A Tale Of Two Candidates

I can't wait to see how the media adressesss the whitey tape when it is released around the end of October.

The Obama campaign has yet to face the music on Rezko and Ayers. At the moment, they are counting on the media continuing to give them a pass. Unfortunately, not getting either issue out of the way early in the campaign leaves them as legitimate questions going into October.

And apparently there is no ethical problem with the Chairman of the House Financial Committee pushing a bailout for a company his ex-lover helped run into the ground. But if you fire a corrupt trooper formerly married to your sister; well then that is front page material for a week.

Leland,

I cannot go into much detail on my sources but I am convinced the above mentioned tape is real.

It's impace will be absolutely devistating and I suspect it will be a dam buster in terms of freeing up all these other suppressed stories.

Some things are simply too big and too damming for even the MSM to ignore.

If the tape is real, why didn't Hillary's minions release it last spring?

Mike,

I'm not arguing either way. I'm simply pointing out that Barack has a scandal that would have been better to put behind him. Instead, it is just starting to become enough of an issue that the NYP is starting to cover it.

Enough with the imaginary wish fullfillment 'Whitey Tape' nonsense and secret sources. There are plenty of REAL substantive issues regarding Obama that should be covered.

Amazing how media darling Barney Frank's past Fannie Mae "no problems here" statements and personal links are brushed over by the traditional media.

"Rand Simberg wrote:
If the tape is real, why didn't Hillary's minions release it last spring?"

Because they could not get a copy. Obama's people managed to sequestir most copies of the tape. The bombshell copy that is in republican hands was provided to the Guiliani campaign in the spring.

"Enough with the imaginary wish fullfillment 'Whitey Tape' nonsense and secret sources. "

I guess time will tell.

Completely irrespective of who or what caused the bad lending absolutely nobody forced financial firms to make large, highly leveraged bets on the loans. It was conservatives who blocked regulation of credit default swaps. It was conservatives who watched as the housing bubble developed and it was conservatives who blocked any action to try to ensure a soft landing once the bubble popped. It was conservatives who said we had to make the taxes of the ultra-rich individuals who brought this problem upon us as low as possible. It was conservatives who blocked efforts to curb predatory lending and it was conservatives who blocked efforts to investigate fraud more robustly.

So one can keep squawking about bad loans. The crux of the problem is elsewhere.

It was conservatives who blocked regulation of credit default swaps. It was conservatives who ...blah, blah, blah...

Simply reiterating unsubstantiated claims in no way makes them credible. Show us the youtubes of these alleged "conservatives" doing these alleged things that are comparable to Barney Frank's resistance to reining in F&F. Cite the bills that were "blocked," and the "conservatives" who blocked them. Or admit that you're reduced to crying "CONSERVATIVES" like "Boogymaaaannn...!"

Is there any data on how many of the bad loans in the credit meltdown were attributable to ACORN? Or just to minorities in general? For all the unsavoriness, unless the numbers show that organizations like ACORN drove a sizable portion of the bad mortgages, it will be hard for the MSM to buy into the story. Data needs to back up the logic.

There also seems to be a disconnect in the logic behind the Obama criticism. We can't say that being a community organizer in Chicago is a worthless job -- less important than being mayor of a small Alaskan town -- out of one side of our mouths, and then turn around and blame a $700 billion credit crisis on the same kinds of community organizers. Either community organizers are extremely powerful positions of behind-the-scenes executive authority -- enough to potentially bring down the largest economy in the world if abused -- or they're not. We can't have it both ways.

For all the unsavoriness, unless the numbers show that organizations like ACORN drove a sizable portion of the bad mortgages, it will be hard for the MSM to buy into the story. Data needs to back up the logic.

All the data we need is that ACORN was part of the problem, and that community organizer Obama was involved in enabling them. It shows him to be a hypocrite when he points fingers at others. He is certainly more culpable than John McCain (who is one of the few people who actually tried to do something to prevent this) is. Yet he was allowed to demagogue the issue Friday night.

Mike Puckett:

There's a tape in here somewhere for sure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/29/BL2008092901192.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Sometimes, when it rains it pours!

There's a tape in here somewhere for sure

There is nothing in that link that has anything to do with the topic of this post, Anonymous Moron.

Don't worry Rand, the retard will be laughing it up in another month when his Obambi gets gutted by his own wife.

PS, I though you banned the idiot? Must have changed his IP.

"First, they came for the McCain supporters, and I did nothing, because I was not a McCain supporter."

Ouch.

And touché.

This is the worst economy in fifty years.

There also seems to be a disconnect in the logic behind the Obama criticism. We can't say that being a community organizer in Chicago is a worthless job -- less important than being mayor of a small Alaskan town

That's because you are easily manipulated. It's not whether the job is worthless or not. The idea is to keep morons like you comparing the Democratic Presidential pick to the Republican Vice Presidential pick. Alas, you continue you to do it, just like Chris Gerrib.

And please, keep reminding us your Messiah was a community organizer, so we have a nice reason to look into his diciples like Ayers and Rezko. It is a great thing that you keep that story in the headlines.

I'm sorry, Mike Gerson, but are you for real? It's the fault of the people who lent the money, not the fault of the people who failed to pay it back?

You know, you might as well argue that car theft is the fault of all those people who buy nice cars and just leave them parked in the street, with locks that can easily be jimmied. Certainly not the fault of the people who steal them.

Dude, if you borrow money and don't pay it back, it's called stealing. And you want to blame the victims of the theft? Not the thieves? "Predatory lending," huh? Why not just say that my local supermarket practises "predatory selling," because they leave their produce out in open bins, tempting me to take it without paying for it. And what about the local Mercedes-Benz dealer, huh? Blatantly displaying those expensive cars I can't afford, and even running ads on the TV suggesting maybe I can afford one, if I, say, stop paying the rent and electric bills. Feh.

Missing a moral compass, are we? Or is it just Absolutely Necessary that The One get elected, so any kind of horseshit bizarro-land inversion of morality and good common sense is OK, so long as it's aimed to that noble goal?

It was DEMOCRATS who cooked the books at Fannie and Freddie while pocketing millions. It was DEMOCRATS who said there aren't any problems while pocketing hundreds of thousands in contributions. It was DEMOCRACTS who threatened banks if they didn't lower their lending standards and make more risky loans. It IS their fellow travelers in the MSM that are letting them slide.

You know, you might as well argue that car theft is the fault of all those people who buy nice cars and just leave them parked in the street, with locks that can easily be jimmied. Certainly not the fault of the people who steal them.

I've actually heard hackers use this argument. They claim that if a company didn't use every imaginable form of security then it's not the hackers' fault for breaking in. Imagine if that line of reasoning applied to houses. After all, since your front door isn't a time lock controlled bank vault door, it isn't the thief's fault for breaking in.

If the journalism institutions in a given area nod and smile as they're given information like this -- if it never crosses their mind to object -- then the Fourth Estate, for all extents and purposes, ceases to exist. When Ben Franklin responded to the query about the government that would manage the young nation, "A Republic, if you can keep it," moments like this make you wonder if we're in the process of losing it.

I think I've mentioned it here before, but it bears repeating. One of my favorite political cartoons of all time is by satirist Alexis Gilliland. He had an American explaining our system to a man from Eastern Europe: "Well sure, the government lies. And the newspapers lie. But in a democracy they aren't the same lies."

After Obama gets in, they will be the same lies.

Let me get this straight. Rand, et. al. claim that:

1) In 1992, ACORN "forces" banks to make loans to minorities. 16 years later, this process somehow causes banks to fail.

2) In 1994, Republicans take over Congress, and run it until 2006. Yet somehow Republicans are unable to change these laws "forcing" banks to write bad loans.

This article (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis) points out that 70% to 75% of sub-prime loans were written by entities not covered under CRA regulations. Entities that can loan or not loan to anybody they want to.

In 1994, Republicans take over Congress, and run it until 2006. Yet somehow Republicans are unable to change these laws "forcing" banks to write bad loans.

"somehow..."?

How about because there were powerful Democrat Senators on the take from Fannie and Freddie (including, most recently the current Democrat nominee for president), and the Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in that house...?

Are you denying that Bill Clinton, George Bush, and John McCain have all warned about this in the past and tried to fix it?

No, Rand, I'm saying that this is a bipartisan problem. Republicans AND Democrats could have acted. Neither did. Therefore BOTH parties are at fault. Therefore BOTH parties need to suck it up and fix the mess.

The blogosphere isn't going to have much of an impact because they don't realize that you have to engage the other side.

1. Most anti-BHO bloggers are stuck in their own little echo chambers, with very few of them, for instance, encouraging people to go to the sites of BHO supporters (including the MSM) with the intent of discrediting those supporters.

2. I'm the only anti-BHO blogger who tries to encourage people to go to BHO appearances and ask him real questions on Youtube videos. That would be an extremely effective technique that would not only cut the MSM out of the loop, it would make BHO and the MSM look very bad (if the questions are good). In fact, I've been pushing that idea for almost two years (24ahead.com/blog/archives/006350.html) with no one else able to figure that out or, frankly, having the guts to do it.

If anyone wants to do something, ask the question at that post, or call BHO on one of his lies and then upload his response to Youtube.

Support for BHO could drop very quickly, but it won't happen if no one is willing to do something that would work. If you aren't willing to ask questions, then pass out fliers (nomoreblather.com/obama-questions). If you can't even do that, then encourage major bloggers to suggest that their readers ask questions.

> In 1992, ACORN "forces" banks to make loans to minorities. 16 years later, this process somehow causes banks to fail.

The loans didn't end in 1992 - they were still being made into early this year. They drove up prices, which made it possible to delay the day when things blew up, but made the blow up bigger.

> No, Rand, I'm saying that this is a bipartisan problem. Republicans AND Democrats could have acted. Neither did. Therefore BOTH parties are at fault.

It's not the same kind of fault. The Dems actively screwed things up. The Repubs merely failed to fix them.

> Therefore BOTH parties need to suck it up and fix the mess.

Nope - if you're in charge when things go south, you've got the greater duty to make them right. That's the burden of leadership.

Republicans AND Democrats could have acted. Neither did. Therefore BOTH parties are at fault. Therefore BOTH parties need to suck it up and fix the mess.

According to Biden, the failure of the bailout plan means "things are going well".

Oh wait, the press decided he just misheard the question. I guess that will free up Biden to go either way on the issue in the future.

"It was DEMOCRATS who cooked the books at Fannie and Freddie while pocketing millions. It was DEMOCRATS who said there aren't any problems while pocketing hundreds of thousands in contributions. It was DEMOCRACTS who threatened banks if they didn't lower their lending standards and make more risky loans."

"The loans didn't end in 1992 - they were still being made into early this year. They drove up prices, which made it possible to delay the day when things blew up, but made the blow up bigger."

The facts don't back up the above quotes. Subprime loans, both good and bad, made under the Community Reinvestment Act (pushed by ACORN, Fannie, Freddie, and others) only comprise one-quarter of all subprime loans. Even Wikipedia provides the necessary references:

"In congressional testimony in 2008, University of Michigan law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton,[33][34] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Twenty-five to thirty percent came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". [35]

In a Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust."[36]

According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. She states that most CRA loans have been responsibly made, and are not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[37]

In 2008, Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial services entities on CRA compliance, conducted a study of loans made by institutions covered under the CRA. The study found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans to other parties.[38]

Ellen Seidman, former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision during the Clinton administration, who works at the New America Foundation,[39] has stated that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble.[40] She noted that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, and cited one of her own speeches as an example.[41]"

Folks really need to do their research before throwing needlessly partisan attacks at each other...