« Another Associate Obama Might Want to Disown | Main | Just sacrilege I say »

McCain FINALLY starts attacking Obama

And it's about time, too. I said before that the only person McCain could lose this race to was himself. And by sitting there all passive-aggressive letting Obama lay the blame for the economic crisis on Republicans -- and on McCain himself -- he was letting Obama win the race. If McCain truly wants to win the White House, he needs to come out swinging like this EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

I seriously wanted to cheer when I saw this on RedState:

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.


Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, "a good idea." Well, Senator Obama, that "good idea" has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you'd think he'd always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn't he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won't tell you, but you deserve an answer.


It's about time, Senator McCain. It's about time. Attack and keep attacking.

Allah has some video of McCain blasting Obama at Hot Air:

This is what John McCain is going to have to do if he wants to win. Yes, Sarah Palin is a pitbull who has zero qualms about taking the gloves off. But McCain's gotta be willing to do it too. It's not enough for Palin to do it. So it's great to see McCain finally saying what needs to be said and doing what needs to be done. Let's just hope this isn't a one time deal.

Of course, it's only a matter of time before the squeals of RAAAACIIIIST!!!!!!!!! start coming... because, you know, to question Obama in any fashion is racism. Just ignore it and keep on going, Senator McCain. Questioning someone's background and policies is not racism, and just because the liberal media has christened him the next Savior doesn't mean the American people don't get to vet him, even if the media themselves won't.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32100.

Comments (54)

it's not too late...but it ... (Below threshold)

it's not too late...but it was ALMOST too late.

the MSM has hung disasters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac around the Republicans neck...and thus McCain's. He needs to hang it SPECIFICALLY around the necks of:
- Chris Dodd
- Baraka Obama
- Barney Frank
- the last 2 years of Democrat mis-management of Congress!

How the MSM has been able to gloss over the Dems being in TOTAL CONTROL of Congress for TWO YEARS is beyond me. But they have been!

Remember,you MUST ta... (Below threshold)
plunge protection team joke:

Remember,
you MUST take one of the candidates who forced you to pay for the Wall Street bailout.
Understand?

"The two parties should be
almost identical, so that
the American people can
'throw the rascals out'
at any election without
leading to any profound or
extensive shifts in policy."
-Carol Quigley

Economy was doing well in D... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

Economy was doing well in Dec 2006. Once Dims took over Congress in Jan 2007, things started to fall apart.

Pelosi promised in April 2006 that Dems had a common sense plan to lower gas prices. They almost doubled. We're still waiting....


How many jobs have been lost since Dims sold out to unions, etc and increased min wage?

I do not think this is goin... (Below threshold)
ORyan:

I do not think this is going to end up being very effective. IMO the McCain campaign made a strategic mistake several months when they discouraged 527 or other outside groups from organizing and financing campaigns.

There is a reason that candidates do not do this themselves; the inevitable pushback hurts the accuser as much as it does the accused. Take "swift boating" for example, it is now more or less synonymous with dubious character attacks. Bush did not swift boat Kerry; Kerry got swift boated. There is a pretty big difference between the two.

Of course, it's on... (Below threshold)
Stan25:
Of course, it's only a matter of time before the squeals of RAAAACIIIIST!!!!!!!!! start coming... because, you know, to question Obama in any fashion is racism

What do you mean when it is only a matter of time? That began the minute McCain uttered those words. We all know the Media Matters people were all over this, like stink on shit, as soon as the first word was spoken. Yet Obama gets a pass for the bs he cranks out

"I don't need lessons about... (Below threshold)
Mike:

"I don't need lessons about telling the truth to the American people. And were I to need any improvements in that regard, I probably wouldn't seek advice from a Chicago politician."

Love it.

Why did you need to end the... (Below threshold)
yihdego:

Why did you need to end the piece saying that he's going to yell racist. Seems like every time right wing bloggers try to preemptively use the race card it backfires that by now you would drop it. You had a valid point, don't add sully remarks like people will yell racism. When Obama camp yells racism you won't see it coming.

"He has received more money... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them."

Really? I swear McCain took more.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.graphic.190.jpg

He was surely familiar w... (Below threshold)
Brian:

He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him.... Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans?

Like this guy?

Last June, I issued a challenge to everyone involved in the housing industry to help increase the number of minority families to be home owners. And what I'm talking about, I'm talking about your bankers and your brokers and developers, as well as members of faith-based community and community programs. And the response to the home owners challenge has been very strong and very gratifying. Twenty-two public and private partners have signed up to help meet our national goal. Partners in the mortgage finance industry are encouraging homeownership by purchasing more loans made by banks to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.

...
Freddie Mae -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- I see the heads who are here; I want to thank you all for coming -- (laughter) -- have committed to provide more money for lenders. They've committed to help meet the shortage of capital available for minority home buyers.

...
Franklin told me at the meeting where we kicked this office, he said, I promise you we will help, and he has, like many others in this room have done.

Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans.

I really think that McCain ... (Below threshold)

I really think that McCain needed to establish a record to run on during his 28 years in Washington, not just decide to tear down his opponent 30 days before the biggest election of his life because he's approaching a landslide loss. Too little, too late comes to mind.

Brian:That was Oct... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Brian:

That was October 2002.

And as the clouds gathered, by 2005, Elizabeth Dole got a couple of co-sponsors and put a bill in committee to rein Fannie and Freddie. By that time, there also was an ongoing investigation into accounting practices calculated to increase management bonuses; imagine that, Obama buddies got rich. You want the names Brian? You want the reference?

Anyway, Dole's bill was voted out of committee by strict party lines, Repubs for and Dems against. In the Senate, this means the bill has no chance of passage, forget about it.

McCain came along in early 2006, as he woke up and smelled the roses. He signed on as a co-sponsor and tried his bi-partison trademark negotiating, warning of dire consequences or else type of stuff.

The Dems treated him like a leper. Hearing the tune "Don't call us, we'll call you," McCain retreated to other possibilities as did Dole and others.

Except for a small cadre of cranks, everyone loved the idea of minority home ownership. As things started turning to hell in a handbasket, Bush and others woke up and started singing a different song. Schumer, Dodd and Frank were hell bent on see no evil, hear no evil, and talk evil about the racists who wanted to rein in the excesses and the just plain stupid.

Stories were already circulating that many minorities were closing on a home. looting it and moving on. With no closing or down payment, they could clear $8,000 and up for just signing their names.

But reporting it or bad mouthing Fannie and Freddie was impossible. Again, the race card with a vengence. I am so bloody tired of the race card.

So Brian, please tell more of the truth next time, it just, well, increases your credibility.

Just for the record, Greenspan was for it before he was against it. *sigh*

Amazing. The Democrats cons... (Below threshold)
pa:

Amazing. The Democrats constantly preach about the need to be nice to our enemies, and that appeasing them and abasing ourselves will make them really, really like us. And worldwide peace will surely follow. Yet they are the ones who are running a scorched-earth presidential campaign.

In contrast, the Republicans talk tough and tell our enemies that nothing is off the table, not even war. Yet they have been holding back in this presidential campaign, even failing to refute some outright lies, apparently because they're afraid the Democrats might call them a name. An undeserved name, at that. McCain is running a gentleman's campaign, even, as ORyan reminds us, refusing to allow 527 or other outside groups to organize and finance campaigns in his support. So maybe he will finally come out swinging, but he should have been in the center of the ring punching hard all along. He used to be a winning player, but maybe he's just a has-been who can still talk a good game, but can't really mix it up with a serious opponent anymore.

It makes me wonder if McCain would be all that effective in prevailing over our enemies when he can't even fight Obama and the MSM here at home. Alas, even though I don't have much confidence in McCain's abilities, we must vote for him as the alternative is so very very appalling.

John McCain doesn`t have to... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

John McCain doesn`t have to go far to find the chief villain of the financial credit crisis. Instead of pointing fingers at the Dems, it would be incumbent upon him to look at his close friend and Wall Street lobbyist and bank advisor who directed most of McCain's 2008 campaign economic plan...'country (club) first', ex-Texas Republican senator Phil Gramm.

It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork--far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act,(the Commodity Futures Modernization Act) he declared, would ensure that neither the SEC nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps--and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation"(if they were considered properly insuranc they would have to be regulated) and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

Thanks Phil. America shouldn`t complain or `whine` that the debt for `credit default swaps` will dwarf the national debt and could in the end be as much as incredible 60 trillion dollars. Phil Gramm is right that will make 'America a world leader'. Only a couple of months ago Gramm was touted to be McCain`s new Treasury Secretary so like-minded were they.

I suppose the voters (with Wizbang`s blessing)could still decide to put McCain, "I don`t know anything about economics", and Gramm in charge.

jp2Your link was t... (Below threshold)
Larry:

jp2

Your link was too small to see. Probably just as well. You said, "I swear McCain took more." You are flat wrong:

1989 to date:

Name Party Grand Total
Dodd, Christopher D $165,400
Obama, Barack D $126,349
Kerry, John D $111,000
Bennett, Robert R $107,999
Bachus, Spencer R $103,300
Blunt, Roy R $96,950
Kanjorski, Paul D $96,000
Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' R $95,400
Shelby, Richard C R $80,000
Reed, Jack D $78,250
Reid, Harry D $77,000
Clinton, Hillary D $76,050

Someone needs to take Bachus, Bennet, Blunt and Shelby to the woodshed. Anyway jp2, wrong again, as usual. You really need to find more credible sources for the facts that supposedly determine how you are going to vote.

Source: opensecrets.org

jp2Explain that link... (Below threshold)

jp2
Explain that link in #9.

Nice one Steve Crickmore an... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Nice one Steve Crickmore and accurate. As signed into law by BILL CLINTON, The act has been cited as a public policy decision contributing to Enron's bankruptcy in 2001 and the liquidity crisis this year.

Specifically, it repealed Shad-Johnson.

The real sponsor wasn't Gramm, it was Lugar. Gramm is the one who wrote the Enron loophole.

The law was changed to allow credit default swaps, which is what got AIG in trouble, and others. While not a problem on its own, it was like adding farm animal fertilizer to the bad CMO's - up to 30% or more - that were being peddled by Fannie and Freddie.

Steve, assuming you have done more research than just the display one issue, you are likely aware that a ton of people had their hand in setting up the economic disaster we currently enjoy. I have no problem with naming names for Republicans as well as Democrats.

What I resent is the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank all pretending it was the Republicans and "not me." "Not me" is a teenager who lives in all homes where teenagers live. And anyone raising teenagers understands the concept of "Not me."

jp2Explain that l... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
jp2 Explain that link in #9.

You can start by explaining why it's so damned tiny. That should be easy enough to start.

Since jp2 hasn't shown up t... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Since jp2 hasn't shown up to defend his dubious numbers, lemme try.

He has picked a graphic that shows 7 contributors from Freddie, Fannie associated people. Three for Obama, three for McCain and one for both. Which number is by no means a comlete list of Freddie/Fannie associated political contributors over time.

I am sure he told the truth. I am equally sure he is lying since he did not tell the whole truth. While all political campaigns fudge the truth, I dunno when it has been so systematic as this year. And some of the rhetoric has just been plain nasty. dailykos is an example of people gone fruitcake in mass.

They've got a bunch of work... (Below threshold)
Clint:

They've got a bunch of work to do in a short, short time --- but recall that we've seen the OODA loop of the Obama camp and the MSM. And we've seen that the McCain camp is faster.

McCain's got a hard battle ahead -- but I really do believe he was planning on beginning the attack with the debates. The "bailout" bill just put him about a week behind schedule.

Being behind in the polls has one plus to it: Middle America is now starting to seriously contemplate President Obama. The timing is perfect to raise the question: "Who is Barack Obama?"

Hugh and Larry - not sure w... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Hugh and Larry - not sure why the link didn't work. Sorry.

Anyways, here is the article - check on the left. You'll see the score from Fannie/Freddie donations there. I suppose if you don't count these, it makes your point stronger. (But sleazy)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.html?hp

Total for McCain from Fannie/Freddie directors/presidents :

$169,000

Obama :
$16,000

His ties to Gramm certainly hurt, as well as his constant push for deregulation as exemplified by earlier comments here. Also :

Senator John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=2&ei=5070&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1222056908-k38W66Tg7nuznBsIw26YZg&oref=slogin

All of these things make this a win for Obama and it's a major reason McCain is tanking. I hope this issue is brought up a lot more because it's clearly given McCain some bruises.

Larry, sure the Dems in Con... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Larry, sure the Dems in Congress and Bill Clinton as President were largely at fault for pushing the envelope of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to permit too many people on low income to acquire mortgages they otherwise couldn`t afford, but the main thrust and profits for deregulation were from the GOP and their Wall Street friends, what Bush calls his `home constiuency`.

Individually, ex libertarian and Ayn Rand disciple, FED chairman Alan Greenspan`s promotion of cheap money, and the `credit default swaps`(these were really damaging) from Phil Gramm who McCain called `an economic genuis` and Cox`s lax, almost non-enforcement of the SEC.

Under chairman Christopher Cox,. the US Securities and Exchange Commission has drastically reduced the power of its enforcement division, Portfolio reports. Cox was brought in to "chill it out" after his predecessor was perhaps too zealous for White House tastes.

The last few years Wizbang has been underscoring the renaissance of Wall Stret as a tribute to the GOP and Bush. Kim Priestap even had a post in 2006 `Greed is Good` in which she said..that the quoted link

"makes so many great points on the virtues of the free market that it should be required reading in college economics classes".


Now, when `the sh..hits the fan' and the whole Wall Street boondoogle/ built on sham and fraud is exposed, readers are asked to believe that it was the Dems, the party who were not in Executive power for the last 7 and half years but were mainly responsible for the reckless greed that overwhelmed the system while the SEC in accordance with the Bush interests/and cronies looked the other way.

I think we should have had more publicly minded servants minding the store, but it Republican, (and Wizbang`s) philosphy that Wall Street should be left to voluntarily police themselves (let the market work) and don't let the govenment interfere..blah, blah. Now we are facing the dreadful naive consequences.

FBI informant stated that A... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

FBI informant stated that Ayers and Dohrn murdered a police officer.

See the Wikipedia article which mentions the Feb. 16, 1970 murder of Officer McDonnell by a pipe bomb in San Francisco. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_Underground

In a bombing that took place on February 16, 1970, a pipe bomb filled with heavy metal staples and lead bullet projectiles was set off on the ledge of a window at the Park Station of the San Francisco Police Department. In the blast, Brian V. McDonnell, a police sergeant, was fatally wounded while Robert Fogarty, another police officer, received severe wounds to his face and legs and was partially blinded.[17]

While no group has ever claimed responsibility for the bombing, it has been attributed several times to the Weathermen,[18][19] and Weatherman leader Bernardine Dohrn has been suspected of involvement. At the time, Dohrn was said to be living with a Weatherman cell in a houseboat in Sausalito, California, unnamed law enforcement sources later told KRON-TV.[20] An investigation into the case was reopened in 1999,[21] and a San Francisco grand jury looked into the incident, but no indictments followed,[20] and no one was ever arrested for the bombing.[21] An FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, who successfully penetrated the organization from the late summer of 1969 until April 1970, later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that Bill Ayers, then a high-ranking member of the organization and a member of its Central Committee (but not then Dohrn's husband), had said Dohrn constructed and planted the bomb. Grathwohl testified that Ayers had told him specifically where the bomb was placed (on a window ledge) and what kind of shrapnel was put in it. Grathwohl said Ayers was emphatic, leading Grathwohl to believe Ayers either was present at some point during the operation or had heard about it from someone who was there.[22] In a book about his experiences published in 1976, Grathwohl wrote that Ayers, who had recently attended a meeting of the group's Central Committee, said Dohrn had planned the operation, made the bomb and placed it herself.[23] In 2008, author David Freddoso commented that "Ayers and Dohrn escaped prosecution only because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them".[22][24]

These are the two people in whom's home Barack Obama began his political career. Disgusting. Ayers and Dohrn should be in jail and Obama run out of politics for ever associating with them.

We have to get word out on this because the media are trying to sugar coat this.

jp2That part deali... (Below threshold)
Larry:

jp2

That part dealing with Rick Davis has been debunked. I am not going to repeat the debunking here. It is available on the web.

As for the article itself, you can pull many things out of it pro and con for either or both candidates. I posted an alternate list of contributions as reported by a credible and non-partisan source. I have no idea where the numbers come from in Jackie Calmes piece since he/she did not attribute a source.

Presumably we are expected to believe whatever the NYT has to say and that too has not been exactly a gold standard of late.

By the way, Roger Mudd's son took over as President of Fannie or Freddie, I don't remember which. He got no gold parachute and is out looking for a job right now.

I do believe that the article lied by ommission. There was no mention of Dole's bill in 2005. There WAS a mention of Obama's too late warning in 2007. What else do you expect from the NYT?

His "ties" to (for... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
His "ties" to (former democrat)Gramm certainly hurt...

McCain campaign co-chairman Phil Gramm says America in 'mental recession'

The Republican nominee-to-be rejected the colorful assessment from his campaign co-chairman - and even threatened him with exile to Europe's last communist dictatorship.

"Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I strongly disagree," Mr. McCain said, trying to tamp down the problem caused by his longtime friend, who holds a doctorate in economics and taught the subject at Texas A&M before moving to Congress.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/071108dnpolgramm.424e457.html

That was October 2002.<b... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That was October 2002.
And as the clouds gathered, by 2005...

Bzzt! 'Change the subject' alert!

The topic is "the people who were creating this problem".

So Brian, please tell more of the truth next time

So quoting Bush is now a lie to you?

The topic is "the people... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

The topic is "the people who were creating this problem".

And Bush didn't create the problem, though he could have done more to reign in FM2

That part dealing ... (Below threshold)
jp2:
That part dealing with Rick Davis has been debunked. I am not going to repeat the debunking here. It is available on the web.

Nicely played! Way to not address any points and just attack the NYT without providing any substance whatsoever. Very similar to the McCain/Palin strategy. You make a great Republican.

James Cloninger -K... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

James Cloninger -

Kind of hard to rein in the FMs when the Democrats were loudly shouting that nothing was wrong and cracking the whip to urge them to put out more loans faster. And it's not like he didn't have anything ELSE going on at that time he needed to spend political capital on!

Steve:Good set of ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Steve:

Good set of comments.

I have no clue about any history for wizbang.

I do know that I have tried emailing various of the authors or asking a question in a comment. To date, the only reply I have received was one or two where Lorie wanted to post something I wrote elsewhere and I said yes. She neither posted nor has she replied to subsequent emails. I guess they have regular lives :-)

My main point of disagreement with your comment is that my world view differs from yours. See, I don't view the GOP as primarily the rich and DNC as primarily the working class. Fact is, the Dems represent more wealthy congressional districts than do the Repubs. And certainly there are an absolute ton of the wealthy supporting Obama.

Over time, more and more of the middle class has moved center right, which means Republican.

If you look at the various groups that make up each party, the Dems seem to own the extremely poor, a heavy percentage of the intellectual class and a ton of rich people and the more militant Union Members. Republicans seem more middle class, disaffected union members, some of the wealthy, a heavy percentage of Christians and so on. The chicken soup of party identification is mixed up by geographic location as well. As an aside, did you know that Namcy Pelosi is considered a moderate in her home town? I kid you not.

My personal opinion is to follow the money.

Over the years, tax and spend liberals were supplanted by lower tax and spend Republicans, which is sorta stupid. And all of them, both parties, are beholden to them what got them where they are and I don't mean voters.

Lobbyists control Congress and to a certain extent, the Presidency. What lobbyists don't control, the media does. So you get the stupid extremes that lobbyists are paid to promote, such as McCain's telecom stuff and letting Fannie and Freddie run wild, as led by Frank et al.

It is all about getting and keeping power and nobody is looking out for the voters, period.

I watch Fox, for example, because it is predictably partisan and they at least give lip service to providing both sides of an issue.

Steve, there is a hidden cause for the current debacle the US faces. Greenspan is one of the ones who gets the fickle finger of fate award for promoting the conditions we face, as is a host of characters both Democrat and Republican.

It is called pumping up the economy so we can continue to pay for all of our social programs and entitlements and still service an ever increasing national debt. And please don't tell me Clinton balanced the budget by himself.

I could go on for hours, which would get me kicked off of here if not already for being a heretic over some conservatives ideology. Heck I don't care, I have my 1960 Republican credentials framed and proud of them.

The bottom line Steve, is the Obama's tax on the rich is a canard. Obama is not stupid. He knows full well that any tax on the rich is simply passed on down the line and primarily squeezes those who cannot pass the cost on. My wife and I are exact center middle class, down from way up higher thanks to McCain's going along with the appointment of Colin Powell's son to the run the FCC. We will be one of the ones stuck by Obama's tax the rich baloney because we can't pass it on down the line.

I am still voting for McCain because I consider him to be the more honest of the two guys running. I believe he has great personal integrity although I can see clearly some of the mistakes he has made. And I really like Palin's potential.

Personally, it would take a lobotomy for me to vote for a Chicago politician. And I have an up close and personal view of those guys going back many years. I also lived in Souther Louisiana for five years and worked as a part time lobbyist in their legislature. Trust me, Louisiana is a clear and clean lake of integrity and honesty compared to the cesspool of Chicago.

jp2Read what I sai... (Below threshold)
Larry:

jp2

Read what I said again. Read what I said instead of what you think I said or wanted me to say. I believe I was crystal clear.

Larry, pardon my butting in... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Larry, pardon my butting in - you seem to be reasonable chap, but bottom line is you are getting your news from Fox and fall into the same cliche traps so many others do.

You should take your supposed "1960 Republican credentials" to a mirror and look, really look, at what's changed since then. The party no longer subscribes to those principles, especially post-Nixon. Remember, conservatism != Republicans. (And btw, neither work all that well)

"I could never vote for a Chicago politician."

Ridiculous. You are implying some sort of corruption without any basis solely on a geographic location? Yet you are willing to place your vote for a man who actually had his hands deep in corruption? That logic makes as much sense as racism/classism. Pretty childish.

And btw - when you think of... (Below threshold)
jp2:

And btw - when you think of Palin you think of "potential?" (Crazy, btw)

As they say in sports, potential is the way to describe a player who hasn't done anything yet. And that's not what we need in the WH, in any capacity.

As they say in sports, p... (Below threshold)
Deke:

As they say in sports, potential is the way to describe a player who hasn't done anything yet. And that's not what we need in the WH, in any capacity.

Wow! Great reason not to elect BHO!!

Seriously though, the evidence of the corrupt nature of Chicago politics, from the Daily admins onward, is overwhelming.

The fact Obama changed his name from Barry to Borak and has associated himself with ppl such as Wright and Ayers just goes to the point the guy is all about acquiring power and office for himself and not about any ideals that he may hold.

I'll be honest I'm not a big McCain fan either and have voted Democratic in several elections, but something about this guy scares the crap out of me.

Ridiculous. You ar... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Ridiculous. You are implying some sort of corruption without any basis solely on a geographic location?

Why do you bother debating with Larry? You're out of your league.

"The city's grim reputation is rooted back in the Roaring Twenties when Al Capone emerged victorious from gang warfare and went on to become a household name. Oddly enough, far less is known about his successors and their grip on the city during the last half of the twentieth century. But that is when Chicago's Mafia became the single most powerful organized crime family in American history. While Mob bosses knocked each other off on the East Coast, in Chicago they united into a monolithic force called the Outfit. They would literally control the cops, the courts and the politicians - a corrupt trifecta that Capone dreamed about, but never came close to achieving. The Outfit demanded a cut of every criminal enterprise in the region, from a lowly car theft or private poker game to a jewelry heist. To enforce this "street tax," their Hit Men killed with impunity, knowing that crooked judges would throw out any case against them. Their bookies brazenly took bets in nightclubs, at racetracks and even in government office buildings, confident that contacts in the police department (at one point as high up as the Chief of Detectives) would warn them before the vice squad could make a raid. Mobsters ran Chicago union locals, and national organizations for the Laborers and the Teamsters. This unprecedented combination of brute force and political clout let the bosses feed at the public trough with no-show jobs for their goons and municipal contracts for themselves and their associates. Government became one of their most lucrative rackets."

I also can't believe you are that naive about the history of Chicago. Read the whole thing.

http://www.whencorruptionwasking.com/introduction.html

As they say in sports, p... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

As they say in sports, potential is the way to describe a player who hasn't done anything yet. And that's not what we need in the WH, in any capacity.

True that. Yet another reason to keep Brocko out of the WH.

As they say in spo... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
As they say in sports, potential is the way to describe a player who hasn't done anything yet.

Who are "they"?

"Yet another reason to keep... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Yet another reason to keep Brocko out of the WH."

Well, a lame quote put to good use, anyway.

jp2Yea, I am a rea... (Below threshold)
Larry:

jp2

Yea, I am a reasonable guy. I reasonably understand politicians way better than most folks. I enjoy watching Fox. It is entertaining. I enjoy Greta, who is a flaming liberal in her personal life, but you would never know it by her program, which I consider the most balanced of them all. I think Olberman and a bunch of the other MSM types to be less than honest in their news. And I am gonna surprise you. I think Hannity is a blowhard and Colmes is sometimes a stooge and sometimes a decent guy.

What I do is read a lot. I am retired and have the time. I apply a standard of critical thinking to everything I read. Among the blogs I read daily is, well, dailykos. I read the NYT, the Post, and half a dozen other papers. I especially read a guy named Ed Wallace, who brings a unique perspective to the picture and Ed and I do disagree from time to time as can any other reasonable two people.

I also research. I have read, for example, the CTU contract with the Chicago school district. I read the Baker Institute stuff at Rice all the time to gain a perspective on energy. I study stuff before I draw conclusions. For example, did you know that the energy ratio for ethanol is 1:1.20? In other words, stupid.

Read one of Ed's columns on ethanol at:

http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm

I wish I knew how to hide a link in hypertext.

I have read Freddoso's book and called a couple of friends of mine in Chicago to check his sources and commentary. Near as I can tell, Freddoso was actually kinder to Obama than he should have been. Trust me, the guys I know in Chicago are inside guys.

That doesn't mean he will be a bad President just because he gained his spurs in a cesspool. For example, Harry Truman was a decent President and he was straight from the Pendergast Machine. But the chance are good that he will be a Carter redux from what I hear.

See jp2, it IS guilt by association in politics. That is the way it works. There are democrat pollsters who don't work for repubs and repub pollsters who don't work for dems. And lobbyists who work for both, but they don't cross party lines. It is partisan to the core and you dance with the one who you brung to the party.

I would have been a good old southern democrat in 1960 if I had not seen the change coming. I admired Sam Rayburn and hated Lyndon because he was a thief, a total crook. I liked Ralph Yarborough for example.

See jp2, I have been fortunate in my life to know some of those people personally who are the movers and shakers and who get things done. And some of them are good people and some I wouldn't want to look at my daughter.

I am truly sorry you think well of Obama. My read on his political character is not good. My institutional memory takes me back to Carter and the similarities between Carter and Obama. And by any measure, Carter was a disaster as a President, as bad as people are trying to make Bush.

Lemme say this about Obama so you know why I think the way I think. He is a self serving politician who talks pretty with empty rhetoric that Axelrod has peddled several times in the past.

He has been spoon feed by the real back room boys in Chicago because of his gift of public speaking and convincing those who listen to him that he is speaking to THEM and they read into him what they want. Heck, see page 11 of Audacity to see who he thinks he is, don't take my word for it.

Every single politician is a human being. I don't love any of them althought I do respect some of them. Getting infatuated with a politician is about as mature as a high school girl flipping out over a rock star. When the phenylethylalamine wears off, it is a real downer.

Palin as President. ... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Palin as President. She has great potential to be a great one. Here is why I think that way.

She governs from principal. She leaves the details to others but checks to see where they are going. This is called management 101. She does NOT micromanage except in the arena of results.

She is honest. Unless Washington corrupts her as it has so many others, she will deal with her decision process with honesty, something that cannot be said for many others in that town.

She is smart, very smart. And as importantly, she will communicate effectively without empty rhetoric. She says what she means and means what she says. I see her as a budding Clinton in that area, the effective Clinton, not the peckerhead who parsed words when he got in trouble.

She really gives a damn about average people. This is so rare as to be almost extinct in Washington. Well maybe that was a bit harsh.

She is tough. She is a she, with the very different ways of thinking that sometimes women can bring to the table.

JFK was inexperienced and he had great potential. He beat Nixon who was a wonk and very experienced. Both turned out to be lousy Presidents.

Gotta go.

lamedusaThe only t... (Below threshold)
Larry:

lamedusa

The only thing that has changed is the color of the skin for some of the inside players.

Gotta go

careful what you w... (Below threshold)
Larry:
careful what you wish for. This kind of sleaze obviously resonates with the twenty-percenters that inhabit places like wizbang, but the independent voters he's trying to woo will feel insulted by extreme negativity and will be pushed to Obama. McCains in a tight spot. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Hang on, it's gonna be a bumpy ride to Nov. 4.

Not true even with pushback. MANY independents were swayed by the Rev. Wright deal. And extreme negativity is in the eye of the beholder. You might think that Ayers is extreme negativity, but a person who remembers the Weathermen might think it is spot on.

The reasons why politicians use negative attacks is that they work, but yes, it is better to use surrogates. Since McCain runs the "Straight talk express," he prefers to throw his own mud. And that is not a bad thing.

Gotta go for real this time.

Larry, I will make a short ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Larry, I will make a short reply because I must retire soon. Yes the Dem delegates for example at the DNC may in the main be comfortable, have graduate degrees, but they know their class interest -people on lower income as well as the upwardly mobile.
Bush and McCain come from the wealthy, privileged, you might almost say aristocratic class and this is the income tax bracket they will try to protect and they have been very successful.

I don`t really consider McCain honest. He is not personally corrupt- marrying a rich heiress probably saved him from those temptations- but he has an enormous thirst for power and will do or say almost anything to get it. This doesn't make him so different from nearly all politicians. Obama can trim the truth too and embellish the record, but his policies especially, after nearly 8 years of the Bush wrecking crew are far more appealing for me and I think almost essential for the country and world.

And look at the people that gravitate to McCain`s campaign, nearly all of them are corporate lobbyists..small wonder.

Again, Larry, you seem like... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Again, Larry, you seem like a nice fellow - nice to have a reasonable discussion. As far as your opinion of McCain's integrity, have a looksee here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/drilling-down-on-the-facts-in-mccains-speech/

This is just from a few speeches, but this has been a constant theme throughout the campaign - lies. By McCain, constantly. By Palin, constantly. Are you not up to date?

Disappointed in your opinions of the Palin's of course. Why you think another Republican millionaire cares about "the average American" is fascinating to me. When was the last time a Republican helped the average American? The gap between the rich and poor grows every time under a GOP rule.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/13/ST2008061302816.html

And what makes you think she's smart? Her interviews? Her great grasp on the economy?

And as far as the guilt by association - that still makes as much sense as racism. (One of your fellows here linked to an article about Al Capone!)

"...independent voters h... (Below threshold)

"...independent voters he's trying to woo will feel insulted by extreme negativity..."

Yeah, and Obama's constant negativity about how bad America is, how screwed we are and how awful things have gotten is what we all want to hear.

The long string of insults to whole groups of people, "typical white person", "clinging to guns and religion", or our "antipathy to people who aren't like" us.

When our situation is no where near the Carter years and the resulting "misery index", but not as good as the brief periods of fake utopia we've experienced, we are still comfortable and over-fed while we gripe from our easy-boy loungers.

Yeah, Obama's message has been SO positive...

Yeah, and Obama's consta... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yeah, and Obama's constant negativity about how bad America is, how screwed we are and how awful things have gotten is what we all want to hear.

It used to be.

Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave threats to our very existence, any one of which could destroy us. We face a disintegrating economy, a weakened defense and an energy policy based on the sharing of scarcity. The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership --in the White House and in Congress -- for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done.

...
I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.
...
The first Republican president once said, "While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years."

If Mr. Lincoln could see what's happened in these last three-and-a-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement.
...
First, we must overcome something the present administration has cooked up: a new and altogether indigestible economic stew, one part inflation, one part high unemployment, one part recession, one part runaway taxes, one part deficit spending and seasoned by an energy crisis. It's an economic stew that has turned the national stomach.
...
Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, "Well done?" Can anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are today and say, "Keep up the good work?" Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, "Let's have four more years of this?" I believe the American people are going to answer these questions the first week of November and their answer will be, "No--we've had enough."
...
We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation, crushing our ability and incentive to save, invest and produce. This must stop. We must halt this fiscal self-destruction and restore sanity to our economic system.
...
It is time to put America back to work; to make our cities and towns resound with the confident voices of men and women of all races, nationalities and faiths bringing home to their families a decent paycheck they can cash for honest money.
...
For those who have abandoned hope, we'll restore hope and we'll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!

When we move from domestic affairs and cast our eyes abroad, we see an equally sorry chapter on the record of the present administration.
...
The rest of us, however, live in the real world. It is here that disasters are overtaking our nation without any real response from Washington.
...
The administration which has brought us to this state is seeking your endorsement for four more years of weakness, indecision, mediocrity and incompetence. No American should vote until he or she has asked, is the United States stronger and more respected now than it was three-and-a-half years ago? Is the world today a safer place in which to live?
...
Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves to renewing the American compact.
...
The American spirit is still there, ready to blaze into life if you and I are willing to do what has to be done; the practical, down-to-earth things that will stimulate our economy, increase productivity and put America back to work. The time is now to resolve that the basis of a firm and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking.

Guess who?

Something I have been curio... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Something I have been curious about is that everyone wants someone with a poor background that relates to the average guy. Carter was just a peanut farmer. Reagan and his shoe salesman father. Clinton was born after his father died and grew up poor. Does anyone not know Edwards father worked in a mill? Obama everyone seems to know about his humble beginnings.
So how come there is so much hate for Palin? You look at her life and where she comes from and see she is genuine. She didn't marry a multi-millionaire nor was she born into millions. By liberal measures she would be perfect if she was a democrat.
She shares a lack of experience with Obama,but at least what experience she has is not laced with a bunch or radicals, corrupt CEO's, and corrupt politicians. No one pushed her to become what she is. She didn't need someone else to boost her up and grease the way.

jp2~I will just sa... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

jp2~

I will just say this. You appear to be foreign born, yet maybe you live in the U.S. What concerns me the most is your refusal to think when given criteria to assimilate. You make no sound judgment as if you had never seen the information, or just take in a couple of words and write off the rest as unimportant.

For instance, you will see the name Al Capone, but refuse to see the words "Mob control", "Union control" and "mob control of the Chicago judicial system." In a way, you are like Brian, where you will keep rephrasing the same argument as if you are bringing something new into the debate. You have already read many other things that are highly questionable about Obama, yet you maintain the same argument as if no one has already answered you.

The only thing I can surmise is that you really don't like or take women seriously in a role of power because of your own personal circumstances. Even when Palin's sister's ex-husband was revealed as an abuser of children and his job responsibilities, your only reaction was, "He seems like a bastard, but..." It's more than obvious to me that your only reason for going to the polls is to make sure a woman is not the vice president. In turn, I can only feel sorry for your trying to mask your emotional ignorance with feigned civility.

"Tis folly in one... (Below threshold)
maggie:
"Tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favours and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)

Reference: Washington's Maxims, 71.

Brian:I kno... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Brian:

I know that your critical thinking capability is distorted by your willingness to believe in the man.

Words count.

So do actions.

Lemme say again, Obama wants to tax those who make over $250,00 a year. This is a fraud on you and everyone else who buys goods and services. Who do you think will really pay that increase in taxes?

Answer: those who cannot pass it on down the line. I dunno if you are rich. I am not. And I know that the price of goods and services provided by those who make over $250,000 will go UP so I will really help pay that tax.

Do you think that those making over 250K are stupid? Really? Price increases not associated with anything else will see the light of day.

Brian, do you get it? If you disagree, say so and defend with logic how you think.

Steve:As I have sa... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Steve:

As I have said, our worldview is different. I have no problem with yours. Each of us is what we eat, or rather, what we read and believe.

Steve, I really hate to see another Carter in the White House and I am afraid that is what we are going to get. Well, except I do not think that Obama has as much personal integrity as Carter. But that is neither here nor there.

Without question, wealth has migrated into fewer and fewer hands over the past twenty years. I think that is what you were alluding to. There are several reasons for this including the technological revolution, which placed enormous wealth into the hands of the technological elite and their backers - well some of the backers, others went broke chasing a pipe dream.

I don't want to see us become a banana republican, with attendant "Ranchero" mentality of elite management of everyone's affairs. Yet that is where we are headed for any number of reasons not the least of which is an education system that has fallen on hard times because the talent pool of women has other places they can make more money now than in times past.

The main reason for the migration of wealth is simple and mostly overlooked.

When the aggregate of governments take an increasingly higher share of money and redistribute it to the lowest income group, the ones in the middle between the rich, who should be paying but aren't and the ones who get the benefit, get squeezed.

Want me to back that one up Steve? Just think indirect taxes.

jp2There are so ma... (Below threshold)
Larry:

jp2

There are so many emotional bias in your last post to me, I hardly know where to begin.

*sigh*

You have really bought into class warfare, I guess. You have really bought into Repub versus Dems and what they supposedly stand for, I guess.

Let me just take one shot and then go eat dinner.

"And as far as the guilt by association"

Ok. Read the stuff I posted under another thread. There you will find a link to an original report on the Annenbert Challenge in Chicago - go read it. It was put out by the University. Then go find where the money went.

If you believe that those who got the money are acting in the best interests of the US, then fine, I have nothing more to say. If you get the idea that many of those who got money from Ayers and Obama might just be in the brainwashing business and not acting in the best interest of the US and our way of life, then you might just be getting it.

I don't like most politicians. I like some of them. Many are good and decent people. Others are not. In my opinion, based on research I have been able to dig up myself and not associated anything that could be described as biased, I have concluded that Obama is a fraud.

jp2Ok, let me take... (Below threshold)
Larry:

jp2

Ok, let me take on another one you want to debate.

The gap between the rich and poor grows every time under a GOP rule.

First of all, I don't really believe everything I read in the newspaper. Sometimes a reporter reads the underlying infiormation and draws a judgement and sometimes he just read the summary.

Let me take you back to 2004.

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf

As it turns out, the summary agrees with you and the Washington Post report on that guy's book, which is basically a rehash of previously published studies.

The devil is in the details. After reading the underlying data and methodology, I noticed that job creation was the key to income gain or loss. So over a very long period of time, on average, Democrat Presidents were better at creating jobs and Republican Presidents less so.

Well, except for Jimmy Carter. It turns out Carter was worse than Republicans.

Since I consider Obama a Carter clone, I am better able to figure out who to vote for in this election.

And I thank you for leading me in that direction.

Brian, do you get it?</i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, do you get it?

Yes, I do. Every time you're shown to be wrong (or in this case, someone else is), you desperately try to change the subject, and then issue a debate challenge that you carry from thread to thread when you're ignored as a distraction.

I get that very clearly.

Yes, I do. Every t... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Yes, I do. Every time you're shown to be wrong (or in this case, someone else is), you desperately try to change the subject, and then issue a debate challenge that you carry from thread to thread when you're ignored as a distraction.

No, you don't, because you just described yourself perfectly. Give it a rest, already and stop using the words "debate challenge". You are not a challenge.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy