ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, October 03, 2008

The Obama Youth

As someone who was in a fraternity in college - a fraternity which had a strong working relationship and bond with an African-American fraternity on campus - I have to say that the boot camp visuals that this video shows are not out of the ordinary.

And I'm pretty familiar with the whole hazing thing and how African-American fraternities are notorious for crossing the line. But, I don't think this was a hazing exercise...

If it was, these guys would be saying, "You want me to say what?!?! Obama's healthcare plan would.... would what?"

Nothing like fighting for the freedom to vote and express your God given right to think for yourself...and having your grandson be brainwashed and told how to vote by his "brothers" at college.

All that's left is for the video of the Obama Youth doing the goose step and playing the drums....

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

NRO's Red Meat Review of Debate

Pretty good stuff ...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Montereyjohn

Biden Delivers Gaffes - MSM Doesn't Catch

Biden said a number of things last night that were absolutely ridiculous or downright false. From Katie's restaurant in Delaware (which has been out of business since the Clinton administration) to his unequivocal support for Clean Coal to any number of lies that the McCain campaign has listed on their website. But this one in particular is hilarious (and horrifying at the same time).

From Michael Totten @ Commentary:

Joe Biden’s Alternate Universe
Michael J. Totten - 10.03.2008 - 8:10 AM

In Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” [Emphasis added.]

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Not France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s too bad debate moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t catch him and ask a follow up question: When did the United States and France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon?

The answer? Never. And did Biden and Senator Barack Obama really say NATO troops should be sent into Lebanon? When did they say that? Why would they say that? They certainly didn’t say it because NATO needed to prevent Hezbollah from returning–since Hezbollah never went anywhere.

I tried to chalk this one up as just the latest of Biden’s colorful gaffes. Did he mean to say “we kicked Syria out of Lebanon?” But that wouldn’t make any more sense. First of all, the Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon. Not the United States, and not France. But he clearly meant to say Hezbollah, not Syria, because he correctly notes just a few sentences later that Hezbollah is part of Lebanon’s government. He wasn’t talking about Syria. He was talking about Hezbollah all the way through, at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of his outlandish assertion.

Biden is a true idiot - the drunken uncle at the family gathering.

*** UPDATE ***
Hot Air is also covering this gaffe...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Quote of the Day - from a Democrat of All People

From Brad Sherman D-CA on Fox this morning re: panic mongering

"Give me $700 billion in unmarked bills or you will never see you 401k again."

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Rumble in St. Louis

Well here it is. The VP debate at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Like the last presidential debate, I'll be liveblogging in the comments, feel free to join with comments, or your own observations. Or of course, I can just do this alone too. Sure, I don't care. I do lots of good things alone. Really. Honest. I don't need you guys anyway.....

Anyway, back to the debate. I was remarking to the Saint earlier in the evening, that if Palin does well tonight, the talking point from the media and the Democrats (is there a difference? -ed) will be that she was "well-coached." But after reading this in the Corner, I see that the preemptive strike is already out there, namely "earpieces." Honestly, could it get any weirder?

Did Reuters Really Ask the Debate Commission Whether They're Checking the Ear Canals of the VP Candidates Prior to the Debate Tonight? [Rich Lowry]

Crazy. Carl Cameron just mentioned it on Fox.

So now, the talking point will be that she was well-coached via an electronic earpiece.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

I'm Voting Democrat

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Flawed McCain Strategy - Squandering Palin

This from the LA Times today. It pains me to say this sardonic piece is spot on.

McCain's 'Stop Sarah Palin' strategy working like a charm, polls show

Fresh evidence tonight that the brilliant McCain campaign strategy to lock away the political effervescence of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to stoke overconfidence among the nation's Democrats and set the stage for yet another improbable Arizona comeback is working exactly as planned.

For more than 10 days now the 44-year-old mother of five, who upset the ancient Republican establishment in Alaska two years ago by driving herself
to campaign events and talking to pretty much any group that would have her, has been cut off from normal Americans who watched her by the many millions
give a spunky speech at the Republican National Convention and then overnight turned her name into seven of the top 10 search terms on Google.

But John McCain's strategists had a better idea than letting Palin be Palin. They set her up with TV reporters born to ask questions until they found some she couldn't answer. No doubt the campaign's idea was to show the hockey mom was pretty much like any other American who couldn't recall Marbury vs. Madison if their cellphone depended on it.

Wait, come to think of it, the other vice presidential candidate didn't cite a famous Supreme Court case by name either. But never mind. We don't want to confuse the conventional Palin storyline.

So the pressure is even greater for Thursday night's sole vice presidential debate between Palin and Democrat Joe Biden, the senator from somewhere who wears his hair down pretty much all the time.

The Washington Post published a new poll this morning showing that six out of 10 Americans now see Palin's two years as governor of the largest state as insufficient experience to become president.

Almost half the voters polled expressed discomfort with McCain's age and, of those, 85% found Palin too inexperienced to take over. A third of those polled now say they're less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin. It's almost like a dream, it's working so well. A previous Times poll showed little Palin effect on female voters.

Our colleague Mark Silva over at the Swamp reports on a separate Pew Research Center poll that also shows this Hanoi strategy unfolding perfectly. Confidence in Palin's ability to lead has plummeted from 52% in early September before the imprisonment of Palin to 37% now.

It's not all good news though. The Pew poll finds 70% view Palin as down-to-earth, vs. only 55% for the gaffey guy who's been a yabbering senator with congressional perqs since Palin was eight years old.

Also discouraging for the McCain camp must be the finding of a new Marist Poll, described by the Swamp's same Silva. It reveals that while a plurality (45%) expect Biden to perform better in the debate and a majority (61%) expect him to show a greater understanding of issues, compared to Palin's 36% and 28%, nearly two out of three expect Palin to come across as more likeable, compared to Biden's measly 23% anticipated likeability.

To facilitate the latest McCain plunge into oblivion by Nov. 4, the hockey mom is clearly going to have to do something outrageous during the debate to drive down her likeability. Maybe talk innocently about hairplugs. Or let slip something about her home state being 279 times larger than, say, Delaware.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Grab Your Pitchfork

How out of touch is a United States Senator? They're so out of touch that they don't realize that Americans are tied of earmarks, pork-barrel, special interest politics and end up adding another Billion dollars in pork to a 700 billion dollar bailout plan.

As I predicted on Tuesday, the only way the "bailout" would get passed was with a bunch of earmarks and pork-barrel spending. From my post:

[...] as more time passes, the GOP and Democrats who opposed the bill yesterday will only be emboldened to keep their current positions.

The only way that something will get passed is if it gets loaded up with the earmarks and pet projects that have become typical in D.C.

And, if something loaded with pork and pet projects does get passed, it will only strengthen public opinion that D.C. is broken.

From the New York Post
By DAPHNE RETTER, Post Correspondent
October 2, 2008 --

WASHINGTON - Here, little piggies!

Congressional deal-brokers yesterday slopped a mess of pork into the $700 billion financial rescue bill passed by the Senate last night - including a tax break for makers of kids' wooden arrows - in a bid to lure reluctant lawmakers into voting for the package

Stuffed into the 451- page bill are more than $1.7 billion worth of targeted tax breaks to be doled out for a sty full of eyebrow-raising purposes over the next decade.

"This is how Washington works," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington research group. "A big pot of pork is their recipe for final passage."

The special provisions include tax breaks for:
* Manufacturers of kids' wooden arrows - $6 million.
* Puerto Rican and Virgin Is- lands rum producers - $192 million.
* Wool research.
* Auto-racing tracks - $128 million.
* Corporations operating in American Samoa - $33 million.
* Small- to medium-budget film and television productions - $10 million.

Another measure inserted into the bill appears to be a bald-faced bid aimed at winning the support of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who voted against the original version when it went down in flames in the House on Monday.

That provision - a $223 million package of tax benefits for fishermen and others whose livelihoods suffered as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill - has been the subject of fervent lobbying by Alaska's congressional delegation.
The Congressional Budget Office said the package of breaks - including obvious pork and some more defensible tax-relief measures - will add about $112 billion to budget deficits over the next five years because the bill doesn't contain enough offsetting revenue hikes to keep the budget balanced.
Some of the other measures added to win approval include a $3.8 billion health-care provision that forces insurance companies to provide coverage for mental-health treatment equivalent to the coverage they provide for physical illness.

Other add-ons will increase individual tax credits and help shield more than 20 million Americans from the painful alternative minimum tax, and offer breaks for businesses that invest in alternative fuels.

Also, several federal income-tax breaks due to expire will now be extended through 2009.

The Alternative Minimum Tax is nice, but only because the AMT is asinine as it is.

Actually, I take that back... the entire tax system is asinine. And they shouldn't have included AMT relief in this bill, rather they should have waited for a Tax Reform bill.

Now, just enough Americans will not feel the pain of AMT to make this a non-issue in future tax reform packages.

These idiots are so out of touch, they can't just vote on an unpopular package that they think is the right thing to do. If a Senator didn't think the 700B package was good on its own merits, and voted for it simply because they got a couple million in pork, they should be thrown out of office.

It's time to grab your pitchfork and march on Washington. These people are absolute retards.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The One or Dear Leader?

Welcome InstaPundit readers

Check out this video of Obamessiah worshiping children:

*** UPDATE ***
It would seem that the Obama campaign is embarrassed by this video and are pulling it from YouTube. I've updated with this version which includes footage of nazi children singing the praises of Der Fuehrer; it's what I could find.

*** UPDATE 2 ***
I've relinked to the original video which someone had grabbed and re-posted on youtube. After watching it again, I've got some additional thoughts.

The video looks to me more like a Sunday school play singing the praises of God or Jesus. If you don't have God, I suppose something has to fill that void. And some 2 bit Junior Senator from corrupt Chicago will just have to do.

Would any politician on the right engender such feelings? Feelings that would motivate parents to write music of praise and enlist our children to sing? McCain? umm, no. Romney - nah? W? LOL. Reagan? Not even Reagan.

But, for the Left, He is their Savior. Which is sad. (How will the parents explain to their children that the Obamessiah had to break his promise... that he couldn't deliver the utopia that he promised. That he couldn't "re-arrange" everything? That he is just a man... a man who can play the teleprompter so well that people get tingles up their legs.

So sad... Here are the lyrics:

Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Now's the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!

Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Yes we can
Lift each other up
In peace, in love, in hope
Change! Change!

It reminds me of some other creepy footage of children singing the praises of their Dear Leader:

Add to this the Maoist/Che/Stalinist visages of The One that you see everywhere and it gets pretty frightening.

Just saying...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Bailout & Mark-To-Market Explained

After yesterday's fracas, it's unlikely that any recovery bill will pass. At least, that's an opinion expressed by co-conspirator Brian offline - and I happen to agree. I'd let him post here, but he either has forgotten his password to the site or breaks out in hives whenever he hits

Anyway, the gist is that as more time passes, the GOP and Democrats who opposed the bill yesterday will only be emboldened to keep their current positions.

The only way that something will get passed is if it gets loaded up with the earmarks and pet projects that have become typical in D.C.

And, if something loaded with pork and pet projects does get passed, it will only strengthen public opinion that D.C. is broken.

There are a number of alternatives that we could employ to solve the problem. One of the main factors in the banking collapse has been the mark-to-market accounting that was instituted after Enron. (Somehow, Fannie / Freddie weren't subject to these rules, yet they still failed.)

I find it completely disingenuous for the Treasury Secretary to say that the federal government could make money on these mortgages (because they are markedly below value) while at the same time force companies to use those below-market values on their financial statements today.

Why is mark-to-market a problem? Well, here's an example most of us could understand.

  1. You buy a car and take out a $20,000 loan to finance it. Total value of the car on the lot is $30,000.

  2. You drive the car off the lot and it drops in value immediately, from $30,000 to $25,000. Does this make you an irresponsible gambler? Were you a sucker? No, you recognized that a new car will immediately depreciate once it's driven off the lot when you bought the car.

  3. After putting 30,000 miles on it, the car now drops to $15,000 in value and you still owe $16,000 on the loan. Are you "in the red" financially? (Perhaps, but only if you sell the car at $15,000.)

  4. Let's say you bought a gas-guzzling SUV (say, like this one I recently purchased) and no one - I mean, no one - is buying these cars because gas has shot up.

    You check the market value of the car on Kelley Blue Book and it's now $1,500 (because of the salvage value).

    (How the market price is determined is one of the big problems with mark-to-market - if other people are selling below market value in order to offload the car, their selling price becomes the value on your books. This is the devaluation death spiral that we're now in which has caused the meltdown....)

    Because of this drastic depreciation, do you close shop, declare bankruptcy, and notify the creditors that you're heading to Mexico?

    No... because you don't have a financial statement which requires you to take the loss now, regardless of whether the value of the car may increase after gas comes back down and regardless of the remaining value (in terms of useful life) that you can get out of the car.
As Brian and I commented a year or two ago, an assets market value isn't truly established until it has been sold - when the buyer and the seller have agreed on a price. Using some other indicator may be helpful in assessing the possible value, but it is not the value of that particular asset.

The Mark-To-Market standard is not helping the situation and should be at least temporarily suspended pending further review.

Mark Levin has an excellent post at The Corner where he objects to the bill and thanks the House GOP for letting it die.
Thank You, House Republicans [Mark R. Levin]

I have read the posts here and elsewhere. Sometimes these things are made to look more complicated than they really are. From an economic perspective, if the problem is liquidity and credit, there simply is no need for the federal government to assume massive amounts of debt on its book by assuming loans in anticipation that their holders or borrowers will default. This seems to me like a brand new expanse of government power that is not justified (if it ever is) by the arguments made on its behalf. The government controls monetary policy through supply and interest rates, among other things. It can further ease money supply and credit, thereby increasing the flow of capital. The government controls tax policy. It can increase liquidity and the flow of new money into the economy both from within the country and from foreign sources by eliminating the corporate income tax and the capital gains tax even on a mid-term basis. No matter what is done, some financial institutions will fail, as they did in the 1981-82 recession and have since. And the Fed and Treasury and other instrumentalities of government will have to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to intervene and how to intervene. They will also have to determine whether other policies require modifying, such as the McCain proposal today, in which he suggests increasing federal insurance for individual depositors from $100,000 to $250,000. Other smart suggestions include modifying the mark-to-market rule requiring financial institutions to downgrade the valuation of assets. If the goal is to prevent panic in the economy by investors and depositors, then increase credit, liquidity, and the flow of capital, and deal with problem institutions that are significant enough in size that their demise could resonate to the wider economy. But the Soviet-style, top-down five year plan a la Paulson's proposal, and to a significant extent the proposal that was voted down yesterday, could easily do more damage to both the economy and our governmental structure. So, in this respect, I must depart from NRO's editorial.

Also, count me among those few here who want to thank the House Republicans for taking a bold stand against what had been a stampede on a scale I have never before witnessed on matters of huge consequence. Conservatism is more than a quaint belief-system to be embraced and debated over donuts at Starbucks. It is more than a list of talking points. It is the foundation of the civil society. The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution's limits on governmental power. If conservatives don't stand up to this, who will? If they don't offer serious alternatives that address the current circumstances AND defend the founding principles, who will? The House Republicans have done both. And I, for one, thank them.

Incidentally, if you want to buy a home or car today you can. And if your credit is decent, you can get loans at a good rate. Last week we were told that if a deal was not struck by last Friday, our economy would collapse. It has not. That is not to say the evidence of economic troubles or worse should be ignored. It is to say that now is a time for reasoned decisions based on tried and true principles, not for abandoning them. I notice that the socialist, who, for the last 30 years, has insisted that private institutions make risky loans based on non-economic factors, still has not abandoned his policies. Socialism does not work. We shouldn't support more of it.

09/30 11:07 AM

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth, Part 1,777

Jet-Setting Hypocrites

From the New York Times:

September 29, 2008, 8:06 am
Jet-Setting Greens
By John Tierney

I’ve given Brad Pitt and Al Gore grief about their carbon footprints. But it’s clear from a study in England that celebrities aren’t the only greens with a fondness for jet travel.

In fact, the people most committed to recycling and other green habits at home are also the most likely to take international plane flights, according to a team of researchers led by Stewart Barr, a geographer at the University of Exeter. The researchers classified these people as “eco-conscious” and described them as “very committed and concerned individuals” who “were willing to accept that reducing flights was a good thing” — but they just weren’t ready to curtail their own travel.

“Green living is largely something of a myth,” Dr. Barr told the Guardian newspaper. “There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights.”

Now, it could be argued that the correlation between green habits at home and taking plane trips is due to both of these tendencies to correlate with greater wealth and education — and that because more affluent people tend to fly more, it’s admirable of them to try to be green in other ways. But there are problems with this attitude.

First, it’s false comfort to assume that recycling and buying green electricity will earn you an indulgence for your international flights. If you look at the Environmental Defense Fund’s calculations of the greenhouse emissions per person for an international round-trip of 4,000 miles each way — about 8 tons of CO2-equivalent gases — you find that it’s about equal to the amount of carbon dioxide produced annually, per person, to power the typical American car and to heat and electrify the typical American home. A few low-energy light bulbs is not going to make an appreciable dent in your travel carbon footprint.
The next time you hear some high & mighty Euro-weenie visiting stateside who's trashing our inability to join Kyoto or be environmentally friendly enough, remind them that their flight to the US emitted more CO2 than your car and home combined.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, September 29, 2008

Rove on Pelosi's Idiocy

h/T to Johnny Dollar's Place and HotAir

Karl Rove provides excellent analysis of the vote today, including the fact that many of the committee chairs that owe their positions to Pelosi & company, but were told by the Dem leadership that they could vote 'No' on the bill.

While Barney Frank is complaining about the GOP voting 'No' because their feelings were hurt, Barney could've gotten one of his subcommittee members to vote yes.

Apparently the Dems are looking to use this issue against the GOP in the Fall. It would seem that for the Dems, political

I think that some sort of support is required to keep the whole house of cards from going down, but I'm not sure if this is the right bill.... More than anything, I fear what this vote will do to make the bill worse, as Pelosi & company spend rosh hashanah loading the bill up with leftist perks in order to woo the communist wing of the Democratic party.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

What Are Our Sugar Daddy's Thinking Right Now?

This excellent analysis of "What now?" is provided by Gerald Seib at the Wall Street Journal:

Dysfunction in Washington Exacts a Heavy Price

The country has learned in recent weeks the price of financial failure. Now it will learn the price of political failure.

The collapse of the financial-rescue package in the House on Monday may well be reversed, at some point. Discouraged House leaders yesterday sounded as if they hoped the Senate could lead Congress back out of the wilderness in the next few days, giving the plan a second crack at passage.

But even if senators manage to revive the bailout plan, a great deal of damage already has been done[.]
Beyond that, the hope that Washington had gotten the message in this campaign year that Americans were yearning for an end to gridlock and partisan warfare has been shattered. There will be plenty of blame to go around. House Republicans demanded changes in the plan last week, got some of them, and yesterday delivered just 65 votes -- a third of their members -- for a rescue package that their party's president, their party's Treasury Secretary and their party's House and Senate leadership all called vital to the nation.

Then on Monday, it was Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's turn to hurt the effort. She chimed in with a bizarrely timed and distinctly partisan floor speech blaming Republicans for the market mess, just minutes before her party needed scores of Republican votes to make the bailout work. Whether she turned votes against the plan, or gave Republicans a convenient excuse to vote against it, was being hotly debated in the Capitol late Monday. But either way, the atmosphere is even more sour as a result.

As it happens, Democratic leaders also failed to convince 95 of their own members to back the rescue plan, showing that the splintering of support was widespread in the halls of Congress.

Now, though, the consequences of simultaneous political and economic breakdown ripple well beyond Wall Street and Washington. The effects could well be global.

The U.S. -- meaning both parties and the public and private sectors -- has to worry about what global investors make of the picture of disarray they now see in the U.S. That's a crucial consideration because the U.S. now depends on foreign capital to finance both a trade deficit of more than $700 billion and a $400 billion federal budget deficit. Today, foreign lenders hold about half of America's public debt, and the nation relies on them to finance more than 70% of its new debt, the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation estimates.

The reason foreign investors have been willing to pony up this cash has been their basic, longstanding belief that the U.S. system -- financial and political -- makes America the ultimate safe haven.

At what point does that basic belief start to erode? And what are the consequences of that possibly happening? The question is even more acute because of the likelihood that even more foreign capital will be needed, at least in the short term, to help the American government finance the very bailout now being debated.
And, as someone who's currently living in this "ultimate safe haven," I have to say that any number of countries are looking like better bets for the long run... take Ireland, with its 15% income tax for businesses, as a simple example.

Capital - financial and human - will move from places it is punished (e.g. America) to places where it is appreciated (any number of countries that are economically freer).

And you just know that the Chinese, with an eye on the financial meltdown and the expectation that the American consumer is going to do some much needed belt-tightening for the next months, years, etc, I'm not so sure I'd want to plunk down more cash so Wimpy could keep the hamburger binge going.

This post at the Corner (from one of their emailers) provides some excellent prescriptions for restoring confidence in our situation. One of the best suggestions is an immediate freeze in discretionary spending, with an eye towards spending reduction in the near term.
And as for alternatives:

- how about reinforcing FDIC to give people confidence in their savings? Maybe more support for money markets?

- How about cutting corporate taxes or cap gains taxes?

- How about buying up (or financing the purchase of) the AAA securities that currently are having trouble moving but are not “toxic,” in order to increase liquidity and help with possible insolvency for healthier institutions rather than the old line investment banks?

- How about doing something about the silliness of the $62 Trillion Credit Default Swap market (e.g. the margin requirements, etc…)?

- How about immediately changing mark-to-market rules?

- And – heaven forbid – how about belt-tightening in Washington? Don’t hold your breath – but imagine what a signal that would send – a freeze in discretionary spending, a moratorium on earmarks and a real plan to educate America about entitlements and talk about the need to get our fiscal house in order.

I won't hold my breath for anything reasonable.

We live in the Age of Unreason after all... I'm just going to start looking for Galt's Gulch.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

House Just Defeated Bailout - Fasten Your Seat Belts Boys and Girls

Wellllllll (in the word of Frank O'Pinion), this should get interesting, very interesting indeed.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Sunday, September 28, 2008

GOP Deregulation Caused the Credit Crunch?

Let's go to the video tape!

H/T to Jeff @ Protein Wisdom who provides this analysis:

And this is now: suddenly — after Bush administration attempts in 2003 to avert this crisis, as well as John McCain’s 2005 attempt, both of which were opposed by Congressional Dems — according to Barack Obama we “have to recognize that [the current mortgage / credit crisis] is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain [...].”

In Obama’s mind, it was he who sounded the alarm bells — not those actually trying to pass legislation for tougher oversite of a government run enterprise. “Two years ago,” Obama noted last evening, “I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time.”

Uh huh. But what did you do about it, Senator? Other than, you know, take money from Frannie and Freddie while inviting Raines and Johnson to advise your campaign? Write a strongly worded letter?

True to form, I guess you did what you normally do: signaled “present,” then just hoped things would change.

Leadership you can count on!

I especially enjoy the clips of Barney Frank, our current savior.

Even more enjoyable is Republican Manzullo calling out Franklin Raines and Jamie "I'm a walking disaster" Gorelick on their ridiculous bonuses.

Another video that provides good analysis of the situation is here:

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler