This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD

by **Wizlah** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 04:00:15

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
dajafi wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:
Woody wrote:Is it true that this is all the Democrats' fault because they forced these companies to have to give loans to poor minorities that didn't otherwise deserve them? This is what some of my racist republican friends are saying, while drunk.

I've read by less drunk and racist authors that this is part of it, but they then go in and say that the banks went ape-$#@! once they got used to being able to do it and the blame can't really be laid squarely on one or the other chicken and egg eh Woody?

Without much knowledge of the details, I could buy that this describes some chunk of the "bad risk" lending that did so much to put us in this mess.

Mortgage lenders making quick money by flipping the loans. Mortgage lenders handed out subprime mortgages to people that can only afford the payments at the subprime rate. They'd collect their fees, hold on to the mortgages long enough to make the mortgages look good, then sell the mortgages to Fannie or Freddie before the mortgage rate "adjustment". A brilliant scheme to make a ton of monies... collect the fees then get the money back while sticking Fannie and Freddie with the bad loans.

(For those that don't know by now... the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), aka Fannie Mae, is a a corporation established by Congress for the purpose of buying up mortgages from lenders so the lenders can have the monies to issue more mortgages (lender liquidity). Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) is basically the same thing by definition... an institution chartered by the federal government that buys mortgages from lenders and resells them as securities. Fannie was created in the late 1930s as part of the "New Deal", Freddie was created in the early 1970s as a reaction to Fannie's monopoly. Freddie is a public corporation, Fanny was a federal institution until the federal government sold off part as a private corporation in order to raise money for the federal budget 40 years ago.)

Cheers Phan. I did not know that.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 04:18:30

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLPki41U-lE[/youtube]

Frank gives Boehner the business about whining over Pelosi's speech.

The party that says it can stand up to the terrorists falls apart over a few mildly critical words. Weak, ineffective and, now, divided.

by **karn** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 07:03:59

phdave wrote:I enjoy reading the initial reaction to the Palin pick.

me by the end of the RNC wrote:This is not a politician. This is reality TV finally brought to the highest offices of national government. She's public spectacle, not a maverick. She doesn't have unique or original thoughts- more like a pretty face slogan spouting machine made to order up lots of votes from a populace that doesn't know what or who is real anymore. Palin is as striking a sign that America is coming undone as any that has come before. I am serious about that.

and the next day (9/5) wrote:Watching Sarah Palin regurgitate her convention speech verbatim to the lapping swell of mindless cattle in wherever, USA is making me sick to my stomach all over again. This is not a someone with ideas to improve America. This is the joke that's going to start the whole world crying. A perfectly average in every way person is being paraded across America under phony pretenses that she's a qualified leader. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the Republicans use her as a tool to get elected then pull the rug out from under her once in office through some sort of internally devised scandal. That's actually the logical next step in this scripted nightmare. This election now has all the makings of a classical farce. I'm dumbfounded.

And that's what I thought of her before she started doing interviews!

They're looking, I'm sure, for ways to pull the rug out from under her NOW, before the election, but I don't think they'll be able to.

by **karn** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 07:20:40

The Bee Gees wrote:I started a joke, which started the whole world crying,
But I didn't see that the joke was on me, oh no.

I started to cry, which started the whole world laughing,
Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

I looked at the skies, running my hands over my eyes,
And I fell out of bed, hurting my head from things that I'd said.

Til I finally died, which started the whole world living,
Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 07:50:32

My views on Palin have been pretty clear from the beginning. Republicans get what they deserve on this one. They pandered but picked a moron to pander with.

I'm pretty sure McCain wishes he picked Romney. Even for the evangelicals, no money > Jesus

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 08:00:23

Pelosi's speech was disgraceful and self-serving.

That said, any Republican who voted against the bill because of the speech (or even intimated that this was a reason) should be required to hand in their balls to the security guard at the Capitol building. Man up.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 08:29:50

Maybe this is just the most remarkable pre debate expectation lowering operation in history. :?

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 08:31:15

jerseyhoya wrote:Maybe this is just the most remarkable pre debate expectation lowering operation in history. :?

LOL. I actually think it's working. Short of her stating that she plans to invade Israel on Yom Kippur, I'm don't see how she can "underachieve" in the debate.

by **Squire** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 08:51:34

Why I Voted For the "Bailout"

Decent piece. This legislation was in trouble from the moment that the first editor labelled it a "Wall Street Bailout". Much like the "Death Tax" I really think the simple label is driving public opinion.

SQUIRE

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 08:56:38

jerseyhoya wrote:Maybe this is just the most remarkable pre debate expectation lowering operation in history. :?

It really is fascinating, and also quite sad, honestly. If she does a really poor job, it will be interesting to hear how both sides spin it.

"Governor Palin, what is your position on the Wall Street bailout plan?"

"In what respect do you mean, Gwen?"

"I mean, what is your position? Do you support it?"

"Well as you noe John McCain and I are reformers and we plan to reform..."

[Joe Biden pulls out pistol, Bud Dwyer's himself]

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:01:18

If this really is the most amazing lowering debate expectations thing in history, then the Dems need to go out and make the point that in the playoffs, there's no such thing as a moral victory.

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:04:17

I wonder if she'll use the term "fat cats" during the debate?

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:12:41

Trent Steele wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Maybe this is just the most remarkable pre debate expectation lowering operation in history. :?

LOL. I actually think it's working. Short of her stating that she plans to invade Israel on Yom Kippur, I'm don't see how she can "underachieve" in the debate.

Right, but there's more to it than that. Expectations are already plenty low. Leaking stuff like "what are we going to do?" and calling her "disastrous" only serves one purpose, and that's to stir up talk of dropping her from the ticket. Or rather, her dropping herself from the ticket.

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:14:08

This is a fascinating time in American history

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:15:01

I was actually thinking this morning that whatever McCain staffer writes an inside the campaign retrospective will have one hell of an interesting book.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:16:19

Dropping her would also be sort of cataclysmic though, eh, JH? Or not so much?

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:19:08

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Dropping her would also be sort of cataclysmic though, eh, JH? Or not so much?

If they spun it right it might bolster his roughneckcowboymaverickreformer image

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:19:15

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Dropping her would also be sort of cataclysmic though, eh, JH? Or not so much?

Yeah it would be terrible. But if she is awful in the debate, and she comes out with some statement about how being on the campaign trail while caring for her infant son was more challenging than she first thought, I think that would be better than letting her be a drag on the ticket through the election. He'd probably have to pick Lieberman or Ridge or maybe Romney. Someone with national name ID already, so the vetting process in the media doesn't take too long.

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:27:49

The chorus to "Brick" by Ben Folds Five comes to mind. Which is ironic because I think it's a song about abortion :shock:

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:29:21

jerseyhoya wrote:
Houshphandzadeh wrote:Dropping her would also be sort of cataclysmic though, eh, JH? Or not so much?

Yeah it would be terrible. But if she is awful in the debate, and she comes out with some statement about how being on the campaign trail while caring for her infant son was more challenging than she first thought, I think that would be better than letting her be a drag on the ticket through the election. He'd probably have to pick Lieberman or Ridge or maybe Romney. Someone with national name ID already, so the vetting process in the media doesn't take too long.

I can't see how he could survive that (unless he names Warren Buffett VP). But, then again, I can't see how he can survive keeping her.

If Palin bails on mommy grounds, she sets women back in the political arena substantially. It also would reflect so poorly on McCain's judgment in selecting her in the first place, I don't how he can recover.

Archived

This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD