Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama hits McConnell "one term president" claim

An interesting moment from Obama's weekly address: While calling for post-election bipartisan cooperation, he takes an oblique shot at Mitch McConnell for claiming the other day that his number one goal is to ensure that Obama is a "one term president":

It may not always be easy to find agreement; at times we'll have legitimate philosophical differences. And it may not always be the best politics. But it is the right thing to do for our country.

That's why I found the recent comments by the top two Republican in Congress so troubling. The Republican leader of the House actually said that "this is not the time for compromise." And the Republican leader of the Senate said his main goal after this election is simply to win the next one.

I know that we're in the final days of a campaign. So it's not surprising that we're seeing this heated rhetoric. That's politics. But when the ballots are cast and the voting is done, we need to put this kind of partisanship aside -- win, lose, or draw.

The White House seems to think juxtaposing Obama's continued faith in the possibility of bipartisan cooperation with the Senate GOP leader's openly declared desire to destroy his presidency plays in his favor.

If, as expected, the GOP takes back one or both houses of Congress, it will usher in a period of more direct confrontations between the President and the GOP leadership. Obama seems to be laying the groundwork to claim the moral high ground by pinning the blame for gridlock directly on the GOP, which will no longer have the option of blaming government dysfunction and chaos on the people who used to run Congress., i.e., the Democrats. If you think the last two years were intense...

By Greg Sargent  | October 30, 2010; 10:02 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House GOPers, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Source: ABC's newsroom upset with decision to tap Andrew Breitbart

Comments

Obama brought up the "one term" idea in an interview with ABC News last winter

Obama said he would rather "absorp" the political damage from the health care bill passage - rather than concern himself with re-election


This is Obama who brought this up - again hypocrisy from Obama.

Posted by: MountainPeaks | October 30, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama ran around the country for years telling everyone that he could bring the parties in Washington together.

Obama claimed he could do the difficult task.

Now all Obama is doing is whining about the Republicans.

Obama could have made the difficult compromises on the health care bill. He didn't. Obama knew a 2,000 page bill would be little basis for compromise.


Obama and his attitude is the greatest hurdle toward bipartisanship. In fact, ALL of Obama's claims to "bipartisanship" have turned out to be deceptions to get centrist votes. Obama is a LIAR.

.

Posted by: MountainPeaks | October 30, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Greg, sockpuppets...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 30, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Sue, as I noted last night, we're going to move to a new commenting system that allows us to separate out the commenters (on both sides) who want to have a real conversation from those who don't...

You'll be able to trigger something that allows you to only see the comments of those who we've designated good faith commenters. You won't see the comments from trolls and tread bombers anymore at all.

Posted by: sargegreg | October 30, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Yea, Obama says that now. But the American People have two years of Obama's conduct to measure his words against.


Obama should have thought about this before he went to his health care summit last spring - in which he offered no compromises and in which he tried to dominate the conversation with his own ego.


You don't start a summit aimed at compromise by insulting John McCain. That was a stupid move. And a stupid move from someone who claims to be smart.


If Obama was serious about bipartisanship, he would have made far more efforts to engage in real discussions.


Compromise means you meet the other side in the middle. Compromise means both sides make sacrifices. Compromise means arriving at centrist policies. If you have to say all that, the other person is really trying to compromise.

Obama is the problem.

No one else. Ironcially, all this rhetoric from Obama doesn't help the situation at all - especially when all of Obama's actions have not matched his words.


It called LYING.


.

Posted by: MountainPeaks | October 30, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Greg, thank you. Looking forward to the rally today, but I promised to go to a state championship volleyball match, right in the middle of it. Aarrgghhh!

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | October 30, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Greg

I disagree with you obviously.

I am attempting to have a "real conversation"

It is the people who are engaging in nasty comments - on a constant basis - who are not engaging in "real conversation."

It is impossible to have a "real conversation" in the atmosphere of hostility which has been allowed to develop on this blog.

Those nasty comments are not "intent to harass," designed to drive people away ?

You are not being even-handed at all.

Ethan engaged in capitalization. That was never a problem until it came from a Conservative poster.

20 straght postings from liberals sure seems like "thread-bombing" from the other point of view.


I have requested many, many times a clear definition of "thread-bombing" so one could comply with that.

You are not being honest - because you know perfectly well that liberal posters would fall under any definition of "thread-bombing."

It is the point of view which the democrats simply do not want to hear.


Sure, we hear claims that the democrats want to be bipartisan, but we don't see it in their actions.

When it comes time to be bipartisan, the democrats stick their fingers in their ears like little children and say "I'm not listening to you."

That is childish behavior - which should be ignored. And it should certainly not be allowed to drive people away.


It is time to grow up.


Yes, Greg Sargent I AM QUESTIONING YOUR MANHOOD - if you can not confront these issues and deal with them in an even-handed and honest manner - YOU ARE ARE NOT A MAN.


.

Posted by: MountainPeaks | October 30, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Two years ago the message from the media was,(if you are republican do not vote as republican have lost the election) this time it is the same message with one word changed (democrats)corporate america owns the media, and they know that many of us will not think for our selfs, the polls are what they want them to be, As for the folks i have asked, many say they will not vote, just feed up!!!

Posted by: dv1236 | October 30, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

MountainPeaks-It is not hypocrisy to want to pass health care reform and sacrifice a chance for reelection. One might call that taking one for the team: that would be team America, not team no-compromise GOP. The logic in your reasoning makes no sense.

Obama did try to bring the parties together. He had a televised meeting with just him and GOP in the room where he kicked the GOP's butt so bad with logic and reasoning they refused to televise the next meeting. He also had a televised summit on Health Care reform where the GOP chose unrelated rhetoric rather than discuss a massive, complicated bill.

There are plenty more examples.

That whining you hear is the President again extending an invitation for debate.

Posted by: peskyspole | October 30, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Real Conversation"


When the topic was raising that the Obama people were BULLYING PEOPLE WITH FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM, with the idea that these kinds of tactics were far outside what should be considered acceptable in the American political system, what was your response?


Greg - you didn't encourage a "real conversation," you shut down the conversation.


This is an important issue - one that has divided the nation and made commpromise even more difficult.

NO again - with your banning, you haven't encouraged "converation," you have shut conversation down.


It is complete hypocrisy. What is the problem? The liberals do not want to engage in an HONEST ASSESSMENT OF OBAMA'S JOB PERFORMANCE?

Well that is well within the bounds of acceptable conversation.

The truth is the affirmative action guy wasn't up for the task. The very idea that "experience doesn't matter," that "qualifications don't matter" have let the democrats to be EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE WITH THIS NATION.


The liberal idea that one could just throw any minority person into any job - and everything would work out fine - is just ridiculous.

Experience matters. Qualifications matter.

The democrats were wrong. Really wrong. And they were irreponsible.


In fact, the democrat have PROVEN WITH THEIR SUPPORT FOR OBAMA THAT THEY ARE UNFIT TO GOVERN.


.

Posted by: MountainPeaks | October 30, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Its a fine line to thread between trying to appeal to the better angels and acknowledging that politics aint bean bags (or some cliche).

I think most presidents realize that they represent all America. Hey, it was Obama at the *Democratic Convention* that made the "we are not Red or Blue America..." speech, which I think was instrumental in his rise.

Aside from those of us, myself admitted, who tend to be partisan, the average Joe/Jane would rather see cooperation.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 30, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Greg, any idea as to the timing of the change?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 30, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

One idea that was floated on the Fix was to let individual posters decide who they want to see on an individual basis. I think that would be better than having one person make the choices for all of us.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 30, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I don't expect people to blame anyone bout the president and why because he is African American. Oh how soon they forget it took that bafoon that was i8n there for 8 years to do this damage that has occurred to our nation but no one vwants place the blame where it should be place everyone wants to blame the president in office now but you bidiots keep turning a deaf ear and put a republican in there and you will be crying more than you are doing now. You racist fools are not putting the blame where it should be placed.

Posted by: mysunshine1954 | October 30, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

MoutainPeaks? What is that, sounds like an air freshener. HaHahhaahaahahaa. It is a great day. Say Greg, if you go to the same comment system Chris Cillizza ended up with at the Fix, you won't need to worry about comments any more. Over there, there is pretty much nothing but Twitter spoor for whole strings at a time.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 30, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"Aside from those of us, myself admitted, who tend to be partisan, the average Joe/Jane would rather see cooperation.
Posted by: ChuckinDenton"

That was what Lindsay Graham was saying to his Town Hall meeting about a year ago and he was shouted down (you can see it on YouTube, it is pretty shocking), threatened actually, by his own constituents. The Republican base has been radicalized, too bad it can't be marginalized.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 30, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Sue, not sure on the timing ... I'll let you all know when I know.

And for those who don't like the Cillizza system, I don't know whether that's what we're moving toward. It could be something entirely different.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 30, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

That's adorable MountainPeaks. Challenging somebody's manhood on a laptop. Tough guy over here!

Posted by: cao091402 | October 30, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD, I agree with you. Actually,there is only one person for whom I've used the troll blocking software floated yesterday, it makes all the difference. I don't mind seeing people fighting, making fool s of themselves or straying off topic, scroll wheel works fine. The behavior of the one who can not be named (since it changes every few hours) has nothing to do with politics, he is just a sick person.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 30, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

shrink-

Yeah, I could be wrong about Joe and Jane, too. I wonder if our concern over hyper-partisanship *right now* is colored by a general lack of historical knowledge about say, 19th C. elections-some of those got really nasty.

Not saying that we can't do better but its just interesting...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 30, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad you brought that up. There has been a lot of hyperventilation about how awful the partisanship has been as if it were unprecedented.

Not at all, there where much worse periods. Even early on, the political party of George Washington, the Federalists, died with Alexander Hamilton over in a clearing in New Jersey. Oddly, Burr was a Democratic-Republican.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 30, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

A sampling of the headlines out of RCP tells the story of 2010:

"Why the Stimulus Hasn't Helped"

"Will Politicians Stay in Denial"

"Obama Appears to Have No Idea What to Do"

"Nitty-gritty Numbers Suggest a Downward Spiral"

"House Dems were Pelosi's Cannon Fodder"

"Requiem For the Pelosi Democrats"

"After the Election, Obama to Flee U.S."


"Obama in Exile for the Next Two Years, Then Retirement".

That last one was mine.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 30, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"The White House seems to think juxtaposing Obama's continued faith in the possibility of bipartisan cooperation with the Senate GOP leader's openly declared desire to destroy his presidency plays in his favor."

Or, maybe he actually believes it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. (Some people have trouble understanding this concept due to the lack of personal experience.)

Posted by: converse | October 30, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Reason magazine did a funny take on old campaign ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

Sample: "Next time try cracking a history book, you hatchet-faced nutmeg dealer"

Stephen Douglas on Abraham Lincoln

Compared to the past this campaign seems downright tame....

Posted by: sold2u | October 30, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Obama brought up the "one term" idea in an interview with ABC News last winter

Obama said he would rather "absorp" the political damage from the health care bill passage - rather than concern himself with re-election

This is Obama who brought this up - again hypocrisy from Obama.

Obama ran around the country for years telling everyone that he could bring the parties in Washington together.

Obama claimed he could do the difficult task.

Now all Obama is doing is whining about the Republicans.

Obama could have made the difficult compromises on the health care bill. He didn't. Obama knew a 2,000 page bill would be little basis for compromise.

Obama and his attitude is the greatest hurdle toward bipartisanship. In fact, ALL of Obama's claims to "bipartisanship" have turned out to be deceptions to get centrist votes. Obama is a LIAR."

Those are all very good points. Obama could also defuse a volitile issue all by himself if he simply released his original birth certificate. Something else Obama said this morning was that he needs 20,000 doors knocked on by people in Philadelphia! Too bad they are all at the Stewart / Colbert rally!

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 30, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Bipartisanship comes as a RESULT of success, not before it. That was one of the fatal mistakes that the President made. Succesful businesses have dozens of emulators, not failed ones. He should have rammed home comprehensive financial legislation in the first 6 months of his term, while he still had juice. THEN, he could have had more of his way on health care. He showed his enemies weaknees and they took his measure.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

This Obama, one term stuff is old news. I told everyone that it is Obama's own plan to be a one termer. The guy is smarter than he appears. He's relatively young and merely wants a luxurious and famous, early retirement. Think about it.

He puts in four, short years as POTUS as our, very first, African-American president (Clinton is a pretender) and his fame and fortune is sealed and it's a done deal.

Result: He eases into retirement in the most exclusive club on Earth, the ex-presidents club. No real work, huge pension, golf every day, world statesman, $500,000 speaking fees, book deals, etc.

It's a perfect plan. Look for Obama to decline a second term out of disgust so that he will not have to face defeat. Then he can claim he went out a winner.

Mark my words!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 30, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

converse, some of us honestly think limiting Obama to one-term is the RIGHT THING TO DO.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 30, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

@shrink,

Meet me over at the Sharron Angle thread to further our discussion, if you want. I've been thinking a lot about what you are describing.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

You'll be able to trigger something that allows you to only see the comments of those who we've designated good faith commenters. You won't see the comments from trolls and tread bombers anymore at all.

Posted by: sargegreg | October 30, 2010 10:24 AM
-------

If that were true, of course, no one would be able to see the comments of suekzoo1.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Greg, any idea as to the timing of the change?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 30, 2010 10:59 AM
--------

Many have already blocked you via Kevin's new software; are you anxious to disappear entirely? Don't worry. Even if Greg doesn't make a change, you'll be able to figure out how to implement Kevin's program after you finish third grade. Problem solved.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

battleground51, does Carter or Bush41 get $500,000 per speech?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 30, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out: ABC News newsroom unhappy with decision to enlist Breitbart for election analysis:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/source_abcs_newsroom_upset_wit.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 30, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

No "open thread" today?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 30, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The President's continued search for bi-partisan cooperation amazes me. He won't take the Republicans clearly stated answer of 'no' for an answer. His persistance in seeking cooperation when the opposition refuses to cooperate is puzzling. Until one thinks about the alternative.

The Republicans are putting their political objectives above the interests of the American people when they refuse to address urgent issues facing our country. This is not sustainable. The public will eventually wake up to this fact, and, hopefully will ask 'why?' That answer is to be found by following the money. And the money trail leads to the industrial/military complex, the big banks, the global corporations and their lobbyists, etc., and to the neocons and their desire to gut regulation and oversight. Big deficits and a weak dollar serve their business interests. They engage in arbitrage. The average 'Joe' in America can't. They create a tax code that favors the informed and wealthy. It's basically a form of wealth transfer.

That's why under the so-called fiscally conservative Republican administration's of Reagan and Bush.2 the federal deficit ballooned by about 8 trillion dollars while the gap between the have and the have-nots in the U.S. widened, and the middle-class saw their economic status plummet.

I can only conclude that the President understands this, and also understands that one day there will be a epiphany on the part of the mainstream of the American people and they will see, in a blinding flash of insight, what's going on. Then, the Republicans will get to reap the full measure of what they are now sowing. It won't be pretty.

I just hope the country can persevere through it without permanent economic damage having been inflicted. I also believe that's a forlorn hope.

Posted by: ronstrauss | October 30, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Greg, any idea as to the timing of the change?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 30, 2010 10:59 AM
--------

Many have already blocked you via Kevin's new software; are you anxious to disappear entirely? Don't worry. Even if Greg doesn't make a change, you'll be able to figure out how to implement Kevin's program after you finish third grade. Problem solved.

Posted by: Brigade
_______________

LOL...LOL...LMAO

Wow

LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 30, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I've been enabling and disenabling Kevin's Troll Hunter script to see the difference in my reaction to the blog. One possible loss could have been the feeling that one is losing "something" when one does not see STRF et al's posts.

Let's put it this way: it's like that soundproof room at the back of the church, where the parents and their screaming babies sit through services. The congregation doesn't hear a thing from that room. That's how much I miss STRF.

Troll Hunter--downloaded 44 times and counting.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't expect people to blame anyone bout the president and why because he is African American. Oh how soon they forget it took that bafoon that was i8n there for 8 years to do this damage that has occurred to our nation but no one vwants place the blame where it should be place everyone wants to blame the president in office now but you bidiots keep turning a deaf ear and put a republican in there and you will be crying more than you are doing now. You racist fools are not putting the blame where it should be placed.

Posted by: mysunshine1954 | October 30, 2010 11:03 AM
--------

Good grief. The next time you cry "fool", I hope you're looking in the mirror. On the off chance you may just be on crack and not the moron you appear to be, I'll respond.

False charges of racism have seen their day. They don't work anymore. They have no effect whatsoever. Obama is incompetent. Sorry, but it's true. I have no way of knowing whether or not he was rendered incompetent by the color of his skin, but I'm guessing not. What's your enlightened opinion?

Oh, and if you're referring to the current economic mess as "this damage that has occurred to our nation" let me educate you a bit. The Community Reinvestment Act was the work of the Carter Adminstration. It's intent was to "encourage" banks and savings and loans to meet the needs of people who were having trouble getting home loans. A nice thought, but it seems
to eventually have been reinterpreted to mean making loans to people who have no hope whatsoever of paying them back. Once the groundwork was done and the ball was started, there was additional legislative action and political pressure throughout the following twenty-five years that exacerbated the problem and produced exotic financial instruments to both hide it and make it profitable. If I wanted to provide a link, one of the best explanations I've seen came from PL's own ScottC3, but I don't know which thread or how long ago.

I'm not giving Republicans a pass; there's enough blame to go around. But to blame it all on George W. Bush, with not even a nod to crooked Chris Dodd or cum-drunk Barney Frank or Frank Raines (oops, I suppose that makes me a racist) is ridiculous in the extreme.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Shots fired at the U.S. Marine Corps Museum in Washington D.C.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 30, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Angle is another hero of the tea party movement. And she's a total fool. Here's why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZlhSY_5_fo

Posted by: scathingres | October 30, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

scathingres, what if Angle wins?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 30, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The Stuart-Colbert rally for sanitation is truly trying to attract moderates back into the Democrat fold. The evidence is there for all to see:

The abortion rights people are out in full force.

The Gay-Lesbians are there

The Huffington Posties are coming in by the busload.

Union thugs will prevent any head stompings.

ACORN will not be there but will send Black Panthers as representatives.

LaRaza will provide salsa and chips to needy illegals

You see, the problem with these so called liberal demonstrations is that they attract so many oddball leftists.

When mainstream Americans see that, it steams them up even more and makes them want to vote more conservative.

Counterproductive for Obamacrats, to say the least. This is why some liberals are gritting their teeth over Stuart-Colbert.

They know!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 30, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

Since you seem to want to place the blame for the financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act back in the 1970's, you might want to ponder why there was a bubble in commercial real estate market in the exact SAME time from of 2003-2007? CRA had nothing to do with commercial real estate. Perhaps your view is a tad simplistic?

For a full debunking of this theory that it was all the CRA, see Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Mortgage Crisis, Preliminary Staff Report", Apr. 7, 2010.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Then, the Republicans will get to reap the full measure of what they are now sowing. It won't be pretty.

I just hope the country can persevere through it without permanent economic damage having been inflicted. I also believe that's a forlorn hope.

Posted by: ronstrauss | October 30, 2010 12:15 PM
-----

Along with the rest of us, they've already reaped, even though they didn't sow. You and those like you were sowing when you voted for Obama and a large Democratic majority in Congress. Now we have a botched monstrosity called HCR, an unemployment rate of 10%, a larger national debt---and growing, a housing market still in crisis, our entire economy in the ditch, two more wingnuts on the Supreme Court, a refusal of bipartisanship by Paloosi and Dingy Harry, and ... oh, that's enough. Good job! We'll see how next Tuesday goes.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

Another document you might want to read is the Staff Analysis to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, regarding the role of the CRA.

A snippet from their conclusion, on the first page:

"In the end, our analysis on balance runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current crisis."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

claw-

gotta link for that?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Some more research on the allegation that the CRA (passed in the 1970's) caused the mortgage meltdown in 2003-2008.

Glenn B. Canner & Neil
Bhutta, "Did the CRA Cause the Mortgage Meltdown", COMMUNITY DIVIDEND, FED. RESERVE BANK OF
MINNEA. Mar. 2009;

Ellen Seidman, "No, Larry, CRA Didn’t Cause the Sub-Prime Mess", THE LADDER, NEW
AMERICA FOUNDATION, Apr. 15, 2008;

Elizabeth Laderman & Carolina Reid, "CRA Lending During the
Subprime Meltdown, REVISITING THE CRA: PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY
REINVESTMENT ACT", 115 (Fed. Reserve Banks of Boston & S.F. Feb. 2009) (finding that CRA-subject
institutions were less likely to make subprime loans in California and that subprime loans made by CRAsubject
institutions in CRA assessment areas outperformed these institutions’ subprime loans made outside
CRA-assessment areas).
---------------------------------
We don't really have to rely on Scott, when there have been much published research on the issue at hand.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlue wrote,
"Since you seem to want to place the blame for the financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act back in the 1970's, you might want to ponder why there was a bubble in commercial real estate market in the exact SAME time from of 2003-2007? CRA had nothing to do with commercial real estate. Perhaps your view is a tad simplistic?"
------

It would be a tad simplistic---if that were actually my view. I guess you didn't read the entire post. The CRA is a good starting point. Once the ball started rolling, there were many other developments, some bipartisan.
If you think the mortgage crisis was all George W. Bush's fault, then continue in your delusion. I have a strange feeling that if loans hadn't been made enmasse to those who couldn't or wouldn't repay them then this market downturn would have been no worse than others.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

You do realize, don't you, that private mortgage companies are not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. And where did the vast majority of subprime mortgages originate? Try the private mortgage companies.

The motivation to lend to people who couldn't pay back, was not the CRA, it was the need for financial institutions to make more profit.

To make more profit, they had to find new people to make loans to.

Voila.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, a quote from my original post:

"it (CRA) seems
to eventually have been reinterpreted to mean making loans to people who have no hope whatsoever of paying them back. Once the groundwork was done and the ball was started, there was additional legislative action and political pressure throughout the following twenty-five years that exacerbated the problem and produced exotic financial instruments to both hide it and make it profitable."

my post was in response to a mysunshine1954 post which said:

"it took that bafoon that was i8n there for 8 years to do this damage that has occurred to our nation but no one vwants place the blame where it should be"
-------

So rather than trying to debate me on positions I don't hold or providing links to rebut claims I didn't make, how about you or mysunshine1954 providing links to reasonable explanations as to how the whole mortgage crisis was George W. Bush's fault. Silly me, I was under the impression that if all those mortgage backed securities were backed by mortgages written using sound underwriting principles, then maybe, just maybe, the situation wouldn't have gotten so far out of hand.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The top 5 subprime mortgage originators in 2003, when the bubble really started taking off:

1 Ameriquest Mortgage, CA
2 New Century, CA
3 CitiFinancial, NY
4 Household Finance, IL
5 Option One Mortgage, CA

Four of the five are private mortgage companies, not subject to CRA.
-------------------------
Brigade, you can fight the strawman that it wasn't GW Bush, and I don't say it was.

But to say it was the CRA, when there is zero evidence (evidence!) that it dates back to the CRA is just as crazy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

You have one single kernel of truth in your analysis, well, maybe two kernels.

1. Underwriting standards became nonexistent during the bubble.

2. GW Bush didn't cause the real estate bubble.

But, you are wrong on everything else. The CRA theory is illogical, not backed by evidence, and has been extensively studied and debunked.

The cause of the bubble, was the drive for further gains in real estate lending (both residential and commercial). All the good borrowers were gone. All that was left were the bad borrowers. Wall Street devised instruments that placed AAA investment ratings on junk. Then they sold those instruments all over the world. When, the whole thing blew up (because finally there weren't even bad borrowers anymore), every financial institution held BILLIONS of dollars of this AAA rated junk. That's why there are a lot fewer financial institutions.

In September, 2008, the entire financial world ALMOST completely collapsed.

That's the cause, in a nutshell. Not the CRA. Not Bush.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues wrote,

"You have one single kernel of truth in your analysis, well, maybe two kernels.

1. Underwriting standards became nonexistent during the bubble.

2. GW Bush didn't cause the real estate bubble."
--------

Maybe I'd better quit while I'm ahead since #2 is the only point I was really trying to make. And one or two kernels is more than you usually give me credit for.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

The reason I'm hammering on this crazy CRA theory is this:

If we don't understand the TRUe causes of the mortgage meltdown, and believe it dates back to some law passed in the 1970's, we will repeal the law and think we have the problem solved.

And the Wall Street machine that creates AAA investments out of subprime mortgages will crank up again someday. And the mortgage originators will crop up like dandelions, and start the whole bubble again, selling $750,000 houses to $14,000/year workers on two year teaser interest only loans.

Real estate is uniquely suited to bubble behavior because it cannot be effectively shorted. There are far fewer natural constraints on the value of real estate than the shorting constraints on the stock market.

We need to really understand what actually happened in this bust and change the securitization process to make it standardized and transparent. If investors had understood the risk they were taking, THEY would have commanded far higher returns, which at least would have been some kind of natural speed limit on the bubble.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues,

The reason I'm hammering on this crazy CRA theory is this:

If we don't understand the TRUe causes of the mortgage meltdown, and believe it dates back to some law passed in the 1970's, we will repeal the law and think we have the problem solved.
-------

Touche. In an effort to discredit the "it's Bush's fault" line of reasoning, I was trying to establish a starting point for the impetus that moved us toward loans with insufficient underwriting standards. I do understand your point. And your obvious understanding of the meltdown is something I would not take issue with. Credit where due.

Posted by: Brigade | October 30, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

Thanks for the hat tip. I've been trying to become as informed as a layman can on the mortgage meltdown, since I believe it WILL happen again. We have loosed the dogs of mortgage armageddon and so far, I don't think we've put them back in the kennels. The only reason we don't hear them barking, is that they are licking their self imposed wounds.

The next real estate bubble I see, I may just sell my own house, rent for a while, and buy another house later. Call it self interest, and it is.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey this isn't brain surgery. Fraud caused the financial crisis, massive unprecedented fraud.

Home buyers who lied about qualifications,

Loan officers who advised them to lie and showed them how.

Appraisers who knowingly inflated values.

Realtors who knowingly participated in such transactions

Banking and Financial Houses who bundled together sub par mortgages.

Rating services who knowingly rated the MBS fraudulently as AAA

Banking and Financial houses who knowingly took low grade investments and sold them as AAA all over the world to institutions that should not have been invested in them.

Banking and Financial houses that knowingly failed to follow state rules in the massive transfer of these MBS.

BUT since minimally tens of thousands of people nationwide were involved, no one has been or will ever be criminally prosecuted successfully.

See, it reall wasn't that complicated.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote:

"All, check this out, Obama directly took on Mitch McConnell's claim that he wants Obama to be a one term president"


This is crazy. Why WOULD Mitch McConnell WANT Obama to win a second term?

Did Harry Reid want Bush to win a second term?

Did you?

Sometimes the things you write and postulate make no sense on any level!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

@numbers,

You have it exactly right. Fraud, fueled by greed. I'll make one teeny correction: Rating services who knowingly rated the MBS fraudulently as AAA

-------------------------
I don't think the rating services were smart enough to say they "knowingly" rates the MBS as AAA. I know, I know, a minor difference, and probably worse that fraud. :))

--------------------------
I'm just now finishing Michael Lewis' "The Big Short". Have you read it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

@numbers,

Oh, the people who did NOT knowingly engage in the mortgage fraud--

The investors in the MBS.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

12barblues:

I don't agree. The rating services were just like the appraisers. They knew they were committing fraud, If they hadn't, they wouldn't have gotten future business since it is the financial houses that directly pay the rating services for the ratings.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

@numbers,

I'm half joking, of course. The rating agencies didn't know enough about the underlying loans to rate the bonds. Not that if they had known, that they would have rated them any less than AAA. I know I'm damning them with faint praise.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

12:

Agreed, the people who invest for pension funds etc. are not nearly as sharp in most cases as the people who sell to them. If they were, Goldman etc would have hired them away a long time ago!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

@numbers,

It is ironic that the investment banks created products that were impossible to understand and evaluate. Every link on the chain relied on the banks to keep the obscure nature of the MBS, so they could all feed at the trough without conscience. Then, at the end, the opacity of the products even hooked the banks/investment banks themselves as they were going long MBS even when the foreclosure rates were skyrocketing.

Not THAT smart, were they?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

12 bar:

Goldman is.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Can't argue with that. Goldman lies down with pigs and comes up smelling like a rose.

Read the Big Short? I'm interested in your opinion.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

No yet, working my way thru too many.

"A Collosal Failure of Common Sense" by Lawrence McDonald was pretty good, though he overdid the biographical stuff.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I read Sorkin's "Too Big to Fail". Do you recommend I also read MCDonald's book?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

@numbers,

That was a dumb question on my part. I just ordered McDonald's book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

LOL Michael Lewis' book is decent. Also Greg Zuckerman's The Greatest Trade Ever.

After a while, it's like reading too many WWII books though!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I know about the WWII analogy. I've never been guilty of that, but I've been guilty of things like that, on subjects I would not want to mention.

Now, here's the really important question: are the banks clean now? Or clean enough? Has the crap been written down?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 30, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I find it irresponsible for any politician to say that his main objective is to obstruct the President of the United States. It is I would say against the interests of the American people to say that the only reason for being is to find a way to thwart and cast out the democratically elected top representative of the American people. For anyone to brazenly say this is what he is about is cause enough to vote that person who says it right out of office. He is basically saying he is being elected as the counter President during the actual President's elected term, just because he personally disagrees with the President. Sorry McConnell, there is no such position. Clearly you have no foundation whatsoever to make any claim to having behind you the will of the American people, as you are NOT the President. The losers in this are the American people. I have a lot of confidence in American people and in Obama no less so as the American leader of the American people. I think Mr. McConnell, that you will soon be shown to be the fool. Who do you think you are anyway? Does you really believe you have the right to stonewall further the President's common sense agenda at the expense of the American people? In order to further his own politics and to seek to do what is only in your and your Party's own narrow power hungry divisive agenda? Come on, that is not democracy, it is borne of feelings of supremacy methinks, and it is also what you would find in the 60's in Latin America and in the 70's in China. That's called dictatorship. Democracy is about doing what is right for the country and ALL its people?

Posted by: paulstewart | October 30, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

paulstewart:

I am no fan of McConnell, but what he said is genteel compared to the following Harry Reid quotes about Bush during his presidency:


"President Bush is a liar," Reid, the Senate's Assistant Majority Leader, said. "He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. "I think this guy is a loser."

"Reid called on Americans to “oppose this arrogant abuse of power” and accused Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate of trying to “break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch.”

"To me it shows how dangerously incompetent he is," Reid said."

"President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club."

I could go on, but you get the picture.


Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama still does not get it: it is about hardball.

The Republicans won the last two years; they intend to use the same playbook to win the next two.

Posted by: dozas | October 30, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

President Obama has shown great leadership since the day he stepped into office. Me and countless millions of others simply reject the racism and bigotry and hate inspired attacks against President Obama coming from the blood lusting warmonger republicans. The republicans created this false meme and it is all completely false. Americans with IQs above 95, recognize the excellent job that President Obama has done in the last 18 mths with the complete and total disasters that were left him by Bush and the republicans. The average IQ in America is 94. 25th or so in national average IQ in the world and that is pathetic. America the beautiful has become America the stupid. Some 52% of Americans have merely an average IQ.Some 65% or so have an IQ below average in America. Humans do not even develop discernment until their IQs get above 120 or so. That is...humans can not discern truth from lies. The republicans are liars and many Americans have once again fallen for their hate inspired lies. Morality correlates with IQ level also. Higher IQ's of course are more authentically moral. This explains why the low IQ republican rush to war....killing a million innocents and dont even bat an eyelash. The republicans are the party of war and murder and intelligent Americans are wise to avoid them and their degenerate ilk tooth and nail. The republican's racism, hate, and bigotry is about to backfire on them on Tuesday, when Dems hold their own and retain both houses of Congress, albeit with slimmer margins.

Posted by: vintel7 | October 30, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Two years of Obama's conduct? Yeah that's right...in the degenerate mind of an immoral warmonger republican. President Obama saved this country from COMPLETE AND TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CREATED BY BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS. Republicans rushed to war on bogus intel at a cost of $2 trillion taxpayer dollars and 1,000,000 lives. President Obama achieved what no previous president could achieve, that is...guaranteeing basic Health Care for millions of Americans who would not have any. The Heath Care Crises was threatening to bankrupt this country...remember? You will remember if the morally repugnant republican simpletons roll back the Health Reform Act and millions and millions will once again not have care...because the REPUBLICANS DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE. The Republicans squandered the surplus left by Clinton and jacked up the deficit $2 trillion dollars. They murdered, lied, and completely trashed the economy...so much so that worldwide Depression threatened. DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CORPORATE SPONSORED REPUBLICAN LIARS OR THEIR TEA BAG SURROGATES.

Posted by: vintel7 | October 30, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The GOP minority leaders in the House and the Senate would pursue their recently stated strategy : " The Republican leader of the House actually said that: " this is not the time for compromise ." And the Republican leader of the Senate said his main goal after this election is simply to win the next one ." President Obama 's hope and expectations that: " But when the ballots are cast and the voting is done, we need to put this kind of partisanship aside -- win, lose, or draw . " I have no doubt in that in the aftermath of next Tuesday elections ,there would not be any substantial or positive cooperation for the Presidents legislative agenda and programs , by the GOP in the next Congress .


Posted by: dmfarooq | October 30, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

vintel:

I'm betting you're a college professor, or a teacher of some kind. Am I right?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 30, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

GREG

You too are hiding behind software to hide the fact that you are either an eight year old girl or a HERMAPHRODITE.


A real man would defend Obama on the field of ideas.


Instead, you have hurled a series of half-truths and complete lies.

Greg, you know perfectly well when you are lying - and your readers are sick of your complete bullshit.

You are a deceiver and a liar.


First ADMIT that Obama took $500 Billion out of MEDICARE. If you can't do that, you have shown right there you are NOT A MAN.


Everyone who reads your crap KNOWS YOU ARE A LIAR.

Anyway - DEFEND OBAMA.


You give us a bunch of lies - but you really don't have the BALLS to defend Obama - who has DRAGGED THIS ECONOMY THROUGH THE MUD FOR THE SAKE OF HIS OWN STUPIDITY AND EGO.


It really is amazing that someone so stupd could have such an ego, but I suppose that is what AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES.


I just want to see the LIBERALS ADMIT IT.


OBAMA AND HIS CREW ARE BULLYING PEOPLE WITH FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM


Be a MAN and admit that.


I would like to see the liberals at least BE MEN and ADMIT THE TRUTH


YOU WORTHLESS PEOPLE - YOU DO NOT EVEN DESERVE TO LIVE IN AMERICA.


Just admit that you made a mistake and voted for someone with no experience and no qualification.


IF YOU CAN NOT ADMIT THAT - LEAVE THE COUNTRY AND NEVER COME BACK - YOU SPINELESS IDIOTS.


WE ARE TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: TheTruthYouRefuse | October 31, 2010 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama will not be a one term president unless the Republicans field a really competent centrist candidate. (More along the lines of a Jeb or Romney, instead of a Newt or Palin type).

To the comments here, I think there is a lot of ignorance. Given the worst economic collapse in 75 years that began before Obama took offce, nobody would have been able to turn it around in 2 year's time.

Obama can't be dismissed for that, when he has in fact done more in 2 years than most presidents. First, he passed health care legislation. That's been tried for the past 40 years without success. Further, his bill included elements that Republicans wanted (like no government control or government run healthcare unit). Thus, Obama disappointed his own supporters in crafting the minimum bill, but a bill that still moves us in the right direction.

Obama passed financial reform to try to correct some structural problems that caused our near collapse. Republicans fought him on the bill, alongside business, and liberals thought it didn't go far enough. It was a compromise.

Obama did the stimulus bill. Almost a third of it was tax cuts for businesses and and individuals, per Republican request. They still didn't vote for it. Stimulus included money to help states with medicaid and education costs and money to maintain teachers and other workers. It's really hard to go to wikipedia and see breakdown of stimulus allocations, or go to your own state's stimulus website and come away thinking it was a bad idea. Here in Arizona, they decided to throw kids off of kidscare, but had to reverse in order to be comply with simulus money strings.

Obama named two women to the Supreme Court, including a Hispanic. Mind you, I like conservative judges who respect religious freedom, but I don't expect Democrats to give me exactly what I want. Within their frame of choices, these two women were hardly extreme, and they passed without much fanfare or shenanigans.

I could go on. Bottom line is that Obama has done quite a bit, but Republicans have been determined to cast him as a failure no matter what he does or how much he compromises. The stimulus would have been larger, health care would have had a government option, and the financial bill would have been tougher, had Obama not been trying to be balanced.

It further amazes when Republicans hang the economy around Obama's neck, with the help of the Chamber of Commerce. Have you looked at corporate profits lately? Humming along quite nicely. It's earnings release season, with some companies reporting much higher profits, but choosing to lay people off just the same.

Meanwhile, Obama's first budget year, fiscal 2010, which ran from Oct 2009 to Sept 2010, came in under Bush's last budget. So smaller deficit. That is actually positive, if incremental progress.

I think it's time for people to be honest about both parties, and work together a bit more, and stop the exaggerations, the hyperbole, and the hate.

Posted by: FinnofBlaxalternate | October 31, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

@thetruthyourefuse at 1:31am

Obama took $500 out of Medicare for a reason. This was money paid to private sector firms that could be used for their "advantage" plans. It was a subsidy. My own mom is on one of those plans. However, it was found that much of that money was surplus, with the companies not matching funds received for services offered.

And in exchange for that cut of funds going to private sector firms, more services will be offered on the standard Medicare plan, including closing the donut hole.

Finally, and to be honest, any balancing of the budget--if Republicans are more serious than the 8 years under Bush during which they had a moment of control of the whole government and didn't balance anything, or reducing the national debt--will involve cutting entitlements.

So going forward both Republicans and Democrats will have to make hard choices about tax reform, cutting Medicare, Social Security and Defense if they truly want change.

Your invective is half nonsense, half insult, and half truth, and I employ the type of math in this sentence that befits your inability to put the halves together to make a cogent, truthful whole.

Your hysterics would have been better employed years ago when our our structural economic problems began. To suddenly see the light under Obama speaks to something else. Check your motives.

Posted by: FinnofBlaxalternate | October 31, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company