John McCain Suspends Campaign

[Michelle T]

Honestly, I think the main purpose is to prevent the Biden/Palin debate.

 

 

Sheesh, if Katie Couric could make Palin look bad, who knows what an actual debate will bring.

Michelle T

[kokotg]

Obama's flying to Washington to meet with Bush tomorrow, though. He said today that he and McCain both have big planes that can get them from Washington to Mississippi very quickly if need be.

[runninmommy]

Sheesh, if Katie Couric could make Palin look bad, who knows what an actual debate will bring.

Michelle T

 

What did Couric do to make Palin look bad? I have been packing and must have missed that one:confused:

[kokotg]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

 

COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

 

PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie--that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

 

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

 

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.

 

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

 

PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

 

[Jenny in Atl]

I had to answer this because the point is being misconstrued.

 

Michael Bloomberg nailed it yesterday when he said in an interview, "I do agree that fundamentally America has an economy that is strong. America's great strength is its diversity, its hard work, its good financial statements, its broad capital markets, its enormous natural resources.... I'd rather play America's hand than any other country. Without problems? No."

 

 

 

"Barack Obama largest recipient of political funds from mortgage giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae"

 

Did you watch the same interview I did? Again a tiny blurb out of a pretty grim interview with Bloomberg. He did not paint a rosy picture. McCain went from things are ok to now we are days away from a depression. If it was so bad, why not suspend last Friday. He is a mess, Palin's church videos keep surfacing, and yet another less than great interview (only her second "real" one). No open questions from reporters.. are they afraid she will shrivel up and cry? This whole election is bizarre.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

What did Couric do to make Palin look bad? I have been packing and must have missed that one:confused:

 

Didn't "do" anything, just asked a question she couldn't answer about when specifically Sen. McCain called for tighter regulation/oversight (as opposed to less) in the past 26 years.

[Peek a Boo]

You sourced a place called "open secrets" and a blog?

 

what does the name have to do with it? :001_huh:

 

If you take issue w/ what they are reporting, address it w/ facts, not irrelevant info like what the NAME is :tongue_smilie:

 

and I've noticed there's a lot of facts that can be spun all kinds of different ways in this discussion, so that should be pretty easy ;)

 

 

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals. 2008 cycle totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008.

 

so i guess you would need to research what the FEC released and check with that.

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

 

 

I probably wouldn't trust even FOX unless they linked to official source material. there's a lot of info pro and con in the comments section of opensecrets too.

 

personally, I think the amount is pretty small considering the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS being spent, so I don't really have an interest in where the discussion lands wrt numbers, but i DO have big curiosity piqued when the rebuttal about a site is its name......

[Parabola]

what does the name have to do with it? :001_huh:

 

If you take issue w/ what they are reporting, address it w/ facts, not irrelevant info like what the NAME is :tongue_smilie:

 

and I've noticed there's a lot of facts that can be spun all kinds of different ways in this discussion, so that should be pretty easy ;)

 

 

 

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals. 2008 cycle totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008.

 

so i guess you would need to research what the FEC released and check with that.

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

 

 

I probably wouldn't trust even FOX unless they linked to official source material. there's a lot of info pro and con in the comments section of opensecrets too.

 

personally, I think the amount is pretty small considering the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS being spent, so I don't really have an interest in where the discussion lands wrt numbers, but i DO have big curiosity piqued when the rebuttal about a site is its name......

 

I think the point was that blogs are not really credible sources of information...unless of course they provide links to credible sources. Blogs themselves are not.

 

As for the name "Open Secrets", no credible news source is going to call itself that. It would be laughed out of the press conference. :)

[Heather in the Kootenays]

This is the point in the discussion where everyone digs in their heels and starts flaming the opposing candidate just for sport. Good luck.

 

Why don't we just skip that part this time? :glare:

[Parabola]

Why don't we just skip that part this time? :glare:

I think we're all doing pretty good so far!

[Peek a Boo]

I think the point was that blogs are not really credible sources of information...unless of course they provide links to credible sources. Blogs themselves are not.

 

As for the name "Open Secrets", no credible news source is going to call itself that. It would be laughed out of the press conference. :)

 

while i might AGREE with that, it's not enough of a rebuttal to really address anything. ;)

 

linking a blog itself isn't really an issue --like you said, it's whether it has enough links to credible sites. Or nice screenshots of blogs that disappear... :lol: I didn't see a nice set of links on that blog, but it did offer info that one could use to refine a google search for credible sites.

 

But if you want to address the alleged facts on the blog or other site, then it would be more intellectually honest and fruitful for discussion to address those facts, not the name, no?

[Parabola]

while i might AGREE with that, it's not enough of a rebuttal to really address anything. ;)

 

linking a blog itself isn't really an issue --like you said, it's whether it has enough links to credible sites. Or nice screenshots of blogs that disappear... :lol: I didn't see a nice set of links on that blog, but it did offer info that one could use to refine a google search for credible sites.

 

But if you want to address the alleged facts on the blog or other site, then it would be more intellectually honest and fruitful for discussion to address those facts, not the name, no?

 

ok

[Aggie]

Honest question....I'm really trying to learn what's going on here. I had heard this earlier this week and it appears true.

 

Why would so many people from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae donate to Obama and Clinton? There are a few donations to some Republicans, but not many.

 

I don't understand why it would be so one-sided. I'm guessing if we looked at donations from any other private business, donations would be pretty close to equal, right? I'll test this theory late into the night :)

 

Truly, I'm not being snarky or mean. This just caught my attention tonight.

 

Anyone?

 

Aggie

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Honest question....I'm really trying to learn what's going on here. I had heard this earlier this week and it appears true.

 

Why would so many people from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae donate to Obama and Clinton? There are a few donations to some Republicans, but not many.

 

I don't understand why it would be so one-sided. I'm guessing if we looked at donations from any other private business, donations would be pretty close to equal, right? I'll test this theory late into the night :)

 

Truly, I'm not being snarky or mean. This just caught my attention tonight.

 

Anyone?

 

Citation, please? By this I mean, where is this information about donations coming from? Were they undisclosed like Davis', or ?? (I'm also not sure which post you're replying to when you say you "had heard this earlier", so if you can help me out there, I'd appreciate it. I want to be clear what "this" is.)

[Aggie]

I went to the FEC site that Peek linked. FEC.gov

 

Incredible information :)

 

However, I can't find my dh and I anywhere. hmmmmm

[Aggie]

AIG seems pretty one-sided on donations, too.

 

ETA: However, Mr John Knapp, Jr did kick in a whopping $11 for John McCain. :)

[Peek a Boo]

I went to the FEC site that Peek linked. FEC.gov

 

Incredible information :)

 

However, I can't find my dh and I anywhere. hmmmmm

 

did you donate at least $200? they limit their available donor list to only that or higher.....

 

====

oops- sorry-- i was reading open secrets, not fec....duh.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I went to the FEC site that Peek linked. FEC.gov

 

Incredible information :)

 

However, I can't find my dh and I anywhere. hmmmmm

 

I guess I'm a little slow. I got bogged down in Open Secrets dot org. I don't have a problem with it, as it states that it has for 25 years tracked money in election and public policy and further it claims to be independent and non-partisan. Funded by Ford Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, Carnegie Corp, Sunlight Foundation and individuals (like you, as PBS would say :D).

 

Here scroll down to the very bottom and read THIS -- and please note that this is true for BOTH candidates. If someone donates, they are asked " where do you work" if you donate over $200. You can read why here.

 

So the organizations do not donate, individuals do, or their PAC's do. Sen. Obama has ~$1.3M in PAC contributions (total), Sen. McCain has $2M in PAC contributions (total). Now if you want to see in what way financial contributions have resulted in pet projects being funded or earmarks being pushed through (if, indeed, it is being done due to undue financial influence), you can go here. Ironically (or not, I guess, depending on whom you ask), it was the work of Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain and two others in a bipartisan effort that made this spending accountability and transparency possible via this website.

 

I found this page rather interesting for both candidates -- where your treasure is, there will your heart etc. Disclosure rates, income, investments, etc.

 

Sen. Obama

 

Sen. McCain

 

I'm sorry I couldn't navigate Peek's linked site. It's a bit over my head and/or level of patience. (Color me in need of a more user-friendly interface.)

[Peek a Boo]

I guess I'm a little slow. I got bogged down in Open Secrets dot org. I don't have a problem with it, as it states that it has for 25 years tracked money in election and public policy and further it claims to be independent and non-partisan. Funded by Ford Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, Carnegie Corp, Sunlight Foundation and individuals (like you, as PBS would say :D).

 

--------

.....Ironically (or not, I guess, depending on whom you ask), it was the work of Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain and two others in a bipartisan effort that made this spending accountability and transparency possible via this website.

 

I found this page rather interesting for both candidates -- where your treasure is, there will your heart etc. Disclosure rates, income, investments, etc.

 

--

I'm sorry I couldn't navigate Peek's linked site. It's a bit over my head and/or level of patience. (Color me in need of a more user-friendly interface.)

 

 

Thanks Pam --that was a nice breakdown.

 

I just linked to the FEC as a "credible source" --I can't navigate it anymore than you apparently could, lol. I'm glad I'm not the only one....

 

i do think spending transparency for gvt employees is a good thing :D

[5kidsforME]

Why don't we just skip that part this time? :glare:

 

To late. :001_huh:

[Parabola]

Well I'll tell you what Pam, opensecrets is not at all what I was expecting. I was under the impression it was more of a news wannabe type site. I mean, someone did lump it in with a blog to denigrate, so I just thought it was equally useless.

 

Now I know. :001_smile:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Well I'll tell you what Pam, opensecrets is not at all what I was expecting. I was under the impression it was more of a news wannabe type site. I mean, someone did lump it in with a blog to denigrate, so I just thought it was equally useless.

 

Now I know. :001_smile:

 

 

Yep. I had the same initial impression. When I saw dot org, though, it piqued my interest enough to go to "about us" and such. I also thought at first that it was more of a site that you had to read while wearing a colander with Parrothead.

[tibbyl]

I"m glad she's protected from witchcraft. And just in time for Halloween, too.

 

astrid

 

Dismaying that a VP candidate apparently supports or cooperates with a cleric who holds primitive superstitious belief of a particularly virulent nature. This whole mess reads like a transplanted Carl Hiassen novel.

[asta]

Re: PAC money and Individual contributions

 

People, and organizations, hedge their political bets.

 

Our current President has a low approval rating, and it has been widely assumed that this Presidential election is the Republican party's to lose (is that grammatically correct?).

 

However, traditionally, historically, the American people have split the ticket: if the Presidency is from one party, the congress is from another. It is just an "unconscious" check and balance on the part of the American public; no one party ever really gets "total" power (even when there have been matching parties, the majority has been slim).

 

Hence - money to both parties, and more money to the party/candidate that is expected to win, based on historical trends. It isn't really even about the actual person - it's about "we've had this party for 8 years and now everyone is sick of it, so we're betting the other party will gain control". It's high stakes gambling, not a personality thing.

 

Frightening, huh?

 

 

asta

[Slartibartfast]

I think the point was that blogs are not really credible sources of information...unless of course they provide links to credible sources. Blogs themselves are not.

 

 

Blogs are not credible sources, they are "editorial" and less subject to scrutiny of facts.

 

:)

 

opensecrets uses FEC data. The problem with this is that campaign financing is controlled by people using legal loopholes. Not all of it will show up on FEC data.

 

The data on FEC sites will only be "reported" information.

 

Things like 527s (the swiftboat guys for instance, look what they did for the Bush campaign) won't show up on that data nor will 501© 4s (like the NRA or Moveon.org) those usually do their own advertising in order to get around the rules.

 

My point? FEC data might be useful but it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

It has been reported that McCain's campaign manager's FIRM was receiving $15,000 a MONTH from Freddie Mac. What was that for? This was was linked earlier in this thread but wasn't addressed.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561?from=rss

 

Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated.

That isn't on the FEC data.

 

Apparently it is ONLY important when they donate to Obama. No one seems to find it strange when people *hide* money being funneled towards the McCain campaign?

 

But...if Obama has NO experience as a Senator how are people trying to blame Obama anyways?

 

Obama can't have NO experience AND all the blame.

[asta]

It has been reported that McCain's campaign manager's FIRM was receiving $15,000 a MONTH from Freddie Mac. What was that for? This was was linked earlier in this thread but wasn't addressed.

 

 

In the spirit of balanced reporting - Mr. Davis is (was?) McCain's campaign manager:

 

After the Homeownership Alliance was dissolved, Mr. Davis asked to stay on a retainer, the people familiar with the deal said. Hollis McLoughlin, who was chief of staff to Richard F. Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive, arranged for a new contract with Davis Manafort at the reduced rate of $15,000 a month, they said.

 

[...]

 

Mr. Davis’s firm was hired as a consultant, not a lobbyist. Davis Manafort in recent years has filed federal lobbying reports for a number of companies, but not Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

 

[...]

 

The only thing that Freddie Mac officials could recall Mr. Davis’s doing for the company was speaking at the October 2006 pre-election forum, attended by midlevel and senior executives who contributed to Freddie PAC, the company’s political action committee.

 

[...]

 

Mr. McCain and his advisers have argued that whatever connections Mr. Davis and other campaign officials have had to the mortgage giants, the senator has been an advocate of reforming them.

 

And they have suggested that Mr. Obama is linked to the companies through donations from their employees and ties to former officials there. Those officials include James A. Johnson, another former chief executive of Fannie Mae, who headed Mr. Obama’s vice-presidential search team until stepping aside after coming under criticism for having received a mortgage on preferential terms from the Countrywide Financial Corporation.

 

Since his campaign for the Senate, in 2004, Mr. Obama has received about $126,000 in contributions from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Mr. McCain has received about $22,000 over the last decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

 

NYT

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

In the spirit of balanced reporting - Mr. Davis is (was?) McCain's campaign manager:

 

NYT

 

And then there's Newsweek. Not sure if it's fair. *shrug*

[Soph the vet]

I hesitate to even jump back in here given the response I got to previous links for "evidence", but thank you to those of you who had more time to research and hash that out. Someone had asked for "proof" for what had been in the news for weeks and I simply wanted to provide some links. I knew those who really wanted to know could dig as deep as they wanted beyond that.;)

 

Call me oversimplistic, but Rick Davis is John McCain's campaign guy. He is not John McCain. Even though, yes, McCain also received contributions totalling $22,000 over a decade according to the NYT article. Rick Davis is not the one running for office. Obama has received $126,000 in much less time. Seems like a no brainer as to who has profited more from Freddie and Fannie.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Why go there? I almost never see folks post those type of "jokes" about Obama or Biden on here..believe me there's enough fodder for all candidates...but to me that's not necessary and not funny. When your joke is at the expense of another person...not so funny...if you're claiming your a satirist and creating something that pokes fun at all..then go for it...but to single out one party and go on to give your praises for another...that's pretty low.

 

Tara

 

ROFLMAO:lol:

 

Thanks for the laugh this morning! I seriously about spit coffee.:lol:

 

Were you for real or is this a joke too? I am guessing it is a joke too, right- since it defies reality to think anyone would get so worked up over a joke that isn't even about them? :lol:

[nmoira]

In case anyone's keeping track, only now (now as in this morning, the day after) is McCain headed to Washington -- now that a draft plan is circulating and involved members of Congress are calling a deal imminent.

 

McCain maintains (from a speech this morning at the Clinton Global Initiative): "I cannot carry on a campaign as though this dangerous situation had not occurred, or as though a solution were at hand, which it clearly is not. As of this morning I suspended my political campaign... It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal to meet the crisis. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time. So I am returning to Washington to seek five fundamental improvements to this critical legislation."

[Jean too]

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

[Katrina]

Where was Nobama when this http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m happened? I guess he thought Fannie and Freddie were fundamentally sound then just like the rest of the Dems that refused to address the issue.

 

I think if we can agree on one thing, it's that BOTH parties got us in this situation.

[nmoira]

And then there's Newsweek. Not sure if it's fair. *shrug*

Fair enough that I don't think anyone can argue that McCain's campaign has repeatedly claimed he ended his relationship with the firm in 2006 and that this is clearly not the case.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

In case anyone's keeping track, only now (now as in this morning, the day after) is McCain headed to Washington -- now that a draft plan is circulating and involved members of Congress are calling a deal imminent.

 

He was supposed to go on Letterman last night, but canceled saying he "had to get back to Washington". When he called Letterman to tell him this, he was in NY close by taping an interview with Katie Couric. He's such a straight talker, let me tell ya. :rolleyes:

 

Even my 7 year old last night brought up the fact that Mississippi is a short flight from Washington, especially when you have a charter plane. The debate is scheduled for 9PM but for some reason he can not leave Washington in time to be there? Even when he can stay in touch with his people in Washington by computer (assuming he knew how) on the way there and back? He's totally out of touch with the world we live in today IMHO.

[Jean too]

The GOP tried to put a stop to this mess more than once and were blocked by the Dems each time.

 

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

 

Excerpts:

 

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

 

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

 

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

 

As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.

 

"If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

 

Sounds like McCain was spot on.

 

But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress.

 

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

 

 

 

 

 

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

 

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

 

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

 

Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

 

They got the bonuses. You get the bill

[Heather in Neverland]

McCain maintains (from a speech this morning at the Clinton Global Initiative): "I cannot carry on a campaign as though this dangerous situation had not occurred, or as though a solution were at hand, which it clearly is not. As of this morning I suspended my political campaign... It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal to meet the crisis. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time. So I am returning to Washington to seek five fundamental improvements to this critical legislation."

 

But these exact same words were in a Yahoo news article yesterday afternoon. So he actually left for Washington this morning. Could it be that there were things to wrap up before flying to Washington? I am not familiar with the "meeting schedule" for this bailout issue. Are they meeting round the clock? Did he need to be there late last night? I realize he canceled a Letterman appearance, but really, is Letterman THAT important? Perhaps, even though he left this morning, he just had too many other plates spinning (like a multi-billion dollar bailout) to be bothered with an appearance on a comedian's show?

 

Also, is it possible to have the debate somewhere IN Washington so both Obama and McCain can do their CURRENT job while campaigning for a FUTURE job? That way they both win? I truly do not believe that McCain is trying to "avoid" a debate with Obama. He is not one to shrink from a fight. It is POSSIBLE that he does think this is the right thing to do.

 

And if I hear "it was Obama's idea first" one more time I am going to puke. So what if it was his idea first. The bottom line is one of them talked about doing it and the other actually did it. I'll take a man of action any day of the week.

[RebeccaC]

The GOP tried to put a stop to this mess more than once and were blocked by the Dems each time.

 

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

 

Excerpts:

 

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

 

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

 

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

 

As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.

 

"If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

 

Sounds like McCain was spot on.

 

But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress.

 

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

 

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

 

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

 

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

 

Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

 

They got the bonuses. You get the bill

 

 

McCain's bill and warnings was one of the many reasons dh had decided to vote for McCain before this crisis. Dh thought he was spot on then with his bill/warnings and this mess sure shows that McCain foresaw what would happen and tried to do something about. McCain going back to work in DC today just cemented for dh and I that we are voting for the right guy.

 

Thanks for posting this.

[nmoira]

But these exact same words were in a Yahoo news article yesterday afternoon. So he actually left for Washington this morning. Could it be that there were things to wrap up before flying to Washington?

He reiterated his statement in a speech given this morning at the Clinton Global Initiative. Yes, he had some "loose ends." He had an interview with Katie Couric last night (scheduled yesterday) and the speech this morning. Apparently those things are more important than a either presidential debate or getting right to Washington.

 

I am not familiar with the "meeting schedule" for this bailout issue. Are they meeting round the clock? Did he need to be there late last night? I realize he canceled a Letterman appearance, but really, is Letterman THAT important? Perhaps, even though he left this morning, he just had too many other plates spinning (like a multi-billion dollar bailout) to be bothered with an appearance on a comedian's show?

It wasn't that he cancelled Letterman, it's that he was not truthful about why he did it. It's part of a larger pattern in his campaign.

 

A draft plan for the bailout has been circulating since yesterday. He didn't need to be there last night, and doesn't need to be there today or tomorrow. Instead of criticizing the original plan (which was DOA), he'd do better to address the draft. This he can do from anywhere in the country.

 

Also, is it possible to have the debate somewhere IN Washington so both Obama and McCain can do their CURRENT job while campaigning for a FUTURE job? That way they both win? I truly do not believe that McCain is trying to "avoid" a debate with Obama. He is not one to shrink from a fight. It is POSSIBLE that he does think this is the right thing to do.

Never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Letterman. If McCain has to leave on urgent business, Palin should step up to the plate. Why is it that there's talk from the GOP of postponing (indefinitely) the Palin-Biden debate?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Why is it that there's talk from the GOP of postponing (indefinitely) the Palin-Biden debate?

 

My dh speculated last night that this was the real reason behind McCain's move- postpone Friday's debate and then oops- we just aren't going to be able to squeeze in the VP debate.

 

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

[kokotg]

 

And if I hear "it was Obama's idea first" one more time I am going to puke. So what if it was his idea first. The bottom line is one of them talked about doing it and the other actually did it. I'll take a man of action any day of the week.

 

It was not Obama's idea first to unilaterally announce a suspension of the campaign. It was Obama's idea first to TRULY put aside politics and issue a joint statement about the economy and reach an agreement TOGETHER about what to do about the debate. McCain's "action" was to avoid Obama's phone call all day, then say "sure, that's a great idea" and go on TV immediately to act as if it was his idea all along. It's dirty pool, it's dishonest, and that's not the kind of action I'M looking for in a president. If the point was really that the crisis is more important than politics, then why not issue the joint statement as Obama proposed? Sounds like politics to me.

 

I think the fact that he wants us to believe an interview with Katie Couric is more important than going to Washington but the debate isn't is a fatal blow to McCain's pretense of integrity here.

[Jennifer3141]

My dh speculated last night that this was the real reason behind McCain's move- postpone Friday's debate and then oops- we just aren't going to be able to squeeze in the VP debate.

 

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

That was my thought too!

 

Jen

[Aggie]

That was my thought too!

 

Jen

 

Here's my thought on this fueled by rumors that Obama's 'squelch the rumor' site is not squelching (last I saw).....

 

Perhaps McCain's camp is attempting to delay the VP debate so that IF Obama decides to go with Clinton, it will have to be even closer to the election.

 

I don't know and I shouldn't even guess. But a tiny itty bitty part of me is a conspiracy theorist. :)

 

Which one of us dedicated hard-working moms can presume to know the mind of a politician?:confused:

 

Aggie

[nmoira]

 

Perhaps McCain's camp is attempting to delay the VP debate so that IF Obama decides to go with Clinton, it will have to be even closer to the election.

Obama was never going to go with Clinton (really, he couldn't after their acrimonious primary campaigns), and I don't see why he'd consider her now, since nobody is questioning the competence or experience of his running mate. Palin's interview with Couric goes a long way to suggesting why they want the VP debate postponed (and perhaps never rescheduled).

[kokotg]

Well, according to CNN, congress says they have a bailout deal to send to Bush. So I guess there'll be no need to postpone the debate now, since they managed it without McCain or Obama's help. We'll see.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

and I don't see why he'd consider her now, since nobody is questioning the competence or experience of his running mate.

 

After hearing Biden's speech on foreign policy yesterday, I can't think of one good reason why he would not want him as his running mate. But maybe I can go find some and bring them to ya;):tongue_smilie::lol:

[Michelle T]

In case anyone's keeping track, only now (now as in this morning, the day after) is McCain headed to Washington -- now that a draft plan is circulating and involved members of Congress are calling a deal imminent.

 

McCain maintains (from a speech this morning at the Clinton Global Initiative): "I cannot carry on a campaign as though this dangerous situation had not occurred, or as though a solution were at hand, which it clearly is not. As of this morning I suspended my political campaign... It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal to meet the crisis. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time. So I am returning to Washington to seek five fundamental improvements to this critical legislation."

 

 

He isn't even on the committees working on the bailout plan, so what on earth is he going to contribute? But you watch, he'll get plenty of photo ops, and he'll take the credit for saving us all.

 

Michelle T

[nmoira]

Well, according to CNN, congress says they have a bailout deal to send to Bush. So I guess there'll be no need to postpone the debate now, since they managed it without McCain or Obama's help. We'll see.

Obama's people are saying he's prepared to go on either in a (lone) debate, an interview with Jim Lehrer, or a combination of the two.

[KingM]

Whatever your views on the election, this whole thing seems like a very grim development for the conservative movement. On the financial side, we're getting ready to nationalize half the financial system. And for social conservatives, I've got to think issues such as pro-life policies and concerns over gay marriage are going to take a back seat to job losses, foreclosures, and people worrying about how they're going to put food on the table.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I've got to think issues such as pro-life policies and concerns over gay marriage are going to take a back seat to job losses, foreclosures, and people worrying about how they're going to put food on the table.

 

As they should IMHO- government has no business in these issues other than to preserve people's rights to decide for themselves. The only "concern" people need to have over gay marriage is whether or not they themselves wish to enter into one.

[nmoira]

He isn't even on the committees working on the bailout plan, so what on earth is he going to contribute? But you watch, he'll get plenty of photo ops, and he'll take the credit for saving us all.

 

Michelle T

As of Tuesday this week,

the four page Paulson plan.