October 20, 2017, 03:06:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Newsweek's take on the Debate  (Read 3342 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« on: September 27, 2008, 05:28:58 AM »

Full Post
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 11:39 PM
McCain Won. But Will It Matter?
Andrew Romano

(Chip Somodevilla / AP)

If tonight's presidential face-off between Barack Obama and John McCain were held before, say, the Princeton University Debating Society, it might have been scored a tie. On points, the two contenders were evenly matched. Both spoke clearly, crisply and confidently about the major issues facing the country, rebutting his rival's attacks and launching his own assaults when necessary. Neither looked at his watch, or sighed, or forgot to remove his 5 o'clock shadow. There were no memorable gaffes--or devastating zingers--that will define the debate on cable news and, later, in the single sentence devoted to the event in our grandkids' high-school history textbooks. It was a consummately professional affair.

But alas: presidential debates aren't scored scientifically. Committed partisans may keep track of everything their guy got right. But undecided swing voters--the ones who will decide the election--don't tally up points. Instead, they link what happens on stage--in a broad, impressionistic sense--to the narratives they'd already heard about the candidates. Which means it's up to the two men performing at the podiums to reinforce the positive, preexisting story lines and disprove the negative ones.

Tonight, John McCain was the more effective performer.

There are two reasons why. The first is that he constantly--obsessively, really--spiked his responses with small but pointed jabs at Obama that unfailingly related to subjects he (McCain) wanted to talk about, whatever the original topic of discussion. This tactic had a dual effect. First, Obama couldn't help but take the bait; he must've said "that's not true," "let me correct the record" or "I just have to respond" a dozen times over the course of the evening. Second, Obama's defensiveness immediately shifted the conversation to McCain's home turf--where it remained, often for minutes at a time.

McCain's strategy was on display from the start. Fielding a question on the current fiscal crisis--not his preferred pitch--the senator delivered a flabby, unconvincing answer. But he swiftly segued to a criticism of earmarks and "out of control spending" in Washington--a pet issue--and slammed Obama for requesting $932 million for Illinois since arriving in the Senate (a stat he repeated three or four times). Of course, earmarks only represent $18 billion in spending--a tiny sum, as Obama pointed out. But the Democrat was still forced to rebut McCain's attack. Similarly, McCain deftly transformed a question about how the Wall Street bailout would affect the next president's spending priorities into an assault on Obama's tax plan and hefty spending proposals, both issues that (again) tend to favor the Republican. As a result, most of the economic portion of the debate--a half-hour or so that should've played to Obama's strengths--was spent on McCain's poll-tested terrain (earmarks, spending and tax cuts) instead of Obama's (the current economic crisis). McCain pulled the same trick on foreign policy, focusing the conversation on Obama's opposition to the surge and willingness to meet with unfriendly foreign leaders. Much of what the Illinois senator said on these subjects was smart. It's just that he was reduced to an essentially reactive posture, either defending himself or agreeing with McCain's more assertive remarks over and over again. (Obama muttered the phrases "John's right" or "I agree" about a dozen times tonight; the GOP quickly cut an Web ad.) Simply put, McCain was in control.

The second thing McCain had going for him was a sort of optimism. You'd think from the previous paragraph that the Arizonan was all negativity. But that wasn't the case. Obama wanted--understandably so--to tie McCain to the catastrophes of the last eight years; McCain wanted to pretend they'd never happened. Ironically enough, this turned out to be a rhetorical advantage for the Republican. Time and again, Obama would move to lay blame for a past failure--and McCain would pivot to a better future. On the economy, Obama looked back at a "failed policy" of "shred[ding] regulations and consumer protections"; McCain looked ahead to the spending he'd cut and the people he'd hold accountable as president. On Iraq, Obama focused on how we got in; McCain focused on how we'll get out. I'm not saying Obama was wrong on the issues. His criticism of the Bush Administration's incompetence was cogent, clear and largely correct. Nor am I suggesting that McCain didn't delve into the past; he was clearly at pains to list the places he's visited and the leaders he's known. What I am arguing is that while Obama blasted Bush, McCain looked past him. Coupled with his reliance on catchy anecdotes over bullet-pointed policy positions--"defying Reagan on the Lebanon deployment, the bracelet belonging to the mother of a dead soldier, the firing of Chris Cox, the bear DNA"--this post-Bush perspective may help McCain appeal to moderates, a group that's more interested in solving problems than engaging in the partisan blame game. It was probably a matter of necessity more than anything else. But he used it to his advantage.

McCain wasn't perfect tonight. Far from it, in fact. He scowled, smirked and refused to look at his rival, conveying an air of condescension that could turn off some undecideds. He twisted the facts in a few of his responses, including the ones on the Eisenhower letters and his Lebanon vote. He compared Obama to Bush, which is laughable. (Obama laughed.) And he seemed overeager to say that his opponent didn't "understand" the issues--despite ample evidence to the contrary.

For his part, Obama was hardly a dud. He proved himself as a sensible, studious, informed thinker--certainly a contrast to the "naive celebrity" caricature that McCain and Co. have tried to peddle to the populace. He had the best soundbite of the night. "You said it was going to be quick and easy," Obama said. "You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong." (Most Americans would agree.) Obama was even "presidential"--which was the only bar he really had to clear.

But ultimately I suspect that McCain did more to reinforce his message--I'm a tough leader who will cut waste and get Iraq right--than his opponent. Repetition may bore political junkies, but it helps candidates connect with casual voters--as do memorable (if corny) anecdotes. Obama relied instead on abstractions and statistics. What's more, McCain outperformed low expectations set by a week of somewhat erratic behavior. Whether that makes any electoral difference remains to be seen. The contours of the race and the climate in the country still favor Obama, who holds a small but consistent lead in recent polls. To remake the landscape, McCain would've had to score a knockout blow. He didn't. The question, then, is whether he can keep delivering such solid performances from now until Nov. 4--and whether even that will be enough.


My PS to the above, Zogby predicts a possible landslide for McCain because he says the election will hinge on the last 2 weeks and the American people do not know Obama, but they know McCain and they rather for the old shoe than the untried one they do not know, or something to that effect.  I am not quoting directly, just parsing and paraphrasing.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2008, 02:48:47 AM »

Full Post
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 11:39 PM
McCain Won. But Will It Matter?
Andrew Romano

(Chip Somodevilla / AP)

If tonight's presidential face-off between Barack Obama and John McCain were held before, say, the Princeton University Debating Society, it might have been scored a tie. On points, the two contenders were evenly matched. Both spoke clearly, crisply and confidently about the major issues facing the country, rebutting his rival's attacks and launching his own assaults when necessary. Neither looked at his watch, or sighed, or forgot to remove his 5 o'clock shadow. There were no memorable gaffes--or devastating zingers--that will define the debate on cable news and, later, in the single sentence devoted to the event in our grandkids' high-school history textbooks. It was a consummately professional affair.

But alas: presidential debates aren't scored scientifically. Committed partisans may keep track of everything their guy got right. But undecided swing voters--the ones who will decide the election--don't tally up points. Instead, they link what happens on stage--in a broad, impressionistic sense--to the narratives they'd already heard about the candidates. Which means it's up to the two men performing at the podiums to reinforce the positive, preexisting story lines and disprove the negative ones.

Tonight, John McCain was the more effective performer.

There are two reasons why. The first is that he constantly--obsessively, really--spiked his responses with small but pointed jabs at Obama that unfailingly related to subjects he (McCain) wanted to talk about, whatever the original topic of discussion. This tactic had a dual effect. First, Obama couldn't help but take the bait; he must've said "that's not true," "let me correct the record" or "I just have to respond" a dozen times over the course of the evening. Second, Obama's defensiveness immediately shifted the conversation to McCain's home turf--where it remained, often for minutes at a time.

McCain's strategy was on display from the start. Fielding a question on the current fiscal crisis--not his preferred pitch--the senator delivered a flabby, unconvincing answer. But he swiftly segued to a criticism of earmarks and "out of control spending" in Washington--a pet issue--and slammed Obama for requesting $932 million for Illinois since arriving in the Senate (a stat he repeated three or four times). Of course, earmarks only represent $18 billion in spending--a tiny sum, as Obama pointed out. It stuck with me that Obama didn't even attempt to deny the accusation that his earmarks totalled almost a million for every day he has served in the Senate. But the Democrat was still forced to rebut McCain's attack. Similarly, McCain deftly transformed a question about how the Wall Street bailout would affect the next president's spending priorities into an assault on Obama's tax plan and hefty spending proposals, both issues that (again) tend to favor the Republican. As a result, most of the economic portion of the debate--a half-hour or so that should've played to Obama's strengths--was spent on McCain's poll-tested terrain (earmarks, spending and tax cuts) instead of Obama's (the current economic crisis). McCain pulled the same trick on foreign policy, focusing the conversation on Obama's opposition to the surge and willingness to meet with unfriendly foreign leaders. Much of what the Illinois senator said on these subjects was smart. It's just that he was reduced to an essentially reactive posture, either defending himself or agreeing with McCain's more assertive remarks over and over again. (Obama muttered the phrases "John's right" or "I agree" about a dozen times tonight; the GOP quickly cut an Web ad.) Simply put, McCain was in control. McCain clearly was in command of the facts and those facts didn't seem rehearsed, but born out of integrated knowledge and understanding.

The second thing McCain had going for him was a sort of optimism. You'd think from the previous paragraph that the Arizonan was all negativity. But that wasn't the case. Obama wanted--understandably so--to tie McCain to the catastrophes of the last eight years; McCain wanted to pretend they'd never happened. Ironically enough, this turned out to be a rhetorical advantage for the Republican. Time and again, Obama would move to lay blame for a past failure--and McCain would pivot to a better future. On the economy, Obama looked back at a "failed policy" of "shred[ding] regulations and consumer protections"; McCain looked ahead to the spending he'd cut and the people he'd hold accountable as president. On Iraq, Obama focused on how we got in; McCain focused on how we'll get out. I'm not saying Obama was wrong on the issues. His criticism of the Bush Administration's incompetence was cogent, clear and largely correct. Nor am I suggesting that McCain didn't delve into the past; he was clearly at pains to list the places he's visited and the leaders he's known. What I am arguing is that while Obama blasted Bush, McCain looked past him. Coupled with his reliance on catchy anecdotes over bullet-pointed policy positions--"defying Reagan on the Lebanon deployment, the bracelet belonging to the mother of a dead soldier, the firing of Chris Cox, the bear DNA"--this post-Bush perspective may help McCain appeal to moderates, a group that's more interested in solving problems than engaging in the partisan blame game. It was probably a matter of necessity more than anything else. But he used it to his advantage.

McCain wasn't perfect tonight. Far from it, in fact. He scowled, smirked and refused to look at his rival, conveying an air of condescension that could turn off some undecideds. He twisted the facts in a few of his responses, including the ones on the Eisenhower letters and his Lebanon vote. He compared Obama to Bush, which is laughable. (Obama laughed.) And he seemed overeager to say that his opponent didn't "understand" the issues--despite ample evidence to the contrary.

For his part, Obama was hardly a dud. He proved himself as a sensible, studious, informed thinker--certainly a contrast to the "naive celebrity" caricature that McCain and Co. have tried to peddle to the populace. He had the best soundbite of the night. "You said it was going to be quick and easy," Obama said. "You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong." (Most Americans would agree.) Obama was even "presidential"--which was the only bar he really had to clear.

But ultimately I suspect that McCain did more to reinforce his message--I'm a tough leader who will cut waste and get Iraq right--than his opponent. Repetition may bore political junkies, but it helps candidates connect with casual voters--as do memorable (if corny) anecdotes. Obama relied instead on abstractions and statistics. What's more, McCain outperformed low expectations set by a week of somewhat erratic behavior. Whether that makes any electoral difference remains to be seen. The contours of the race and the climate in the country still favor Obama, who holds a small but consistent lead in recent polls. To remake the landscape, McCain would've had to score a knockout blow. He didn't. The question, then, is whether he can keep delivering such solid performances from now until Nov. 4--and whether even that will be enough.


My PS to the above, Zogby predicts a possible landslide for McCain because he says the election will hinge on the last 2 weeks and the American people do not know Obama, but they know McCain and they rather for the old shoe than the untried one they do not know, or something to that effect.  I am not quoting directly, just parsing and paraphrasing.

My comments to the article are in blue. When the debate was over, I felt certain McCain had come across far better than Obama. I thought that McCain had exhibited depth of knowledge and experience that should illicit confidence and feelings of security in voters. I was surprised the polls indicating otherwise, and chalked it up as perhaps my ears being biased because of my intentions to vote for McCain.

I'm puzzled and a little disappointed that neither candidate really reflected the voice of the general public in regard to the bailout. Both intend to vote for the bailout package, perhaps for valid reasons, but each missed an opportunity to hit a home run by voicing the public's perspective. Can you imagine the reaction if either candidate had said, " I want to answer the call for the Americans who go to work each day for a paycheck. I want them to know that I recognize that when they look at those checks and compare their take home pay to what they have earned, they see the margin of survival and their dreams. I want to make an oath that the US Congress, under my leadership, will live within budgetary constraints just like you have to, and that I will never forget that it is your hard earned dollars at risk. My veto pen is your assurance of that, and I vow to remember that when I hold it, I hold your trust. I know that most Americans aren't Wall Streeters, and it is fundamentally unjust that a debt incurred there should fall on your overburdened shoulders. The real debt this country owes is to you, not Wall Street. I don't believe that we have to rescue Wall Street because it will ultimately affect you. I believe that if we can rescue you, you will rescue the housing market, and you will invest in Wall Street. I'll do that by increasing the number of dollars you can take home from what you have rightfully earned. I'll do that by giving the tax dollars for social programs directly to your communities where you know best your needs and the expense of beaurocratic administration is eliminated. I'll do that by eliminating wasteful earmarks, and I'll do that by developing our own natural resources. I don't have a moral delima deciding between the well being of snail darters and the American people, and unhindered energy development will create jobs and keep our American dollars in America. This concept helps make our dollar stronger, our job growth greater, and our economy healthier. If the bailout being constructed by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, who are the very people who applied pressure to make these flawed loans, does not follow the principles that put you, the working people of this country,first, not only will I not lend my support for it, I will lead you in a revolt that they will hear in the halls of the capitol, and together, we will be heard."

That would have resonated with me, and I think it would have resonated with independents, and soft Obama and McCain supporters. Had McCain made that stance, I think it would have been particularly effective because his persona portrays one who has the experience and integrity to actually do what he says. Right now, the economy is the issue for voters, and right now, voters are listening. JMO

Logged
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2008, 06:47:48 PM »

CBB, I agree with you but I think Paulson and Bernake (spelling wrong, I am sure) had asked them not to discuss the details or the pros/cons except to say they wanted a bill.  I think that is more or less what McCain said that we had to have a bail out bill without saying he did not agree with certain parts of it and Obama said we don't have the details or something to that effect.  They are insiders to this and I am sure at that point, they were told not to discuss what went on specifically behind closed doors, just my thought after working in the trenches for a few years.

I noticed Obama is out on the stump with his cohorts taking credit for the bill.  Good, I hope he does.  It is a terrible bill.  I am disgusted with what we are going to ...nationalist banks...this is going to depress the real estate market like nothing ever has before save Carter. 

We will never get out money back the way we would have if we had just let them swim or drown.  I am thoroughly disgusted with Paulson and Bernake.  Why Bush chose two Democrats to run his financial cabinet is beyond my comprehension. 
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2008, 07:44:43 PM »

maybe Republican comrade G. W. Bush wasn't so smart after all.
i bet Reagan is turning in his grave when the president signs this bill into law, making Wall Street socialist.

who would have thought this could happen just over 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

i think Bush wants to leave the next president (Obama) such a great mess so that he won't have enough time to clean up this huge mess the GOP made in 8 years time. (6 years of which they controlled pretty much the congress).
and then the GOP will win again in 2012 God forbid to mess things up even more.
already the GOP is blaming everybody except themselves for everything.

about the debate:
i think it was a tie.
but McCain should have done much better.
after all this was the debate with topics he is supposedly good at.

so while he is 6 to 8 points behind in the polls, and still sliding.
he will at most tie in the next debates, more likely lose.

and the Palin/Biden debate won't help either.
i watched her last week being interviewed by Katie Couric, however you spin it - it was bad.

but i expect some surprises from McCain next month.
he will make some more erratic decisions, gambling it will work this time.

here i read that they might stage that Palin shotgun wedding next month:
Quote
McCain camp prays for Palin wedding

The marriage of the vice-presidential candidate’s pregnant teenage daughter could lift a flagging campaign

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece
don't know if this is true, but i won't be surprised.
maybe it gets cancelled now the plans have leaked.
Logged

nonesuche
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878



« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2008, 11:14:12 PM »

caesu-

 toward the challenges in our economy, the last time this happened homes weren't unitarily financed and people owned most of what they had without credit card debt either. You expect McCain to have all the answers?

 Have all the answers for a global brand of economic collapse, I agree with tyler that this bill isn't anything we should want.........but our enemies pushed every trigger they could including oil, national security, and war to ensure we were stretched as much as possible fiscally.

The working parts alone of this are so complex it will take many fine brains to unravel it. The bill is a start, it's not the panacea for  all of it.

As for the Palin/Couric interview, yes it was difficult to watch but..........Palin has had her confidence totally undermined in 30 short days. You try what she's been through on for size, even Bill Clinton was ready to smack the media and the republicans for their attacks on Hillary. How many more years did she have to prepare her psyche for the onslaught than Palin?

Couric also has never impressed me within serious interviews.

Edited to remove personal remarks.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 11:32:35 PM by MuffyBee » Logged

I continue to stand with the girl.
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2008, 11:59:28 PM »

I hope they are using that Acorn money wisely in their attacks on Sarah.  About that video, one of the producers for Perkie Katie, the sit-down which McCain should have absolutely denied, was sliced and diced it to make it come out the way she wanted it and to make Sarah look bad.  Katie even told her staff if they addressed her as Governor, she would fire them.  Why?  Because Obama wants everyone to see her as a mayor of a small town.  That product of our Acorn money has just about sunk our economy with his friends at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  I just got a note from a friend in Hungary whose decorator friend went to Franklin Raines 22-room guest house (which is in the Caribbean) and stayed for months to decorate it.  She told me that our government should have him arrested but we cannot do that, he's on Obama's staff, his financial advisor.  Yeah, the ACORNS are going to start falling and it won't be far from the weak timber Obama.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2008, 12:00:50 AM »

I guess according to our resident Euro, this is Bush's fault too.

Huge European bank fails
European financial giant Fortis partially nationalized. Three governments to pour 11.2 billion euro ($16.4 billion) into the bank.


 
Three European governments stepped in to rescue Dutch-Belgian bank Fortis with an injection of $16.4 billion.

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Dutch-Belgian bank and insurance giant Fortis NV was given a 11.2 billion euro ($16.4 billion) lifeline to avert insolvency as part of a wider bailout plan agreed to by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, officials said Sunday.

Belgium's Prime Minister Yves Leterme said the bailout shows account holders and investors that Fortis will not be allowed to fall victim to the global credit crisis.

Leterme announced the deal after weekend talks between the three countries, European Union and national banking officials.

The deal will force the bank -- which has headquarters in both Brussels and the Dutch city of Utrecht -- to sell its stake in Dutch bank ABN Amro, which it partially took over last year. Fortis paid 24 billion euros for its share of ABN.

Fortis Chairman Maurice Lippens will be forced to resign and will be replaced by a candidate from outside the company, Leterme said.

"We have taken up our responsibility, we did not abandon" account holders, Leterme told reporters.

Under the bailout, Belgium will invest 4.7 billion euros ($6.88 billion) and the Netherlands 4 billion euros ($5.86 billion) in Fortis' banking operations in the two countries. In return, they each receive 49 percent ownership in those national arms of the bank.

Luxembourg will invest 2.7 billion euros ($3.95 billion) in the bank's Luxembourg operations, also for a 49 percent stake.

The deal, orchestrated by the three neighboring countries and EU Central Bank chief Jean-Claude Trichet, is meant to restore confidence in the bank before the reopening of markets on Monday after a tumultuous week in which Fortis' shares imploded.

Belgian officials also announced Sunday that they planned to offer better guarantees for all retail deposits at Fortis, the country's largest bank and largest private employer.

Fortis named its third chief executive officer in as many months Friday after insolvency fears caused the company's shares to tumble to 5.18 euros ($7.56), their lowest level in more than a decade. The shares have lost more than three-fourths of their value in the past year.

Fortis denies any imminent solvency problems, but it has been in trouble since it took part in a three-bank consortium last year that acquired ABN Amro in a 70 billion euros ($102.5 billion) deal that was the largest takeover in the history of the banking industry.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2008, 12:04:49 AM »

maybe Republican comrade G. W. Bush wasn't so smart after all.
i bet Reagan is turning in his grave when the president signs this bill into law, making Wall Street socialist.

who would have thought this could happen just over 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

i think Bush wants to leave the next president (Obama) such a great mess so that he won't have enough time to clean up this huge mess the GOP made in 8 years time. (6 years of which they controlled pretty much the congress).
and then the GOP will win again in 2012 God forbid to mess things up even more.
already the GOP is blaming everybody except themselves for everything.

about the debate:
i think it was a tie.
but McCain should have done much better.
after all this was the debate with topics he is supposedly good at.

so while he is 6 to 8 points behind in the polls, and still sliding.
he will at most tie in the next debates, more likely lose.

and the Palin/Biden debate won't help either.
i watched her last week being interviewed by Katie Couric, however you spin it - it was bad.

but i expect some surprises from McCain next month.
he will make some more erratic decisions, gambling it will work this time.

here i read that they might stage that Palin shotgun wedding next month:
Quote
McCain camp prays for Palin wedding

The marriage of the vice-presidential candidate’s pregnant teenage daughter could lift a flagging campaign

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece
don't know if this is true, but i won't be surprised.
maybe it gets cancelled now the plans have leaked.

Oh, no. The facts are that President Bush tried to keep this from happening in 2003. I've selected this article from the New York Times, for verification, but there are many articles available. For any doubters, I thought the New York Times could be trusted to cover the liberal view:

NY TIMES SEPT 2003: BUSH PROPOSED TIGHTENING OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC - THE DEMOCRATS OF CONGRESS BLOCKED IT


Sept. 11, 2003    Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON


The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.


… Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2008, 12:21:55 AM »

from 2003 until 2007 the GOP controlled both the house, the senate and the presidency.
so they could have passed more regulation laws easily without the democrats blocking them.
and Bush would have signed them into law.

but they didn't.

or did the democrats filibuster? that's not what i read.

if one party controls the congress and the presidency for most of the presidential terms.
this party can't blame the other party for their failures.
that's just not going to work.
Logged

Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2008, 12:47:21 AM »

Yes the Democrats filibustered the bills brought up by all Republicans throughout that time to get FM and FM under control.  They even sent out their little acorns to denigrate Bush when he told them in 2005 they had to rein it in.

John McCain proposed one with Libby Dole in 2003.  He tried another with Senator Sessions in 2005.  The Democrats not only filibustered it, he could not even get enough support to get it to the floor.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2008, 01:04:08 AM »

if you are talking about S. 190 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
this died in a republican controlled commitee.
republicans could have brought it up for a vote on the floor, but they didn't.

and please show me where democrats filibustered regulation bills while the GOP controlled congress.

republicans were generally more for de-regulation until today.
Logged

Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2008, 01:17:31 AM »

I have removed your post Tylergal because it is an attack on another poster.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2008, 01:26:33 AM by MuffyBee » Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74214



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2008, 01:47:58 AM »

I realize that politics is a hot topic and brings out the best and worst in many of us.  Even though you may have strong beliefs, please restrain from name calling and attacking posters with opposing views.

TIA
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2008, 01:53:21 AM »

from 2003 until 2007 the GOP controlled both the house, the senate and the presidency.
so they could have passed more regulation laws easily without the democrats blocking them.
and Bush would have signed them into law.

but they didn't.

or did the democrats filibuster? that's not what i read.

if one party controls the congress and the presidency for most of the presidential terms.
this party can't blame the other party for their failures.
that's just not going to work.

Just to keep it accurate, Democrats have had control of Congress since 2006, not 2007. In 2003, the voting shares, strictly along party lines, were 51% Republican to 49% Democratic in the Senate, and 52% Republican to 48% Democratic in the House.

The New York Times article is what it is, as reported on September 11, 2003. The argument can hardly be made that it is a right wing blog.

One of the things that really sticks in my throat over this bailout package, is seeing the likes of Barney Frank take such a vocal position in presenting it. It elicits zero trust in me to have the fox repairing the henhouse, and the confidence rating of Pelosi's Congress has been well earned in the past two years since her grand coronation.
Logged
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2008, 01:59:38 AM »

Klaas, if questioning someone as to the purpose of their interests is an attack, then I question those motives.  It is your prerogative to ban me, but I  have read far worse about the Netherlands in the Natalee Holloway threads.  In fact, they were so horrendous it make me squirm but then I suppose our loyalties being what they are, the double standard is certainly that.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2008, 02:08:11 AM »

from 2003 until 2007 the GOP controlled both the house, the senate and the presidency.
so they could have passed more regulation laws easily without the democrats blocking them.
and Bush would have signed them into law.

but they didn't.

or did the democrats filibuster? that's not what i read.

if one party controls the congress and the presidency for most of the presidential terms.
this party can't blame the other party for their failures.
that's just not going to work.

Just to keep it accurate, Democrats have had control of Congress since 2006, not 2007. In 2003, the voting shares, strictly along party lines, were 51% Republican to 49% Democratic in the Senate, and 52% Republican to 48% Democratic in the House.

to be even more precise:

the 109th Congress (Republican Majority) was scheduled to meet from January 3rd 2005 until January 3rd 2007.
the 110th Congress (Democratic Majority) was scheduled to meet from January 3rd 2007 until January 3rd 2009.

Democrats did win the Congress with the 2006 election, but only gained effective control in 2007.
Logged

Slogger
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 736



« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2008, 09:12:19 AM »

Bracelet Botch:

McCain mentioned the bracelet he was given.  Obama couldn’t resist saying he had one, too.  Obama stumbled over the name of the fallen soldier.  Now, we are finding out that the soldier’s mother did not want the memory of her son to be politicized; after which, Obama politicized during the debate.  Ms. Jopek’s wishes were disregarded; but, she is an Obama supporter.

Ms. Jopek asked memory of her son not be politicized.  Obama politicized it.
Logged

Constitution101    hillsdale.edu/constitution/
Courtesy is requested; Respect is Earned.
Pace Yourself, for the LongHaul.  MOs
Slogger
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 736



« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2008, 09:31:51 AM »

Obama Mistaken:

Iran at the presidential level.

Immediately after the debate, the McCain campaign released a statement from Kissinger backing the Republican nominee's sentiments on structuring any talks with Iran.

"Sen. McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level," Kissinger said in the statement.

"My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Sen. John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

Ref:
cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/kissinger.iran/index.html?section=cnn_latest


IMO, Obama's stand on Presidential level meetings with Iran is wrong and dangerous.  Having no preconditions is giving an edge to an adversary--a very dangerous adversary.  Someone should inform Obama that negotiations at the Presidential level are not a friendly game of checkers.
Logged

Constitution101    hillsdale.edu/constitution/
Courtesy is requested; Respect is Earned.
Pace Yourself, for the LongHaul.  MOs
Slogger
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 736



« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2008, 09:43:33 AM »

Obama Wrong on Pakistan:

Mr. Obama would have taken a tough stand on Pakistan.

IMO, we had no choice.  Were we to depend on our friends in the Middle East?  Would Iraq, Iran, and the leaders of Afghanistan have assisted us? 

It was Pakistan, or nothing.  We did the best we could, after 9/11.  Pakistan did assist us, and we paid for it.
Logged

Constitution101    hillsdale.edu/constitution/
Courtesy is requested; Respect is Earned.
Pace Yourself, for the LongHaul.  MOs
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2008, 12:34:21 PM »

Quote
Soldier's Mother "Ecstatic" about Obama's Bracelet

POSTED: Sunday, September 28, 2008 --- 4:40 p.m.

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" during Friday's debate when Senator Barack Obama mentioned the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that he remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

She criticized Internet reports that suggested Obama exploited her son for political purposes.


She acknowledges e-mailing the campaign in February asking that Obama not mention her son in speeches or debates.

But she says Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Senator John McCain said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

Jopek says Obama's comment rightfully suggested there's more than one viewpoint on the war.


http://www.nbc15.com/state/headlines/29864149.html
Logged

Pages: 1 2 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 0.146 seconds with 19 queries.