An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Barack Obama: Invisible Man

GOP Scare Tactics »

Why Ayers Matters (Guest Voice)

Posted by CAGLE CARTOONS in Guest Contributor, Politics.
Oct 10th, 2008 | Comments

Republican presidential candidate Sen John McCain is getting a lot of criticism from many pundits in many news organizations and on many sites (such as this one) for raising the “Ayers” issue. In this Guest Voice column, Michael Reagan, the popular talk show host and son of former President of Ronald Reagan, argues that the issue does matter. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

Why Ayers Matters

by Michael Reagan

To listen to the Obama spin-masters you’d think that the McCain campaign’s questioning of their candidate’s association with unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers is a smear tactic falsely elevating a casual relationship between the two men into one where they worked together in promoting Ayers’ far-left goals.

Their reaction to the continuing revelations that disprove that claim is one of sheer panic — and they have a good reason to be scared witless that any in-depth probe of what went on between the two comrades will reveal Obama’s true colors — all of them dark red!

If the truth becomes better known — and it will if the Ayers issue is doggedly pursued — it will be clear that Obama was not only deeply immersed the fetid swamp of Chicago’s far-left political scene, but was from the very beginning of his career carefully groomed by the city’s socialist left to follow the path he’s on now in his quest for the presidency of the United States.

Giving credence to the charge that Obama was “groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the [past]” as the American Thinkers’ Thomas Lifson has written:

• Obama belonged to the socialist New Party, described by Lifson as “a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far-left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left.” A March 22, 1998 article by John Nichols in These Times revealed, “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century.”

• Obama has been allied with ACORN and their Project Vote, the radical leftist group now charged with massive vote fraud aimed at electing Barack Obama president of the United States. Obama has long been directly involved with ACORN. An article by Toni Foulkes of ACORN, “Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign,” which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004, Foulkes revealed ACORN noticed Obama when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. Wrote Foulks: “He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois’ refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act … Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar … and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them). Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office.”

• Obama and Bill Ayers were close associates for years, going back as far as 1995 if not earlier. According to CNN: “A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project. The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools… Obama was asked to serve as the board chairman in 1995… For seven years, Ayers and Obama — among many others — worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers … The board, for example, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Ayers’ small schools project… The funding, according to records… CNN reviewed, came directly from the Annenberg foundation which Obama chaired. While working on the Annenberg project, Obama and Ayers also served together on a second charitable foundation, the Woods Fund.”

No wonder the Obama campaign wants the Ayers connection to be off-limits.

©2008 Mike Reagan. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc.

  • JSpencer
    I think the real question here is whether (no pun intended) or not the employing of sensational adjectives injects any more (badly needed) substance into Reagans piece.

    The following link contains an internal memo from ACORN's directors talking about what the organization really is, as opposed to the narrative being advanced by those who are intent on demonizing them:

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...
  • SteveK
    The market is down (READ: IT'S THE ECONOMY) 509.35 in the first half hour today and McCain and his apologists want it to be about a long debunked character attack...
  • kritt11
    Uh, if they served on the board together-- obviously their paths would cross repeatedly. What is today's relevance?

    And can Michael explain the fact that McCain has had repeated contact with an ex-felon and confessed Watergate conspirator who once plotted Jack Anderson's murder??? See how you can make McCain's appearance on Liddy's radio show sound ominous??? Liddy was in his own way a domestic terrorist as he operated outside of the law and was willing to use violence. Don't Americans deserve to know the real story of McCain and his pal, Gordon Liddy???
  • janinedm
    Off topic does not equal off limits. Also, exasperation does not equal panic.

    It's not as if reporters haven't asked the question in recent Obama interviews. It's not as if Obama hasn't given an answer, but I'll guess this will keep on until it can be made to sound sinister. Trust me, the majority of the American public is aware that Barack Obama and William Ayers knew each other. We really, really know. It's going to take more than associations, the current polls reflect an American public that knows about the connection. There's going to need to be some sort of proof of influence. Otherwise the line of reasoning sounds like that old South Park episode, "Collect underpants ... ... Profit."

    For pity's sake, the house is burning down and these guys want to argue about who was the last one to clean out the fridge!
  • Marlowecan
    JSpencer...

    ACORN is a radically dysfunctional organization...which enjoys partisan backing from those on the Left. It is, in fact, an embarrassment to the Democratic party...in much the same way as the voter-suppression groups are an embarrassment to the GOP.

    When its founder's brother Dale Ratke embezelled a million dollars from the organization, it was promptly covered up by ACORN and the embezellment disguised as a loan, while the embezeller remained on ACORN's payroll.

    Just Google indictments/election/fraud and you will get pages of links. If this were a GOP group, folks here would be howling in outrage. ACORN has a long long history of links to voter fraud.

    True, Voter Registration fraud is not Voter Fraud. It is doubtful whether a voter with an ACORN Registration Card with Bugs Bunny would be allowed to vote. But I doubt whether Bruce Wayne or Perry White or Jame T. Kirk would raise an eyebrow...especially when IDs are not required. How many illegal voters have voted care of ACORN? ACORN's own filters are notoriously lax (cf. Bugs Bunny).

    Kritt...there are obvious differences between Ayres and Liddy: Liddy served time for his crimes. Ayres walked. Liddy did not plant bombs in public places that could have killed innocents. Ayres did. Liddy is largely confined to the fringe of the Conservative right. Ayres is deep in the heart of Chicago's left-wing intellectual establishment.

    The only similarity...and that is a big one...is that neither have really expressed remorse for their actions.
  • Marlowecan
    Janine...what you say is very true.

    It is good that these questions are raised...and Obama, as opposed to his spokespeople...is now having to answer questions on the record.

    The evidence suggests there was no real relationship between Obama and Ayres (I am referring to Kurtz study of the Annenberg Challenge).

    Thus, I fail to see why defending or excusing Ayres is necessary (or defending or excusing ACORN). Obama is of the Left. He encounters others on the Left in his time. Obama may even be a socialist. So what? I suppose I approach American politics from a different perspective. It seems very narrow to me. Socialism has some good points (not many, but some :)

    I think Shaun Mullen actually called it right here. Ayres was/is a nasty, unrepentent domestic radical. But Obama's connection with him was largely tenuous.

    Perhaps there are more secrets in the closet. But you are right, Janine...when the economy is tanking, who cares whether Obama was at one or five cocktail parties with Ayres and other people?
  • CStanley
    Kim, the statements about the number of times that Obama and Ayers were in the same room at board meetings goes to rebut the Obama campaigns assertions that they rarely crossed paths. They both served on the board of the Woods Foundation, and Obama's staff have downplayed that by saying that that board only met a few times a year so there wasn't a close working relationship. That doesn't appear to be inaccurate, but that's beside the point.

    Where the two of them appear to have worked much more closely though is on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project. That program was Ayers' baby- he cowrote the grant application for the startup funds, and then when they won the grant he structured the program with several parts- one was the planning arm that he himself headed up, and the other was the CAC itself for which Obama was chosen as board chair. What Stanley Kurtz and others are questioning is how it could possibly be credible that Ayers didn't have anything to do with Obama's selection (which is what Obama's campaign and some of the CAC principles claim. There's documentary evidence showing that Ayers clearly was calling all of the shots, so it strains credibility to think that he had nothing to do with selecting a relatively unknown Harvard Law guy to head this up.)

    Notice that this WaPo article quoted on Obama's fightthesmears website doesn't even mention CAC. Why would that be?

    There just appears to be a massive panic over this information being exposed to daylight, and although I don't see any real fire there certainly appears to be smoke in the form of coverup and deflection from even discussing this.

    And yes, I do think there are more important campaign issues right now- but unfortunately neither McCain nor Obama are saying how they'll turn the economic problems around anyway.
  • janinedm
    "Perhaps there are more secrets in the closet."

    I'm beginning to think there must not be. McCain would have pulled out new allegation already instead of going through Hillary's waste bin. You'd think he could have taken all the money he saved on Vice Presidential vetting and hired some top notch PIs.
  • CStanley
    Obama may even be a socialist. So what? I suppose I approach American politics from a different perspective. It seems very narrow to me. Socialism has some good points (not many, but some :)
    Marlowe, with all due respect, I think your attitude from across the pond is affecting your viewpoint here. ;-)

    True that socialist does not equal 'evil', but there's no doubt in most people's minds- even liberal democrats- that an avowed socialist could not win an election in the US. So, if Obama's political leanings are that far left, the voters ought to be told before the election and not after, no?

    I'd feel the same way if a conservative candidate seemed to be using moderate rhetoric and claiming to run on a center-right platform but had a history of only working on ultraconservative programs and legislation- and then tried to downplay or dodge questions about working relationships with controversial figures from the fringe right.
  • RememberNovember
    Why would the Neoconservative son of the late great Ronald Warren Reagan cite bloggers from a known NeoConservative blog site...hmm.....wel at least he didn't cite Michael Savage or Michelle Malkin.
    My question is this- what about the other folks on the board? Or were Obama and Ayers the only ones? It's not what is said or written but quite often what is not.
    I guess you can throw "American" in front of anything and it's legitimate....problem is when you do that it seems to cheapen the "brand" and put false assumptions of national gravitas into the mix.


    The Annenbergs officially endorsed McCain, I guess JSM is guilty by association as well.
    Meanwhile, the economy is the 800 lb gorilla in the room.
  • jkarczek
    Three words, in addition to what others have said, suggest that all of the rhetoric about Obama's past "Socialist" connections are irrelevant.

    Luiz da Silva

    As a Socialist organizer, Da Silva unapologetically advocated a far, far more leftist agenda than Obama has ever been documented (I have yet to see the views that have been assigned to him supported by anything he's actually said or written.) to support. Despite fear mongering by Brazil's right wing ruling elite, da Silva's policies have been largely centrist, cleaving to modern free market principles instead of overtly socialist ones. Brazil's economy has seen six years of stable growth that's allowed burdensome foreign debt to be repaid. At the same time, he's mostly avoided an expansion of the public sector and the grandiose projects that have crippled previous economic resurgences in Brazil and elsewhere in South America. Corruption, while not neutralized entirely as proven by the scandal that erupted at the close of da Silva's first term, has been less of a factor. Judicious investments in programs to increase productivity and self reliance amongst the poor have driven domestic economic growth that in turn has expanded the lower end of the middle class. It goes without saying that this has helped the wealthy as well. While it is true that this has been helped along by foreign investment enabled by the overvaluation of the housing market and rises in commodities, the fact of the matter is that the country has not frittered away its gains. Growth seems sustainable on the current track.

    Obama, whatever one thinks about him, is no dummy. Even if he were what he's being claimed to be, he would have to know he couldn't suddenly come out of the closet as a radical Socialist and get anything done. He would know that the poor might help him get elected, but it's the middle class that would keep him in office. He would know that if the economy thrives, there would be far more goodwill for him to get some of his social projects on track. All of the disingenuous fear mongering coming from the right ignores the very simple truth about how a government of the people functions.
  • Marlowecan
    CStanley said: "if Obama's political leanings are that far left, the voters ought to be told before the election and not after, no?"

    CStanley, I think you make an EXCELLENT point here.

    I am very puzzled by Senator Obama's actual ideology:
    (1) I sometimes feel he is probably much farther to the Left than he says, and for the reasons you cite, is disguising this in order to be elected; or
    (2) He is more apolitical, with amorphous politics, with a strong leavening of ambition.

    It seems to me that his history and associations could be read either way.
    Yes, I fully agree, the voters should know. I suppose, if he is elected, we will know then.

    Yes, CStanley, my conservative viewpoint is clearly warped :) I think state-run medicine is a grand thing, for example. In many ways, more efficient and less wasteful than the wacked American system.

    But I am a strong believer in American exceptionalism. The City-on-the-Hill has saved the (ungrateful) free world's ass often enough to deserve its respect.
  • Rudi
    If Chicago is a hot bed of far Left politis, will someone please tell me how many Green Party and DSA Party members serve as ward captains or even dog catcher?
    Bernie Sanders is a socialist, but Vermont is a long way from centrist Daleyland.

    http://www.chicagodsa.org/
    http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__States/Illin...
    http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Politi...
    http://www.chicagogreens.org/index.html
    http://www.lpchicago.org/
    I bet the Libertarians have a bigger footprint in Chicago and Illinois.
  • Marlow + CStanley,
    On domestic issues Obama places pretty far to the right of Clinton and Edwards just in terms of his health care proposal. His energy proposal is largely the same as McCain's without the fanaticism tied to drilling. His economic proposals (so far) are merely, "Let's do what Paulson says if enough Republicans support it to give me cover."

    On foreign policy, other than his early stance against Iraq, is largely the same as every other mainstream Democrat in the party. On record as not liking the war, but wants to fund it anyways. On Afghanistan he's doing his best to out-hawk McCain.

    And yet somehow he's been painted a radical leftist? Kucinich, Nader and Chomsky would be insulted!
  • timr
    CStanley-I notice that you are not including in your little diatribe-the same things BTW that the McCain/Palin people fail to take notice of(are you just regurgitating the rethug talking points?) several basic facts-I guess that you are hoping that no one will notice-Mr. Annenberg is a very very big Republician party supporter(I wonder what he thinks about you sliming his favorite project, hmmmm) the Gov of Illinois at that time- a republician- also served on that board. And the most important item you left off of your Obama smear-aside from the fact that Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was doing his bombings(I have no idea if you are old enough, but I am and I remember that there were many many violent protests- bombings-against the Vietnam war)the Wx underground was formed to protest against that war and when Obama met Ayres he was a respected University professor(Q; is Obama supposed to get a background check on everyone he meets? That seems to be where you are going with this) is that over the 6 years that they were both on the board of this Annenberg project, Mr Ayers only attended 6 meetings. You are copying your parties smears without having the slightest thought about if they are actually true or not. You are a sad sad person as would anyone be who would take such a smear at face value. Shame on you.
  • CStanley
    Chris, I can't speak for Marlowe but what I'm questioning is why Obama's platform is so much farther to the center than his record. I can understand some degree of moving to the center, having come from a heavily blue state where he was representing the interests of that state. But since he came to the Senate he's still shown no sign of moderating (though I realize his excuse for that is that he voted against Bush- but his voting record is even to the left of most of his party.)
  • CStanley,
    Alright then... what legislation has he supported that makes you think he's a socialist? I'm seeing a lot of labels and very little substance with charges like "his voting record is even to the left of most of his party."
  • roro80
    "Their reaction to the continuing revelations that disprove that claim is one of sheer panic"

    This statement is so far off it's almost funny. Obama very publically practically DARED McCain to bring it up at the next debate. Biden's saying the same thing ("a man says it to his face"...). How is this "panic"?

    I was thinking about this story in terms of the people I work with, at my job and as part of various charity organizations. I have to admit, I haven't googled them, or done a thorogh vetting on each and every one of them, even those I've worked with closely and have known for a few years. I'm just out there trying to get some good work done. Do you google every person you work with?
  • roro80,
    Good point. That's why guilt by association attacks are nothing but a giant waste of time. Unless we work in a convent, most of us deal with people we don't like or wouldn't approve of if we knew their views/history on a daily basis.

    Now if someone can find proof that Obama supports bombing the Pentagon, rather than proof he can stomach sitting in the same room with someone who wanted to, then I'd like to see it. Not that it'd make me vote for McCain, but Nader is a possibility.
  • CStanley
    timr: Should I assume that comment was directed toward me? (Say it to my face, lol!)

    Despite your claim that I'm spouting talking points, it's your comment about Annenberg that displays that and also displays your complete ignorance of the grantmaking process by foundations. Here's some information if you are actually interested, and this link for example shows the grant application for the Annenberg Challenge- you'll see that it was directed to Dr. Varnan Gregorian who was (is?) the president of Brown University and was apparently the contact person for those seeking the funds. It's highly likely that Annenberg never even saw these applications or had any idea of the individuals who were involved in winning the grants for their city's schools.
  • CStanley
    Chris: some people would use a similar criteria regarding a candidate who'd associated with pro-life organizers ("If there were proof that he actually supported the bombing of abortion clinics rather than that he could stomach sitting in the same room with someone who may have wanted to....) while others might feel that even associating with a strong prolife leader (perhaps someone who supported the right of prolifers to demonstrate near abortion clinics) would be disqualifying. Is there something wrong, in your opinion, in asking a candidate to clarify exactly what those kinds of relationships meant to him, so that the voter can decide how the candidate's associations rate according to the voter's criteria?
  • CStanley,
    Obama during a primary debate:
    This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense.


    Feel better now?
  • BTW,
    CStanley, I appreciate you coming here and making these arguments. It's gotta be tough when the party you feel loyal to has practically forced you to defend the indefensible. But at least you do it without resorting to name-calling or anything like that.
  • CStanley
    Chris: You may not have seen my comment in the other thread yet, but as I said there, actions speak louder than words. The quote you provided is actually outrageous as far as I'm concerned and makes Obama look far worse, not better. His words said that he had little or nothing to do with this person, yet the record says otherwise. What is he hiding?

    Actually if he (and his campaign staff, and the media) wasn't being so secretive about all of this, I'd be much more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. His "nothing to see here, folks" or "they're just trying to scare you about me" (deflecting by accusing the opponent of being dishonest) make it seem far more fishy to me.
  • CStanley
    chris: I don't feel loyal to any party, just to my own principles. Does that mean that I think McCain has run a completely clean and honorable campaign? Of course not (I don't think we've ever had one of those in our history, nor will we ever.) But I will defend my own opinions and defend the candidate I'm voting for against over the top accusations.

    Actually I think the worst part about all of this is that if McCain starts to catch up or pull ahead, you guys will all feel that it's all because of 'swiftboating' tactics rather than anything positive about McCain- and personally I feel that he's the better candidate and can be supported on a positive basis.
  • I guess what's confounding me about this entire link-Obama-to-the-Socialists tactic is that nobody seems to be giving examples of Obama policies that support the conclusions we're supposed to draw.
  • CStanley
    Polimom, I've simply asked people to look at the evidence, not told them what conclusions they're supposed to draw.

    The negative conclusions that I draw personally are more along the lines of an established pattern of working (by choice) with individuals who hold far left views- and a lack of real explanation from Obama as to why that is, and where his views differ from those individuals. Some voters (you may be one of them) don't find anything wrong with working with people who are from the political extremes, because those people also hold some views that are reasonable and they may have some good ideas. That's fine if that's your opinion, but surely you can see that some voters don't feel the same way, and Obama appears to want to avoid explanations until he's forced to talk about these things.

    I'll also say that part of my objection to the CAC project is that the money appears to have not only been squandered, but also given out to organizations that I find completely unworthy and suspect of inappropriate activity (ACORN, TUCC, etc.) If that's an indication of how Obama will direct federal funds, I'd like to know about it in advance.
  • CStanley
    Slightly off topic but related to your point, Polimom, I just saw this:
    http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203

    Doesn't it seem like there's an awful lot of sleight of hand regarding Obama's history, and lots of articles and websites being scrubbed? The transparency issue alone is enough to trouble me; I don't know what to make of how far to the left it means Obama's politics are, but it certainly makes it seem like the new politics is more of the same old, what is that again, hoodwinkin'?
  • jkarczek
    Polimom - That I think is the most salient point. Playing six degrees of political separation can allow a cynical operative to paint virtually any politician any way they wish. The only way the paint sticks is to layer it over a canvas of actual votes, statements and writings. So far, I've not seen anything written or said by Obama that mirrors the opinions of his alleged "comrades". Considering his resume as a legislator, lawyer, professor, and activist, this is a pretty remarkable dearth of evidence in the public record.
  • CStanley
    jkarczek- since everything that you mentioned in Obama's resume is quite a bit more left leaning than his current platform, how is a centrist or more conservative voter supposed to reconcile the difference?
  • I saw that same article a bit ago. Not sure what to make of it, exactly. I went to Obama's site (or rather, the fightthesmears.org site) and yes, they deny it altogether.

    I also share your general feeling about ACORN, though not 100% across the board. Post-Katrina, for instance, they were instrumental in trying to get buses together to get New Orleanians to voting places (though they were unfortunately doing that for the wrong reason).

    But the clear goal, it seems to me, is to suggest that Obama, by these associations, will be socialist -- or even, in some examples, a terrorist.

    There's another side to Obama, of course: he has long associations with people who are not at all radically left -- who are (in the case of economics, for instance) even fairly conservative. Of course, there's no political purpose to pointing out these associations for the McCain campaign, is there. But the far left has been yelping about Obama's connections on the other side of the ideological fence for quite some time.

    Added: I heard a lot of unhappiness from the left during the primaries. Not so much these days, but I'm not following that angle much anymore.
  • kritt11
    CS

    I would look at his voting record in the State Senate and the US Senate. That is the best way to tell what he will do. While he definitely votes in a liberal pattern, there is nothing that marks him as a far-left radical.

    I believe that the right is trying to taint him as an unamerican terrorist-leaning socialist by emphasizing this association, his middle name (how many times has the Obama campaign used Sidney??) and his early days as a community organizer.

    If he wasn't honest about the association that's one thing- but keep in mind there are a slew of issues that McCain and Palin have not been honest about-- things are often said in the heat of a campaign that are distorted, spun or downright false.

    Palin hasn't wanted to talk about her association with far right groups like AIP when she was running for mayor. Does that make you suspect that she may be a secessionist?
  • kritt11
    BTW- I think Obama's pick of Joe Biden, a centrist Democrat, was meant to calm fears that he would go off in a far left direction. His advisors are mostly ex-Clinton people and he has indicated that he would be willing to put Republicans in his cabinet. Why? Because he realizes that the uber-partisanship that both sides have fostered is hindering us in taking any steps forward in facing our problems as a nation.
  • CStanley
    Kim, he's as far left as you possibly can get (the farthest left in his party) on abortion.

    Economically I don't think he's as liberal as some (which is why I don't think the socialist accusations are apt) and I guess that gets to Polimom's point about more conservative associates. I do still feel that he's not going to reign in spending the way McCain will attempt to do, and I reallly do feel that that's the single most important thing to do right now.

    Palin has answered questions about AIP in a forthright manner, so I don't think that's a valid comparison. If anything, dishonesty from them has been in the form of denying flip flopping on issues (like the Bridge to Nowhere) but that's so common in campaigns, and pretty easy to see through and then decide if you still agree with the candidate on balance. Actually scrubbing websites is a lot more troubling to me, because then you're denied access to information that would help you know what to make of it.
  • CStanley
    I do agree with your last comment about Biden and potential cabinet members, though, Kim.
  • Yes, CStanley, he's liberal. Liberal, liberal, liberal. Left, even. And we're supposed to care because...?

    Frankly, it's about time we had an honest-to-god, pragmatic liberal in office. What's refreshing about Obama is how any idealism he may have is tempered by pragmatic reality. He's willing to compromise and negotiate as long as the process moves forward. This is good for America.
  • CStanley
    If that's your opinion, davigoli, I have no problem with it though I strongly dsagree.

    What concerns me is the number of centrist voters who don't think that a liberal prescription is what we need (particularly one that comes with an enlargement of the federal government, dealing out taxpayer dollars to corrupt organizations, stifling economic growth with a punitive tax policy, etc.) but who seem to believe that Obama will work across the aisle with conservatives on true centrist policy.

    I suppose it's the mirror of how you'd probably feel if you believed that McCain was a far right Christian conservative or neocon, and centrists were voting for him without realizing what they were getting.
  • jkarczek
    CStanley: Left leaning is a world apart from "socialist" or the dreaded "c" word. On the flip side of your argument, should I never consider voting for a candidate who may have entered his career by working as an investment banker, who pushed to privatize or eliminate a range of vital public services, and worked as a board member for a corporation that outsourced jobs? What if that candidate has since moderated their views and is running against another candidate with whom I agree even less?

    Further, the same lot that calls Obama a far left wing socialist ideologue one day label him a slick political animal without any firm agenda the next day. So which is it? If he's the former, he'll never get anything through even a Democrat controlled Congress. If he's the latter, then he's clearly astute enough to read the prevailing political breeze and recognize what he needs to do in order to stay in office. Presidential campaigns always force candidates to hew to the center. When the election is won, Presidents that deviate from the center soon find themselves losing broad support. Sexual dalliances aside, public perception between Clinton and Bush at the end of their respective terms couldn't be much more different. Looking again at Brazil, if even a PROVEN leftist ideologue recognizes the wisdom of moving to the center, why wouldn't one whose leftist links are less firm?
  • The right has unfairly slandered and maligned what the left has been selling. What the American left actually represents is much closer to what a moderate would recognize as common decency: environmental stewardship, a balanced budget, fair tax policy (cf. Obama's tax plan), and a sensible foreign policy. You can only attack the left in generalities, not in specifics, because the specifics are actually pretty reasonable when you get down to it. That's why you've stopped trying.
  • kritt11
    Rein in spending!!!

    McCain's first proposal to end the mortgage mess during the last debate amounted to a new entitlement. He thoroughly annoyed his conservative colleagues, and many economists predicted his plan would be much more expensive than he admitted.Of course the cost would be passed on to the taxpayers! Plus, he wants to expand military spending. Yes, he'd cut back on earmarks but those are not all evil, and they don't amount to a large percentage of the overall budget.
  • Jim_Satterfield

    I do still feel that he's not going to reign in spending the way McCain will attempt to do, and I reallly do feel that that's the single most important thing to do right now.


    Do you even realize that this type of attitude is what made the Great Depression as bad as it was? Tightening of the financial system and cutting back on everything was part and parcel of the Hoover philosophy. It was a disaster.


    Palin has answered questions about AIP in a forthright manner, so I don't think that's a valid comparison

    Really?
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Here's a post on a blog of the Miami New Times. Read it if you want. But you really should watch the video.
  • kritt11
    hmmmm the real question is why was Sarah Palin paling around with secessionist, antiamerican radical Mark Chryson? And apparently allowing him valuable access to power when she was mayor of Wasilla??
  • His "nothing to see here, folks" or "they're just trying to scare you about me" (deflecting by accusing the opponent of being dishonest) make it seem far more fishy to me.

    Unless there is evidence of wrongdoing on his part, or some sort of plan to destroy America Ayers style, then perhaps you should take him at his word.

    And Obama has never said he's had nothing to do with Ayers. He simply said that he doesn't exchange ideas with him, or sympathize with them.
  • kritt11
    CS
    Where is the proof that Obama lied about it?Do you have two indie sources that claim that outside of the McCain campaign?

    I saw that he admitted that he served on two boards with the man, and that Ayers held a fundraiser for him. He stated that he thought that Ayers who was at the time a professor of English had been rehabilitated.

    BTW, the rest of both boards the two men served on were conservatives. Why did they not rise up in protest and quit their positions rather than serve with this dangerous antiwar radical???
  • CStanley
    On the flip side of your argument, should I never consider voting for a candidate who may have entered his career by working as an investment banker, who pushed to privatize or eliminate a range of vital public services, and worked as a board member for a corporation that outsourced jobs? What if that candidate has since moderated their views and is running against another candidate with whom I agree even less?
    If you see those things as radical right wing, I think that says a lot about how far to the left you are, but that's your prerogative. If those things in someone's past are offensive to you, then by all means vote against someone for those reasons. And if a candidate did have that history but attempted to prevent the public from knowing about it, I'd sure wonder why, wouldn't you?

    Kim, I've posted links to primary source documents about the CAC repeatedly in this and other threads. What sources are you getting your information from? Where did you hear that the other board members were all conservative???

    Oh, and one more thing that really bugs me is that board membership is often a pretty nominal position- a lot of people just get on the letterhead and occasionally show up at a meeting, but aren't really involved. Some people understand this, others don't. It seems that conveniently the idea of "Obama being on a couple of boards with Ayers' is thrown out there so that people get the impression that this was one of those situations- but in the case of the CAC, Obama was the board chair and even acted as the director in the beginning (when most of the grant money was assigned to various community groups) and Ayers was the lead member of the planning arm of the project. So the two were both very actively involved and had to have had a working relationship, not just meeting in passing.

    And yet even though many people seem to accept that they probably just happened to be on the same board together an hardly ever spoke, the same people then act as though other board members (who may not have been truly active) MUST be held to the same level of accountability, or else there's a double standard. Well, no, actually, because in every organization there are key people who are really carrying out the work of the organization and in this case, Obama and Ayers were two of the leaders of the project.

    Were there other conservatives who were actively involved? I don't know. If any of them run for president, I promise to hold them to the same standard and ask about their involvement.
  • CStanley
    Kim: McCain didn't propose any new spending on the mortgage buyouts- he was just addressing how he'd direct the treasury to handle it (I don't agree with his proposal, BTW- but it's not new spending.) He also says that he'll cut waste in military spending (and has a track record of fighting the cost plus estimate process in contracts.) I strongly support his stance on earmark reform, not just because of the amount of money involved but because of the lack of transparency and the corruption that that allows.

    Jim: I don't have time to debate the Great Depression comparison right now but there are elements of Obama's economic plans that are far more similar to Hoover's than are McCain's.
  • CStanley
    I looked at Jim's link about Chryson- the guy sounds like a nutjob, and if Sarah Palin having any relationship with him bothers you guys, then by all means dig into it. I don't get the concern, but I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning political associations if you find them troubling (the attacks against Palin concerning her family were beyond the pale though.) I'm not aware of Palin saying anything that contradicted what was written in that article, and my guess is that Chryson thinks their relationship was a lot more significant than it really was- but again, go for it if you think there's something there.
  • JSpencer
    Just a short comment here, this usage of "socialist" as a pejorative is rapidly losing it's effect in the wake of both the Iraq War and the Wall Street "rescue". Maybe this is an opportunity for some folks to get a little education about why a balance between socialism and capitalism is desirable, and why either on it's own is an unworkable system, at least in a democracy.
  • jkarczek
    "If you see those things as radical right wing, I think that says a lot about how far to the left you are, but that's your prerogative. If those things in someone's past are offensive to you, then by all means vote against someone for those reasons. And if a candidate did have that history but attempted to prevent the public from knowing about it, I'd sure wonder why, wouldn't you?"

    Your earlier question referenced Obama's ACTUAL resume, correct? I wouldn't say that the organizations he has ACTUALLY worked for are far left wing. For comparison sake, I grabbed a few examples from the top of my head that might seem to characterize a theoretical candidate as "right leaning", not "far right wing", to a typically left leaning voter.

    As for what level of obfuscation has taken place, I don't know how it's at all clear that Obama or his campaign has directly asked for materials to be removed or altered, nor have I seen anything that's exactly compelling for the purposes of proving his pinko/radical status, whether it was hidden or not. To date, it's been one vague, second hand attribution after another. One could argue that Obama's supporters took down materials because they were wary of them being used out of context in exactly the kind of smear campaign that's going down right now. Again, I still haven't seen anything ACTUALLY written or said by Obama that aligns closely with the individuals associated with him.
  • CStanley
    JSpencer: We've already had a combination of socialist and capitalism in the brilliant GSE scheme that gave us the subprime mess. We had the worst of both systems- wealth redistribution in the form of housing subsidies through the private banking system, with govt backing for defaults, and capitalists who used the newly structured mortgage products to leverage loans that could only be paid back if the housing bubble had continued indefinitely. Meanwhile Franklin Raines told us that there was no problem, because everyone knows that houses never decline in value, and the Dems in Congress told us that we shouldn't listen to the Republicans calling for better oversight because they were only fearmongering about imaginary problems.

    You know, just like folks (hi jkarczek!) who say that it shouldn't raise any eyebrows if documents go down the rabbithole- of course people have to protect themselves from the smears of the devious Republicans!

    This is what happens when we demonize one party and pretend that all political corruption is one sided. Didn't you guys read Animal Farm?
  • kritt11
    CS- The point most economists were making is that McCain was being unrealistic about the cost. He also changed the plan's terms after the debate giving into pressure from conservatives. The plan is now to buy the bad mortgages at full value so that the banks dont' lose money- but the bill will be footed by the taxpayers. In putting out this plan he's to the left of Obama!
  • kritt11
    CS- Ok so the Ayers connection bothers you but the Chryson one doesn't?? And it doesn't bother you that Sarah Palin initially said she'd cooperate with Troopergate and then tried to shut the investigation down when she found out she was picked for the VP slot? Or that the campaign issued its own "investigative report" clearing her of all wrongdoing???

    But YOU are worried about Ayers even though the reason he was there in the first place was that he wrote the winning proposal and was selected by ex-Ambassador and good friend of Nixon, Walter Annenberg. Now, Nixon was President during some of the bombings and certainly was a war hawk. So if Annenberg believed this guy had credibly reformed his life- why should'n't Obama who was only 8 when the bombings occurred?

    The country is going through the worst financial crisis in 80 years and this is an issue that is vital to the American public????
  • kritt11
    Marlowe-

    If you say that Liddy and Ayres have nothing in common you are sadly mistaken, my friend. Liddy admitted plotting to kill Jack Anderson- that it wasnt' carried out certainly does not give him brownie points- Ayres was proud of the fact that he made his political points without hurting anyone.
    Also, both men did what they did out of principle- though they were at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ayres believed that what we were doing in Viet Nam was so immoral that the bombings were justified if it could bring the atrocities to a halt. Now I don't condone bombing anything--- but neither does Obama who has issued statements repudiating Ayers past actions.

    But both have successfully rehabilitated themselves in their present incarnations , which is why this is just a stupendous waste of time.
  • CStanley
    Kim, you don't appear to have read at least 80% of what I've written (maybe it was in another thread- there are two or three that are ongoing discussions about this that I've kept coming back to because people are addressing points that I have made and I felt I had to be clear about what I was saying and what I wasn't saying. I'll try to quickly address some of the points you're making but a lot of this is repetition.

    Ayers/Obama- yes, bothers me more than Chryson/Palin. I don't know of any credible threat of Alaska seceding or inciting war with US, so I don't consider an AK secession party to be a big problem. I realize that the radicals of the Viet Nam era aren't currently bombing either, but those like Ayers who haven't expressed any regret appear to have taken their fight against our system into a more mainstream venue (education.) That is a credible problem IMO.

    I never once said that this should be the central issue of the campaign, and I've stated just the opposite (have criticized the McCain and GOP for raising it to this level, though some of that is hyped by the media and by Obama- the other day, Palin and McCain spent a small portion of stump speeches talking about this and a huge portion talking about the economy, and then the news and blogs ran the clips of Ayers parts of the speeches over and over and said, "Why are they talking about this to the exclusion of the real and serious issues?!?)

    Some of what you are alleging isn't true so you'll have to produce facts before I can rebut...e.g., Troopergate. Seems that first there were criticisms that McCain didn't vet Palin, and then when his campaign publicly looked at the Troopergate issue he's criticized for 'issuing a report clearing her of wrongdoing' (as though that was actually an attempt to circumvent the actual investigation.) Sounds like you're way overstating what happened to the actual investigation after her VP selection too, so unless you have a specific allegation I can't rebut a vague exaggeration that appears to be based on one side of the story only (for instance, you don't think it's expected that Palin and the others involved wouldn't become a bit less cooperative after the guy leading the investigators told the press that this was going to be an October surprise??)

    I also already provided material that rebuts your (mis)understanding of the grantmaking processes of charitable foundations. It's more than likely that Annenberg had nothing to do with the actual decisionmaking process in choosing the grant recipients, so I don't see how his judgment comes into it at all unless you have evidence to the contrary.

    And the constant cries here about how this is distracting from talk about the economy is odd, considering that I haven't seen one article here or one commenter expressing what it is that Obama will likely do to navigate through this crisis. Who is stopping discussion of that?
  • JSpencer
    CS, the war is socialist because we all pay for it, some in blood, all of us in treasure, so regardless of the fact that it was an unneccesary war that was pitched under false pretenses, and regardless of the fact that some folks are getting rich off it, we ALL pay one way or the other. As for the economic meltdown, look to your unfettered capitalism, law of the jungle, unregulated environment which we in the old days used to refer to as "greed" and "lawlessness". We both know who spearheaded and pushed hardest for less regulation and oversight. Wake up and smell the coffee kiddo.
  • CStanley
    JSpencer, you're obviously a victim of reading only the kinds of sites that end up in dark blue on the new Memeorandum gizmo. I keep wondering if Joe Gandleman has stopped saying that reading alternative view sources doesn't cause brain cancer- was there a new study out that I missed proving otherwise?

    Do the names Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Gregory Meeks, or Lacy Clay mean anything to you? How about Hagel, McCain, Bush, and Richard Baker? You do know the party affiliation of each, I imagine; now, can you tell me which group called for more oversight of Fannie Mae and which side fought against more regulation? Here's more if you can bring yourself to read a blog that hasn't lurched to the left.
  • JSpencer
    CS, apologies for not being more gentle about introducing reality into the mix. It appears you may be projecting your own MO on others here, and perhaps would benefit from getting your own news from a wider variety of sources. Then again if the intent is to arrange facts to your own liking it isn't going to matter where you get them, since the conclusions will be predetermined. I believe this is called intellectual dishonesty. In any case, your sarcasm is wasted on me, I've been spoiled by the best and tend to get bored by the rest. ;-)
  • CStanley
    Ah, well, I suppose if you have nothing to say to refute any of the facts that I presented, you'll certainly score more points here by calling me a rightie troll. Carry on!
  • Hisui
    My take on why Obama will not answer questions on Ayers:

    By acknowledging McCain's questions, and admitting anything to do with Ayers (even if it's something small, such as working together, even restating what he said before) it will be immediately chopped up and thrown into an out of context ad that the Republicans are famous for. It will also (possibly) be the catalyst for more Republican violence. If they hear a soundbite that 'confirms suspicions' it could give them 'probable cause' to do something about an 'admitted terrorist'. I don't doubt the ignorance of any hardcore supporter.

    Also, by Obama not saying anything, McCain is driving himself further into the ground by continuing to beat the horse until he does.
  • JSpencer
    CS, I bow to your superior imagination. Without it your creative arrangement of facts could never be so "compelling"!
  • JSpencer
    Btw CS, I've never paid much attention to "points" here. I care about the veracity of what I read, not some subjective scorecard. There is at least one poster here who is deep in the negative numbers who I have as much respect for as anyone else, and frankly I don't care what numbers are assigned to me.
  • CStanley
    Well, JS, you still haven't mentioned what it is that I've posted that lacks veracity, or what you mean by creative arrangement of facts (personally I thought your arrangement of the facts on spending on Iraq and socialism as a neat feat of creativity, though, so kudos for that one since socialism has nothing to do with military spending.)
  • kritt11
    CS- Isn't going mainstream through legitemate channels like education the American way? After all the country has moved far to the right since the late 60's early 70's.

    Obama said that he didn't think much about it because the guy was rehabilitated. He said he doesn't approve of any kind of violence but that the violence happened 40 years ago when he was 8. I don't know what more there is to say. I still don't see that much difference between associating with a reformed antiwar bomber, a reformed Watergate burgler or an unreformed radical secessionist. They are all folks on the fringe of society that call into question the candidate's judgment.

    Troopergate seems to be the most troubling, however because it involves abuse of power- use of one's office to settle personal/family matters. And Palin certainly was not honest to the public or to the citizens of Alaska about why Monegan was fired.

    This is from MSN.com

    "ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain's Republican ticket.

    Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain."

    She can claim that a Democrat on the ethics committee was out to get her, but the truth is that the committee had 10 Republicans on it and only 4 Democrats- so it was certainly a bipartisan decision to publish the report.
  • CStanley
    Kim- writing radical left wing political indoctrination into an education program is the American way?

    And again, you keep bringing up things I've discussed at length, so either read my full comments in these threads or stop addressing my arguments if you don't know what they are. I've explained at length what I think the real concern is regarding Obama's judgment in working with someone who still holds to radical ideology and whose writings show a desire to imbibe school children with his own values.

    And please- I was going to comment in another thread about Troopergate, but why do you keep using it to change the subject here? I also have a hard time believing that you really believe in everything you write. Do you really see everything completely through such a partisan lens that you can't credit the GOP ethics committee for their impartiality rather than preemptively using their votes to bludgeon Palin with?

    From what I've seen of the report so far anyway, the issue was that Todd Palin was using access to officials to push for the trooper firing, and Sarah Palin didn't block him from doing so. After all of the Clinton scandals (including Troopergate 1.0) do you really want to claim this was the 'most troubling' incident in recent history? I'm not objecting to the ethics committee having investigated it and come to this conclusion (at least I don't see anything untoward in their findings so far) but it's hardly the most egregious abuse of power I've ever heard of. If the timing was different and Palin wasn't running for VP right now, my guess is that this 'scandal' would have faded into obscurity and she could easily have gone on for a successful run in '12 or '16 if she maintained her current course in Alaska.
  • Rudi
    CS This article with many links shows that the Republican party, while in control, talked out of the sides of their mouths about reform. They talked/sponsored many bills, but let them die. Why can't we admit that both parties used this mess for political capital, with little regard for the consequenses. Damn W, Barney Frank and McCain...

    http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republ...
    ...
    The President's call came after "a Freddie Mac accounting scandal" in July.

    "It seems that Congress doesn't have the stomach to do anything substantial,'' said Marshall Front, president of Front Barnett Associates LLC, which manages $1.5 billion in Chicago, including shares of Fannie Mae. (quote from July 2003)

    It seems Mr. Front was correct.

    In 2003, Republicans controlled both branches of Congress (108th) and the White House. What happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory reform under Republican leadership? Nothing.

    Here's what I found when I searched THOMAS for the phrase Fannie Mae for the 108th Congress (2003-2004): eight bills .... but only six appear to relate to this topic, per their title. Of those six, only one was introduced after the White House weighed in (at least rhetorically) in September ... and the prime sponsor of that bill was a Democrat. The other bills seem to have resulted from the July scandal. No bill moved out of committee.
    ...
  • CStanley
    Rudi, I don't believe that the fault is all one sided (though I can see how a reasonable reading of that one comment I made sounds that way- I was pointing out how in that particular situation, it was the GOP members who were pushing to regulate Fannie Mae more effectively and the Dems said that wasn't necessary.)

    I'll read your link but you don't need to convince me that there is fault to go around. What concerns me is that everyone from center to far left DOES attribute the economic problems to one party, and in one of the key parts of the whole crisis it was actually the party that they believe favors regulation which was blocking regulation.

    The way I see it, Dems feel that private sector greed is the problem and convince their voters of that, GOP feel that that's not true, when actually all voters need to wake up and realize that most of the elected officials in both parties are profitting from schemes that involve private sector AND govt abuses. The malfeasance that has occurred is breathtaking, but still voters remain loyal to their party instead of looking for the specific members of each party that were responsible and the specific members who really did try to stop it.
  • CStanley
    OK, Rudi, I'm still reading and have to check out all of the links to the bills themselves, but a couple of immediate observations:

    First, the title of that article and the use of quotation marks around "a Freddie Mae accounting scandal in July" talking about July 2003, are indicative of the author's obvious bias. I still read on in case the substance of the article might actually override the bias, but then quickly noticed that she includes the bill introduced by Rep Baker in June 2003, after saying that none of the GOP introduced legislation prior to the "July scandal" and that the action that was taken as a result of that bill was that committee hearings were held (you know, those committee hearings which we saw on the C-Span youtube, where Frank said that there was no problem with Fannie, Rep Lacy said it was just a political 'lynching' of Franklin Raines, etc.

    Then she includes two Democratic sponsored bills which were about INCREASING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, not about oversight of Fannie Mae. You (and she) really don't get that this was how the problem started in the first place- trying to legislate assistance in homeownership in ways that ignored fiscal soundness??

    Those are just my off the cuff observations that jumped out right off the bat...I'm off to read more now.
  • CStanley
    Here's a timeline that I can discern so far:

    June 7, 2003: OFHEO director Falcon begins a special investigation into accounting irregularities at Freddie Mac.
    "On June 7, 2003, Armando Falcon, the Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), ordered a special examination to be conducted into the events leading to the public announcement on June 9, 2003, of the termination, resignation, and retirement of three principal executive officers of Freddie Mac. On that date, the Enterprise announced the retirement of former Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel, the termination of former President and Chief Operating Officer David Glenn, and the resignation of former Executive Vice President—Chief Financial Officer Vaughn Clarke. The special examination was ordered to expand and supplement an ongoing OFHEO examination of the financial condition of the Enterprise and the decision of Freddie Mac to restate its financial reports for 2000, 2001, and 2002."

    June 15, 2003: Report of this date has opening statements by OFHEO director Falcon speaking in glowing terms of Fannie and Freddie- no mention of problems!

    June 24, 2003: Rep Baker introduces legislation Result: committee hearings

    Aug 31, 2003: Sens Hagel, Sununu and Dole introduce legislation

    Sept. 10, 2003: Sen McCain signs onto Hagel/Sununu/Dole bill as cosponsor.

    Sept 25, 2003: Sen Corzine introduces legislation related to s.01508. There were apparently no co-sponsors

    July 21, 2003: Legislation introduced by Ed RoyceAgain, no cosponspors

    What seems to emerge is a pattern of a select group of Republican congressmen and senators initiating legislation which then becomes stalled in committee.

    I have no doubt that many GOP are to blame for that (and would bet that the names of the guilty parties who wouldn't get on board with these reforms can be detected by looking at the lobbyist donors to the members.)

    But when you look at the CSpan videos of the hearings- it is UNIFORMLY Democrats who are actively attempting to block the regulatory reforms and UNIFORMLY Republicans who are promoting the reforms.

    There was obviously tension between the HUD goals of increasing housing opportunities (rabidly supported by Waters, Frank, etc.) and the rational desire to carry out those goals in a fiscally sound way.

    VIEW THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY. This is not a partisan cherrypicking of fact- it's the entire hearing (OK, I fast forwarded through some of the dry parts- it's almost three hours long- but I stopped to catch the key parts of each speaker, to see who was advocating for and against reform. I'll note, for example, that Rep Kanjorsky (D) raised reasonable concerns, and I don't lump him with the rest of the Dems.

    But again, there's this tension between providing affordable housing and doing it in a fiscally sound way- and the Dems constantly worked to promote the first at the expense of the second.

    The bills that the author you linked to cited as Democratic bills to try to 'do something" represent more attempts to pour gasoline on the fire, not to fix the oversight of these GSEs.

    I haven't had a chance to view the actions of current Congress that she linked to yet- I will do so, but so far her bias and lack of understanding is so obvious that I'm not optimistic that she's representing their actions correctly either.
  • CStanley
    Having now read through the concluding part of that uspolitics article you provided, Rudi, I'm still unpersuaded that the title of the article was supported in the facts she presented.

    In fact, after getting past the early history in the 108th Congress, she then goes on to praise the overwhelming passage of HR 1461 in the (still GOP led) House of the 109th Congress....but she tempers her enthusiasm by complaining ( a legit complaint, mind you) that the Senate didn't act on it (she adds that this may have been due to filibuster attempts by the Dems in the Senate, but she doesn't know...gee, so maybe we should find out?)

    In short, she writes an article saying the GOP talked of the problem but did nothing, yet her facts support a number of actions that were taken (even though ultimately they were unsuccessful, and even though at least PART of that failure was due to Dem opposition in a Congress that had a thin GOP majority.) She also displays a lack of understanding by including Dem sponsored bills which sought to increase housing opportunities, not to address the oversight problem- as though these were indicative of a Democrat desire to address the looming financial meltdown.

    I haven't gotten through all of the Pelosi bill yet- it's quite confusing because it contains so many other elements besides the GSE oversight issue. I'm not necessarily criticizing the final outcome there, but it's quite disingenuous to pretend that the Democrats were only late to the game because they lacked the votes in the earlier Congress when really the record shows that they were actively opposing the regulatory overhaul when the problems first came to light.

    I'll also note that Baker once again was the member who introduced HR 1461 in '05 (the one that passed the House but died in Senate committee.) I'm beginning to consider writing in Baker for president- and at least I hope he returns to govt service in some capacity. I have no idea why conservative leaning pundits aren't knocking his doors down to get him on the public airwaves right now- he's the real unsung hero in this whole mess who tried repeatedly to sound the alarm before it was too late.
  • JSpencer
    CS, if your committment to POV can be measured by volume of words then I commend you on your devotion ;-) Seriously, I appreciate that you may well believe your interpretation of the facts, but l have to say, at most you concede there may be equal culpability among the parties. Sure, I agree they both share blame, I just don't think the scales can be balanced by some politically-correct longing for fairness. Here's the bottom line: The republicans have long been champions of deregulation and removal of oversight. They, more than the democrats, have been in positions of greater power, longer, and therefore have done more to create this climate of anything goes. I'm not just looking at the GOP's last abysmal 8 years; I'm including the two decades before that (yes, I remember those years as well). Sure, the democrats are far from squeeky clean, and there has been a certain spine deficit among their ranks as well, but again, you have to look at the big picture, not just the fragments that support your ideology. As for the relationship between public spending and the military? I'm surprised you don't see the connection. Public money goes to fund enormous phony war, therefore getting wasted - except on the few who profit. It ain't rocket science. We the people are taken to the cleaners. This bothers me. YMMV.
  • CStanley
    JS- If I've moved you to consider the culpability to be shared by the parties then I'll consider that a success (though I do think I've provided pretty overwhelming evidence that in this particular situation- and it's an important one that set off our current meltdown- the blame is more to the left.) I'm not going to quibble though if at least I've gotten you thinking about it.

    One last point is that I truly am not committed to this POV because of dedication to fairness of spreading the blame- it's because I honestly think that we as voters won't be able to exert any positive effect to fix the mess unless we understand how we got here.
  • mikkel
    OK you asked me to comment about the "roots of the subprime meltdown." This is actually complex and not well known and there is obfuscation all around.

    The argument for Fannie/Freddie is that the bulk of American's net worth is in housing, and that traditionally minorities and the poor have been shut out, and there is research that argues this is part of the cause of generational poverty.

    The counter argument is that by providing a government subsidy to housing, it increases the cost of housing and thus makes it even more unaffordable and unsustainable.

    Historically Democrats have been the prime supporter of GSEs because of their social aims (and they don't recognize the unintended consequences) while Republicans have tacitly supported it primarily because it causes rising asset values. Now as I'm sure you know, they used to be on the government books, but they were privatized in the 70s because we wanted them to be off the balance sheet. There are some convincing arguments that the structure of the entire system is inherently unstable and would collapse at some point.

    OK so with that little background out of the way it's to the subprime crisis. The primary reason why housing started going up a lot was because Greenspan made money so cheap (cause he was scared of deflation) and everyone was looking for the next big thing and a bubble started. Once housing started going up a lot, then subprime became an issue because everyone wanted in, and to keep it going they had to go to non-traditional bases.

    However it should be noted that Fannie/Freddie never did subprime loans as they were always prohibited by regulations. The accounting scandal arose in part because they were private companies and they were missing out on this huge boom that they weren't allowed to participate in. So to counter that, they started reducing the amount of downpayment that they would require, and let non-profit groups start paying the down payments for people (when the boom started all these social groups said that the poor should be able to get in on it so a lot was set up to help them get ownership even if they hadn't saved much).

    Most people don't distinguish between "sub prime" which means that you were a bad risk (and the GSEs never did), Alt-A which meant on paper you were good but you didn't necessarily want to have a large downpayment or show proof of being good and Prime, which is most traditional but too saw a decrease to about 10% down (there is also a difference between "conforming" which means the GSEs could buy it, some of these were Alt-A and "non conforming" which means the loans were too big or two risky to be bought).

    To be brief, what ended up happening was that a lot of the unsustainable part of the bubble was built on subprime and jumbo loans that the GSEs weren't allowed to buy, but they didn't want to lose market share so they expanded their lending far past what they should have.....everyone assumed that housing values would rise forever. Also somewhere along the line they bought securitized mortgages that were Alt-A...I'm not sure why they were allowed to do this.

    So in my understanding the fairest assessment is that they are not really responsible for the housing bubble excess, but that working within the existing rules they took on too much on stupid assumptions......and the Democrats blocked attempts to slow this down. But on the other hand it was the Republicans that were primarily the ones that created the environment that led to the bubble in the first place.
  • kritt11
    CS- So your argument is that Clinton did it too? It is no longer the '90's and the Clintons are not running, LOL. And BIll Clinton did a credible job as president even though he has been blamed by the GOP for practically every one of GW's woes for the past 8 years.

    We have to decide who to vote for out of the candidates who are running. You seem more concerned with an old association of Obama's (and remember Ayers had been chosen "Citizen of the Year"), than a tendency by McCain's VP to use the perks of her office to solve personal problems. That action has been determined by the Alaska legislature to have violated the ethics of her office.

    All I'm saying is that you are sounding much more judgmental about the Democratic ticket than the Republican one.

    BTW- I'm sorry but it is a little time consuming to go back and read all of your comments from other threads. If you want to send me some to my email- I will definitely read them.
  • CStanley
    I was a bit confused by your comment Kim since the discussion has gotten off topic thanks to me and Rudi- and actually on the GSE discussion I've pointed to an article on Stubborn Facts where Pat is praising Bill Clinton- and I heartily agree with him on that point!

    Anyway, now that I remember what you are referring to, I also recall that as I wrote that I was thinking you'd probably come back with the "Clinton did it too" thing but I included it in my comment mainly because I think it's so funny that we're recycling Clinton scandal names now. But yeah, I do think there was quite a bit in Bill and Hillary's history that indicates a far worse pattern than what we now know about Sarah Palin (I object to the use of your word "tendency", for instance, to refer to one incident.) I'm not excusing her for it- I think it's good that the ethics panel did it's job and exposed this incident where she allowed her family affairs to get mixed up with her job. But as a pattern of behavior, I think put against the real reforms that she has tackled that's pretty weak tea. If it does become a pattern then get back to me on that in a couple of years and I'll agree to hold her accountable.

    As for holding Obama to a higher standard, as always I'll admit that I could be falling prey to bias, but objectively I do think there's a difference in how a murky relationship affects my opinion of someone who's only been in office for a few years vs. someone who has a 26 year record in Congress, as well as the overall pattern of all of the professional relationships that the two men have with other political figures and leaders of community or church groups. Obama's overall pattern seems heavily weighted to these very controversial left wing associates as compared to McCain, who has one notorious connection from early in his career (Keating), one connection that has recently been touted with Liddy which appears to consist of using his radio program to reach a right wing audience, and flattering the host as he did so, and some endorsements in this election by controversial right wing pastors. All I'm saying is that those things appear like little blots on a much larger fabric of bipartisan work with respected leaders as compared to Obama where the blots cover most of his history so it's hard to tell if there's really this pragmatic centrist underneath it all.
  • CStanley
    mikkel- your summary of the GSE's is not what I"ve come to understand, regarding them actually making subprime or risky loans. I'm going to have to do more reading I guess, but do you have any sources to explain when you say that they were legally barred from doing so? That's certainly not what I've heard- in fact just the opposite.
  • Rudi
    CS I had to dig for this one, Paul Gigot of WSJ writes about Fannie and Freddie meltdown under Republican over site. Seems Hasert stripped hearing responsibility from Florida Republican Cliff Strearns in 2003 and allowed Barney Frank to scuttle the next hearing in 2004.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677050160675...
    Freddie's accounting fiasco became public in 2003, while Fannie's accounting blew up in 2004. Mr. Raines was forced to resign, and a report by regulator James Lockhart discovered that Fannie had rigged its earnings in a way that allowed it to pay huge bonuses to Mr. Raines and other executives.

    Such a debacle after so much denial would have sunk any normal financial company, but once again Fan and Fred could fall back on their political protection. In the wake of Freddie's implosion, Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida held one hearing on its accounting practices and scheduled more in early 2004.

    He was soon told that not only could he hold no more hearings, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert was stripping his subcommittee of jurisdiction over Fan and Fred's accounting and giving it to Mike Oxley's Financial Services Committee. "It was because of all their lobbying work," explains Mr. Stearns today, in epic understatement. Mr. Oxley proceeded to let Barney Frank (D., Mass.), then in the minority, roll all over him and protect the companies from stronger regulatory oversight. Mr. Oxley, who has since retired, was the featured guest at no fewer than 19 Fannie-sponsored fund-raisers.

    Of course the WSJ is guilty of Liberal bias...
  • CStanley
    I should add though, mikkel, that most of your comment is exactly as I've understood it- but the part about what the GSEs were and were not allowed to do is critical to understanding what role they played in the overall crisis IMO- because from what I've read (admittedly mainly from conservative sources like WSJ and IBD- so not partisan hacks but people who look at the situation from a conservative perspective), is that the factors behind the bubble were 1) money supply too loose- your comment about Greenspan 2) irrational belief that housing prices could rise indefinitely- which was at least partly fueled by the increase in housing demand that came from this influx of buyers who previously couldn't qualify 3) belief that risk could be sliced up to become negligible through the mortgage securitization process and 4) belief that what risk was there was almost eliminated completely due to the GSEs buying up the mortgage securities, and the implicit govt backing that came with that.

    There's also a lot about CRA and how that led to more and more pressure on banks to fill quotas- stories about groups like ACORN protesting and suing banks which were trying to merge or expand so that they couldn't do so unless they had enough of the Alt-A loans, etc.

    I'll try to gather a few links and to read more to see if I'm misunderstanding it, but your summary seems to either skip or contradict some of those factors which put Fannie and Freddie more at the center of the maelstrom, so I'm not sure what to make of it.
  • CStanley
    Thanks for the link, Rudi. I had read that article when it first appeared but don't think I caught the Hastert part. Believe me, Denny is one that I'd help run out on the rails- but I didn't realize he had his fingerprints on this mess too.
  • JSpencer
    CS : "If I've moved you to consider the culpability to be shared by the parties then I'll consider that a success"

    Well, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but you didn't really do any moving. My position hasn't shifted; I've always held both parties culpable, one less, one more.
  • mikkel
    I've gotten most my information from the Big Picture and Calculated Risk...both of which are far more on top of things than any mainstream source.

    Some links:
    Here
    here
    here
    and here

    from the Big Picture. Those have all been recent.

    Calculated Risk has been talking about it a long time and I don't want ot spend the time to look through their archives. One of the points there was that the Downpayment Assistance Programs run by the non-profits were awful because they made it so the owners had no skin in the game. But overall they too have echoed the Big Picture (CR is run by a couple of people that have been in the business their whole career and explain some of the intricacies of the process and pointed out problems a long time ago).

    You have to be careful when talking about the difference between "risk" and "subprime" and GSE securitization and CDOs.

    Near the end of the bubble (starting in 04 and 05) the GSEs started taking risky mortgages because they didn't do enough to verify that the data was good, and CR had a long thing about how the process was automated in a way where there are reports of mortgage originators fudging data until it worked. They also lowered their downpayment requirements and verification. But that's STILL not subprime, which means that the people had really bad credit or outrageous loan amounts..that is different.

    Those were driven not because they were securitized in a way to sell to the GSE, but that they were sold to pension funds, governments, wealthy investors, etc. The root reason was the same (hey they're not on our books who cares) but that wasn't part of Fannie/Freddie. The vast majority of problems so far have been caused by subprime (below the standards of the GSEs) and jumbo loan (house worth more than they were allowed to buy) pools.

    It's the next wave over the next two or three years where Fannie and Freddie are going to start being in trouble.....and that's partially because they did do some Alt-A (meaning they were good risks but there wasn't verification) partially because of fraud by the originators and/or buyers and more significantly a lot of the lower-middle class buyers that are the entire point of the GSEs are going to be underwater and many will lose their jobs. Just the expected default rate based on house valuation is going to be a huge problem regardless of whether the GSEs did anything "wrong."

    You can see this buy looking at foreclosures. I've been looking in Cleveland for a long time now and on the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac site they have only had about 5 dozen foreclosures (I just looked and it's up to 150) while RealtyTrac which shows all foreclosures has thousands. So far at least, the GSEs are a small portion of what's gone bad.

    Of course now they are being directed to buy up massive amounts of junk so I'm sure they'll get much worse.
  • CStanley
    mikkel, I'll spend some time looking around the sites you mention, thanks.

    I guess it seems like perhaps my language is sloppy (or that which I'm getting from other sources ) in referring to subprime, and I know it's better to be accurate but if you use whatever term is right for 'bad, high risk loan' it still seems that the concept of CRA and the GSEs were a big driver (notwithstanding that I may find other information in the sources you provided that disproves that- but from what I see so far.)

    The parts that I've read elsewhere that you don't seem to address involved the mandates by CRA (which were basically like affirmative action, requirements to make loans to certain percentage of minorities even if they really couldn't afford the loans) and it seems that various new mortgage instruments were created in order to help meet those goals. But since it was done in this way, the new mortgage instruments also left the door open for other buyers and speculators to jump on the bandwagon and leverage real estate investments in a way that was fundamentally unsound and only worked for a while because of housing price inflation.

    Where the CRA and ACORN type of involvement came in was in putting more and more pressure on the private lenders- not that the banks weren't willing participants in these schemes, they definitely were- but it was only the ones who really pushed these types of mortgage products (which perhaps had some of the beneficial effects that ACORN wanted, but as usual had the unintended negative consequences too.) There is a lot of talk here in Atlanta about thug tactics that ACORN used when they didn't think certain banks were doing their part- so that the banks that pushed the junk loans the most were the only ones that could expand or participate in mergers and such.

    We'd have been far better off funding the housing programs directly in some way- maybe partnering with groups like Habitat for Humanity that allow unqualified buyers to get in by giving sweat equity- rather than creating this ponzi scheme. It seems like Bill Clinton foresaw some of these problems and he now has to admit that the Dems in Congress refused to address them from the outset.

    And as far as the GSE role as I understand it, Fannie and Freddie also had perverse incentives both by their mandate and by the corporate bonus structure, so that they created the demand for the private institutions to peddle more and more of the bad loans (again, not that they didn't do so willingly in most cases.) The more I think about that, although I didn't realize that Fannie and Freddie didn't originate most of the bad loans and you're probably right about that, it doesn't really matter if their structure and mandate was such that they were creating a huge demand that incented all of the private lenders to do so, does it? Which brings to mind lenders like Countrywide, which seemed to be completely on board with this whole scheme and took full advantage of it, which had disastrous outcome.
  • mikkel
    From this link:
    What about mergers or acquisitions -- did the CRA get in the way of that?

    "Since 1988, there have been more than 13,500 applications for the formation, acquisition, or merger of bank holding companies or state-member banks reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board. Over this time, twenty-five applications have been denied, with eight of those failing to obtain Board approval involving unsatisfactory consumer protection or community reinvestment issues."

    Wow, just 8 out of 13,500. That's less than one tenth of 1%


    You should read the links, since Barry points out the vast majority of originators didn't even have CRA apply to them.

    Now don't get me wrong, I am all for conservative standards in home buying. I think that they should get rid of the mortgage tax deduction and the industry standard should be 20% downpayment and that the mortgage payment takes up a maximum of 28% of the monthly income. I don't think that home ownership should be a goal in and of itself. In fact I got into an argument with my dad because he said that he thinks we need to have policies that are inflationary to keep people in their houses and that lending to the poor was good policy, while I argued that it was just papering over systemic imbalances and it's better to have policy that lowers the cost of housing and helps address poverty, and then they could buy a house the old fashion way.

    But part of the reason why Barry at the Big Picture is so angry (he normally has very temperate posts) is because he has been talking about these things for over 5 years and now literally the exact same people that told him he was crazy and helped perpetuate the problems are trying to get out of the blame.

    What I object to in your understanding is the conflating of regulation with moral hazard. There is an objection to government ventures that they create moral hazard by mandating objectives and backing companies in a way that they'll do things they normally wouldn't (or by stepping in and bailing out companies "to big too fail"), but regulations provide rules to limit this risk.

    Starting with Clinton in the late 90s, but especially in the early part of the decade and through Greenspan's malfeasance, the regulations were all but destroyed while the moral hazard remained. This leads to crony capitalism.

    The GSEs obviously had some crony capitalism but the vast majority of it was not their regulations (which were basically untouched) but the lack of regulation on the rest of the industry. Now we are paying for it.
  • CStanley
    OK, I'm going to need to find time to read the links so I'll stop commenting on it after one brief point here.

    When you mention the moral hazard issue starting with Clinton- it seems to me that the point that was made, even by Clinton, was that the regulation needed to be close to the source of the problem (good independent oversight of the GSEs themselves) because otherwise it would spread systemically. Now, from what I can tell your argument seems to be that the problem was laxity in the overall system to regulate in the private sector lending agencies- but I think what was being said was that the primary cancer needed to be treated rather than trying to regulate against metastasis. Does that make sense?
  • mikkel
    The primary cancer is excessive liquidity through pro-debt and cheap money policies. Andrew Bacevich links that (and energy) to most of our current climate.

    These policies are reflective of our entire economic system on a basic level and is not specific to a party nor even politics in general.

    The best analogy though is that liquidity is a river and regulations are levees. The more liquidity there is the better the regulations have to be to keep it from overflowing and both the Republicans and Democrats (and business and economists) encouraged a raging torrent of liquidity that even perfect regulations couldn't contain fully...but then in the last 10 years they knocked down most of the very important regulations -- and Phil Gramm was instrumental in a lot of that -- and so now we're all flooded.

    The only policy that they know how to do is add more liquidity, and it's not helping because that was the problem in the first place. Hence our current crisis.
  • CStanley
    I agree about excessive liquidity.

    Can you please point me to what it is that Phil Gramm is responsible for? Seems like a mixed bag from what I can tell, where some of the deregulation he enabled (he was by far not the only one doing that- Bill Clinton admits that he favored the overhaul of Glass Steagall, he wasn't pressured by Gramm and other Republicans- and a lot of people are refuting the idea that those changes caused more harm than good.)

    I keep hearing Gramm's name being thrown around as the embodiment of deregulation, and I think that's a gross exaggeration and possibly a complete distortion of what he really did.

    And although I take your point that the policies are reflective of our entire system rather than policies of one party or another- the problem I see is that people in general don't see it that way and instead view it completely through partisan lenses. I don't think there's any hope of fixing that until we correct the public perceptions.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice/Joe Gandelman | Designed by Elegant Themes | Customized by Tyrone Steels II/Enxit Group, LLC