Happy Hour Roundup
* The 60 Plus Association — the right wing counterpart of AARP — is launching a seven-figure ad campaign blasting House Dems in senior-heavy districts who voted for the reform bill, Ben Pershing reports. You can watch the ad in that link.
* Joe Klein: Obama is rightly quizzing the military leadership’s assumptions on Afghanistan, but the White House erred by letting Pentagon leakers define the public debate.
* Latest public option compromise being hashed out in the Senate: A triggered coop.
* The liberal Brookings Institution responds to Rahm Emanuel’s recent claim that politics is “the art of the possible”:
Yes, politics is the art of the possible. But leadership is the art of expanding the possible. Leadership without politics is futile. But politics without leadership is blind.
* Shocker of the Day: Transplanted candidate backed by national big name conservatives lost NY-23 in part because he didn’t know anything about the district.
* A good post from Chris Bowers on public opinion with regard to Afghanistan, and why Obama should care about it.
* TPM has been chronicling the epic implosion of the Washington Times.
* Special bonus Shocker of the Day: Sarah Palin’s new book is light on policy prescriptions and heavy on bashing the same national media that unmasked her as unqualified for the presidency.
* David Axelrod may be planning to nationalize the 2010 elections, and Republicans say they’re thrilled.
* Obama’s new USAID chief faces internal skepticism.
* Interesting new poll sheds light on our economic times, finds a majority of southern Republicans supports Federal assistance to create jobs.
* Here’s today’s installment in the Michele Bachmann chronicles.
* And here’s a special bonus installment.
Got anything else?
Update: Media Matters, which was Lou Dobbs’ chief antagonist for months, issues a statement on his departure.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
“* Joe Klein: Obama is rightly quizzing the military leadership’s assumptions on Afghanistan, but the White House erred by letting Pentagon leakers define the public debate.”
O for god’s sake, Joe – they leaked –
The public debate out here where the public really is says that we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan.
We need to just bring the people home from there and Iraq. We’ve just macerated our troops – they’re beyond exhausted.
A triggered co-op, hunh?
I could bet behind that if the co-op were national and the trigger were a fig leaf. Of course, that’s not what’s being proposed, but if “branding” something effective like that gives enough senators enough cover to vote for it, then it’d be fine by me.
“then it’d be fine by me.”
I dunno – all I hear is another chorus of: “The PO is dead.”
Thanks Tena i read that about “leaked” and my head was about to explode!
Hmm… the majority of this country voted for this President. Do you think they might come out to vote to help him fight against the people who want him to fail?
Sure… David Axelrod has no idea what he is doing.
Who besides me finds it hilarious that there is a “right wing” countergroup to AARP?
That’s like starting a rightwing countergroup to the DAR.
it makes my head going {{{boinggggggg}}}
I’m the only chick around right now aren’t I? Damn. I just scored hugely and I’m dying to tell someone who’ll appreciate it.
Guess I’ll have to wait.
You can’t tell us, Tena?
Hey the Brookings Institute stole my line — except that I wrote it as leadership is the art of redefining the possible. Anyway, I claim prior art. Damn hippies.
I am a chick. I am here. I want to know Tena!!!
Oh and what Andy said about Axe.
Tena:
“Guess I’ll have to wait.”
Please do…
“the art of the possible” versus Leadership
While I’m grateful for Obama’s leadership, Obama’s inner circle are center right voices who often let the right wing dictate what is “possible”.
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, has an especially myopic right wing vision of what is “possible”.
In fact, Rahm enabled the election of many of the right wing Blue Dogs (the conservative Republican Wing of the Democratic Party) that are currently limiting what is “possible”.
Obama’s conservative centrist approach to politics doesn’t seem to be appreciated by any Republicans nor very many independents even while it’s actively alienating and depressing liberal purists.
Putting curtains on the Overton window and then claiming you’ve moved it doesn’t cut it, even if they are nice curtains (you know, the kind that aren’t just pretty but functionally provide excellent insulation in both wintertime and summertime.)
A trigger combined with a co-op… because a snafu combined with a cluster spells electoral success… and military intelligence beats the congressional version any day of the week.
@Tena:
Who besides me finds it hilarious that there is a “right wing” countergroup to AARP?
Yep. Me too.
I guess one could arguably make the case though, that the right wing has gone so far off the radar that they make differences between all other other ideological groups, relative to each other, seem pretty negligible (when compared to the difference between any other group vs. the right wing). So basically there’s the right wing, then there’s everyone else.
Great to see you again, “News Reference.” Your posts are always smart, spot-on, aggressive and insightful. Teabaggers — en garde!
Tena: Re the national hair-trigger co-op idea: Yeah, I’m being delusional.
I’m talking about something that works but satisfies some of the opponents’ rhetorical demands. Trouble is, what they’re opposed to is exactly that — anything that works. They answer to their lobbyists and PAC campaign donors, and those guys aren’t fooled by any fancy-dance language. Anything that actually impinges on entrenched interests will be opposed.
Some recent issue ads ask Blue Dogs and GOOPers, “Whose side are you on?” I take that as a rhetorical question. We know whose side they’re on.
OT and for qb, a contiuation of our never ending argument. This is from Wikipedia. Bush and cronies set everything up perfectly for Oct. 2004. He also undermined the Sarbanes Bill by weakening whistle blower protections and then cut funding to SEC enforcement division right after signing the bill.
2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), emphasizing instead lender’s ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans.
June 17 2002: President G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith based organizations.
2003: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy $81 billion in subprime securities.
December 2003: President Bush signs the American Dream Downpayment Act to be implemented under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The goal was to provide a maximum downpayment assistance grant of either $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever was greater. In addition, the Bush Administration committed to reforming the homebuying process that would lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan. It was said it would further stimulate homeownership for all Americans.
October 2004:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms – Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.
“You can’t tell us, Tena?”
Ok, I scored a brand new Roberto Cavalli dress for – that’s couture pret-a-porter, for $255, because the belt went missing. that’s an $850 dress. And now I know why I’ve read that women love Cavalli dresses so much – they make you look fabulous. I love this dress.
Happy, Greg?
sorry ifo = didn’t mean to leave you out.
Who needs a belt anyway. Sounds great, lucky.
And thank you both – I love annoying Bilgeman, who asked me to please keep it to myself.
I also got a black velvet Italian blazer for $155.
ifo: yoox.com
Hi Imsinca. I put it on and went – OMG! I can’t get over it – and you don’t need a belt at all.
as I told ifo: yoox.com
Tena–swooning in envy. Cavalli is teh hot!
“Cavalli is teh hot!”
I look really hot in teh dress.
LOL
That’s quite a hodgepodge of misfires, Imsinca. Since it is “from Wikipedia,” that probably explains a lot.
Let’s see, not to belabor the issues, but:
Presidents don’t control the Federal Reserve. I’ve read opinions of a lot people I respect who fault the Fed for its actions, but Bush ain’t the Fed.
Now you are blaming programs to subsidize minority and low-income home ownership through Fannie Mae. Like I previously said, Bush went along with or promoted lots of liberal policies that have hurt us. You now apparently agree. You might also want to check into Democrat sponsorship of the whole Fannie/Freddie/CRA racket.
HUD and American Dream Downpayment — there you go, more liberal policy boondoggles. Taking everything you said at face value, you didn’t do anything but prove my point. Liberal policies kill us economically.
And you apparently gave up trying to defend the claim that Bush caused the mess by deregulating banking and cutting taxes.
Look, I said Bush and Republicans screwed up a lot on economic policy. They did it by behaving like Democrats.
“2003: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy $81 billion in subprime securities.”
Can you not read, qb? It wasn’t the “liberal programs” that did it, it was the trading of high risk mortgages made to high risk borrowers under programs designed to help them get homes, that broke the whole thing down.
It wasn’t the loans to the borrowers. It was that the market turned them into securities and traded them out into the o-zone, and thereby increased the risk exponentially every time they were bought and sold again.
“Presidents don’t control the Federal Reserve.”
Which is part of the problem with our financial system.
Right wing ideology has allowed for the privatization of a core part of our American financial system to a handful of private banks.
It’s pure corporatism and it’s right wing ideological nonsense.
Put the Fed back under control of “We The People.”
Under Republican Bush, his corporate crony friends at the hyper-secretive and privately run Fed-corporation funneled literally TRILLIONS of dollars that “We The People”, the American citizenry” are now on the hook for.
Mind you, while Republicans are absolute Corporatists (a polite word for Fascists, the political-economic system where the Corporations rule), right wing ideological nonsense has infected some who are masquerading as Dems (<> Summers, Geithner <>).
“LOU DOBBS LEAVING CNN”
Before his contract is up in 2011. Betcha we’ll see him on FoxNews soon. Hannity and O’Reilly betta watch out, they already gotta get past Beck!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/lou-dobbs-to-depart-cnn_n_354623.html
I can read. Can you? And do you have any clue what you are talking about? No.
Here’s riddle for you. Do you know why Fannie and Freddie were buying those high risk mortgage-back instruments?
Perhaps if you can figure that out you’ll understand why this is liberal, not conservative, economic policy.
That’s possibly the most idiotic comment you’ve made yet, Old News. And that is saying a lot.
“A claim making the rounds recently is that 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. The statistic is garbage. A recent study concludes, “It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States.”
via The Corner
http://www.hsr.org/hsr/abstract.jsp?aid=4470695438
“Before his contract is up in 2011. Betcha we’ll see him on FoxNews soon. Hannity and O’Reilly betta watch out, they already gotta get past Beck!!!”
O this is going to be fun. Lou dissed John Stossel pretty thoroughly.
“If this bill is implemented,” the report concludes on page 138, “an increase in prices on new drugs can be expected.”
New Evidence of Pharma’s Sweetheart Deal
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/new-evidence-pharmas-sweetheart-deal
via tpm
“but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States.””
Well by golly let’s all stop going to see the doctor. It apparently doesn’t matter.
Veterans Day foto – via The Weekly Standard
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/11/veterans-day-part-ii-its-about-the-living.html
Among other things, doofus, the Federal Reserve system was created by Democrats under Woodrow Wilson. Right-wing ideologues, I guess.
“Well by golly let’s all stop going to see the doctor.”
Whoosh! And the point sails right by super-shopper, tena.
BTW, I recently snagged three pairs of Vans knock-offs for $20!
all, check this out:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/anita-dunn-will-remain-white-house-consultant-until-end-of-year-no-obama-interview-set-on-fox/
RE: Right wing fraud “quarterback’s” lies.
Republican President Bush pretended to promote liberal policies that were actually designed to help corporate interests at the expense of the least amongst US.
Those fraudulent right wing policies created a shell game that allowed corporations to offer loan-shark type loans that were win-win for the corporations and lose-lose for 90% of Americans.
When the right wing fantasy economics system inevitably collapsed, corporations had already made vast fortunes from the burst bubble, but then those same right-wing-corporate-fraudsters had the obscene gall to hold a financial gun to America’s head and demand a MASSIVE bailout or else they’d put the entire country into another right-wing-created-Great-Depression.
As it is, the US government managed to intervene and minimize the collapse of the right-wing’s economic house of cards so that it was only a Right Wing Created Great Recession.
Right wing frauds’ con-games are worse than magical investments in bridges to nowhere.
Worse, when the right wing fraud inevitably collapses, right wingers blame the victim and never the fraudulent right wing ideology at the heart of the con.
Do you think that in his/her spare time that News Reference writes those chain mail letters? “Don’t send any money now but ACT SOON!!! This offer won’t last forever!!”
Have to hand it to you, Oldnews, you up the bar of idiocy with each post.
You might as well explain our economic situation as result of unicorns, goblins, Roswell, baseball stats, and interplanetary alignments. That would make just as much sense as what you just said.
By the way, Woodrow Wilson and his Dem party — right-wing ideologue corporatists? LOL You are amusing.
Well, ‘baggers, as I predicted, once again, News Reference has eaten your lunch and made you look like the ridiculous, clueless, dissembling trolls you are!
HA! Chumps.
sbj, that’s kinder than what I said, and probably a better explanation of NR’s special madness.
Benton,
I wouldn’t have thought anyone could one-up NR’s clownishness, but you just did. Cheerleader for a clown. Hope you are proud.
NR – You’re doing great. It’s always fun to see the stoopid trolls here turn into blabbering idjits.
Tena:
“And thank you both – I love annoying Bilgeman, who asked me to please keep it to myself”
Ah, well, hate to break it to you, but you fell right into that one.
You spent over $400 on two artcles of clothing, and yet you want the government to force taxpayers to pay your abortion bills, huh?
Tell us again about your house in Dallas and your house in New Mexico, plus your land in Colorado.
Poor, poor girl! You’re practically a homeless ragamuffin, aren’t you?
Does the term “MasterCard Marxist” ring any bells with you?
Once again, thanks for stepping in it.
If it were up to right wingers America would go to war against Socialist Europe, you know, those united countries with their awesome (and expensive) German cars, expensive French wines, expensive Italian clothes, and ultra-wealthy British entertainers.
How is it that right wingers don’t understand that “socialism” and MAKING vast fortunes and SPENDING a lot of money are not contradictory.
Is it home schooling?
Have we failed as a nation to invest in public education (socialism)?
The funniest scene in Michael Moore’s documentary film Sicko was when he asked the government paid BRITISH Doctor what kind of junker car he has and what kind of hovel he lived in.
The government paid British Doctor had an awesome luxury car and a lived in a $1/2 MILLION luxury townhouse.
And let’s be clear, the British health care system is (gasp!) practically Communism: The British government OWNS the hospitals and PAYS the Doctors.
And the vast majority of Brits LOVE their practically Communistic health care.
And British Doctors get paid very handsomely under the system.
And here’s the real kick in the pants: Brits LIVE LONGER than Americans AND Brits have a lower infant mortality than America AND Brits do it for considerably less cost the we do.
And to repeat: British Doctors get paid enough to buy luxury cars and live in luxury townhouses.
Let’s not even get started on the fact that many Socialist countries in Europe actually MAKE MORE PER CAPITA THAN AMERICANS.
Or do home-schooled right wingers not understand what “per capita” means?
Gee, if only there were some socialized educational system that could bring them up to speed… clearly Germany’s socialized educational system hasn’t hurt German’s very high standard of living.
omg is everyone watching larry king live right now.
hahahhaa
qb
“In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[11]
The intent was that Fannie Mae’s enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency’s responsible underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: “We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.
“Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this “layered-risk” lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, “One of the things we don’t feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors.”
Imsinca,
I don’t know what you think you are trying to prove at this point unless it is again what I said — that liberal and not conservative policies caused our problems. You said Bush caused the mess by deregulating banking and cutting taxes. Now you are continuing to compile commentary indicating that it was Fannie and government policies forcing and encouraging high-risk loans to subprime borrowers. Welcome to our side. I’m glad you agree that the 30-year CRA debacle was terrible policy.
I’d also like to point out you are not only quoting Wiki, not exactly a reliable source, and even so doing it in a curiously selective way, leaving out much like this:
“On September 11, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush’s plan: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the 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.”"
You also left out the whole history of Fannie and CRA, including Clinton’s ratcheting up the pressure to fund subprime lending.
All Bush’s fault indeed.
“The liberal Brookings Institution”
Hello? Really? On what planet? Perhaps at one time but look at the clowns there now, defender of Dubya and three more wars O’Hanlon, etc.
qb
You have the most selective reading I’ve ever seen. I have proven to you that the Bush financial policies were responsible for the worst recession since the Great Depression. They took perfectly legitimate entities, and yes some of them were liberally formed, and turned them into unrecognizable forces in the economy. I’m sorry you cannot see anything through the fog of liberal hate and your hate for Obama.
1. Obama did not defend Acorn in as you said “Sorry you don’t like it, but Obama chose not only to work with Acorn but to represent it in litigation forcing banks to make bad loans as a matter of affirmative action in lending.” Uh no, it was a Motor Voter Registration case. I’m not sure what sources you use for information, but you might want to check their facts.
2. “You missed this from the CBS piece, “The Federal Reserve and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are responding by essentially rewriting their charters, taking on significant amounts of risk to avert further meltdowns on Wall Street and Main Street.” Let’s see that would be the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight” under who, Oh yeah GWB. And all the while Paulson was ignoring the warning signs.
3. The red flags in the WSJ piece were passed on by you as nothing more than a bad case that disappears. Unfortunately, I guess you don’t remember those as well as I do, there was quite a bit of speculation that the SEC had a hand in making them disappear.
4. Remember the SEC that Bush took all those pesky oversight powers and money away from and then lowered the whistle blower protections.
5. While the Federal Reserve is busy looking the other way, the whole sub-prime mess, yes it’s roots were laid by the Clinton Administration, is bubbling up in the Housing market. Bush and company lower loan standards, below the line that Fannie and Freddie recommend and try to hold.
6. Presto, 2004 SEC suspends Net Capital rule and leverage goes through the roof.
7. And it wasn’t the CRA that lowered lending standards, Bush set up of his own “faith based” housing program so everyone and their brother could “own” a home and then lowered the requirements.
8. I was going to cover ratings next but I’m declining since it’s obvious you see the world through the eyes of a corporatist. Oh, and you never answered my question, do you believe President Obama is a “radical Islamist”?
I don’t expect or indeed really want a response.
Imsinca,
Well, as to Obama, you’re simply wrong again. Obama not only trained Acorn (and non-Acorn) “organizers” to pressure Chicago banks but represented Acorn in a lawsuit to force banks to extend loans to high risk minorities and urban areas. See here for example.
http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112
But I had forgotten about his motor voter lawsuit — part of one of the greatest and most brazen vote fraud scams ever perpetrated.
You should know a lot about selective reading and memory, because it is all you do, but you apparently have absolutely no self-awareness about it. You didn’t even acknowledge the Wiki passage I quoted for you from your own source admitting that Dems opposed the FM regulatory reforms Bush proposed and openly mocked and scorned him for proposing them.
Why do you keep asking these ridiculous questions that are based on nothing more than your own fevered imagination? For the record and yet again, I believe Obama is probably agnostic. He certainly is secular, but he clearly says a lot of disturbing things (and woefully naive things) about Islam and its advocates. You’ve never seen me say a thing about his being a radical Islamist, but it seems to be important to you to hector people with your pointless questions like this.
Oh, and by the way I wouldn’t ‘want a response’ either if I said things so in error and subject to refutation.
“quite a bit of speculation that the SEC had a hand in making them disappear”
Now that’s compelling evidence of Bush economic policy malfeasance. Eliot Spitzer now a Bush pawn.
It wasn’t Chicago “banks” it was Citigroup, and I didn’t see Acorn in there anywhere, thought that was what we were discussing. You have a revisionist historical perspective and now I think we can put this matter to bed.
“And it wasn’t the CRA that lowered lending standards, Bush set up of his own “faith based” housing program so everyone and their brother could “own” a home and then lowered the requirements.”
This is a preposterous statement on several grounds. CRA and particularly the increased arm-twisting under Clinton created the entire high-risk subprime market and culture. They repeatedly forced banks and Fannie to increase low-income and minority lending, which forced them to make loans under lower standard. And to the extent you are criticizing Bush it is for following along and adding to that same LIBERAL project of distoring lending and home ownership through government intervention.
Yet again, exactly what I said.
“It wasn’t Chicago “banks” it was Citigroup, and I didn’t see Acorn in there anywhere, thought that was what we were discussing. You have a revisionist historical perspective and now I think we can put this matter to bed.”
It was an Acorn lawsuit to force lending in Chicago. Research and you will see. Groups like Acorn don’t normally have legal standing to sue; they have to sponsor a person.
Your own revisionist perspective is so severe that you aren’t even able to keep your story straight for 24 hours.
Do you think our President is a radical Islamist or not?