 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views on Obama
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Donuel Date: 12 Sep 08 - 08:43 AM People second guess themselves and jump ship all the time. Trying to jump back is hard once the ship has sunk Ask Dennis Miller. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:35 AM But Your Honor, I can wear animal skins and endure a diet of whale blubber and berries but I think it is cruel and usual punishment to deny me internet access while you grant it to al-Qaeda so they can recruit more Bush Haters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:47 AM Just voicing a preference, there, Sawx. Bruce, your man Krauthammer is a dickhead and an obstreperous lout. He has no concern for voicing the truth, only for saying clever things. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:16 AM "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:24 AM And although I have been obstinately and loudly derogatory about the Bush administration. I do not actually hate the man, W., although he is a sinner in the worst sense of the word. I hate like hellfire the sins, continuous, repeated, compounded and blindly pursued, the egregious and harmful sins, the man and his team have committed. Just to clarify the point. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:48 AM In Washington, Obama has been a consistent opponent of the Bush policies that have hobbled our economy and weakened the middle class, and his proposals for the future would steer us away from that disastrous course. He's challenged leaders of both parties by passing landmark reforms that took dead aim at the campaign contributions and favors through which corporate lobbyists have rigged the system. He worked across the aisle to pass laws reining in no-bid contracts and opening the budget process to the American people. And Obama has lived by those principles in this campaign, refusing the contributions of Washington lobbyists and political action committees and imposing those same rules on the Democratic National Committee. Lobbyists don't run his campaign. And when he's President, they won't run his White House. But what about John McCain? Can we really expect change from a Senator who supported the Bush policies 90 percent of the time? Who has said the Bush policies have brought about "great progress economically" and who just three weeks ago proclaimed the economy fundamentally strong? The fact is that while he mouths the word "change," Senator McCain's record and proposals scream "more of the same." His plans for the economy, energy, health care, education and Iraq barely stray from the Bush policies that are in place today. And can we really expect change from a candidate whose campaign is being run by some of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in Washington? While Senator McCain loudly declares that he will tell the special interests in Washington that their day is "over," they are working overtime to elect him. Seven of the top officials in his campaign are lobbyists. Between them, they have lobbied for Big Oil, the drug and insurance industries, foreign governments--even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His campaign manager routinely lobbied for corporations who had business before the Senate Commerce Committee that McCain chaired. Corporate Lobbyists and PACs have contributed millions of dollars to his campaign and the Republican National Committee on his behalf. Does anyone believe they are spending their time, money and energy to put themselves out of business? That is not change. It's more of the same. A debate about delivering change is a debate we're happy to have. Because no matter how many times McCain and Governor Palin use the word "change" or try to reinvent their own records, one thing stays the same: the fact that when it comes to the economy, education, Iraq, or the special interests' stranglehold on Washington, they both are stubborn defenders of the past eight years and they both promise more of the same. One final note: Senator McCain has called the news media "his base" because of the friendly treatment he has received. And he undoubtedly is counting on his "base" to overlook the gulf between his newly minted "change" message, and the realities of his record and campaign. His lobbyist-manager said Sunday that Governor Palin would only submit to questions about her record, statements and views when they determine that the news media will treat her with due "deference" -- a startling and arrogant new standard for public officials in our democracy. But we trust that the obvious conflicts between their rhetoric and records, their promises and their plans will not go unreported in the last 53 days of this campaign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 13 Sep 08 - 02:20 PM From Amos: "He's challenged leaders of both parties by passing landmark reforms that took dead aim at the campaign contributions and favors through which corporate lobbyists have rigged the system." "Obama's top political strategist, David Axelrod" From Newsweek: "When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama. Last week, Obama hit John McCain for hiring "some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington" to run his campaign; Obama's aides say their candidate, as a foe of "special interests," has refused to take money from lobbyists or employ them. Neither Axelrod nor his partners at ASK ever registered as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison—and under Illinois's loose disclosure laws, they were not required to. "I've never lobbied anybody in my life," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. "I've never talked to any public official on behalf of a corporate client." (He also says "no one ever denied" that Edison was the "principal funder" of his firm's ad campaign.) But the activities of ASK (located in the same office as Axelrod's political firm) illustrate the difficulties in defining exactly who a lobbyist is. In 2004, Cablevision hired ASK to set up a group similar to CORE to block a new stadium for the New York Jets in Manhattan. Unlike Illinois, New York disclosure laws do cover such work, and ASK's $1.1 million fee was listed as the "largest lobbying contract" of the year in the annual report of the state's lobbying commission. ASK last year proposed a similar "political campaign style approach" to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a "grassroots" group of medical experts "capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position," according to a copy of the proposal. (ASK didn't get the contract.) Public-interest watchdogs say these grassroots campaigns are state of the art in the lobbying world. "There's no way with a straight face to say that's not lobbying," says Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes government transparency......" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 08 - 07:47 AM Not since Edward I. Koch disclosed this year that he was suffering from a serious spinal ailment has his online commentary generated the volume of e-mail messages he received in response to his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president last week. Enlarge This Image Librado Romero/The New York Times Edward I. Koch said of critical e-mail responses, "There is no acceptance of dissent anymore." Most of the 400 or so responses to the endorsement were extremely positive, he said. About three dozen were not; some of them were downright vitriolic. "I was surprised primarily by those who criticized me with the invective they used," the former mayor said, "but I know those who praised me, had I come out the other way, would have used the same invective." "There is no acceptance of dissent anymore," he lamented. In his commentary, which is e-mailed periodically to roughly 4,000 subscribers, Mr. Koch, who has been a supporter of President Bush, wrote that "the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama" and that though Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, is "a plucky, exciting candidate," it "would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency." He also commented on former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's "maniacal laugh" during his speech at the Republican convention." (NYT) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Sep 08 - 09:48 AM I guess the obvious question to ask is: why in the world would anyone care what Edward I. Koch thought? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 14 Sep 08 - 10:26 AM I don't give a shit about how scared Koch would be or what he thought of Giuliani's laugh.It is about as unanimous as the four prominent business leaders in Minnesota that Endorsed Obama. However, Obama was making some sense in his speech at Columbia. He was talking some high ideals. As president someone can make all the proclamations they want to but it has to go through congress before it comes to be. One has to ask, will it ever pass? If it ever does will it have so many riders and earmarks on it that the original intent will be smothered with pork? Yeah, they flop down a 900 page bill on someone's desk on afternoon that has to voted on the next day. The POTUS can give a great speech and say we are going to give $99 million dollars in aid to Zambonia to eradicate the boom boom fly but if Congress never appropriates it, it never happens but the president still gets the glory for saying it. Speaking of pork, just how can a president eliminate it? The only way I can see it to bring back the line item veto. Clinton had that option for a while but Congress took it away. How'd that happen anyway? I wish the American people could vote on things directly instead of having to go through their lobbyist influenced Congressman. That part of our system of government is arcane. It dates back to horse and buggy days and needs to be updated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 08 - 10:24 PM CHICAGO — Senator Barack Obama raised more money in August than any presidential candidate has ever recorded in a one-month period, with his campaign disclosing Sunday that it collected $66 million and drew 500,000 first-time donors. The record-setting figures and particularly the new supporters who can contribute again before Election Day were crucial for Mr. Obama, who was heading into the general election as the first major-party candidate to forgo public financing. The campaign amassed its millions of dollars through an aggressive Internet drive, by attracting some of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's donors and as concerns increased over a tightening contest. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said more than 2.5 million people had contributed since the race began. "The 500,000 new donors to the Obama campaign demonstrate just how strongly the American people are looking to kick the special interests out and change Washington," Mr. Plouffe said in an e-mail message on Sunday. ... (NYT) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:14 PM OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL Comments: 234Read Comments Leave a Comment LONG VIEW: Barack Obama tours Iraq with Gen. David Petraeus in July, when he sought to stall any agreement for US troop withdrawal until President Bush left office. Last updated: 4:10 am September 15, 2008 Posted: 4:02 am September 15, 2008 WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July. "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview. Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion." "However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says. Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined. Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet. Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still. By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June. Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:15 PM Amos: apparently your definition of hateful and mine are very different, Tell ya what Amos. It you quit adding your snide comments to your posts I will do the same. NY Post ".....Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success. Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history." Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues." Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:24 PM The "Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America...." is a doctrine we've seen before, practiced by leaders such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and General Tojo. It's a doctrine that works very well as long as you don't arouse foreign armed forces that are too strong for your own military forces to handle. It's also a doctrine that will get you arrested and tried for assault and first degree murder if you happen to be a private person, and not a politician. Why? Because is IS assault and first degree murder, premeditated and then carried out. Try it on your neighbour (who you say is planning to kill you) and see what happens. You will be arrested and tried. So should Bush and Cheney be arrested and tried, in an international court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM Petraeus won't call it a success. Bush has backed away from the terms "victory" and "win". Obama is telling the Iraqis that a status of arms agreement negotiated by Bush won't be worth the paper it is written on if Obama wins. I don't see anything very insightful in what you two are saying. Do you think that Obama should lie and say things are rosy? That's what Bush and McCain have been doing for seven years. Look where that has gotten us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:21 AM New York: It seems former US President Bill Clinton enjoys sex jokes. According to a source, Clinton couldn't stop giggling when Legally Blonde star and dyed-in- the-wool Democrat Laura Bell Bundy showed him a T-shirt made in support of presidential hopeful Barack Obama. "The shirt read, ''Every Time Obama Speaks, an Angel Has an Orgasm," '' the New York Post quoted the insider, as saying. "Bill loved it and even chuckled he couldn't wait to show it to Hillary," the insider added. (India Press) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:14 PM I don't know where to go with that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:20 AM Campaign Tee Shirts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 08 - 09:58 AM "This, of course, has a fairly significant political salience. Kissinger is a co-chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign, and Powell and Baker are two of the more respected foreign policy voices in traditional Republican circles. And all of them agree that when it comes to U.S. policy towards Iran, Barack Obama is offering the right approach, and John McCain is offering the wrong approach. There's a mainstream when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, and McCain is clearly to the right of it. I am, however, curious to see how this might shake out during the candidate debates. McCain will no doubt blast Obama's willingness to talk to our rivals. Here's hoping Obama is willing to say, "Colin Powell, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, and current Pentagon chief Robert Gates all agree with me and think you're wrong." ... NYT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:24 AM "and current Pentagon chief Robert Gates " So, you are saying that McCain disagrees with the current Bush administration Sec of Def, and the past Bush Administration Sec of State- But Obama does agree? And you claim WHO is another Bush???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:36 AM Someone guessing right on a single issue does not cure the ills of an Administration. Furthermore, SecDef notwithstanding, the Bush Administration has sided with the McCain view of things for years, as a matter of policy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:48 PM Washington Post: Obama's Panic By Michael Gerson Wednesday, September 17, 2008; Page A19 Seldom has there been a larger contrast between the style of a candidate and the strategy of his campaign. Barack Obama is cool, firm and permanently unruffled. It is precisely this quality of steadiness that has made him seem a credible prospective president with the thinnest of résumés. But Obama's campaign is rootless, reactive and panicky. At every stage since securing the nomination, it has seemed fearful of missteps and unsure of its own organizing principle. So it has invariably adopted the Democratic conventional wisdom of the moment. Obama's first major decision was his running mate. He could have reinforced a message of change and moderation with a Democratic governor who wins in a Republican state, or reached for history by selecting Hillary Clinton. But his choice came soon after Russia invaded Georgia, and the conventional wisdom demanded an old hand who knew his way around Tbilisi. When the Georgia crisis faded, Obama was left with a partisan, undisciplined, congressional liberal at his side. This has served to undermine Obama's message of change -- and has allowed Sarah Palin to pilfer a portion of that appeal. Obama's second decision concerned the tone and content of his convention. Here the Democratic conventional wisdom was nearly unanimous. Obama should shelve his highfalutin rhetoric and talk like a real Democrat. Go after McCain. Talk about "bread and butter" issues -- code words for class-warfare attacks on consumers of blinis and caviar. Obama took this advice to the letter -- at the cost of his political identity. In his Denver speech, it seemed that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. And John McCain? He was out of touch, with flawed "judgment." His life devoted to serving oil companies and big corporations. And, by the way, he didn't have the courage to follow Osama bin Laden "to the cave where he lives." In obedience to the best Democratic advice, Obama managed to be conventional, bitter and graceless. Now Obama has made his third major campaign decision -- to finally get really tough on McCain. In response to attacks and dropping polls, the Democratic wisdom is once again nearly uniform: Democrats lose because they are not vicious enough. And once again, the Obama campaign has taken this advice without hesitation. "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks, and we will take the fight to him," says Obama's campaign manager. Obama feels provoked -- and he has been. There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education for kindergarteners, as a McCain ad implied. Having already accused McCain of being a cowardly corporate tool who is disconnected from reality, escalation is not an easy task for Obama. But he has managed. In one recent commercial, McCain is clearly mocked for his age -- compared to a disco ball and a 10-pound cellphone. Another ad uses the word "dishonorable" next to a photo of McCain -- an attack from a candidate who has little practical familiarity with the cost of honor. Who is hurt most by this race to the bottom? McCain, by the evidence of his own convention, wants to be a viewed as a fighter -- which a fight does little to undermine. Obama was introduced to America as a different and better kind of politician -- an image now in tatters. Even worse for Obama, all these shifts to catch the prevailing winds confirm the most serious concerns about his political character. As a senator, he has almost never opposed the ideological consensus of his party. (The ethics reform he often cites as his profile in courage eventually passed the Senate 96 to 2.) And now as a presidential candidate, Obama has run his campaign with all the constancy of a skittish sailboat on an erratic ocean. Here is a different strategy. Obama could attempt to "beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism." He could try to build a coalition that "stretches through red states and blue states." He could reject "the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up." The candidate who said those words the night he won the Iowa caucuses did pretty well. But whatever the outcome of this presidential election, that candidate is no longer in the race. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:50 PM Washington Post: Obama's Faulty Logic Bill Clinton beat Papa Bush in 1992 by blaming him for economic woes, even though the downturn of that year was over by the time of the election. Now Barack Obama is hoping to blame that hyphenated adversary, Bush-McCain, even though the facts don't fit his narrative. Obama is trying to draw a link between the Wall Street blow-ups and a lack of regulation. But the blow-ups have included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the most highly regulated financial institutions in the country. They have included three out of five of the top investment banks, institutions that were also regulated. By contrast, there have been relatively few blow-ups at hedge funds, which are not regulated directly. This pattern of failure is not consistent with Obama's claim that deregulation caused the trouble. Embarrassingly for Obama, the principal piece of financial deregulation over the past decade was the reform of Glass-Steagall, the law that separated investment banks from deposit-taking ones. This reform was sponsored by McCain's friend, former Republican Senator Phil Gramm, but ending the division between the two types of bank was a policy that the Clinton team also supported, which does not fit the Obama narrative. And during the current crisis, the Glass-Steagall reform has proved to be a boon. It has cleared the way for relatively healthy deposit-taking banks, such as JP Morgan and Bank of America, to rescue desperate investment banks, such as Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. Without that piece of deregulation, we would all be in more trouble. The regulation-versus-deregulation rhetoric is appealingly simple, and both parties abuse it. Republicans like to say they will get the economy going by cutting red tape. Democrats like to say that they will make the economy more stable by demanding rational oversight. Neither claim is worth much. The Republicans fail to acknowledge that the easy economic gains from deregulation were exhausted more than two decades ago, when clearly destructive restrictions on competition in trucking, airlines and so on were scrapped by Carter and Reagan. The Democrats fail to acknowledge that there is a limit to what government oversight can do. Modern financial institutions are so complex that government inspectors are hard pressed to understand their trading strategies. That is why an outfit such as Citigroup, a deposit-taking institution theoretically overseen by multiple government bodies including the Fed, could park billions of dollars of toxic mortgage securities in off-balance-sheet vehicles, with nary a protest from regulators. Yes, Wall Street's woes reflect greed and reckless borrowing. And yes, some regulatory reform is necessary. But you can't blame the mess on either political party -- at least not if you want to remain honest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM I would question whether the FMAE and FMAC collapses occurred in spite of sufficient regulation as your piece implies. The ethics of the industrry on top of which these two agencuies were perched was riddled with very slimy practices, not well-regulated, involving deceitful lending practices and improper precautions in lending. These unregulated opportunistic firms, driven by a continuous focus on the bottom line and nothuing else, completely distorted the field. The agencies inherited the wind of those practioces they neither regulated nor controlled the ethics of. (Pardon the syntax). To imply this weas a well regulated industry is disingenuous in the extreme. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:24 PM "the FMAE and FMAC collapses" What collapses? This phrase is a conflation. These institutions are GSEs. government sponsored enterprises. Wikipedia: GSEs are a group of financial services corporations created by the United States Congress. Their function is to enhance the flow of credit to targeted sectors of the economy and to make those segments of the capital market more efficient and transparent. The desired effect of the GSEs is to enhance the availability and reduce the cost of credit to the targeted borrowing sectors: agriculture, home finance and education. Congress created the first GSE in 1916 with the creation of the Farm Credit System; it initiated GSEs in the home finance segment of the economy with the creation of the Federal Home Loan Banks in 1932; and it targeted education when it chartered Sallie Mae in 1972 (although Congress allowed Sallie Mae to relinquish its government sponsorship and become a fully private institution via legislation in 1995). The residential mortgage borrowing segment is by far the largest of the borrowing segments in which the GSEs operate. Together, the three mortgage finance GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks) have several trillion dollars of on-balance sheet assets...." 2 USC Sec. 622 01/03/2007 TITLE 2 - THE CONGRESS CHAPTER 17A - CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND FISCAL OPERATIONS: "...does not have the power to commit the Government financially (but it may be a recipient of a loan guarantee commitment made by the Government..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Donuel Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:49 PM The "Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war was also practiced by Andrew Johnson and others. Obama commented on McCain saying he would smash the good old boy network. He said "Old boy network?, Everytime McCain has a staff meeting its a good ol boy network." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:52 PM Oh! What?? They did n't collapse and have to be bailed out and taken over?? All those news reports were wrong?? My god!! Where do you get your information from? I must be missing something. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: DougR Date: 18 Sep 08 - 01:46 AM According to the most recent polls, McCain is the popular candidate. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:11 PM September 18, 2008 Obama's Limbaugh ad causes stir Posted: 03:49 PM ET From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney Limbaugh says an Obama ad is 'stoking racism.' (CNN) — A Republican congressman and supporter of John McCain called a Spanish television ad from the Obama campaign "offensive and dishonest" Thursday, and said the Democratic nominee owes the Latino community an apology. "It is offensive and dishonest for Barack Obama to lie about John McCain's record on immigration and years of support for the Hispanic community, when it was Barack Obama himself who voted for 'poison pill' amendments that killed the effort at immigration reform. Instead of making false ads with baseless attacks, Barack Obama should be apologizing to the Latino community," Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart said in statement released by the McCain campaign. The Spanish-language ad, launched earlier this week, aims to connect McCain to Republicans who have staked out staunch anti-illegal immigration stances — including talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's narrator says in Spanish as an image of Limbaugh is quoted saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out." "They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the narrator continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families." But McCain has repeatedly disagreed with his party's base on the issue of immigration and was a chief sponsor of an immigration reform bill last year that deeply angered conservatives and nearly sunk his presidency. The Arizona senator is also no favorite of Limbaugh, particularly for seeming to take a moderate stance on illegal immigration. But critics note McCain shifted his own policy on immigration as the Republican presidential primary race heated up, advocating a "security first" approach. Limbaugh also took issue with the ad, telling the Politico it had taken his past statements — one of which is 15 years old — out of context and was an attempt at "race baiting." "Obama is now stoking racism in the country," Limbaugh said. "Obama is a disgrace — he wants the public to think he is Mr. Nice Guy while his thugs are in Alaska looking for dirt on Palin and he runs race-baiting ads and lies about what he has done and what McCain has done." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:15 PM DouR: RCP averages all the major polls: RCP Average 09/09 - 09/17 -- 45.2 47.1 Obama +1.9 Gallup Tracking 09/15 - 09/17 2815 RV 44 48 Obama +4 Rasmussen Tracking 09/15 - 09/17 3000 LV 48 48 Tie Hotline/FD Tracking 09/15 - 09/17 912 RV 42 46 Obama +4 Battleground Tracking* 09/10 - 09/17 800 LV 47 45 McCain +2 CBS News/NY Times 09/12 - 09/16 LV 44 49 Obama +5 Quinnipiac 09/11 - 09/16 987 LV 45 49 Obama +4 Pew Research 09/09 - 09/14 2307 LV 46 46 Tie Reuters/Zogby 09/11 - 09/13 1008 LV 45 47 Obama +2 Newsweek 09/10 - 09/11 1038 RV 46 46 Tie So I am afraid McCain has given away his 1.8 lead. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:20 PM RCP averages all the major polls: Fox and CNN, or just the major ones that give results you approve of? AND, what were the margins of error? A 2% win with a 3% margin of error is still a dead heat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:20 PM At rallies in the week following the convention, the McCain-Palin duo saw their best attendance and a newfound zeal, and the Republican ticket took the lead in national polls for the first time. But polls show that the momentum has shifted once again. Palin's favorable rating is at 40 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. That's down 4 points from last week. Her unfavorable rating is at 30 percent, rising 8 points in a week. The poll was conducted September 12-16 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Former Bush adviser Karl Rove predicted Wednesday that Palin's star power would wear off. "Nothing lasts for 60-some-odd days," Rove told The Associated Press. "Will she be the center of attention in the remaining 48 days? No, but she came on in a very powerful way and has given a sense of urgency to the McCain campaign that's pretty remarkable." But this week, the Democrats recaptured the headlines, and Obama regained his lead in the national polls. CNN's latest poll of polls, out Thursday afternoon, shows him ahead of McCain by 3 points, 47 percent to 44 percent. The poll of polls consists of six recent surveys: CBS/NYT (September 12-16), Quinnipiac (September 11-16), IPSOS-McClatchy (September 11-15), Gallup (September 15-17), Diageo/Hotline (September 14-16) and American Research Group (September 13-15). It does not have a sampling error. After a week in which McCain put Obama on the defensive over allegations of playing the gender card, the economic crisis has given Obama an opportunity to go on the offense. Most Americans see Obama as more capable than John McCain when it comes to handling the economy, polls show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:23 PM "It does not have a sampling error. " It does not PROVIDE the sampling error- it most certainly has one!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:55 PM Quite so. SOrry--in my haste I failed to attribute that excerpt. Nothing in the last few weeks has been outside a few points, which is a normal error in most quick-survey samples. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:56 PM Oh! What?? They did n't collapse and have to be bailed out and taken over?? No, they did not collapse. They never ceased to function. They were taken over and provided with federal funds as per the laws (see above) passed by Congress and signed by the President. "All those news reports were wrong?" Only the ones that said they collapsed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:24 PM Donald Trump Endorses McCain: "Real estate magnate and television personality Donald Trump endorsed Sen. John McCain Wednesday night on CNN's Larry King Live. Of the main reasons Trump, a former Hillary Clinton supporter, cited for making his endorsement of McCain over Obama was the Democratic presidential nominee's stance on taxes and his decision not to choose Sen. Clinton as his vice-presidential running mate." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:21 AM ANd they were taken over because... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 19 Sep 08 - 10:51 AM They were taken over because they were beong mismanaged and in debt. The books were cooked by former Clinton officials in order to earn big bonuses. By the way, the McCain ad assertion that they collapsed is wrong too. Fannie and Freddie made the following campaign contributions: Dodd, Christopher $133,900 Kerry, John $111,000 Obama, Barack $105,849 New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae By STEPHEN LABATON NYT September 11, 2003 The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (Clinton era) Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. ''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:20 AM Washington Post: 'Always for Less Regulation'? John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama. Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A18 TO LISTEN to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of regulating financial markets. "He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis," Mr. Obama said in New Mexico yesterday. "When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal -- and I quote -- 'I'm always for less regulation.' " But the full quotation from Mr. McCain's March interview with the Journal's editorial board belies Mr. Obama's one-sided rendition. The Republican candidate went on to say, "But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight." It's fair to say that Mr. McCain has dramatically ramped up the regulatory rhetoric in the wake of the meltdown on Wall Street. Mr. Obama made the argument about the need for increased oversight much earlier. And Mr. McCain has generally taken an anti-regulatory stance, although not in all cases -- his support for federal regulation of tobacco and boxing being prominent counter-examples. Mr. McCain backed a moratorium on all new federal regulation in 1995, saying that excessive regulations were "destroying the American family, the American dream." On the campaign trail in 2000, he touted his record of voting "for smaller government, for less regulation." However, when it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain's record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. "I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation," he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. "But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work." Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he "seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well." In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "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," Mr. McCain warned at the time. One element of the Obama campaign's brief against Mr. McCain is that he supported repeal of the law separating commercial banks from investment banks. "He's spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," Mr. Obama said yesterday. "Phil Gramm, one of the architects of the deregulation in Washington that led directly to this mess on Wall Street, is also the architect of John McCain's economic plan." Would it be churlish to point out that another author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law is former congressman Jim Leach, a founder of Republicans for Obama? Or that Obama advisers Lawrence H. Summers and Robert E. Rubin supported the repeal -- which was signed by President Bill Clinton? It's a reasonable question which candidate has been more attentive to the brewing problems on Wall Street and which has a better prescription for them. But Mr. Obama's attack does not give a fair reading of the McCain record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:40 AM Now that's downright amazing!! Eight years since there was a Clinton administration and somehow you believe those rogues were responsible for the collapse of Freddy and Fanny? Awesome. Your assertion tha the takeover was just routine business operations is so disingenuous as to defy credulity. "The U.S. government seized control of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM: 0.70, +0.21, +42.86%) and Freddie Mac (FRE: 0.51, +0.18, +54.54%) on Sunday, placing the liabilities of more than $5 trillion of mortgages onto the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Both companies have now been placed into a government conservatorship under the recently created Federal Housing Finance Agency, in a plan announced by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and FHFA Director Jim Lockhart. The chief executives of the mortgage companies – Dick Syron of Freddie Mac and Daniel Mudd of Fannie Mae – have stepped down, but will continue to stay on temporarily to oversee the transition, Paulson said. Herb Allison, former chairman of TIAA-CREF, will take over as CEO of Fannie, while U.S. Bancorp (USB: 37.69, +0.92, +2.50%) Chief Executive David Moffett will become CEO of Freddie. "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil in our financial markets here at home and around the globe," Paulson said, speaking at a press conference in Washington D.C. on Sunday morning. "A failure would affect the ability of Americans to get home loans, auto loans and other consumer credit and business finance." The Sunday announcement and themes of "too big to fail" brought stark reminders of the government's March intervention in the case of Bear Stearns, which came within hours of filing for bankruptcy. It also brings both Fannie Mae, which was created by Congress during the Great Depression to help with home ownership, and Freddie Mac, created in 1970 as a competitor to Fannie Mae, back into the fold of the government after a multi-decade attempt at privatization. As part of the plan, both Fannie's and Freddie's day-to-day operations will be under the direction of Lockhart. Officials provided no indication of when the government conservatorship will end. That will depend partially on the health of the U.S. housing economy, as well as the policy choices of the next presidential administration. "Conservatorship will give the enterprises time to restore the balances between safety and soundness and provide affordable housing and stability and liquidity to the mortgage markets," Lockhart said. As part of the government's plan to take over the companies, and to protect taxpayers, Paulson said the Treasury will receive $1 billion in senior preferred stock, with a yield of 10% a year, in both Fannie and Freddie, and will also receive "warrant for the purchase of common stock of each company representing 79.9% of the common stock of each company on a fully diluted basis at a nominal price." The government's plan will all but wipe out any value that common or preferred stockholders have in the two mortgage companies. All dividends for Fannie and Freddie will be eliminated, Paulson said. All political lobbying efforts by the government-sponsored entities will cease as well. While under the direction of the government, the two companies will take additional mortgage-backed securities to help stabilize the mortgage markets through the end of 2009, Paulson said. Starting in 2010, when the housing market is expected to be recovering, both Fannie and Freddie will reduce the size of their mortgage portfolios at a rate of 10% a year. The ultimate goal is to reduce the size of Fannie and Freddie's mortgage holdings -- around $1.5 trillion altogether -- to about $250 billion each. Because the government controls the liabilities of Fannie and Freddie, this action could cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. However, Paulson emphasized that, because of the long-term value of these securities, the taxpayer would have "a large stake in the future value of these entities." "The ultimate cost to the taxpayer will depend on the business results of (Fannie and Freddie) going forward," Paulson said." Do you think a takeover costing billions of dollars is "normal operation"? And your accusation against unidentified former CLinton administration people is bizarre, unsubstantiated, and ludicrous. It is true that the Clinton administration failed to support rigorous reining in of the FMA and FMAC organizations; and motivated by a desire to expand honme-ownership at a time when less than 65% owned homes, they encouraged growth of both organizations. They dshould have had the foresight to dampen things down. The first signs of potential blowup were in 2003 when Freddie revealed they had understated their earnings by 9 billion dollars. The history of the two makes it clear, I think, that it was the organizations themselves, who bullied, lobbied, and PRd to keep running as they had been. This occurred all through the Clinton, Bush and Bush again administrations.
(From this overview). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:47 PM Commentary: McCain's Latino ad hits target, Obama's misses Story Highlights Ruben Navarrette: New front in campaign is Spanish-language ad war McCain ad is on target in saying Dems blocked immigration reform, he says Navarrette: Obama ad is off base in claiming McCain agreed with Limbaugh By Ruben Navarrette Jr. Special to CNN Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here Ruben Navarrette Jr. says Obama's Spanish language ad wrongly ties McCain to Rush Limbaugh. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The new offensive in the presidential election is a Spanish-language air war in which each party is trying to convince Latino voters that the other is no amigo to the nation's largest minority and that it did them wrong during the immigration debacle in Congress. It started last week when the McCain-Palin campaign launched a Spanish ad that, translated, says: "[Barack] Obama and his congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants. But are they? The press reports their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail. The result: No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side? Obama and his congressional allies: Ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead." This week, the Obama-Biden campaign struck back with Spanish radio and TV ads in the heavily-Latino battleground states of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Translated, the TV ad says: "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance. They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that lies just to get our vote, and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families." Stop the tape! The spots are hard-hitting, but only one hits the target. The McCain-Palin ad is accurate. But the Obama-Biden ad is riddled with problems. For starters, it diverts attention away from Congress by trying to tie John McCain to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whose picture appears on-screen and who stands accused of referring to "stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and telling immigrants, "You shut your mouth or you get out." Limbaugh said this week on his radio show that, with the first comment, he was defending the North American Free Trade Agreement and warning against the idea of rewarding "stupid people" with "no skills" in this country -- that is, Americans -- by keeping their jobs in the United States. He suggested letting "stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work." With regard to the second comment, Limbaugh said he was simply parroting the philosophy behind Mexican immigration laws, which are notoriously harsh on migrants from Central and South America. Limbaugh promised listeners that, on Monday's show, he is going to air Spanish translations of the offending remarks to try to set the record straight and clear the air with Latinos. I'll be listening. But I don't suppose you could say the same for the folks who created the Obama-Biden ad. It is obvious they don't speak "dittohead." They have probably never listened to Limbaugh or any conservative talkers. Those of us who do know McCain and his bunch aren't exactly "Republican friends." In fact, they're more like enemies. During the Republican primary, right-wing talk show hosts worked overtime to defeat McCain, preferring the more conservative if less electable alternatives Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. As for the claim that Republicans have dos caras (two faces), welcome to politics. On the immigration issue, if they pay attention, Latinos will find plenty of that from Democrats. That party had to balance a courtship of Latino voters, who wanted immigration reform, with the edicts of organized labor, which did not. Labor won. That's the whole point of the McCain-Palin ad. Finally, as for feeling marginalized in a country you love, I have no doubt that many Latino immigrants do love this country, and they contribute enormously to it. Yet others treat it like an ATM, flout its laws, have no interest in becoming legal or a citizen, and -- when they take to the streets -- see no irony in demanding rights from one country while waving the flag of another. Guess what? Such things have a way of making you feel marginalized. Here's the shame of it: Both political parties have forgotten how to speak to Latino voters. Instead of explaining how their policies will improve people's lives, they try to scare the life out of them. That's unacceptable -- in any language. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:44 PM The NYT described McCains ad as jaw-droppingly distorted. The man, or his campaign, is dedicated to lying for gain. "Mr. McCain lied first, in a Spanish-language ad that accused Mr. Obama of helping to kill immigration reform last year, by voting for amendments that supposedly doomed a bipartisan bill. The ad lamented the result: "No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side?" That is a jaw-dropping distortion. The bill wasn't killed by any amendments. It was killed by a firestorm of talk-radio rage and a Republican-led filibuster. The very bill that Mr. McCain now mourns is the one he sidled away from as his own party weakened and killed it. It's the one he says he would now vote against. For Mr. McCain to suggest that Mr. Obama opposes the "path to citizenship" and "guest worker program" compounds his dishonesty. Mr. Obama supports the three pillars of comprehensive reform — tougher enforcement, expanded legal immigration and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here. Mr. McCain was an architect of just such a comprehensive bill. But he is also leading a party whose members rabidly oppose the path to citizenship. So, in deference to them, Mr. McCain now emphasizes border security as the utmost priority. Except when he's pandering in Spanish. ..." (NYT Columnist) Why promulgate such trash, Bruce? What shall it profit? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:52 PM Why promulgate such trash, Amos? You take an unnamed colunist of the partisan NYT as verified truth, and denigrate a California paper columnist for presenting something YOU do not agree with. "Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist." From now on, I expect YOU will no longer present any columnists as truth, since you have failed to allow opinions other than your own to be considered as valid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Sep 08 - 02:34 PM Protesters interrupt Obama Posted: 01:35 PM ET From CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson Protesters holding posters saying Sen. Barack Obama was endorsed by the KKK are escorted from his speech (CNN) — Barack Obama's campaign rally in Coral Gables, Florida Friday was interrupted by a group of about 10 African-American protesters holding signs that called themselves, "Blacks Against Obama." The signs said Obama was for gay marriage and abortion, and said his candidacy was "endorsed by the KKK." Another sign said, "Jesse Jackson hates Obama." Obama originally said the protesters could stay inside the event, but they were escorted out when they would not stop shouting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:39 PM Tell ya what, Bruce. If it comes down to trusting the NYT against the San Diego Union Trib, my money goes to the Times any day of the year. This Trib is so close to yellow it scares the hepatitis clinics around here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM And I take it you do not wish to deal with Navarette's direct falsification about Obama's ACTUAL position? "That is a jaw-dropping distortion. The bill wasn't killed by any amendments. It was killed by a firestorm of talk-radio rage and a Republican-led filibuster. The very bill that Mr. McCain now mourns is the one he sidled away from as his own party weakened and killed it. It's the one he says he would now vote against. For Mr. McCain to suggest that Mr. Obama opposes the "path to citizenship" and "guest worker program" compounds his dishonesty. Mr. Obama supports the three pillars of comprehensive reform — tougher enforcement, expanded legal immigration and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here." Given that Navarette falsifies Obama's position blatantly, while the Times describes it accurately, which would you prefer? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:54 PM " As for the claim that Republicans have dos caras (two faces), welcome to politics. On the immigration issue, if they pay attention, Latinos will find plenty of that from Democrats. That party had to balance a courtship of Latino voters, who wanted immigration reform, with the edicts of organized labor, which did not. Labor won. That's the whole point of the McCain-Palin ad. Finally, as for feeling marginalized in a country you love, I have no doubt that many Latino immigrants do love this country, and they contribute enormously to it. Yet others treat it like an ATM, flout its laws, have no interest in becoming legal or a citizen, and -- when they take to the streets -- see no irony in demanding rights from one country while waving the flag of another. Guess what? Such things have a way of making you feel marginalized. Here's the shame of it: Both political parties have forgotten how to speak to Latino voters. Instead of explaining how their policies will improve people's lives, they try to scare the life out of them. That's unacceptable -- in any language. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:56 PM The Facts The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African-American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae. The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter." So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')" By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls, and will let you know if I receive a reply. The Pinocchio Test The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself--and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release. Gee. ANOTHER one? I guess Palin and McCain will be supporting warrantless wiretapping, now that their noses have grown so long from failing the Pinnochio Test so many times, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM "But the Obama-Biden ad is riddled with problems. For starters, it diverts attention away from Congress by trying to tie John McCain to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whose picture appears on-screen and who stands accused of referring to "stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and telling immigrants, "You shut your mouth or you get out." Limbaugh said this week on his radio show that, with the first comment, he was defending the North American Free Trade Agreement and warning against the idea of rewarding "stupid people" with "no skills" in this country -- that is, Americans -- by keeping their jobs in the United States. He suggested letting "stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work." With regard to the second comment, Limbaugh said he was simply parroting the philosophy behind Mexican immigration laws, which are notoriously harsh on migrants from Central and South America. Limbaugh promised listeners that, on Monday's show, he is going to air Spanish translations of the offending remarks to try to set the record straight and clear the air with Latinos. I'll be listening. But I don't suppose you could say the same for the folks who created the Obama-Biden ad. It is obvious they don't speak "dittohead." They have probably never listened to Limbaugh or any conservative talkers. Those of us who do know McCain and his bunch aren't exactly "Republican friends." In fact, they're more like enemies. During the Republican primary, right-wing talk show hosts worked overtime to defeat McCain, preferring the more conservative if less electable alternatives Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:36 PM Obama's voting record |
