Election 2008

From Fwd Mail:

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago. Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter? We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't. Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter? Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs. Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead. The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd. But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media. Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose. But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

Marty's:

I'm pleased to rebut this, and I need no canned, politically partisan, scripted distortions, lies and innuendos to do it. This type of political slander is known as "ratfucking" in the patois of the trade and it originated with the Nixon campaign and perfected by Lee Atwater...and, of course, refined by his acolyte, Rove. The basic premise is taken from the modern master of propaganda, Goebbels, which, in essence says that if the facts do not agree with your agenda, change the facts. Certainly, both political parties have used smear tactics, mud slinging, tricks, etc going back 200 years, but it has only been the careful study of the psychological principles of "mass psychology", espoused by Goebbels, with its subtle uses of constructs that aim at character assassination...which has made Rove the supposed "genius" political operative. I'm no match for Herr Rove, but I know something of history. Let's take a closer look at this tract from the standpoint of FACTS.

Lincoln's admonition has become part of conventional wisdom, yes? Yes, and it is the kernel of truth contained in his pithy statement that is evidenced in Palin's 'popularity' falling like a rock...with a greater distance on the downside yet to be reached, but it will. Anyone thinking that this person is remotely capable of being a senior executive officer of the United States is nuts...and a right wing, evangelical member of the Republican base...which has hated McCain for years and might have stayed home...but will now vote for him...but will not change the Republican demographics from those of Bush's voters.

The entire "lie" of the attached tract is that the Democrats caused our current financial crisis. While there is plenty of blame to go round, sins of comission and omission by both parties, it is the Republican philosophy of "free markets" embodied in the laissez-faire economic theory that is at the very roots of the causative factors for this mess. The Glass-Steagle Act, which delineated areas of operation, responsibilities, reserves, etc in the financial sector..primarily banking, and was formulated to prevent the abuses wrought by the pre-Depression excesses, served us well for nigh on 70 years. With the advent of the Reagan years of deregulation, particularly picking up on Carter's modified, and necessary, dereg measures and emboldened by the effective breaking of union power in this country (the start of the decline of the middle class standard of living**) and culminating in the goofy Gingrich "contract with America"...led by a country hick of an econ prof at a jerkwater school, Phil Gramm, Glass-Steagle was repealed by his Gramm-Leach-Blifel Act. Based on classic laissez-faire economic principles once suited to an 18th century imperialistic England and touted as 'free markets' being the end-all of economic progress...and a repudiation of the New Deal, Keynes, Galbraith theories implemented by FDR...who the Phil Gramms of the world hate...this act virtually opened a floodgate to financial supermarkets offering products that not even the creators of which understood...ironically, products sold by the billions as risk modifiers and abaters were, by themselves, contributing to risk...and the classic human trait of greed overcoming fear (risk) ran rampant...witness the estimated $52 TRILLION still extant in credit default swaps and the huge, ongoing, buybacks of auction rate securities.

Getting back to the literal joke of claims purported to be 'facts' in this hack job....it is downright childish in its presentation. "But the facts show that it was the govt that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act (it was passed in 1977...and is NOW being blamed?) and, later, threats of legal action by then AG Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't." Seriously, who wrote this? Who WAS the govt? What WAS the CRA? What did the law SAY? That someone would write such vague and inane statements is beyond irrational...it is intentional distortion...the implication that Janet Reno, arbitrarily, would THREATEN anyone is laughable...that "if the fed did not like" is beyond irrational...since when are laws implemented or not enforced on "the fed" not "liking" that stats? I can write 10 pages here on the CRA alone, 10 pages on the "Financial Services Modernization Act" (Gramm) which permitted banks selling everything from stocks, insurance, travel to washing machines...and also did away with restrictions on consolidation...and Gramm also insisted on expanding the number of banks exempted by CRA. But rather than mentioning all the political and legal wranglings involved...suffice to say that since the Republicans had the hat trick of govt...all 3 branches...why didn't they change everything which, whoever wrote this junk, they now criticize as being done by Democrats? The FACT of the matter is that banks made money on the basis of CRA...a Federal Reserve study in 2003 and a similar study conducted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute both found that there was no clear evidence of the CRA increasing lending in low income neighborhoods than in higher income areas. Why does not the author of this junk mention the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Act which exempted federally chartered savings banks from state usury laws? Why did not the author of this junk mention the study done in 2002...2002, by Engel and McCoy on the predatory lending practices of CRA lending institutions that were leading to foreclosures against low-income people of color and the elderly....before the housing bubble...and bust?

Franklin Raines. Was NEVER an Obama "adviser", and is not now. That some staffers have called him does not make him an adviser. Raines stepped down from a PRIVATE company in 2004...2004! He headed a company that dealt with literally trillions of dollars in mortgages and was subject to REPUBLICAN HEADED REGULATORY AGENCIES, why did they not do their jobs? His misfeasance did not involve mortgages...it involved altering accounting practices that were of differing interpretation which afforded him a bigger bonus than he otherwise would be entitled to...so what? If he was culpable of a felony...I would bet that a REPUBLICAN Attorney General would have prosecuted him...and he should have been sent to jail...but he wasn't, and it wasn't for lack of trying by REPUBLICAN REGULATORS. "ratfuckers" reported his parachute was $220M...when it was $12M and $140K a month...chicken feed for a guy that ran a PRIVATE company of that magnitude. End of story. The whole Raines deal was "ratfucking'...even Herr Rove commented, publicly, on the McCain campaign crossing the line on bald faced lies.

Obama and "second-largest recipient" of Fannie Mae's contributions: I've had the official FEC list for months. What does this NOT tell you? For one thing, Obama received dough from both Frick & Frack..not just Fannie...and it also doesn't mention that he is a presidential candidate...likely to win....and a committee member of the majority party...why the hell wouldn't he receive big contributions from companies that traditionally lobby politicians that hold positions of power that affect the company? Why didn't the author of this junk tell us that Frick and Frack contributed to 353 OTHER members of congress and why didn't the authour of this junk also tell us that right behind Obama in contributions received were REPUBLICAN Senator Bennett from Utah and the REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE from AL, Bachus, who received over $100,000...MORE than ANY other representative? And why hasn't the author of this junk told us of the lobbying done for Frick by the McCain staffers...in one case getting $45,000 a month and another, lasting up til August, of $15,000 a month!! I was taught that sins of omission bore the same gravity as sins of comission...whoever wrote these distortions has bought him/herself a passport to hell...provided, of course, he is a Bible believing, upstanding, God fearing Christian...albeit a ratfucker in his mortal life. Oh, you don't think so? OK, I'll amend my statement, he's just a rat.

This is really a crude piece of contrived bullshit...fit for morons that are swayed by even the smell of shit, let alone reading real shit like this.


ANONYMOUS:

I was a fellow POW at the Hanoi Hilton of John McCain and was held for 6 years, six months longer than the "Crown Prince", as McCain was known since his father was the top dog and Admiral in the Pacific. I, along with most of the POWs, was tortured to an extent of not even being able to remember for how long...after awhile you simply lose all conception of time and the sense of pain. But one thing I'll remember til the day I die is that I, and hundreds of other equally tortured POWs, never confessed to being a war criminal...I was always aware of my oath and the military code to which I swore...I never signed any paper or made any recording which would have violated my oath. John McCain did. I'm no hero...but I ain't no coward either.


Marty's:

If I had the technical know how to send that POW story to, say, 25,000,000 registered Republican voters, how many voters, in Lincoln's words, would it fool into voting for Obama, without even mentioning his name? There is only one FACT in this statement, the rest is total fiction, completely made up, false, contrived bullshit. The fact is that McCain confessed to being a war criminal while he was a prisoner of an enemy of the United States. Who can argue that the VC, hearing an Admiral's son, a warrior of the great enemy, the exalted and most powerful United States, who can argue that the VC, on hearing this confession, was not empowered to kill more U.S. troops than they would otherwise, had they not heard what amounted to a pep talk by the hero McCain? That is a treasonable offense punishable by death. Private Slovak was put to death for the 'crime' of being 'shell shocked.' Of course, Pvt. Slovak's father was not an admiral.