhood’s best jump shot.
In one of the first book-length scholarly studies of ACORN called Organizing Urban America, Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts describes this group, so dear to Obama, as "oppositional outlaws." Swarts, a supporter of ACORN, states that its members think of themselves as "militants unafraid to confront the powers that be." "This is reinforced by contentious action," she continues. "ACORN protestors break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, pour protestors into bank lobbies, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers."
ACORN’s progress was linked to its Democratic allies. ACORN did poorly under the Bush adm but with the advent of the Clinton administration ACORN’s efforts began to bear fruit. Standards at the twins were lowered. In 1992 ACORN kicked up its pressure tactics. Banks caved; ironically they became ACORN’s best allies to get Fan&Fred to loosen even further so they (lenders) could be taken out of junk loans they made under pressure. As Stanley Kurtz, sr fellow at the Ethics & Public Policy Institute explains, "..by 1993 the grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats and local bankers, looking for someone to lessen the risks put on them by ACORN’s leveraging of the CRA, united to pressure Fannie & Freddie to loosen credit standards...."
At first the twins resisted. Then with the street’s help they figured out that there was a hell of a lot of $ in it for them and gladly cooperated. They became speculators. In June 1995 Clinton announced the new program for raising home ownership in American to an all time high, a plan that looked to commit $1 trl to low income and minorities, or about ½ of the twins’ portfolio at that time. Then it was really off to the races for ACORN. For the next 12 years, at both local and national levels ACORN served as the catalyst, levering 1) mandates created by the CRA and 2) their pull with Democratic politicians to force the twins into an expanding pattern of high risk loans. (In 1995, Obama, as director of Chicago’s Woods Fund, successfully pushed for a major expansion of $ assistance for ACORN in that region.) Thus, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess, that is, Obama and his co-workers at ACORN used the CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle the twins and thus the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard for any basic financial standards.
Republicans tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, knowing that the answer was more regulation, not less (see our last sketch under US Economy). This is not the private sector. Fannie and Freddie are government creations that pay their executives millions of dollars but were shielded with our tax money from suffering the downside risk of the market. They engaged in risky hedge-fund style financing. Deregulation is about keeping the government from hobbling the private sector and hamstringing its ingenuity and productivity; deregulation does not apply to the twins.
Republican attempts at reform in 1999 failed. In 2003, when Alan Greenspan testified about how Fannie and Freddie’s loose practices could endanger our financial system but it was Democrat Barney Frank who said these institutions were fundamentally sound, and should be more aggressive in getting loans to low-income people. At the House Financial Services Comm hearing of Sep/25/03, Rep Frank said, "I do not think I want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC (Comptroller) and OTS (Thrift Supervision). I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing..." Too much.
As we highlighted earlier, in 2005 a Republican reform (S-190) passed the Senate Banking Committee on a party-line vote, only to be blocked by Democrats from passing in the full Senate. And in 2006 when John McCain spoke on the Senate floor of the need to reform Fannie and Freddie immediately, Democrats (including Obama) would not respond. Naturally. The twins have been a cash cow for the left.
The Democrats are squarely to blame. Some may deny that but if so they are not engaged in an exercise of intellectual honesty. Democrats have resisted all attempts at reforming Fannie and Freddie; they pushed those organizations to become more and more reckless in their policies. The investments carrying those tainted mortgages went from bad to worse. Now we’re in a crisis and on the verge of a meltdown. This is inexcusable. If this is explained to voters Obama will loose. This is McCain’s silver bullet. If he does not use it he does not deserve to win.
Robert Craven
In one of the first book-length scholarly studies of ACORN called Organizing Urban America, Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts describes this group, so dear to Obama, as "oppositional outlaws." Swarts, a supporter of ACORN, states that its members think of themselves as "militants unafraid to confront the powers that be." "This is reinforced by contentious action," she continues. "ACORN protestors break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, pour protestors into bank lobbies, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers."
ACORN’s progress was linked to its Democratic allies. ACORN did poorly under the Bush adm but with the advent of the Clinton administration ACORN’s efforts began to bear fruit. Standards at the twins were lowered. In 1992 ACORN kicked up its pressure tactics. Banks caved; ironically they became ACORN’s best allies to get Fan&Fred to loosen even further so they (lenders) could be taken out of junk loans they made under pressure. As Stanley Kurtz, sr fellow at the Ethics & Public Policy Institute explains, "..by 1993 the grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats and local bankers, looking for someone to lessen the risks put on them by ACORN’s leveraging of the CRA, united to pressure Fannie & Freddie to loosen credit standards...."
At first the twins resisted. Then with the street’s help they figured out that there was a hell of a lot of $ in it for them and gladly cooperated. They became speculators. In June 1995 Clinton announced the new program for raising home ownership in American to an all time high, a plan that looked to commit $1 trl to low income and minorities, or about ½ of the twins’ portfolio at that time. Then it was really off to the races for ACORN. For the next 12 years, at both local and national levels ACORN served as the catalyst, levering 1) mandates created by the CRA and 2) their pull with Democratic politicians to force the twins into an expanding pattern of high risk loans. (In 1995, Obama, as director of Chicago’s Woods Fund, successfully pushed for a major expansion of $ assistance for ACORN in that region.) Thus, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess, that is, Obama and his co-workers at ACORN used the CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle the twins and thus the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard for any basic financial standards.
Republicans tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, knowing that the answer was more regulation, not less (see our last sketch under US Economy). This is not the private sector. Fannie and Freddie are government creations that pay their executives millions of dollars but were shielded with our tax money from suffering the downside risk of the market. They engaged in risky hedge-fund style financing. Deregulation is about keeping the government from hobbling the private sector and hamstringing its ingenuity and productivity; deregulation does not apply to the twins.
Republican attempts at reform in 1999 failed. In 2003, when Alan Greenspan testified about how Fannie and Freddie’s loose practices could endanger our financial system but it was Democrat Barney Frank who said these institutions were fundamentally sound, and should be more aggressive in getting loans to low-income people. At the House Financial Services Comm hearing of Sep/25/03, Rep Frank said, "I do not think I want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC (Comptroller) and OTS (Thrift Supervision). I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing..." Too much.
As we highlighted earlier, in 2005 a Republican reform (S-190) passed the Senate Banking Committee on a party-line vote, only to be blocked by Democrats from passing in the full Senate. And in 2006 when John McCain spoke on the Senate floor of the need to reform Fannie and Freddie immediately, Democrats (including Obama) would not respond. Naturally. The twins have been a cash cow for the left.
The Democrats are squarely to blame. Some may deny that but if so they are not engaged in an exercise of intellectual honesty. Democrats have resisted all attempts at reforming Fannie and Freddie; they pushed those organizations to become more and more reckless in their policies. The investments carrying those tainted mortgages went from bad to worse. Now we’re in a crisis and on the verge of a meltdown. This is inexcusable. If this is explained to voters Obama will loose. This is McCain’s silver bullet. If he does not use it he does not deserve to win.
Robert Craven
Friday, October 3, 2008
THANK YOU ANDREW JOHNSON
OK, sure, Johnson was on the sauce the rainy morning of Mar/4/1865 and ya, he rambled through his oath, for 20 minutes speaking incoherently, trying at one point to address each secretary by name - Mr. Stanton, Mr. Seward - down the ranks, until he reached Mr. Wells, whose name he could not remember. No problem; he turned to an aide and asked loudly, "What’s the name of the Secty of the Navy?" Gideon Wells them whispered to Stanton that "Johnson’s either drunk or crazy." Well, certainly drunk but not crazy: In 1867 Johnson hurried through the purchase of Alaska. If he hadn’t, Sarah Palin would be Canadian.
From the moment Palin shook Biden’s hand and the microphone picked up, "Hey, can I call you Joe?" - the night belonged to her. She was clear and accurate on foreign policy, crystal clear on the war; her scolding Biden and Obama for waving the white flag was spot on. On education, on the economy, she was running on all cylinders. As we predicted, she did not allow Biden to pull her into territory familiar to him - Washington, insider stuff (that which would gag the Founders). Instead she played the outside game.
She personally connected with the viewer, was comfortable and looked directly at the audience.
Knowing that Palin would hand Biden his equipment we began to feel for the guy, even wanting her to ease off a tad, understanding that he is not fair game. We recalled the interview by Couric on "CBS Ev News". Biden said that when the stock market crashed FDR went on TV and told his audience all about it. Of course, this was the wrong president; oh, and then that little bit about TV. Whoa now. Sure enough, Biden was consistent in the debate, saying for example that it is "wrong, wrong, wrong" that Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian president but then going right on to defend Obama’s willingness to do it. Hmmm?
One pal from the left reminded us the other day of the smear of Palin by Kathleen Parker, Parker a reasonably well known conservative commentator who claimed Palin would be challenged to string two sentences together. Really? "Some women are just catty that way," noted another female pundit. "The more accomplished and popular and beautiful the woman in question is, the more they hate her." Seems to fit. So much for Parker; so much for Biden.
Robert Craven
From the moment Palin shook Biden’s hand and the microphone picked up, "Hey, can I call you Joe?" - the night belonged to her. She was clear and accurate on foreign policy, crystal clear on the war; her scolding Biden and Obama for waving the white flag was spot on. On education, on the economy, she was running on all cylinders. As we predicted, she did not allow Biden to pull her into territory familiar to him - Washington, insider stuff (that which would gag the Founders). Instead she played the outside game.
She personally connected with the viewer, was comfortable and looked directly at the audience.
Knowing that Palin would hand Biden his equipment we began to feel for the guy, even wanting her to ease off a tad, understanding that he is not fair game. We recalled the interview by Couric on "CBS Ev News". Biden said that when the stock market crashed FDR went on TV and told his audience all about it. Of course, this was the wrong president; oh, and then that little bit about TV. Whoa now. Sure enough, Biden was consistent in the debate, saying for example that it is "wrong, wrong, wrong" that Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian president but then going right on to defend Obama’s willingness to do it. Hmmm?
One pal from the left reminded us the other day of the smear of Palin by Kathleen Parker, Parker a reasonably well known conservative commentator who claimed Palin would be challenged to string two sentences together. Really? "Some women are just catty that way," noted another female pundit. "The more accomplished and popular and beautiful the woman in question is, the more they hate her." Seems to fit. So much for Parker; so much for Biden.
Robert Craven
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
PALIN
One liberal commentator, licking his chops the other day, remarked that, "To steal an adage of former Secty of State James Baker, putting Sarah Palin into a debate with Joe Biden is like throwing Howdy Doody into a knife fight." "I have to admit," noted Palin last week, when considering her Oct/2 opponent, "he is a great debater and looks pretty doggone confident, like he’s sure he’s gonna win. But then again, this is the same Senator Biden who said the other day that the Univ of Delaware would trounce the Ohio State Buckeyes. Wrong!"
Hah! How refreshing. One recalls the night of her convention speech: with sass and wit, sarcasm and sincerity, courage and strength, she showed us a new model of female politician, not strident and shrill like so many are when on the attack, but funny and irreverent, showing the joy of combat that was a pleasure to watch.
Palin isn’t a lawyer; she didn’t go to Yale; she isn’t rich. She does reflect however - intelligence, scrappiness, integrity, and a deep-seated faith. She started as a PTA mom, ran her own fishing fleet (ran a business!) and worked her way to the governorship of Alaska (experience as an executive!). She has succeeded in each of her objectives. And in a time when people are sick of the corruption and waste of Washington, Palin’s reputation is for slashing wasteful spending and taking on corruption - even that within her own party.
She managed her state’s department responsible for oil and gas exploration, negotiating a deal involving big corporate players, the US, Canada’s national government, Canadian provincial governments and, native tribes; the result was a multi-billion $ deal to launch a long-delayed natural gas pipeline to the lower 48, increasing the amount of domestic energy available to all of us, an accomplishment that makes the charge of having "no international experience" especially absurd.
During a period that Russia seeks to re-ignite the cold war she has encouraged and monitored the best of our defenses, seeing that the F-22 Raptor squadron be stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base near Anchorage. While Obama has zero foreign policy experience, Palin runs a state that is home to missile, anti-missile and air defense bases; she commands the Alaska National Guard; she has a son heading to Iraq.
Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking. This scares the living daylights out of the left in general, the media, and the feminists in particular. As Doug Giles pondered the other day, "Hey, I thought you feminists dug accomplished women. Why the hatred ladies? Do you like only the girls who are nasty, man-hating, anti-American, pro-abortion lesbians who loath this nation and that for which it stands?" All right Doug!
So Palin knew from the get go the left would come after her. Hell, these troglodytes devour their own kind, chewing up one of their perpetual darlings - Hillary - when she stood in the way of a group hug. An Air American host called her a "big f...... whore," one MSNBC host accused her of "pimping out her daughter," another called her a "she-devil" and a fourth suggested that she be taken into a backroom and beaten senseless to convince her to drop out of the race. A CBS news anchor asked Clinton if she recalled being called "Miss Frigidaire" in school. Too much.
Americans are told every day that to be conservative, or Christian, or old-fashioned is bad form. In this respect Palin can become an inspirational figure. The left senses this which is why they want to discredit her quickly. And so the Obama campaign first jumped on Palin as "inexperienced" until they noted she had actually managed something, actually looked to the bottom line, actually demonstrated executive responsibility, something entirely missing in their candidate.
Next they tried to create a "Troopergate," then had a hard time explaining why it would be wrong to want a four-time married and divorced law enforcement officer kept on the job when he had tassered his 11 yr old stepson, illegally shot a moose, drank beer in his partrol car and told others his father-in-law would "eat a fxxxing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter with the divorce. Corruption is not a handy topic for the likes of BHO, Chicago pol and pal of Syrian national/convicted felon Antonin Rezko.
Next was the "bridge to nowhere" romp. Sen Tom Coburn, chief foe of this deal said, "Governor Palin deserves credit for killing the project, which became the symbol of pork barrel spending. The bridge didn’t get built because Sarah Palin had the guts to say it wasn’t going to get built." So again for the media (and our lefty pals in Marin) that deal went nowhere.
From San Joaquin Valley Democrat and neighbor Vic Hansen, "There is something ignoble about the elite, affluent, and well-connected observers in smug fashion savaging Palin, when — especially in the case of the sneering power-women — we should all at least grant that Palin is intrinsically bright, energetic, savvy, and independent to have come this far at all, given the slanted and insider rules of the game she’s in. When we consider, in contrast, the latticed background of careers of successful contemporary female role-model politicians, such as a Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, ...or Hillary Clinton (the list is depressingly endless, in which marriage or lineage provides either the necessary capital, contacts, or insider influence — or sometimes all three) — then surely, whatever one’s politics, there should be some concession that what outsider Palin has accomplished....is nothing short of remarkable."
In tomorrow’s debate Biden will look to portray Palin as an adolescent in foreign and domestic policy. As for what Biden’s in for tomorrow, there’s nothing worse than having a woman hand you your own testicles in a fight.
Robert Craven
Hah! How refreshing. One recalls the night of her convention speech: with sass and wit, sarcasm and sincerity, courage and strength, she showed us a new model of female politician, not strident and shrill like so many are when on the attack, but funny and irreverent, showing the joy of combat that was a pleasure to watch.
Palin isn’t a lawyer; she didn’t go to Yale; she isn’t rich. She does reflect however - intelligence, scrappiness, integrity, and a deep-seated faith. She started as a PTA mom, ran her own fishing fleet (ran a business!) and worked her way to the governorship of Alaska (experience as an executive!). She has succeeded in each of her objectives. And in a time when people are sick of the corruption and waste of Washington, Palin’s reputation is for slashing wasteful spending and taking on corruption - even that within her own party.
She managed her state’s department responsible for oil and gas exploration, negotiating a deal involving big corporate players, the US, Canada’s national government, Canadian provincial governments and, native tribes; the result was a multi-billion $ deal to launch a long-delayed natural gas pipeline to the lower 48, increasing the amount of domestic energy available to all of us, an accomplishment that makes the charge of having "no international experience" especially absurd.
During a period that Russia seeks to re-ignite the cold war she has encouraged and monitored the best of our defenses, seeing that the F-22 Raptor squadron be stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base near Anchorage. While Obama has zero foreign policy experience, Palin runs a state that is home to missile, anti-missile and air defense bases; she commands the Alaska National Guard; she has a son heading to Iraq.
Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking. This scares the living daylights out of the left in general, the media, and the feminists in particular. As Doug Giles pondered the other day, "Hey, I thought you feminists dug accomplished women. Why the hatred ladies? Do you like only the girls who are nasty, man-hating, anti-American, pro-abortion lesbians who loath this nation and that for which it stands?" All right Doug!
So Palin knew from the get go the left would come after her. Hell, these troglodytes devour their own kind, chewing up one of their perpetual darlings - Hillary - when she stood in the way of a group hug. An Air American host called her a "big f...... whore," one MSNBC host accused her of "pimping out her daughter," another called her a "she-devil" and a fourth suggested that she be taken into a backroom and beaten senseless to convince her to drop out of the race. A CBS news anchor asked Clinton if she recalled being called "Miss Frigidaire" in school. Too much.
Americans are told every day that to be conservative, or Christian, or old-fashioned is bad form. In this respect Palin can become an inspirational figure. The left senses this which is why they want to discredit her quickly. And so the Obama campaign first jumped on Palin as "inexperienced" until they noted she had actually managed something, actually looked to the bottom line, actually demonstrated executive responsibility, something entirely missing in their candidate.
Next they tried to create a "Troopergate," then had a hard time explaining why it would be wrong to want a four-time married and divorced law enforcement officer kept on the job when he had tassered his 11 yr old stepson, illegally shot a moose, drank beer in his partrol car and told others his father-in-law would "eat a fxxxing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter with the divorce. Corruption is not a handy topic for the likes of BHO, Chicago pol and pal of Syrian national/convicted felon Antonin Rezko.
Next was the "bridge to nowhere" romp. Sen Tom Coburn, chief foe of this deal said, "Governor Palin deserves credit for killing the project, which became the symbol of pork barrel spending. The bridge didn’t get built because Sarah Palin had the guts to say it wasn’t going to get built." So again for the media (and our lefty pals in Marin) that deal went nowhere.
From San Joaquin Valley Democrat and neighbor Vic Hansen, "There is something ignoble about the elite, affluent, and well-connected observers in smug fashion savaging Palin, when — especially in the case of the sneering power-women — we should all at least grant that Palin is intrinsically bright, energetic, savvy, and independent to have come this far at all, given the slanted and insider rules of the game she’s in. When we consider, in contrast, the latticed background of careers of successful contemporary female role-model politicians, such as a Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, ...or Hillary Clinton (the list is depressingly endless, in which marriage or lineage provides either the necessary capital, contacts, or insider influence — or sometimes all three) — then surely, whatever one’s politics, there should be some concession that what outsider Palin has accomplished....is nothing short of remarkable."
In tomorrow’s debate Biden will look to portray Palin as an adolescent in foreign and domestic policy. As for what Biden’s in for tomorrow, there’s nothing worse than having a woman hand you your own testicles in a fight.
Robert Craven
Thursday, September 25, 2008
REALITY
We heard from a few "admirers"regarding our last post. How dare we highlight Obama’s complicity in halting reform of the Fan/Fred twins when we know good and well that some of McCain’s advisers were or even remain on contract to these GSE’s?
Could it be that Democrats expectorate by instinct even the most well founded, rock solid evidence that may just run contrary to their view? We have trouble accepting this, even from our dear libtard friends; naive perhaps we are (love the syntax?) in welcoming, even relishing as we do the give and take of respectful debate, the willingness to say, "Oh, well, that may be. Let me look at that one. Perhaps you have something there..." and a re-consideration of our earlier position is a strength, not an admission of total defeat. Something like that. An awareness of scale and gravity. We expect that in others. Yet is seems that if for example Pelosi were to shoot her neighbor’s pet dog squarely between the eyes for peeing on her lawn, the Democrats response would be a "So?". "What about Palin? She’s killed a moose."
It is true that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, received a good deal of money ($2MM over 5 years) from Freddie. In fact, McCain has other advisers who have lobbied for the twins. Are these advisers running for president? How does Davis’ situation even come close to the Democratic CANDIDATE’S acceptance while a senator of $125,000 in campaign funds from the Fan/Fred twins? Trouble with that? Think it does? OK, let’s for the sake or argument, concede even that.
Far more important - how can the left deal with the fact that it was the Senate Democrats that single-handedly quashed legislation in 2005 co-sponsored by McCain (S-190), that would have prevented this entire mess in the first place, or that earlier, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage, or that Clinton’s HUD secty Cuomo demanded that this junk make up 50% of the twin’s portfolio by 2001? Huh? Come on. I mean, what is there to argue here for goodness sake (except perhaps to save face)? Our Marin Cty friends whine about their 401K being in the outhouse. Look to your own party. With Democrats, political correctness trumps sound business practices every time.
The sad truth is that to camouflage their now #1 vulnerability, the left has created a smoke screen in Davis.
Robert Craven
Could it be that Democrats expectorate by instinct even the most well founded, rock solid evidence that may just run contrary to their view? We have trouble accepting this, even from our dear libtard friends; naive perhaps we are (love the syntax?) in welcoming, even relishing as we do the give and take of respectful debate, the willingness to say, "Oh, well, that may be. Let me look at that one. Perhaps you have something there..." and a re-consideration of our earlier position is a strength, not an admission of total defeat. Something like that. An awareness of scale and gravity. We expect that in others. Yet is seems that if for example Pelosi were to shoot her neighbor’s pet dog squarely between the eyes for peeing on her lawn, the Democrats response would be a "So?". "What about Palin? She’s killed a moose."
It is true that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, received a good deal of money ($2MM over 5 years) from Freddie. In fact, McCain has other advisers who have lobbied for the twins. Are these advisers running for president? How does Davis’ situation even come close to the Democratic CANDIDATE’S acceptance while a senator of $125,000 in campaign funds from the Fan/Fred twins? Trouble with that? Think it does? OK, let’s for the sake or argument, concede even that.
Far more important - how can the left deal with the fact that it was the Senate Democrats that single-handedly quashed legislation in 2005 co-sponsored by McCain (S-190), that would have prevented this entire mess in the first place, or that earlier, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage, or that Clinton’s HUD secty Cuomo demanded that this junk make up 50% of the twin’s portfolio by 2001? Huh? Come on. I mean, what is there to argue here for goodness sake (except perhaps to save face)? Our Marin Cty friends whine about their 401K being in the outhouse. Look to your own party. With Democrats, political correctness trumps sound business practices every time.
The sad truth is that to camouflage their now #1 vulnerability, the left has created a smoke screen in Davis.
Robert Craven
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Key to the White House
If McCain cannot accomplish the simple task of explaining to the public just how his effort along with that of some of his colleagues through proposed legislation in 2005 would have prevented the present crisis, then he certainly does not deserve to be president. There is no shading here, no nuance, no argument even - just black and white. Stop the stupid complaints about greed; stop the persecution of Cox. Make it simple.
Our readers know that the financial crisis was birthed in Washington by 1) politicians who wanted to increase home ownership and 2) Greenspan’s enabling behavior. From Charles Calomiris, professor of economics and finance at Columbia, "How did we get here? Let's review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of ‘affordable housing.’ They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse."
One of the several reasons so many of these risky loans were originated is that Barack Obama’s celebrated community organizers made their careers out of forcing banks to do so. ACORN, for which Obama worked, is one of many left-wing organizations - shake down artists really - that spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit. The result was the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA empowered the FDIC and other banking regulators to punish those banks which do not lend to the poor and minorities at the level that Obama’s fellow community organizers would like. Banks were required to keep extensive records of their minority lending practices. Those that didn't pass muster could be denied the right to expand their branches, merge with other banks, or boost lending in new markets.
Lenders cannot blame the CRA entirely; they made a lot of bad bets on rising home prices. But the CRA did influence lending standards across the banking industry, even in those institutions that are not strictly liable to its jurisdiction. The subprime debacle is in no small part the result of lending decisions in which political extortion trumped businesses’ normal bottom-line concerns.
As explained in an earlier post, Fannie & Freddie, forsaking FDR’s intent, strayed into speculation themselves (and implicitly putting on taxpayers the risks of their business while the rewards were enjoyed, and to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, by largely Democratic political opportunists, who then gave generously to Democrats, the top recipients of their largesse being: Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and Barack Obama) Both became a profit center in their own right because of incentive deals to Raines and others and as part of that accumulated sub-par mortgages on speculation. Their increased risk taking was not a problem they told Congress because Wall St took them out of the stuff by inventing ways to package/combine the junk paper with prime debt, then peddle the whole lot to institutional investors by representing it as safe. Watch out.
In 2005 the Bush administration pushed for reforms. Those efforts were rebuffed by Congress with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the lead. Fannie and Freddie had not spent millions on campaign contributions to these clowns and their pals for nothing!. Still, for the first time a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill actually passed a Senate committee. It would have required these two GSE’s to eliminate their investments in risky assets. If that bill would have become law today’s world would be different. McCain co-sponsored this legislation (S-190) to thwart what he called ‘the enormous risk that Fannie and Freddie pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole." All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill; all the Democrats voted against it. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent. Peter Wallison of the AEI wrote at the time, "The Democrats who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
The roadblock built by Senate Democrats is unforgivable. There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis, especially from our good friends from the left. They need only to look within.
Robert Craven
Our readers know that the financial crisis was birthed in Washington by 1) politicians who wanted to increase home ownership and 2) Greenspan’s enabling behavior. From Charles Calomiris, professor of economics and finance at Columbia, "How did we get here? Let's review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of ‘affordable housing.’ They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse."
One of the several reasons so many of these risky loans were originated is that Barack Obama’s celebrated community organizers made their careers out of forcing banks to do so. ACORN, for which Obama worked, is one of many left-wing organizations - shake down artists really - that spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit. The result was the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA empowered the FDIC and other banking regulators to punish those banks which do not lend to the poor and minorities at the level that Obama’s fellow community organizers would like. Banks were required to keep extensive records of their minority lending practices. Those that didn't pass muster could be denied the right to expand their branches, merge with other banks, or boost lending in new markets.
Lenders cannot blame the CRA entirely; they made a lot of bad bets on rising home prices. But the CRA did influence lending standards across the banking industry, even in those institutions that are not strictly liable to its jurisdiction. The subprime debacle is in no small part the result of lending decisions in which political extortion trumped businesses’ normal bottom-line concerns.
As explained in an earlier post, Fannie & Freddie, forsaking FDR’s intent, strayed into speculation themselves (and implicitly putting on taxpayers the risks of their business while the rewards were enjoyed, and to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, by largely Democratic political opportunists, who then gave generously to Democrats, the top recipients of their largesse being: Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and Barack Obama) Both became a profit center in their own right because of incentive deals to Raines and others and as part of that accumulated sub-par mortgages on speculation. Their increased risk taking was not a problem they told Congress because Wall St took them out of the stuff by inventing ways to package/combine the junk paper with prime debt, then peddle the whole lot to institutional investors by representing it as safe. Watch out.
In 2005 the Bush administration pushed for reforms. Those efforts were rebuffed by Congress with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the lead. Fannie and Freddie had not spent millions on campaign contributions to these clowns and their pals for nothing!. Still, for the first time a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill actually passed a Senate committee. It would have required these two GSE’s to eliminate their investments in risky assets. If that bill would have become law today’s world would be different. McCain co-sponsored this legislation (S-190) to thwart what he called ‘the enormous risk that Fannie and Freddie pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole." All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill; all the Democrats voted against it. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent. Peter Wallison of the AEI wrote at the time, "The Democrats who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
The roadblock built by Senate Democrats is unforgivable. There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis, especially from our good friends from the left. They need only to look within.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
