After “Joe the Plumber” got mentioned over 20 times in the debate, the media is now obsessed with him, I guess because anything’s better than talking about the issues. McCain brought him up because Joe had asked Obama if he was going to stop him from purchasing his boss’ $250,000 plumbing business by raising his taxes. This has upset him so much that he is denouncing Obama as a “socialist.” Both conservatives and the media has affixed themselves to him because he seems to symbolize your average middle class “Joe”. But there’s a couple of problems:
1) His name isn’t Joe.
2) He isn’t a plumber.
3) He doesn’t have the money to buy the business.
and
4) According to some tax analysts, if his gross receipts from his business is $250,000 — and not his taxable income — then he would not have to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan, and probably would be eligible for a tax cut.
One thing was true though. He doesn’t like to pay taxes. He still owes the state over $1,000 in back taxes.
Let’s start with Bill Ayers, since the news media have spent much of the week obliging McCain’s efforts to make him the focus of the campaign. As an activist in the 1960s — when Barack Obama was a young child — Bill Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, a group of radical activists who launched a series of violent demonstrations and bombings in protest of the Vietnam War. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and a school reform advocate. During Obama’s first campaign, Ayers hosted a coffee for him, and the two men have served together on the board of a school reform effort funded by a foundation chaired by Leonore Annenberg, who has endorsed John McCain. The New York Times concluded that Obama and Ayers “do not appear to have been close,” and Obama has denounced Ayers’ actions as a member of the Weathermen.
A search* of the Nexis database found that more than 4,500 news reports so far this year have mentioned Obama and Ayers — more than 1,800 this week alone.
Now: G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg’s psychologist’s office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in “if necessary.” He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a “gangland figure” to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap “leftist guerillas” at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy’s bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents (“Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests.” In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: “Kill the sons of bitches.”) During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.
What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:
Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain’s campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy’s radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, “John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07,” includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an “old friend.” During the segment, McCain praised Liddy’s “adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great,” said he was “proud” of Liddy, and said that “it’s always a pleasure for me to come on your program.”
McCain even backed Liddy’s son’s congressional bid in 2000 — a campaign that relied heavily on the elder Liddy’s history.
To sum up: John McCain is “proud” of his “old friend” Gordon Liddy — an old friend who plotted to kill one of the most respected journalists in American history, and who urged listeners to kill federal agents and advised them on how to do so. McCain campaigned for Liddy’s son, and Liddy has even hosted a fundraiser for McCain at his home.
So McCain’s relationship with Liddy is pretty much a direct parallel to Obama’s relationship with Ayers. Except that McCain and Liddy have apparently spent time together more recently than Obama and Ayers. And Liddy’s extremist activities continued well into the 1990s, at least. And Liddy says he and McCain are “old friends,” while The New York Times says Obama and Ayers aren’t close. And Obama has never said Ayers adheres to “the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.” Other than all that, it’s a direct parallel.
Yet even as they obsess over Barack Obama and Bill Ayers — just as the McCain campaign tells them to — the news media have all but ignored John McCain’s close ties to Gordon Liddy. A Nexis search** finds fewer than 100 news reports that have mentioned McCain and Liddy this year.
As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman — who has criticized Obama’s relationship with Ayers — has noted:
Liddy, now a conservative radio host, has never expressed regret for this attempt to subvert the Constitution. Nor has he developed any respect for the law. … Yet none of this bothers McCain. Liddy has contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns, held a fundraiser for McCain at his home and hosted the senator on his radio show, where McCain said, “I’m proud of you.” Exactly which part of Liddy’s record is McCain proud of?
While Obama has gotten lots of scrutiny for his connection to Ayers, McCain has never had to explain his association with Liddy. If he can’t defend it, he should admit as much. And if he thinks he can defend it, let him.
To repeat:
* 2008 news reports that mention Obama and Ayers: more than 4,500.
* 2008 news reports that mention McCain and Liddy: fewer than 100.
Incredibly, The Atlantic’s Ambinder today suggests that the media have not covered Ayers: “To truly drive Ayers into the public conversation, to trick what they consider an irredeemably biased press corps into biting, McCain has three vehicles gassed up and ready to go. … So far, McCain has done none of those things.” There are 1,800 Nexis hits for Barack Obama and Bill Ayers in the past week, and yet Marc Ambinder thinks the media have not bitten on the Ayers “story” — and that McCain, who is running ads about Ayers, isn’t “really serious” about pushing it, anyway. Even Steve Schmidt would likely be too embarrassed to try to claim that the media have not covered Bill Ayers.
Incidentally, Ambinder doesn’t seem to have ever mentioned McCain’s relationship to Liddy.
Not only have the media avoided stand-alone reports on McCain and Liddy, they consistently fail to bring up the connection when reporting on McCain’s attacks on Obama’s ties to Ayers, or in interviews with McCain staff who bring up Ayers. The McCain/Liddy relationship is such an obvious parallel — except arguably much worse — that it’s hard to imagine how any evenhanded journalist could possibly justify ignoring it. Yet it happens again and again. And, needless to say, McCain aides do not get badgered about Liddy the way Time’s Mark Halperin badgered Obama aide Robert Gibbs about Ayers.
Just this morning, NBC’s Chuck Todd said he is “sure” Ayers will come up during the final presidential debate next week, adding that moderator Bob Schieffer “may feel no choice but to bring it up” in light of the “TV ads” the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee are running. Setting aside the absurdity of the suggestion that a debate moderator is compelled to bring up a topic simply because John McCain is running ads about it, if Schieffer does ask about Ayers, basic fairness demands that he ask McCain about Liddy as well.
OK … moving on. How about controversial religious figures? Earlier this year, Media Matters showed that The New York Times and The Washington Post had published a total of 161 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright — and only 12 that mentioned John McCain and John Hagee. That disparity wasn’t unique to the Times and the Post — and it hasn’t evened out over time.
161 to 12.
Land deals? Barack Obama once bought a parcel of land from a controversial donor named Tony Rezko. Obama paid more than the land’s assessed value — but that hasn’t stopped the news media from suggesting Obama had an improper relationship with Rezko.
Comparatively little attention has been paid to John McCain’s relationship with real estate developer Donald Diamond. Diamond, a co-chair of McCain’s campaign finance committee, has raised more than $250,000 for McCain’s presidential bid and is a “close personal friend” and longtime political patron. For his part, McCain has sponsored two bills sought by Diamond that helped the developer gain what The New York Times described as “millions of dollars and thousands of acres” of land. And McCain helped Diamond buy another parcel of land from the U.S. Army — a deal that helped Diamond turn a $20 million profit. The Washington Post and USA Today have identified other land deals McCain has facilitated as senator that have benefited some of his biggest donors and fundraisers.
Yet a Media Matters review last month found that five national newspapers had run a total of 39 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Obama and Rezko — but only seven that mentioned McCain and his donors’ land deals:
[S]ince The New York Times’ initial April 22 article [about McCain and Diamond], the land deals have been mentioned in only six additional news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post, and have yet to be mentioned on any evening network news program. By contrast, during the same time period, 39 news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in those papers have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko; and the evening news broadcasts have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko in five reports.
“The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government.”
“My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”
Sound like Rev. Wright? Bill Ayers? Try Joe Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Separatist Party that Todd Palin was a member of for 6 to 7 years. The AIP founder made the comment in 1991, in an interview that’s now housed at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Two years later, Vogler was scheduled to denounce America as a tyranny before the U.N. His sponsors? The Islamic Republic of Iran. But before he took the world stage, he was killed by a fellow seccessionist. Here’s another quote from Vogler:
“And I won’t be buried under their damn flag… I’ll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.”
Vogler advocated renouncing allegiance to the United States. In the course of denouncing Federal regulation over land, he said:
“And then you get mad. And you say, the hell with them. And you renounce allegiance, and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life to Alaska.”
This is the same group Sarah Palin recorded an address for the convention, saying “Keep up the good work”, and now she’s complaining about Obama “palling around” with Ayers. By “palling around”, she of course means being a part of a mainstream (not “radical” as falsely stated by a McCain ad) education committee supported by a Republican governor, with local civil leaders on the board, which included Ayers as well as a former Nixon administration official who has contributed to McCain’s campaign.
Let’s compare these to the infamous Rev. Wright quotes:
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.
Well, John Kerry’s 1989 Committe report concluded that members of the U.S. State Department “provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking… and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers.” And I’ve heard the conservative mantra of “…then build bigger prisons.”
Wright accuses people who say “God Bless America” as worshipping country over God. I’ve been told this is unchristian. I find it to be uniquely Christian. Before Constantine fuzed Orthodox Christianity into the Eastern Roman Empire, Christians were unique among their fellow Jews and Romans in refusing to ally themselves with either the authorities of Rome or Judea. Most religious people today make the mistake of combining the two and kids are even forced in our schools to “pray” to the idol of Lady Liberty with their hands over our hearts in the droning chant typical of brainwashing. Vogler though, along with those who follow him, only wish to replace the American flag with the Alaskan one, even if it means getting founding from Iran to denounce America as a tyrany before the U.N. Considering the historic injustice perpetuated on African Americans, it’s no surprise to me that there are “black separatist” groups. But the idea that Palin’s husband wants Alaska to separate when his wife is taking in all these huge Federal earmarks is ridiculous.
The references to Hiroshima, Palestinians, and South Africa will no doubt piss off conseravtives, but I find these controversies far more open to interpretation than most of the stuff I read from the conservative Human Events newsletter. He’s obviously a conspiracy theorist. But unlike the author of the bestselling book “Obama Nation,” who thinks the Bush Administration caused 9/11, at least Wright is fighting against the side he believes to be perpetrating mass injustice on the population.
Anyone who watched or read Obama’s speech about “A More Perfect Union” knows that he has a completely different worldview than Wright:
“On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”
“But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”
……
“But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.”
Do you think the AIP does charity work? Somehow I doubt it. Here’s the full speech:
Maybe this seems to be too far a reach since this is the Vice President’s husband, not the President. But the problem with this objection is McCain could die while in office. If McCain croaks, Palin will be president, and there is a good chance that Todd could become the “shadow president”, just as some have referred to him as the “shadow governor”. The latest ethics panel that found Sarah Palin violated ethics laws and abused her power as governor also pointed out that Todd was heavily involved. An article from globeandmail.com says:
>According to those close to the administration, he attending meetings, sat in on interviews, made phone calls to lawmakers to express his support for his wife’s issues and was copied in on staff e-mails.
>He has been referred to as the “shadow governor” and The New York Times reported that his constant involvement in state business prompted some of the staff in the governor’s office to begin asking, “What would Todd do?” when faced with decisions that would affect his wife’s agenda.
This is not something from the distant past either. Max Blumenthal writes:
“Extremists Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll helped launch Palin’s political career in Alaska, and in return had influence over policy. “Her door was open,” says Chryson — and still is.”
…
“Palin backed [former Alaska Independence party chairman, Mark] Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution’s language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring. She attempted to name Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as “Black Helicopter Steve,” to an empty Wasilla City Council seat. “Every time I showed up her door was open,” said Chryson. “And that policy continued when she became governor.” …
Chryson further streamlined the AIP’s platform by softening its secessionist language. Instead of calling for immediate separation from the Uni ted States, the platform now demands a vote on independence. Yet Chryson maintains that his party remains committed to full independence. “The Alaskan Independence Party has got links to almost every independence-minded movement in the world,” Chryson exclaimed. “And Alaska is not the only place that’s about separation. There’s at least 30 different states that are talking about some type of separation from the United States.”
Even Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley and author of “Thank You for Smoking”, has written an article denouncing Palin and arguing for the “conservative case for Obama”.
This is pretty funny. O’Reilly is so obsessed with trying to blame everyone that he goes freaking ballistic when he finds out there’s nothing about Fannie Mae he can pin on Barney Frank, so instead he tries to take another route that has nothing to do with regulation and just blame Frank for supposedly encouraging people to buy their stock even though he specifically said it was a bad investment.
Here’s what O’ Reilly said a couple of days ago:
“Most talk radio is conservative dominated ideologues, or kool-aid drinking idiots. Idiots. Screaming at you “This is socialism, this is this this is that””It’s Clintons fault, it’s Clinton’s fault.” It’s Clinton’s fault? Clinton hasn’t been in office in 8 years.
It’s Bush’s fault, it happened on Bush’s watch. He could’ve prevented this. He could’ve gone easily and said Merrill Lynch is dealing in bad paper he could’ve said that.Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac they’re dealing in bad paper, so you the investor, don’t invest in those companies. You think they would’ve continued to deal in bad paper? No they would not!
But let’s get back to this talk radio stuff. These idiots are misleading you they’re lying to you They’re rich, these guys, Big cigars, all of that! Private jets, “Oh yeah, my private jet!”And they’re saying “No bailout, no no uh uh no way”Hey! You’re going to get it, not them. That foreign investment pulls out, we are toast. And they’ll pull out if that bailout doesn’t happen. Are you getting the message here? Walk away from these liars, these right wing liars. Walk away from them, they’re not looking out for you!
I don’t even want to talk about the far left Barney Frank? Disgusting! Pointing fingers? It’s you you big fat toad, YOU!Frank!You!Dodd, sittin’ there [incomprehensible impression of Dodd] It’s you Dodd, you! You knew! I swear to god, if they were in this room right now, I would hit them. Dodd and FrankThe house finance and senate finance. They knew!
Don’t point a finger at anybody, I’ll break that finger off! So you got corruption on the right, and corruption on the left. And who gets it? You get it, you, the hardworking person
The next politician that gets up their and points a finger, I’m go after them myself Shut up! Fix it! These are people’s livesI got enough money in the bank. Unless a bank fails, I’m fine. But you’re probably not fine. I’m lucky.
I’m tired of these charlatans on both sides. Lying to you, because they’re ideological kool-aid drinkers or corrupt toadsAnd I’m talkin to you Barney FrankWho’s the guy who was saying, “If you don’t lend money to poor people you’re a bigot”Who was saying that barney, WHO?![pause] I gotta take a break.”
========================================
Bill has gone way too far in the blame game in my opinion. Does he really think Bush saw this coming? Bush is an idiot. I don’t even think Cheney saw this coming. No one did, except the guys who ran the housing prices high and then got out. I’m sure they knew what they were doing. But other than that, it’s the philosophy of deregulation that is to blame rather than people. But of course Conservatives don’t want to hear that, so they’ll just blame the government and say a badly-run Republican government only proves the Conservative/Neo-Con philosophy has been right all along. This is the response he got from conservative radio host Mark Levin:
“And I’m not talking to some of you backbenchers, and you know who I mean,” said Levin. “These blowhards. You get arrogant, stupid people who get paid a lot of money to be on radio and TV to be arrogant and stupid. And one of them, one of them is on the Fox News Channel, my favorite cable channel. And he has a fledgling radio show that has no ratings, and he’ll be off radio soon because he’s a failure. It’s the non-factor: Bill O’Reilly.
“And he is no conservative,” said Levin. “He’s another mainstream, moron, phony journalist. That’s what he is. And, oh, jealous like hell of Rush Limbaugh. Did you notice that? The cigar and the airplane? Let me tell you something else, jerk. You can’t hold a candle to him.” Your ratings suck.”
“You paid more in hush money for your little phone sex than I’ve ever earned.”
A veteran T.V. journalist actually lost his job for pointing out O’Reilly’s phone sex case to those awarding O’Reilly an Emmy:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/27/barry-nolan/
============================================
Congressman Frank was asked about Freddie and Fannie on July 14, 2008:
REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.
They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Well, obviously, that statement turned out not to be true.
Joining us now from Washington is Congressman Frank. And we appreciate you coming in, being a standup guy, but shouldn’t everybody in the country be angry with you right now?
FRANK: No. You’ve misrepresented this consistently. I became chairman of the committee on January 31st, 2007. Less than two months later, I did what the Republicans hadn’t been able to do in 12 years — get through the committee a very tough regulatory bill. And it passed the House in May.
I’ve always felt two things about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they had an important role to play, but that the regulations should be improved.
Now from 1995 to 2006, when the Republicans controlled Congress and we were in the minority, we couldn’t get that done. Although in 2005, Mike Oxley, of Sarbanes-Oxley fame, a pretty tough guy on regulation, did try to put a bill through to regulate Fannie Mae. I worked with him on it. As he told The Financial Times, he thought ideological rigidity in the Bush administration stopped that.
But the basic point is that the first time I had any real authority over this was January of 2007. And within two months, we had passed the bill that regulated.
O’REILLY: OK. And that’s true, all of that is true.
FRANK: And then also, one other point: The Senate was dragging its feet, as often happens. And in January of 2008, I asked Secretary Paulson to put in the stimulus bill. So, the earliest chance I got to put tough regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we did it.
O’REILLY: All right, that’s swell. But you still went out in July and said everything was great. And off that, a lot of people bought stock and lost everything they had.
FRANK: Oh, no.
O’REILLY: And — yes, oh yes. Oh, yes.
FRANK: I said it wasn’t a good investment. Please stop yelling.
O’REILLY: Don’t give me any of that, we just heard the words. What are you…
FRANK: That’s wrong.
O’REILLY: You didn’t say that? You want me to play it again for you?
FRANK: You didn’t listen to it.
O’REILLY: No, I listened to every word you said. And I have the transcript right here.
FRANK: No, and I said it wasn’t a good investment.
O’REILLY: Yes, you said going forward, we’re going to be swell.
FRANK: No, I didn’t say swell. Excuse me, Bill.
O’REILLY: Look, from August ‘07 to August ‘08.
FRANK: Excuse me, Bill.
O’REILLY: Don’t — look, stop the B.S. here. Stop the crap! From August ‘07 to August ‘08…
FRANK: You know, here’s the problem going on your show…
O’REILLY: …under your tutelage, this industry…
FRANK: Here is the problem going on your show.
O’REILLY: …declined 90 percent. 90 percent.
FRANK: Yes, but…
O’REILLY: Oh, none of this was your fault! Oh, no. People lost millions of dollars. It wasn’t your fault. Come on, you coward! Say the truth.
FRANK: What do you mean coward?
O’REILLY: You’re a coward. You blame everybody else. You’re a coward.
FRANK: Bill, here’s the problem with going on your show. You start ranting. And the only way to respond is almost to look as boorish as you. But here’s the facts. I specifically said in the quote you just played that I didn’t think it was a good investment. I wasn’t telling anybody to buy stock. I said it wasn’t a good investment.
Secondly, I wasn’t presiding idly over this. I was trying to get the regulations adopted. We got them adopted in May.
O’REILLY: Look, bottom line is you’re there two years. Bottom line is stock drops 90 percent.
FRANK: Yes.
O’REILLY: In any private industry, you’re out.
FRANK: We couldn’t get…
O’REILLY: In any private concern, you’re out on your butt. But not here in the federal government.
You can come in and make every excuse in the world.
FRANK: I’m not making excuses.
O’REILLY: Blame everybody else in the world and then call me boorish.
FRANK: I’m not going to be bullied by your ranting. You can rant all you want, you’re not going to shut me up! The problem was that we passed in 1994, in fact.
O’REILLY: Now we’re back to 1994. This is bull. This is why Americans don’t trust the government.
FRANK: No, this is why your stupidity gets in the way of rational discussion.
The fact is it was 1994 that we passed a bill to tell the Fed to stop the subprime lending. We tried to get them to do it. The first time we were in power again in 2007, we passed the bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
So during the two years I was there…
O’REILLY: Look, Congressman, you tried to put a happy face on this in July.
FRANK: I’m not putting a happy face on anything.
O’REILLY: You tried to — and now you won’t take the.
FRANK: No.
O’REILLY: Look, at least Cox is man enough.
FRANK: I said….
O’REILLY: At least Cox is man enough to say he screwed up. You’re not.
FRANK: Hey, Bill. This manliness stuff is very unbecoming from you. I don’t see any…
O’REILLY: Cox is man enough to say he screwed up. You’re not.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: You think toughness is yelling and ranting and trying to bully. It’s not going to work with me. The fact is in the very quote you played, I said it’s not a good investment. I tried to get the regulations adopted.
O’REILLY: You said going forward, it’s going to be swell. And people under that bought stock in that, thought it was a good investment.
FRANK: I didn’t say swell. I didn’t say swell. No, I said in fact in that quote that you played and didn’t listen to because you’re busy ranting that it’s not a good investment. I said that at the time. I did think we were going to improve things going forward. Yes, we had some things that needed improvement.
O’REILLY: All right, you want to — here, let me read you your quote here. OK? OK? “I do think the prospects going forward are very solid.”
FRANK: But that’s not the part about it not being a good investment.
O’REILLY: Now, people bought stock when you said that.
FRANK: You are distorting it. Bill, you’re lying by your words.
O’REILLY: This is what you said.
FRANK: What about the part where…
O’REILLY: Not lying. And I played it and I read it.
FRANK: What about the part where I said it wasn’t a good investment?
O’REILLY: You said it’s not the best right now, but going forward this is going to be solid.
FRANK: Right…
O’REILLY: People lost millions.
FRANK: I didn’t say solid, I didn’t say swell. You distort consistently. And you think ranting and raving…
O’REILLY: All right.
FRANK: …you don’t want to talk about 1994, like no history is relevant. The fact is that you had a problem with an administration — conservative.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: I know, it’s all the conservatives, it’s all the Republicans and not you.
FRANK: Oh, come on.
O’REILLY: None on you. That’s a joke.
FRANK: You won’t have a rational discussion.
O’REILLY: That’s a joke.
FRANK: The joke is to think I could have a rational discussion with you. You’re ranting.
O’REILLY: No, the joke is both parties are at fault, as I stated. But one guy Cox says yes, I screwed up.
FRANK: That’s a totally different issue.
O’REILLY: And one guy Frank says it’s everybody else’s fault.
FRANK: No, I didn’t say it was everybody else’s fault.
O’REILLY: It’s your fault.
FRANK: You are the most — you don’t listen at all, or maybe you are listening or you’re too dumb to understand.
O’REILLY: I am too dumb, Congressman.
FRANK: The fact is that in — yes.
O’REILLY: No, you hit it, I’m too dumb. You’re the brilliant guy.
FRANK: In 2007.
O’REILLY: You’re the brilliant guy who presided over the biggest financial collapse in federal history.
FRANK: Oh, no, no, no.
O’REILLY: So you’re the — I’m the dumb guy. You’re the brilliant guy.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: Under the Bush administration…
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: And the fact is…
O’REILLY: Congressman, thanks very much. We got to run.
Let me start off by saying that a couple of months ago, Rush Limbaugh said he was “dreaming” of a race riot. He was running his “Operation Chaos” platform to get Hillary elected in hopes that it would anger the blacks, cause them to riot and kill a bunch of people, and hopefully that would cause Obama to lose the election. Republicans have always said “Trust the free market” and now the “free market” has grabbed the country by the throat and demanded $700 billion or watch the country disintegrate. What would we do if a bunch of minorities took over the country and demanded that kind of money? We’d probably send in the riot troops. But these hijackers are rich, and rich people can never be blamed for anything, so they’re trying to convince people like you that, like all problems, it was all caused by Clinton and the blacks and the Mexicans.
Conservatives have been backstabbed by their friends on Wall Street and are being forced to eat their own heart or watch civilization crumble. People like Bill O’Reilly can do it, beacause they aren’t hard-core ideologues. But everyone else on Fox News and the radio are against it because that would mean they’d have to admit that you can’t run a country on an ideology of “regulation is always bad” and “government spending is always bad.” The problem is, they don’t have any plan. They just say do nothing, “let Wall Street burn”, and that’s stupid. Conservatives have made their entire careers out of convincing us that prosperity on Wall Street equals prosperity at home (which of course is not true) and now they want you to believe there’s absolutely no connection at all, and the death of Wall Street won’t carry significant aftershocks to Main Street. This is absolutely delusional. Not only will it have devastating effects on other Americans, it’s going to have devastating effects *on the entire world*. To pretend there is no problem (like Republicans have been doing for the past 3 months!!!) and do nothing would probably be the most childish, irresponsible thing the American congress has done in 100 years. At this point, doing anything, even passing a fake bill that did very little, would be helpful in trying to regain foreign confidence in the market, which is absolutely mandatory in order to stop the world economy from going down the drain.
Rush Limbaugh, like the rest of the conservatives, is now acting like Bush and his guys are actually Democrats and its McCain (who course they all hate) who are going to come in and fix things. The idea seems to be that Bush wasn’t right-wing enough (!) and that McCain will be better than him because he’s…. more left-wing on a few minor issues? So what Rush is saying is that the Democrats were for the “Paulson Plan.” Of course, neither side wanted the “Paulson Plan” of making Paulson Supreme Emperor of Unprecedented Powers. The plan that the House Republicans killed was a different plan that called for putting up about half the money. I would rather see a plan that involved putting liquidity into the market without the government purchasing the toxic loans.
Now let’s go to the task of dismissing these lies about the CRA and ACORN:
“– The Community Reinvestment Act caused financial institutions to lend to people who weren’t credit worthy. This is crap. The CRA was signed into law in 1977 — over 20 years before the current crisis. The second problem with this theory is the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts. Most of the mortgage lending during the last boom came from — mortgage lenders who aren’t regulated by CRA.”
Here’s an article named “ACORN Issue Fueling Bailout Opposition”:
“The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party,” reads one leadership alert. “At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office.”
In the end, how much of the bailout’s potential profits are earmarked for ACORN? “None. Absolutely none. All funds would go to state and local governments,” said Steven Adamske, spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and a lead negotiator.”
One of the prinicipal causes in my opinion is that we’ve become corporate socialists. This Administration wants to “capitalize” all the profits of Big Business so that the money stays a the top and “socialize” the risks and losses, so that the middle class picks up the bill for the rich’s mistakes as well. This has caused a liquidity crisis in the middle class which has helped cause all the foreclosures:
“While the average American continues to suffer due to oligarchical policies of the Bush White House that has resulted in steady erosion of worker earnings; higher unemployment; more expensive medical care; higher gas and food prices – the reckless and fiscally irresponsible elitist continue to be bailed out. This White House exerts a free trade policy that advocates that market forces should rule. This was their rational for the absence of homeowner assistance in the housing crisis. Yet when these market forces are exercised against a favored company the White House steps in and again socializes the risk – placing it squarely on the back of the suffering taxpayer……
All of the above sounds quite dire, but most world experts believe our system is even worse! Many believe that the Tier III write-offs required is greater than $2 trillion dollars versus the $1 trillion dollar bandied by the government and Wall Street firms. If this number is valid and given that we have only written down about $350 billion, then we have a much deeper crisis than anyone envisioned. Last year the estimate to rid American companies of the toxic assets was $100 billion. By late spring this year the number had grown to $500 billion; and, now even the conservative estimates are $1 trillion dollars. However, if international experts are right then it is double that figure.
What does it mean to Americans? It means that the Bush Legacy will include a debt of well over $2,000,000 per household in this country and a wealth curve that is skewed greatly. Per the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances the top 5% owns over 59% of all U.S. wealth; the lowest 20% own zero; and, the middle own the balance of 41%. This is the most skewed wealth distribution curve we have experienced since 1929. The trend since 1929 has been a normalized curve that was shaped more along a standard bell curve, which means we maintained a strong middle-class. What has the Bush Administration economic policies really accomplished? It has managed to destroy the class of citizens that has made this country great and left us a new economic system, the American Socialized Capitalism that protects the wealthy.”
From Justin Fox, regarding House Republicans’ plan:
>…that of the House Republican Study Committee, seems to be a joke. It calls for a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax to “encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets.” But the toxic mortgage securities clogging up bank balance sheets are worth less now than when they were acquired. Meaning that no capital gains tax would be owed on them anyway. If you repealed the tax, banks would have even less incentive to sell them because they wouldn’t be able use the losses to offset capital gains elsewhere. Seriously, where do these people come up with this stuff?
And here’s a FactCheck.Org article titled: “Who Caused the Economic Crisis? MoveOn.org blames McCain advisers. He blames Obama and Democrats in Congress. Both are wrong.” Notice that it’s MoveOn.org and McCain, *not Obama* who is doing the lying here. At the bottom of the article it says:
So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of “layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role.” Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
Regarding the crisis, McCain accused Obama of “phoning it in”. Looks like this was true:
>Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a supporter of the bill, made calls to members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who publicly credited him with changing their minds.
>Rep. Elijah Cummings and Donna Edwards, both Maryland Democrats, were among them. They said Obama had pledged if he wins the White House that he would help homeowners facing foreclosure on their mortgages. He also pledged to support changes in the bankruptcy law to make it less burdensome on consumers.
>”It’s not too often you get the future president telling you that his priority matches your priority,” said Cummings.
>Obama’s rival, Sen. John McCain, who announced a brief suspension in his campaign more than a week ago to try and help solve the financial crisis, made calls to Republicans. His impact was not immediately clear.
>Republican Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, who said she was switching her vote to favor the measure, said of McCain: “They told me he was going to call me. He didn’t.”
>Looking ahead to election day, she added, “I may lose this race over this vote, but that’s OK with me. This is the right vote for the country.”