Here’s the text of the above - blog below has it in a more readable format…
�??My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote �?? �??take off the gloves.�?? Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.
�??Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know.
I don�??t need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn�??t seek advice from a Chicago politician.
�??My opponent�??s touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy who�??s already authored two memoirs, he�??s not exactly an open book.
It�??s as if somehow the usual rules don�??t apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there�??s always a back story with Senator Obama.
All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.
�??Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?
�??This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.
�??Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed.
But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.
�??Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, �??a good idea.�??
Well, Senator Obama, that �??good idea�?? has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
�??To hear him talk now, you�??d think he�??d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem.
The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them.
Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn�??t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won�??t tell you, but you deserve an answer.
�??Who is the real Senator Obama? Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch?
�??Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can�??t change the system with someone who�??s never fought the system.
�??Washington is on the wrong track and I�??m going to set it right. The American people know my record. They know I am going to change Washington, because I�??ve done it before.
They know I�??m going to reform our broken institutions in Washington and on Wall Street because I�??ve done it before. They know I�??m going to deliver relief to the middle class, because that�??s what I�??ve done.�??
Sorry, but McCain’s track record is no better. I’d like to actually hear his ideas that direct his action than what it is his opponent supposedly did.
Saying something is wrong and that he’s going to “set it right” isn’t really saying anything relevant, either.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sorry, but McCain’s track record is no better. I’d like to actually hear his ideas that direct his action…[/quote]
The public needs to understand what went wrong in the first place.
LOL…you do realize that we’re in the middle of an election, right?
[quote]
Saying something is wrong and that he’s going to “set it right” isn’t really saying anything relevant, either.[/quote]
I guess that makes BO’s entire campaign irrelevant.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sorry, but McCain’s track record is no better. I’d like to actually hear his ideas that direct his action…
The public needs to understand what went wrong in the first place.
than what it is his opponent supposedly did.
LOL…you do realize that we’re in the middle of an election, right?
Saying something is wrong and that he’s going to “set it right” isn’t really saying anything relevant, either.
I guess that makes BO’s entire campaign irrelevant.[/quote]
And McCain’s too. The truth is that both Repbulicans and Democrats supported measures that lead to this crisis. And McCain was in favor of them too. The Community Reinvestment Act and failure to reign in Freddie and Fannie, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagal are all big contributing factors. McCain supported the repeal. It was championed by Phil Gramm. And supported by and signed off on by Clinton. Not to mention other failings with SOX and mark-to-market accoutning.
There is plenty of blame to go around. It’s only just now that the media is beginning to report on Washington’s role for the sheeple instead of putting the blame EXCLUSIVELY on Wall Street. Which is what Washington and Obama and McCain were both trying to do. Now that this is happening and that McCain is pointing out Obama’s support of measures that contributed to the problem, I expect Obama to respond in kind. It probably would have happened earlier in both campaigns except both supported the Bailout and wanted to hide the role the government played until it had passed.
I also wouldn’t really judge either man’s plans by the soundbites the media plays or their speeches to the public. Both men have their actual comprehensive plans and initiatives laid out on their website. But most of the public is stupid. ‘Hope and Change’ and ‘Social Programs’ is all they really want to hear and maybe all they can understand from Obama. And ‘Tax Cuts and Personal Responsibility’ are all they really want to hear and capable of understanding from McCain. They’re catering to their audience. For those that care, and want to dig deeper, the information is there. There’s probably just not that many like that.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sorry, but McCain’s track record is no better. I’d like to actually hear his ideas that direct his action…
The public needs to understand what went wrong in the first place.
than what it is his opponent supposedly did.
LOL…you do realize that we’re in the middle of an election, right?
Saying something is wrong and that he’s going to “set it right” isn’t really saying anything relevant, either.
I guess that makes BO’s entire campaign irrelevant.[/quote]
Politics is irrelevant. Government is irrelevant. Elections are irrelevant. It’s is all for show so that the people who are ruled over can be made to believe they have a say and that every injustice that happens to them at the hand of government is their own fault.
The election process is a cosmic joke.
McCain has been in politics at the federal level for mare than 20 years and he’s going to try and convince the American people that Barrack Obama who has been in congress a mere 2 years is to blame…? Most of the legislation that has screwed taxpayers was voted on my McCain.
I am not saying BHOs ideas are worth a damn either its just that McCain needs to point the finger back at himself too.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Politics is irrelevant. Government is irrelevant. Elections are irrelevant. It’s is all for show so that the people who are ruled over can be made to believe they have a say and that every injustice that happens to them at the hand of government is their own fault.
The election process is a cosmic joke.[/quote]
Yes! Yes! Someone does get it!
It’s amazing watching the American people stand behind “their” politician, because their politician is the real deal and going to clean up Washington. I’ve never heard that before! How refreshing!
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
And McCain’s too. The truth is that both Repbulicans and Democrats supported measures that lead to this crisis. [/quote]
not to the same extent.
[quote]
And McCain was in favor of them too.
[/quote] Who did more to fix this mess and who did more to enable it. Not all actions had the same effect. Just look at the corrective legislation and action recommended starting in 2003. Who supported it and who was apposed?
thank carter and clinton for this. It actually lost steam in republican hands
thank your democrat friends for this as well.
plenty of blame to go around here but I still think this is of secondary concern. The heart of the problem is the bad dept. accounting practices wouldn’t be an issue withought the houseing bubble (CRA) and debacle at FNMA and FHLMC. Even CRA is not as important. It certainly started the housing bubble but the focus should be on the warning signs we had starting in 2003. Who sounded the alarm and who tried to drown out the alarm. Mistakes are made and are forgivable. But when one purposely ignores signs of a disaster that puts this country in the worst financial mess in 80 years, it’s time for the jail house. Sad thing is, these crooks will get reelected.
No question these are damaging but not the cause of the calamity we are in now.
Yep. I don’t know that this issue should have as much play as it undoubtably will in this election. Obama and McCain are not the ones we need to focus on with regard to this mess. Frank, Dodd, and Shumer would love for the Presidential election to distract us from what really happened.
But this is what is going to get them elected. This is why even intelligent people that know what’s really going on and what the real story is with these two, are calling for more mud slinging. Like it or not, it works.
[quote]
Both men have their actual comprehensive plans and initiatives laid out on their website. But most of the public is stupid. ‘Hope and Change’ and ‘Social Programs’ is all they really want to hear and maybe all they can understand from Obama. And ‘Tax Cuts and Personal Responsibility’ are all they really want to hear and capable of understanding from McCain. They’re catering to their audience. For those that care, and want to dig deeper, the information is there. There’s probably just not that many like that.[/quote]
Yep. Not likely to change. Just sit back and enjoy the show. It will all be over soon enough.
The ideas/philosophy behind the CRA and Fannie/Freddie are essentially flawed ideas; and they form part of the foundational philosophy of the Democratic party: that is, to intervene in the market to achieve “social/economic justice,” or some other equally hollow & dubious value.
Moreover, they are ideas that Obama has not only fervently supported, but has actively worked to implement in Chicago as a “community organizer.”
Whatever role McCain has played wrt Fannie/Freddie in the past (and I still haven’t seen much evidence one way or another regarding this) he should say (tonight) that the philosophy behind subprime mortgages is bankrupt; and then ask Obama to disavow himself from those interventionist ideas. Obama won’t do it.
McCain should make this election/debate a referendum on the philosophy of government intervention of the sort that Fannie/Freddie/CRA represent.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
And McCain’s too. The truth is that both Repbulicans and Democrats supported measures that lead to this crisis.
not to the same extent.
And McCain was in favor of them too.
Who did more to fix this mess and who did more to enable it. Not all actions had the same effect. Just look at the corrective legislation and action recommended starting in 2003. Who supported it and who was apposed?
The Community Reinvestment Act
thank carter and clinton for this. It actually lost steam in republican hands
and failure to reign in Freddie and Fannie,
thank your democrat friends for this as well.
and the repeal of the Glass-Steagal
plenty of blame to go around here but I still think this is of secondary concern. The heart of the problem is the bad dept. accounting practices wouldn’t be an issue withought the houseing bubble (CRA) and debacle at FNMA and FHLMC. Even CRA is not as important. It certainly started the housing bubble but the focus should be on the warning signs we had starting in 2003. Who sounded the alarm and who tried to drown out the alarm. Mistakes are made and are forgivable. But when one purposely ignores signs of a disaster that puts this country in the worst financial mess in 80 years, it’s time for the jail house. Sad thing is, these crooks will get reelected.
are all big contributing factors. McCain supported the repeal. It was championed by Phil Gramm. And supported by and signed off on by Clinton. Not to mention other failings with SOX and mark-to-market accoutning.
No question these are damaging but not the cause of the calamity we are in now.
There is plenty of blame to go around. It’s only just now that the media is beginning to report on Washington’s role for the sheeple instead of putting the blame EXCLUSIVELY on Wall Street. Which is what Washington and Obama and McCain were both trying to do. Now that this is happening and that McCain is pointing out Obama’s support of measures that contributed to the problem, I expect Obama to respond in kind. It probably would have happened earlier in both campaigns except both supported the Bailout and wanted to hide the role the government played until it had passed.
Yep. I don’t know that this issue should have as much play as it undoubtably will in this election. Obama and McCain are not the ones we need to focus on with regard to this mess. Frank, Dodd, and Shumer would love for the Presidential election to distract us from what really happened.
I also wouldn’t really judge either man’s plans by the soundbites the media plays or their speeches to the public.
But this is what is going to get them elected. This is why even intelligent people that know what’s really going on and what the real story is with these two, are calling for more mud slinging. Like it or not, it works.
Both men have their actual comprehensive plans and initiatives laid out on their website. But most of the public is stupid. ‘Hope and Change’ and ‘Social Programs’ is all they really want to hear and maybe all they can understand from Obama. And ‘Tax Cuts and Personal Responsibility’ are all they really want to hear and capable of understanding from McCain. They’re catering to their audience. For those that care, and want to dig deeper, the information is there. There’s probably just not that many like that.
Yep. Not likely to change. Just sit back and enjoy the show. It will all be over soon enough.
[/quote]
Well, we agree on something…probably on lots of things in fact
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
The ideas/philosophy behind the CRA and Fannie/Freddie are essentially flawed ideas; and they form part of the foundational philosophy of the Democratic party: that is, to intervene in the market to achieve “social/economic justice,” or some other equally hollow & dubious value.
Moreover, they are ideas that Obama has not only fervently supported, but has actively worked to implement in Chicago as a “community organizer.”
Whatever role McCain has played wrt Fannie/Freddie in the past (and I still haven’t seen much evidence one way or another regarding this) he should say (tonight) that the philosophy behind subprime mortgages is bankrupt; and then ask Obama to disavow himself from those interventionist ideas. Obama won’t do it.
McCain should make this election/debate a referendum on the philosophy of government intervention of the sort that Fannie/Freddie/CRA represent. [/quote]
This is exactly right and THE idea behind what was supposed to be a self governing nation.
Mccain will never do this because ultimately it rings hollow after a yea vote on the bailout.
This, and a whole host of other problems, are the direct and inevitable result of federal intrusion into areas where the constitution provides no such enumerated powers and would hence be illegal in a society that still gave a shit about it’s own foundational rule of law.
Of course if that were the case though, half of congress would be in prison and nobody ever would’ve ever even heard of Barack Obama because he’d be in some radical underground anti American hate groups clubhouse somewhere where he belongs.
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Politics is irrelevant. Government is irrelevant. Elections are irrelevant. It’s is all for show so that the people who are ruled over can be made to believe they have a say and that every injustice that happens to them at the hand of government is their own fault.
The election process is a cosmic joke.
Yes! Yes! Someone does get it!
It’s amazing watching the American people stand behind “their” politician, because their politician is the real deal and going to clean up Washington. I’ve never heard that before! How refreshing![/quote]
I don’t imagine for a moment that McCain is going to “clean up Washington” - did anyone say that? I’m just hoping that BO doesn’t get a chance to make “Washington” worse than it already is.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah, I see what you guys are saying.
But why can’t he say this?:
“look, BO, it’s interventionist policies that got us here; and the disaster those policies caused left both you (BO) and me no choice last week but to vote for the bailout bill - but now, my friends, let’s step back and assess if we really want more of the same…” et cetera…
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah, what’s he gonna say? “I think we need to keep the government out of the private markets”? Har dee har har.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa
Yeah, I see what you guys are saying.
But why can’t he say this?:
“look, BO, it’s interventionist policies that got us here; and the disaster those policies caused left both you (BO) and me no choice last week but to vote for the bailout bill - but now, my friends, let’s step back and assess if we really want more of the same…” et cetera…[/quote]
That’s what he would have to say, but the left, including Obama are masters of just talking until people give up trying to understand and say to themselves, I just want the other party in power now.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa
Yeah, I see what you guys are saying.
But why can’t he say this?:
“look, BO, it’s interventionist policies that got us here; and the disaster those policies caused left both you (BO) and me no choice last week but to vote for the bailout bill - but now, my friends, let’s step back and assess if we really want more of the same…” et cetera…[/quote]
Because McCain supported measures that contributed to the bailout as well. And BO could just as easily point them out in return. Besides, McCain is not principally opposed to regulation the way some here would have him be. By and large he has been against regulation. That is clear from his record. (This hasn’t always been a good thing either). But he has also supported regulatory measures. I mean, he supported stricter REGULATION of Fannie and Freddie. Which would’ve been a good thing…
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa
Yeah, I see what you guys are saying.
But why can’t he say this?:
“look, BO, it’s interventionist policies that got us here; and the disaster those policies caused left both you (BO) and me no choice last week but to vote for the bailout bill - but now, my friends, let’s step back and assess if we really want more of the same…” et cetera…
Because McCain supported measures that contributed to the bailout as well. And BO could just as easily point them out in return. Besides, McCain is not principally opposed to regulation the way some here would have him be. By and large he has been against regulation. That is clear from his record. (This hasn’t always been a good thing either). But he has also supported regulatory measures. I mean, he supported stricter REGULATION of Fannie and Freddie. Which would’ve been a good thing…[/quote]
I guess so. However, I do think a very articulate person could negotiate the minefields you point out. Unfortunately, that isn’t McCain. And probably even the most articulate couldn’t do it within the sound-bite nature of debates & campaigns.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa
Yeah, I see what you guys are saying.
But why can’t he say this?:
“look, BO, it’s interventionist policies that got us here; and the disaster those policies caused left both you (BO) and me no choice last week but to vote for the bailout bill - but now, my friends, let’s step back and assess if we really want more of the same…” et cetera…
Because McCain supported measures that contributed to the bailout as well. And BO could just as easily point them out in return. Besides, McCain is not principally opposed to regulation the way some here would have him be. By and large he has been against regulation. That is clear from his record. (This hasn’t always been a good thing either). But he has also supported regulatory measures. I mean, he supported stricter REGULATION of Fannie and Freddie. Which would’ve been a good thing…
I guess so. However, I do think a very articulate person could negotiate the minefields you point out. Unfortunately, that isn’t McCain. And probably even the most articulate couldn’t do it within the sound-bite nature of debates & campaigns.
[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t think ANYWAY could make the necessary distinctions within the context of a debate and a campaign. Not in a way that would be comprehensible to most Americans.
Additionally, McCain has the added problem that Obama was only in the Senate for 134 days. As many here like to point out regularly. Even if McCain chould convince the public that the Democrats as a party supported and sponsored more of the measures that lead to this crisis (because both parties and McCain himself supported some of them) Obama himself wasn’t around for most of them.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I agree with Tirib:
Both McCain and Obama voted for this fiasco of a “bailout”.
Either candidate trying to claim any "highground’ on this issue will sound VERY shallow and disengenuous.
Mufasa
Yeah, I see what you guys are saying.
But why can’t he say this?:
“look, BO, it’s interventionist policies that got us here; and the disaster those policies caused left both you (BO) and me no choice last week but to vote for the bailout bill - but now, my friends, let’s step back and assess if we really want more of the same…” et cetera…
Because McCain supported measures that contributed to the bailout as well. And BO could just as easily point them out in return. Besides, McCain is not principally opposed to regulation the way some here would have him be. By and large he has been against regulation. That is clear from his record. (This hasn’t always been a good thing either). But he has also supported regulatory measures. I mean, he supported stricter REGULATION of Fannie and Freddie. Which would’ve been a good thing…
I guess so. However, I do think a very articulate person could negotiate the minefields you point out. Unfortunately, that isn’t McCain. And probably even the most articulate couldn’t do it within the sound-bite nature of debates & campaigns.
Yeah, I don’t think ANYWAY could make the necessary distinctions within the context of a debate and a campaign. Not in a way that would be comprehensible to most Americans.
Additionally, McCain has the added problem that Obama was only in the Senate for 134 days. As many here like to point out regularly. Even if McCain chould convince the public that the Democrats as a party supported and sponsored more of the measures that lead to this crisis (because both parties and McCain himself supported some of them) Obama himself wasn’t around for most of them.[/quote]
All true, but it’s not really about what Obama has or hasn’t done in the Senate - it’s about what he has spent his adult life pursuing, and on what goals & principles.