Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Handling the Economic Crisis: 10 Bright (Political) Ideas

John McCain and Barack Obama
Both McCain and Obama addressed the burgeoning economic crisis on the Trail yesterday. They'll be returning to that theme for the next 50 days. (Getty Images)

The crisis that has seized Wall Street over the last few days caught the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain flat-footed.

Neither man, as we wrote yesterday, has a demonstrated expertise on the issue and national polling shows that voters aren't sure whether Obama or McCain would do a better job in managing the economy as president.

So, with both campaigns scrambling to win the issue over the next few days, The Fix solicited the opinions of a handful of Republican and Democratic strategists, asking them what specifically they would advise their party's candidate to do in the short term to stake their claim to this critical issue.

We collected and sorted the suggestions -- which ranged from the zany to the downright ingenious. We picked the best five for each candidate and listed them below; some contradict one another but all seem to have solid strategic thinking behind them. The names behind the suggestions have been withheld in order to let the operatives speak their minds without being seen as telling their party's candidates (and his inner circle) what to do or not do.

Agree or disagree? The comments section awaits.

OBAMA

1. Two-Day Ohio Tour: Obama should spend two full days traveling the Buckeye State with stops in cities ranging from the big (Cleveland) to the medium (Dayton) to the small (Zanesville). The suggested theme? "McCain's strong fundamentals" playing off of the Arizona senator's much-disputed statement Monday that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Ohio was the central battleground of the 2004 election and the economic stresses have hammered the state in the intervening four years. Show Ohioans Obama isn't just a gifted speaker; he understand better than McCain the problems faced by average middle class families.

2. Spend a Night At Home: With home foreclosures still a huge problem and many middle class families worried about being able to make their monthly mortgage payments, Obama should spend a night at home with a family facing potential foreclosure -- either in Nevada or Michigan, two of the battlegroundiest (is that a word) states in the country. This idea is along the lines of the Service Employees International Union's "Walk a Day in their Shoes" campaign during the Democratic primaries but has the potential to produce great television images that ooze "empathy."

3. A Series of Speeches: Obama's greatest strength is his oratorical abilities. Use them. Follow the blueprint used to much success by George W. Bush in 2004 when he gave a series of speeches explaining and contextualizing the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism. Use that framework and sub in the economy; in one speech tackle the pinch the economic crisis is putting on an average middle class family, in another lay out how small business are being impacted, in a third show -- specifically -- how an Obama Administration would handle the economic problems different than has the current president. "Speeches are his wheelhouse and he needs to get back into his comfort zone," said Phil Singer, a former adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. "He's been trying to be someone else which has been cramping his style on the stump."

4. Town Hall Tryout: Obama has largely avoided the sort of town halls that McCain has made his own during this campaign. Pick a series of white working class neighborhoods and set up a series of economic-themed town halls over multiple days. Do more listening than talking. Obama, as The Fix himself has witnessed during a presidential dialogue sponsored by MTV and MySpace in Iowa, tends to shy away a bit from the "I feel your pain" politics of Bill Clinton. Suck it up and wade into the crowd. Console people who are struggling, hug folks having hard times. Be, at least for a few days, the consoler in chief.

5.Sitdown with Lehman Brothers Staff: Don't meet with the bigwigs and suits of the failed investment bank. Convene a roundtable with some of the support staff (administrative assistants etc.) who are impacted by the company veering into bankruptcy. Almost no one feels bad for the executives when these massive companies go through crises, knowing that these well-paid upper management types will survive without a hitch. But, there are also large numbers of employees at Lehman and other companies who are living paycheck to paycheck and will have their lives fundamentally altered by the bankruptcy. Put faces to these statistics and let them speak their minds about what's wrong and how to fix it.

MCCAIN

1. Seek Out Regional Banks: The big banks of the United States are struggling badly. Highlight the idea that great ideas can come from the states by meeting one on one with a as many successful managers of regional banks as the McCain can find. (A side benefit of this idea: it reminds voters that McCain has a governor not a senator as his running mate.) Frame the meetings as a chance for McCain to hear what's wrong with Washington -- and New York City -- from people out in the country. Embrace the cultural divide many people perceive between Washington/New York and the rest of the country.

2. Listening Tour of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania: Like her or hate her, it's hard to argue that Clinton's 2000 listening tour throughout Upstate New York was anything less than a brilliant political tactic. It put her in front of hundreds of voters, allowing her to show an empathetic side and debunk the idea that she had horns and a tail. McCain, hamstrung somewhat by his past comments about the economy, could do the same with a multi-day, multi-state listening tour focused on the Rust Belt where the problems with the economy have cut the deepest.

3. Give a Speech, Name a Treasury Secretary: Pick a hotbed of deep economic thinking -- one Republican operative suggested the University of Chicago -- and lay out the argument for how to reform the economy in a way that is consistent with the principles of the free market. In that speech, name the man (or woman) that would be his pick for treasury secretary while also offering a vote of confidence for Henry Paulson and insisting that he would be a valued adviser (along with other economic big-brains including some Democrats) in a McCain Administration.

4. Palin (Speaking) Power: Palin is a a huge draw these days on the campaign trail. Use that popularity and her populist appeal to speak to middle and lower middle class voters in a swing state somewhere in the Midwest. One Republican strategist suggested a speech by Palin on tax cuts -- strong territory for the GOP -- in Wisconsin, a huge snowmobiling/snowmaching state where she has high name ID and obvious appeal. Use the speech to paint the Obama economic plan as a risk the country just can't afford given the state of the economy.

5. Elevate Economic Gurus: While former Sen. Phil Gramm (he of the "nation of whiners" comment) is probably off the board, McCain has a stable of respected economic voices -- from former CEOs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina to two-time presidential candidate Steve Forbes and former vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp. McCain needs to flood the zone (with apologies to Howell Raines) with smart voices testifying to his ability to reform the economy and laying out the basic principles of the sort of change -- and, importantly, break from the Bush economic policy -- that he would offer.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 16, 2008; 6:32 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hockey Moms Against Palin
Next: CA-GOV: The Next Big Thing

Comments

If Wall Street were lending money to a corporation with poor credit they'd demand a high interest rate and Warrant Coverage.

Let's ask them for Warrant Coverage, too. For every dollar we taxpayers give them for their potentially worthless (but in any case risky) loans they give us the right to buy a dollar's worth of their stock at today's price at any time over the next 10, 15, 20 years.

If their business is resurrected and the stock price goes up, we the people of the United States get to exercise our Warrant and benefit from the profit.

If the price goes down, well we've been had once we're not going to bail them out again.

Posted by: Merlin Cambrensis | September 22, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

This poster is brilliant. Pick it up and send to the candidates and your Congress people.

Well, since I (we) now own most of Wall Street, I propose the following:

1. Any Financial entity that enjoys my "investment" will agree that all executives (from Manager level on up) will keep their jobs, but will work for Minimum Wage until every dime I invest in their operations is repaid, plus interest.

2. If those executives leave their present positions, a "Lean" will be placed on them (based on Gross Income) until the above noted situation is resolved.

3. All "Golden Parachute" or Retirement/Release contracts with executives are immediately null and void.

4. No executive, or member of their families, may personally participate in any form of Wall Street money or market activity because it is obviously a conflict of interest situation vis-a-vis their relationship with their "investors", i.e. Me. Essentially this will prevent "insider trading".

5. Every executive will provide 20 hours per week of Community Services until every dime is repaid, plus interest. This will aid Wall Street understand the actual lifestyle of Main Street.

6. Every executive will sign a Pledge that they will do everything possible to eliminate the present business practice of Privatizing Profits while Socializing Debt. If they choose to not sign this Pledge, they will immediately forfeit all of their and their family's personal assets.

7. This time - it's personal. Those who have created this financial crisis will, for once, be responsible for their actions.

_______

Posted by: Bruce Becker | September 20, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Why is it so important to bail out corporations?
People gambled and won, big bucks. Now they gambled and lost.
I notice that the AIG stockholders are fighting the take-over. They can sell off the units and get way more than 20% of AIG's assets.
That of course, will leave the $7 billion in insurance for USA citizens unpaid. That's ok. $7 billion will pay off the USA policies.
Cheap, compared to $85 billion as proposed. Pay off the policies of the Americans and keep on moving. Let the dust settle. The unknown is scary, isnt it? That's what Gramm and McCain hath wrought with the DEREGULATION. ANYTHING GOES< and usually does. Let the biggest shark win.
CAVEAT EMPTOR.
And stop bundling insurance companies with other investment modalities.
Its not prudent.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

the presumption of unity must be done at the human level, not just at the level of sex-gonads. We are all in this together and appeals by the GOP to racists, based on lies about Obama, is what is keeping this election as close as it is. Obama's international policy is based on finding common ground. Palin-McCain's is based on them versus us.
Voting for a woman because she is a woman is destructive.
Presume unity at the highest levels. We are all humans first.
Palin's perky readiness to go to war against Russia is a terrible mistake for several reasons. McCain's 'we are all Georgians' is a lie. We are all human. He chose the side against South Ossetia, the ethnic Iranians, who left Georgia in the realization they would be oppressed.
No mention of that by Palin-McCain. No nuclear war is a good war.
The draft will end the perky cheerfulness of the Palin-McCain clique when they realize we are in another Korea/Vietnam in the southern Russian wars, only the southern Russian wars dont have an ocean to supply our troops from.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Treasury to Provide Temporary Guarantees for Money Market Mutual Funds

Seeking to deal with the financial crisis, the Treasury
Department announced that for the next year it will use up to
$50 billion to insure the holdings of eligible money market
mutual funds.
_____________

Another bailout - I thought they said enough was enough...
Posted by: BCam
Date: September 19, 2008 11:33AM

Well, since I (we) now own most of Wall Street, I propose the following:

1. Any Financial entity that enjoys my "investment" will agree that all executives (from Manager level on up) will keep their jobs, but will work for Minimum Wage until every dime I invest in their operations is repaid, plus interest.

2. If those executives leave their present positions, a "Lean" will be placed on them (based on Gross Income) until the above noted situation is resolved.

3. All "Golden Parachute" or Retirement/Release contracts with executives are immediately null and void.

4. No executive, or member of their families, may personally participate in any form of Wall Street money or market activity because it is obviously a conflict of interest situation vis-a-vis their relationship with their "investors", i.e. Me. Essentially this will prevent "insider trading".

5. Every executive will provide 20 hours per week of Community Services until every dime is repaid, plus interest. This will aid Wall Street understand the actual lifestyle of Main Street.

6. Every executive will sign a Pledge that they will do everything possible to eliminate the present business practice of Privatizing Profits while Socializing Debt. If they choose to not sign this Pledge, they will immediately forfeit all of their and their family's personal assets.

7. This time - it's personal. Those who have created this financial crisis will, for once, be responsible for their actions.

_______

Revenge? Hardly. The word is responsibility. Showing my age, I refer to an old TV series called "Baretta". The theme song had this lyric: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Don't do it."

These people went right ahead and did it anyway. To his credit, even the "I don't know anything about economics" presidential candidate John McCain saw the handwriting on the wall in 2006 when he warned that Freddie and Fannie were heading for disaster. Did anyone listen, much less do anything about it? No.

And now I'm supposed to bail these people out? Nope - not the people. I understand the greater goal of protecting our financial "fundamentals", but not the people who actually caused the problem. And make no mistake, PEOPLE caused this problem. And, for once, and since I'm now an investor in their enterprise, I honestly believe they should do the time.

Christianity just didn't happen, it blossomed from the teachings of one man.
Communism? Karl Marx.
Nazis? Adolph Hilter.

Remember the old days when you could invest in American business when you purchased stock? You handed over cash, you got a printed certificate, and you were part owner of GM, GE, or Gee Whiz. No "instruments" or "derivatives" or "sub-prime loans" or "short selling" or "options". It was a straight forward deal.

Remember the old days when you got a pension from the company you worked for? Remember when your pension fund wasn't something to be sold or traded for the enrichment of the company and its executives?

But no more. To justify their very existence, the Wall Street people and Bankers made it much more complicated and murky. A sure way to protect your jobs. Well, you blew it. And now the Piper gets paid.

I have two 17 year olds. You tell me how the hell I am supposed to teach them personal responsibility when they watch this disaster unfolding? Go ahead, tell me, I could use the help and advise.

They've grown up in an era where they've witnessed 9/11, Iraq, Anthrax attacks, Valerie Plame, Katrina and now Wall Street. Guitarist - you tell me one person who has gone to jail over these disasters? Give me one name of someone who was fired because of their complicity in any of those calamities?

NOTE: Scooter Libby doesn't count because he's already been pardoned because he's a nice guy with a family.

Do I think the Captains of Industry are heroes? Hardly.
The passengers aboard Untied Flight 93 were.
Ben Sliney is. Who is he? He's the FAA Administrator who, on his own, without direction or command from the President of the United States, Vice-President or Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to ground every airplane in the sky on the morning of 9/11 because he knew it was necessary for the country's protection.

People are the root of good and bad. The people in Washington DC and Wall Street Brokers and Bankers are the root cause of this crisis and they should be held accountable. I have hammered five basic rules into my kids since they were old enough to understand language:

1. You're responsible for what you say.
2. You're responsible for what you don't say.
3. You're responsible for what you do.
4. You're responsible for what you don't do.
5. You always give your very best effort.

If those are good enough for my teenagers, they damn well better be good enough for the fat cats and politicos in the Washington/Wall Street cabal.

Revenge? No.
Personal Responsibility? Yes.
__________

Posted from another blog: http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?2,567014
_____________

Posted by: Beenthere2 | September 19, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

A partisan fight is exactly what is called for on energy and our economy. Instead of the high gas price debate focused on drilling, make it on what Consumer Affairs says the real reason is: less competition. We are approaching 10 years of ExxonMobil. We are seeing the taxpayer bail out AIG because it is too big to fail. Where have big mergers gotten us? Obama, make it clear that you will invite all energy experts (oil, solar, wind, etc) to your meeting, the notes of which will not be secret. Make it clear that this happened because crony foxes, like Phil Gramm, were appointed to guard the hen house. Make it clear that with McCain we will get more of these cronies.

Posted by: shane algarin | September 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Obama, both promising change, could really benefit from some of the advice given here by the Republican and Democratic strategists, which would certainly cause some changes to be made. It’s time for the candidates to start answering some of voters’ toughest questions about this economic crisis and how it will directly effect taxpayers, which is what CNN did yesterday on its “Issue #1” segment. Only it was the reporters answering the questions, not the candidates.

Yesterday morning, the CNN Newsroom made the $85 billion government bailout of AIG its “Issue #1” for the CNN Money Team to address. The team opened up the discussion to viewers and allowed the show to become an interactive information session. While I applaud CNN on addressing our questions, I wish they would have given their viewers a little more credit. The cartoon-like picture story that appeared on the screen as the reporter broke down the process of the crisis seemed more geared to a young child than the average adult CNN viewer.

The common question raised by viewers was “How will this bailout directly affect me?” followed by an even more common response of “You should not expect taxes to go up,” “should” being the operative word here. Over and over, the team would reassure us that we should not see an increase in taxes, the Federal Reserve should actually make money from this deal and we should not be worried. But what if something happens—such as the deal falls through or the company falls apart—then what? Should we expect some immediate effects then?

Obama said the Fed “should bolster our economy’s ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money.” McCain said “We should never again allow the United States to be in this position.” Instead of saying what should and should not happen, the candidates need to inform Americans what they will or will not do as President to get us out of an economic crisis, so we can decide who we should vote for.

Posted by: Sharon | September 18, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

While it is very entertaining to read the media and the comments on the causes of the Collapse of 2008, the search for someone to blame is misguided. People did what they thought best, and on the basis of good reason. Residential housing has been a spectacularly secure and predictable investment for the past 70 years. To bet that the trend would continue was not unreasonable, and if it did continue, then all the trouble we now experience would never have come to pass.

What did happen is that in the wake of 9-11, our leaders panicked. The Federal Reserve, seeking to preserve the economy in the short run, cut interest rates so far that this had to stimulate a spectacular housing boom -- something that resembled the 1920s stock market boom -- both were financed with other people's money.

This would have been no serious problem if the Fed had not then dramatically increased rates, catching the last of the home buyers in a trap -- higher rates shut off demand for housing, caused prices to firm and then decline, and for some unlucky victims, drove the cost of the mortgages up. They were trapped in houses they couldn't sell and now couldn't afford.

The rest is all consequential. It all might have been avoided by following the advice of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that the best policy was to assure a firm and predictable value for money. However, as he observed, every government in history has turned to inflation to avoid bankruptcy and to spend without taxing. So will this one.

Posted by: Fredric Dennis Williams | September 18, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

I am real estate appraiser, although only in commercial real estate. Yes some appraisers over valued houses. Why, primarily because the mortgage broker or banker hiring them threaten to withhold work (spelled livelihood) if they didn't "hit the mark". The people ordering the appraisals benefited financially from a high value, that is where the problem lies and that is where Cuomo of New York is addressing, with the Mortgage Bankers Association howling against it. Second, I work for a national appraisal company. I am seeing requests for commercial property appraisals from banks I never heard of and I have been in this business 15 years. Why, because the smaller, secondary banks are now stepping in, since they can't be elbowed out by the Wachovia's of the world. My business is down 40% and fees are off by 25%. But the CEO of Countrywide still keeps his 120 million payout from last year. Insane. Want to put someone on trial, how about the Board of Directors. Lets send a couple of Board Members to a State Prison, no Federal country club and this whole mess will clear-up overnight. Immediately.

The Bush Administration had a hands off policy to the markets, they will self regulate, the SEC is a joke. Until the markets lose money, then they demand the taxpayers bail them out, without any benefit to the taxpayer. If the millionaire and billionaire CEO can cause these type of national crisis then charge them for the privilege, higher taxes. If they are too big to fail then it is mandatory they be severely regulated. Not only on their activities but on the CEO compensation package. Lets put this where it belongs. Wall Street greed and avarice and the Republicans.

The Republic had almost 8 years of controlling Congress, the Senate and Presidency. They control who is the head of the regulator agencies. Remember “ Your doing a good job Brownie” Can anyone name one, just one spending bill Bush vetoed prior to the Democrats winning back seats. Just one.

The new Republican motto “Privatize the wealth and socialize the risk”. The only thing that has “trickled down” to the middle class and poor from the wealthy is the diarrhea of losses from their unchecked greed and lack of moral and fiduciary standards.

Posted by: GRBarkley | September 17, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama does not come from a poverty background. His mom at a certain point may have needed to use food stamps for a short period but that is all. It takes money to travel abroad such as to Africa and India then to the U.S. His maternal grandparents were a big financial help to Obama.

Posted by: Ella Brown | September 17, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

The real problem is not the banks or the Government but the appraisers who came up with the high value for home that were not worth it.

Poor oversight of the Government of the appraisers is part of the problem also.

Posted by: al sunday | September 17, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is a part of the GOP that why they support him.
If he was going to do what he saids he would no be there man.

Posted by: Iyapo Kontar | September 17, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Todays Yahoo Poll Results:

John McCain 52%
Barack Obama 43%
Neither/Undecided 5%

67278 votes

Posted by: Willy | September 17, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

@ Nclwtk: To be fair, LTCM was always a meant to be a quant model-driven house. From 1994 through 1997, the LPs got paid and paid and paid and paid. Come Red August 1998, they found themselves jammed up in markets that were too thin for their size and a lot of their organic hedges failed them when Russia took all those crazy measures and there was an international short term correlation close to 0.9 with the USD.

Trading houses are allowed to have losers and lots of them. MerrillLynch is a completely different story. Meriwether would actually have known how to hedge off a lot of the CDO risks because he'd done it before at Solly with the CMOs and KitchenSinkers.

Merrill just got greedy, closed their eyes and swung from the heels. When they should have stuck to retail and block equity sales which had been their specialty.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Far too much is being made of the repeal of Glass-Steagal as the cause of this financial crisis. The change did allow a modernization of the financial industry and it alone cannot be blamed for the orgy of greed, the failure of risk management and the reckless use of leverage that is at the heart of this crisis.

What is at the heart of this crisis is the unregulated markets for derivatives and the way that players in that market either disregarded risks or completely ignored the underlying risks in these financial contracts. The worldwide market for derivatives is huge and what is going down in the US is only the tip of the proverbal iceberg.

Why as investors we do not know this. We havent wanted to know how these huge redturns were made, we just wanted to be a part of it. We had a hint of what problems there were when LTCM went bust in 1997, but that was brushed off as being the exception to the rule. We saw individuals and day traders get crucified in the internet bubble collapse but we held faith that all the "sophiticated investors" would be able to continue to reap high returns.We were foolish and we are now paying for our greed and foolishness.

It is going to take more than reregulation to get us out of our current mess. It is going take a complete reevaluation of our expectations that financial wizardry in going to bail us out of our unwillingness to save and plan properly for the future.

Its time to get back to the old slogan of Merrill Lynch, "We make money the old fashioned way, WE EARN IT"

Posted by: Nclwtk | September 17, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

FAr too much is being made of the repeal of Glass-Steagal as the cause of this financial crisis. The change did allow a modernization of the financial industry and it alone cannot be blamed for the orgy of greed, the failure of risk management and the reckless use of leverage that is at the heart of this crisis.

What is at the heart of this crisis is the unregulated markets for derivatives and the way that players in that market either disregarded risks or completely ignored the underlying risks in these financial contracts. The worldwide market for derivatives is huge and what is going down in the US is only the tip of the proverbal iceberg.

Why as investors we do not know this. We havent wanted to know how these huge redturns were made, we just wanted to be a part of it. We had a hint of what problems there were when LTCM went bust in 1997, but that was brushed off as being the exception to the rule. We saw individuals and day traders get crucified in the internet bubble collapse but we held faith that all the "sophiticated investors" would be able to continue to reap high returns.We were foolish and we are now paying for our greed and foolishness.

It is going to take more than reregulation to get us out of our current mess. It is going take a complete reevaluation of our expectations that financial wizardry in going to bail us out of our unwillingness to save and plan properly for the future. Its back to the old slogan of Merrill Lynch, we get money the old fashioned way, WE EARN IT,

Posted by: Nclwtk | September 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

@ NICK COLLINS III:

First of all, thanks for an insightful analysis into the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I was in the main against it because I felt the separation of commercial and investment banking functions added a level of protection against conflicts of interest, especially with regard to equity and debt offerings.

On the other hand, I haven't observed too many problems to that effect outside the USA where the functions can be commingled. Good point that the vast majority of US banks are healthy and have basically stuck to their strengths -- the aggressive trading oriented houses do that more than the other functions, the equity and debt sales houses do that more than the other functions and so on.

MerrillLynch and Lehman are two good examples of companies which got too exposed in the trading securities that they didn't understand and did not have teams experienced enough to hedge the risks, instead of sticking to what they did best: equity sales and underwriting, respectively.

And I agree with your ultimate conclusion that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake for all the other ills you've cited and because Glass-Steagall really wasn't that limiting on the US investment bank as a broad category post Black-Scholes, Big Bang, democratization of financial engineering, etc.

I find it rich that somehow, McCain's war wounds are associated with "tough" decisions he might make with regard to fiscal policy, regulation, and how he'd choose to "signal" his Fed Chair.

Given that he's in favor of the Bush approach of extreme fiscal looseness, military Keynesianism, reckless tax cutting, and the psychotically loose monetary policies of Greenspan and Bernanke, he strikes me as anything but TOUGH.

You want tough? Bush, Senior, and Nicholas Brady, Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin. Those guys were tough and made the hard choices. Bush Senior really threw away his whole presidency on a point of principle: hewing to a tight fiscal policy in his election year, putting country in front of his own glory. Bill Clinton was lucky that 41 had laid some of the groundwork and had to make the tough choices early in his presidency. Once he got through 1994 without a depression, he was jake all the way.

Obama might or might not clean up or start to clean up a very bad mess. McCain will make the mess worse. If elected, Obama would hardly have Clinton's luck of following Senior. Obama would be following Junior, 15 trillion debt, and 2 trillion deficits await him.

Posted by: DexterManley | September 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

When the going gets tough, the Republicans leave for Crawford, or Aspen. No worries there, as its a Democrat's job to save the country. Again.

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 17, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

>>McCain's economic policies are better for the nation.<<
Let's study it is a better policy?
You need to check your spigot, Bubba, I think you're cool-aide mixture is too rich...

Posted by: dijetlo | September 17, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

.


Chris Why don't you do an expose on CNN - last night they had an entire commentary-advertisement for Obama's talking points - it was so blantantly biased I was actually amazed.


Jeffrey Tobin and Campbell Brown led this biased discussion.


They must have attempted to call McCain a liar about 10 times - saying what McCain has said is far far worse than anything Obama has done. Nothing about Obama claiming to be the post-racial candidate and then PRESSING RACE AS AN ISSUE.


Nothing about the lies about Bill Clinton in South Carolina.


What Obama did to Gerry Ferraro last spring takes the cake - Obama has NO COMPLAINTS AT ALL WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF TWISTING WORDS AROUND. OBAMA'S PEOPLE HAVE SPENT THE YEAR CALLING INNOCENT PEOPLE RACISTS for not liking Obama's ultraliberal views.

The thing is with hillary's people Obama was able to get away with it.

With the Republicans Obama is upset because he gettting his medicine handed to him.

CNN's producers are absolutely out of their minds to bring up this issue - it actually comes off as hypocritical to complain about McCain when so much of Obama's campaign this year has been false charges and PRETENDING TO BE OFFENDED BY INNOCENT REMARKS.


There should be SHAME AT CNN TODAY - Chris show your bipartisan nature and CALL THEM OUT !!!!


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 17, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

.


.


McCain's economic policies are better for the nation.


.


Obama has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.

.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

.

McCain has the better Economic policies by far.


The message is that Obama is out of touch with the economic situation of Americans - Obama is more concerned with Hollywood glamour and his celebrity friends.


McCain has the gritty style to make the tough decisions which have to be made to get the economy roaring again.

Does anyone believe that Obama's proposals for additional giant government programs are going to help the economy - seriously Obama's inclination is toward government assistance.


McCain has the right advisors around him to create the economic strategies which will fuel this country's economy.

Obama's high tax proposals are going to hurt the economy and make it harder for Americans to pay their bills.

McCain's proposals to fight the lobbyists in Washington will create significant
GROWTH EFFECTS within the eocnomy - GROWTH will be spurred as inefficient economic drags are reduced industry by industry by MCCAIN'S STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS POLICIES WHICH MCCAIN HAS BEEN PRESSING FOR OVER 10 YEARS.

McCain's economic program is much better for the economic growth of America.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 17, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

When the going gets tough, the Republicans leave for Crawford, or Aspen. No worries there, as its a Democrat's job to save the country. Again.

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 17, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

.


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !


.
.


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 6:10 AM | Report abuse

.


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !


.
.


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama sends out his swarm to ridicule other people's records because he has no record of his own.

It's a diversion tactic and the media doesn't really care that he has no record -- they like the shiver up their leg.

I noticed that he first got away with using this tactic against Hillary Clinton. She was a historic First Lady and she obviously made her mark. Yet Barack Obama reduced those eight years of experience to her being nothing more than a "tea sipper."

What has Mr. Obama actually ACCOMPLISHED that allows him the luxury of just sitting back and ridiculing the accomplishments of other great Americans?

I guess he's accomplished getting the media to fall in love with him, and with America's msm, that seems to be resume enough.

Posted by: Jan | September 17, 2008 5:23 AM | Report abuse

Yes, indeed, JOE. That Carly Fiorina is taken seriously as an economic mind shows you where your country is.

Before Fiorina, Hewlett-Packard, along with maybe Merck and Motorola, was the gold standard as a perfectly-run multi-national corporation. Nobody could mess HP up. The human resource policies and standars are so high that the place could easily run itself with no officers or directors at all.

There was one way to mess up HP and Carleton Fiorina figured it out. Introduce into a corporation with a 50-year history and ingrained culture SUSIPICION AND AN ORWELLIAN MANAGEMENT STYLE. Brilliant.

There ARE no answers because the loose fiscal policy of the Bush years and the loose monetary policy of Greenspan and Bernanke have put the US 15 trillion into debt and likely to carry 2 trillion USD deficits every year into the foreseeable future.

All a new president can do is to understand the problems and chart a course to BEGIN to correct them. Ultimately, the tight fiscal and monetary policies of the Bush Sr years and Clinton's first term will have to come back. Palin's beloved "average real Americans" are hurting so bad that fiscal and monetary pain cannot come in all of a sudden. There has to be some carrots as well as sticks. Obama's health and tax plans don't sound terrible if he can REALLY find some budget room to pay for them. Obama and McCain are both lying about finding all of this bureaucratic waste to cut.

Here's what the next president should do to find budget room: STOP FIGHTING WARS OF CHOICE AND START MAKING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS PAY THEIR TAXES.

Best thing for anyone who doesn't have the time to read a proper Macroeconomics textbook to do is to go back and listen to Ron Paul's statements at the Reagan Library debate about fiscal and monetary policy.

Posted by: DexterManley | September 17, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

> McCain has a stable of respected economic voices -- from former CEOs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina

Fiorina is McCain's LEAST respected economic voice. She ran HP into the ground, a fact no technically inclined person I know is likely to forget any time soon and many of them are none to inclined to forgive her, either. The HP stock shot up when they fired her, though she took millions in a severance package.

If he had any sense whatsoever, he'd have fired her a LONG time ago. Instead, he sent her as his technical surrogate to the people who hate her most. Not exactly a good thing unless you want to send the message "I'm completely out of touch!" And her recent gaffes have all but doomed her career as an adviser.

That said, I have nothing against Meg Whitman, but I don't know much about her. She just hasn't been in the news like "Chainsaw Carly" was. At least, not the news I've read.

Posted by: Joe | September 17, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.


In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless*
That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:
.
Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
.
Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38Ug_ugzXs
.

Posted by: McCain is a LIAR! | September 16, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Nadeem Zakaria,
UUUUUUH NOOOOO! Maybe Nadeem you watch to many reruns?

Posted by: opp88 | September 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

When the going gets tough, the Republicans leave for Crawford, or Aspen. No worries there, as its a Democrat's job to save the country. Again.

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III, Expert | September 16, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

SHE IS A BAD WOMAN WITH HER SOUTHERN ACCENT!

LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D)NEW YORK SAY'S OFF SHORE DRILLING IS NOT ONLY A MISTAKE, BUT MAKES NO SENSE. ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES ARE MORE VIABLE.

Posted by: opp88 | September 16, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with the banks is that after the booming housing market went bust they could no longer sell the loans because then and only then did the loans become of such a nature that loan buyers could not make money off of them."
You're talking about why the instruments lost value, and in as far as you explain it you are correct. I was talking about why they were not regulated, why the buyers were unable to accurately estimate the value of the instrument because existing regulation allowed the banks to hide the clunkers in the bundle.
>> there was no restriction about whether or not sub-prime loans could be offered in the past. There was no removal of any regulation in that regards.>The only regulation change relative to banks in recent history was a bill signed by Bill Clinton in 1999.<<
How did I know he wanted to talk about Clinton?
The guy was president 8 years ago, you don't think it a little silly that you try to lay 8 years of Republican de-regulation at his door? What about the topic we're discussing, bundled mortgage instruments, they weren't even around when he was President. Goodness, the smell of desperation is burning my eyes...
Regulation is not written by the congress, BTW, it's done (or not as in this case) at the agency level. The responsibility for it lies with the executive branch. Congress passes laws, the agencies write the regulations that the companies follow. My point was that the Republican administration viewed regulation as “of the devil” and therefor, no matter how apparent the need to get a a handle on this new financial product, they preferred to allow the market to take its' course.
The results were predictable. How many of these meltdowns will Republicans have to oversee before they stop trying to run the economy based on their ideological perception, their right wing world view. One thing you can say for the Dems is at least they do whatever works.
BTW. There is such a thing as over-regulation, we last experienced it in 1986

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone else noticed that when Obama speaks and he delivers the punch line that the crowds start saying "right-on", "amen", and nonsense like that? To me it sounds like a laugh-track from that TV show, The Jeffersons.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | September 16, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

McPain's Phil Gramm has a lot to do with our current mess. See his contribution to America's debt here....

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9718_mccain_lehman_crisis_gramm.html

Want more, Vote McPain

Posted by: william worrell | September 16, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

When the going gets tough, the Republicans leave for Crawford, or Aspen. No worries there, as its a Democrat's job to save the country. Again.

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

NOW, SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS LOOKING BLEEK AT THIS MOMENT AND MAY GET WORSE!

NO REPUBLICAN TALKING HEAD IS SHOWING FACE ON THE VERY SAME NETWORKS THEY USED TO SMEAR OBAMA!

IS JOHN MACCAIN TALKING OUT THE SIDE OF HIS NECK ABOUT THE ECONOMY "BEING SOUND" AND CAUSING THESE TALKING HEADS TO HIDE THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND?

ALL STARTED WHEN MCCAIN PICKED SARAH PALIN AS HIS VEEP! MCCAIN WAS WARNED!

Posted by: opp88 | September 16, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

All Senator Obama needs to do is to compare and contrast party policies.

Republicans mantra is less government. Specific policies of deregulation. Sub Prime mess happened due to greed and corruption. Both thrive under deregulation.

Democrats stand for Regulation. Republicans paint this the government interfering in your life. It is not. Another name for regulation is law. We all understand the need for law and order.
Financial regulation is the law and order of the financial world. Less of it means more greed, corruption and even outright crime.

Advertisement Senator Obama could use.

Come November you have two choices.

Republican Rule. You have just had Eight years of that. Including bringing you the Sub Prime Meltdown.

Democratic Rule. Remember its the Economy Stupid.

Senator Obama. Your Democratic Candidate for President of The United States

Posted by: Scott | September 16, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

IT LOOKS LIKE KARL ROVE PIMP SLAP ALL THE REPUBLICANS TO STOP THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND STICK TO THE ISSUE'S. HAHAHAHAHAHA KARL GOTS GAME! REPUBLICANS ARE BACKING OFF!

Posted by: opp88 | September 16, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Ma'aaan, when the Moose stew hits the fan, it really hits the fan!

TELE-PROMPTER CALAMITY;
First, Sarah Palin stated at her V.P. exceptants speech, claimed that the tele prompter malfuctioned. So she claimed (Palin) ad-libbed the remainder of her speech. Reporter's who witness the calamity said the only calamity that night was Palin lied about the prompter malfuctioning.

TROOPER GATE;
Second, Sarah Palin stated that she would have no problem explaining her roll in the trooper gate investigation. Palin now refuses to participate in any investigation.

TANNING BOOTH BUILT IN THE GOV.'s MANSION;
Palin explained that she had a tanning booth built in the GOVERNORS MANSION to help her deal with depression! WTF? DEPRESSION? DID SHE SAY DEPRESSION? YES SHE SAID DEPRESSION! AND IT GETS BETTER!

POPULARITY POLL HAS DIPPED BY 10 POINTS;
Since the country is really finding out who Sarah Palin is and how she would run the country Palin went from 48% on Saturday now stands at 38% today.

AND FINALLY SPECIAL OLYMPICS FUND.
Palin cut the SPECIAL OLYMPICS FUNDING IN HALF. Although she is claiming to support special needs children and yet cut funding to help SPECIAL OLYMPICS CHILDREN.

THESE ARE NOT MADE UP STORIES BUT RATHER FACTS!

Posted by: opp88 | September 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh silly! Don't mislead the people. Here's some straight talk to get things squared away:

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

> Lastly, unlike Sen. Obama who was out yelling the sky is falling and making people more panicked, Sen. McCain maturely and responsibly calmed people down by saying yes the economy has problems, but the sky is not falling, the fundamentals are good.

Posted by: Tina | September 16, 2008 8:26 PM
=================================================


Don't conflate confused with controlled


all you have to do is turn off limbaugh and listen to a real news source to find out what economists are actually saying

===============================================

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey
Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 8:14 PM


I know you were sitting in Trinity Church for the last 20 years listening to Rev. Wright to be able to say that every Sunday Wright made incendiary comments.

There's a lot of documentation of hate speech going on in churches of every denomination out there. All you have to do is turn on your tv and watch Pat Robertson dishing it out daily and for how long has that been going on?

The moral high road is actually a lot further than you think from your view out of the gutter.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

.

Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark it now !


.
.

Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

SEN. MCCAIN IS HANDLING THIS ECONOMIC PROBLEM 100% PERFECTLY!!

> Sen. McCain decision to set up a committee to ascertain problem and solution is correct. Also, If he gives too much detail about economy at this moment, he will set himself up as a pinata for criticism even if he is correct.

> Also, in a mature and responsible manner, he accepted that Republicans are part of the problem.

> Lastly, unlike Sen. Obama who was out yelling the sky is falling and making people more panicked, Sen. McCain maturely and responsibly calmed people down by saying yes the economy has problems, but the sky is not falling, the fundamentals are good.

Posted by: Tina | September 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

The name you need to know right now:

PHIL GRAMM

McCain's economic campaign adviser until he stepped down after calling Americans whiners.

Look his name up to find out what a savory character he is. There is plenty of information out there on neutral websites.

While you're at it look up Charlie Black, Randy Scheunemann, Rick Davis, John Green or Wayne Berman.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

"Speaking for Christian values get a load of this "Struck in the spirit" Palin.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/1538/09770

Posted by: grdn_nell | September 16, 2008 7:57 PM"

I would think that harmless beliefs done by Christians is less of a concern than radical beliefs of the Pastor that Obama listened to for 20 years.

Can you please show documentation of that retarded anti-American pastor or would that possibly hurt your one-sided agenda?

Why in hell would Obama go to a church for 20 years that consistently bad mouthed America. Surely that kind of hate-filled talk would rub off.

Jeremiah hated America, hated whites, thought that Jesus was black (historically impossible) and blamed whites for the majority of social ills. He was racist, hateful, and anti-American.

And here you leftist idiots are worried about what Christian church Palin may or may not have attended on any given day.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

----------------------------

you forgot to mention Affirmative Action for Obama

Posted by: Warren Burger | September 16, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Nick Collins wrote:

"First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks."

Previous to this repeal, it was the FEDERAL RESERVE banks that determined the interest rates. Not only did this hinder competitiveness but it put into the hands of the few Federal Reserve banks undue power over all the other banks.

Contrary to public belief, Federal Reserve banks are owned by private interests, many of them foreign investors.

This particular restriction was yet again anti-commerce and should have been done away with.

The second restriction had to do with banks getting involved with other aspects of business. Not only should they fairly be allowed such a thing, the past restriction made it difficult for US banks to compete against foreign banks, since they had no such restrictions. After this portion was repealed Citigroup and others were allowed to become much stronger companies in the USA. They are remarkably sound companies and have millions of US stockholders. Most us citizens have 401K savings programs and the fact that US banks can be more competitive means more money into the pockets of more US citizen stockholders.

Nothing in the repeal of this portion of past regulations lead to the sub-prime lending problem. Sub-prime lending was allowed with or without this particular regulation.

And it was primarily DEMOCRATS, as I pointed out before, that supported sub-prime lending. They did so because they believed (and or lied) that minorities would benefit from such loose lending policies.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Speaking for Christian values get a load of this "Struck in the spirit" Palin.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/1538/09770

Posted by: grdn_nell | September 16, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Boom!

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Double Boom!

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Posted by: K | September 16, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I see that Nick Collins III is still lying his Democratic arse off.

"Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto."

No, Nick, if he had vetoed it it would not have passed unless democrats had also supported it in large enough numbers. So quit lying dude.

Nick continues to lie:

"One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain"

Again, no, liar. McCain was not a prime sponsor. The bill was sponsored by Gramm, Leach and Bliley. It has wide bipartisan support.

The other aspect of this is that it was the republicans that wanted to include provisions that TIGHTENED the lending practices.

And it was the DEMOCRATS, especially Bill Clinton, that were against including it. Bill Clinton threatened to veto the bill (obviously meaning that he thought he could get away with it) if and only if the republicans included language tightening the lending policies. Bill explained the cause of his concern was that minorities would suffer because without loose lending policies they could not get approved for a loan. Needless to say, the minorities ended up losing their houses left and right because they could not actually afford their house in the first place.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"Once you start believing your garbage is valuable, you've crossed the line. Banks knew the composition of this instrument, they themselves sold it, and yet they used it just like it was valuable because....it made them money and their was no law to stop them. You have to regulate businesses, otherwise the managers are forced to do self destructive things that make short term profit, since depending on the patience of your shareholders, the short term is all the manager may be around for."

Bwa ha ha ha ha. What a load of hogwash. You apparently know nothing about the common practice of selling loans. Companies sell loans because it makes them money and other companies buy loans because it makes them money.

The problem with the banks is that after the booming housing market went bust they could no longer sell the loans because then and only then did the loans become of such a nature that loan buyers could not make money off of them.

As to regulation, there is such a thing as over-doing it. Also, there was no restriction about whether or not sub-prime loans could be offered in the past. There was no removal of any regulation in that regards.

The only regulation change relative to banks in recent history was a bill signed by Bill Clinton in 1999. And this bill had nothing to do with sub-prime loans. It had to do with making it possible for US banks to be more competitive against foreign banks.

Also of key importance is the fact that it was the republicans at that time that wanted to add specifics to that bill that would TIGHTEN lending practices.

It was BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT that insisted that the lending policies were lax enough to let minorities purchase homes. In this case, unwisely purchase homes that they could not afford. So as was predicted, many loans defaulted.

Bill Clintion, Hillary, Kerry, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Obama himself (ALL DEMOCRATS) are all on record as supporting sub-prime loans in order to get more minority buyers of homes.

The fact that economics showed that it was an illogical approach did not cross the minds of these democrat politicians. What they do is to pander to minorities to get their votes. They could care less if their pandering actually hurts the minorities or not. It is just what sounds good on the surface.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

AspnGirl wrote
>>BJH wrote: "arrange assistance for AIG; if yes, how? "
Let AIG fail. It's a business.

That's way out of context. I wrote that we should get the 2 candidates to answer that and other specific questions that are relevant to actual economic decision making. One of them will make these decisions, not you or me.

.

Posted by: BJH | September 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

and how about you KMichaels what would you be posting tonight had he voted again a bll dealing with prosecuting sex offenders? We are certain you would go Willy Horton on us.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's churches and the WAVE, A banned video by the Repubs so freedom reigns anyway GO See-well there goes washington post won,t allow either hmmm ...who's in whoes pocket?


Posted by: grdn_nell | September 16, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama was right when he told the nation that we should not invade Iraq.

Obama was right when he told the nation that we should not repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

Obama was right when he told McCain that he should not, under and circumstances, ask Cindy Lou Hensley out on a date, but should stick with his marriage.

Obama was right when he said that email was great, and that knowledge of computers would be a fundamental requirement for any major presidential candidate in the 21st century.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Obama also didn't deny voting for the bill. He did deny that it called for "comprehensive sex ed. for kindergartners," which was the McCain claim.

Posted by: Tom | September 16, 2008 7:27 PM"

The words "comprehensive sex education for all levels of elementary students" is actually listed in the final bill.

The bill also does not limit the teaching of sex education to the younger levels as only inappropriate touching. So even though Obama is on record of making such a claim the actual wording of the bill does no such thing as to limit it to just that. In fact, other than the vague words of "age appropriate" whatever the hell that might mean, there is no mention of teaching about what inappropriate touching
should mean to kindergarteners.

Posted by: KMichaels (the real one) | September 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

curious daman1 what you would be posting today had he voted against a bill used to prosecute sex offeneders. Any guesses?Willy Horton ring any bells for you?

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

The political issues aside, people, let's just have a little reality exercise. Corporations exist to make money for their investors. Corporate officers are legally bound to do so if at all possible and failure can result in civil litigation.
In short, in the corporate world, there is no “good” or “evil”, there is only profit and loss.
The Market isn't a sentient entity. You can't “see” the market, it doesn't reside in New York. It exists wherever people buy and sell for profit rather than personal consumption. The “Market” is the aggregate of those transactions.
None of the players in the market are concerned with the social impact of what they are doing, they are in the game to win. There is a saying among commercial contractors, “when they ask you to sit down at the table, you generally have to push a corpse out of your chair.” It means most profitable contracts are gained because another companies lost it. You don't want to be the corpse in chair.
So what constrains us from actually killing each other over work? The law, which to a business generally takes the form of regulation.
If you don't regulate the business, it'll do whatever makes the most money. They have to, it's their job. You gotta feed the shareholders, or they'll find somebody who will.
With that in mind, there was no reason for a bank not to bundle it's bad paper and sell it as an investment instrument. The government had never considered the idea so their was precious little regulation dealing with it. If I could legally sell the trash my company generates, I would do it in a heart beat. Imagine their surprise when they discovered somebody thought it was valuable.
Once they started drinking their own bathwater though, using the bad paper as collateral for their own loans, that's where it became a scam.
If a buyer doesn't realize that the value of a bundle of home mortgages only appreciates as the value of the homes rise, that's his fault. If he doesn't realize that banks would be unlikely to sell high quality loans and therefor the instruments were probably mostly bad, again, that's on him. Caveat emptor, this aint the kiddie pool.
Once you start believing your garbage is valuable, you've crossed the line. Banks knew the composition of this instrument, they themselves sold it, and yet they used it just like it was valuable because....it made them money and their was no law to stop them.
You have to regulate businesses, otherwise the managers are forced to do self destructive things that make short term profit, since depending on the patience of your shareholders, the short term is all the manager may be around for.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Kimberly/Anonymous -

You are both very confused. First, socialism does not mean what you think it means. If you believe Obama promotes socialist policies, I defy you to name one. Simply calling someone a socialist does not make it true. Unless you subscribe to the "Big Lie" technique as described in Mein Kampf.

Second, the economy is not an "adaptable distributed system", a term with little significance outside of computer science.

Instead, the economy belongs to what social scientists call "multi-loop nonlinear feedback systems". Big difference. For one, the cascade you describe has nothing to do with centralization or decentralization. It has to do with the application of linear models to non-linear systems; short-sighted solutions to complex problems.

The argument about centralized vs. decentralized economies went out in 1937 with Ronald Coase's famous paper for which he won a Nobel Prize. Do a lookup on "transaction costs." Your argument is a canard.

If this is the impoverished thinking we can expect from McCain, then Obama is right: McCain doesn't understand the problem.

Posted by: Kevin Treanor | September 16, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

The actual 'Sex For Kindergartners" bill Obama supported allowed teaching kindergartners about STD's and HIV as well as kid touchers. Read the bill. Way to go Barry.

Posted by: daman1 | September 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Before you waste your time checking DCFred's link ("Did Obama lie? He did vote for sex ed in kindergarten. Read the actual bill in my blog"), be advised that is not the entire bill but selected portions of one version of the bill, portions which conveniently omit the "age appropriate" requirement. Clearly age appropriate for kindergartners is far different from age appropriate for high schoolers.

Obama also didn't deny voting for the bill. He did deny that it called for "comprehensive sex ed. for kindergartners," which was the McCain claim.

Posted by: Tom | September 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"If you were to read the new polls on NY they have Obama's previous large lead there down to a much smaller lead of 5 points. That is what people are saying when they say that Obama is losing NY."

This person was referring to a specific polling service when making all his claims about the other states. If his intention was to cite Zogby for all states except for NY, then he should have made that clear.

But yeah, sure. Call New York a swing state. Once again, I hope McCain feels the same way.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

A rising tide lifts all ships... but the invisible hand of the market swamps an ungodly number of them in the process. Unfettered laissez-faire economic theory is one of the foundations of our modern global market, but we have never been willing to go with it 100% because it destroys lives. Laissez-faire creates money, and there is no question about that. But simple people in small towns go to the voting booth to stabilize their way of life. An economy based on most of the principals of laissez-faire with regulation thrown in to mitigate instability is what allows business and citizen to cohabitate in an open society like ours. This combination allows both innovation and protection. Going hardcore protectionist just stifles innovation (look at healthcare in social welfare countries), while lurching the other way in favor of hyperinnovation simply leads to social instability in favor of corporate profit (look at China). So there is my ten cents. Oh, and another thing...

Here's the central issue of the campaign: Media inattention to the real issues. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age). You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.

While reading that, and getting fired up, McCain and Bush were shaking in their boots about this election. They've been called on the carpet as the pigs they are. They'll be out in the cold come November.

Pigs in a blanket.

Game over Repugnantcans. You're time here is done. Thanks for the memories, but it is time to step aside and let us adults take over and fix what you broke.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

"because of the extremely high number of rape cases being reported (many of which turned out to be bogus)"

anyone that has ever prosecuted or defended a rapists undertands that this is he oldest line ever told by rapists and those who choose not to prosecute them. That story is told at every criminal seminar I have attended; it was all just made up. Sick. This may also explain why there are so many teen pregnancies in Alaska and why they lead the nation in high school drop outs.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

DDawd wrote: "That's fine with me. It takes about ten seconds to find a credible story on Palin and the rape kits. If you didn't make up your side, I'm sure you can find it in ten seconds as well.

But you can't

So you're a liar."

Ahem, Dawd, why didnt you take those 10 seconds then and back up your point. Show that she was the deciding person on the policedepartment budget decisions. Because it is usually the case that Police departments have discresionary power over how to spend their budget. And also show the number of rape case kits that they would have needed to supply.

Again Dawd, you seem less than honest and less than intelligent.

Posted by: DDAWD

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote: "I still don't know where the whole thing about Obama losing NY came from. Does McCain think that a 21 point lead for Obama makes it a swing state? God, I hope so."

If you were to read the new polls on NY they have Obama's previous large lead there down to a much smaller lead of 5 points. That is what people are saying when they say that Obama is losing NY. It is in reference to such a large drop of his once large lead. And the curren 5 point lead can drop quite quickly. Especially with an error ratio of plus or minus 3 points.

If you want to discuss these issues intelligently you really need to be better informed.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

That's fine with me. It takes about ten seconds to find a credible story on Palin and the rape kits. If you didn't make up your side, I'm sure you can find it in ten seconds as well.

But you can't

So you're a liar.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

"Wasilla police department determined that because of the extremely high number of rape cases being reported (many of which turned out to be bogus) that their department could not possibly afford the rape test kits."

Long (months long!) nights, dating fights. If the Wasilia police determine the number of rape reports was getting out of hand & they couldn't foot the bill for the test kits, who are you to hack at them for it?

If you can argue with their statistics and budget, you're just some person from halfway across the continent being judgmental with no information about these people and their lives out there on the tundra in their 6 month long winter nights.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels I live in a small conservative Texas town of 16,000(65%Rs) and have attended many City Council Meetings and know exactly the power of small town mayors. Our mayor controls every cent spent by our local police dept and even the ultra conservatives in my town and our ultraconservative R mayor would never think of charging rape victims for their own rape kits. The District Attorney in my county would nt tolerate it and you are welcome to come down here and verify that with the local District Attorney's office. Its unbelievable that you would try and rationalize a disgusting anti crime, anti police, anti prosecutorial policy of your VP candidate. Pathetic argument that there was absolutely no justification for. Good Try.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"I'm calling you a liar until you provide some evidence of this."

Posted by: DDAWD

Sorry dude, but I did not see you asking for proof that Sarah was the person that made the policy nor who it was that instituted it, nor what the number of rape kits were, nor the price of each kit.

So, until YOU post evidence on your side of the story I will have to be calling you a liar.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"Wasilla police department determined that because of the extremely high number of rape cases being reported (many of which turned out to be bogus) that their department could not possibly afford the rape test kits."

I'm calling you a liar until you provide some evidence of this.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Did Obama lie? He did vote for sex ed in kindergarten. Read the actual bill in my blog:

http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DCfred | September 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Zogby also has Obama winning Arizona by 3%

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Did Obama lie? He did vote for sex ed in kindergarten. Read the actual bill in my blog:

http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DCfred | September 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"This was the rape kit story on US News and World Report(not daily kos):

"when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in the late 1990s, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's municipal police department charged rape victims for the "rape kit" used to collect the forensic evidence necessary to convict their attackers"

Anywone who deals with law enforcment and prosecutors understands how absolutely vital these kits are to prosecuting rapists and should be beyond politicizing by a potential future VP."

Mayors dont determine all aspects of small city budgets. In a small city, you have a limited amount of money. So you give discrecenary spending over to the specific agencys.

Wasilla police department determined that because of the extremely high number of rape cases being reported (many of which turned out to be bogus) that their department could not possibly afford the rape test kits.

Yes, I know that community organizers are not familiar with the concept of limited budgets in small cities but that is the fact of life. Not all good resources could be afforded so the different city departments determine how to best pay for daily operations of their department. As is the case in most budgets, you dont have unlimited expenses.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Did Obama lie? Regardless of what he says, He did vote for sex ed in kindergarten. Read the actual bill in my blog:

http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Did Obama lie? He did vote for sex ed in kindergarten. Read the actual bill in my blog:
http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DCfred | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Did Obama lie? He did vote for sex ed in kindergarten. Read the actual bill in my blog:
http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DCfred | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"This was the rape kit story on US News and World Report(not daily kos):

"when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in the late 1990s, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's municipal police department charged rape victims for the "rape kit" used to collect the forensic evidence necessary to convict their attackers"

Anywone who deals with law enforcment and prosecutors understands how absolutely vital these kits are to prosecuting rapists and should be beyond politicizing by a potential future VP."

Mayors dont determine all aspects of small city budgets. In a small city, you have a limited amount of money. So you give discrecenary spending over to the specific agencys.

Wasilla police department determined that because of the extremely high number of rape cases being reported (many of which turned out to be bogus) that their department could not possibly afford the rape test kits.

Yes, I know that community organizers are not familiar with the concept of limited budgets in small cities but that is the fact of life. Not all good resources could be afforded so the different city departments determine how to best pay for daily operations of their department. As is the case in most budgets, you dont have unlimited expenses.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"Zogby is weird. It has North Carolina razor close, the same with Indiana while Virginia is heavily McCain according to them. Pennsylvania is solid McCain and the same with New Hampshire."

Better to ignore Zogby.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Zogby on primary day had Obama winning California by 10% over HC; not very credible.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

This was the rape kit story on US News and World Report(not daily kos):

"when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in the late 1990s, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's municipal police department charged rape victims for the "rape kit" used to collect the forensic evidence necessary to convict their attackers"

Anywone who deals with law enforcment and prosecutors understands how absolutely vital these kits are to prosecuting rapists and should be beyond politicizing by a potential future VP. It was a radical not a conservative policy even if a D Alaska Governor saw the lunancy of Sarah Palin's municipal policy and later changed it. Curious why this has not gotten more attention? It speaks volumes as to exactly who the real Sarah Palin is.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S FEAR MONGERING TALK HURTS US

A real leader doesn't exaggerate and scream "the sky is falling" and "we're all doomed" when we are in the midst of an unfolding financial crisis where containment of the fallout of bank failures requires limiting the loss of public confidence in the system.

Obama's a damned fool who would rather win an election than help calm public fear to help our economy avoid a panic-driven meltdown of the financial system. All the real leaders were out yesterday making reassuring noises, which were true, by the way. Except Obama. Obama would rather go around hyping the fear and exaggerating the systemic seriousness of the problem. Only Obama was out yesterday shrilling fearful gloom-and-doom statements (that were exaggerations) hoping to capitalize on the Lehman bankruptcy to beat the bushes to drive up an economic-fear vote.

Is there any further proof needed as to whom is a leader and whom is a shrill, self-promoting political animal? McCain was not only saying necessary calming things, but the things he was saying were in fact true. Yesterday afternoon, Bloomberg came out and agreed with McCain's statement that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and so have others.

Barack Obama would rather fear-monger on a day of uncertainty and insecurity, when we need to find confidence in our banking system to keep it stable, than lose an election.

Finally, on the day that Obama releases an ad ridiculing John McCain's reassuring & accurate statement that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and declaring that John McCain is wrong, that the economy is "broken", Obama is now flying off to feast and entertain with multimillionaires at a fundraiser with Barbera Streisand. Although Obama has raised breathtaking & historic campaign funds ($400 million so far?), he's also engaged in lavish and obscene spending. He spent $6 million alone to move his nomination acceptance speech to Mile-High stadium on that special-built temple-like stage. He's raised historic money, but he's also spent it in an unprecedented way. He needs every penny of the $10 million he's expected to make off his Hollywood backers tonight.

This is how a self-centered ambitious politician fear-mongers because he'd rather win an election than help reassure the public on a day of fears of banking system failures. This is how a self-centered and narcissistic me-first politician spends his donors' historic giving.

Wonder what he'd do if given the keys to the U.S Treasury and put in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and our economy.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

>>and the fact that Palin drives you moonbats nuts, makes me like her for that reason alone.<<
Goodness Zooky, what more could a liberal ask for?
Every time McCain gets his picture taken next to her, he looks about 150.

Zombie/Milf 08

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

ddawd - you were right, they are not dead even in PA:

State: Pennsylvania

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.1%
Obama - 44.3%
Not Sure/Other - 6.6%

the loser is getting desperate. watch out for your fingers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

>>and the fact that Palin drives you moonbats nuts, makes me like her for that reason alone.<<
Goodness Zooky, what more could a liberal ask for?
Every time McCain gets his picture taken next to her, he looks about 150.

Zombie/Milf 08

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

ddawd - you were right, they are not dead even in PA:

State: Pennsylvania

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.1%
Obama - 44.3%
Not Sure/Other - 6.6%

the loser is getting desperate. watch out for your fingers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

ddawd - you were right, they are not dead even in PA:

State: Pennsylvania

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.1%
Obama - 44.3%
Not Sure/Other - 6.6%

the loser is getting desperate. watch out for your fingers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Zogby is weird. It has North Carolina razor close, the same with Indiana while Virginia is heavily McCain according to them. Pennsylvania is solid McCain and the same with New Hampshire.

I just point these out as a few examples where they are at drastic odds with the rest of the polling in the country.

I still don't know where the whole thing about Obama losing NY came from. Does McCain think that a 21 point lead for Obama makes it a swing state? God, I hope so.

But hey, if it helps you sleep, then go for it. Make up your own. All it takes are a few crayons. There are some that you haven't devoured yet, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

ddawd - you were right, they are not dead even in PA:

State: Pennsylvania

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.1%
Obama - 44.3%
Not Sure/Other - 6.6%

the loser is getting desperate. watch out for your fingers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama on a day in which people fear a collapse of our banking system: launch an ad that declares that our economy is "broken"!

He'd rather beat the bushes to drum up fear and panic when a crisis is unfolding, than lose an election.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse


FROM THE FOLKS WHO BROUGHT JOHN EDWARD'S, THEY NOW BRINGS YOU: "TRACK PALIN"
THE COKE HEAD WHO BEAT GOING TO JAIL BY GOING IN THE MILITARY AND HIS WONDERFUL PARENTS WHO RAISED SUCH A FINE FAMILY.


The NATIONAL ENQUIRER’S exclusive ongoing investigation of GOP VP Nom Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin’s goes far beyond a mere teen pregnancy crisis this week!

The Enquirer’s team of reporters has combed the Alaskan wilderness to discover the hidden truth about Gov. Palin’s family, which has become a central part of her political identity.

The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Sarah's oldest son, Track, was addicted to the power drug OxyContin for nearly the past two years, snorting it, eating it, smoking it and even injecting it. And as Track, 19, heads to Iraq as part of the U.S. armed forces, Sarah and her husband Todd were powerless to stop his wild antics, detailed in the new issue of The ENQUIRER, which goes on sale today.

THE ENQUIRER also has exclusive details about Track's use of other drugs, including cocaine, and his involvement in a notorious local vandalism incident.

“I’ve partied with him (Track) for years,” a source disclosed. “I’ve seen him snort cocaine, snort and smoke OxyContin, drink booze and smoke weed.”

The source also divulged the girls would do anything for Track and he’d use his local celebrity status to manipulate other guys “to get them to steal things he wanted.”

“He finally did what a lot of troubled kids here do,” the source divulged. “You join the military.”

And as Gov. Palin has billed the state of Alaska for various expenses related to her children, as reported by The Washington Post, The ENQUIRER's investigation reveals that she was so incensed by 17-year-old Bristol's pregnancy that she banished her daughter from the house.

Another family friend revealed pre-prego Bristol was as much of a hard partier as Track was.

“Bristol was a huge stoner and drinker. I’ve seen her smoke pot and get drunk and make out with so many guys. All the guys would brag that the just made out with Bristol.”

When Sarah found out the teen was pregnant by high schooler Levi Johnston, she was actually banished from the house. As part of the cover-up, Palin quickly transferred Bristol to another high school and made her move in with Sarah’s sister Heather 25 miles away!

And the ENQUIRER also learned that Levi Johnston, the baby mamma’s future wedded dada, who was glad handed by John McCain at the GOP Convention, isn’t too happy about his impending shotgun nups either.

“Levi got dragged out of the house to go to Minnesota,” Levi’s friend told The ENQUIRER. “Levi realizes he’s stuck being with Bristol because her mom is running for Vice President.”

The friend also confided that both Bristol and Levi “broke up a few times and they definitely messed around with other people.”

Meanwhile, as members of the Palin family’s war viciously over “Trooper-Gate” and claims of Sarah’s extramarital affair have turned the political race into a chaotic arena of threats, denials and vicious attacks by political black ops, The ENQUIRER has discovered shocking new details about the red-hot affair scandal!

For the full story of the secrets Sarah Palin is trying to hide – pick up the new ENQUIRER!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"Obama brought in $66 million last month. But he's also spending money hand-over-fist, spending his historic money with historic outlays."

Well, two million people didn't give him the money to invest in mutual funds.

asper reminds me of the Rick James sketch on Dave Chappelle. Right after Rick James grinds mud into the couch and the Murphys beat him up for it, he yells out "THEY SHOULD'VE NEVER GAVE YOU NIGGAS MONEY" for possibly the funniest line of the entire show.

I guess that's how asper feels, that racist. That black guy doesn't know how to handle money.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

DDAwd - you will forgive me if I get my facts from sources other than you. Lately it seems you Libs can't get anything straight.

From zogby:

State: Colorado

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 47.5%
Obama - 45.5%
Not Sure/Other - 7.0%
>>>>

State: New Hampshire

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.1%
Obama - 42.8%
Not Sure/Other - 8.1%

>>>
State: Ohio

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.8%
Obama - 43.9%
Not Sure/Other - 6.3%

>>>

State: Florida

Updated: 9/13/2008

Summary:
McCain - 52.1%
Obama - 41.8%
Not Sure/Other - 6.1%

>>>>>
did I miss any Lib facts? I am beginning to think you operate from your own private set.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

>>BJH wrote: "arrange assistance for AIG; if yes, how? "

Let AIG fail. It's a business. Its customers have had well over a year to realize that the insurers were going to have a tough, tough time coming through on claims. The consequences of AIG failing would be much worse than for letting Lehman fail. But there is no reasonable way to bail it out without dropping all pretense that the taxpayers will protect investors and those who deal with their assets from risk of losses.

The feds have refused to help out AIG at the same time they refused to bail out Lehman. They have to to.

The unsuccessful players of the system will continue to move into even more abuses if the feds keep bailing out their companies because they are large entities.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I am curious how you know so much about Palin already. most of the stuff you say sounds doubtful or smearlike. I don't even know that much about Obama and I pay attention and I have been watching for many months.

I think she represents something noble in our political process - an every woman makes it good by doing good deeds, fighting the good fight and scoring one for the little guy. I know it invades the liberal territory and completely steals the messiahs schtick, but in her case, it is actully based in reality.

We lived through Dan quayle, and many other VPs. she seems at least as good as they were and better than Obama or Biden.

the only trick in picking her was cementing the base and pissing off the left wing media - a winning approach I think. Obama has met his match with the crafty old POW. He didn't live through five years on cockroaches and rats to be beaten on something simple by an amatuer.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"DDawd: all that money didn't win the last several primaries for THE ONE. and the slide in the polls continues. He is fading in FL, lost his lead in CO, dead even in PA, losing in NH, falling in NY, yep NY. Way behind in OH, teetering in MI, losing ground in Minnesota. He will end up making Kerry look like he knew what he was doing."

Other than the fading in FL and the teetering in MI, none of this is true.

But hey, if McCain wants to set up offices and start running ads in NY, then he certainly should.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama brought in $66 million last month. But he's also spending money hand-over-fist, spending his historic money with historic outlays. He spent $6 million just to move his nomination acceptance speech to that stadium alone!

Obama entered Sept with $77 million on hand and the dnc had under $17 million, for a combined $95 million. John McCain, raised $47 million in August for himself and another $22 million for the party, and at the end of August turned over $100 million to the RNC. So after all the historic fundraising he has done, Obama + dnc enter Sept with less money than McCain + rnc does and their polling numbers, etc. are roughly equal.

Lavish, obscene spending with other people's hard-earned money. What a waste. What fun he'd have with the U.S. treasury. And a "donor base" of hundreds of millions of people he can tax to get his lavish budget with.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

king no personal slight but being selected as VP is not a game at least in my book it is more than a game of lets see how many Americns we can p.o in hopes of attracting ultra conservative women voters who believe that 16 year old girls who are raped should pay for their own rape kits and bring their rapist' child to term but a reflction of the character of the person making the choice of VP. We know that you don't like payng taxes unfortunately you fail to understand that no one does but that we all make choices in what govt servics we want; that interstate built, the newest weapons system that you would cheer for, a $12 billion/month war ,an SEC to keep the crooks from destroying our investment centers, Medicare o keep our parents off of the streets, or health system we can all afford to participate in. We all have our priorities, I am ok with his choosing a conservative R just think that Palin is a radical R who many voters would not think is so cool if they truly had any idea how radical some of her views truly are. Its not a game its our lives and futures we are debating. If that makes me a leftie so be it. As I predicted Palin will either help McCain politically with a narrow victory or she will be exposed as the unqualified radical she really is and he will lose by 5 or more points. A blowout in Presidential elections. No offense. Obama had no reason not to pick HC and McCain had no reason not to pick Ridge.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

well here we are borrowing a billion from our best buddie China to give to Georgia.
I believe I'll be looking third party soon.
I believe it's time to rid this country of the federal reserve bank and the corporations that have grown up around it.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

Posted by: pooty | September 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

In this latest adjustment of the Zogby map, Obama has lost 26 Electoral College votes from two states—Pennsylvania and New Mexico – both of which were moved from the Obama column into the toss-up column.

Meanwhile, McCain has gained enough ground to have—at least for now—captured a definitive lead in seven new states: Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, Montana, South and North Dakota. McCain’s gains total 54 Electoral College votes. Based on a Zogby analysis of other credible polling and demographic trends, the Zogby map is also moving four other states – Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, and North Dakota from toss-ups into the McCain column.

Posted by: the trend is clear | September 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Our blindness to racism will lead us to the door of 4 more years ... maybe 8 more years

Posted by: The Truth | September 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

There's some interesting spin coming from ol' straight-talker Johnny McCain today considering that he has voted with Bush over 90% of the time the last eight years and that McCain's economic advisor, Phil Gramm, was the biggest player out there in the deregulating of Wall Street.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxXMFW1YsNQ
.

Posted by: say what? | September 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, it is rather absurd to make claims about what I think and then use them to denegrate me personally.

I have posted many times that McCain was not my first choice. And I certainly know who your first choice was.

that doesn't change that fact that Obama is my last choice. It is really that simple. I am not a leftist and do not want us to surrender in wars and harm profitable corporations. I pay too much already in taxes for failing government programs.

easy choice huh?

and the fact that Palin drives you moonbats nuts, makes me like her for that reason alone.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Either or both candidates should appear on TV by 8am EST and discuss how they would deal with the specific problems facing the markets that day. The winner of the election takes office in just over 4 months and they will have to make the decisions that will effect the country.

Questions/type of questions - would you;
arrange assistance for AIG; if yes, how?
stand behind Washington Mutual or let it go? if yes, how?
Is there a number where you cannot support further; if yes, what is it?
Who are candidates you will consider for the Secretary of the Treasury

These are not hypothetical questions and a lot rides on the decisions

Posted by: BJH | September 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

>> Leichtman wrote: "Ever hear of a Slap Suit Aspergirl or do I need to explain what they are? Anyone that has the $200 filing fee and access to a process server can file a lawsuit. SO WHAT! You have truly become a 28 percenter."

You mean a SLAPP suit? Uhh, do you know what a SLAPP suit is? It's a suit against grassroots people, like soccer moms who want to block some development, filed against their participating in some public forum (like a zoning board) trying to shut them up and intimidate them from participating in their public activism, because they can't afford the legal fees to defend themselves?

Are you trying to imply that Biden's son and brother were trying to engage in some public activism, and some corrupt entity is filing a frivolous suit against them to oppress them into submission?

You have no clue about what you're talking.

Joe Biden's brother & son are being sued over their malpractice in running a hedge fund & acting as lobbyists for it. They are being sued by former business partners.

You just blast out B.S., expecting that people don't know what you're talking about, to call you on it. LOL.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

curious king if ever in your life you have had anything negative to say about any R ever including folks like Congresmen Duke Cunnngham or Mark Foley. Curious how you now support someone who championed an immigration bill you likely could not stand(and if it had Obama's name as sponsor what you would be saying about it) and who once bragged how he opposed the Bush tax bill; the ultimate flip lo in politics. As to capital gains I wouldn't worry much about them as long as Rs continue to wreck the economy there won't be many gains of any sort. Tried that McCain thing for a while and have dscoverd he is not anywhere the man he once pretended to be. If he were not a R, as he once in 2004 threateed to switch parties,you would now be slamming him and woud ully understand that he is just another phony politician acting like he is above politics. You cannot seriously think that Palin was anything more than a cynical political stunt and that Tom Ridge, a former Governor of a state of 12 million with serious homeland security credenials would not have been a better 'governance' choice. He could have sealed my votes and millions more of moderates with that choice regardless of the secondary abortion issue. That would have been a serious selection.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

DDawd: all that money didn't win the last several primaries for THE ONE. and the slide in the polls continues. He is fading in FL, lost his lead in CO, dead even in PA, losing in NH, falling in NY, yep NY. Way behind in OH, teetering in MI, losing ground in Minnesota. He will end up making Kerry look like he knew what he was doing.

so much for his 50 state strategy. Unless he meant he wants to tempt losing in all 50 states, or should I say all 57 states.

Meanwhile the Rs have turned weakness into strength - allowed the jackels in the media to cut their own throats, let the messiah turn on every promise, ignored biden, like everyone else and tricked the fools into talking about experience and judgment, now a loser for the Libs.

If he dares talk about the economy, the end will rapidly draw near. the only thing worse for a Lib to discuss than the economy is the military. they get all confused and frustrated with the ever grander lies spinning into more hesitation, spin and confusion.

We all know that the only promise they will keep is to raise taxes, increase all regulation, needed or not, and to spend the money on a giant unfunded splurge. the last election clearly demonstrated this tendency - lie like crazy and blame all your failures on the Rs. too bad that only family and staffers now approve of the Lib congress - the 9% ers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS ARE BECOMING POOR, BECAUSE GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET SUPER RICH HAVE STOLEN OUR NATIONALTREASURY WEALTH THROUGH FRAUD SPECULATIONS

GOP Republican Wall Street Super Rich Are Emptying Our National Treasury To Give Each Other $10 Million Dollars Bonuses Every Year While Outsourcing Our American Jobs To Foreign Sweatshops. GOP Republicans lobby for no regulations to steal the United States National Wealth from the American People. This is not GOP Republican patriotism in the least, but treason.

GOP Republican Wall Street Super Rich giving each other multi-billion dollar unsecured loans backed only by a handshake or slap on the back during golf outings and drink parties. Our United States Treasury emptied by these GOP Republicans every year in exchange for Annual Mammoth National Debt forced upon the American People to pay.

GOP Republican McCentury D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire is a weak nominee who lacks the intelligence to receive the 3:00 am call.

Americans are tired of corruption from McBush and his Obscenely Super Rich Wall Street Robber Barons.
Stop Corporate Welfare.
Stop CEO Welfare.
Stop Millionaire Welfare.
Stop the rich from outsourcing American jobs.
Stop giving Golden Parachutes to the Rich for outsourcing American jobs.
Stop the Rich from using Our Public Offices for Private Ill Gotten Gains.
Stop the Rich from stealing Our National Treasury.
Stop the Rich from robbing Our National Treasury and raising the National debt.
Stop the Rich from Tax Avoidance and Tax Havens.
Stop the Rich from importing illegal drugs by the ton and destroying Our Country in the name of Wall Street high returns on investment.
Stop the Rich from eroding Our Constitutional Rights.
Stop the Rich (McBush, Cheney, Rice, D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire) from selling Our America to Saudi Arabia, China, India) in the name of outsourcing American jobs, selling American Banks, selling bulk shares of key American corporations.
Nationalize the American OOIIILLLL Industry for National Defense, if you love America.
America is not for sale now or ever.

Obscene Super capitalistic privileged C students with no business running hotdog stands illegally place themselves, their rich friends, and their rich family members into the highest positions of OUR COUNTRY to maintain, promote, and expand their ill gotten wealth at the expense of Average Americans. Do you still think that lieing GOP Republicans are patriots? I think not.

Greed and stupidity are destroying Our Country and it must stop.

America must get back to moral decency, family values, respect, honor, scholarship, and service to the general Public.

America is about Public Service and not private greed.

Change is happening and America, Europe and the World welcome cooperation.

Out with GOP Republican Wall Street Robber Barons.

In with the U.S. Constitution and the American People.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We The People Are Voting For Harvard Scholar, Irish-American, and Constitution Law Professor Barack Obama.

D STUDENT SUPER GREEDY RICH LOBBYIST MCCAIN WALL STREET OOIIILLLL MILLIONAIRE-MCBUSH AND THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (THE HAGUE) WILL HOLD MCBUSH, CHENEY AND RICE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR

The American People Have Been D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaireed-McBushed-Hoodwinked-bushwhacked By the GOP Republican lobbyists party of liars

The GOP Republican Party has sold its soul in exchange for private Wall Street gains that have sent trillions of Our U.S. dollars overseas to sweatshops and tax havens at the expense of the American People. This blindly overzealous Las Vegas gambling style GOP Republican Wall Street greed, which is selling to the highest bidder Our Beautiful Country must stop. America doesn’t belong to the greedy GOP Republican Wall Street Banks. Our Beautiful America belongs with Americans. It’s time to get that straight.

The OOIIILLLL Crisis is a National Emergency that must be immediately Nationalized for National Defense. America must be saved by the American People. We’ve learned that America cannot rely on irresponsibly greedy GOP Republicans Wall Street Banks that have no loyalty to the American People. The greedy GOP Republicans are outsourcing American jobs to overseas sweatshops and sending trillions of Our U.S. dollars to overseas tax haven. These greedy GOP Republican acts are giving foreign governments and private billionaires a direct say and ownership in Our Country. The GOP Republicans are not patriots, but destroyers of the American Dream. We the People must take back Our Beautiful America Now.

International Court of Justice (The Hague) will question D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire-McBush-Cheney-Rice in January about their involvement in the Iraq War.

A long-delayed Senate committee report endorsed by Democrats and some GOP Republicans concluded that President McBush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda.

The report was released after years of partisan squabbling, and it represented the close of five years of investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence into the use, abuse and faulty assessments of intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

That some McBush administration claims about the Iraqi threat turned out to be false is hardly new. But the report, based on a detailed review of public statements by Mr. McBush and other officials, was the most comprehensive effort to date to assess whether policy makers systematically painted a more dire picture about Iraq than was justified by the available intelligence.

The 170-page report accuses Mr. McBush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In a statement accompanying the report the president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

The report on the prewar statements found that on some important issues, most notably on what was believed to be Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, the public statements from Mr. McBush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were substantiated. The administration statements did not reflect the intelligence agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or the disputes among them.

In a separate report the intelligence committee provided new details about a series of clandestine meetings in Rome and Paris between Pentagon officials and Iranian dissidents in 2001 and 2003. The meetings included discussions about possible covert actions to destabilize the government in Tehran, and were used by the Pentagon officials to glean information about rivalries in Iran and what was thought to be an Iranian hit team intending to attack American troops in Afghanistan.

The report criticized the meetings as ill advised and keeping the State Department and intelligence agencies in the dark about the meetings, which the report portrayed as part of a rogue intelligence operation.

The two reports were the final parts of the committee’s so-called Phase 2 investigation of prewar intelligence on Iraq and related issues. The first phase of the inquiry, begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in July 2004, identified grave faults in the C.I.A.’s analysis of the threat posed by Mr. Hussein.

The report on Iraq was especially critical of statements by the president and vice president linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and raising the possibility that Mr. Hussein might supply the terrorist group with unconventional weapons. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.

GOP Republicans on the committee sharply dissented from the report’s findings and suggested that the investigation was a partisan smoke screen to obscure the real story: that the C.I.A. failed the McBush administration by delivering intelligence assessments to policy makers that have since been discredited.

The report about the McBush administration’s public statements offers some new details about the intelligence information that was available to policy makers as they built a case for war. For instance, in September 2002 the defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iraq problem cannot be solved by airstrikes alone, because Iraqi chemical and biological weapons were so deeply buried that they could not be penetrated by American bombs.

Two months later, however, the National Intelligence Council wrote an assessment concluding that the Iraqi underground weapons facilities identified by the intelligence agencies are vulnerable to conventional, precision-guided, penetrating munitions because they are not deeply buried.

Congress had never been told about the National Intelligence Council’s assessment.

International Court of Justice (The Hague in Europe) will question D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire-McBush-Cheney-Rice in January about their involvement in the Iraq War.

The OOIIILLLL Crisis is a National Emergency that must be immediately Nationalized for National Defense. America must be saved by the American People. We’ve learned that America cannot rely on irresponsibly greedy GOP Republicans Wall Street Banks that have no loyalty to the American People. The greedy GOP Republicans are outsourcing American jobs to overseas sweatshops and sending trillions of Our U.S. dollars to overseas tax haven. These greedy GOP Republican acts are giving foreign governments and private billionaires a direct say and ownership in Our Country. The GOP Republicans are not patriots, but destroyers of the American Dream. We the People must take back Our Beautiful America Now.

The American People Have Been D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaireed-McBushed-Hoodwinked-Bushwhacked By the GOP Republican Lobbyists and Party of Liars.

America will restore it’s Constitution and closely regulate Criminal Wall Street GOP Republicans.

Your choice between a Harvard Law Scholar Obama of Harvard Law or Computer Illiterate D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire

PRESIDENT OBAMA OF HARVARD LAW PREDICTED TO HEAL AMERICA AND THE WORLD

The match-up between John D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire and Irish-American Barack Obama of Harvard Law is close in nationwide surveys in the United States, but around the World it's no contest: Obama of Harvard Law prevails.

A survey of 24 nations taken by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds high levels of interest in the U.S. presidential election and broad optimism that American foreign policy "will change for the better" after the inauguration of a new president next year.

In 21 of the 23 foreign countries, those polled express more faith in Obama of Harvard Law than in D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire to "do the right thing regarding World affairs." In the other two nations, Pakistan and Jordan, neither inspires much confidence.

"Obama of Harvard Law obviously has an appeal that has crossed the waters," says Andrew Kohut, who directs the Pew project. "Some of it may have to do with his being associated with opposition to the war in Iraq, which is consistent with views of people around the World. Some of it may have to do with his charismatic qualities and the fact that he's different than the typical American presidential candidate."

Among the findings:

•Interest is high. Japanese are even more likely than Americans to say they are following the election closely. At least of half of those surveyed in Germany, Australia, Jordan and Britain say they are paying attention. In most of the nations surveyed, a third or more are tuning in.

•Optimism about a new president is broad. About two-thirds of those surveyed in France, Spain, Germany, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania predict U.S. foreign policy will improve after the inauguration. In 20 of 24 nations, more say U.S. foreign policy will change for the better than for the worse.

•Obama of Harvard Law is heavily favored. In 21 of 23 countries, more people have faith in the Illinois senator than in D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire to "do the right thing" in foreign affairs. The two contenders were essentially tied in the United States and Jordan.

In most countries, Obama of Harvard Law is also more trusted than D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire. The contrast was particular steep in Europe, where McBush made his farewell presidential tour. In France, where he visits Friday, 13% say they have "a lot" or some confidence in McBush to do the right thing. Six times as many, 84%, say that of Obama of Harvard Law.

If the best the GOP Republican Get Rich By Selling America Party can do is Bush and D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire, then the GOP Republican Party should be dissolved.

Your choice between Harvard Law Scholar Irish-American Barack Obama or Computer Illiterate C Student GOP Republican Sell America For A Quick Profit D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire.

United States Constitution - We the people of the United States


Democrat $24 barrel of OOIIILLLL

DEMOCRAT $1.50 A GALLON OF GASOLINE


OOIIILLLL was $24 a barrel when Democrats left office


A gallon of gasoline was $1.50 when Democrats left office


GOP Republicans took office to change OOIIILLLL to $145 a barrel

GOP Republicans took office to change gasoline to $4.50 a gallon


GOP Republican $145 barrel of OOIIILLLL


A gallon of gasoline is $4.50 under the GOP Republicans

Rising OOIIILLLL Prices Swell Profits at Exxon and Shell

You do the math and decide if Texas OOIIILLLL millionaires warrant investigations to protect the American people.


BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, AND SUPER GREEDY RICH LOBBYIST MCCAIN WALL STREET OOIIILLLL MILLIONAIRES


Aren’t there LAWS against defrauding the American People (US Constitution), robbing the US Treasury, and using US Government Offices for private gains?

GOP Republican Wall Street Conspiracy to defraud the American People and steal from the United States Treasury.


GOP Republican abusive power and blind greed run amok to transfer the American economy into the private capitalistic pockets of the Obscene Super rich who own and run Wall Street.


GOP Republicans are manipulating the market system to make the many (95 percent of American citizens) suffer and serve the Obscene Superwealthy few (5 percent Wall Street Obscene Supercapitalists).


GOP Republicans D Student Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire-McBush III Trillion Dollar War Crisis


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.


No more GOP Republican lies, conspiracies, and grand larcenies.


GOP Republican $155 barrel of OOIIILLLL speculations
GOP Republican $175 barrel of OOIIILLLL speculations
GOP Republican $195 barrel of OOIIILLLL speculations
GOP Republican $215 barrel of OOIIILLLL speculations
GOP Republican $235 barrel of OOIIILLLL speculations
GOP Republican $255 barrel of OOIIILLLL speculations


GOP Republican $4.50 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $5.00 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $5.50 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $6.00 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $6.50 a Gallon Gasoline speculations
GOP Republican $7.00 a Gallon Gasoline speculations


When does it stop if ever?


GOP Republican Wall Street Greed Speculation does not work.
GOP Republican Wall Street Greed Speculation is hurting America.
GOP Republican Wall Street Greed Speculation is hurting Our Constitutional Rights.


Stop GOP Republican Wall Street OOIIILLLL speculations today


GOP REPUBLICAN OOIIILLLL addiction has become the new crack drug and we better get off soon


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS AMERICAN JOB OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.


Nationalize U.S. OOIIILLLL For National Defense.
Nationalize U.S. OOIIILLLL For National Defense.
Nationalize U.S. OOIIILLLL For National Defense.


Clean nuclear electric energy is the answer. USA partnership with France will produce clean abundant Nuclear Fusion electricity. Eighty percent of French electricity is produce through nuclear energy. USA will learn nuclear production of clean energy.

Over 35 percent of France’s total energy requirement and over 78 percent of French electricity demands are met by nuclear energy. In 1999, France generated 375 billion kWh of electricity from its fifty-eight pressurized water reactors currently in operation. The electrical generation capacity of these plants is 65,702 MWe. France also operates one fast reactor, which generates 250 MWe of energy.

Because of their large operation capacity, the French also export energy, mainly to the rest of Europe, roughly 72.1 TWh per year. This large amount of energy generation allows France to be more energy self-sufficient than most European countries. In fact, France is over 50 percent able to meet its own energy needs, an incredibly large percentage for a modernized, western country. In comparison, Italy is only 18 percent energy self-sufficient. This was one of the goals of the French Nuclear program, to decrease French dependence on foreign energy sources.

The French national energy company, Electricite¢ de France (EDF) runs France’s nuclear power plants. The EDF was created in 1946 to alleviate the energy shortage that occurred just after World War II. In the 1950s the EDF provided France with the energy to modernize itself into an industrial power. However like most energy corporations, the EDF relied heavily on hydrocarbon generation up until the first OOIIILLLL CRISIS occurred. Then it was decided that the EDF should pursue NUCLEAR ENERGY TO REDUCE FRENCH DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ENERGY.


We the people of the United States.

WHY A BARREL OF OOIIILLLL ROSE FROM $24 TO $145 WHEN GOP REPUBLICAN OOIIILLLL MILLIONAIRES BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, AND SUPER GREEDY RICH LOBBYIST MCCAIN WALL STREET OOIIILLLL MILLIONAIRES TOOK OVER


GOP Republican Get Rich By Selling America And Using Our Public Office For Private Gains Is Treason against the American People. Big OOIIILLLL inside trading millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Super Greedy Rich Lobbyist McCain Wall Street OOIIILLLL Millionaire will answer for war crimes.

The White House connection to Big OOIIILLLL goes too far. Now Chevron's OOIIILLLL tanker named Condoleezza Rice is too much OOIIILLLL conspiracy in the face of the American people.

The double-hulled OOIIILLLL giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international OOIIILLLL tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational OOIIILLLL firm, named several years ago Rice because she is a Chevron OOIIILLLL board member and stockholder.

Rice serves on Chevron's OOIIILLLL board and Bush Administration.

Far too cozy relationship among multinational energy giants, Bush and his key advisers -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Rice.

There's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry, the OOIIILLLL-and-gas industry.

You wonder why a barrel of OOIIILLLL rose from $24 to $145 when OOIIILLLL millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice took over. You wonder why a gallon of gasoline rose from $1.50 to $4.50 when OOIIILLLL millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice took over.

Public Integrity raised the issue of the OOIIILLLL tanker's moniker. Look at the president and his background, the vice president (executive at Halliburton), (Commerce Secretary) Don Evans and his OOIIILLLL interests . . . and now this."

Rice closeness to a major OOIIILLLL company. It's not every day that someone has an OOIIILLLL tanker named after her.

Bush specifically request the Condoleezza Rice OOIIILLLL tanker be given a name change -- particularly since Chevron OOIIILLLL does business on six continents and 25 countries, and has been sued for human rights abuses in Nigeria.

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charging Chevron OOIIILLLL aided Nigerian police in attacks on local communities protesting Chevron OOIIILLLL production activities.

The Rice OOIIILLLL tanker came up at the White House briefing in connection with the incident in Nigeria.

Chevron OOIIILLLL giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron OOIIILLLL tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name.

Naming OOIIILLLL tankers after members of the OOIIILLLL board of directors.

Rice's office did not return repeated phone calls, but she told Fox TV that she has no regrets regarding her Chevron OOIIILLLL ties and huge Wall Street OOIIILLLL profits. Big OOIIILLLL has been good to me.

Rice and the White House decisions directly involving Chevron OOIIILLLL. Condi Rice is dealing with issues that are enormous interest to Chevron OOIIILLLL. From a public relations standpoint, they're desperately hoping this is one OOIIILLLL tanker that doesn't run aground. That could be a major problem.

Posted by: GOP Republican Super Rich Wall Street Trillion Dollar Fraud | September 16, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"the lower Obama sinks in the polls, the loonier his base gets."

Yeah, Democrats apparently tend to panic really easily. Don't they realize that this was to be expected? Of course McCain gets a bump.

But now McCain's lead is down to like 1.3% according to RCP.com. Palin's favorability has dropped precipitously now that her incompetence has been placed out there for everyone to see. It's plain fact now that she was for the Bridge to Nowhere and is one of the biggest earmark getter.

Now if you want to see a candidate crash and burn, you go after his strengths. Palin is undercutting McCain's tenets of experience and even more so his promise to get rid of earmarks in DC.

His nasty campaigning is allowing Obama to go after his integrity and honor.

Any one of these would be enough to make someone sweat. Having all three of these issues, well, its big trouble.

Yeah, Democrats are being annoyingly paranoid about this, but McCain is the one with bigger problems than a skittery base.

(and for as skittery Obama's base may be, he is still pulling in the money)

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Highlight the idea that great ideas can come from the states by meeting one on one with a as many successful managers of regional banks as the McCain can find. (A side benefit of this idea: it reminds voters that McCain has a governor not a senator as his running mate.)"

Ummm... How does that highlight the governor aspect? Because it comes from the states? Don't senators also come from the states?

As far as hugging (figuratively) Henry Paulson, do you really think that the bulk of undecided voters will think of Henry Paulson as "that accomplished guy who walked into an untenable mess and started cleaning things up, unlike every other Bush administration official?" or will it be more like "Wait, he wants to keep Bush advisors? Thanks but no thanks."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Rich corporate magnates who lead a lavish lifestyle should be forced to live in the shoes of the hard working struggling middle class for a year, then maybe they would see what their bad decisions and greed have had on the lives of millions of middle class Americans and change their greedy mind set. Why do they need more money than they can ever expect to spend in their lifetime? Why can't they feel the pain of the average American. Why can't they give up their big bonuses, private jets, and yatchsand be satisfied with their millionaire dollar salaries? Why do they have to own seven homes, when a lot of middle class Americans are struggling to hand onto the one home?

America was founded by hard working people who came here looking for opportunity. They banded together to form colonies that later became states and they helped each other to survive. There is no longer a sense of Americans standing together helping one another. It's them against us, the rich against the poor. In the end the rich win because they have the money. Money speaks and buys votes and power.

American voters should not allow their votes to be bought by the wealthy and their slanderous ads against Obama. This is how Bush and Cheney got into office and look what happened. Don't be fooled. Don't let history repeat itself. History is there for a reason - to teach us how not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Posted by: nevadaandy | September 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Kimberly Peacock wrote:
Obama the problem with you; is that you really believe in big government and big business.
You have me scratching my head. Government has never been bigger in History than now under the so called Conservatives. You know Your Party. Exxon making more money than anyone at any time in History. TAKE YOUR MEDICINE PLEASE!!

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

the lower Obama sinks in the polls, the loonier his base gets. If this site is any indication, I predict mass hysteria the day after he loses the election. don't count on him to do anything in the Senate for the next 4 years though. He will be off finding himself in another venue. Still not one accomplishment to speak of. even a small town mayor appears more qualified, how embarrassing. no wonder he is losing it. and back on the teleprompter again. McCain is going to bury him in the debate. all the ums and ahs won't convince any undecided voters that this charlatan knows anything but what is fed him by his liberal zookeepers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

we are afraid of what this young man can possibly do for this country good or bad but not afraid that we can trust sarah in case something happens to john right capt howard.

Posted by: frank | September 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Kimberly Peacock: Great idea you have there... sounds like the Soviet Union circa 1968

Posted by: BitterSour | September 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

When will we hear from Franklin Raines? What did he know and when did he know it?

Posted by: daman1 | September 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Capt Howard,
White Working Class, Rural voters, White Women, Not like you, Middle America, or as Ed Rendell of PA. put it: Some people will never vote for a Black Man! Some people just won't be honest! Why are these terms being touted this election cycle? I never heard it in 2004. It's OK to have Racial uncertainty even fear but how do we move forward if you Lie about it. You would rather the country go to hell than admit you might be a Racist. So be it!

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I Would rather HAVE the money to go out and buy a toaster than GET TOASTED. Oh, wait, nevermind, the money will eventually "Trickle down" as you Repulsivikans put it... we call it "Getting Peed On"

Obama/Biden 08 & 12

Posted by: BitterSour | September 16, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama when you say it’s a difference in policy, why don’t you just say that you are a socialist, and McCain is a capitalist.
Obama the problem with you; is that you really believe in big government and big business.
The reason capitalism is the most efficient economic system, is due to the fact that it’s an adaptable distributed system. Centralized systems, like what you propose Obama are prone to cascade failures.
Just like the cascade failures that took out power in the North East a few years ago.
What we need is more small business, not more big business, and big government. While you and McCain are right in calling for government oversight, what needs to be done by government is set standards and develop investment incentives for small business investment, while reducing the cost of small business developing and producing innovative products. This is possible by creating something of a co-op for each particular industry, with shared labs and equipment. We as a country need to move towards fabrication labs, and move manufacturing from vertical large corporations, to distributed regional manufacturing companies, which produce a multitude of products based upon IP.

This approach will provide diversity much like living organisms and create a much more robust economy. This in turn will create more small businesses, and more jobs, which will lead to a higher standard of living for all Americans.
The government by creating standards and incentives through the tax code can provide both carrot and stick, and force the people who have monies to invest in small business by making it detrimental not to do so.
So Obama as usual you can fool some of the people but not all. America needs real solutions.

Posted by: Kimberly Peacock | September 16, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I do not think that Obama was caught flat-footed. It is just that people are not paying attention to the substance.

Read his speech for March 27, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html

and see how prescient that is.

Posted by: RS | September 16, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama when you say it’s a difference in policy, why don’t you just say that you are a socialist, and McCain is a capitalist.
Obama the problem with you; is that you really believe in big government and big business.
The reason capitalism is the most efficient economic system, is due to the fact that it’s an adaptable distributed system. Centralized systems, like what you propose Obama are prone to cascade failures.
Just like the cascade failures that took out power in the North East a few years ago.
What we need is more small business, not more big business, and big government. While you and McCain are right in calling for government oversight, what needs to be done by government is set standards and develop investment incentives for small business investment, while reducing the cost of small business developing and producing innovative products. This is possible by creating something of a co-op for each particular industry, with shared labs and equipment. We as a country need to move towards fabrication labs, and move manufacturing from vertical large corporations, to distributed regional manufacturing companies, which produce a multitude of products based upon IP.

This approach will provide diversity much like living organisms and create a much more robust economy. This in turn will create more small businesses, and more jobs, which will lead to a higher standard of living for all Americans.
The government by creating standards and incentives through the tax code can provide both carrot and stick, and force the people who have monies to invest in small business by making it detrimental not to do so.
So Obama as usual you can fool some of the people but not all. America needs real solutions.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey Frank! Thank You for your honesty, I find it refreshing. Pakistan has ordered it's troops to shoot U.S. forces invading it's territory, Let's let Sarah handle this one?

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Those laughing voices don't include Joe Biden's son, who just had to quit working as a lobbyist after being outted despite the media ignoring that, and being sued"

Who accused Joe Biden's son of laughing? Is Biden's third cousin twice removed on his mother's side laughing, too? No matter what family relation you dredge up, that doesn't get McCain off the hook for being a lobbyist lapdog.

The point is that McCain is a lobbyist's wh0re and a hypocrite for saying otherwise. Anyone who apologizes for McShame on this one is a sucker.

Posted by: bondjedi | September 16, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

even i have an excuse not to vote for abama and it's because he is black,but i don't need one to vote for mccain you see he promise change and i believe him sorry oh and sarah i don't know her but i love her.isn't she just wonderful and she gives such great interviews and she is really smart oh and i meet her family for the first time and they are some of the greatest people i have ever met.

Posted by: frank | September 16, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

There is no economic crisis
There is no economic crisis
There is no economic crisis
There is no economic crisis
There is no economic crisis

Republican's 2008 Campaign Theme.
Thank You.

Posted by: Leihtman | September 16, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Biden said today the Obama tax cut would allow people to go out and buy a toaster. He is a gaffe machine. He also said that he never heard an econimist say that raising taxes would hurt the economy. Brilliant isn't he?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Ever hear of a Slap Suit Aspergirl or do I need to explain what they are? Anyone that has the $200 filing fee and access to a process server can file a lawsuit. SO WHAT!
You have truly become a 28 percenter.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Some of you folks really need to get a life. If your defense of your candidate's short comings boil down to; "he's black and everyone's prejudice", you need to think up a better defense.

Obama's color has nothing to do with his lack of a legislative record, bad associations, party line politics, and a typical chicken in every pot campaign.

You need to come up with something better then the race card.

Posted by: Capt Howard | September 16, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

There is no economic crisis. While everything isn't running perfect (it never does) this supposed "economic crisis' is a Democrat Socialist/Barack Obama created one out of thin air with the collution of the Democratic Party--controlled MSM all working to elect Barack Obama. It's not likely that that clown Barack Obama will be elected come November, but just watch how fast the economy will be in great condition if the Democrat Socialists run things. The MSM will then START to tell the American people the truth.

Posted by: madhatter | September 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

>> Losercuda wrote: "That laughing you hear from the general direction of K Street are the thousands of lobbyists responding to the McCain/Zero pledge to “clean up” Washington."

Those laughing voices don't include Joe Biden's son, who just had to quit working as a lobbyist after being outted despite the media ignoring that, and being sued:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/bidens-lobbyist-son-brother-named-in-2.html

Biden's Son, Brother Named in Two Suits
By Kimberly Kindy and Joe Stephens, Washington Post
Sunday, August 24, 2008; Page A09

"A son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show."

"The Democratic vice presidential candidate's son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions."

"The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden's involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082302200.html

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

TARGETING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:

A ROOT CAUSE OF THE MORTGAGE / CREDIT / WALL ST. MELTDOWN?

Victims of so-called "organized gang stalking" claim that multiple government agencies, including intelligence, law enforcement, and revenue collection agencies, have established a network of secret, extra-legal programs aimed at destroying the financial well-being of "targeted" individuals -- who are denied due process of law as their financial resources are systematically confiscated from them.

These programs allegedly involve the interception of mail; surveillance, interception and alteration of telecommunications, including telephone and internet communications; fabrication of bank, credit card, mortgage and billing statements; surreptitious manipulation of personal and business bank and mortgage accounts. This system apparently is an outgrowth of past controversial government programs such as Cointelpro and "Total Information Awareness."

In effect, a secret parallel system of transaction processing has been established for these persons, a system allegedly intended to destroy their capacity to earn a living and to support themselves and their families. These "mechanics of personal destruction" closely remsemble the tactics employed by Nazi Germany in its campaign against the Jews and other targeted groups.

Victims charge that these programs also are designed to degrade their physical health, with health care professionals pressured by undercover agents to cooperate. Citizen vigilantes affiliated with government-funded community policing and "watch" groups are employed to harass and intimidate targeted persons, victims charge. These vigilantes are equipped with high-tech instruments capable of causing adverse health effects, victims have alleged.

Officials in the private sector know about some of these programs, it is alleged, since their cooperation is required to effect confiscatory transactions. Victims charge that the government is using national security and the "war on terror" as a pretext to secure the cooperation of corporations and businesses. But it is also possible that civilian overseers have been kept in the dark about the most nefarious of these programs.

The government takeover of more than half of the nation's mortgage market, and government supervision of failed investment houses such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. help effectuate these programs of personal destruction, according to some of those who have been targeted.

These programs apparently have existed in one form or another for many years, but have become codified under the banner of the "war on terror" since the 9/11 terrorist attacks seven years ago, victims charge.

Victims of these "programs of personal destruction" are calling upon Congress to immediately convene hearings on these alleged unconstitutional, extra-legel abuses of power, which they say represent a great crime against humanity and a descent into a neo-fascist police state.

A mainstream media journalist who counts himself among the victims of these programs has written several articles on the subject of domestic terrorism and extra-legal targeting of American citizens:

TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER

"GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist
Gentemen: What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?

Posted by: scrivener | September 16, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

do i believe obama can loose this race on issues and issues alone.you tell me whats going against him as we speak.have we gotten past the muslim name yet or his middle name yet or his cummunity service yet or is it we just know sarah a little better now, after one month of looking at her.i am confused i didn't mention john frankly because john has nothing to do with this.it makes me wonder why we can't make this a joe biden against sarah now that would be bad because joe has so much experience and he is guess what white.i tell you what you keep talking about issues and i will keep reminding you it's about black and white.

Posted by: frank | September 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

A rising tide lifts all ships... but the invisible hand of the market swamps an ungodly number of them in the process. Unfettered laissez-faire economic theory is one of the foundations of our modern global market, but we have never been willing to go with it 100% because it destroys lives. Laissez-faire creates money, and there is no question about that. But simple people in small towns go to the voting booth to stabilize their way of life. An economy based on most of the principals of laissez-faire with regulation thrown in to mitigate instability is what allows business and citizen to cohabitate in an open society like ours. This combination allows both innovation and protection. Going hardcore protectionist just stifles innovation (look at healthcare in social welfare countries), while lurching the other way in favor of hyperinnovation simply leads to social instability in favor of corporate profit (look at China). So there is my ten cents. Oh, and another thing...

Here's the central issue of the campaign: Media inattention to the real issues. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age). You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.

While reading that, and getting fired up, McCain and Bush were shaking in their boots about this election. They've been called on the carpet as the pigs they are. They'll be out in the cold come November.

Pigs in a blanket.

Game over Repugnantcans. You're time here is done. Thanks for the memories, but it is time to step aside and let us adults take over and fix what you broke.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

>> Leichtman wrote: "Actually Aspergirl I know some of the people who worked high up here locally who would confirm that Enron traders were abusive to folks in California and criminally manipulated the California markets as well as some of the local defense lawers who defended the nenergy traders in federal courts so I have a little more insight into that scandel then you."

There is no doubt that there were abusers-of-the-system. But they only used the loopholes and trading schemes that Clinton's deregulation made possible. And once again, the fact that you know these people doesn't lend your opinions any weight or make your insights useful. Unless you are claiming that these same Enron traders are going to run the McCain energy panel.

>>"If you think that either you or KMichael can lay Enron at the feet of Bill Clinton you truly don't know what you are talking about considering that Bill was one of the most vocal critics of the W's deregulation policies immediately after W asumed office."

We're not the ones who named a feature of Bill Clinton's 12/2000 law "the Enron loophole". Bill Clinton is a big critic of pointing the finger at Bush. He doesn't want to be held responsible. In fact they both are responsible -- Clinton & Bush.

>>"Interesting question: For weeks you have paraded here as a former Clinton supporter and today you come here to trash Bill Clinton. Interesting."

It's not "trashing" to point to history and the mistakes he made in deregulating commodities trading markets and investment banks. I am/was a Clinton supporter. I am supporting, however, the McCain/Palin ticket over the Obama/Biden one. There is no Clinton on a ticket this Fall, if you haven't noticed.

Also, I don't equate "support" with "blind partisan hero worship". If Bill Clinton makes a mistake, he makes a mistake. The kind of blind partisan worship that you imply is the kind of thing that holds leaders unaccountable, so that their parties' bases let them get away with anything blindly. That's not good.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama's speech in Colorado today was intelligent and detailed on policy. Why am I not surprised? Because he gave the same speech 6 months ago before anyone ever knew Lehman Brothers collapsed and AIG was on the brink.

McCain can't win on the issues. He can win, yes, but not on the issues, he just can't.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama was a State Senator representing a district in Illionois with complex issues and more people than Alaska. There he chaired the Education and Health and Social Services Committee and passed laws that were difficult to negotiate and pass like ethics, child income tax credits and death penalty reform.

He was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, one of America's finest law schools.

He is a sitting US Senator of a state with 14 million people and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. I think he understands national and international issues well enough.

Sarah Palin can see Russia from Alaska and took 6 years and 5 tries to graduate from a mediocre four year degree course in an ordinarily competitive college.

McCain doesn't understand the complexities of economics, got into the Naval Academy on an affirmative action pass and graduated fifth from bottom of his class only to get a plum assignment as a pilot. I don't need to tell you that many of the smartest minds in the country fail to get into Harvard Law School. Not only did Obama get in without ever mentioning his race, he became Law Review President and graduated magna cum laude.

If Obama wasn't black, he'd be ahead by 15 points and his achievements and ability would be impressive on the shoulders of a white man too.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous: Obama's Guilt By Association Trump Card is a very OLD and used up trick of the Republikinz... keep searching my friend.

Posted by: BitterSour | September 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

McCain is an "expert" when it comes to bailing out rich bankers and screwing over middle class and poor people, he's been doing it for years.


*McCain -Founding Member of the Keating Five:


McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."


*McCain - Mafia Ties:


In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.


MCCAIN/PALIN - LIARS!

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
.

Posted by: Bush + McCain = | September 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

That laughing you hear from the general direction of K Street are the thousands of lobbyists responding to the McCain/Zero pledge to “clean up” Washington.

The only thing that are going to go “up” are Wayne Berman’s and Charlie Black’s retainers.

Obama asked back in Michigan, “What, do they think you are stupid?”

Yes, they do.

And, yes, they are.

Posted by: Losercuda | September 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Please give us coverage of the sharp and detailed speech Obama just delivered in Colorado this afternoon. In it he offered an intelligent and powerful analysis of the current financial crisis as well as a series of specific policy suggestions for addressing it.

Contrast this with the limp and pale speech delivered by McCain today. McCain called for another commission to investigate the Wall Street crisis and he denounced corporate greed and corruption.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order coming from a senator who has a barrel full of lobbyists as his economic advisers and who was a chief protector of corrupt financial manipulators in his Keating 5 days.


At last we are engaging with real economic issues and it is Obama who comes off strong, resiliant, creative, and confident.

McCain just seems stale, pale, frail,and out-of-touch.

Posted by: dee | September 16, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

You see, while Barack Obama is faking outrage over all the bankruptcies and bailouts, he doesn’t mention that a number of his top ten contributors are from Wall Street, including Goldman Sacs, Lehman and the JP Morgan Chase. He also fails to mention that one of the first subprime lenders to stick it to borrowers and have her bank seized is a woman named Penny Pritzker, who just happens to be Barack Obama’s campaign Finance Chair (as confirmed on April 3, 2008) and a potential Secretary of the Treasury in an Obama administration.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I am almost convinced that most of the McCainers I see bumbling around here are really just prejudice but will not admit it. It is amazing the extremes they will go through to ignore the truth that is being spoken by the democrats. You all have screwed thing up quite enough for the past 8 years(Thank you very much - yes, you can try to blame Bush, but in actuality YOU did vote for HIM - so did McCain!)... ahem... TWICE). Step out of the way with some dignity and grace and let the Dems bring this country back while we still have a chance.

And BTW, I am a Navy Vet (Aviation, with an Honorable Discharge), but that just means I volunteered to help my country and I would STILL NEVER vote for McPalin.

Posted by: BitterSour | September 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Crisis that has seized Wall Street catches both campaigns flat-footed."

No, it hasn't caught them flat-footed.
The MSM, Cillizza and the WaPo included, have typically gone berserk on a false flag issue, in order to deflect attention away from the matter at hand:
The decision America is about to make to vote for the most incompetent government in history,
with the possible exception of Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Posted by: wardropper | September 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Actually Aspergirl I know some of the people who worked high up here locally who would confirm that Enron traders were abusive to folks in California and criminally manipulated the California markets as well as some of the local defense lawers who defended the nenergy traders in federal courts so I have a little more insight into that scandel then you.If you think that either you or KMichael can lay Enron at the feet of Bill Clinton you truly don't know what you are talking about considering that Bill was one of the most vocal critics of the W's deregulation policies immediately after W asumed office. Unlike you and KMichael he would not have tolerated the grandma Millie comments for one second; but you are free to rewrite history that makes you a R apologist and a 28 percenter.
Interesting question: For weeks you have paraded here as a former Clinton supporter and today you come here to trash Bill Clinton. Interesting.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama has offered detailed economic policy coveing taxes, energy independence, infrastructure, education, capital gains tax incentives and healthcare reform.

McCain has said some fluffy stuff like:

1. "make government work for you",
2. get "government out of your way and on your side"
3. "drill here and drill now"
4. "all of the above approach to energy"

McCain hopes to save the middle-class by cutting taxes for the wealthy and taxing our employer based health benefits.

Mccain's healthcare proposals are worse than a tax hike and if working class Republicans actually understood what he was proposing, they would never vote for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

john can be 100 yrs old and win this election and you fools would still be talking about issues.what a sick bunch of americans.the u s a will be filing for bankruptcy next or you will wake up to find that this country has been sold to the highest bidder.can anybody tell me what we are voting for besides a person to put in the white house.

Posted by: frank | September 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

>> FRANK wrote: "LIKE I SAID NOTHING AGAINST OBAMA POLITICS THEY ARE GOOD IT'S JUST THAT HE IS BLACK."

It's a tough sell trying to elect a first black president when you nominate an inexperienced, narcissist whose only professional achievement is writing about himself and speechifying. No white man with that set of qualifications would get nominated unless his daddy was a Bush.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

This article is rubbish! The only person caught flat-footed is John McCain. Obama presented a detailed, substantive plan for dealing with the financial crisis we face in March 2008 at Cooper Union, NY in a 31-minute speech full of proposals and real policy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSuT5zN2SPI

McCain lambasted Obama's speech at the time. It's wierd now that McCain is saying what Obama said in March and pretending its original.

If Americans like Chris Cillizza are too dumb or short of memory to remember, they shouldn't be working as journalists.

Someone in the media should start playing that speech and McCain's criticism of it. I'm tired of the media trying so hard to be "fair" that it ignores that one candidate has a plan and one doesn't.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Yo Bruce. Honor is not something that can be given to you by the military. It is how you live your life. As well, someone that WAS honorable 40 years ago can be dishonorable today. Military service does not give you a pass on ethics for the rest of your life. Sorry.

Posted by: coryco | September 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Bruce I don't even support Obama but you fully know that the word dishonorable refers to the disgusting ads the McCain campaign is running with the bogus claim that he supports teaching sex educatiom to children. McCain condemned the Swiftboat ads used against John Kerry and now he stoops to that same level. Its dishonorble, cynical, dishonest, and beneath the integrity of John McCain; and that comment is from a former McCain supporter who once believed he would run an honorable and substantive campaign which he hasn't; and I have family in the military so don't start those ridiculous attacks on me.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Fiorina to speak on the economy? Are you kidding? She is the poster child for failed CEOs with golden parachutes. Any Obama surrogate worth their salt will be all over that.

Posted by: coryco | September 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

>> Leichtman wrote: "you are truly a moron. We have fiends who worked here at Enron who would say that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Apparently you never heard the recording of the cynical laughs about screwing grandma Millie. In your world I am sure you were quite amused and that the energy trader were only joking. Right?"
--in response to a poster who wrote ""Deregulation is what screwed Californians during the energy "crisis" crisis=market manipulation by industries not being regulated.""

What kind of vicious and useless response is that to the poster you were responding to? Your having Enron friends doesn't make you an expert, and it doesn't entitle you to belittle others' posts with your toxic, verbally abusive insults.

Bill Clinton deregulated the trading markets and banking sectors, paving the way for the Enron energy traders' market manipulations and the investment bank debacles we are struggling with today. While George Bush had a lot to do with exacerbating and ignoring the systematic risks and weaknesses that supported the illusion of growth during the Clinton Administration, Bush is by no means responsible for the Enron debacle. The Clinton Administration's deregulating is.

"The "Enron loophole" exempts most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets from government regulation.[1] The "loophole" is so-called as it was drafted by Enron Corporation lobbyists working with U.S. Senator Phil Gramm to create a deregulated market for their experimental "Enron On-line" initiative.[2]

"The "loophole" was enacted in 7 U.S.C. §2(h)(3) and (g) of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, signed by President Bill Clinton in December 2000.[1] It allowed for the creation, for U.S. exchanges, of a new kind of derivative security, the single-stock future, which had been prohibited since 1982 under the Shad-Johnson Accord, a jurisdictional pact between John S.R. Shad, then chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and Phil Johnson, then chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

"On June 22, 2008, U.S. Senator Barack Obama proposed the repeal of the "Enron loophole" as a means to curb speculation on skyrocketing oil prices.[3]"

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_loophole)

YOU ARE THE MORON, LEICHTMAN

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Veterans everywhere are outraged that Obama is running ads calling McCain "Dishonorable".
Does Obama even know what that word means? When did he serve?
When the war hero John McCain was released from the Hanoi Hilton after five years of torture in the service of our country, his discharge said HONORABLE!

Until Obama apologizes, you can tie this independent's toes to the back of your vehicle and drag me all the way to the voting booth but I still won't consider voting for Obama!

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | September 16, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill did indeed get rid of an old law. The law disallowed banks from divirsifying."
Why don't you skip ahead to the young Einstein that decided to allow banks to roll unsecured mortgages into investment instruments and then use those instruments as collateral, hiding the risk composition of the composite loans...since that's what caused this crisis, not banks running fast food restaurants.
Please come to the point if you have one. You are one of several right wing ideologues who like to use words like "Obami" and "drooling liberal" but you don't seem to understand what's goin on here. Which makes your insistence it's not the fault of the Republicans who've run the regulatory agencies for the last eight years all the more amusing.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

COMMENTS ABOUT FIX'S LIST RE: MCCAIN

1. Seek Out Regional Banks: The big banks of the United States are struggling badly.


2. Listening Tour of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania: Like her or hate her, it's hard to argue that Clinton's 2000 listening tour throughout Upstate New York was anything less than a brilliant political tactic.

PALIN DOESN'T SEEM TO PLAY AS WELL IN APPALACHIA EAST OF OHIO AS SHE MIGHT. OBAMA SEEMS TO HAVE GAINED A BIT FROM HER NOMINATION IN VA & PA. MIGHT BE GOOD TO WORK ON HER THERE.

MICHIGAN IS IN PLAY. THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE VERY AGGRESSIVE IN EXPLAINING WHY THESE DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLD INDUSTRIAL STATES HAVE BEEN LOSING ECONOMICALLY WHILE THE RED STRONGHOLD INDUSTRIAL STATES HAVE BEEN GAINING STEAM. IMO THE CONTRASTS ARE SO STRONG BETWEEN HOW TX, NC, GA & OTHER ECONOMICALLY GROWING RED STATES HAVE BEEN & HOW OLD INDUSTRIAL BLUE STATES LIKE MI, PA HAVE BEEN DOING, THAT IT'S A NO-BRAINER. THE REDS SHOULD MAKE A SERIOUS PLAY FOR MI & PA USING THEIR ECONOMIC GROWTH TRACK RECORD TO BUILD ARGUMENTS THAT THESE BLUE STATERS CAN UNDERSTAND.

3. Give a Speech, Name a Treasury Secretary: Pick a hotbed of deep economic thinking -- one Republican operative suggested the University of Chicago -- and lay out the argument for how to reform the economy in a way that is consistent with the principles of the free market.

THIS SOUNDS GOOD. IF HE CAN GET HANK PAULSON TO AGREE TO STAY ON IF HE GETS ELECTED, THAT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER.

4. Palin (Speaking) Power: Palin is a a huge draw these days on the campaign trail. Use that popularity and her populist appeal to speak to middle and lower middle class voters in a swing state somewhere in the Midwest.

THEY LIKE HER ACTING LIKE AN OPENING ACT FOR MCCAIN. MCCAIN CAN SPEAK TO MORE PEOPLE IF THEY USE HER DRAW. THEY HAVE ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT THEY WILL START HER ON OPEN "TOWNHALLS" LIKE MCCAIN DOES, WHICH IS A GREAT IDEA. HOPE THEY DON'T RESTRICT HER TO "INVITATION ONLY" TOWNHALLS, LIKE OBAMA. THOSE ARE WORSE THAN USELESS EXCEPT FOR PHOTO OPS.

5. Elevate Economic Gurus: While former Sen. Phil Gramm (he of the "nation of whiners" comment) is probably off the board, McCain has a stable of respected economic voices -- from former CEOs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina to two-time presidential candidate Steve Forbes and former vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp.

THIS IS A GREAT SUGGESTION. NEITHER CANDIDATE HAS STARTED A REAL NATIONAL DIALOG ON THE TECHNICAL ISSUES UNDERLYING OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. SOMEONE SHOULD START ONE. MCCAIN CAN DEPLOY HIS EXECS THAT ARE ALREADY ON BOARD.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Ups and Downs in 8 years under Bush
Copper up 400%
Oil up 300%
Oats up 300%
Wheat up 300%
Soybeans up 160%
DJIA up 0%
Real wages down 4%
S&P down 8%
Nasdaq down 20%
Major Investment Banks down 60%
I sure want another 4 years of this.

Posted by: joer | September 16, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

to the nasty 28 percenter:

"yet another clueless Obami, Leichtman, writes:"

calling me an Obami is a joke since I organized the local Ds for McCain in my neighborhood until Palin was selected and I started to read idiotic posts like your's. Would be happy to mail you my McCain bumper sticker that I ripped off of my bumper right after your convention.

Clinton has been out of office for 7 1/2 years. Wake up W has been in charge of this country since Jan 2001. Perhaps like W you have been asleep the last 7 1/2 years.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Granted, McCain has no idea what's wrong with the economy, but why appoint a Commission? Why not just ask Sarah?

Posted by: tom | September 16, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Deregulation is what screwed Californians during the energy "crisis" crisis=market manipulation by industries not being regulated."

Not remotely true."

you are truly a moron. We have fiends who worked here at Enron who would say that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Apparently you never heard the recording of the cynical laughs about screwing grandma Millie. In your world I am sure you were quite amused and that the energy trader were only joking. Right?

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton went on to say that the lax rules that allowed more loans to minorities was still something he required before signing the law.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 12:46 PM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Absolutely true....but having very little to do with the current crisis.

The problems that are currently rearing their ugly heads have to do with derivatives, a financial smoke-and-mirrors trick that buries the aforementioned risky loans into a financial instrument that are then sold to investors as if they were AAA gold-plated securities.

The problems within the investment banking industry are due to having put a dollar on the books when it was actually only three quarters that they had in their possession. Regulators turned a blind eye to the practice of bundling mortgages and when the variable rate loans started to reset and these folks who never should have gotten a low interest rate, high loan-to-value mortgage started defaulting, the excrement hit the oscillating air circulation mechanism.

Posted by: Dahagg | September 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

yet another clueless Obami, Leichtman, writes:

"you are absolutely right, Clinton in 1999 should have forseen W winnig a disputed election, driving the economy into the ditch, causing poverty to double and causing poor people to have problems paying their mtgs in 2008. Durn the Clinons"

It was indeed Bill Clinton that insisted that lending policies remain loose in order to allow more minorities to buy homes. This foolish policy was also supported by Kerry, Kennedy, Franks, Dodd, Hillary and Obama himself. ALL DEMOCRATS.

The only crisis here is unwise sub-prime lending practices. All of which was supported by the democrats listed above.

As to the soundness of our economy, setting aside the democrat sponsored sub-prime loan disasters, we are in a fairly good position.

Key economic indicators have us right on track for a good economy. Again, realizing that sub-prime companies going deservedly bankrupt are a separate issue.

1) Inflation rate is fine.
2) Unemployment rate is relatively low
3) GDP is not bad at all.
4) Economic growth, while slowed, is still on the positive side.

The economy is not driven into the dirt as the lying democrats would have you believe.

Bush policies have been on the correct side of economics. His tax cuts helped the economy. Even some democrats finally admit this. His concern about loose lending policies of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were right on the mark. It was Democrats that insisted that these orgs loosen their lending policies supposedly to help the minorities.

Yep, democrats blew it again and they hope that if they continue spreading the big lie we can get liar Obama put into power to continue screwing over the economy.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

THE REASON US WHITE PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR JOHN AND SARAH IS BECAUSE ISSUES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.WE ARE GOING TO SHOW THE WORLD HOW STUPID WE CAN BE WHEN WE WANT TO.YOU SEE US WHITE PEOPLE STICK TOGETHER WHEN NOTHING ELSE MATTER.WE HAVE A 200 YEAR TRADITION GOING HERE FOLKS.YES OBAMA IS THE BETTER CANDIDATE BUT WHEN IT COME TO TRADITION WE HAVE THE BEST GAME IN TOWN,RACISM AND NO ONE CAN DO BETTER THAN US WHITE FOLKS.WE ARE COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET ON EVERYONE.LIKE I SAID NOTHING AGAINST OBAMA POLITICS THEY ARE GOOD IT'S JUST THAT HE IS BLACK

Posted by: FRANK | September 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

kmichaels: You need to read more than Republican propaganda.

"Instead, wholesalers such as Enron manipulated the market to force utility companies into daily spot markets for short term gain. For example, in a market technique known as megawatt laundering, wholesalers bought up electricity in California at below cap price to sell out of state, creating shortages. In some instances, wholesalers scheduled power transmission to create congestion and drive up prices."
—wikipedia

Again, market manipulation was the cause of the California energy "crisis". .........as a result of deregulation.

Posted by: yakmon | September 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"The fundamentals of the economy are strong." Does this sound familiar. It should. So why should John-Boy offer any rhetoric on this crisis.

Barack has already offered up an economic policy. But like many people, they want him to say more when actually the Bushies should be taking center stage and telling the American public the truth. Afterall, Bush is still the President. If Barack were to be too specific, the Repubs would whine that he is not President. The Repubs have already shown this tendency.

Posted by: Earl C | September 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

You really want Barack to have a sleep over with a family who's losing their home....you have got to be kidding me. Isn't that a bit much.
from I feel your pain to sleepover...come on man get over yourself.

Posted by: Jorie | September 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Republicans win in Novermber 2008

Has anyone noticed how CNN has jumped on the band wagon lately with its reporting.

Posted by: Hubba Bubba | September 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

COMMENTS ABOUT FIX'S LIST RE: OBAMA

OBAMA

"1. Two-Day Ohio Tour: Obama should spend two full days traveling the Buckeye State with stops in cities ranging from the big (Cleveland) to the medium (Dayton) to the small (Zanesville). The suggested theme? "McCain's strong fundamentals" playing off of the Arizona senator's much-disputed statement Monday that the fundamentals of the economy are strong."

MCCAIN'S STATEMENT IS IN FACT TRUE, AS IS SUPPORTED BY OTHER ECONOMIC LEADERS. C.F. YOUR OWN PAPER'S ARTICLE TODAY:

Financial Crises Have Slowed But Not Halted U.S. Economy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502682.html?hpid=topnews

WHILE ATTACKING MCCAIN ON "SOUND FUNDAMENTALS" SOUNDBITE PLAYS WELL WITH THE MEDIA & OBAMA'S BASE, IT'S ULTIMATELY WEAK ARGUMENT BECAUSE MCCAIN IS RIGHT.

OBAMA NEEDS TO PAY ATTENTION TO OHIO & PUTTING THE CLINTONS THERE ARE A GOOD APPROACH BECAUSE HE DOESN'T PLAY WELL IN OHIO, HIMSELF.

2. Spend a Night At Home: With home foreclosures still a huge problem and many middle class families worried about being able to make their monthly mortgage payments, Obama should spend a night at home with a family facing potential foreclosure -- either in Nevada or Michigan, two of the battlegroundiest (is that a word) states in the country.

NV IS PROBABLY LOST TO OBAMA UNLESS HE HAS A GAME-CHANGER. HE NEEDS TO FOCUS ON MI, WHICH HAS BIG PROBLEMS WITH FORECLOSURES. THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD THING TO DO THERE, SO LONG AS THE MEDIA OBLIGES BY HYPING THE VISIT.

3. A Series of Speeches: Obama's greatest strength is his oratorical abilities. Use them.

OBAMA HAS RETURNED TO USING A TELEPROMPTER ON THE TRAIL. HE SPEAKS BETTER AS AN ORATOR THAN AS A DISCUSSION-LEADER & SO HIS STRATEGISTS PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT HE'S NOT BEEN USING HIS ORATORY TO BEST EFFECT LATELY.

4. Town Hall Tryout: Obama has largely avoided the sort of town halls that McCain has made his own during this campaign. Pick a series of white working class neighborhoods and set up a series of economic-themed town halls over multiple days. Do more listening than talking.

BUT THESE ARE BEFORE PARTISAN CROWDS AT INVITATION-ONLY EVENTS. WHAT CAN HE LEARN BY LISTENING THAT HE CAN'T GET FROM SURFING LEFT-WING BLOGS?

5.Sitdown with Lehman Brothers Staff: Don't meet with the bigwigs and suits of the failed investment bank. Convene a roundtable with some of the support staff (administrative assistants etc.) who are impacted by the company veering into bankruptcy.

NOT A GOOD MOVE BECAUSE THESE ARE THE PERCEIVED MALEFACTORS OF THE PROBLEM. MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR HOMES MIGHT NOT APPRECIATE THE WARM FUZZY FEELINGS BEWEEN INVESTMENT BANK EMPLOYEES & OBAMA.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Wake up milbrooks27,

A. The name that appears on Obama's school registration papers as a child in Indonesia showing your presidential candidate listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"Deregulation is what screwed Californians during the energy "crisis" crisis=market manipulation by industries not being regulated."

Not remotely true. California had an energy crisis because they needed more energy sources. Deregulation, if anything, allowed them more energy sources. Democrats in California for decades fought against more refineries, more power plants, more nuclear plants, etc being placed in California itself. Because of that idiotic dem policy Calfornia eventually got caught with too little cheap energy. This allowed outside companies to provide energy at prices higher than Californians would have had to pay if the energy sources were more local.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilizza must be emulating John McCain --offering lies instead of the truth. Senator Obama has been talking about the economy and continues to do so, and I've read that polls indicate that most citizens prefer Obama on economic matters. I'm tired of Mr. Cilizza's biased musings.

Posted by: marmac5 | September 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

daman1: you are absolutely right, Clinton in 1999 should have forseen W winnig a disputed election, driving the economy into the ditch, causing poverty to double and causing poor people to have problems paying their mtgs in 2008. Durn the Clinons, Ike and the devestation to Galveston was all his fault but certainly he should have stopped W from wrecking the economy.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"How do you define poor?"
I think the part where they are no longer paying income tax is a pretty good start.

" What Obama’s tax policies will do will expand the earned income tax credit as well as cut certain % of taxable income"
His plan is a lot more complicated that that. He targets working families making less than 150% of the poverty line for their family size and seniors making less than 50K per year for some hefty tax breaks. I think we can all agree that's a better idea than cuttinh taxes for corporations...again.
>>You will look rather uninformed if you start spouting 40% of country is poor.<<
One of your fellow travellors handed me the number by complaining that Obama targets his tax breaks at the forty percent of the population that doesn't pay taxes.
We all know that's a con-fact (a fact among conservatives, a joke among the rest of the nation) I was just pointing that out to him.
You don't know where that 40% number comes from either, do you? Was it Rush or Hannity who created that reality for the conservative base? Sounds more like Rush, that guys so zombied out on hippy crack he doesn't know what he's saying half the time.
But a hero of the right, without a doubt. No wonder they leave a wreck in their wake everywhere they go, they are being led by a drug addict.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Palin say they are going to "reform Wall Street." Last week it was "reform Washington." So far, as far as I can tell, the only person in the media who has even bothered to ask either one of them what exactly it is that they plan to reform is Barbara Walters from the View. ("What is she going to reform, Sen. McCain -- you?") When is the press going to start doing its job? How long is the media going to let the Republican party get away with chanting the Democrats' mantra (Change! Reform!) without asking, change what?

Posted by: fmjk | September 16, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama wasn't caught flat-footed Clizza. Get you facts straight. Obama has been talking about the economy for the past weeks while John McCain and his arm candy have been talking about Lipstick, Pigs and making up lies. I know you aren't a big Obama fan Chris, but at least try telling the truth for once.

Posted by: Gabe. | September 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

McCain now wants us to believe he is the champion of the little guy against the greedy corrupt folks on Wall Street? Reminds me of the definition of hutzpah - a child who kills his parents and wants mercy as an orphan.

McCain, the man who doesn't know much about the economy and whose economic plan was written by the cheif architect of the deregulation that brought us the subprime mess (Phil Gramm, in the pocket of UBS, the mega bank, the one who thinks us folks are just whiners) says he's the one to clean up Wall Street? His campaign is run and advised by Wall Street insiders and Wall Street lobbyists. McCain shares responsibility for where Wall Street went, he's not the man to fix it.

And don't even mention Palin. She turns out to be the queen of cronyism, favoritism (a high school classmate is the Ag Sec because she always liked cows, and another classmate is Attorney General despite no qualifications apparent to anyone in the Alaska legal community) good old boy lobbying connections for earmarks, political retribution, stonewalling investigations, having everyone use private e-mail accounts to hide the conduct of public business so it couldn't be subpoenaed (she erroneously thought), etc. no reformer there either. She can't clean up politics, she's proven to be a quick study in her brief career of precisely the stuff that needs reforming.

Posted by: JoeT | September 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Instead of McCain or Obama, why don't we vote Putin for our president. When he invades a country, at least he knows how to do it quickly. Putin for president!

Posted by: Mark | September 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Yet another shallow thinking leftist writes: "The crisis occurred because of the excessive de-regulation. You have to put the rules back in. As for those investors who bit the bullet.... blame the pushers of de-regulation ie. Phill Gramm."

It is obvious that the DNC talking points (translation: lies, deception, misinformation) are spreading like wildfire.

The truth makes democrats look more stupid and involved than ever.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill did indeed get rid of an old law. The law disallowed banks from divirsifying. It was passed with bipartisan support because it allowed the US banking industry to compete against foreign banks which built strength by investing in other fields.

The bill was passed by Democrat 1999, who signed it into action, with no veto, which he could have done. But since it had bipartisan support he easily and happily signed it into law.

Clinton's primary concern was for the republicans that sponsored the bill to not have their way with TIGHTENING the lending policies of banks.

Bill claimed that if they did, then minorities would not be able to get mortgage loans.

Yep, it was the DEMOCRATS that allowed more lax rules in lending to apply.

Sub-prime loans were supported by Bill Clinton, Barry Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. This was done in order to gain favor amongst minorities and the poor, their base that they tend to cater to.

It was predicted back then that these types of loans would have a high failure rate. Minorities losing their homes that they could not afford in the first place must now bring a smile to Clinton and Obama, right?

The good part of the Gramm bill was to allow more freedom in global banking competition. The bad part, which was forced upon by Bill Clinton, is that it did not tighten the lending policies of banks.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I AM VOTING FOR JOHN AND SARAH BECAUSE THE ARE WHITE PLAIN AN SIMPLE

Posted by: FRANK | September 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

You know that Senator McCain thinks that IRA and retirement accounts are subject to capital gains taxes. This is a pretty simple concept that he doesn't understand. You need to keep him talking about being a POW or beer brewer or something like that.

Posted by: David Blackburn | September 16, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Fix, this is one of the better, least partisan and more interesting blogs today. Good job on putting up material that is of interest to both sides, and informative about both campaigns' stumping.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Wake up mibrooks27,

Since you can't provide proof (only accusations from selected sources...good grief...about Gov. Palin), answer me this.

Q. Who is Barry Soetoro?

Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Why is no one talking about the start of this crisis in 1999 with Bill Clinton pressing Freddie Mac and Fannie May to loosen up their underwriting standards to promote minority and inner city home ownership? He put Franklin Raines in place at Fannie who later pilfered it for $100M. He now is Obama's chief economic advisor. Jamie Gorelick (Clinton crony) also helped pilfer Freddie and Fannie. Why aren't they being prosecuted?

Posted by: daman1 | September 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Helen | September 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

razorless brain; Deregulation is what screwed Californians during the energy "crisis" crisis=market manipulation by industries not being regulated. You can't have completely free markets while you still have greedy humans—especially in a commodity market like oil. The financial markets are to open to greed mongers screwing others. A century back corporations had the opportunity to do the right thing—they didn't, hence regulations. Despite what King George thinks, corporation are NOT looking out for the good of the people.

The short of it, you can't have complete regulation free markets.

Posted by: yakmon | September 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Yet another leftist liar writets:

"Moreover, that candidate refuses to meet with the legislative investigative unit. She has, also, destroyued emails and her appointees have refused to meet, also."

Actually, democrats in Alaska and elsewhere have gotten involved in the investigation out of purely political motives. So Sarah wisely moved her support over to an investigation done by less partisan parties, which is not only wise but legal.

She has not destroyed emails, that is just your arse produced imaginations.

They are not serious accusations. They are political ploys designed to deceive the public brought to you by the dirty dem players. Typical dirt machinery from the leftist crowd.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Dijetlo,

The 40% they refer to is the bottom percentile of the country that either pay no taxes or qualifies for earned income credits (they work but also get more from the government based on some formula…I believe Reagan started the program). How do you define poor? If your definition is below the poverty threshold that stands at around 10-13% (not sure exact number and it has not changed all that much). When R cut taxes they eliminate certain % of your taxable income, but for people paying no taxes or receiving earned income they will receive no money since they pay no taxes. What Obama’s tax policies will do will expand the earned income tax credit as well as cut certain % of taxable income. You will look rather uninformed if you start spouting 40% of country is poor.

Posted by: sltiowa | September 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza, listen to this.
I am reading you from Copenhagen, Denmark, and I would like our own politicians to read you. Unfortunately, they would be occupied with lesser adventures.
To me you seem honest, humorous, intelligent, fair and not-corrupt.
Keep swingin'

Jakob Andersen
Copenhagen
Denmark

Posted by: Jakob Andersen | September 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris.... check out Obama core financial principles speech today. His knowledge of the market is far superior to that of McCain. "Flat-footed"? There was not a single person out there from Nobel prize winning economist down on to give a solution to what happened yesterday. The crisis occurred because of the excessive de-regulation. You have to put the rules back in. As for those investors who bit the bullet.... blame the pushers of de-regulation ie. Phill Gramm. When you play basketball without a referee... you get hacked and fouled excessively and eventually a fight breaks out.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | September 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

That last post powered by Mary B.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

A rising tide lifts all ships... but the invisible hand of the market swamps an ungodly number of them in the process. Unfettered laissez-faire economic theory is one of the foundations of our modern global market, but we have never been willing to go with it 100% because it destroys lives. Laissez-faire creates money, and there is no question about that. But simple people in small towns go to the voting booth to stabilize their way of life. An economy based on most of the principals of laissez-faire with regulation thrown in to mitigate instability is what allows business and citizen to cohabitate in an open society like ours. This combination allows both innovation and protection. Going hardcore protectionist just stifles innovation (look at healthcare in social welfare countries), while lurching the other way in favor of hyperinnovation simply leads to social instability in favor of corporate profit (look at China). So there is my ten cents. Oh, and another thing...

Here's the central issue of the campaign: Media inattention to the real issues. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age). You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.

While reading that, and getting fired up, McCain and Bush were shaking in their boots about this election. They've been called on the carpet as the pigs they are. They'll be out in the cold come November.

Pigs in a blanket.

Game over Repugnantcans. You're time here is done. Thanks for the memories, but it is time to step aside and let us adults take over and fix what you broke.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The outcome is certain ... we Republican will be back in power for at least 4 more years ... This will give Sarah 4 years to learn up on foreign policy and with her populous ... the first Woman President in the United States. For all you neo conservative Republicans who scoffed at Joh McCain as a nominee... what do you say now? The part of Ronald Reagan will now be the party of John McCain ... the Bush' never really changed the party - entrenched divisiveness. Americans are coming home to their corebeliefs and prejudices ... we had a good 25% head start - as many of us will not vote for a black man to be President of the United States. Keep up the lead John ... soon it will be a landslide

Posted by: Hubba Bubba | September 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Now that Iraq has almost 100 billion in reserve and we are losing 10 billion a month. Now that Iraq wants us to leave, Whats keeping us? Now that they don't have or never had Weapons of mass destruction although they can afford to buy them now. Now that we know that it was Al-Queda and not Iraq who attacked us on 911 what is the point? ARROGANCE! IGNORANCE! STUPIDITY! REPUBLICANS! GREED! Do you really want to sacrafice another American life for this? White Men show some spine!

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"Your Wake Up Call" - What I was pointing out was that there are some very serious accusations about your candidate. Moreover, that candidate refuses to meet with the legislative investigative unit. She has, also, destroyued emails and her appointees have refused to meet, also. She foired a state attorney that was investigating those activities. In most cicles this is known as "obstruction of justice" and invites all sorts of problems. But, she has USED the McCain campaign to duck that investigation. Palin is, from all appearances, a two bit, small town crook, that got invited to the big leagues. She is a disgrace and a disaster and electing her as Vice President would be the worst mistake this country has ever made. Now, everything but the last statement is a fact. It is verifiable from hundreds of news reports and is a nightly feature on every television network BUT FOX/Fixed News. It doesn't require a civic lesson to understand that Palin is a disaster just waiting to happen. McCain used lousy, not just poor, but lousy judgement when he selected her as his running mate. The baggage she brings ought to frighten the dickens out of you.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels: does it bother you to be reminded that Bill Clinton has been out of ofice for 7 1/2 years. Does it bother you to try and understand that the economy was booming in the 1990s no thanks to your party, Phil Graham, and Dick Amy who gave daily tirades just like you about the bad Clinton economy. Small litle fact you conveniently leave out. When the middle class was growing in the 1990 and their incomes rising they didn't have problems paying their mtgs. The poverty rate was at a historic low and it is now those same foks who have lost their jobs or had no raises who's homes under W were the first to be foreclosed. Railing against subprime loans is racists; its the NO DOC and fraudulent loan pactices that Ds have been trying to stop and Rs insist on more deregulation, less oversite and less enforcement. You want to check on Consumer Protections, look and see which party constantly insists there be less govt and less govt regulation and is constantly gutting any funding for regulations. You got a problem with that; you must be part of the 28% W apologists.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Since it's always fun to listen to John McCain argue with John McCain, let's revisit McCain's two reactions to the Wall Street meltdown yesterday.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5qKN


First there was this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSBs0tBVrHk
.


And then, a couple of hours later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IduEBQH5WLw
.


Besides probably being the fastest flip-flop in political history, these two conflicting statements also provide some insight for undecided voters...they learned that that famous "straight talk" isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that John McCain is right...he really doesn't know too much about economics.

Posted by: AsperChick | September 16, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

What, is Shultz been drinking again?

In just the last 6 hours:

1. McCain said he would create the dreaded "commission" to study the markets;
2. Phillpedes Holtz-Eaktmnad said McCain invented the Blackberry;
3. Carly "Cash" Fiorina said on St. Louis radio that Governor Zero wasn't qualified to run HP...and that is not what she is running for.

AND IT IS ONLY 2:30 PM EDT!

And the Associated Press is reporting that Governor Zero is nowhere to be found.

Posted by: Losercuda | September 16, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain could kill himself so that Palin would be the candidate. With her in charge, the US would go bankrupt (that is close to be). From France.

Posted by: sdfghj | September 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

You left out the obvious! Get some bright red lipstick for those Wall Street PIGS!

Posted by: Chaotician | September 16, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels: does it bother you to be reminded that Bill Clinton ha been out of oficefr 7 1/2 years. oes it bother yo to try an understand that the economy was booming in te 1990s no thanks to your party, Phil Graham, and Dick Amy wo gave daily tirades just like you bout he Clnton economy. Small litle fact you leave out. When the middle class was growing in the 1990 and heir income rsing they dddn't hvave problems aying their mtgs. he overty rate was at a historic low and it is now those foks who hmes under W were the first to be foreclosed. Raiing against ubprielans is racists; itsthe NO DOC and fraudulent loan pactices ha Ds hav been trying to stop and Rs insist on more deregulation, less oversite and less enforcment. You want to check on Consumer Protections, look and see which party insists there be less govt and less govt regulation and is constantly gutting any regulation. You got a problem with that; you must be part of the 28% W apologists.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Democrats participated in deregulation with whom? REPUBLICANS! Having control of all 3 branches of Government meant anything Conservatives considered bad for the country could be voted down. Nothing could pass without approval of Conservatives. Now everyone is to blame especially Liberals for Ya'll being in control. Somebody is being shafted. We won't call you what you really are. To believe this nonsense mantra from Republican leadership in the face of this MESS! So the Hotty and one of the longest serving members of congress is gonna bring change? McCain should change back to an Independant and stop running as a Republican and I would consider voting for him on principle. He didn't even attend the Independant Convention last week! White Men are so Gullible!

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

>>They don't necessarily constitute the poor, though some might be considered the working poor.<<
So if 40% of the counrty isn't poor, why don't they pay any income taxes?
I'm confused here, you started out claiming these people paid no taxes, then when I pointed out you're saying 40% of the country is so poor they don't pay taxes, you back tracked to claiming these weren't really poor people some of them might be working poor. To which I must ask, what are the rest of them, Republican campaign contributors?
I don't expect you to answer, it's obvious you've painted yourself into a corner with this ill advised argument. Thanks for the 40% number, I'll use it liberally (get it?)

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The differences in this campaign are as clear as black and white. Both Obama and Biden represent states that have a large black population. McCain and Palin both represent states where a black face is extremely rare. Visit Arizona (last state of endorse the Dr. King Holiday), or Alaska and see what I mean.

Posted by: A.Lincoln | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The differences in this campaign are as clear as black and white. Both Obama and Biden represent states that have a large black population. McCain and Palin both represent states where a black face is extremely rare. Visit Arizona (last state of endorse the Dr. King Holiday), or Alaska and see what I mean.

Posted by: A.Lincoln | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The differences in this campaign are as clear as black and white. Both Obama and Biden represent states that have a large black population. McCain and Palin both represent states where a black face is extremely rare. Visit Arizona (last state of endorse the Dr. King Holiday), or Alaska and see what I mean.

Posted by: A.Lincoln | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: pleasee ignore that side of my mouth | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Wake up mibrooks27,

I thought you lefties were at least good at civics. You accuse Gov. Palin of serious wrong-doing and expect her (or me) to disprove it? In the United States we are innocent until proven guilty. So, get to work and prove she is a criminal. Oh, and I'm pretty sure putting it in all caps is not considered proof.


Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels - You havn't point out anything. What you have done is toss off a bunch of cheap insults and invented a bunch of accusations that have no factual basis. I am going to call you on this - either put up or shut up. If you cannot provide some basis in reality for your remarks, we are going to assume that you are a delussional nut case writing from some boiler room or a cheap apartment filled to overflow with empty beer cans (likely all of your "investments" and your retirement savings to boot).

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I just want to know...
How can we expect or trust that the Republicans who completely messed things up in every section of what is supposed to make America work to do so? As McCain went along with all of this during all of his years spent in government.

19th Century ideas and reverse motion towards 18th century? At this rate we'll get to a point where they prove to themselves that evolution happened..

They Already sound like a bunch of cavemen at an LSU tailgating party...
Ugg... "Drill baby Drill"... We need to "Bang-Smash" and throw crap at each other to get what we want...

Oh Yeah!!! Don't forget..."Guns, Religious fear, war and promoting that as Christian values. All at the low cost price of $10 billion a month... Bargain huh?

It's not about their future... Its about their children's future... It seems that they aren't thinking about their own much less their neighbor...

Posted by: duckdrum | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Wake up mibrooks27,

I thought you lefties were at least good at civics. You accuse Gov. Palin of serious wrong-doing and expect her (or me) to disprove it? In the United States we are innocent until proven guilty. So, get to work and prove she is a criminal. Oh, and I'm pretty sure putting it in all caps is not considered proof.


Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels - You havn't point out anything. What you have done is toss off a bunch of cheap insults and invented a bunch of accusations that have no factual basis. I am going to call you on this - either put up or shut up. If you cannot provide some basis in reality for your remarks, we are going to assume that you are a delussional nut case writing from some boiler room or a cheap apartment filled to overflow with empty beer cans (likely all of your "investments" and your retirement savings to boot).

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

It would have been far more enlightening to have heard the opinions of handful of non-partisan economists, preferably academics at the highest level, than to learn what the gamesmen think. This is part of what degrades our civic discourse: we are handicapping a race instead of evaluating ideas. Sad.

Posted by: Rewriter | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

What else is White Working Class, White Woman Vote, Good Americans, Shared Values, Middle America, but Racist! White Racism to be exact. White Men are turning out to be WHIMPS! You're letting Old Men and Women decide and ruin the Country! You stay at home dads need to get some spine and step up and save your country. This is nonsense! 6 years of total Republican rule, The White House, The Congress, and the Supreme Court and this is where we are! And ya'll want more? McCain can check the lobbyist by firing the ones running his campaign. If he is a Maverick and an Independant why is running as a Republican?

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

CC - your blog has been usurped by a bunch of screaming irrational adolsecents.

Pity really.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Yet another drooling leftist writes:

"Following a few of your postings this is obvious, you are an idealogue that thinks because someone who breaks the law is Republican that makes it ok"

I never once said or implied that any person belonging to any party was ok to break any law. You leftist liars really need to get a grip on reality.

I do find it interesting that many personal attacks are being directed at me purely because I am pointing out the truth about DEMOCRATS participation in deregulation.

I love it when you Obami are left stuttering like fools when faced with the facts.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Wake up JennyinOhio,

Your post is just ridiculous. I'm sure your lefty counterparts cringe when they see it. Do everyone a favor and start up your own blog and invite paranoid extremists from both sides to have fun exchanging simpleton babble.

Meanwhile, I've got some other serious socialists to wake up.

Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

So there is my ten cents. Oh, and another thing.

Here's the central issue of the campaign: Media inattention to the real issues. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age). You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.

While reading that, and getting fired up, McCain and Bush were shaking in their boots about this election. They've been called on the carpet as the pigs they are. They'll be out in the cold come November.

Pigs in a blanket.

Game over Repugnantcans. You're time here is done. Thanks for the memories, but it is time to step aside and let us adults take over and fix what you broke.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

All good ideas, Chris, but I think I'd add another.

Obama should attempt to link the current Wall Street crisis to the McCain/Bush proposal to privatize social security. The idea of investing the entitlement of senior citizens in a volatile stock market would not play well in Florida.

One ad, one state.

Posted by: John in Mpls | September 16, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Yet another idiot leftist drools:

"KMCHAELES:

One more time. BILL CLINTON HAS BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR 7 1/2 YEARS."

Ahem, the issue is who passed the deregulation bill that you morons are complaining about. Does it bother you that I actually set the record straight in pointing out that Bill Clinton was the one that signed the bill into law?

Does it bother you that I point out that republicans wanted to tighten the lending practices (the real cause of our current sub-prime problems) and that it was democrats, primarily Bill Clinton, that insisted that tighter lending practices would be bad for minorities (dead wrong of course). Losing their homes is obviously worse.

Does it bother you that I point out that DEMOCRATS Bill Clinton, Hillary, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Hussein Obama were all in favor of more sub-prime loans being given (especially to minorities)?

Well, I dont give a darn if the truth does bother you. And I will continue to do so, even if you do scream and shout like wounded schoolgirls.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER

"GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"

• State-funded vigilante squads "target" American citizens

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist

What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?


Posted by: scrivener | September 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

A rising tide lifts all ships... but the invisible hand of the market swamps an ungodly number of them in the process. Unfettered laissez-faire economic theory is one of the foundations of our modern global market, but we have never been willing to go with it 100% because it destroys lives. Laissez-faire creates money, and there is no question about that. But simple people in small towns go to the voting booth to stabilize their way of life. An economy based on most of the principals of laissez-faire with regulation thrown in to mitigate instability is what allows business and citizen to cohabitate in an open society like ours. This combination allows both innovation and protection. Going hardcore protectionist just stifles innovation (look at healthcare in social welfare countries), while lurching the other way in favor of hyperinnovation simply leads to social instability in favor of corporate profit (look at China).

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

This is why I will never be a democrat. EVER.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:43 PM

-----------------------------------------------

Following a few of your postings this is obvious, you are an idealogue that thinks because someone who breaks the law is Republican that makes it ok, in your view only Democrats who break the law are criminals. A criminal is a criminal regardless of who's team they're on.
I am not going to bank on McCain's economic strategy to bail us out of the current problem because, as many people have pointed out, it was Phil Gramm who introduced and got passed the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. There are few people who would dispute that this bill is directly linked to the current financial crisis. It was in fact this bill that allowed the current crisis to occur.

McCain's chief advisor was Phil Gramm until he called us whiners.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous, "Wake Up" - No, no, no, it doesn't quite work that way. When you post utter drivel, invented nonsense, you don't invite me/us to disprove your bald lies, you either provide some provable facts to substantiate your claims or you humbly apologize and go away. Of course you wont. You are subhuman cockraoches that infest sites like this, but that is pretty much what we have come to accept as the norm for you Insane McCain dimwits.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

1) Obama should call Pres. Bill Clinton and ask him to go on the campaign trail with him. Clinton is excellent on this subject. He can talk about what we did during his administration to have economic growth and prosperity. He can discuss how the democratic party led by Obama can now counter the corrosive effect of financial lobbyists and their water boy, Phil Gramm. He can lay much of the current disaster on Sen. Gramm (who is now McCain's chief economic adviser and a financial lobbyist)did an endrun along with the republicans as they waylaid Clinton's second term, bringing financial deregulation that created the conditions for the current sub prime mortgage and derivatives market fiasco.

2) Next, Obama should hold town halls in the 10 swing states on economic issues,with himself and his prospective economic team. Include in these Town Halls both questions and a discussion round table with Joe Biden, Bob Rubin, Tom Friedman, and Fed Reserve Bank president Janet L. Yellen to discuss how to reach an equilibrium of income and economic justice, as well as the disastrous impact that McCain's health care reform would bring. President Yellen addressed the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on November 6, 2006 in a most compelling fashion. The point here is that the Calvin Coolidge/Herbert Hoover/George Bush deregulated economy cannot work to benefit America going forward. We have a chance here to do something really far reaching on the economy, to seek the economic improvement of the people as a whole by redistributing wealth through investments in things that will grow the economy - like education, infrustracture, economic re-tooling and peace.

Posted by: Christine Clark Bork | September 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

">>well more than 40% of Americans no longer pay ANY taxes<<'

Income taxes maybe but to say ANY taxes is ridiculous. Of those 40% most all pay payroll and local sales taxes and other local taxes. They don't necessarily constitute the poor, though some might be considered the working poor.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how McCain managed to invent Wi-Fi, since he doesn't even know how to operate a simple personal computer

Posted by: bodo | September 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Of these two proposed lists, McCain's is better --- which tells me, if the Republicans can pull themselves together and get their best economic advisors in place, they could win this argument. And naming a Secretary of the Treasury is the best place to start.

Posted by: Christina | September 16, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Yet another Obami writes:

"Phil Gramm who passed the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in Congress that opened the floodgates for the mortgage crisis."

Correction, the bill was passed by Bill Clinton signing it into law and choosing not to veto it.

The bill had broad bipartisan support (yes, idiots, that means DEMOCRATS supported it too)

The good part of the bill was that it allowed more free competition of US banks with foreign banks. It allowed Citigroup to diversify and helped them become one of the most economically sound companies in America.

What lead to our current problems is lax lending rules. Commonly referred to as sub-prime loans. Not only was Obama recently in favor of sub-prime loans to supposedly "help" minorities but Bill Clinton insisted that the republicans not enter their desired section in the bill of tightening the lending policies of banks.

Clinton insisted that if republicans were allowed to tighten the lending policies then mostly minorities would be hurt in not allowing them to take out more of what we now know as risky mortgage loans.

Hillary, Obama, Bill, Kerry, Frank, Kennedy, Dodd, all DEMOCRATS all in favor of sub-prime loans when it suited their need to pander to minorities in order to buy their votes.

Now that the crap has hit the fan, so to speak, these morons want to blame republicans.

This is your typical misunformation that dems love to spread around in order to cover their tracks and misdeeds.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
.


Will this be the 3rd rigged Republican election in a row, to get the Zionists favorite war monger team into office again?


Bush and Cheney have done a great job for the Zionist NWO agenda, now McCain and Palin can finish it off for them by starting WW3.

Posted by: JennyinOhio | September 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

KMCHAELES:

One more time. BILL CLINTON HAS BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR 7 1/2 YEARS.

Don't quite understand why that seems so hard for yu to understand. Apparently you feel that it it was his responsibility to correct that legislaton between 2001 and 2008, can't quite understand how that was to occur. I presume that you understand that economic problems change day to day much less over a 7 1/2 year period. What economic realities existed in 1999 are nothing like they are in 2008. You can play your game of historical revisionism, but no one much cares. If there is any problem during the W Administration the naturual response from Rs is to blame Bill. Classy. Since W is unfortunately in charge until next January ALL of these problems should be layed at his feet and his feable legacy. He was the only one who had any power to correct the problem once determined, not a POTUS out of office for 7 1/2 years.

Posted by: Leichtmn | September 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

We already know that McCain doesn’t know much and “is weak on” the economy, as he has admitted as much and as recently as this morning was crowing about the fundamentals of the current economy. Likewise, he has no record of market reform, having done NOTHING over the three decades he has been in the Senate. Additionally, his only real notable achievement in this area is getting wrapped up in the Keating Five.

So we can’t really count on McCain. How about his advisors? His main advisor, Phil Gramm, is in large part the architect of the rules that helped to lead to this meltdown, and on several occasions has called us a nation of whiners. Another McCain advisor, Donald Luskin, recently wrote in the Washington Post that there really is nothing for us to worry about. This was hours before Lehman went belly-up, AIG started begging for help, and the 500 point drop in the market today.

But have no fear- there is someone on the McCain team who does know how to help. In fact, Luskin pointed to her just a few weeks ago, telling us she could be the savior of the market.

That is right. Sarah Palin is going to put that journalism degree to work (a six year five school odyssey), and she is going to treat this economy like an out of control moose:

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said the nation’s financial system “needs some shakin’ up and some fixin’” at a rally here today. In comments that prefaced her stump speech, Palin offered blame but no specifics on how the campaign would handle the crisis on a morning during which the impending bankruptcy of Lehman Bros. sent markets tumbling.
“The system is outdated and needs a complete overhaul,” the Alaska governor said, echoing presidential nominee John McCain’s statement earlier today. “We’re going to put an end to the mismanagement and abuses on Wall Street,” adding that she and McCain would end “golden parachutes” for the chief executives of financial houses, which have “not run these institutions responsibly.”

Posted by: LOL | September 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

>>well more than 40% of Americans no longer pay ANY taxes<<
Wow, so your telling me that, under the Republicans forty percent of the country has become so poor they pay no taxes at all?
Doesn't that suggest we need to change course dramatically?
You've convinced me.
Obama/Biden 08

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27, yet another Obami, in response to me posting actual provable facts, insists that I must be lying since it bursts his delusional bubbles about reality. How does he respond? With emotional outbursts of me lying and or inventing facts.

mibrooks27, instead of being an emotional blowhard, you are free to show details about the facts that I posted and how you conclude that they are wrong.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain has spoken clearly about his economic policy. It is Phil Gramm, until recently McCain's head economic advisor. Phil Gramm stepped down after calling Americans whiners. Phil Gramm who passed the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in Congress that opened the floodgates for the mortgage crisis. Phil Gramm who got a job at the bank UBS two years after the bill passed, see who lobbied for the passage of this bill. Phil Gramm who's name is all over the 12,000 jobs that were lost at Lehman. Phil Gramm who's name is all over the foreclosures. Phil Gramm + deregulation + special interests = McCain's economic policy

Posted by: oline | September 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Wake up mibrooks27,

If by "investigation" you mean "smear campaign", you're right. However, I see no record of criminal conviction, censure, or reprimand.

Furthermore, both McCain and Palin have a record of going after fellow Republicans as I am sure you are aware. Take off your Obama Goggles and face facts. That may be an "inconvenient truth" for you.

The American people weren't fooled by Gore, or Kerry. They won't be fooled by Obama.

I will forgive your personal attacks.

Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

'What are the real issues?' asks
"When is the market really going to crash?!

Neither party is going to be able to stop and both contributed. How much of the money spent on campaigning could have built a whole state of schools.

Brett Farve, Aaron Rodgers....discuss."


Aaron Rodgers is the future, Brett Favre is the past. Favre may yet have a season in him - but his career is clearly on the wane, not on the rise. That makes Rodgers the better pick to take us forward. Its a no-brainer.

Now substitute Obama & McCain appropriately in the above paragraph.

Posted by: bsimon | September 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

McCain truthfully spoke the following, and has Obami up in arms thinking that he is claiming something that he did not claim.

"I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park." - McCain

All of these claims are provable fact.

If idiot Obami could read, they would note that McCain is talking about technology POLICY. He is not talking about developing technology. McCain is talking about governmental policy regarding technology that allows technology to legally open up into new areas.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels - There you go again, inventing "facts". You're just blowing hot air, quoting nonsense you see on Fox/Fixed News. The deregulation banwagon began under your hero, Reagan. Bush 1 expanded upon it and Clinton didn't end it - as he should have. Under Bush II, deregulation has expanded at an insane rate. This Whitehouse has outsourced every facit of government, even critical military services, without any oversight whatsoever. Bush-McCain and the GOP, *every* Republican Senator and Congressman, is to blame for this mess. That entire rats nest needs to be cleaned out and this election is THE time to do it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Pay little attention to Obama's "Tax Plan Of The Day" speeches, just standby and their will be another version tomorrow. You immediately know Obama is lying when he says that he will give 95% of Americans a tax cut because well more than 40% of Americans no longer pay ANY taxes. However, in the Philadelphia debate, Obama regurgitated his familiar mantra that he would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Obama says "favor only the rich". That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich" in spite of the fact that under Bush, the top 50% of taxpayers now pay an astounding 97.1% of all taxes. Obama has said on several occasions that he intends to re-instate the Clinton tax rates. However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite from Obama's sermons. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For examples on the lower end of the scale, a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Obamaspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. In brief, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts would lead to a $2.4 trillion tax increase over the next decade. An economic catastrophe in the making. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Obama's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of his forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. Further, Obama and the Democrat's obstinate obstruction of our Nation's ability to develop our indigenous energy resources; and, related infra-structure, to include the alternatives of nuclear, hydro and the liquefaction of coal, has dramatically retarded our economic growth; and, imposed a huge tax on the American consumer in the form of 4$/gallon gasoline an 5$/gallon diesel. What else would you expect from an individual who was reared under Marxist dictum! Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | September 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

hmmmmmer, your typical Obami (Obami = Obama lover) managed to play both the race card and the fear tactic in one short message.

This is how the Obami operate and think. They use factless emotional drivel and play things like the race card and the fear card in order to steal votes.

This is why I will never be a democrat. EVER.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Now that John McCain has at last turned in his answers to Science Debate 2008 (after peeking at Barack Obama's answers for a couple of weeks) there are some interesting tidbits hidden among his rambling responses.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42
.


Take this reply to a question about maintaining America's lead in innovation.


"I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with during each mission" - McCain


Let's stop there for a second. Here John McCain insists he's uniquely qualified to discuss technology because... he used some. Forty years ago. This is the same kind of high standard by which he assured us that Sarah Palin knew more about energy than anyone else in America, and Phil Gramm was one of the smartest people in the world on the economy. At least he didn't claim any MacGyverite tech affinities developed in Hanoi.


Okay, let's continue.


"I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park." - McCain


And, stop. There you have it, people. John McCain not only invented cell phones, he tossed in wifi as an afterthought.


Let's go back and see how McCain's hand guided that development.


With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Senate passed the first major revision to telecommunications law in 62 years which provided the foundation for much of the cell phone and Internet regulation over the next decade. The bill passed 81-18 and was signed into law by President Clinton. McCain voted AGAINST the act.


In 2002, McCain authored the "Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act of 2002" which eliminated the requirement of the 1996 law that telecommunication companies provide access to competitors. It didn't pass.


In 2003, the Internet Tax Freedom Act was passed, putting in place a moratorium on taxes for activities on the Intenet. The bill had 11 cosponsors – McCain wasn't one of them. He did vote for the bill, but since it passed 97-3, that's definitely "guiding" with a small 'g.' Granted, this wasn't directly a bill about wireless, but since McCain doesn't seem to have authored any law on wireless technology, I'm having to search for connections.


Of pending legistlation, McCain is NOT a sponsor of the "Connect the Nation Act" – though Senator Obama IS. McCain is NOT a sponsor of Senator Rockefeller's call for a universal next generation broadband by 2015 – though Senator Obama IS. And of course, McCain ISN'T a sponsor of the "Internet Freedom Act" that would ensure net neutrality – though Senator Obama IS. That last is no surprise. McCain has repeatedly OPPOSED net neutrality, saying that companies have a right to restrict speed or even limit access to sites "when you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment."


So, McCain's "guiding hand" seems to consist of opposing the legislation that laid the groundwork for the communications we have today, and authoring failed legislation designed to benefit big carriers. Of course, we should probably be glad that John McCain really didn't invent the cell phone or wifi, otherwise we'd all be getting our wireless services from one monolithic company free to restrict our access to only the pages that pay for the privilege. And we'd all be using "Jitterbugs."


...and, not only did John McCain invent the cell phone and wifi, he was the first to tie them together in his other invention the Blackberry.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/HoltzEakin_McCain_helped_create_BlackBerry.html?showall
.


"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."
So now we know what McCain has been doing while missing all those votes in the Senate. He's been moonlighting as a Canadian MP -- RIM, the company that makes the Blackberry, is headquartered outside Toronto....CANADA!!!

Posted by: McCain/Palin - Dumber Than A Bag Of Rocks! | September 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"a stable of respected economic voices -- from former CEOs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina..."

Carly Fiorina -- a failed, fired high-tech CEO, yeah, that's a respected economic voice all right.

Posted by: RealCalGal | September 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Carly Florina, is telling everyone that Palin couldn't run a major corporation, but is qualified to run this government. What in God's name has made the polls so close, is America that blind? Is it only that Obama is black?

The Republicans don't deserve another try at destroying our economy. Look at who McCain surrounds himself with, it is the same old crap that fueled Bush.

Who in their right mind can really say with a straight face that McCain is really the solution to the problems facing America in the future. What a joke!

Posted by: hmmmmmer | September 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, I am more confident every day that Obama's chances for getting elected are improving by the hour. First, the Wall Street "free market theory" that is wiping out the country's 401ks - if you have one that follows the S&P 500 index let me give you a little newsflash, You haven't made a penny within the last 10 years!!! Just yesterday the looses wiped out the 10 year return of a measly 5.65% reflected a day earlier on the S&P 500 index. This means that for the last 10 years sticking the money inside the mattress would have been a better investment choice for millions of Americans. Especially, if you were planning to retire within the next 5 years. Yikes!! Now, each day that the market's boondoggle and administration scandals pop out, the Sarah Effect will languish and vanish into thin Alaskan air and once again the "wallet pains effect" will get the American voter a little itch for real change. The Republicans know this very well. They know it so much that coinciding with yesterday's big 504 points Dow Jones huge loss Republican campaign manager, Rick Davis, sent millions of e-mails urging the Republican base to vote early through absentee ballots. They are getting desperate and are turning to desperate measures to grasp the early vote so that these gullible voters don't have the chance to change their minds later on. Democrats will have a big win!! The writing is on the wall for the Republican ticket. It is awful that the way to get to that realization is through a big economic shakedown. Hopefully, the voters will wise up and stop drinking the Sarah Barracuda Kool aid. Thank goodness!!!

Posted by: Rwilks3328 | September 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Not Buying It wrote: (in response to bipartisan support for deregulation in the banking industry going on for 30 years)

"Not exactly true. Better said...

30 years ago there was a bipartisan consensus on deregulation."

Actually, Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary, Kerry, and most top democrats were all in favor of sub-prime loans being allowed because (in their words) it allowed more minorities to buy homes.

Of course, the reality of it is that it opened up more loans to bank failure because of their risky nature.

Bill Clinton in 1999 (hardly 30 years ago) signed the deregulation bill into law. He threatened to veto the bill only if republicans included a section that would TIGHTEN the lending practices, which is what they wanted to do.

Edward Kennedy was also a prime supporter of deregulation.

George Bush (the dreaded monster to democrats) was saying that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should tighten up their policies.

Barney Frank (DEMOCRAT) and Chris Dodd (DEMOCRAT) both ran to the rescue of Fannie and Freddy, in order to satisfy the minority vote, and claimed that they were economically sound.

It seems that Democrats have things arse backwards once again. They are trying like hell to squelch the truth of our current problems with sub-prime loans. They screamed and shouted that sub-prime loans should be allowed now are upset that sub-prime loans have led to their predicted failures.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

When is the market really going to crash?!

Neither party is going to be able to stop and both contributed. How much of the money spent on campaigning could have built a whole state of schools.

Brett Farve, Aaron Rodgers....discuss.
Joe Namath, Joe Montana, Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, Y.A. Title, Johnny Unitas, Morgan Freeman, Jim Carey, Alonzo Mourning, Peter Caravette, Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player & Kevin Bacon.

Posted by: What are the real issues? | September 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Typical of journalists, especially journalists who get a lot of national exposure on TV, these ideas are basically symbolic and, while looking good for TV, offer nothing of substance. So far, both candidates have had very little to say about the financial crisis and home loan failures. There have not been any ideas on exactly how they plan to deal with this mess when they take office in January.

Here I place the blame on the media who just love superficiality over substance. This is why we discuss lipstick while the Titanic is sinking. Come on Chris, you can do better.

Posted by: RedRat | September 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton, Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc, were all in favor of subprime mortgages being given. Their reaasoning was that it would allow more minorites to afford house loans. The reality of our current economic problem (not quite as big as is being sold to the public) is that of sub-prime loans.

Bill Clinton, when signing a bill sponsored by republicans (but supported by many democrats) to allow banks to diversify and compete against foreign banks) insisted that he would only veto the bill if it had a section that would tighten the lending practices of banks.

Yep folks, you heard right, the sub-prime lax lending policies were brought to you by DEMOCRATS. The source of the problem is democrats forcing lax lending rules upon us that would allow more loan failures. This was predicted by real economists years ago.

It was also predicted by that evil George Bush that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were going to get into financial problems if they did not change their practices.

Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd ran to the rescue of these banks saying they were economical sound.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Razorback wrote:
Some of you liberals are so ignorant that you do not realize there has been a 30 year bipartisan consensus on deregulation.
---------------------------
Not exactly true. Better said...

30 years ago there was a bipartisan consensus on deregulation.

Posted by: Not buying it | September 16, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Mary B says:

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).
------------------------------------------
Heyy, I'm Palin's age and I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed. Of course, that applies to a lot of gorgeous, young, right-wing airheads. ;-)

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 16, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"Your Wake Up Call" - Wake up? If you mean by that buying into your lies and character assasination, no thank you. Liberals recognize that there are liberal crooks and advocate punishing them. Conservatives, however, do not. Palin is a case in point. The legislature in Alaska is investigating a whole series of wrong doings by her, her busband, and her friends. She hired junior high school frieds, with absolutely no experience, to high paying and critical state positions. She misused her office to punish people who she didn't like. She and her freinds accepted bribes and kickbacks. She is a CROOK. And that isn't heresay, it is part of a current criminal investigation! Your posts, on the other hand, have no basis whatsoever in reality. They are inventions, creations out of thin air, with basis whatsoever in reality. I suspect you are one of McCain's goons in some boiler room, but you appear to be too dumb to even land that as a job.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Guys, while I'm grateful we have moved past the initial arguments that this is nothing more than black people borrowing money that they couldn't pay back (variations of the minortiy loan program excuse), you still don't seem to graps a simple fact.
Deregulation is part of the Republican platform, not the Dem platform. Dems may have voted for or signed Repubican initiatives for reasons ranging from they made sense at the time to they were going to over ride a Dem presidents veto, but in the end, deregulation is an article of Republican faith based economics. You wont regulate, you can't. To regulate is to admit that without the controling hand of the government the captains of industry run amok and since your guys are all about serving the captains of industry, I don't think they are going to let you back out of your holy vows now.
No taxes and no regulatation, the Republican idea of heaven. 8 years down the path to the promised land, are you starting to notice it's just you guys who still think it's a good idea?

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

John McCain has enthusiastically called for more, more, more...deregulation over his 26 years as Senator. And this crisis is what happens when deregulation takes place combined with a Republican "hands off" approach to the corporate world. Anyone remember the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which deregulated the banking industry and eased restrictions on predatory lending practices? McCain enthusastically supported this bill, his (former) chief economic advisor Phil Gramm was one of it's co-sponsors. Gramm is still an active member of the McCain team.
Still McCain with a straight face says he's the reformer! Hopefully the American Public will wise up and see this for what it is...a scam.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"On another note there were political solutions put forward in the article—there is complaining about no one offering a solution to the crisis—there weren't any fiscal solutions put forth here either, just more political manuvering—so put out or shut up!"

There also are no solutions as to what the Nationals should do about their pitching woes. Gonna cry about that too?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

GOD, HOW DID THIS COUNTRY GET MCCAIN/PALIN AND OBAMA/BIDEN AS ITS CANDIDATES? PLEASE, WE NEED HILLARY, SO WE CAN HAVE BILL CLINTON THERE LEADING THIS COUNTRY IN THIS TIME OF INTENSE UNCERTAINTY -BILL CLINTON, THE ONLY PRESIDENT TO LEAVE THIS COUNTRY WITH A BILLION PLUS SURPLUS IN THE ECONOMY-NOW, WITH BUSH TRILLIONS IN DEBT!

AND IRAN THREATENING-WE NEED HILLARY AND BILL-BRING BACK HILLARY AND BILL!

Posted by: I can't take it any longer | September 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Yo yakmon you idiot, airlines was FIRST. Then is was many other industries.

Deregulation is pro-consumer and keeps prices down. Even Senator Kennedy knows that deregulation creates jobs.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

America has been put "on credit." This is an immense problem. TRUE CHANGE will be stopping this out of control spending by those who think they are "entitled". Furthermore, more bureaucracies are not the answer. For one example, all Americans do need healthcare, but having to go through red tape for it will be a nightmare and will not be efficient. As Mike Huckabee said, our country does not have a healthcare problem (we have the best healthcare in the world) but rather, we have a HEALTH problem. Obesity, smoking, substance abuse, diabetes from poor diet, diet induced heart disease, etc, etc. etc. need to be addressed. This is where a "community organizer" so-to-speak could be of better service to help people actually be healthier rather than a big fat daddy government who will further deplete our economy by providing free gastric bypass surgeries and diabetic amputation surgeries that could have been PREVENTED, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps they will even provide lots of free sex change operations.
As far as some recent democratic references to Jesus being a community organizer, Jesus also told us to pay taxes. It is a reality. Nobody likes it and I am a struggling upper lower class person financially (my husband is in a highly educated, underpaid helping profession) As far as the environment goes, I have been an environmentalist since 1979 (when I was in the 3rd grade). Unfortuantely real life has gotten in the way of my Utopian plans to live off the grid and all, but is that John McCain's fault? That's what the Dems are saying. I think there is too much hyprocrisy now---esp. with wealthy Democrats and Hollywood. Yes, there are now more celebs --not quite like Ed Bagley Jr. but it is quite fashionable to be green now. My point is how many people pointing fingers at the Republicans (and yes, Bush is an oil man and at fault---I warned people not to vote for him--and his father!!!!) but Obama has the money, Oprah certainly has the money---tell me is their home and cars and lifestyle completely green and sustainable??? Perhaps he ought to practice what he is preaching before shoving it on us. The real issue is that Obama clearly stated that all Americans are going to have to make the commitment to use 30% less energy and fuel ---something like we are going to have to make sacrifices and all go out and get hybrids or hydrogen cars. As much as I'd like to, I can't afford it right now. Does that mean that in an Obama presidency that I am going to have to buy carbon credits (and that money will go to Al Gore's company)???? Perhaps if Obama wins, Oprah Winfrey should give each American a hydrogen car. Yeah, that's sounds appropriate.
Obama is getting the Iowa vote because he is entrenched in the CORN LOBBY---it's all so crooked. If all you oil haters think that's bad, just wait til you are slapped by the greedy Corn biofuel system. As for me, I am one of the growing population that has become allergic to corn because it is in absolutely everthing we eat--seriously. The FDA won't recognize it as the major food allergen it is because of the ultimately powerful corn lobby. Oh, and biotech corn, etc is harldy "green" --what a crock. Because corn is the most SUBSIDIZED crop (we are talking very large money folks) other crops like sugar cane cannot COMPETE with it---but we Americans STILL END UP PAYING FOR IT, both with our health and our wallets. There will be more people who are allergic to it, that is what happens when we ingest too much of something. I think it is playing a big role in the Autism problem. Plus, it is unprecedented to consume all this "FRANKENFOOD" But anyways, I have to buy all kinds of special, organic food. It is very, very, very expensive. But by supporting organic companies, many of whom use solar power and all, I believe that I am contributing to a greener world. But to Obama, he is going to try to put me into a red taped box and that is not right either folks. Green Fascism. Great.

Oh and as far as McCain being a war-monger. Yeah, when I was a kid I went around donning my peace-symbol earrings and vegetarian diet and all, but I have come to realize what true evil is. It is not killing an animial for sustenance (I do buy humane organic grass-fed meats) nor is it going to battle with evil. What is evil??? It really astonishes me that someone like that "Politically Incorrect" host could actually be given the airtime on national tv and rant that he is an athiest because if there was a God then why does he allow evil? Evil exists because we have free will. We are not God's puppets or pets. All you America haters, haters of freedom and all ought to be sent to Iran or communist China just like the spoiled naive brats on MTV's exiled. Hippies generally love the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy but can't put that great story into current relevance!!! Many of you mock McCain's being a prisioner of war or just give it some empty lip service. You just don't get it.

Posted by: shell | September 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman writes:

"No one could quite understand why when the Republicans ran the Senate why they were so anxious to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Now we see what a disastrous decision that was and I certainly don't recall McCain standing up in the US Senate and insisting that it not be repealed."

The act had bipartisan support and was designed to allow banks the same American rights to diversify into other fields of business. Some of the primary companies that did diversify, such as Citigroup, are some of the most financially solid companies today.

The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999. Republicans wanted to have a section that dis-allowed lax spending policies of banks but Bill Clinton insisted that that move would make it harder for banks to lend money to minorities (meaning the loans that would normally be too hard for a minority to pay for would become possible because of Bill Clinton. Also probable is a high failure rate of this type of a loan).

Bill Clinton said he would veto the bill if the minorities had a harder time receiving a loan (see above).

Even though some are blaming the Gramm-Leach act as being the cause of the problem, informed economists are pointing at the cause being bank lending practices, which has little to nothing to do with banks consolidating their resources and being allowed to diversify their investments.

Another reason that banks were allowed to diversify is that foreign banks were getting a financial edge over them. Foreign banks were not forced to stick to a hardwired industry. So, to foster better competition between our banks with foreign banks this restriction was removed.

Again, Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. Bill Clinton had the right to veto the bill but did not. DEMOCRAT Clintons only concern was to allow lax lending laws to help more people (primarily minorities) get into loans that they could not, in reality, afford to get into.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Austin Goolsbee held a meeting with Canadian officials where he told them Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA was simply "political posturing." Goolsbee himself is a rock-ribbed free trader. Goolsbee is an economist at the University of Chicago, and calls himself a "centrist market economist." He was the key architect of Obama's subprime agenda. In a column in the New York Times, Goolsbee questioned whether "subprime lending was the leading cause of foreclosure problems." He touted its benefits for credit-poor minority borrowers and argued that "regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much." In October, no less a conservative icon than George Will devoted a whole column that paid homage to Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality. Will concluded that he "seems to be the sort of fellow--amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be."

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=Barack-Obama-s-Rogues-Gall-by-Sean-Fenley-080904-302.html

You liberals go on and vote for Obama, but don't forget that when the decisions are actually made, he will be listening to people who AGREE WITH MEEEEEEEE. Hahahaha.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

There's enough blame to go around on both sides, but arguing about who is the most responsible is futile. This is a ridiculous article. It doesn't offer anything useful, just some strategists giving their opinion on how each party can manipulate the masses. The problem doesn't lie with the politicians, it lies with the people. As long as the citizens choose to be disinterested in the daily decision-making on new laws and policies that our government enacts, and chooses to not be involved, the politicians (regardless of party), will continue in a business as usual manner.
Anyone can lay blame, but very few can take responsibility.

Posted by: George | September 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Yo! Brain dead Razorback:
Your link about deregulation and insinuation is about AIRLINE deregulation. Please read the article you are referring to before basing a mindless statement that is irrelevant to the situation at hand. The airlines are hardly the financial market.

Posted by: yakmon | September 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama was right when he told the nation that we should not invade Iraq.

Obama was right when he told the nation that we should not repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

Obama was right when he told McCain that he should not, under and circumstances, ask Cindy Lou Hensley out on a date, but should stick with his marriage.

Obama was right when he said that email was great, and that knowledge of computers would be a fundamental requirement for any major presidential candidate in the 21st century.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Can we get WaPo to block Mary B?

Let's have intelligent discourse about issues and different plans to resolve the economic woes.

Please cut the noise, or step up and speak intelligently.

Posted by: Bloggerbot | September 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"McCain should praise regional banks."

Would these be not terribly known savings and loan institutions like those run by a possibly former friend of Mr. McCain....Charles Keating.

Yes, please have McCain tell us how regional banks are the answer to the world's problems and that the government needs to stay out of the business of the private sector.

Directions.
1. Remove head from sand.
2. Research a topic, determine what your neighbor is worried about, etc.
3. Then speak.

Posted by: Marc Feldstein | September 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Austan Goolsbee, a top Obama economic advisor, said this:

Almost every new form of mortgage lending — from adjustable-rate mortgages to home equity lines of credit to no-money-down mortgages — has tended to expand the pool of people who qualify but has also been greeted by a large number of people saying that it harms consumers and will fool people into thinking they can afford homes that they cannot.

Congress is contemplating a serious tightening of regulations to make the new forms of lending more difficult. New research from some of the leading housing economists in the country, however, examines the long history of mortgage market innovations and suggests that regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29scene.html

You silly liberals. You are outside of the consensus, and EVEN IF OBAMA WINS, MY VIEWS WILL PREVAIL, AND YOURS WILL NOT.

What about bunch of tools and fools you are.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong with being happily stinking rich and utterly detached. Nothing, that is, unless you make criticizing your political opponent as "elitist" and "out of touch" a centerpiece of your campaign. Rick Davis, speaking on behalf of his $100 million man John McCain, earlier this month offered the latest formulation of Barack Obama as an effete, aloof denizen of the upper class:
.
"Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand 'MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew - Black Forest Berry Honest Tea' and worry about the price of arugula."
.
Of course, Davis' "arugula war" is just another attempt at misdirection. After all, John McCain's $5 million threshold where "you move from middle class to rich" is just the latest episode of his enduring disconnect from the real lives of the American people.
.
For starters, McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.


In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless*
That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:
.
Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
.
Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38Ug_ugzXs
.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden: Americans in small towns are STUPID!

MSNBC video -
http://www.bythefault.com/2008/09/16/bidens-latest-gaffe-americans-in-small-towns-not-used-to-someone-as-smart-as-obama

Dems for McCain!

Posted by: Robert | September 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

McSame's main fiscal advisor is Phil Graham—the guy made famous for pointing out Americans are just a bunch of Whiners....

Posted by: yakmon | September 16, 2008 1:01 PM

they are. more people want more and more freebies and to sit on their but and have the government take care of them.

more and more wwant a handout versus taking control and responsibility for their own lives.

Whiners? exactly!

Posted by: Obama2012 | September 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's the central issue of the campaign: Media inattention to the real issues. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age). You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.

While reading that, and getting fired up, McCain and Bush were shaking in their boots about this election. They've been called on the carpet as the pigs they are. They'll be out in the cold come November.

Pigs in a blanket.

Game over Repugnantcans. You're time here is done. Thanks for the memories, but it is time to step aside and let us adults take over and fix what you broke.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Robert Reich agrees with RAZORBACK on WALMART.

Hahahahaha. You idiots do not know enough to know how far out of the mainstream that you are.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28reich.html

Reich knows that all the labor BS just leads to higher consumer prices.

You idiots do not get it. Capitalism has captured the center in American politics. You looney lefties just do all the envelope stuffing so that people who agree with me, like Robert Rubin, can KEEP making all of the decisions.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

If they were right, gas prices would rise with massive cuts in US supply and fall with massive increases.

Last week, with 20% of US supply cut, prices fell 10% to their lowest levels since Feb. 2008.

So yeah, it looks like McCain was lying and pandering to middle class voters with all that talk about drilling.

Posted by: Amy | September 16, 2008 12:55 PM

Amy, sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut, than to open it and show your ignorance.

The price is down because it's all about short sellers getting rid of their options. It has nothing to do with capacity. These traders are looking to the 'future' and realizing that more Supply will be coming into the market, thus a decreasing price and they are taking their profits and moving to other markets.

The short sellers never intend to take control of the actual oil. it's all a gamble.

Price per barrel is decreasing because short sellers are getting out of the market for fear of loosing their tail. it's all about the trend and the future outlook and "threat" of future production that is causing oil to drop.

It was not because more people inflated their tires last week.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

John and Cindy McCain paid their respects to 9/11 victims, but Michelle was absent supposedly because it was the Obama kids' first WEEK of school - (private, tuition $15K).
But according to the Toledo Blade, Michelle spoke and campaigned for Obama at a religious conference in Ohio on Sept. 10.....

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS09/809110405

Why didn't Obama want Michelle standing with him next to the McCains??

Posted by: zazzle | September 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Another lame Obami (An Obami is an Obama worshipper) writes:

"Despite any perceptual bias on the part of "undecided" White America, Obama maybe one of the smartest, and politically astute, presidential candidates in a generation- a political podigy."

So, this idiot manages to play the race card and declare Obama as the chosen messiah in the same breath.

Yep, typical of the Obami to worship yet another vain empty suit.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

No one could quite understand why when the Republicans ran the Senate why they were so anxious to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Now we see what a disastrous decision that was and I certainly don't recall McCain standing up in the US Senate and insisting that it not be repealed.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

This is silliness. Why compare Obama's response to McCain's response? How can you even compare the two especially given McCain's out of touch response, the fact that he is the one who has the de-regulators advising him, and that he is the one in favor of the Phil Gramm de-regulation policies? Say what you want about the polls but you don't have to say both campaigns are "flat-footed" simply out of some odd compulsion to be fair to the abyssmal McCain campaign/record. These two campaigns are NOT the same--especially on this issue.

Posted by: Christopher | September 16, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

McSame's main fiscal advisor is Phil Graham—the guy made famous for pointing out Americans are just a bunch of Whiners....

Posted by: yakmon | September 16, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Wake up mibrooks27,

Nothing negative about Frank or the Dems could possibly be true! (Except hiring a male prostitute.)

Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

>>Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. <<
Oh my goodness, they know they are in it deep, they've pulled out their Bill Clinton voodo dolls. It's only a matter of time now before we hear it
....Ronald Reagan said.....
Lord save is from the Republicans.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

So in 1999 "Foreclosure Phil" slips a 262-page bill into a gargantuan, must-pass spending measure which Clinton signs & it's the Dems fault?

--------------------

Gramm-Leach-Bliley slipped into legislation? Hardly! You gotta try harder.

Dems AND Republicans were fully on board with deregulation. End of story.

Posted by: Journeyman Politician | September 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

To recap some key points on deregulation:

1) Edward Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) promoted much of the banking industry deregulation.

2) Barney Frank (DEMOCRAT) and Chris Dodd (DEMOCRAT) repeatedly asked Bush to back off of negative talk about the pending problems with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, claiming that there were in a sound financial position and not to worry.

3) President Bill Clinton signed into law(did not veto) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that allowed banking firms to diversify their investments into other fields, such as insurance, etc.

4) Bill Clinton made sure that lax lending laws regarding to risky loans made to minorities remained in place before he signed the bill. Republicans wanted to add a section to the bill that forced stricter rules about how risky the loan lending policies were. Bill Clinton (DEMOCRAT) insisted on keeping the loan lending rules sufficient lax to allow more minorties to get over-extended on their loans.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

If we had as many "backseat-political- drivers" during the run-up to the illegitimate Iraq War, as we do now concerning "What Barack Obama should do!", our nation would be billions of dollars, and thousands of lives better off. The media to its discredit, and self-economic interest, has turned this whole process into a "sports spectacle", with rhetorical "serve and volley" and dubious "quarter baked" polls. All this, so they can keep people reading the papers, magazines, and watching the "stupid box", while being bombarded incessantly by ads seducing us to buy things we can't afford, and generally don't need.
Despite any perceptual bias on the part of "undecided" White America, Obama maybe one of the smartest, and politically astute, presidential candidates in a generation- a political podigy. Yet, everybody thinks they have the ability to see that "sine qua non" of details that he just doesn't get. It's not about simply making a presentation to the body politic, and allowing it to make a sound judgement at the polls. No, Obama must "convince" voters. He must seduce them! The question is why so many pundits think that Obama needs "their" advice? Why don't they give some of that advice to McCain? He's the one who graduated fifth from the bottom at the academy!

Posted by: DofG | September 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

About 30% of the people of this country have these silly outdated semi-socialist economic views that are similar to the union thug socialist views that were cool in the 1930s.

Time has passed you by.

TEDDY KENNEDY SAID THIS AFTER PASSING A DEREGULATION BILL:

SENATOR KENNEDY. Mr. President (Carter), I just want to join in commending you for your leadership in this important legislative achievement and also for the bipartisan support that was received. It was really a bipartisan effort.

It meets the objectives which you've established in the problems of inflation, getting the Federal Government out of an important industry. It's going to mean more jobs an better services for people.

And I hope that we can do the same in other areas of economic regulation.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30038

Some of you liberals are so ignorant that you do not realize there has been a 30 year bipartisan consensus on deregulation.

OBAMA'S economic advisors agree with ME 90% of the time, as will his treasury secretary. You goobers do not get it. Even the guy you promote agrees with me on these issues.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

All during 2007 and 2008 the media focused on their Darling's gimmicks - Obama Girls and childish "yes we can" chants - while ignoring the candidates focused on issues and solutions.

NOW Obama pretends he wants to talk issues.
ROFL

Dems for McCain/Palin!

Posted by: zazzle | September 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Being that neither McCain nor Obama have any experience whatsoever with economics, finance, or fiscal policy, the only advice one can give is ultimately superficial. The only thing these guys can do is delegate a capable person to handle this mess.

Posted by: dcp | September 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame the author of the article hasn't been paying attention. Barack Obama made a detailed speech in March of this year what aught to be done for this fiscal crisis—last March folks! Not to mention his warning about the pending fiscal crisis over a year ago. All the while McSame is saying let the market settle it out... How many more jobless have been added to the unemployment role now? A mere 25,000 with the stroke of a chapter 11...

There is a clear choice between the candidates based upon knowledge and vision, John McSame lacks both.

On another note there were political solutions put forward in the article—there is complaining about no one offering a solution to the crisis—there weren't any fiscal solutions put forth here either, just more political manuvering—so put out or shut up!

Posted by: yakmon | September 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

So in 1999 "Foreclosure Phil" slips a 262-page bill into a gargantuan, must-pass spending measure which Clinton signs & it's the Dems fault? I guess in the warped reasoning of Repugs Viktor Yushchenko poisoned himself. He should have known they would slip him dioxin!

Posted by: slavin | September 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

WallyG: Bil Clnton has now been out of office fo 7 1/2 years if you havn't noticed. As I rall Bob Ruben dealt with a cllapsing Mexico economic meltdown and devaluation brilliantly and left W with a $250 billion dollar budget surplus. Don't dare blame Clnton or Ruben for the W econmic screwups that they let linger since 2001.Had Clinton or Ruben been in charge of the economy between 2001 ad 2008 things would be mch different and you know that And god helpus all if Phil Graham, my Senator who swore along with Dick Army in 1993 that if the 1993 budget passed, which it did without a single Republican vote,the economy would collapse and we would see massive unemployment(25 milion jobs later) and it would "drive the economy into the ditch". Pretty sharp prediction, don't you think Wally?

Posted by: Leihtman | September 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Treasury, is Obama's economic advisor. That right there should give you an idea of which administration will be better equipped to deal with the economy. I admit I don't know who McCain's economic advisor is (though Reich would be hard to beat). Anyone have that info?

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 16, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, here's something else that, when the time is right, the Obama camp shouldn't fail to give lots of play:

Hurricane Ike knocked out 20% of US oil production, which is more daily oil per barrel than could be put online after 10 years of republican off shore drilling.

Republicans tell middle class voters that if we want lower gas prices, we need to "drill baby drill."

If they were right, gas prices would rise with massive cuts in US supply and fall with massive increases.

Last week, with 20% of US supply cut, prices fell 10% to their lowest levels since Feb. 2008.

So yeah, it looks like McCain was lying and pandering to middle class voters with all that talk about drilling.

Posted by: Amy | September 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

He's still a pig.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 12:03 PM

-------

Mary,

Save your comments for Friday night when your sitting home all by yourself with all your hatred.

Then before you cram another fistful of Cheetos down your throat, take a look in the mirror and realize that's it's you that are the hateful PIG.

With all your hatred, i'm sure your Friday night date is the Family size bag of Cheetos and a couple gallons of ice cream in your Spandex sweat suit.

McCain is a man of Honor who served his country honorably.

You're obviuosly a nobod.

Put down the chips and get on the treadmill.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Obamitude | September 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

dijetlo, you are incoherent. Perhaps you helping the Jack Daniels campaign.

Do you agree that:

1. Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy are responsible for the first deregulation bill.

2. There has been an economic consensus for the past 25 years around the views of Alan Greenspand and Robert Rubin?

3. Neither Obama or McCain have proposed an economic direction that is different from the one of the past 25 years.

"Change" is just a political mantra. Capitalism kicked sociallism's a$$ which helped end the cold war. Obama wants to tinker around the edges a little. BFD.

When Barack Obama appoints a secretary of the treasury, and governors of the board of the federal reserve, EACH PERSON he appoints will largely agree with the economic views of Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and RAZORBACK.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

>> WallyG wrote: "Yet, Robert Reich, Clintons former Secy of Labor on MSNBC last night clearly laid the problem of the financial crisis to the Clinton doorstep and admitted that between Robert Rubin and Greenspan the idea was to push money out the door! Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were petty cash boxes for the dem party with the proof being that Obama's two economic team are the two former heads of the failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!"

Rob Reich is exactly right. The Bob Rubin/Alan Greenspan expansion of the money supply and deregulation of the banking/financie sector, started during the Clinton era, laid the foundations of these problems ranging from the Enron disaster (the energy trading abuses) to the current-day investment bank and credit-backed derivative schemes today.

But this is a bipartisan problem. This isn't just about dems. George Bush inherited Bill Clinton's Rubin-Greenspan finance-sector-growth regime -- and made it much more destructive. Bush turned a budget surplus into massive, historic deficits and federal borrowing, and let our energy dependence create a problem that is eating us alive with trade deficits. Bush also was deeply negligent in terms of regulation: the Wall Street corrupt schemes, faux analyst ratings systems that overvalued the investment portfolios and mortgage product & mortgatge fraud, were all ignored by the Bush Administration while the problem reached crisis proportions.

The crippling inflation and failure to rein in the Wall Street abusers, are Bush's fault. The Clinton Administration only laid the foundation and started the problem.

John McCain is right: it's not about ideology or party affiliation. What is needed is breaking up the corrupt special interests that lobby for no regulation, push through bailouts and allow these problems to go unregulated.

Obama's just making things worse by going around screaming "the sky is falling" and "the Republicans did this because they are evil".

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse


Those are absolutely brilliant. I knew I read The Fix for a reason. I just wish Obama-Biden did as seriously....

Posted by: ABh | September 16, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Tomhere, I am glad you have mastered first grade spelling and junior high typing. Thanks for your assistance.

I am also glad to see that you make no reference to economics. You help me with the typing, and I will handle the economics.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared on all six broadcast and cable morning news shows today in an attempt to defend his misguided belief that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” In discussing the causes of and solutions to the current economic crisis, McCain flip-flopped — in less than an hour — on the role and effectiveness of government regulation.

On NBC’s Today Show, McCain told Matt Lauer:

Of course I don’t like excessive and unnecessary regu — uh, government regulation.

But on CBS’s Early Show, McCain told Harry Smith:

Do I believe in excess government regulation? Yes. But this patchwork quilt of regulating bodies was designed for the 1930s when they were invented.

Watch a compilation:

http://thinkprogress.org/


With regard to the current economic crisis, the McCain campaign is now arguing for “strong regulatory oversight of Wall Street.” McCain, however, has long held that he is “fundamentally a deregulator.” As he told the Wall Street Journal in March:

I’m always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. … But I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I’d like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.

Later that Month, McCain said in a speech, “Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments.”

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Correction to one of my erroneous comments.

I read incorrectly that Leahy was involved in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. He was not. I apologize for my error.

However, it was still signed into law by Bill Clinton (democrat) and was still supported by many democrats.

Bill Clinton went on to say that the lax rules that allowed more loans to minorities was still something he required before signing the law.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

>>There has been a bipartisan consensus around the views of Greenspan and Robert Rubin related to deregulation, >The good times of the past 25 years are a result of this consensus.<<
What were the good times of the 25 year proceeding the laissez fair accords based on, Roosevelts new deal?
Reality has the Republicans in another serious beat down, unfortunately by putting one in charge for so long, the rest of us are getting the same treatment.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"One Republican strategist suggested a speech by Palin on tax cuts --"

I have a better idea. Lock Palin in a room and have her write the speech entirely on her own and let her deliver the speech without a telepromptor or the aid of speech writers. Lets see if she can address sovereign wealth funds, credit swaps and capital gains in a crashing stock market. Have her deliver the speech on Mad Money and answer questions from Jim Cramer just like Hillary did during the primary. Palin went to 5 colleges in 4 years and if she is the economic genius she thinks she is lets see it. Lets also hear her specific answers to what their administration would do if GM, UAL and AIG should file for bankruptcy and how Carley Fiorino will do for the nation's economy what she did for HP and how Phil Graham 's prediction about the 1993 budget would drive the economy in the ditch worked out. We should also be told whether either of these economic geniuses will be selected as Secretary of the Treasury. Obama can and should deliver such a speech and answer Cramer's questions in front of the New York Stock Exchange,. Whoever takes this dare will win in a landslide.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 16, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Your Wake Up Call" _ your "quote" is an invention, a fabrication by the fabricators of facts over at Fox/Fixed News. I have seen this one before and checked. Rep. Frank never said anything remotely like this. We could,, similarly, "quote" Palin as advocating pedophilia and supporting the North American Man-Boy League or "quote" McCain as advocating Islam and anything else we choose. The reason we don't is that we have a basic concern for the truth...something, evidently, missing from modern conservatism.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Yet, Robert Reich, Clintons former Secy of Labor on MSNBC last night clearly laid the problem of the financial crisis to the Clinton doorstep and admitted that between Robert Rubin and Greenspan the idea was to push money out the door! Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were petty cash boxes for the dem party with the proof being that Obama's two economic team are the two former heads of the failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!

Posted by: WallyG | September 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Razorback,
Learn to spell. You can't even spell the name of your "hero".
I guess Razorback means you're from Arkansas?
What about your KOOK buddy? Huckabee?

Posted by: tomhere | September 16, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Just so idito Obami dont pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus making our society more free from government by the monolopy of the Federal Reserve banks (much of which is owned by foreign investors)

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another government attempt to determine what companies were allowed to own and or not own.

None of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side and was a matter of choice of American home buyers as to getting into risky loans.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a DEMOCRAT president, namely bill Clinton in 1999.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more cheaply, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company.

The vast majority of banks are still doing fine because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers took a risk by accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is their fault.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a DEMOCRAT.

[Patrick Joseph Leahy (born March 31, 1940) is the senior United States Senator from Vermont. He is a member of the Democratic Party, and is the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.]

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy passed the first deregulation bill (Ford couldn't get it passed) in the late 1970s. Justice Breyer was also involved.

At Carter's signing ceremony, Ted Kennedy said this:

SENATOR KENNEDY. Mr. President (Carter), I just want to join in commending you for your leadership in this important legislative achievement and also for the bipartisan support that was received. It was really a bipartisan effort.

It meets the objectives which you've established in the problems of inflation, getting the Federal Government out of an important industry. It's going to mean more jobs an better services for people.

And I hope that we can do the same in other areas of economic regulation.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30038

Some of you liberals are so ignorant that you do not realize there has been a 30 year bipartisan consensus on deregulation.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Here is an "idea" if you're a senior citizen, retiree, or getting ready to retire. (baby boomers)
Imagine where your "privatized" Social Security funds would be right now if Bush had succeeded in getting his way.

Now you should investigate where John McCain says he will reach to get part of the funding for the "tax cuts" for the "fundamentally sound" economy. He will propose once again to take from "seniors" through Medicare, and Social Security.

Those Americans that are suffering and are hardest hit by the "failing" Republican economic policies, are also the people John McCain intends to make pay the way to recovery.

Posted by: motiv8ed | September 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Mary B says:

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig. Obviously.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

With regard to Fannie and Freddie, let's not forget Chris Dodd, who protected them to the bitter end and kept saying they're financially healthy when they weren't. Stories about the accounting shenanigans at Fannie Mae go back atleast 5+ years, but according to Democrat Dodd, we had nothing to worry about.

But, of course, that's Bush's/McCain's fault.

Posted by: Observer | September 16, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Please tell us about Franklin Delano Raines - former head of Freddie Mac, who looted the company of $100 million in compensation, before being forced to resign after cooking Freddie's books - now on the OBAMA CAMPAIGN????

Posted by: pgr88 | September 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Serves these dummy libs right to lose their houses, gWb is my personal savior and lord of the free market. Bread lines are for commies; they should just starve to death so the top 1% can buy a few more toys or in McCain's case another house.

If we just go into the bathroom turn off the lights and look into the mirror we can call Regan from beyond the grave to swoop in and spend us out of the problem.

"Bloody Regan"

"Bloody Regan"

"Bloody Regan"

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Wake up Bush Bashers...

Five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Barney Frank's (DEM from Mass.)response to the proposal?

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Hmm.

Posted by: Your Wake Up Call | September 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Angry black man is speaking now. He is really different kind of politician. His new tenor is great for the base, very bad for the undecided voters. Big mistake. PA is now tied. McCain wins PA it's over.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

>>This Obami shows off what is truly at the core of our current problem.<<
Goodness, time for a little economics and business lesson for the rabid right.
The problem:
Banks knew a lot of these loans were bad paper when they made them. The Banks, who make money with every mortgage they write, found a way to sell the risky debt. They packaged it as a financial instrument and sold it as an investment.
As long as real estate prices went up, the value of the instrument went up along with it. Bad loans were sold at auction, often times for enough money to satisfy the defaulted mortgage (due to appreciation of the real estates value) and the good loans paid of handsomely (6+%). On balance, with the red hot real estate market fueling the rise, it worked well and nobody worried about what would happen if real estate values fell. That was never going to happen, right?
Then real estate values started to fall and these instruments could no longer be objectively valued. Banks and insurance companies had been drinking their own bathwater, using the ownership of these instruments as collateral for writing more bad paper mortgatges, but once the depreciation of real estate values began, the Ponzi scheme began to crumble.
The solution:
Regulate the trading of these instruments. It wont help us now, we're just going to have to walk through the fire at this point, but it will save us from similar excesses in the future.
But of course, the Republicans wont regulate. Their economic model is Laissez fair capitalism, the school of economic theory that brought us the Great Depression.
The chickens are coming home to roost again for the Repubublican party, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

If only Obama would try to soothe the markets with cooing noises and a baby Einstein high contrast toy. That's what a true patriot would do instead of draw attention to the sharp contrast in ideology and policy that fosters a market so hell bent on a quick buck that they don't account for risk further than 90 days out.

I don't want some codgy old jackass who subscribes to the root cause of the catastrophe to tell me it's going to be all right just to shut me up. I want solutions and problems clarified so they can be addressed.

Get your head out of the sand and start contributing to how to fix problems instead of leaving them for the next person. Aren't die hard conservatives all about personal responsibility?

Posted by: Mike | September 16, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

So many idiots on her say that some bill they know nothing about caused some events that they know nothing about for reasons that they cannot specify and do not even attempt to explain.

They are the silly minions who cut and paste talking points but cannot explain or think about what they are saying.

Dee dee dee. What about bunch of morons.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Here is the real truth about the economy:

There has been a bipartisan consensus around the views of Greenspan and Robert Rubin related to deregulation, free trade and the supremacy of markets to state centralized planning.

The good times of the past 25 years are a result of this consensus.

While some of tinkered around the edges of this consensus, the consensus remains.

Neither Obama or McCain propose to alter this consensus.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The number of houses someone owns, has nothing to do with the economic situation we are in. We are in this situation due to the fact people believe that everyone should own a home. And that is not the case, some people are not responsible enough to own a home. Therefore they should RENT!!! Nothing should be given to you, you should EARN it. And that is Democrats always cry about Republicans having wealth. It only requires working hard for what you want...

Posted by: AJB | September 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse


"Yet another dopey Obmai writes (in regards of pending failure of AIG):

"McCain was Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee which regulates the insurance industry. You would think that there would be a record of reform in that committee on national insurance solvency regulation and consumer protection. None. Nada. Nicht etwas."

Ahem, McCain passed insurance regulations are still in place and continue to work. "

yeah, they're working really, really well. moron.

Posted by: who's 'dopey' now? | September 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Sure, Gramm was a big proponent of deregulation, but Democrats didn't put up any big fight over this, and Clinton sure as heck didn't use his veto power.

Plus, Greenspan (another major cheerleader for deregulation) was considered a complete genius during the Clinton years.

And Democrats took more than 2/3 of the PAC money from the banking industry.

So, trying to say now that Democrats were always against deregulation is pure hogwash.

Let's deal in facts, ok?

Posted by: Poll Junkie | September 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain flip-flops from one day to the next on the shape of the economy to begin with. His financial advisor sponsored the bills which led to this financial fiasco. And voters aren't sure which candidate is best to fix it? We'll all be living in Hooverville under President McSame.

Posted by: slavin | September 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels - Oh, we don't mind capitalism, we just cannot abide crooks and only a fool would allow one of you cockrtoaches anywhere near their money. And, that is what the 401K is, an excuse to allow coked out Wall Street yuppies access to their money. After administrative overhead and other expenses, not to mention enormous loses, you would be very lucky to have anything left.

Aso for "socialism", the last time I checked, "fuzzy monded one worlders" was a buzz term for Marxists and is a pretty accurate description of NeoConservativism and the sort of prverted "capitalism" you phonies refer to. Thomas Jefferson and the other other Founding Fathers warned us repeatedly about you crooks. We didn't pay attention and the result is the present mess. Now we are paying attention and we will see to it that you parasites NEVER again have an opportunity to loot this country. Treason has a consequence and you are going to pay it!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

to: dl
re: McCain "dropping" Phil Gramm

My point precisely. Because Gramm was the architect of McCain's econ plan, McCain must acknowledge that Gramm's statements render him ineffectual.

Now, nothing would prevent McCain from consulting Gramm informally...

...but he's a political liability to McCain. Of course, so is Sarah Palin, or so it will turn out to be.

So perhaps your inference is correct: McCain won't remove Gramm from his econ team because he refuses to perceive the damage Gramm has done to McCain's economics bona fides.

Who's doing the bit on TV about "McCain in the membrane"? I really wonder whether someone or some entity has affected McCain's thought processes... how else to explain a campaign that's so schizoid, as compared with McCain's 2000 presidential run?

Posted by: scrivener | September 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: OBAMA 08' | September 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Right up there, KMichaels, is a link to Snopes that debunks the Gore/Internet thing. Read it and tell me how it is substantively different from what McCain's advisor said today.

In the meantime, you spend your time here talking about how it's all the fault of the consumer that there is a subprime lending crisis and that so many people are in crippling debt.

It's about personal responsibility, right?

Where is the responsibility of the lender, and the broker who does everything humanly possible to close the deal?

What? They're blameless? They prey on the ignorance of the consumer who gets in over their head because they don't know what they're getting into, but there's no need for responsibility there, right?

Which one's worse, KMichaels: not knowing what you're getting into because you haven't done the homework (or don't know you need to do the homework in the first place), or letting someone get in over their head even though you know the consequences?

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama should campaign with Clinton to talk about the financial mess caused by Gramm's bill that......

BILL CLINTON SIGNED INTO LAW.

These people are so stupid. How do they make this stuff up?

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"The notion that the subprime meltdown can be blamed only on Republicans is absurd. "

Uhh, no. This one was engineered almost single-handedly by Phill Gramm. Amazing how much damage a couple of dangerously irresponsible deregulation bills can do.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Yet another dopey Obmai writes (in regards of pending failure of AIG):

"McCain was Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee which regulates the insurance industry. You would think that there would be a record of reform in that committee on national insurance solvency regulation and consumer protection. None. Nada. Nicht etwas."

Ahem, McCain passed insurance regulations are still in place and continue to work. Even though AIG handles insurance, they also, as a free company, got involved in real estate deals. It is in these unwise real estate deals that AIG has lost money.

For all the assumed smarts that Obami (short for Obama worshippers) have, the still turn out to be as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The notion that the subprime meltdown can be blamed only on Republicans is absurd. If anything, both sides have blood on their hands. Banking deregulation while sponsored by Republicans was signed into law by President Clinton. The biggest recipients of PAC money from banks has been Democrats, including your friend, Obama, who took nearly $400K in campaign donations from Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. Plus, the Senate Banking committee is overseen by Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut.

Get real, people. Democrats are not innocent bystanders in this mess.

Posted by: Poll Junkie | September 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Nick Collins III, it is against the posting policy of WaPo to keep spamming the readers with the same comment repeated over and over again. We already got the message that you are an ignorant lying arse. Now move along, you idiot Obami.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Razorback--typical republican pig.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.

Posted by: Razorback Mountain | September 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous:

Phil Gram introduced the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. When it became law, it repealed the Depression-era banking reform law called the Glass-Steagall Act.

Jersey John

Posted by: Jersey John | September 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Eat meat, and lots of it. Go shop and buy everything in the stores the economy needs you, be a patriot - get more debt. Can't you see it, buy, buy, buy - debt, debt, debt - you do not understand teh economics.....and you will do whatever I say, and believe whatever you read.

Ignore the signs all around you, and even in your mailbox in the form of your bills, get to shopping, we need you. Life is grand, pay no attention to the man behind teh curtain, trying to put the wheels back on the bus while it careenes down teh road. Get back in there and buy, buy, buy.

Posted by: Wank | September 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Mary B was walking her dog down the street. A man approaches and says, that I a cute pig that you have.

Mary B gets indignant and says, "For your information, it is not a pig, it is a dog."

The man says, "I was talking to the dog."

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

No sooner than Lehman crashed on Sunday, and AIG looked like it was headed there as well, McCain was on the stump, saying he was a reformer, and was going to clean up the finance and insurance mess.

McCain was Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee which regulates the insurance industry. You would think that there would be a record of reform in that committee on national insurance solvency regulation and consumer protection. None. Nada. Nicht etwas.

So, where is his record of reform that would have prevented the AIG crisis when the ball was in his court? What reforms did McCain introduce while he was chairman? None. His view was that there was to be continued state regulation of insurance, even though there has been an outcry for interstate insurance regulation when it affects interstate commerce, and there is a need for solvency oversight.

Now that AIG is failing, where was McCain when he was Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee which oversees insurance. Where were his reforms?

By the way, McCain--still today--receives more contributions from the insurance industry than any member of that committee. See http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/profiles.php?cycle=2008&cmteid=S08&cmte=SCOM&congno=110&chamber=S&indus=F09

Posted by: Bill | September 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH,

I can not verify your source, but I will trust your accurately capture his statement. So what laws did he layout in that statement? Did he talk about the forth coming collapse of the 4th largest investment bank? No, his premise in that segment you cut out is the corrupting influence of money on regulations (or lack thereof). I think both McCain and Obama would agree on this point. However, I would point out that Obama’s going to have a hard time taking about a problem in which he is one of the leading recipients of campaign contributions. If Obama was so against this practice, why did he accept so much money from them. It’s kind of like the kettle calling the pot black.

Posted by: sltiowa | September 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The conclusion of yet another retarded Obami:

"Given the present Wall Street mess you parasites created, everyone would be better off cashing in their 401K and going on a drunken binge.

Posted by: mibrooks27 |"

Yep, this is how stupid your average Obami are. They hate capitalism. They spread lies and fears. The average 401K brings about constant and steady increase with only a few times of downward movement.

And idiot leftists are ready to hand it all over to some socialist Obama form of government so that they can take care of you for you.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The real Number #1 suggestion for McCain is to throw in the towel and state that his ideology is bankrupt and he is unequipped to veer us back on economic course. He can let his "fantastic" running mate run on her own laurels.

Posted by: Mike | September 16, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

nick collins III, is that dimwit idea going to rattle around in your puny brain all day long. In case your memory is so short, we saw the idiocy the first time. no need to embarass yourself by chanting it all day long. go back to hope, hope, change, change we can beleive in, oh wait, that was changed. Now its change we can...oh never mind. trying to keep up with the moods and teleprompter speeches of THE ONE is a full time job.

I recently discovered that the Surge was a success, but not for the reasons you think it was.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-invents-fire-wheel.html

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
McCain Invents Fire, The Wheel

From ABC News:

McCain and the BlackBerry

This morning McCain domestic policy adviser Douglas Holz-Eakin was asked what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., could point to from his work on the Senate Commerce Committee that would prove to the American people that he has experience on technology issues.

"He did this," Holz-Eakin said, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications in the United States, the premiere innovation in the past 15 years comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create. And that's what he did."...

Even more remarkably, he did this using only a piece of flint and crude stone tools.

The first message he sent: "Watson. The fundamentals of the economy are strong."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-invents-fire-wheel.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on Mary B, but its still a pig.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

All I can say is White Men better man-up!
Come from behind your wives coat tails and use some common sense here. No more of this stay at home DAD crap and apply simple logic. You've all had an old unbending boss who ruined every project being stubborn. C'mon guys! You can't coach the Bad news Bears and go right into the big leagues and coach the New York Yankees! Sarah Palin has no idea how many Nukes the Russians have and she wants to go to war with them? White Men Stand UP!

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 11:57 AM

Ahem, JamesCH, as your typical Obami, you got it arse backwards again. The claim was not that McCain invented the blackberry. The claim was that he had a large part in what regulations and lack of counterproductive regulations were used in order to help establish a free telecommunications industry.

Surely JamesCH you are not stupid enough to think that the aid discussing Telecommunications in general had to do with a specific cell phone are you? Seriously JamesCH are you really that dumb to think that it had to do with one maker of one cell phone. I mean, if you even read your own post you would see that the subject was Telecommunications. More specifically it had nothing to do with the technology behind it but rather about what type of balance of government you should have in how many regulations you push for and how many you try to back off from.

Sheesh, Obami are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Nick Collins III is an idiot, III.

McCain houses hurt the economy but Kennedy, Gore, Soros and hollywood mansions do not? Even you couldn't think of something stupider than that.

You have just been promoted to idiot, IV.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I'm seeing in terms of current polling data. Shows that McCain is still leading in just about all polls.

Rasmussen Tracking 09/13 - 09/15 McCain +1

Gallup Tracking 09/12 - 09/14
McCain +2

Hotline/FD Tracking 09/12 - 09/14 Obama +1

Newsweek 09/10 - 09/11
Tie

Battleground 09/07 - 09/11
McCain +4

Associated Press/GfK 09/05 - 09/10 McCain +4

FOX News 09/08 - 09/09
McCain +3

Posted by: Joe Main Street | September 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I have encouraged my church members to take all their money out of the banks and cash in their retirement. If the banks fail America will fail. Poverty for the middle class will make us all better people. McCain/ Palin 08.

Posted by: Johna The Christian Nihilist | September 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Okay, AsperGirl, maybe you need to explain that gigantic Ponzi Scheme, the 401K, to us. Look, any fool, looking at their statement, understands that the administrative overhead for a 401K is HIGHER than the expected return on even the longest term investment. All you are doing, investing in a 401K, is providing money for investment broker, hacks, crooks or coked up Wall Street yuppies like you. Given the present Wall Street mess you parasites created, everyone would be better off cashing in their 401K and going on a drunken binge.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

To KMichaels:
I meet the criteria in your post, when I went to purchase a home the prices had been driven up so high that the only way I could afford to get into one was with an interest only adjustable loan.

I've never taken a dime out of my house, in fact I've improved it, paid down the mortgage as far as I could and now my house is worth less than I owe on it because there are companies that instruct people how to walk away from their homes rather than stay and fight.

I've played by the rules, I pay my taxes, I have never used my house as an ATM, but now I am getting punished for it.

Most people don't know how loans work, they rely upon the mortgage brokers to be honest with them. Unfortunately, many brokers are just sharks-they and the banks are de-regulated.

Who did this?

Phil Graham, economic advisor to John McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Razorback,

I'll see your Quinnipiac and raise you three polls:

1) Monmouth/Gannett in NJ (9/14): Obama +8 (49-41).

2, 3) Virginia (both 9/14):

FOX News/Rassmussen: Tie (48-48)
Survey USA: Obama +4 (50-46)

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age).


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.


You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.


BUT...


He's still a pig.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Clinton should appear togeteher to speak about the economy. Clinton was able to win on this point and he did a good job of growing jobs, putting more money in the pockets of the middle class and creating a surplus which Bush immediately sqandered.

Palin is a puppet of those who run the Republican party. Her speeches are designed by the Republican party and she's only given one press interview which showed how uninformed she is on the issues. If McCain weren't so old it wouldn't matter but given his age and health problems, it does matter who his VP is. She is no different than Bush-Cheney - vengeful and vindictive. She's like the disguised wolf in Little Red Riding Hood.

The Republicans say Obama want's to raise taxes but it's not what Obama has been saying, he want's to lower taxes for the working middle class and to raise the taxes on the greedy corporate magnates who get million dollar bonuses for their mismanagement and creating the mess we're in.

Maybe the American middle class should ban together and sue these corporate magnates to reclaim all the money they have gained through ripping us off. Why do they need a 5-10 million dollar buyout to leave the company that they have trashed, when they already have three to four times that amont of money?

Maybe we should sue Dick Cheney to get back the money he's made through Haliburton and the gulf war. Just think if the hundredes of millions of dollars we could get back.

All those who have a deep faith in God and seek his guidance before making a decision and look for his divine intervention, are just so full of themselves that when God sends them signs they just don't get it. He's sent more tornados, more powerful hurricaines, looming economic woes, and yet these evangelical Republicans don't see this as a sign from God that they haven't kept the world enviromentally secure and that greed is a sin.

Posted by: nevadaandy | September 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

How about both candidates spending the night with folks about to lose their home to foreclosure the next day and then at mornings tide meet and greet the Sheriff with glad tidings that the mortgage has been paid off and new terms have been worked out with the campaign. In other words DO SOMETHING instead of standing around with your hands in your pockets!

Posted by: Timothy Bryant | September 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Written by idiot leftist WaPo auther Ann KornBlut (leftist blowhard) then repeated by your typical Obami dolt: "Earlier today, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin linked the Iraq war to the attacks of September 11, 2001, “telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’”

Actually, it has already been concluded that Sarah Palin was correct. She was referring to the FACT (as was also verified by othe Washington Post writers) that Alqaeda had moved into fighting in Iraq itself.

No, Sarah did not connect Iraq's Hussein as being involved in the 911 attacks. She was simply (and accurately) connecting the current Alqaeda org in Iraq with the 911 attacks.

Are you idiot Obami really this gullible to believe the leftist blowhards like Anne Kornblut of WaPo or are you just consumate liars and like to purposely spread lies in order to steal votes?

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she is appears young and pretty (to someone his age).

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Screech and scream. Keep being the idiots that you are. Keep it up until what was was inevitable becomes unlikely.

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac New Jersey
Quinnipiac New Jersey General Election Matchup

Obama - 48% (51)
McCain - 45% (41)

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I was an art history major. but that doesn't stop me from crowing about economics. I don't have to know anything to post on a blog. Isn't that obvious?

Posted by: a lib | September 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Everyday people who cling to their American right to have children"

----
So do you think we are living in China?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

He [McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin] added, though, that McCain — who has struggled to stress his economic credentials this cycle — did have experience dealing with the economy, pointing to his time on the Senate Commerce Committee. Pressed to provide an example of what McCain had accomplished on that committee, Holtz-Eakin said the senator did not have jurisdiction over financial markets — then held up his Blackberry, telling reporters: “He did this.”

“Telecommunications of the United States, the premiere innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you’re looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create,” said Holtz-Eakin. “And that’s what he did. He both regulated and de-regulated the industry.”

Therefore:

A. It was not a joke. The advisor was trying to pump up McCain's economic bonafides.

B. Should it make a huge difference if it comes out of McCain's mouth or from his own staff? Not that much, unless McCain is willing to distance himself from it.

C. Gore, trying to pump himself up, claimed credit for pushing for more funding and development of ARPANET, the project that would later become the World Wide Web. Absolutely no different than Holtz-Eakin's claims about McCain and the Blackberry.

D. Gore's claim will be remembered forever. This one just happened, so let's wait and see.

E. See D.

F. People who engage in ad hominem attacks usually do so when they have no leg to stand on.

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Razor - please ignore the ignorant cowards.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Yet another retarded Obami claims:

"We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills."


This Obami shows off what is truly at the core of our current problem. The idea that the government is to be blamed for the foolish behavior of some of its citizens. The Obami made several key mistakes in his comments. One is about the idea that Americans have a right to own a home (in most minds, a large home). Well, they dont. Americans have a right to "pursue" a home. That does not give them a right for a government supplied home. If you want to pursue having a home, nobody is stopping you dopes. If you want to have a large home just given you, then that is when we say, hell no, follow the rules and get your own home. The fact that some own 7 homes while you cant muster the economic wherewithal to buy one home is not our problem. It is your problem. The fact that so many Americans CHOSE to get involved with interest only variable loans is THEIR problem. It is not the duty of the American taxpayer to make up for your poor economic situation. You want a nice home? Do what everyone else has to do to get one. Get educated, make yourself useful to a company, hold a steady job and live within your means. Dont rack up large credit card debt in the first place. You were not FORCED to use a credit card. Use some common sense you dolts. Take care of your own economic issues using wise practices. And quit counting on the government (your hardworking neighbors) to bail you out of your own self-inflicted messes.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

um, uh, well, you know, like, let's see, um, well, oh, when I said, like, you know, um, uh, ha ha this is hard, you see, I was once, you know, um, uh Let me explain this to you, I was um, uh, you know, like well, anyways, hope, change, um, uh, experience, like you know, um, uh

Posted by: obama without the writers | September 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

If I were Obama I'd use my energy policy as a way America can reinvent itself and turn this thing around.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

No you're wrong, razorback. No one equals you for ignorance and a slavish devotion to talking points.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

September 15, 2008
Obama's teleprompter hits the trail
Posted: 06:50 PM ET

Obama delivered his remarks at the Colorado State Fair of a teleprompter.
(CNN) — It appears Barack Obama's teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.

The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.

But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.

Posted by: what do I say, quick, what is the answer? | September 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

However, what McCain failed to accomplish has left a bigger impression on tech experts than anything that McCain actually did. “The thing that stands out for his entire tenure is that he has never had a priority, and has never had, to my knowledge, any accomplishment of any kind at all,” former FCC chairman Reed Hundt told Salon last month. When McCain took over his second tenure of Senate Commerce Committee, the United States ranked fourth in broadband penetration. In 2007, two years after he had given up that position, the United States had dropped to 15th in the world.

Note to the McCain campaign: The Blackberry was invented in Canada.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.

Posted by: Mary B | September 16, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Earlier today, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin linked the Iraq war to the attacks of September 11, 2001, “telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’” “America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001,” said Palin at the deployment ceremony.

As the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut points out, “The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.”

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

elfountain speaks the truth:

"What's disappointing about this post is that almost all 10 recommendations deal with campaign cosmetics and photo ops, not the underlying financial problem itself. Only the 3rd options for each candidate come close to proposing that the candidates actually advance a plan for dealing with the current crisis."

There is total ignorance among most media types and political consultant types when it comes to economics.

Some of the ignorance that follows from the lack of knowledge about economics is this:

T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire, can run adds for weeks that get quoted by politicos and no one ever explains that the purpose of Picken's commercials is to ask for corporate welfare. If Bill Gates ran a commercial saying that government should make middle class Americans send him a check, they probably would have noticed it.

Chesapeake energy, who makes billions drilling for gas, runs commercials asking for subsidies even though their business is profitable. If Chesapeak thought that they could make money on cars that run on natural gas, they would be doing it instead of running a commerical asking for subsidies.

When financial companies fail, Reid can blame an act regarding consolidation of financial companies, even though the consolidated financial companies are doing fine and the single service companies are the ones that have failed.

Global warming alarmists get away with making the silly argument that what they propose will not increase energy prices.

And on and on and on. The ignorance of the libs who try to discuss economics on this blog is about the same as that in the media.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Iraq's Nouri Maliki breaking free of U.S.
As the prime minister asserts his independence, Iran gains influence and America loses some.
By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 16, 2008
BAGHDAD -- Once dependent on American support to keep his job, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has consolidated power and is asserting his independence, sharply reducing Washington's influence over the future of Iraq.

Iraq's police and army now operate virtually on their own, and with Washington's mandate from the United Nations to provide security here expiring in less than four months, Maliki is insisting on imposing severe limits on the long-term U.S. military role, including the withdrawal of American forces from all cities by June.

World A-Z: Nouri Maliki
U.S. officials warn against leaving Iraq forces on their own too soon
Former GOP House leader says Cheney misled him on Iraq
Babylon & Beyond blog: More on Iraq
America's eroded leverage has left Iran, with its burgeoning trade and political ties, in a better position to affect Iraqi governme

Posted by: WE'RE WINNING! | September 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

So let them carpet bomb Sarah Palin, scurry into her trash cans in Alaska and ask the hard questions like they have NEVER asked of Obama -- it won’t matter. Let them trot out the womanizing Bill Clinton who dodged the rape bullet and is a habitual groping misogynist. He might get Chris Matthews down on his knees with praise, but it won’t matter. They can put Hillary in a thong dancing a Vegas style conga line with Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazille and the entire NOW and NARAL organizations doing a strip tease, but it won’t take a single vote from McCain-Palin.

Why? Because Sarah Palin has unleashed a long suppressed part of us. She represents what the everyday person feels inside when they see the flag or the faces of their children and friends, who don’t cling to cable news or the New York Times. Everyday people who cling to their American right to have children, go to the church of their choice or not go at all. They cling to the certainty that not protecting our borders is akin to leaving the front door open at night while you think your children are safely sleeping. In their hearts they know that Palin represents what they know is right. But to the liberals, her similarities to the average American are horrifying and worthy of attack ads.

The media will continue to do their drill, drill, drill Sarah down routine, but watch as the crowds Palin brings out continues to grow with each insult. For every rude comment, slanted remark or sexist innuendo, watch a hundred more pro-Palin supporters turn out in rain, shine, sleet or snow. And watch Obama turn up the attack ads, hoping his superstar status will preceded his inability to be a Commander in Chief.

Posted by: Palin pounces | September 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

My point exactly Billy.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

How many affordable homes could we build on McCain's land while still leaving him with, say, three homes? We could probably house thousands.

Posted by: Billy | September 16, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: kandinsky | September 16, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The Left’s breakdown over all things Palin was as predictable as it is encouraging. To paraphrase Obama, they are embittered, clinging to their lies and disdain all things patriotic and all things religious. They have a deep antipathy toward those in power who happen to be Christian, rural, Republican, or in a uniform of any kind. Their pro-amnesty, heartfelt anti-Americanism is the reason for the tidal wave of energy and enthusiasm that McCain’s selection of Gov. Sarah Palin has unleashed.

Imagine the Left’s pain and suffering, hearing the growing crowds chanting USA-USA-USA! A year ago the liberals were crowing about the pending defeat of American forces in Iraq. But then Obama admitted the troop surge was successful. Now they’re cowering over what looks like an American troop victory and the pending defeat of Obama by, of all things, an old war hero.

Posted by: oh no, libs lose again | September 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"JamesCH: A McCain advisor just credited John McCain with the invention of the Blackberry.

I will now await the response from the GOP hypocrites who blasted Gore for his Internet comments in 2000."

A, it was a joke, dummy.
B, it was not a McCain claim.
C, Gore himself, attempting to build up himself, took credit for himself that was not due.
D, Gore's statement to being a big part of the inventing of the internet will be remembered forever.
E, your dumb claim is already forgotten.

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 11:39 AM

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

1 idea for Obama:

Drop out of the race and give a real Democrat (not a tarted-up Marxist) a chance to actually win the election.

Posted by: pgr88 | September 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Yet another liberal dimwit Obami writes:

"The answer to this crisis is obvious: Privitize Social Security!

Make them retirees go back to work when their lifetime of investing withers away to nothing because of wall street greed. Then what do you have?

What a stupid idea. Privitize the very thing that was created to protect folks from that very market."

Actually, business in America has pretty much been privatized from the beginning of America. And for the most part, the economy grows because of it. It is called capitalism. Capitalism tends to work for the most part. The main enemy of capitalism is not it's private ownership and its self-determination but rather unwise business practices.

Capitalism works. It is a proven method. Unwise business practices allow wiser companies to come out on top and washes out the companies that take unwise risks.

Social Security system is not an investment system. If it were, using average return on investment the participants would have recieved, based on the money withdrawn via SS taxes, roughly 500 to 1000 percent more money come retirement time.

Yes, privatizing SS makes a load of economic sense. Does that mean some people would be at risk to poor investments? Sure, risk is part of a free society. But the vast majority of SS participants would have been out ahead under a privatized program. And not ahead just a little bit. But ahead by 500 to 1000 percent.

Obami have swallowed the big lie for decades that the government knows best.

What works for us is capitalism. Government control ruined Russia and other countries.

Again, Americans are left with choices. The choice of Obama socialism is a proven failure but being free, many stupid unwise Americans will make that choice.

Hopefully, a better choice, namely John McCain will win out. Again, its just a matter of what risks the voters end up taking.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Obama should challenge McCain to a debate this Saturday on the Economy.

Posted by: Steve from Wilton Manors | September 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Some idiot, apparently trying to make the point that the problem has spread beyond real estate, posted an article about an insurance company having a problem.

The article says:

"AIG is a major player in the credit default swaps market, an insurance-like contracts that guarantee against a company defaulting on its debt."

The debt that is getting AIG in trouble is related to the real estate market, you dope. Read and learn before typing dope.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

A McCain advisor just credited John McCain with the invention of the Blackberry.

I will now await the response from the GOP hypocrites who blasted Gore for his Internet comments in 2000.

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"So here is to the bsimons of the world, and you idiots that disagree with me should be quiet and watch how he does it."

Thanks, I guess. Cheers right back at'cha.

Posted by: bsimon | September 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

There are over 9.4 million unemployed American workers, and in the meantime, illegal immigrants, using forged, falsified, or stolen identities, have illegally taken millions of jobs that rightfully belong to American workers.

Support E-Verify and let's take those jobs back!!!

The state unemployment rates for August will be released this Friday....

Ranking of States from lowest to highest unemployment for July, 2008:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

Posted by: Buzzm1 | September 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Palin says she would of Rather of Been Huckabee's VP., I agree with that. I feel the same way.
http://www.skip08.com
Ive given up on the 2008 election, I am not the only one.
http://www.skip08.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

McCain's policies -- Phil Gramm's policies -- are directly ressponsible for this financial mess:

Here, I'll type slow for you 'razorback.' you just don't have a clue, son.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Shares of American International Group tumbled Tuesday as the company scrambled to raise as much as $75 billion to keep itself afloat.

The pressure on the nation's largest insurer reached fevered pitch on Monday night as the troubled insurer was hit by a series of credit rating downgrades.

The cuts could prove deadly to AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), forcing it to post more than $13 billion in additional collateral. Shares were down 42% in early morning trading, after falling more than 70% in early morning trading and losing 61% of their value the day before.

If AIG were to fail, the global ripple effects would be unprecedented, said Robert Bolton, managing director at Mendon Capital Advisors Corp. It has $1 trillion in assets and operates in 130 countries.

AIG is a major player in the credit default swaps market, an insurance-like contracts that guarantee against a company defaulting on its debt. Also, it is a huge provider of life insurance, property and casualty insurance and annuities.

"If AIG fails and can't make good on its obligations, forget it," Bolton said. "It's as big a wave as you're going to see."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

This morning I noticed McCain being interviewed on every station I turned to. It was followed on several by Biden.

Biden did a good job but it was a really bad decision by Obama to delegte this.

Posted by: David Boylan | September 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

all great tactical stunts but beg the question of why we got here in the first place and what is going to be necessary to dig out.

What has occured is a result of too much free market creativity and not enough common sense prudent oversite by the entitites responsible for monitoring the health and welfare of our financial systems.

Whomever wins and takes office must address this imbalance of power and begin to bring some discipline (yes, it is regulation, but not all regulation is bad; just ask any parent of a two year old!) to our banking and financial system. Absent some form of activism we are going to continue to slide toward the abyss and without some fundamental recognition that an absolute free market approach must be restrained for the common good we run the risk of compounding the felony.

As far as being caught flat footed is concerned, it is hard to see the big issues when you are focusing on pigs and lipstick and the politics of personality.

God when are we going to get a Presidential campaign run by grownups?

Posted by: bobfbell | September 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Obama's a damned fool who would rather win an election than help calm public fear to help our economy avoid a panic-driven meltdown of the financial system. All the real leaders were out yesterday making reassuring noises, which were true, by the way. Except Obama. Obama would rather go around hyping the fear and exaggerating the systemic seriousness of the problem. Only Obama was out yesterday shrilling fearful gloom-and-doom statements (that were exaggerations) hoping to capitalize on the Lehman bankruptcy to beat the bushes to drive up an economic-fear vote.

Is there any further proof needed as to whom is a leader and whom is a shrill, self-promoting political animal? McCain was not only saying necessary calming things, but the things he was saying were in fact true. Yesterday afternoon, Bloomberg came out and agreed with McCain's statement that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and so have others.

Only the media, which has by now sold their souls to the journalism devil to support Obama, would help Obama hype the fear and uncertainty in the middle of a banking crises, the damned to hell fools that they are. The media has sunk below the level of divorce lawyer in being the scumbag, unethical professionals this election year. I hope their efforts to hype economic fear and insecurity to help their shallow, self-serving, narcissistic candidate gets exposed as being both factually incorrect and cynical politics, before Obama's the-sky-is-falling gets out of hand and helps spread any undue panic.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Trip McNeil | September 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Take a look at the strategies. If you think they are shopworn, tired and recycled then you have an idea of what is wrong with this campaign.

Posted by: modvarep | September 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The CEO of bankrupt Leman Bros. is to receive 22 MILLION dollars in a retirement package! Ugh!
Jersey John

Posted by: Jersey John | September 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Aspergirl ... you claim that Obama is screaming the sky is failing in but you are guilt of the same. You've got to remember that we are talking politics here, they people are prone exaggeration and you are acting like the 'sky is falling in' in this regard.

Get a grip. I've read your postings and I've gotta say after hearing all the BS from McCain team lately (out and out lies) ... a little exageration from Obama is neither here nor there. But you go on like a house on fire screaming at the top of your lungs about this one statement.

Get a life.

Posted by: hss | September 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The reason so many of the liberals on here are idiots is not that they disagree with me. It is that when they disagree with me, they don't use the best arguments for THEIR OWN position, the way that intelligent people who disagree with me do.

bsimon is generally a cut about the rest in this department. That is because he tries to think for himself instead of just cutting and pasting talking points that he doesn't understand. So here is to the bsimons of the world, and you idiots that disagree with me should be quiet and watch how he does it.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Here, I'll type slow for you 'razorback.' you just don't have a clue, son.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Shares of American International Group tumbled Tuesday as the company scrambled to raise as much as $75 billion to keep itself afloat.

The pressure on the nation's largest insurer reached fevered pitch on Monday night as the troubled insurer was hit by a series of credit rating downgrades.

The cuts could prove deadly to AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), forcing it to post more than $13 billion in additional collateral. Shares were down 42% in early morning trading, after falling more than 70% in early morning trading and losing 61% of their value the day before.

If AIG were to fail, the global ripple effects would be unprecedented, said Robert Bolton, managing director at Mendon Capital Advisors Corp. It has $1 trillion in assets and operates in 130 countries.

AIG is a major player in the credit default swaps market, an insurance-like contracts that guarantee against a company defaulting on its debt. Also, it is a huge provider of life insurance, property and casualty insurance and annuities.

"If AIG fails and can't make good on its obligations, forget it," Bolton said. "It's as big a wave as you're going to see."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Only a damned fool who would rather win an election than help calm public fear to help our economy avoid a panic-driven meltdown of the financial system. All the real leaders were out yesterday making reassuring noises, which were true, by the way. Obama would rather go around hyping the fear and exaggerating the systemic seriousness of the problem. Only Obama was out yesterday shrilling fearful gloom-and-doom statements (that were exaggerations) hoping to capitalize on the Lehman bankruptcy to beat the bushes to drive up an economic-fear vote.

Is there any further proof needed as to whom is a leader and whom is a shrill, self-promoting political animal?

Only the media, which has by now sold their souls to the journalism devil to support Obama, would help Obama hype the fear and uncertainty in the middle of a banking crises, the damned to hell fools that they are. The media has sunk below the level of divorce lawyer in being the scumbag, unethical professionals this election year. I hope their efforts to hype economic fear and insecurity to help their shallow, self-serving, narcissistic candidate gets exposed as being both factually incorrect and cynical politics, before Obama's the-sky-is-falling gets out of hand and helps spread any undue panic.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

--SOUTHWEST BORDER PATROL APPREHENSIONS--
----1999-------2000-------2001-------2002-------2003-------2004-------2005-------2006------2007------2008
1,537,000-1,643,679-1,235,718--929,809--905,065-1,139,282-1,189,108-1,071,972-858,638-660,882

In the last ten years, well over 11 million illegals have been apprehended at the border. Less than 1, out of 4, are apprehended. Do the math.......

How many more, walked across, unimpeded, between 1987 and 1998???

THERE WILL BE NO AMNESTY!!!

OUR ACCEPTABLE IMMIGRATION REFORM

#1. Secure the Border!!!
#2. Mandate E-Verify for ALL Employees!!!
#3. Mandate E-Verify for ANY Benefit!!!
#4. Stop the Underground Economy!!!
#5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!!
......and make it retroactive!!!
#6. End Chain Migration!!!
#7. Make English our Official Language!!!
#8. Cut Off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities!!

NOTHING MORE!!! NOTHING LESS!!!

Posted by: Buzzm1 | September 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Yet another liberal dope writes:

"that Phil Gram caused the subprime mortgage crisis, with his bill to ease banking regulations"

Yes, it is an easy claim to make. It just turns out to be totally wrong, false, the big lie.

Show us the exact regulation that made interest only loans possible where before they were not.

Interest only loans were possible and legal way before Phil Gramm came along. It was a decision that banks decided to take. It was A DECISION that buyers decided to take. It was poor business practices and those that chose to get involved ended up with the results of their own bad choices.

Did you know that it was legal for companies to charge 200-300 percent annual percentage rates? Did you know that more and more people take up a companies offer on such outrageous terms?

The main fault lies in that portion of the American public that CHOOSES to live outside their means and or accept such utterly retarded loan terms.

Are you going to regulate American citizen stupidity next? Good luck with that one, you Obami.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"Some idiot started talking about Gramm Leach Biley. I explained that companies which combined banking, insurance and financial services as permitted by the bill are not having problems."

Umm, no. You're the one repeating the talking points. You are the idiot, son. You have no idea what you are talking about. This has spread waaaay past the real estate issue into the world's economic foundations.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The answer to this crisis is obvious: Privitize Social Security!

Make them retirees go back to work when their lifetime of investing withers away to nothing because of wall street greed. Then what do you have?

What a stupid idea. Privitize the very thing that was created to protect folks from that very market.

More of the same? Vote McCain!

Posted by: Jaxon | September 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama was hardly caught flat-footed. He's been talking about how the economy was broken long before the manure hit the proverbial oscillator. McCain tried to change the subject to pigs and pitbulls. As to the suggestion to bring Carly Fiorina to the forefront in the McCain campaign, great suggestion. Then Obama can point out how she ran H-P as CEO to the point that she was run out of town.

Posted by: Mike in CA | September 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I quoted a New York Times articled which identified Obama's lead economic advisor. Then I quoted what the advisor said about sub prime mortgages.

Then some idiot said that I don't know what I am talking about. Are you trying to say that Goolsbee is not an Obama advisor? Do you have some critisizm of his views?

Or are you just being an idiot responding without citing any position or facts?

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Ok, now I get it.

Some idiot started talking about Gramm Leach Biley. I explained that companies which combined banking, insurance and financial services as permitted by the bill are not having problems. Single service companies are having the problems for reasons related to the real estate bubble.

Not even one idiot tried to respond to this argument.

Then another idiot named Jersey John, with no reference to the previous debate, makes the same false ignorant assertion.

Then I see that Harry Reid said the same dumb thing on the floor of the Senate this morning, and so it must be the talking point of the day for the mindless liberal parrots.

They don't understand the issue, they can't debate the issue, all they can do is ignorantly repeat someone else's talking point of the day.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

scrivener

it's a little hard for McCain to "drop" Phil Gramm

since he was the architect of his economic platform, policies and direction.

Posted by: dl | September 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

What's disappointing about this post is that almost all 10 recommendations deal with campaign cosmetics and photo ops, not the underlying financial problem itself. Only the 3rd options for each candidate come close to proposing that the candidates actually advance a plan for dealing with the current crisis.

Posted by: elfountain | September 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

phil gramm = being paid 750k in 2007 alone to lobby for deregulation in the banking and mortgage sector.

Posted by: dl | September 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA: SHOW YOUR ECON TEAM, TOUR JERSEY WITH THE BOSS

McCAIN: LET PALIN DISTANCE TICKET FROM BUSH; DROP PHIL GRAMM


Obama needs to parade his economic team before the cameras and let them spell out a cogent action plan -- specifics, not rhetoric -- outlining how he plans to tackle the economic issue in his first 100 days.

And please -- no more speeches before the flags and a blue backdrop. It's old, already. Get out in the street and roll up your sleeves.

Obama should do that New Jersey tour with Springsteen, as has been suggested a couple of times before in this space. Let the Boss -- a working class hero with a Jesus complex -- show Obama how a billionaire rock star can relate to real people. Tour the shuttered factories, the farms, the oil refineries, the ghettos of Newark and Camden, the shore town bars. Use Jersey as a metaphor for the economic plight of the nation -- it's all there in Jersey.

And Obama gets gobs of press coverage because he's got the Boss by his side in the middle of media-saturated Megalopolis.

As for McCain, he's wise to let Palin be his economic attack dog. She's already distanced the McCain-Palin ticket from the Bush administration on the economy, a very smart strategic move.

The danger is that Palin's inexperience, and the scandals surrounding her, are starting to impact her standing, arguably diminishing her credibility.

McCain also should make a bold statement by removing Phil Gramm from his team, making it clear that while he's a good friend and colleague, his statements about "a nation of whiners" and a "mental recession" have rendered him incapable of earning the public's trust. Continued talk that Gramm would be McCain's treasury secretary hurts McCain's prospects among independents and waivering Democrats.

____________________________________________

TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER

"GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"

• State-funded vigilante squads "target" American citizens

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist

What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?


Posted by: scrivener | September 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Senator John McCain should hire Carly Fiorina or Mitt Romney as potential Secretary of Treasury. The new team should work with the current team to fix the economy. On the other hand, Senator Barack Obama is just talk. He does not how to implement economic policies. Senator Obama can not closed the deal. He needs Senator Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton. No Obama! Vote McCain/Palin 08
Hillary Clinton 2012

Posted by: mmarii | September 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

What a priceless commentary

"John McCain speaks to those who are self-reliant, and expect government to just get out of their way."

You mean like all the wealthy investment bankers and brokers expecting the Fed to step in.

The truly pricelss comment was about the self-reliant red staters. There are fewer than 20,000 in Galveston and they're getting in the way of the reconstruction efforts. As city officials have said repeatedly. GET OUT.

And then the slam on New Orleanians. Where did you learn how to fix a burst levee? I don't know of many sump pumps that can handle entire flooded city blocks.

As I said before, at last you're out of the closet as a right-winger from the beginning.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | September 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Why should Mccain do anything different? Obama is sinking like a stone in one poll after another. now PA is tied. FL, OH, NH and CO are in the R column.

when your opponent is diggin his own grave, offer to let him.

All the voters need to hear is the truth about Obama. that pretty much ends his candidacy. It is a testamanet to the left wing press that it took this long.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 16, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

One idea for you, Chris: Work the phones, follow the paper trail, then tell us about the candidates' economic advisors. Neither McCain nor Obama is an economist or financier; they will be reading largely from somebody else's script. WHO ARE THEY LISTENING TO ON ECONOMIC POLICY?

Posted by: allbetsareoff | September 16, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Instead of focusing on political tricks to sway the voters, how about you focus on actual economic polices and approaches to determine which one works the best.

First off, McCain is correct again. The US economy is basically sound. based on the 5 key means to measure an economy America is in line with a good economy.

1) Inflation rate is average for the last 12 years.
2) Unemployment rate is quite low, relative to historic rates.
3) GDP is average
4) Economic growth, while slowed, is still on the plus side. It has been for 8 plus years.
5) Consumer confidence is moderate. Being assailed by the likes of Obama for political purposes.
6) Worker base continues to be inovative and hard working. Again, Obama assails them with fear tactics and complaints of gloom and doom yet they still keep moving ahead.

McCain policies of minimal government interference keeps companies large and small from having to pay unnecessary added expenses.

Obama's policy of the government knows best is a proven failure, time and again.

McCains policy of minimal taxes has proven to bolster an economy.

Obama's policy of tax tax tax has proven to be a failure, time and again.

McCains policy of talking up an economy and maintaining calm is a proven plus for an economy.

Obama's policy of spreading gloom and doom is a proven downer and leads to unnecessary runs on banks, etc.

As to our current mortgage problems, they stem not from regulations or the lack thereof but rather from poor business decisions.

Dems are quick to point out that they must surely be due to regulation changes. However, they cant seem to muster a for instance as to what regulations changed to allow this to happen.

Well, it was not regulation changes that allowed this to happen but a combination of three main things.

1) A postitive housing boom that increased demand for loans.
2) Bankers anxious for profit (just like any other business) wanting to handle more and more loans loosened their more conservative lending practices. This lead to interest-only variable loans, etc, etc.
3) American home buyers using poor judgement in what type of loans they should accept. The majority of those buyers that lost in this atmosphere unwisely assumed that their income would either shoot up over time and or the rates would remain low. They also bought houses substantially more expensive than they could afford. This is the standard economic concept of "living within your means."

It was these main factors, and not regulation issues, that lead to the current problems of some financial companies.

Concept-wise, we should just let economics take its course. With any business, if you take no risks, you get no rewards. Also with any company, if you are unwise about your risks, and take on too risky of deals, you either win big, or you lose big. In this case, you lost big.

Blaming the government for the decisions of all the people that used high risk loans is just retarded.

Look at all the payday loan schemes that are totally legal floating around the various states. They charge 200 percent return plus for their loans. Is this an issue of regulation or total stupidity on the part of the borrowers? I would be fine if these type of lending leeches were made illegal in the various states, but the main player is in buyers willing to accept such retarded loan terms.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"Obama's lead economic advisor says that sub prime mortgages were ins some ways a good thing. ... This contradicts almost every single post of every single pro-Obama partisan."

Sub prime mortagages can be a good thing, as Prof Goolsbee notes. The problem is when simpletons lump all subprime mortgages together & treat them as one. For instance, the so-called 'no doc' loans didn't do anybody any good - certainly not the borrowers, nor the lenders. The brokers made money though, by taking advantage of unregulated markets.

Posted by: bsimon | September 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

This is not rocket science.
Obama’s campaign should run a 15-30 second spots showing video of: 1. McCain: “The economy is fundamentally sound”
2. McCain: stating that the economy “was not his strong suit.”
3. Phil Gram: We are all “Wieners” (Put sub title on Phil Gram video “John McCain’s top financial advisor who wrote the bill easing bank regulations”).

Run this ad CONSTANTLY.
Let them bury themselves.

When it becomes known (hopefully from Obama and Biden) that
Phil Gram caused the subprime mortgage crisis, with his bill to ease banking regulations and when Gram is found STILL to be writing McCain's economic platform and his position on the mortgage crisis, Americans will make the right choice.

Jersey John

Posted by: Jersey John | September 16, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

New York Times columnist and Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman pinpointed Phil Gramm as one of the architects of the current financial crisis, and the “odds-on favorite to be the Treasury Secretary” in a McCain administration. Asked by Olbermann what Gramm’s nomination would mean for the economy, Krugman suggested it could lead to another Great Depression:

Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson understand that we could manage to have another Great Depression if we work at it hard enough. I think Phil Gramm might be just the guy to do it.

Gramm orchestrated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 which “destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies.” He also pushed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000, which made legal “the mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector.

Those two acts effectively ended significant regulation of the financial community.

Posted by: mccain's advisor responsible for whole mess | September 16, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Speaking to reporters today, McCain campaign adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is responsible for the “miracle” of PDAs. Politico reports:

“He did this,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. “Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you’re looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that’s what he did.”

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

'You cannot intelligently discuss this issue if you do not know what your own candidate thinks.'

You cannot intelligently discuss this issue because you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about.

Ignorance is the proud banner of the republican party.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

This nation is drunk on politics. These politics are largely fueled by donations from people who succumb to unreasonable dreads. We would do the country a favor by swearing off all political donations. Not another nickel to any politician at any level. No politico will get a dime from me henceforth, and I believe those who take the pledge will be doing the country a good turn. I will not help finance another dozen attack ads that will enrich TV networks while pauperizing the civil discourse in this country.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler | September 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

This is not rocket science.
Obama’s campaign should run 15-30 second spots showing video of:
1. McCain: “The economy is fundamentally sound”
2. McCain: stating that the economy “was not his strong suit.”
3. Phil Gram: We are all “Wieners” (Put sub title on Phil Gram video "John McCain’s top financial advisor who wrote the bill easing bank regulations”).

Run this ad CONSTANTLY.
Let them bury themselves.

When it becomes known (hopefully from Obama and Biden) that
Phil Gram caused the subprime mortgage crisis, with his bill to ease banking regulations and when Gram is found STILL to be writing McCain's economic platform and his position on the mortgage crisis, Americans will make the right choice.

Jersey John

Posted by: Jersey John | September 16, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

typical mccain supporter:

[jumping up and down, red-faced, shrieking]

KILL! KILL! KILL!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

closing the barn door after the horses are stolen

Posted by: ratl | September 16, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I do not agree that the Obama campaign was caught flat-footed. On the contrary, Obama looked energized, vibrant, concise and in his element in his speeches in Colorado yesterday. Biden was absolutely brilliant in his heartfelt remarks in Michigan.

The flat-footed and tone-deaf one was clearly McCain. Stating that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" made McCain seem like a fool who does not read the newspaper. His later attempts to change the subject or deny his remarks only deepened the problem.

McCain is on record as saying that he doesn't understand economics. His comments yesterday underscored that "fundamental" failure on his part.

McCain now is not running for the third term of George Bush, he is running as a new-age Herbert Hoover.

McCain/Palin = Bridge to Recession.

Posted by: dee | September 16, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Typical Obama supporter:

"Giggle. Drool. Obama is for change. McCain is more of the same. Giggle. Drool. Pat on the back. Self congratulations. McCain=Bush. Damn I am good. Giggle. Drool."

If that is all you have to say, do yourself a favor and shut up.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

What's that saying - somebody fiddling while Rome burns?

Today's NYT reports that John McCain is taking credit for the Blackberry.

Hey, that's almost as impressive as Al Gore's invention of the internet!

Let's keep talking about lipstick and pigs and hockey while our neighbors watch their life savings evaporate. Very productive.

Posted by: new england | September 16, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

i'd much rather rehash the lipstick issue.

Posted by: jmccain | September 16, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

The Democrats, besides talking about a broader range of subjects, also have the freshest face among the top campaign advisers -- Barack Obama's lead economist, Austan Goolsbee, a 37-year-old star professor at the University of Chicago (who writes a monthly column for The New York Times). The two men met when Mr. Obama was teaching at the law school there, and they both seem to favor achieving Democratic goals through market-oriented policies.

ALSO FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Economic Scene
‘Irresponsible’ Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded

By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE
Published: March 29, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29scene.html?ex=1332820800&en=9a15c212b118d691&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In this article, Goolsbee argues that sub prime mortgages are good in the sense that they give people access to the credit markets who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to build buy a house.

Obama's lead economic advisor says that sub prime mortgages were ins some ways a good thing.

This contradicts almost every single post of every single pro-Obama partisan.

You cannot intelligently discuss this issue if you do not know what your own candidate thinks.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Obama has always pressed the issues of the economy, but the MSM, such as you keep bring up the 'lipstick' and the cute VP candidate. The Washington Post ignored the issues facing this country, such as what is the government doing for the people in Texas after Hurricane Ike.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

WOW! I don't understand this article, Obama has been talkin about the economy and ways to fix it but you (media) haven't heard a thing cause you're fixated on pigs and lipstick and all the lies the McCstain camp is saying. Obama last week gave a speech where he outlined his economic plan, did it get any air? NO because you guys were scramblin to get the best lipstick line and stupid crap like that. I agree with Obama, McClame should stop using his lines and he should on his hands and knees, something he should be getting used to now that he's a suck boy for the right wing, ask Obama for forgivness and some idea's cause McCstank definitely don't have any.

Posted by: Mccstankisaloser | September 16, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

User WallStreet Journal Wrote:

"Like the Alaska jet put on eBay"

This poster said that this Palin comment was untrue. Ahem, no liar, this statement was 100 percent accurate. I still cant believe that idiot dems think this is the best they can do is parse words over exactly what she meant. What she meant was obvious. That she decided to sell the jet. The fact that she first placed it on sale on ebay and later got purchased somewhere else is not the damned issue, idiot people. The issue is that she decided to sell it and she then sold it. Constant idiotic dem harping on this just make them look like assinine morons with no real sense of priorities in life.

Then the liar goes on to say that the teleprompter story has also been debunked. Yet another lie from the leftists who make a life out of lying. Yes, her teleprompter did malfunction. The nature of the malfunction was very clear and has been verified. It got off by enough time that it could not possibly be followed and maintain continuity of speech. Unless of course the speaker actually had the speech memorized. Which Sarah did. So instead of having to do the Obama shuffle of er, ah, um, she continued smoothly on with her speech.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 16, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the suggestion is they imply that there are monolithic electorate ears that hear the same messages. Barack Obama speaks to those who feel helpless, with a welfare and entitlement mentality. John McCain speaks to those who are self-reliant, and expect government to just get out of their way.

No better contrast to how different are blue & red city denizens is the Hurricane Ike aftermath. Within a day of the storm surge passing, the citizens themselves were clearing storm drains on their streets, cutting up fallen trees & structures in the streets and hauling the debris away -- themselves. Within a day or two of the storm surge passing, many streets that had been underwater the previous day were already passable.

While this is not to say that the New Orleans inhabitants could have repaired the levees without earth-moving equipment and pumped out their below-sea-level streets themselves, there is no reason for them having languished and died trapped in their houses for days, and the looting, crime and murder of those who turned into predators-of-their-neighbors.

You can't look at the difference in the self-reliant behavior of the stricken populations of Hurricanes Katrina & Ike, to realize that during a period of instability and decline on Wall Street, someone speaking to those who live in Blue communities and those who live in Red communities about crisis are speaking to people who are on different planets.

Barack Obama can't speak to his base without alienating the Red staters.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't call both campaigns 'flat-footed' when it comes to the economy. When events like the current crises push all the lipstick, Palin, Paris HIlton nonsense out of the way, Obama;s economic message rings clear and true, and is wonderfully amplified by Joe Biden. Did you see the Today show this morning? McCain repeated nonsensical talking points about 'fundamentals' and looked barely awake, whereas Joe Biden was up-and at-em and ready to take on this crisis if we have the intelligence and sanity to give Obama/Biden a chance. This crisis shows us we need to hold businesses accountable and level the economic playing field for all classes so that the middle class isn't tossed aside. Obama has been saying this for 2 years, and has backed it up with a detailed tax plan and business policies, while McCain has been slinging mud. But now onus is on the media to ensure that McCain can't keep hiding from the issues behind a veil of stupid, irrelevant ads and soundbites.

Posted by: FDR | September 16, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Posted by: Steven Wolinsky | September 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

What on earth gave you the impression the Obama campaign is flat-footed? Interesting outlook you've got there, Cillizza

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

No, you're wrong Cillizza. It caught one campaign flat-footed -- the McCain campaign. Barack Obama has never stopped talking about the economy. You probably haven't noticed that in your zeal to talk about lipstick and things like that.

Posted by: JLE | September 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Chuck, there is no way to be for "more regulation" or "less regulation".

You have to state each individual proposed regulation and debate why it is good or it is bad.

This "we need more regulation" and "we need less regulation" is a stupid debate.

For people who actually make decisions about thses matters, each individual regulation must stand or fail on its own.

So what regulation do you propose?

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Bear Stearns was an investment bank. It was not an insurance company or a bank with deposits.

Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It was not an insurance companyor bank with deposits.

AIG is an insurance company. It was not an investment bank or a bank with deposits.

Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Citibank have all mixed conventional banking, insurance and investment banking in one company as was permitted by Gramm Leach Biley. THEY ARE NOT THE COMPANIES THAT HAVE FAILED.

The is nothing that the companies that have failed did that they were prohibited from doing before the passing of the act.

The primary reason for the passing of Gramm Leach Biley is that European banks were offering "one stop shops" that were getting a competitive edge over American financial institutions.

There have been no problems in Europe and the companies who are combined financial services companies HAVE NOT had the problems.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"Palin Tells Debunked Teleprompter Tale

“Country Club First” read a lonely protestor’s sign, lampooning the McCain campaign’s Country First mantra, as the Sarah Palin motorcade swung past. On Monday afternoon Gov. Palin and her entourage tooled through neighborhoods still without power in storm-stricken Stark County, Ohio, where she attended a fundraiser at the Brookside Country Club.

The governor’s first “funder” raised just under $1 million. Gov. Palin raised questions among the traveling press — confined under police guard for most of her three-hour visit inside a club boardroom — by telling her patrons the Tricky Tale of the Teleprompter Triumph.

As recorded by a reporter allowed to observe the 35-minute fundraiser appearance, this was the first time Gov. Palin herself relayed the story of how a fouled-up teleprompter forced her to ad-lib big swaths of her acclaimed acceptance speech at the Republican Convention Sept. 3.

But that story has been largely debunked. Reporters who saw the equipment that night say –and the party has not denied — that any teleprompter issue was minor at most. In the days after the event it was touted — on a hush-hush, off the record basis — by top Republicans as a way to show how swift-thinking is their newest star, despite her avoidance of any and all unscripted moments on the trail.

Gov. Palin’s telling was a Canton crowd-pleaser: “There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me. The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me,” she said. “It was Ohio.”

Like the Alaska jet put on eBay and her pit-bull opposition to pork like the Bridge to Nowhere, the T.T. of the T.T. is great theater, but not quite true."

Posted by: Wall Street Journal | September 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama understands that regulating business is an essential part of government and actually protects capitalism from itself. McCain believes that less regulation is better. His side has won that argument for the last thirty years and this crisis is the result.

I disagree that Obama was unprepared. He made his points well yesterday and didn't commit a gaffe like McCain did - repeating his assertion that the economy is "fundamentally sound." He had to back of that one in a hurry, and that is probably the only canard out of a seemingly endless supply that I don't see the McCain-Palin campaign repeating again.

Posted by: Chuck | September 16, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

We're in this mess because Wall St. CEO's decided to make a killing and leave the rest of us holding the bag. Same old story.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Deregulators like McCain's advisor Phil Gramm, are squarely and completely to blame for this hellish financial mess.

Don't vote for 4 more years of the same or there will be nothing left.

Posted by: Sam | September 16, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama should explain how bad the financial world is going to crash, telling the American public to run to the bank & cash out their bank accounts & liquidate their 401K's and stuff the money in their mattresses, because leaders go around screaming "meltdown" in times of financial sector confidence crises.

He should also explain how we're in this mess because the Wall Street CEO's aren't on facebook & myspace yet.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The WP notes that the new book by reporter Barton Gellman on Vice President Cheney, which was dramatically excerpted in the paper on Sunday and Monday, reports that former House Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas says Cheney told him that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had personal ties to al-Qaida in the run-up to the Iraq war. Cheney's statements "crossed so far beyond the known universe of fact that they were simply without foundation," writes Gellman. Armey, a Republican, had spoken up against the war but reversed himself after Cheney warned that Iraq posed a bigger threat than what the administration was willing to say publicly. "Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" Armey asked. "I seriously feel that may be the case."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Washington Post readers. Don't pay this columnist any mind. The Democrats have always scored better on the economy. It is only through McCain's false advertising that McCain has any traction on the economy at all. This columnist has been one of the main culprits who has allowed McCain to get away with FALSE ADVERTISING and gain this traction.

Posted by: Mary | September 16, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The LAT takes a look at how the United States is quickly losing influencing in Iraq as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has managed to consolidate his power. Although Maliki once depended on Washington support, he's now placing demands of his own on the U.S. military and is now asking that U.S. forces withdraw from all cities by June. Although in some ways this is what U.S. officials wanted, it also means that Iran is now in a better position to influence the Iraqi government because of the close economic and political ties between the two countries.

Posted by: WE'RE WINNING! | September 16, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Bush has done his best to bankrupt America - ENOUGH is ENOUGH, we really dont need an even more stupid economic sensibility in the White House and that is what McCain promises to bring

Posted by: nclwtk | September 16, 2008 10:29 AM

I like your slogan, Enough is enough, but I would alter it slightly to "Have you had enough yet?" He could work it into his speeches by going through a litany of problems caused by the Bush administration and ending each one with "Have you had enough yet?" The crowd would be whipped up into a frenzy by the end.

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Only and idiot like nclwtk can make several posts about an economic issue and never say a word about economics.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I see the far right wing nuts posting the usual excuses and garbage here today. Hey guys, the problem is with ethics! Business types are corrupt, crooked swine. I have yet to meet a CEO or other corporate executive that I would trust. We need to treat them as such. First, regulate investors and corporations and ever sort of financial institution. They are critical to our national well being and allowing them to run unfettered in simply insane. Include in those regulations oversight on executive salaries and benefits. No corporate executive who manages to run his or her company into the ground deserves $21 million or $151 million in bonuses. Likewise, no executive, no company, that outsources jobs, displaces American workers with guest workers, deserves nor shall receive *any* sort of tax break, any write off, any deductions. Jerk them all. Make those companies bottom line bleed. If they move offshore, void any patents or U.S. protection for their inventions and simply put them out of business. If they do not serve the national interest they do not deserve to survive. And, finally, make white collar crimes that wreck peoples lives capital crimes. Execute those that comb personal records and insurance claims and fire employees who have sick children or spouses (they do this, by the way), execute those that loot peoples retirement savings and condemn people to a shortened life, lived in poverty. When a CEO or other corporate office withholds information about a drug that kills people so their stock options remain high, charge that officer with first degree murder and try them and put them down like a mad dog. They are no different than a drug store robber that kills people in a robbery to feed their addiction. Finally, bring back the equal time laws so that we put apologists like these criminals like Fox News and the like out of business.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

The following puts this Presidential and VP contest is very clear contrast:

Comment: I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight;

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'

Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, and unpatriotic.

Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive (and according to the actuarial tables, a > 30% chance of succeeding the president during your first term).

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your un-wed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

sltiowa,

"Instead of finding the right level of government oversight in a vibrant free market, we’ve let the special interests set the agenda. Changes in the financial landscape, driven by technology and globalization, made the 1930’s era Glass-Steagall Act – the New Deal era law that required that investment banking be kept separate from commercial banking – increasingly inefficient. While reform was desirable, the banking, insurance and securities industries spent over $300 million lobbying Congress to shape that reform to meet their own interests. In the two years before Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, financial service industries gave $58 million to congressional campaigns; $87 million to political parties; and spent $163 million lobbying Washington. But though the regulatory structure was outdated, the need for oversight was not. Unfortunately, in the rush to repeal the law to create immediate opportunities for certain Wall Street firms, little effort went into modernizing the government’s supervision of the financial industry – to guard against the potential for conflicts of interest, to insist on transparency, or to ensure proper oversight of new and complex financial products or the dramatic rise of investment banks and non-bank financial institutions, like hedge funds and Structured Investment Vehicles. Nearly a decade later, our financial markets—and everyday Americans—are paying the price."

That's Barack Obama, speaking back in March about bank regulation. Though he doesn't mention the GLBA by name, it's one of the things he's talking about here, since the GLBA essentially repealed Glass-Steagall.

The table is set. This would be a solid strategy.

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I dont think either of these guys Barack or Johnny Boy have a clue., Ive put up a Hillary 2012 sign in my yard. Ive given up on the 2008 election. People everywhere feel like I do. They have started have a web site to start your candidates campaign early skip 08
http://www.skip08.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The cause of this problem is individuals who bid of the prices of real estate on the theory that the prices would always go up and the idiots who had alot of money and loaned it out for these real estate purchases.

It has nothing to do with any bill that was passed or wasn't passed.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

It's great that Senator Obama didn't wait for this crisis to lay out a clear plan for dealing with the lack of oversight and regulation that threatened the "fundamentals" of our economy.

Keep in mind, this was in MARCH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSuT5zN2SPI

Posted by: Mainer | September 16, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Bright is a word used for light bulbs and for people like Razorback.

Razorback either you see it or you dont, and like McCain, you dont

Posted by: nclwtk | September 16, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

McCain should not announce his economic advisors or leaders. He should change the subject anytime economic issues come up. He will only become more tied to George Bush.

Obama should change the mix of his commercials so not all the ads are "McCain = Bush". He has to say what will be his ideas and actions too.

Posted by: Cliff Claven | September 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama's teleprompter hits the trail

Obama delivered his remarks at the Colorado State Fair of a teleprompter.

(CNN) — It appears Barack Obama's teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.

The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.

But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

dl and nclwtk are too stupid to have an intelligent conservation about the issue.

They just repeat the same partisan mantras that they would repeat no matter what the issue is. Ignorant partisan cheerleaders contribute nothing to any conversation.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

JamesCH,

Its interesting to see that Clinton gets all the credit for a balance budget with a R congress, but he is not blamed for signing the investment banking law in 1999. I agree with your comment that both R and D are guilty and have blood on their hands. Your strategy is rather lame…leak out that Obama was always against this law even through he never even commented on the bill. Please are you a R strategist.

Posted by: sltiowa | September 16, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Talking isn't going to get it done. The harsh reality of the situation is deregulation and the Bush tax cuts made the economy fragile and vulnerable.

The solution is cash. Whose cash? Our cash!
Why are we all going to get hurt? Because some of us voted for that clown in the white house not once but twice! Where is the cash going to come from? Increased taxes! Any questions?

Posted by: Jack | September 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama should campaign under the slogan of Enough is Enough and try to bring together the collective rage of Americans about how they have been treated during the Bush years. The financial crisis was a long time in coming and is primarily a Republican folly - deregulation led to high profits for some and disaster for most others. Unemployment is rising and Americans feel completely vunerable to overseas factors. The War keeps going on through we forget it, and its sucking us dry financially. Bush has done his best to bankrupt America - ENOUGH is ENOUGH, we really dont need an even more stupid economic sensibility in the White House and that is what McCain promises to bring

Posted by: nclwtk | September 16, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Razorback

you mean McCain was calming the fears

like he and Bush have been doing for years now

all the while we keep sinking and sinking and sinking

same team
same tactics
same results.

throw these bums out.

Posted by: dl | September 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

66kicks writes
"McCain's latest idea? "Put executive salaries to shareholders for a vote." This was put forward by Douglas Holtz-Aiken (sp), the economic advisor to his campaign, on NPR this morning. The problem is that I can't recall any shareholder initiatives that have been approved. In fact I haven't seen any shareholder votes going for less than about 85% the way the board of directors wants, either for or against. So - sounds good, but no change. The Double Talk Express strikes again."

Exactly, it sounds like a good, simple idea, but it actually requires some enormous changes to the way corporations work. There have been recent attempts to make it easier for shareholder initiatives to get on the ballot & have real control over corporate boards, but the SEC has squashed them. The SEC has chosen to defer to corporate boards in favor of the actual owners - corporate shareholders. The argument is "if you don't like how we're doing business, sell" instead of letting the owners actually control how business is done.

Posted by: bsimon | September 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Here is a bright idea:

Why the regulators and banks are trying to calm the panic, and one presidential candidate (McCain) makes a statement intending to help calm the situation, the other candidate (Obama) can attact and try to convince everyone how horrible it is so that everyone panics and sells, creating a much larger problem. Brilliant.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

To the impostor at 9:13 a.m., there are no slurs posted under my brand name (now registered at MySpace). OMG, how naive do you think we are?

I make those posts anonymously.

XOXOXOXO

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 16, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The current financial crisis was caused by people loaning money based on the value of assets (real estate) which has declined in value to the extent that the loan on the asset is larger than the value of the asset.

It has played out over time because its difficult to value real estate assets except when they are being bought and sold. A bank can be owed alot of money on an asset that is worth less than the loan and not have a problem until the payment isn't made.

The real estate loans were packaged in large groups and sold as bonds, which are difficult to value. Since they are difficult to value, other financial institutions and regulators do not know how to value these assets for purposes of of calculating how much capital a bank or finacial institution has or needs.

When others decide that they will not do business with, desposit with, clear trades with, or loan money to an institution because it has too many assets of questionable value, like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG, business grinds to a halt and the company fails.

That is what happened. Simpletons can grind whatever partisan axes they want, but that is what actually happened.

Posted by: Razorback | September 16, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

A listening tour of bankers? Oh yes, McCain should do that right away...

Posted by: windserf | September 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"i think Obama is unelectable because he is black, he cant be a real Amerian unless he is white.

Posted by: 37th & O Street | September 16, 2008 9:13 AM "

I thank 37th and O for saying what the Right has been trying to say, but not in so many words. Palin is saying it using tongues.
Jesus will never approve.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is principally responsible for the current financial crisis. New firewalls need to be put up to separate consumer banks from investment banking in order to avoid a total meltdown.

Both Dems and Republicans have blood on their hands on this one. Biden voted against the first version of the bill, but then voted for the final version, which included protections for minority borrowers.

McCain voted yea on the first version of GLBA, then was conveniently not present for the passing of the final bill. I doubt any of the changes would have swayed his vote.

Obama needs to be out there telling people that there's no way he would have supported this bill. If he had any public statements against it while he was a state senator, he needs to leak those out. He also needs to be on the stump telling Americans that he "won't allow the banking industry to continue to gamble with your money."

Posted by: JamesCH | September 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I like the idea of combining Obama's ideas #1 and #4... by having him tour Ohio with Mr. I-Feel-Your-Pain himself, Bill Clinton. There are few out there who can connect more with the working people Obama needs to win this election than Bill Clinton. It would be a great chance to show unity and for Obama to learn a little bit from Bubba himself.

... it reminds me of the one thing my husband and I told each other during Katrina... Bill Clinton never would have done a 'flyover'. He would have been out there helping people, saying "I am with you. You are not alone." He's very good at that.

As far as visiting with a family getting ready for foreclosure... I don't like the idea of using someone else's misfortune. So, if Obama were to pay a visit, he'd have to help more than just clearing the table... the visit would have to be productive for the family. He should show he won't wait until he becomes President to help people. That would be the most powerful message he could send. And one McCain will have to really strive to match.
-----------

What Women (Voters) Want
http://ilfamilypolitics.blogspot.com

Posted by: Midwest Mom | September 16, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

again gang aaaaargh...

look at reality.

"It's about the economy stupid"


and there is one big blame for this mess

deregulation that was forced through congress by a lot of lobby money and ... again...

the overwhelming captain of deregulation?

the guy who wrote Mccain's economic platform.

the same guy who received 750k last year alone to fight for deregulation in the banking sector.

Phil Gramm

Same team

same tactics

same outcome

9th year

throw these bums out.

Posted by: dl | September 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Where do you get the idea Carly Fiorina is a "respected" anything? Her economic "credentials" are primarily her record of driving HP toward the ditch until she was canned; her political experience in the McCain campaign has been to misrepresent McCain's stands on women's issues and to outright lie – even after being outed as a liar – about Obama's economic policies.

Posted by: FlownOver | September 16, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

chris, obama needs to go for the jugular and link mccain directly to deregulation and blame him and the republicans (like graham) for the financial mess we're now in.

anything less than that is just more white noise.

Posted by: L.A.l. | September 16, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Adise to McCain:
Tell the truth. You may lose the election, but tell the truth. You will look a lot better next year. Lose Palin. She is dangerous to you. Ultimately you will be recognized as the statesman you once were.
Let the Dems win and you can playa huge role post elections.
Advise to Obama:
Tighten up the message on the economy, education and healthcare. Your plan is detailed, but you need to present it to your 300 Million bosses, us Americans, in a lucid and understandable manner. Get the Clintons, Bradley, Gore, Schweitzer, Keane out to aggressively pursue the undecided.

Posted by: Westerner | September 16, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

susie

there is one big blame for this mess

deregulation

the overwhelming captain of deregulation?

the guy who wrote Mccain's economic platform.

the same guy who received 750k last year alone to fight for deregulation in the banking sector.

Phil Gramm

Same team

same tactics

same outcome

9th year/

throw these bums out.

Posted by: dl | September 16, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

"OBAMA 1. Two-Day Ohio Tour: Obama should spend two full days traveling the Buckeye State with stops in cities ranging from the big (Cleveland) to the medium (Dayton) to the small (Zanesville). The suggested theme? "McCain's strong fundamentals" playing off of the Arizona senator's much-disputed statement Monday that the fundamentals of the economy are strong...."

The problem with this is the statement that the economy's fundamentals remain strong is, in fact, true. Economists and people in the know can't honestly dispute this statement. It was only "much-disputed" by democratic partisans.

Yesterday afternoon, Bloomberg came out and agreed with McCain's statement, and so have others. The dim-bulb media is entranced by Obama's ridicule, but economists & economic policy leaders are not, for the following reasons:

(1) A real leader doesn't exaggerate and scream "the sky is falling" and "we're all doomed" when we are in the midst of an unfolding financial crisis of confidence & liquidity.

Only a damned fool who would rather win an election than help avoid a panic-driven meltdown of the financial system, like Obama, would go around hyping the fear and exaggerating the systemic seriousness of the problem. All the real leaders were out yesterday making reassuring noises, which were true, by the way. Only Obama was out yesterday shrilling fearful gloom-and-doom statements that were exaggerations, hoping to capitalize to shift to a fear vote. (Only the media, which has by now sold their souls to the journalism devil to support Obama, helped him, the damned to hell fools that they are.)

(2) What is happening to the financial sector is necessary and beneficial. The bloat of the financial sector started during the Clinton years with his sweeping deregulation of the trading & finance markets that make things like the Enron loophole & the investment bank expansion into new business areas possible. The Alan Greenspan print-more-money-to-drive-growth inflationary monetary expansion period also started during the Clinton years. In essence, Clinton abandoned Rob Reich's labor-and-strong-infrastructure approach to building a strong economy & he went with Bob Rubin's use-finance-and-money-supply to inflate the economy via a fat financial sector. Bush inherited & continued these policies, and, moreover, contributed more grossly inflationary & damaging problems by driving the federal deficit to massive, historic levels & completely ignoring the corrupt & greedy excesses & abuses of the financial sector.

The financial sector fed and grew to be a size and proportion of our economy that is totally disproportionate to how large it should be for the economy that supports it. The bloat was in the past fed by the large amount of money we've been sending abroad to buy foreign oil -- massive amounts in the hundreds of billions a year, that was coming back to us in the form of sovereign wealth funds & international hedge funds buying into these mortgage-backed securities and other investment schemes. The massive spending on foreign oil, mostly on credit, has created a huge "liquidity bubble" that fed the financial sector bloat. Well, even though we are still sending money abroad, the international interest in buying our credit-backed derivatives & other investment schemes has evaporated, so the bloated financial sector is so excess & unable to support itself now that parts of it HAVE to fail & have to be culled out.

The bloated (and some would say corrupt & inefficient) financial sector has to shrink. The firms themselves could shrink by de-leveraging their debt, which would have the effect of shrinking themselves -- reversing their growth trends. But these firms, for the half-year since the Bear Sterns bailout and the year since the first warning signs that they were going to topple, have not been doing that. These large investment banks are taking advantage of the low fed interest rates, term auction facility & discount lending windows, to eke out a failing existence, refusing to lend to the regional banks. So, what has to happen now is to stop propping them up, let the ones who can't hang on fail and the strongest ones who still do functional business & contribute to the economy will survive.

When the financial sector is cleared out of the useless, bloated baggage and the bad assets they are hiding and lying about on their balances sheets are marked to market, then the credit markets will open up again.

What is happening in the financial sector is a necessary function of contraction in the financial sector that we need to get on with, for normalcy to return to the housing sector and other parts of the economy that rely on credit. The rest of the economy is essentially strong, apart from those issues, like our dependence on foreign oil and globalization, that obviously need to be brought up to date and fixed.

Obama the self-serving, corrupt campaigner who is going around blasting hyperventilated, fear-stimulating talk trying to create an economic-fear-vote to help his campaign, is the kind of person who can cause the public to panic & a needed financial correction to shake out bad investment banks & let them fail, turn into a panicked loss of confidence and widespread failures.

John McCain was right in his statements about the economy being essentially strong. Obama's the guilty, evil propaganda-spewer, in this particular instance, by attacking that statement and spreading enlarged fears & exaggerations of our economy's demise.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

NYC writes:

"I am confused. What does he want? What will he do?"


Lets review shall we. McCain said the economy wasn't his strong point (military and foreign affairs are, according to Mc) and claimed he had read Greenspan's book. In just the last few days, Greenspan has said he doesn't support borrowing more money to continue Bush's tax cuts.....which up until probably yesterday, McCain had every intention of doing if elected.

And all Palin-McCain are saying they will do is make DC more "effective", whatever that means.

But they have no intention of signing more regulation in to law.

So insisiting government regulators hold financial institution's collective feet to the fire, is apparently the "plan". This would presupppose of course that the federal government, run for nearly the last 8 years, by their party comrade GW BUsh, has not been doing it's job.

Posted by: MA | September 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

One problem with all these 10 suggestions is that they aren't big enough to cut through the campaign clutter. The only big news from either campaign was Palin -- because she is unusual, unexpected, and easily mockable. She's SNL fodder.

Yet another speech, yet another town hall meeting are just more of the same.

The only exception is the "stay at home" suggestion, but that would be a mistake. It is obviously an attempt to manufacture sympathy and would backfire.

I kind of like the listening tour, but for Obama in the reddest of the redneck districts of Ohio, West Virginia (where it borders Ohio), Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. All across the rust belt, Obama should take off his tie, roll up his sleeves and listen, listen, listen. And while he's there he should (a) ask them for their vote... they want to be asked; (b) acknowledge that his "bitter/cling" comments have offended some of them, and apologize for that. The point is to show them his sincere side, which I have seen in other contexts, but not among this crowd.

Posted by: egc52556 | September 16, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

i think Obama is unelectable because he is black, he cant be a real Amerian unless he is white.

Posted by: 37th & O Street | September 16, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

The only reason why a young, charismatic, energetic, great, innovative, popular, servant-hearted thinker would not be a shoe-in for the presidency against the incumbant party in a time of an unpopular war and unprecidented economic crisis is RACISM.
(see my book, THE SIN OF RACISM: HOW TO BE SET FREE)

Posted by: Selena Johnson | September 16, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

.


Obama is becoming a joker.


First he decided to attack Sarah Palin - that didn't work and he ended up sinking in the polls.


Then Obama decided to be the angry man - actually committing fraud against his self-constructed image of hope - he came off all angry and mean - and that didn't work


NOW Obama is attempting to put out a vague "My economic plan is better than yours" - again vague from Obama - the problem is that Obama has been championing all these new government programs for his entire campaign -


These additional government programs will require higher taxes.


OBAMA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAX THIS NATION OUT OF ITS ECONOMIC MESS.


YOU ARE A MORON IF YOU THINK HE CAN DO THAT.


Obama is pointing everyone in the wrong direction.


Obama's people are left hoping for a better economic program - or even an economic program that works.


Obama's only economic or business experience is buying cocaine.


Seriously people Obama knows NOTHING about the economy.


Obama has built his entire career on maxing out every affirmative action program he could find until he turned the democratic delegate selection process into one giant affirmative action program including stopping Michigan and Florida voters from counting fully.


What a jokester - A Voter really has to be nuts to vote for Obama and risk the Economy on an inexperience affirmative action guy like Obama.


And to risk the National Security of this nation on an affirmative action guy like Obama is wrong.


.

Posted by: 37th&O | September 16, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"McCain has to highlight what his Economic program already is: the Creation of a low-tax economy with restraints on government spending which place a drag on the economy and a drag on long-term economic investments."

Let's be clear on something. 54% of goverment spending is on defense.

McCain wants low taxes and higher defense spending. This is an impossibility.

We're at war, in case you hadn't noticed. War means spending, and that means higher taxes.

If you think McCain is going to magically change that you're dreaming.

Posted by: Megaduck | September 16, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

More eilitism,
obama can raise capital
gains, because' his aid says'
'real people dont hav
the money to invest in
stocks, anyway?'
It takes 10 dollars a month
to invest an a DRIP.
Who are these elitists!
patronizing!
Nobama

Posted by: simonsays | September 16, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Can someone help me out here. Sen. McCain is calling for more regulation of the greedy Wall Street types who did this to the little people in middle America.

McCain's tax plan wants to give $$$$$ back to the wealthy (including Wall Streeters) for some tinkle down economics. Isn't that supporting and bailing out those greedy Wall Street types?

McCain is using Phil Graham to shape his economic policy. Isn't that the same guy who gave us deregulation the snowball the got us here? Isn't that like putting Tomás de Torquemada in charge of guest relations at a four star hotel?

McCain is calling for more regulation etc. While saying he wants the Fed to keep its hands off of governing. Both at once? Nice trick

I am confused. What does he want? What will he do?

Posted by: NYC | September 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is Coming to Town.
Everybody is going!
America First

Posted by: usa3 | September 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama is becoming a joker.


First he decided to attack Sarah Palin - that didn't work and he ended up sinking in the polls.


Then Obama decided to be the angry man - actually committing fraud against his self-constructed image of hope - he came off all angry and mean - and that didn't work


NOW Obama is attempting to put out a vague "My economic plan is better than yours" - again vague from Obama - the problem is that Obama has been championing all these new government programs for his entire campaign -


These additional government programs will require higher taxes.

OBAMA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAX THIS NATION OUT OF ITS ECONOMIC MESS.


YOU ARE A MORON IF YOU THINK HE CAN DO THAT.


Obama is pointing everyone in the wrong direction.


Obama's people are left hoping for a better economic program - or even an economic program that works.


Obama's only economic or business experience is buying cocaine.


Seriously people Obama knows NOTHING about the economy.


Obama has built his entire career on maxing out every affirmative action program he could find until he turned the democratic delegate selection process into one giant affirmative action program including stopping Michigan and Florida voters from counting fully.


What a jokster - A Voter really has to be nuts to vote for Obama and risk the Economy on an inexperience affirmative action guy like Obama. And risk the National Security of this nation on an affirmative action guy like Obama.

.

O

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 16, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

McCain's latest idea? "Put executive salaries to shareholders for a vote." This was put forward by Douglas Holtz-Aiken (sp), the economic advisor to his campaign, on NPR this morning. The problem is that I can't recall any shareholder initiatives that have been approved. In fact I haven't seen any shareholder votes going for less than about 85% the way the board of directors wants, either for or against. So - sounds good, but no change. The Double Talk Express strikes again.

Posted by: 66kicks | September 16, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Re the five ideas for Obama that you list:

I don't like using the hardest hit victims of economic crises as political props, and I don't think voters do either, so the house visit and the Lehman idea are not good. Even if you pay for it, staying at someone's house when they don't have any money to make it presentable for a house guest is offensive. (If the family is white and the self-invited guest is black, this may also be an issue for voters hung up on the candidate's race.) The Lehman Brothers staff, white-collar elitists all, also will not connect with people in the rust belt, who are saying to them now, "welcome to my world, we've been in a recession here for more than 30 years."

Two suggestions, as Chris notes, are in contradiction: give big speeches (the Obama comfort zone and very presidential skill; perhaps recap the March speech on financial regulation?) vs. do tons of small, empathetic town halls (this is a piece of advice that would work instead for Bill Clinton if he were the candidate). This is a debate as old as last spring. I am tempted by the big speech idea but only if there is just one and it is extremely concrete in what to do next, rather than how we got here.

This leaves the two-day Ohio tour which sounds basically like what he's been doing.

Here's what I would like. More Joe Biden. Always more Joe Biden. Especially together with Obama. What a gift for making a general economic crisis concrete. A very different speaker, but the perfect complement to Obama's style.

In addition, two things: On the one hand, a clear, simple, easily remembered message that Obama-Biden supporters can repeat to others, like "Yes we can" but for the economy and governing competence (something like "We'll get the job done."). Or maybe, literally, "Yes we can," but as applied to the nation as a whole, not just the campaign. It needs to positive and about Obama, not an attack on McCain. I think the attack piece is already in pretty good shape. (More of the same. Four more years of the last eight years. George Bush's third term. Out of touch, doesn't get it. Willing to lose his integrity to win an election.) What isn't breaking through the fog are the pro-Obama messages.

On the other hand, numbered, multipart answers like (yes) Bill Clinton used to give. I think it's the numbering that gave them added punch and precision. (For example: "There are a whole lot of solutions I want to put in place, but let me list four of the most important: first, immediate financial stimulus to help restore consumer confidence and help pay for the rising cost of everything from food to gas. second, middle-class tax relief through tax cuts that affect 95 percent of working families. third, financial regulatory reform which I spelled out in detail in my March speech, and which John McCain has yet to address. And fourth... etc.")

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | September 16, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/proposed-commercial-mac-vs-pc.html

Sunday, September 14, 2008
A Proposed Commercial: Mac vs. PC

(White background. Childlike piano music plays).

(A picture of Barack Obama appears against the background)

VO (Similar to voice of "Mac" character): Barack Obama is like a Mac.

(A picture of John McCain appears against the background)

VO (Similar to voice of "PC" character): John McCain is like a PC.

(Picture of a bank against the background)

VO: McCain likes the old economics, corporate welfare, and tax breaks for the wealthy of George W. Bush.

(Quick cuts: Pictures of Countrywide Branch, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Picture of Lehman Brothers against background)

(Picture of Obama)

VO: Obama doesn't like old systems that crash.

(Picture of a mother, father, son and daughter against the background)

VO: Obama thinks that when it comes to health care, every American should have the access and support they need.

(Picture of family fades to blank background)

VO: McCain is against these health benefits for children, families and the elderly. He believes that when it comes to access and support for health, it's an "ownership society"--you're on your own.

(Picture of a woman standing against background)

VO: For women, McCain talks a good game, but he is against a woman's right to choose, would repeal Roe v. Wade, and even voted against equal pay for women.

(Picture expands to show many women standing behind her)

VO: Barack Obama believes that every woman should be paid the same for the same work as every man, and that every woman has the right to make her own choices.

(Picture of George W. Bush)

VO: Barack Obama has called for an end to the distortions, mismanagement, and failed policies of the Bush Administration that have left so many families in distress.

(Famed picture of McCain hugging George W. Bush)

VO: McCain has agreed with George W. Bush 90% of the time.

(Picture of McCain)

John McCain. Do you really want to spend another four years with the same old system?

(Music outro. Fade.)

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/proposed-commercial-mac-vs-pc.html

Posted by: Susan D'Addario | September 16, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Obviously this is a great opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to seize the issue of reform and re-regulation... McCain can't hide from this Republican economy disaster and he has his own skeletons in the closet (Keating Five). It would be good to send Palin out, as Chris suggests, since she'd scare the bejeezus out of everyone by highlighting how unprepared she is to lead/co-lead on this issue.

Posted by: RickJ | September 16, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Is it wise for either candidate to be too specific about how to fix the Wall Street disaster at his point? First, the full picture is not known. Second, Treasury people are already working through the delicate issues. If I were having open heart surgery, I'm not sure I would want a candidate for the hospital administrator's job medaling with my surgeon in the middle of the procedure. Knee jerk solutions by candidates at this point would only confuse things more.

Posted by: An Investor | September 16, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Whenever I think of McCain and the US economy I think about The Keating Five scandal. Presently the Straight Talk Express has morphed into the B.S. Buggy. McCain is joined at the hip with GW Bush, but says he is for change. He would continue Bush's failed policies, and maybe attack Iran ! I do not see any of this helping the US economy (except maybe defense contractors and repo firms !).The USA needs real change, not 4 more years like the last 8. And Palin looks like Cheney on steroids ! McCain talks about fighting for America-but this is just an appeal to nationalism . I do not see McCain or Palin as having any empathy for the average American's problems !

Posted by: shrubnose | September 16, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama is truly done if he blows this golden opportunity. Not every day you get a full-blown economic meltdown when the media/swing voters are in the middle of lipstick chatter...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mp | September 16, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Chris, Fiorena won't fly. H-P lost half its value and thousands of employees during her tenure. Disaster in the making.

For Obama, add Milwaukee, Green Bay, Oskosh, Eau Claire in Wisconsin. Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Scranton, Harrisburg, Montgomery and Delaware Counties in PA.

McCain could bring Milton Friedman back from the grave and it still won't patch a hole the size of the Grand Canyon regarding economic knowledge.

Posted by: Not MIlton Friedman | September 16, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

How, the,, does a country like the US support itself without taxes??Isnt this the country "of the people,by the people, for the people".The tax increases Obama has pointed out aresmart, and necessary. Our national debt has doubled under Bush and his fiscal irresponsibility.YOU Cant keep spending and not have revenue to cover it, period. But while Bush, and subsequently MCCAIN have propped up cuts for Corporate america and the wealthiest americans, what has he really done for the average american, which basically means the remaining 95% of AMERICANS?
The tax breaks havwent been that great ,the stimulus checks were nice , but again, a one time use.no one is keeping their home or turning around their financial woes with a simple payment.
McCant doesnt have a clue about the economy, so he will pay to play in that field. But guess whowill be controlling it??????? The same standard bearers who have led this country to all time lows in value,and its not over yet

Posted by: how | September 16, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

.

McCain should highlight one clear point: the danger is stagflation and Obama's high tax new programs and policies plunge the economy toward stagflation.


Obama's economic plan is nuts.


Clearly higher taxes is not the way to go however that is exactly what Obama wants to do - he wants to risk a deeper recession risk stagflation so that he can fuel his own ego by creating all these new government programs.


Obama thinks he is the one everyone has been waiting for to lead us to new government programs, more affirmative action and higher taxes.


McCain should make clear the dangers ahead and how his administration will steer this nation's economy so it will roar again. McCain's economic plan is the right way for the country to lead us.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 16, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

.

McCain should highlight one clear point: the danger is stagflation and Obama's high tax new programs and policies plunge the economy toward stagflation.


Obama's economic plan is nuts.


Clearly higher taxes is not the way to go however that is exactly what Obama wants to do - he wants to risk a deeper recession risk stagflation so that he can fuel his own ego by creating all these new government programs.


Obama thinks he is the one everyone has been waiting for to lead us to new government programs, more affirmative action and higher taxes.


McCain should make clear the dangers ahead and how his administration will steer this nation's economy so it will roar again. McCain's economic plan is the right way for the country to lead us.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 16, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

McCain has to highlight what his Economic program already is: the Creation of a low-tax economy with restraints on government spending which place a drag on the economy and a drag on long-term economic investments.


In sharp contrast Obama has a whole list of new government programs he wants to add to the bloated government which will require the raising of taxes and the placement of further drag on the economy.


It is clear that McCain has the better economic plan - McCain also wants to check the lobbyists who create economic inefficiencies when they succeed in getting favors for their industries.


Overall the Straight Talk Express is the way to go.


McCain could also highlight his commitment to small businesses which make up 70% of the US economy and which need to know that they will continue to have access to affordable credit to grow.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 16, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

.


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark it now !

.
.


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !

.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company