halfoffdepot.com
 

Most Viewed

Top 6 articles this week:

Top Rated

Top 5 recent articles:

Search SundayPaper.com

 

Subscribe


RSSTwitterFacebookMySpaceVirb

Purchase home delivery  

 
 
Advertisement
ACC

The Sunday Paper Staff Blog

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Obama's awkward debate moment

Obama supporters must have cringed painfully last night when their candidate pointed out that Republican candidate John McCain signed onto a bill to stop the deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a year after the bill was introduced. Obama, after all, didn’t support the bill at all, with good reason—Obama financially benefitted hugely from Fannie and Freddie’s deregulation, the root of our financial agony today.

The Democrats keep screaming that it was deregulation that wrecked out economy, but they don’t dare talk about specifics because the thing that specifically wrecked our economy was the massive disaster of failed mortgages under Fannie and Freddie and that was a Democratic hit job that started in the late 1990s and started leaving its bloody traces on the housing market in 2006. Yes, it was deregulation, alright, at the hands of the Democrats. In fact, fact—not some campaign spiel, but in actual fact—it was the Republicans who fought tooth and nail to stop Fannie and Freddie’s deregulation, but they were up against outrageous accusations of racism by people like Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-California), and Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-New York) who attacked the head of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, a minority himself, oddly enough, Armando Falcon, who had the guts to point out the enormous salaries of the head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, and his immediate underling, Jamie Gorelick. How much did these two bozos make? Raines made $1.2 million in bonuses and his salary was more than $500,000 per year. Gorelick made nearly $800,000 in bonuses and her salary was also about $500,000 per year. Why weren’t the Democrats, supposedly the champions of the little guy, screaming bloody murder about these overly posh paychecks to a couple of venal bureaucrats? Because those venal bureaucrats were contributing millions of dollars to Democratic campaigns and one of the biggest recipients of their dirty money was Sen.Barack Obama.

You notice that last night Obama said only that McCain signed onto the bill to fight Obama and his friends the Democratic public trough feeders a year after the bill was introduced. That part's true. Sen. Hagel introduced it in January 2005 and McCain became a co-sponsor in May 2006. What else did Obama say? If you were paying attention, you know that Obama said the bill was killed. Then he stopped himself. Why? Because guess who killed it? The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, as the bill was titled, died in committee, specifically in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs where it was targeted for failure by Democrats Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed, who were also among the biggest recipients of campaign contributions from Raines and his federal housing cartel. What did they do, specifically, since we are talking specifics, to make sure it would die? Time was on their side. It was 2006 and as the mid-term elections lurked on the horizon, the Republicans who dominated the committee were under fire for failures in Iraq. Up against the ropes, the Republicans spent their resources defending decisions in Iraq. All the Democrats had to do was sit back and delay, postpone, and essentially wait out the elections. That’s what they did. The Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 and the valiant effort to prevent the failure of Freddie and Fannie and all the misery that failure has caused was never mentioned again until Wall Street fell on our heads.

Never forget that in 2005, Armando Falcon tried to sound the alarm. His office reported that “Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.” In hearings on this gross mismanagement, the investigative agency's head, Falcon, was told to shut up by Democrats including Dodd, Schumer, Reed, and Barney Frank, all of whom got fat Fannie and Freddie contributions, just like Barack Obama.

 

 

 

 

by Stephanie Ramage | Wednesday, October 08, 2008 at 9:18 AM in Opinion | Comments (3) | Permalink

COMMENTS

Commentby Drew | Wednesday, October 08, 2008, 10:22 AM


There were a number of awkward moments during last nights debate, and most of them belonged to Barak.

I didn't keep a running list because I thought I could count on our news media to do a thorough and unbiased analyses. What was I thinking?

I share your frustration with how this is shaking out. You can emphasize the word "fact", underscore, italicize, bold, use exclamatory punctuation, hi-light AND all-cap the word, but it seems that folks are less interested in fact than in rhetoric.

I thought that John McCain made the point rather succinctly: the nice-n-tidy, stereotypical "republicans are always deregulators and are lining their pockets by playing ball with the free market" simply doesn't pass the "smell test". Certainly not this time. But who cares? It's style over substance, once again.

I don't know who started using that... "the smell test"; but it's appropo here- this situtation stinks. It's RANK! Like a "rotting corpse" (Who came out with that one again? Gross!)

The fact that Senator McCain was able to keep an amiable demeanor with the stench that abounds, make his point, and have the underlying issue go largely unaddressed by the bulk of "main stream media" reeks!

Barak's tone when he applauded the "heroic" military men and women who are making such incredible sacrifices on behalf of this great country (errr, paraphrased) was such that you KNEW it was JUST A PREAMBLE. Something he has to say before he says what he really means.

I felt a little sick at my stomach at the patronizing and almost condescending delivery. I felt significantly less uncomfortable with the "that one" remark. But that's what the post-debate discussion will be about today.

My impression: McCain had a clear set of objectives and probably met most of them, kept Barak off his game, came off a bit curmudgeounly when he met to be wry, but showed that he is less the politician and more the leader. I liked his ability to be absolutely sincere, attack without (usually) coming off abrasive or defensive, and do what he should be doing: differentiate himself from Barak.

Immediately following the debate the focus was already on why the debate didn't really matter.... the stock market had another historic drop, the party in power, and their candidate would take the hit.

This bizarro world is going to drive me insane! Republicans can hardly be blamed for the mess AND McCain can hardly be shackled with stigma of being the republican party's darling candidate!

Yet we are likely, it seems, to lose an opportunity to have what potentially is one of this nation's great presidents to serve, because (I'll say it again) FACTS BE DAMNED! SPIN IS IN!  

Commentby Harris | Friday, October 10, 2008, 8:57 AM

You are right about one thing An"Drew":

Spin is in.

Fox News' Poll had McCain winning the debate with 86% of viewers. The Sunday Paper praises McCain's performance and rants against Obama - then prints the likes of your whining above.

The rest of the Polls - the rest of the World - rated the debate 80+% for Obama.

Personally, I watched with an unprejudiced mind, listened to each man speak, and rate as objectively as anyone can - Obama far more articulate, intelligent, thoughtful and deliberate in his deliberations - than McCain.

McCain, for all his attempts to smear Obama as a risk - I rate Far Riskier than Obama.

McCain's temper, history of war-mongering (he can't even say Washington without making it "War-shington"), "idea" to have the Federal Government buy up all the bad mortgages out there (and he clearly has no idea how much money this means, since NO ONE has the numbers yet, but just so you know, Fannie and Freddie hold $5 Trillion in total assets - and either way "Hello McCain's Socialism"), and his dottering Oldness in the face of his choice of a tongue-talking Mad Dog in Lipstick for V.P. - this all adds up to a McCain Loss in the debate.

He looked the entire time like a crabby Old Geezer who would slip or trip or just faint and fall down at any moment.

Which is exactly what he is. Which leaves you with Sarah Palin, President.

And who among us, even among her fans, wants to see that?

So in some respects, while the debate wasn't that great for a number of reasons, the truth came out after all.

McCain - Old Dottering and Dumb.

Obama - Young, Thoughtful, Patient in the Face of Old Dottering Crabbyness.

Smear and Spin all you want to, An"Drew".

But that's what this honest observer honestly saw on Debate Night.  

Commentby Harris | Friday, October 10, 2008, 9:16 AM

Regarding Ms. Ramages comments above:

The salaries you mention are nothing by today's standards. In fact, I would have thought the top Execs at F & F were pulling hundreds of millions in compensation like the guy who ran Lehman into the dust, or Nardelli at Home Depot (what was he making, $25 Million a year with a massive buy out when he was through cutting the company to the bone?), CEO's at Goldman, Morgan Stanley, CitiBank - etc.

The fact that Fannie and Freddie top execs made less than $2 Million dollars a year I found strangely comforting in a world in which those running far smaller companies are bilking their shareholders out of 10s of Millions annually, sometimes more.

Also, for the record:

Republican Congress 1995-2006. Republican Congress, Senate, White House and Supreme Court most of this young century under Bush.

And you still have the dishonesty to dredge up a Democrat to blame for "running the economy" all those years?

Part of Bush's job description as President is "Chief Manager of the Economy."

Does anyone out there remember when we Americans subscribed to the idea that "The Buck Stops on the President's Desk"?

Government is a huge machine. There will always be a scapegoat from the other Party out there for each Party to dredge up and use as a whipping boy and a distraction when things don't go their way.

But what you have done above, is completely misleading, "data" shaping to fit a predetermined argument, an argument that simply defies the actual functioning of our governmental machinery.

Republicans had FULL CONTROL of government for the better part of the past decade.

Own it. It's the Truth.  

You must be logged in to post a comment. You can log in here.

 
Advertisement
Be well!
Half Off Depot Atlanta
Advertisement
Zifty
 
RSSTwitterFacebookMySpaceVirb