Full Version: Fannie, Freddie and Friends
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Job Market, Fiscal, and Economic Policies > Job Market, Fiscal, & Economic Issues Archive
I missed McCain's name.
After 26 years in the Congress (19 covered by the chart)
McCain isn't in the top 25, while Obama has been in three years
and is #3 following two other long-term senators?
That's change your can scrape off your boots.
After 26 years in the Congress (19 covered by the chart)
McCain isn't in the top 25, while Obama has been in three years
and is #3 following two other long-term senators?
That's change your can scrape off your boots.
Funny neither of you noticed what factcheck had to say about it despite it being on CNN!
Obama got more when it comes to all employees, McCain got 3 times as much as Obama when you look at their corporate officers and lobbyists.
Your attack is the only kind of support you can give to your Spare Change candidate, distortions and lies.
Obama got more when it comes to all employees, McCain got 3 times as much as Obama when you look at their corporate officers and lobbyists.
Your attack is the only kind of support you can give to your Spare Change candidate, distortions and lies.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 22 2008, 08:45 AM) 
I missed McCain's name.
After 26 years in the Congress (19 covered by the chart)
McCain isn't in the top 25, while Obama has been in three years
and is #3 following two other long-term senators?
That's change your can scrape off your boots.
After 26 years in the Congress (19 covered by the chart)
McCain isn't in the top 25, while Obama has been in three years
and is #3 following two other long-term senators?
That's change your can scrape off your boots.
You better keep looking. I saw this covered yesterday. MCCAin's is higher than Obama's. Obama's also came from employees. MCCain's came from lobbyists and management. This was on a keeping them honest piece either on MSNBC or CNN . I was moving back and forth between the two so not sure. There's another list out there. Keep looking.
September 22, 2008
Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
Mr. McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing. He and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, have donors and advisers who are tied to the companies.
But last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.
Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.
“The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae, who said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together paid Mr. Davis’s firm $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis “didn’t really do anything,” Mr. McCarson, a Democrat, said.
Mr. Davis’s role with the group has bubbled up as an issue in the campaign, but the extent of his compensation and the details of his role have not been reported previously.
Mr. McCain was never a leading critic or defender of the mortgage giants, although several former executives of the companies said Mr. Davis did draw Mr. McCain to a 2004 awards banquet that the companies’ Homeownership Alliance held in a Senate office building. The organization printed a photograph of Mr. McCain at the event in its 2004 annual report, bolstering its clout and credibility. The event honored several other elected officials, including at least two Democrats, Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania and Representative Artur Davis of Alabama.
In an interview Sunday night with CNBC and The New York Times, Mr. McCain noted that Mr. Davis was no longer working on behalf of the mortgage giants. He said Mr. Davis “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”
Asked about the reports of Mr. Davis’s role, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that during the time when Mr. Davis ran the Homeownership Alliance, the senator had backed legislation to increase oversight of the mortgage companies’ accounting and executive compensation. The legislation, however, did not seek to change their anomalous structure as private companies with federal support.
The spokesman, Tucker Bounds, also noted that the Homeownership Alliance included nonprofit organizations like Habitat for Humanity and the Urban League. “It’s not controversial to promote homeownership and minority homeownership,” Mr. Bounds said. More than a half-dozen current and former executives, however, said the Homeownership Alliance was set up mainly to defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by promoting their role in the housing market, and the two companies paid almost the entire cost of the group’s operations.
“They were financed largely, possibly exclusively, by Fannie and Freddie,” said William R. Maloni, a Democrat who is a former head of industry relations for Fannie Mae. “We thought it would be helpful to have someone who was a broadly recognized Republican to be the face of the organization, and that person became Rick Davis.” Mr. Maloni added, “Rick, for that purpose, turned out to be quite good.” (Several executives said Mr. Davis’s compensation was not unusual for the companies’ well-connected consultants.)
The federal bailout of the two mortgage giants has become an emblem of what critics say is the outdated or inadequate regulatory system that allowed the financial system to slide into crisis this summer.
At the time that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recruited Mr. Davis to run the Homeownership Alliance in 2000, they were under new pressure from private industry rivals and deregulation-minded Republicans who argued that the two companies’ federal sponsorship gave them an unfair advantage and put taxpayers at risk. Critics of the companies had formed their own Washington-based advocacy group, FM Watch. They were pushing for regulations that would deter the companies from expanding into new areas, including riskier and more profitable mortgages.
Mr. Davis had recently returned to his lobbying firm from running Mr. McCain’s unexpectedly strong 2000 Republican primary campaign, which elevated Mr. McCain’s profile as a legislator and Mr. Davis’s as a lobbyist.
“You can say what you want about free-market distortions, but people like the system because it gets them into houses cheap,” Mr. Davis said to Institutional Investor magazine in 2000, adding that he would run the advocacy group out of his Alexandria, Va., lobbying firm.
The organization also hired Public Strategies, a communications firm that included former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon. Mr. Davis wrote letters and gave speeches for the group. In April 2001, he sent out a press release headlined, “It’s Tax Day — Do You Know Where Your Deductions Are? For Most Americans, They’re in Your Home.”
But by the end of 2005, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were recovering from accounting problems and re-examining costs, former executives said. The companies decided the Homeownership Alliance had outlived its usefulness, and it disappeared.
John Harwood contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/polit...agewanted=print
Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
Mr. McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing. He and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, have donors and advisers who are tied to the companies.
But last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.
Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.
“The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae, who said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together paid Mr. Davis’s firm $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis “didn’t really do anything,” Mr. McCarson, a Democrat, said.
Mr. Davis’s role with the group has bubbled up as an issue in the campaign, but the extent of his compensation and the details of his role have not been reported previously.
Mr. McCain was never a leading critic or defender of the mortgage giants, although several former executives of the companies said Mr. Davis did draw Mr. McCain to a 2004 awards banquet that the companies’ Homeownership Alliance held in a Senate office building. The organization printed a photograph of Mr. McCain at the event in its 2004 annual report, bolstering its clout and credibility. The event honored several other elected officials, including at least two Democrats, Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania and Representative Artur Davis of Alabama.
In an interview Sunday night with CNBC and The New York Times, Mr. McCain noted that Mr. Davis was no longer working on behalf of the mortgage giants. He said Mr. Davis “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”
Asked about the reports of Mr. Davis’s role, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that during the time when Mr. Davis ran the Homeownership Alliance, the senator had backed legislation to increase oversight of the mortgage companies’ accounting and executive compensation. The legislation, however, did not seek to change their anomalous structure as private companies with federal support.
The spokesman, Tucker Bounds, also noted that the Homeownership Alliance included nonprofit organizations like Habitat for Humanity and the Urban League. “It’s not controversial to promote homeownership and minority homeownership,” Mr. Bounds said. More than a half-dozen current and former executives, however, said the Homeownership Alliance was set up mainly to defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by promoting their role in the housing market, and the two companies paid almost the entire cost of the group’s operations.
“They were financed largely, possibly exclusively, by Fannie and Freddie,” said William R. Maloni, a Democrat who is a former head of industry relations for Fannie Mae. “We thought it would be helpful to have someone who was a broadly recognized Republican to be the face of the organization, and that person became Rick Davis.” Mr. Maloni added, “Rick, for that purpose, turned out to be quite good.” (Several executives said Mr. Davis’s compensation was not unusual for the companies’ well-connected consultants.)
The federal bailout of the two mortgage giants has become an emblem of what critics say is the outdated or inadequate regulatory system that allowed the financial system to slide into crisis this summer.
At the time that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recruited Mr. Davis to run the Homeownership Alliance in 2000, they were under new pressure from private industry rivals and deregulation-minded Republicans who argued that the two companies’ federal sponsorship gave them an unfair advantage and put taxpayers at risk. Critics of the companies had formed their own Washington-based advocacy group, FM Watch. They were pushing for regulations that would deter the companies from expanding into new areas, including riskier and more profitable mortgages.
Mr. Davis had recently returned to his lobbying firm from running Mr. McCain’s unexpectedly strong 2000 Republican primary campaign, which elevated Mr. McCain’s profile as a legislator and Mr. Davis’s as a lobbyist.
“You can say what you want about free-market distortions, but people like the system because it gets them into houses cheap,” Mr. Davis said to Institutional Investor magazine in 2000, adding that he would run the advocacy group out of his Alexandria, Va., lobbying firm.
The organization also hired Public Strategies, a communications firm that included former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon. Mr. Davis wrote letters and gave speeches for the group. In April 2001, he sent out a press release headlined, “It’s Tax Day — Do You Know Where Your Deductions Are? For Most Americans, They’re in Your Home.”
But by the end of 2005, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were recovering from accounting problems and re-examining costs, former executives said. The companies decided the Homeownership Alliance had outlived its usefulness, and it disappeared.
John Harwood contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/polit...agewanted=print
Here you go. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...die/#more-19364
September 19, 2008
Fact Check: Did Obama 'profit' from Fannie and Freddie?
Posted: 10:16 AM ET
Did Obama profit from Fannie and Freddie?
Did Obama profit from Fannie and Freddie?
The Statement:
Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them." —Sen. John McCain, at a campaign stop Friday, September 19, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Get the facts after the jump!
The Facts
Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd,
Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.
The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.
Explaining the difference, the Center for Responsive Politics said on its Web site that it does not include members of the board of directors because they could serve on boards of various companies. Their contributions are listed along with other employees of the companies they work for. And the center says lobbyists usually represent multiple clients as well, so their contributions are listed under their lobbying firms — except in-house lobbyists, who are included in the center's list.
The mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie became symbols of the nation's economic mess — and, to critics, of corporate greed — after the government recently took them over to bail them out, making donations linked to the company in any way potential political fodder.
VERDICT
Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.
Filed under: Fact Check
September 19, 2008
Fact Check: Did Obama 'profit' from Fannie and Freddie?
Posted: 10:16 AM ET
Did Obama profit from Fannie and Freddie?
Did Obama profit from Fannie and Freddie?
The Statement:
Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them." —Sen. John McCain, at a campaign stop Friday, September 19, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Get the facts after the jump!
The Facts
Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd,
Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.
The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.
Explaining the difference, the Center for Responsive Politics said on its Web site that it does not include members of the board of directors because they could serve on boards of various companies. Their contributions are listed along with other employees of the companies they work for. And the center says lobbyists usually represent multiple clients as well, so their contributions are listed under their lobbying firms — except in-house lobbyists, who are included in the center's list.
The mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie became symbols of the nation's economic mess — and, to critics, of corporate greed — after the government recently took them over to bail them out, making donations linked to the company in any way potential political fodder.
VERDICT
Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.
Filed under: Fact Check
QUOTE
The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.
It seems on the employee and pac list, MCCain received only $21,550. When you include directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the 2008 campaign cycle MCCain receives $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000. The list is using figures from the Federal Election Commission.
It appears employees prefer Democrats and directors, officers, and lobbyists prefer Republicans.
That pattern makes sense, with the worker bees of these companies mostly giving to Obama. I mean the Washington, DC metropolitan area definitely votes Democratic. Without the DC metro counties Maryland would be a Republican state as opposed to the Democratic state that it is, and Virginia is trending more to the Democratic side largely due to the expansion of Northern Virginia. And then you have DC itself...
You would probably have a similar pattern with the little company that I work for.
Bottom line John McCain has mostly had a wrong read on what ought to be done about regulating the financial industry until the present crisis, and even now he only seems right on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays.
You would probably have a similar pattern with the little company that I work for.
Bottom line John McCain has mostly had a wrong read on what ought to be done about regulating the financial industry until the present crisis, and even now he only seems right on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Thanks wliberty...that cnn story looks fair...
campaign managers, opposition researchers...
it's not that I bemoan Obama taking money...
it's just his trying to paint McCain as one
of the good old boys...while he does the same stuff.
If y'all think this Chicago machine politics is anything
new...well I disagree. Will he define some issues that
make a choice more obvious...I expect so...do his
slick phrases about McCain's age and experience do it?
Not IMO. It's all been slogans on the economy so far...
and that's probably why RCP average of polls only shows him
up by 2% after almost a week of the financials news. That is about
a 4% improvement (McCain led by 2% before)...but (IMO) he needs more.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/
No one has broken out yet. And, Friday's debate is the next side-by-side comparison.
campaign managers, opposition researchers...
it's not that I bemoan Obama taking money...
it's just his trying to paint McCain as one
of the good old boys...while he does the same stuff.
If y'all think this Chicago machine politics is anything
new...well I disagree. Will he define some issues that
make a choice more obvious...I expect so...do his
slick phrases about McCain's age and experience do it?
Not IMO. It's all been slogans on the economy so far...
and that's probably why RCP average of polls only shows him
up by 2% after almost a week of the financials news. That is about
a 4% improvement (McCain led by 2% before)...but (IMO) he needs more.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/
No one has broken out yet. And, Friday's debate is the next side-by-side comparison.
IH, I agree that Obama draws too simplistic a contrast concerning the whole "who knows the connected elite" thing. Overall I do think he is cleaner than McCain on that one, but any politician at this level gets at least a little grubby, the difference between them is a matter of degree. More important is what they are likely to do. On that one I think Obama is more ideologically flexible, exactly what is needed.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 22 2008, 07:57 AM)
Thanks wliberty...that cnn story looks fair...
campaign managers, opposition researchers...
it's not that I bemoan Obama taking money...
it's just his trying to paint McCain as one
of the good old boys...while he does the same stuff.
If y'all think this Chicago machine politics is anything
new...well I disagree. Will he define some issues that
make a choice more obvious...I expect so...do his
slick phrases about McCain's age and experience do it?
Not IMO. It's all been slogans on the economy so far...
and that's probably why RCP average of polls only shows him
up by 2% after almost a week of the financials news. That is about
a 4% improvement (McCain led by 2% before)...but (IMO) he needs more.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/
No one has broken out yet. And, Friday's debate is the next side-by-side comparison.
campaign managers, opposition researchers...
it's not that I bemoan Obama taking money...
it's just his trying to paint McCain as one
of the good old boys...while he does the same stuff.
If y'all think this Chicago machine politics is anything
new...well I disagree. Will he define some issues that
make a choice more obvious...I expect so...do his
slick phrases about McCain's age and experience do it?
Not IMO. It's all been slogans on the economy so far...
and that's probably why RCP average of polls only shows him
up by 2% after almost a week of the financials news. That is about
a 4% improvement (McCain led by 2% before)...but (IMO) he needs more.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/
No one has broken out yet. And, Friday's debate is the next side-by-side comparison.
For years I've been trying to figure out why I'm supposed to think such relatively small campaign contributions (compared to total) are supposed to convince me of anything about any candidate.
I think Obama is good at machine politics and McCain isn't a maverick. McCain stands wherever he thinks the votes are that election, he was pro-choice before he was pro-life and will be pro-choice again if he runs for another senate term. Even his anti-earmark "campaign" is a show "borrowed" from Proxmire, he hasn't even cut a couple percent of the 3% of the budget earmarks represent, in fact he didn't even actively oppose most of the ones he's trumpeted on his site over the years and sure doesn't fight ones that help Arizona. Politicians will be politicians.
Yeah, nobody's broken out yet, people are really just waking up to the election and are being disoriented by the financial mess. Normally I'd think this is the time when polls start really saying something, I'm starting to think we're still a couple weeks from that. It isn't that I don't think it's that close (ignoring outliers it's remained close but so far it seems to be more reflex than attention or involvement) or that it isn't likely to be close, I just don't see indications of most people trying to figure things out.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 22 2008, 10:07 AM)
IH, I agree that Obama draws too simplistic a contrast concerning the whole "who knows the connected elite" thing. Overall I do think he is cleaner than McCain on that one, but any politician at this level gets at least a little grubby, the difference between them is a matter of degree. More important is what they are likely to do. On that one I think Obama is more ideologically flexible, exactly what is needed.
I agree. The way I would put it is that Obama is more democratic, both in self-concept and world view, than McCain.
QUOTE(tomhye @ Sep 22 2008, 10:18 AM)
For years I've been trying to figure out why I'm supposed to think such relatively small campaign contributions (compared to total) are supposed to convince me of anything about any candidate.
I think Obama is good at machine politics and McCain isn't a maverick. McCain stands wherever he thinks the votes are that election, he was pro-choice before he was pro-life and will be pro-choice again if he runs for another senate term. Even his anti-earmark "campaign" is a show "borrowed" from Proxmire, he hasn't even cut a couple percent of the 3% of the budget earmarks represent, in fact he didn't even actively oppose most of the ones he's trumpeted on his site over the years and sure doesn't fight ones that help Arizona. Politicians will be politicians.
Yeah, nobody's broken out yet, people are really just waking up to the election and are being disoriented by the financial mess. Normally I'd think this is the time when polls start really saying something, I'm starting to think we're still a couple weeks from that. It isn't that I don't think it's that close (ignoring outliers it's remained close but so far it seems to be more reflex than attention or involvement) or that it isn't likely to be close, I just don't see indications of most people trying to figure things out.
I think Obama is good at machine politics and McCain isn't a maverick. McCain stands wherever he thinks the votes are that election, he was pro-choice before he was pro-life and will be pro-choice again if he runs for another senate term. Even his anti-earmark "campaign" is a show "borrowed" from Proxmire, he hasn't even cut a couple percent of the 3% of the budget earmarks represent, in fact he didn't even actively oppose most of the ones he's trumpeted on his site over the years and sure doesn't fight ones that help Arizona. Politicians will be politicians.
Yeah, nobody's broken out yet, people are really just waking up to the election and are being disoriented by the financial mess. Normally I'd think this is the time when polls start really saying something, I'm starting to think we're still a couple weeks from that. It isn't that I don't think it's that close (ignoring outliers it's remained close but so far it seems to be more reflex than attention or involvement) or that it isn't likely to be close, I just don't see indications of most people trying to figure things out.
Tom: Makes sense as usual.
I swear to God I just saw a story about "Chicago Machine politics "
going to be in a McCain ad today...sometimes it gets spooky. But, I suppose it
was the logical response to the "Old Boy Network".
Remind ya of a school yard? Naw, Naw, Naw, ya ma wears combat boots.
It's why I look forward to debates...they both have the chance to be spontaneous
if they can slip off the practiced answers, or the expected questions.
Arne:
I think they are both too ideologically flexible. But hell, it's politics, and I
still think we can do a lot worse than either of these guys. It's like LSU playing
football, ya never know how it's gonna go until the last few minutes.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 22 2008, 11:35 AM)
Arne:
I think they are both too ideologically flexible. But hell, it's politics, and I
still think we can do a lot worse than either of these guys. It's like LSU playing
football, ya never know how it's gonna go until the last few minutes.
I think they are both too ideologically flexible. But hell, it's politics, and I
still think we can do a lot worse than either of these guys. It's like LSU playing
football, ya never know how it's gonna go until the last few minutes.
Too flexible? In my experience and read on history one of the worst sources of misery coming out of the political world is ideological inflexibility. The worst and most bloodthirsty tyrants were mostly rigidly committed to a set of principles from which simple human decency had been leached. Now I don't see that extreme in either, but McCain seems to have been too enamored of the mantra of deregulation of business, which I think is very often an excellent idea, but there are numerous exceptions. Now perhaps he has been too flexible in flitting between various positions as this crisis has been unfolding, sounding, as Obama put it, like Barry Goldwater or Dennis Kucinich, depending on the day. You do need coherence, but that is not the opposite of flexibility. I see a more practical approach in Obama.
LSU sux
one of the worst teams in the history of football
and one of the worst cases of cheating ever
they should be banned for the escapades they have used in the past
they were caught and should be tossed.
one of the worst teams in the history of football
and one of the worst cases of cheating ever
they should be banned for the escapades they have used in the past
they were caught and should be tossed.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 22 2008, 08:35 AM)
QUOTE(tomhye @ Sep 22 2008, 10:18 AM)
For years I've been trying to figure out why I'm supposed to think such relatively small campaign contributions (compared to total) are supposed to convince me of anything about any candidate.
I think Obama is good at machine politics and McCain isn't a maverick. McCain stands wherever he thinks the votes are that election, he was pro-choice before he was pro-life and will be pro-choice again if he runs for another senate term. Even his anti-earmark "campaign" is a show "borrowed" from Proxmire, he hasn't even cut a couple percent of the 3% of the budget earmarks represent, in fact he didn't even actively oppose most of the ones he's trumpeted on his site over the years and sure doesn't fight ones that help Arizona. Politicians will be politicians.
Yeah, nobody's broken out yet, people are really just waking up to the election and are being disoriented by the financial mess. Normally I'd think this is the time when polls start really saying something, I'm starting to think we're still a couple weeks from that. It isn't that I don't think it's that close (ignoring outliers it's remained close but so far it seems to be more reflex than attention or involvement) or that it isn't likely to be close, I just don't see indications of most people trying to figure things out.
I think Obama is good at machine politics and McCain isn't a maverick. McCain stands wherever he thinks the votes are that election, he was pro-choice before he was pro-life and will be pro-choice again if he runs for another senate term. Even his anti-earmark "campaign" is a show "borrowed" from Proxmire, he hasn't even cut a couple percent of the 3% of the budget earmarks represent, in fact he didn't even actively oppose most of the ones he's trumpeted on his site over the years and sure doesn't fight ones that help Arizona. Politicians will be politicians.
Yeah, nobody's broken out yet, people are really just waking up to the election and are being disoriented by the financial mess. Normally I'd think this is the time when polls start really saying something, I'm starting to think we're still a couple weeks from that. It isn't that I don't think it's that close (ignoring outliers it's remained close but so far it seems to be more reflex than attention or involvement) or that it isn't likely to be close, I just don't see indications of most people trying to figure things out.
Tom: Makes sense as usual.
I swear to God I just saw a story about "Chicago Machine politics "
going to be in a McCain ad today...sometimes it gets spooky. But, I suppose it
was the logical response to the "Old Boy Network".
Remind ya of a school yard? Naw, Naw, Naw, ya ma wears combat boots.
It's why I look forward to debates...they both have the chance to be spontaneous
if they can slip off the practiced answers, or the expected questions.
Arne:
I think they are both too ideologically flexible. But hell, it's politics, and I
still think we can do a lot worse than either of these guys. It's like LSU playing
football, ya never know how it's gonna go until the last few minutes.
Machine politics is a logical ad, I just hope they stop playing so loose with facts and reduce the innuendo. The old boy network wouldn't worry me if McCain had more curiosity and skepticism, the reason I butted heads with him is he doesn't even question his trusted advisors when there's an obvious conflict of interests.
I guess things are different now, when we were kids a teacher would've accidentally banged our heads together on the way to the principals office if we acted like the campaigns, much less some of the supporters.
The debates will be interesting, slip ups swing votes but I'll be more interested in seeing what they were given the most preparation for, it'll say where the campaigns expect things to be in a couple months.
There goes another punchbowl.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.