September 30, 2008

McCain and Obama address the financial crisis, each in his own way.

Today's ads. From McCain:



From Obama:

...

Nothing yet. O is kind of the silent type.

ADDED: I am looking at Obama's YouTube page. If he has something, he needs to put it there. Don't tell me I'm missing something if it isn't there. You can tell me why he doesn't put it there. That might be interesting.

AND: Some people are pointing at this, which is on YouTube, but does not appear (where I can see it) on Obama's YouTube subscription page, even though it was put up yesterday. Note that it only has 209 views at this point. Is he trying to hide it?

In any case, it's not what I went looking for when I constructed this post and wanted to have comparable ads from the 2 candidates. For one thing, it went up yesterday, not today. But that's not important. It's just not about the current financial crisis. It's a general overview of Obama's economic plan. He does say at one point -- 0:28 -- "I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis, but not by going down the very same path." He then proceeds to tell us the same things he's said all along about who should be taxed and so forth. There is nothing new or specific about the current bailout plan. Does he have one idea about it... other than to act aloof?

UPDATE: Obama in Reno:
"This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis. It's an American crisis, and it's the American economy that needs this rescue plan"...

Obama said Congress should put aside politics — he didn't mention GOP rival John McCain by name during his remarks — and should act on the legislation quickly.

"To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say: Step up to the plate and do what's right for this country"...
Do what's right. Can't argue with that. I take it he supports the plan that was voted down yesterday, not that he is helping people understand why it is the right plan. It's hard to see how he will change any minds. Unlike McCain (and Nancy Pelosi), he's not assigning blame, which might be helpful in getting something passed.

101 comments:

AlphaLiberal said...

Nothing from Oabama? Really?

Except this?
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/in_new_twominute_ad_on_economy.php

AlphaLiberal said...

Speaking of ads, the lying Republicans already had their ads cut in opposition to the bailout bill before the House debate even began. Let alone before nancy Pelosi spoke:

RNC ad, was cut, sent out before package failed

The Republican National Committee's new advertisement critical of the the Wall Street "bailout" was produced and sent to television stations in key states before the package failed, officials at two stations said.

"Wall Street Squanders our money. And Washington is forced to bail them out with -- you guessed it -- our money. Can it get any worse?" asks the ad's narrator, as the words "BAILOUT WITH OUR MONEY" cross the screen. (The answer: Obama's plans would make it worse.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/RNC_ad_was_cut_sent_out_before_package_failed.html?showall

It's weird that they are opposing a bill supported buy their President and nominee. Sounds like some division among the elephants.

miller said...

Wow! The lawnmowers for the astroturf are out early today.

UWS guy said...

"I'm Bill Clinton and I approve this ad."

Sofa King said...

AL -

So Republicans, anticipating the passage of the bill, make an ad that says they felt forced into voting for a bill that they didn't like.

I'm mystified as to how this makes them liars.

Ann Althouse said...

Alpha, I'm looking here. If he's got something new and he doesn't put it here, I'm not ignoring it. He's screwing up.

Balfegor said...

It's weird that they are opposing a bill supported buy their President and nominee. Sounds like some division among the elephants.

How is this news? First, it's been apparent for a week that the Republicans in the House are reluctant to vote for this kind of bailout.

Second, think about it for a moment. Bush. McCain. Versus the Republicans in the House . . . doesn't that remind you of something? Like, say, the immigration amnesty debacle?

The lines of division within the Republican party have been pretty clear for years now.

madawaskan said...

Ok I know I said I was out of here because the pages are taking too long to load-

But I just had to leave this here-

New Reason for the economic situation-

From UK Timesonline-

What caused the Crunch?

Their answer:

Testicles.

{the blame game continues...}

downtownlad said...

And Obama has the ad here:


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGxBtg

In fact, the very first page of the www.barrackobama.com home page blasts "New 2 Minute TV Ad on How Obama Will Steer Us Out of the Current Finanacial Crisis".

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

But that's not good enough for Ann and she won't show it.

Because she's "neutral".

Ann Althouse said...

Does the Obama campaign just funnel things directly to Josh Marshall? I am trying to be balanced and go up with an ad from both campaigns, and I am actually really pissed off if it's not on YouTube. Am I supposed to go to TPM to get my new Obama videos? Why kind of a distribution scheme is that?

Ann Althouse said...

Well, DTL, it's NOT good enough for me, because when I go to Obama's website and look for the new ads, I can never find them. You've offered a link, but if I go to the website myself and look for the video, I root around for a long time looking for it and I don't find it. So going to his website has not been an effective way to find his new things.

Why doesn't he put it up on his YouTube page, which I subscribe to and which McCain uses effectively?

I will not have you hacks telling me I'm being biased, because I absolutely tried to set up this post equally and I couldn't find anything from Obama.

It's the fault of the Obama campaign, which you are helping me to hate.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Why kind of a distribution scheme is that?

It's a risky scheme.

Aaah the 2000 election cycle...good times.

downtownlad said...

You've always hated the Obama campaign.

You're not fooling anyone.

That's ok - you're allowed to favor McCain. But you shouldn't tell people you're neutral when you're not.

former law student said...

Can anyone link to the Washington Post article that McCain cites? The first three hits for McCain and Housing Finance Reform on Sept 19 all lead back to McCain's speech.

I doubt that McCain would cite a Washington Post article that merely reported his speech.

downtownlad said...

But I don't know why its not on Youtube.

Yes - it's sloppy.

Henry said...

You can tell me why he doesn't put it there. That might be interesting.

This week not saying a whole lot redounded enormously to Obama's credit.

Every other politician in the country looks like an idiot today.

It's working for him. The longer he waits, the more McCain makes an ass of himself. I can't see any way to make an attack ad out of the financial crisis without looking like an opportunistic hack.

former law student said...

You can tell me why he doesn't put it there. That might be interesting.

Obama is unselfishly suspending all attack ads for the duration of the financial crisis, in the spirit of searching for a bipartisan solution.

Obama is so noble that he doesn't even hold a press conference to point out how noble he is.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Ann, let me get this straight. You base your opinion of the entire Obama campaign, which two supporters here are "really helping you to hate," based on the fact that their Youtube channel doesn't have today's ad loaded? That seems incredibly petty. That's my beef with your "vow"-- and with undecided voters in general. it's not that I believe that you aren't undecided. it's an incredible frustration in understanding how the hell anyone could still be undecided. it's petty to me to base so much of your vote on the personalities of the candidates, when their policy differences are so stark. Can you not evaluate their plans for health care? foreign policy? it's really easy to decide based on issues this cycle, so why constantly flit about on silly, superficial, meta controversies that are amusing but meaningless (like you do day in and day out here?)

1jpb said...

Is Althouse dumb or is she pretending?

Nothing yet. O is kind of the silent type.

I knew there was a reason I don't look to this blog for information.

Check out Ben Smith's blog at Politico if folks actually want to know what's going on.

Check out here for vapid. Not that I'm complaining: I like vapid as much as anyone else.

Daniel said...

"It's the fault of the Obama campaign, which you are helping me to hate."

Well, at least you have a really good reason.

jasonrichardtoon said...

Clearly, the primary test for fitness for the Presidency is whether a candidate distributes his online video ads in a manner that Ann Althouse finds sufficiently convenient. Thanks for raising the level of discourse as usual, Ann.

mjsharon said...

Wow. Doing God's work boys. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Now go elsewhere please. Your mission is done.

Josh said...

Policies stated during the campaign have a funny way of changing after the inauguration. Personality and base stupidity tend to stay intact -- and play a major role in shaping actual policy.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXqMAnv2Ans

Unfortunately, it's not an actual plan for how to get out of our current financial crisis. As in the debate, he is presenting the positions he's had on the economy for the entire length of the campaign as if they were an adequate response to the crisis.

1jpb said...

Well, at least you have a really good reason.

Hey, it's better than "Nancy made me do it."

Henry said...

That's it? Sheesh.

I was in favor of the silence.

LarsPorsena said...

"Nothing from Oabama? Really? "

He hasn't got his teleprompter notes from Barney Frank or Chris Dodd , yet.

downtownlad said...

Christopher - It's an appropriate campaign ad. Certainly more honest that John McCain who is blaming Democrats and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae, which if you know anything about this crisis, is sheer nonsense.

The real cause of the crisis is the following:

1) A crash in the housing market
2) Ratings on Mortgage Backed Securities that were listed as safe, i.e. AAA, etc. were actually much riskier than that.
3) Financial institutions bought those highly rated securities, and didn't truly understand how risky they were.
4) The housing market crashed
5) Defaults on homes rose
6) Prices of Mortgage Backed securities plunged
7) Banks had to take frequent writedowns
8) Writedowns continued, and other banks didn't trust what other institutions really had on the books.
9) The cost of doing business with other banks soared, because they didn't trust each other
10) Liquidity dried up, so you couldn't even sell these securities anymore.
11) prices continued to plunge and more writedowns happened.
12) The more writedowns, the less capital banks had, thus less lending.

To fix this, you need to rid the economy of these toxic assets and restore confidence in our financial institutions. Obama gets that. He has excellent advisors, including Rubin and Volcker. In fact, at his convention, I was impressed when one of his speakers spoke about the "credit" crisis - i.e. she got it.

But do you really think Obama can put this in a 30 second ad? Do you really think the American people are capable of understanding this?

I don't.

I just want someone smart who can understand the problem and fix it. I don't think ANY politician is capable of articulating this very complex problem in a simple matter.

So don't be surprised that we have ads about Paris Hilton instead.

There's a difference between campaigning and governing.

downtownlad said...

I should add that I think McCain's advisors get it too, as McCain backed the bill.

But Repubicans don't get it. Their solution is to cut the capital gains tax. Huh?

Capital gains taxes don't help much when you don't have any capital gains because the market is plunging 777 points.

AlphaLiberal said...

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): House GOP didn't vote down bailout bill because of Pelosi speech.

Sounds like a deeply divided Republican Party. They don't know who to blame, except, it's never them!

AlphaLiberal said...

Ann, I suggest you look to the campaign web sites, not Youtube.

Here's the Obama video on the campaign web site. This is the link from the home page.
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Ann Althouse said...

Chris, thanks for providing the YouTube URL. But 2 things:

1. Why isn't it on the Barack Obama YouTube subscription page, which I rely on to keep up with the new stuff?

2. I see that it was put up yesterday. That makes it not the "today's ad" that I was looking for.

3. Notice how only 209 people have seen it on YouTube so far. That proves it's not easy to find on YouTube!

AlphaLiberal said...

"I am actually really pissed off if it's not on YouTube. "

Well, there's a lot of more important things to get really pissed off about.

Let me know if you need a list.

Campaigns get crazy and hectic. Someone might have forgotten to update Youtube or who knows. I just go to the campaign web site or TPM, which is quick to report.

jdeeripper said...

At 00:25 - "..and tax payers are on the hook for billions"...

Lose the granite faced White man. Replace him with a concerned middle class, middle aged White woman at her kitchen table looking down at her bills with her young daughter next to her.

McCain is losing the White women to Obama.

I know it's hard for older White guys to compete for the attention and affections of White women when a black man shows up. But he still needs to try harder to connect with these women.

McCain needs economy centered ads with Sarah Palin talking directly to the camera and walking along with Piper or Pepper whatever and telling stories about her middle class upbringing.

They also need to let her go on the attack at the debate and come out against the bailout. Talk about the need for Congressional hearings to address the concerns of the American people.

Be a populist, anti-elite. Let her respectfully disagree with McCain and point out that Obama actually agrees with the Bush bailout. So much for Mr. Change.

There is bipartisan outrage out there. Let Sarah be a voice for it.

AlphaLiberal said...

You know, I don't expect any candidate to have a real detailed plan for what they will do on this thing com January. That's a long ways away. Four months ago was about 6 bank failures ago. Much can change.

Plus, they're candidates in the thick of a campaign, so their brains are just not working that well. (Campaigning does that...)

So a candidate who lays out their principles and goals is fine by me. Anything more would be a bunch of hooey.

Bob said...

Obama's desperately trying to find the "present" button.

Freder Frederson said...

They also need to let her go on the attack at the debate and come out against the bailout. Talk about the need for Congressional hearings to address the concerns of the American people.

That's right, maybe even a "blue ribbon" commission. That will solve everything.

That also assumes that Palin will actually be able to say something that makes sense.

ricpic said...

McCain's ad is a good ad except that Clinton is lying as usual when he gives himself credit for calling for lending restraint, especially since it was the Clinton administration that threatened the bankers with charges of racism if they wouldn't give out subprimes to bad risks.

jdeeripper said...

Bill Clinton - Barack Obama is the only Democratic nominee for President.

X said...

hey, this is strange, Barack has decided to stop suing Citibank for not making enough bad loans:
http://tinyurl.com/5xl55l

vbspurs said...

McCain's ad is gloomy.

The good thing is that Obama isn't offering the Clintonesque ripoff of FDR's "Happy Days are here again" campaign theme.

Neither man is really trying to encourage us, and say it's always darkest before the dawn.

A truly skilfull campaigner (like FDR, like Clinton, like Reagan) can always weave a narrative that they are the ones who can singlehandedly transform the fortunes of America through their vision of it.

McCain does a poor job because he is so damn earnest. Obama speaks in pixie-dust verbiage.Face it, we are stuck with two middling-level politicians as nominees.

That doesn't mean they will make bad presidents, but it does mean, and the debate numbers reflect it, that they are not connecting more than they have to with Americans.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

Here are the debate's Nielsen ratings, BTW.

According to data from across 11 networks, the first presidential debate on September 26 between John McCain and Barack Obama drew 52.4 million viewers.

The TV audience for the first presidential debate of the 2008 election was roughly 16% smaller than the audience for the first debate between President Bush and John Kerry during the 2004 election, which drew 62.5 million viewers on September 30, 2004.


To anyone who thinks this election means more to Americans than the 2004, I've got news for you.

Henry said...

It sounds like President Obama could be a neoCal -- a new Calvin Coolidge -- but wholly unintentionally.

jdeeripper said...

vbspurs said...McCain does a poor job because he is so damn earnest. Obama speaks in pixie-dust verbiage.

Verbage.

McCain/Palin 08.

vbspurs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

When Palin gets in, she'll launch a variant of the New Dill.

Trevor Jackson said...

That's interesting, Victoria. Was the first 2004 debate on a Friday night? It could be as simple as that.

I don't know if I'd draw the conclusion that people are less interested this year than in 2004. Millions of newly registered voters, a very lengthy pair of primaries, and no incumbent.

It could be that people weren't watching because they've already made up their minds.

Trevor Jackson said...

9/30/04 was a Thursday.

Chip Ahoy said...

OT. Apologies. Skip if you're not intrested in this.

Photoshop & Image Ready or GIMP

I'm torn between two Obamas in the rain.

Here's the thing about animated gifs. The files can get a bit unwieldy. There are several ways to ameliorate this problem. You can shrink the dimensions to a tiny image size (then resize it for display), or you can limit the number of frames within the animation (I hate that), or you can optimize the whole animation by saving it with fewer colors which diminishes and blurs detail. (ick) Sometimes these compromises are unacceptable, in which case you end up with a huge file.

There's another technique that's a little more complicated but more rewarding. It uses the transparency capability of gif files, combined with the background capability of tables. Using html coding, a table with a solid background can contain a transparent gif file within a single cell. Even better, a table with a solid background can contain within a cell another table with a transparent background and a cell containing another transparency. So it's possible to stack transparencies atop a solid background by using nestled tables. Got that?

A straight up animated nontransparent gif runs too quickly to suit me. It briefly rains, lightning strikes, God's hand comes down touches Obama's, returns, then the anim recycles. Because the rain falls fast, and because frames must be limited, the whole thing runs too fast. It makes God look like a nut.

But using tables and transparencies, I can put rain on one transparency in a mere four frames and let 'er rip continuously and fast. In another transparency create lightning flashes with pauses (while the rain anim continues to run) then the hand of God slowly come down, touch Obama's finger, pause (while the rain continues to run) return, recycle. All the while Obama is standing there stoically and majestically pointing upward.

Check out the difference and the joy of nested tables:

1) Ordinary anim shrunken in dimension and limited frames for optimization purposes, then resized for display. (single file)

2) Nestled tables with two transparencies stacked atop a solid background. (three files)

You can see the html coding for the tables by "B" clicking and selecting "view source"

Michael_H said...

You know, I don't expect any candidate to have a real detailed plan for what they will do on this thing com January. That's a long ways away. Four months ago was about 6 bank failures ago. Much can change.

Plus, they're candidates in the thick of a campaign, so their brains are just not working that well. (Campaigning does that...)

So a candidate who lays out their principles and goals is fine by me. Anything more would be a bunch of hooey.


Ah. The subtle bias of low expectations of the messiah.

Ann Althouse said...

"alphaliberal said...Ann, I suggest you look to the campaign web sites, not Youtube. Here's the Obama video on the campaign web site. This is the link from the home page. http://www.barackobama.com/index.php"

That like took me to some guy's blog at the Obama website: "Community Blogs Login | Register | Search Blogs Post from Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog:
New 2 Minute TV Ad on How Obama Will Steer Us Out of The Current Financial Crisis By Sam Graham-Felsen - Sep 30th, 2008 at 9:27 am EDT"

I'll be damned if I'm going to go rifling through crap like that to look for the new ad!

You've got to be kidding!

I don't want to rely on someone's blog on the Obama page to get the ad. It should be at the Obama YouTube subscription page or you absolutely have no basis for criticizing me for not finding it.

The Obama campaign is not doing a good enough job distributing ads. Period! Criticize them, not me. I was trying to be fair, and I get crap for it. It really shows Alpha and DTL are in bad faith.

Both of you should apologize to me.

Chip Ahoy said...

Oops. I have the examples reversed ^^^ up there. Sorry 'bout that.

ricpic said...

McCain is losing the white women to Obama.

Where duh white wimmen? Where dey at? Oh, heah dey come. Come to Pimpama, baby.

Peter V. Bella said...

Sounds like some division among the elephants.

And the division among the jack asses. The party of the jack ass has a majority and they could not get enough votes of their own to pass the bill? Sounds like they have a leadership problem; the head jack asses in charge cannot control their own. That is some power.

The Drill SGT said...

former law student said...
Can anyone link to the Washington Post article that McCain cites?


FLS, it's an editorial 'Always for Less Regulation'?
John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.


The Post news pages are consistently Obama country, but the Editorial guys call fouls on both sides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803159_pf.html

Peter V. Bella said...

He has excellent advisors, including Rubin and Volcker.

Rubin? Rubin? Now we know you just talk out of your ass. Rubin? Ha ha ha ha ha. Rubin was forced out of CITI for almost bring them down and he is advising Obama. Just like Raines, another abject financial fool.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Does this count?

vbspurs said...

Both of you should apologize to me.

My God, finally, some outrage about these trolls. This woman has the patience of a saint.

downtownlad said...

I said "But I don't know why its not on Youtube. Yes - it's sloppy." about 20 posts ago.

So you are completely misrepresenting my position.

BetaLiberal said...

I agree! You poopy heads should apologize. Then take a shower and get on the bus to middle school before I tell Mom.

Take your ritalin.

BetaLiberal said...

And stop whatever it is you've been doing with the pictures of the ladies called Victoria and Freemen.

I really think that guy lied to you when he said that if you posted like a million things on Ann Althouse's blog that Barack Obama would buy you a new Dungeons and Dragons game.

Besides, dragons are like dinosaurs and they scare you.

downtownlad said...

A troll is someone who dares to have a dissenting opinion.

And wingnuts like vbspurs, who actually thinks Palin is intelligent, cannot bear to hear an opinion that diverges from their ideologue worldview.

Ann Althouse said...

Check my update. That 2-minute Obama "ad" is NOT what would have fit the original post.

rhhardin said...

Testicles was a Greek fighter.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

How is Obama "acting aloof"? BY NOT UPDATING HIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL???

That is retarded, Ann. Obama gave a speech in Nevada calling for Americans to support the bailout (sorry, "Rescue plan"). What the hell else is he supposed to say to be more engaged and less "aloof" (which is a straight-up Republican talking point-- why don't you call for McCain to stop acting "erratic"? These are loaded words with no meaning)?

Obama says the same thing McCain says. It's all anyone can say right now.

You are being strangely stubborn in this post. P.S. everyone else covering politics picked up Obama's ad (Halperin, Politico, etc.) so why don't you just admit it was your fault you couldn't find it? Or does it only count when things are exactly where you think they should be?

Pogo said...

Nah, DTL, a troll is just an internet term for asshole. They ain't any fun ever. Just vitrio/ 24/7. No ha ha, no music, no poetry, no insight, no sadness, no pathos, no regret, no admission of error.

Just talking points and mockery.

Trolls = Robots= Boring.

ricpic said...

Sashay to your partner, sahay to your corner,
Now wingnuts and trolls
All circle on down.

downtownlad said...

Whatever Pogo. At least my daughter isn't dating a black man.

Matt said...

This ad business is pretty trivial don't you think? I mean, they are full of lies as usual so who cares. Both candidates have had plenty to say about the economic crisis and will continues to. But they cannot really do much about it for reasons already discussed. An ad won't fix the crisis.

ricpic said...

But poopyheads are best of all. Who can honestly say they don't love a poopyhead?

Sloanasaurus said...

What a great ad. Even Bill Clinton states that the failure of Fannie and Freddie was caused by Democrats.

In retrospect, Clinton had an acceptable economic plan - lower government spending, somewhat higher taxes, and free trade.

Contrast this with obama's plan of much higher taxes, much more government spending and no free trade. Swing voters are in for a big surprise when they find out that Obama is no Clinton democrat when it comes to economics.

Sloanasaurus said...

At least its finally coming out that the root of this housing crisis lands squarly on Democratic policies regarding Fannie and Freddie. Yet, somehow Obama still leads in the polls. Go figure?

downtownlad said...

Yes, we need four more years of the exact same economic policies that got us into this mess.

Of course.

We need more economic experts, like Pogo and Vbspur's favorite, Sarah Palin:

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."

THAT's how we solve this problem.

Trevor Jackson said...

Sloan, Fannie and Freddie aren't the root cause of this credit crisis, but I don't expect that truth to bust down your jealously treasured talking point.

downtownlad said...

Of course not Trevor. Blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants caused the crisis.

Matt said...

Sloanasaurus
You are simplifying things way beyond the pale. There is a lot of blame to go around in DC and on Wall Street. Please don't give us the Rush Limbaugh view of things. Also the ad at least has Clinton admitting it was both him and the Republicans in Congress. For some reason you all are focusing on it being just Clinton. However the government didn't make banks make bad loans. And the government didn't prevent people from paying their loans.

former law student said...

drill sgt. muchas gracias.

If Obama can claim to have been right on Iraq based on one speech he made in 2002, then it's just as fair for McCain to claim to have been right on Fannie/Freddie based on one speech he made in 2006. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Ann Althouse said...

"Obama gave a speech in Nevada calling for Americans to support the bailout..."

Did he? I'm reading the news report and will update, but I don't think he's said anything specific.

Pogo said...

"Of course not Trevor. Blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants caused the crisis."

So, DTL, you can sell them subprime mortgages, but not date them?

Why are you such a racist? Bad trip with a black dude in the past? I'm sorry.

"At least my daughter isn't dating a black man."
Of course not. You don't breed.
And thank you for that, man.
You're a prince.

Trevor Jackson said...

"For the rest of today and as long as it takes, I will continue to reach out to leaders in both parties and do whatever I can to help pass a rescue plan. To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say -- step up to the plate and do what's right for this country."

link

Trevor Jackson said...

"not that he is helping people understand why it is the right plan"

You should really read the full speech, Althouse. Check my link above.

"What it means is that if we do not act, it will be harder for you to get a mortgage for your home or the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. What it means is that businesses won't be able to get the loans they need to open new factories, or hire more workers, or make payroll for the workers they have. What it means is that thousands of businesses could close. Millions of jobs could be lost. A long and painful recession could follow."

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter V. Bella said...

"Obama gave a speech in Nevada calling for Americans to support the bailout..."

The gamblers' and whorehouse paradise! Figures. Like goes to like.

The Drill SGT said...

former law student said...
drill sgt. muchas gracias.

If Obama can claim to have been right on Iraq based on one speech he made in 2002, then it's just as fair for McCain to claim to have been right on Fannie/Freddie based on one speech he made in 2006.


I don't know what fancy rhetorical term you legal folks use, but we simple soldiers call that changing the subject. Here's how I see it.

- Obama made a speech in 2002 that opposed the war. That is a FACT
- Whether opposing the war was right or not is an OPINION.

- McCain made a speech FOR increased GSE regulation in 2006, this is a FACT (btw consistant with his entire parties position in this case, so it wasn't likely a one off speech, just one that got recorded).
- whether increased GSE regulation would have mitigated the current crisis is an OPINION.

now the analysis: WaPO, versus FLS

FLS notes that both made speeches which is true, and ignores the underlying positions proposed by the speeches. Now everybody agrees that McCain was right ib his judgement about the GSE regulation, now fewer people think Obama was right about the war than a few months ago.

WaPo says, that Obama apparently concedes that GSE regulation was a good thing and should have been done. WaPo says OBama is lying about McCain's GSE position (OPINION) and proves that by noting the FACT that he gave the speech.

Game, set match WaPo

Heem's World said...

err... the Obama ad is on national television... i saw it at least twice last night (once during the MNF game)

Michael The Magnificent said...

From nine years ago. To. The. Day.

Excerpted from: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

...

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Synova said...

I got another shiny piece of cardboard in the mail from Obama today.

I haven't gotten a single one from McCain.

I even got a home visit from the Obama campaign.

I don't know where to go to get a McCain lawn sign.

Apparently, because I'm registered Libertarian I'm considered "likely" to vote for Obama. (!)

Anyhow... the new flier is on ending our dependence on foreign oil. It says "Obama has a plan" and he's going to stick it to Big Oil. It says that McCain's campaign, etc., is run by Big Oil. This is a factual statement that includes an asterisk to show which newspaper implied that this was so. It says Obama was a leader in ethics reform (!). And I think... if this was published in Nebraska would the Obama campaign be hauled to court for lying?

As for the fact that McCain and other Republicans pushed for reform of Freddie and Fanny and were blocked by Democrats who had the majority... that's pretty clearly the case.

And I think that Obama is likely very sorry he called Bill Clinton a racist.

former law student said...

As for the fact that McCain and other Republicans pushed for reform of Freddie and Fanny and were blocked by Democrats who had the majority... that's pretty clearly the case.

Sorry, that's pretty clearly not the case. Republicans pushed for reform when they were in the majority, in the 108th and 109th Congresses.

Peter V. Bella said...

This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis. It's an American crisis.

What happened to the Wall Street Main Street meme? Did he get a phone call from Jesse Jackson telling him to stop plagiarizing his speeches of a few years ago?

The Drill SGT said...

former law student said...
As for the fact that McCain and other Republicans pushed for reform of Freddie and Fanny and were blocked by Democrats who had the majority... that's pretty clearly the case.

Sorry, that's pretty clearly not the case. Republicans pushed for reform when they were in the majority, in the 108th and 109th Congresses.


FLS is correct here with a modification.

The GOP pushed for reform when they were in the minority. The were opposed in the Senate Banking committee on a straight party line vote, 11 GOP for, 10 DEMs against reform. Faced with the inability to move the bill forward under the threat of filibuster, the bill died.

The Drill SGT said...

AA said...I take it he supports the plan that was voted down yesterday, not that he is helping people understand why it is the right plan. It's hard to see how he will change any minds

Apparently the One, "worked the phones" but failed to call anybody and actually try to convince them to vote for the plan. He only called Paulson and "Democratic Leaders, "e.g.The folks who wrote the plan.

I think he wanted it to fail so that more blame could be placed on McCain for trying and failing.

Trevor Jackson said...

Wait, I thought the bill failed because Pelosi was mean to Republicans. Now it's Obama's fault for not getting more Republicans to vote for it?

It's so hard to keep up.

Synova said...

Maybe it failed because it sucked.

Chris said...

I have trouble seeing how Obama wanted it to pass: his campaign co-chair voted against it, and he benefitted greatly from the failure.

The Drill SGT said...

Trevor Jackson said...
Wait, I thought the bill failed because Pelosi was mean to Republicans. Now it's Obama's fault for not getting more Republicans to vote for it?


If Obama was "working the phones", the expectation was that he called the 95 Dems that voted against.

Nobody expected he would call the GOP.

He apparently didn't call anyone who needed to be convinced

Business as usual for the One

Michael_H said...

Why is it a 'Main St. problem'? Can't it just was well be a Cesar Chavez Dr. problem? Or a MLK Jr Drive problem? Doggone liberal commentators are racist.

madawaskan said...

OK for the third time from a third source I am going to post this-

Obama has blamed -it's a nice hypothesis that he hasn't -but it isn't true.

Now from The Denver Post-

We did not arrive at this moment by some accident of history. This was not a normal part of the business cycle. This was not just a few bad apples on Wall Street. This crisis is a direct result of a philosophy that the folks running Washington have been following for decades. It's a philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else; a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise; a philosophy that lets lobbyists shred consumer protections and put the needs of special interests ahead of working people. And what we have seen over the last few weeks is the final verdict on this failed philosophy. It is time to turn the page.
That is the choice in this election. Because Senator McCain has followed this philosophy for twenty-six years in Washington and now he's running to give us another four. He's fought against common-sense regulations for decades, he's called for less regulation twenty times just this year, and he said in a recent interview that he thought de-regulation has actually helped grow our economy. Senator, what economy are you talking about?


The Denver Post

The AP, CBS news Channel 4 Denver, and The Rocky Mountain News all said that in his actual remarks-which were revised because of the meltdown in the Pelosi House that his attack was even stronger.

AP, CBS 4 Denver:

Democrat Barack Obama said Republican John McCain's long advocacy of deregulation contributed to the current financial crisis and letting his GOP rival continue those policies as president would be a gamble "we can't afford."

After the House defeated a bill Monday to bail out the financial industry but also impose new federal controls on it, the Democratic presidential candidate said that McCain has "fought against commonsense regulations for decades, he's called for less regulation 20 times just this year, and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy."


CBS Denver

madawaskan said...

OK-now for The Rocky Mountain News-

WESTMINSTER — The failure of a $700 billion bailout package to get through Congress this morning forced Barack Obama to delay his speech at Mountain Range High School, but when he finally took the stage, he said it's "an outrage that we're in this mess.".

The 40-minute speech was retooled as the restless crowd of more than 2,500 sat through several speakers who addressed the economic crisis in national and local terms.

Obama ripped President Bush several times and, as the campaign has been prone to doing, linked the unpopular president's name with Sen. John McCain.

"This is not a normal part of the business cycle," he said. "This crisis is a direct result of a philosophy of the people who have been running Washington for the last eight years have been following."

"It's about time we had adult supervision," Obama said to loud cheers.


The Rocky Mountain News

Peter V. Bella said...

Obama was not working the phones, he was playing games on his Blackberry. He never spent enough time in the Senate to learn how things work He's been on the road almost his whole term peddling that Hopium.

John Stodder said...

"This crisis is a direct result of a philosophy that the folks running Washington have been following for decades. It's a philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else; a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise; a philosophy that lets lobbyists shred consumer protections and put the needs of special interests ahead of working people. And what we have seen over the last few weeks is the final verdict on this failed philosophy."

Sorry, but even hard-core Obama fans must be embarrassed by this pap.

It's fine to be opposed to Republican economic philosophies, but they had nothing to do with this crisis. This is a final verdict on easy money, which both parties fostered because neither party wanted a recession on its watch. It is a final verdict on the folly of trying to achieve "affordable housing" by lowering lending standards. If we want to make housing more affordable, remove some of the costs imposed on residential real estate development, which is heavily regulated and socked with unjustifiable fees at the local and state levels without any regard to where the workforce will live. It is a final verdict on the Harvard, Yale, Stanford and MIT whizzes who devised security instruments so complex that the leaders of the banks and investment houses that bought them didn't understand what was in them. It is a final verdict on media-fueled overreaction to lawbreakers like Enron, which led to an overly Spartan accounting rule, mark-to-market, that has solvent companies looking like they're broke from the standpoint of lenders. But I have seen nothing, nothing that points to any decision to stop regulating the banks or investment houses. After the S&L crisis and then again in the wake of Enron, more stringent regulations were proposed and supported by both parties -- some of them stupid, but by no means embodying Obama's caricature of a devil may care kind of regime.

What's that? Did someone mention the repeal of Glass-Steagel, which has been connected directly to John McCain via his economic advisor Phil Gramm? It's a horseshit charge and shows the dishonesty of the Obama analysis. The bill that Gramm supported was also supported by the Clinton Administration and by Joe Biden. The legislation has helped keep the panic from getting worse by allowing traditional banks to buy the shaky investment firms to the great benefit of anyone who wants to borrow money or the pensioners who own their stock.

Obama can do a lot better than recycling Bob Shrum pablum. He must be thinking he can phone it in if that's the best he's got to offer on this situation.

browninhawaii said...

Isn't the whole "silent type" persona just a repetition of the lack of a paper trail of Obama's positions, casting "present" instead of taking a side on votes?
This is working because people think that he agrees with them in his silence. It's that whole projection issue.
Of course, why can't he speak out clearly--as he did on say the war in Iraq and the surge. Because he was wrong and it took a long time to pry the admission that the surge worked from his lips.
Obama is not a leader in any sense of the word.