E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNew pro-Palin documentary attacks GOP establishment and sees parallels between Reagan in 1976 and Palin now… The movie will have a limited regional release on July 15… 24,000 Palin emails get dumped today… Making sense of Team Newt’s mass exodus… How it’s different from McCain’s in ’07… How it potentially benefits Rick Perry, if he runs… And after the news, Romney announces he won’t compete in Ames straw poll… But Romney sang a different tune about it in ’07… Dems, including Bill Clinton, are furious at Weiner… Rubio’s maiden speech on Tuesday… And Santorum to appear on “Meet the Press” this Sunday.
*** Palin vs. the GOP establishment: Much of the upcoming documentary on Sarah Palin, “The Undefeated,” which First Read screened yesterday, is unsurprising. It portrays her reforms in Alaska as heroic, it paints her as a victim of Hollywood liberals and the media (though not as many shots at the media as we expected), and it elevates her as the leader of the Tea Party movement. In short, Palin supporters will love it; Democrats won’t. But the most striking part of the film is its attack on the Republican establishment. “To hell to the establishment,” says conservative activist Andrew Breitbart near the end of the movie. Then come pictures of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor. Breitbart’s beef with the GOP establishment: It didn’t defend Palin from the attacks she received after the ’08 campaign. “I see eunuchs,” he added in the "CODA" of the nearly two-hour movie. (Yes, he said eunuchs, we'll refrain from the obvious Weiner reference, but we digress…)
*** Tonight I’m going to party like it’s 1976: In fact, the film compares the GOP establishment’s attitude toward Palin to how it received Ronald Reagan’s primary challenge against Gerald Ford in 1976. Conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon, who made “The Undefeated,” said in an interview with reporters after the screening that he believes the Republican Party and conservative movement need another 1976. And: “It’s very important for [Palin’s] voice to be in it.” Indeed, Bannon said that the Palin documentary is “the story of a woman who always goes up against the establishment” -- whether it the Alaska establishment, the Democratic establishment, the media establishment, or the GOP establishment. Of course, the potential implication here is that Tea Party supporters still want a fight -- in 2012 -- against the GOP establishment. Bannon is most animated about starting this fight inside the party. Asked whether he wants Palin to run outside the party in some third-party capacity, he quickly ruled that out. Instead, he reinforced his belief -- says he's channeling talk radio host Mark Levin, who appears in the movie as well -- about this need for the conservative movement to have another 1976 moment.
*** Coming to theaters near you in July-August: According to Bannon, the Palin documentary will have a limited regional release by AMC on July 15. And his hope is that strong ticket sales during the limited release will lead to a larger pick-up across the country throughout July and August. It's in the hands of movie-goers to see what kind of interest the movie sparks before AMC decides on a wider release. Back to the plot of the movie… Perhaps the biggest contradiction in the movie: It hails her bipartisan accomplishments in Alaska (on ethics reform, the budget, and key oil and gas measures), but then transitions to her no-holds-barred rhetoric against Democrats and President Obama. As the Atlantic Monthly's Josh Green recently wrote, "Since 2008, Sarah Palin has influenced her party, and the tenor of its politics, perhaps more than any other Republican, but in a way that is almost the antithesis of what she did in Alaska." The movie plays down significantly that she worked more with Democrats in Alaska than many inside the Republican Party.
*** One giant Friday news dump: Speaking of Palin, NBC’s Michael Isikoff reported on “TODAY” this morning that the state of Alaska today will release more than 24,000 Palin emails from her two years as governor, many of them business she conducted from her personal email accounts. The Anchorage Daily News has more: “The emails were first requested during the 2008 White House race by citizens and news organizations as they vetted a vice presidential nominee whose political experience included less than one term as governor of Alaska and a term as mayor of the small town of Wasilla. The nearly three-year delay has been attributed largely to the sheer volume of the release and the flood of requests.”
*** Newt: All by myself: Yes, we know that John McCain still won the GOP nomination after his own campaign exodus in 2007. But there’s one big difference between McCain’s departures and Newt Gingrich’s yesterday: McCain actually FIRED folks in his high command after finding his campaign running low on money, while Newt’s top staffers QUIT. And they quit because it became clear to them that Gingrich wasn’t willing do the things needed to actually win the GOP nomination. One reported complaint was his recent vacation to the Greek isles. Another, per the New York Times, was the promotion of his documentaries. “During a conference call on Wednesday, top strategists confronted Mr. Gingrich over what they believed was a lack of focus. They demanded that he spend 90 percent of his time in three early-voting states and curtail distractions like screenings of his documentaries.” If top campaign aides are questioning the fire in the belly, what does that tell donors and voters?
*** Gingrich’s discipline and judgment: As we wrote earlier, this Gingrich quote from his “Meet the Press” interview last month sums up the state of Gingrich’s campaign: “I think it's fair to say that I'm going to have -- one of the tests on this campaign trail is going to be whether I have the discipline and the judgment to be president. I think that's a perfectly fair question.”
*** The eyes of the Beltway are upon you: So who benefits from this Gingrich news? As we said yesterday, it’s potentially Rick Perry. Two aides who left the campaign -- campaign manager Rob Johnson and strategist Dave Carney -- have previously worked for Perry. And for many of the same reasons we said to take Michele Bachmann seriously, the same holds true for Perry if he runs. The “Summer of Speculation” will turn to Austin, TX for the next few weeks…
*** Romney says no to the Ames straw poll: Also after the so-called “Newtiny,” Mitt Romney’s campaign announced that the candidate would not be participating in the Ames (IA) straw poll in August, as well as other straw polls in Florida and Michigan. “We respect the straw poll process,” campaign manager Matt Rhoades said in a statement. “In the last presidential campaign we were both strengthened as an organization and learned some important lessons by participating in them. This time we will focus our energies and resources on winning primaries and caucuses.” Of course, critics will point to this as yet another change from Romney 2.0 to Romney 3.0, because Romney’s ’08 campaign cared A LOT about the Ames straw poll.
*** What Romney said about the straw poll in ’07: For instance, he said this on FOX in August ’07, per NBC’s Sarah Blackwill: “[I]f you can't compete in Iowa in August, how are you going to compete in January when the caucuses are held, and how are you going to compete in November of '08?” In 2007, moreover, Romney posted a video on his Web site, titled, “Why the Ames Straw Poll is important.” After he won it, his campaign team sent one of those glowing post-straw poll emails, headlined: “What they’re really saying about Governor Mitt Romney winning Iowa Republican Straw Poll.” And in his speech after his straw-poll victory, he said, “Well, it’s too bad the other guys weren’t competing here; if they thought they’d have been successful, they’d have been here. Their decision not to compete here was not a position based on a position of strength… I’m pleased as punch that I won.” While this will give Romney flip-flop headaches, it seems smart strategically because it keeps Pawlenty -- or anyone else -- from getting a big organizational win from the straw poll. In fact, the decision to skip the straw poll ramps up pressure on Pawlenty to win it.
*** Dems furious at Weiner: While embattled Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner seems intent about staying in his job -- and he’s been bolstered by a poll showing that a majority of his constituents say he shouldn’t resign -- we can report that Democratic leaders, including former President Bill Clinton, are frustrated and some even furious at him. The reason: He isn’t doing his party any favors by staying in his job. The VERY few folks advising him to stay are the only folks he is listening to. Monday will be intense for him ,because the House is back and the Democratic caucus may speak as a group. By the way, even Mark Foley is saying he should resign.
*** Rubio’s “maiden” speech: After five months in the Senate, GOP Sen. Marco Rubio is set to deliver his first official speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, NBC’s Libby Leist reports. The Florida senator will be the last of the freshman class to make his/her debut on the floor. He plans to announce the speech today to his supporters via Web video, and he will tell them: "Since our nation's founding, the Senate floor is where our leaders have stood, debated and ultimately made consequential decisions to address the great challenges of their time. Next week, I will have my first chance."
*** Meet’s Sunday lineup: On “Meet the Press” this Sunday, NBC’s David Gregory will interview GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, as well as host a debate between RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. On the program’s weekly “Press Pass,” Gregory interviewed the New York Times’ David Sanger on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 64 days
Countdown to NV-2 special election: 95 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 151 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 241 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
Hahahaha comparing Sara Plain to Ruiny Raygun? Well perhaps to the extent they are/were both Senile!
Come On America how long are you going to keep supporting these exact same Failed Policies? It's been 31 years of Corporate Sponsored THEM & THEM Nonsense and nothing has changed for the better no matter how many Promises Feel Good Barry Made in 2008 to get elected and then Broke!
Ignore the distractions and focus on the One United Team running in 2012.
Support and Vote for Ron Paul & Ralph Nader 2012 No Matter What The Corporate Talking Heads & THEM Pet Posters Say!
Word of Mouth & YOU is all US needs!!!
In comparison, Sara Palin is more like Jack Kennedy of yesterday than most of the modern republicans that are currently in the spot light. She would do better as an Independent running on behalf of the Tea Party.
Sorry 1/2 Term Sara Plain is NOT the Tea Party so please no more Corporate Talking Head Nonsense!
Ron Paul is the TEA PARTY and unless the Corporate Republicans want to see most of their Voter Support Evaporate the ONLY Republican Candidate in 2012!
Grizley is just another Corporate CLOWN Distraction!
MUW: Your posts don't even make sense! Ron Paul is a social Darwinist who sugar coats his beliefs around the term, Libertarianism! The two terms are basically the same. Do you know what that means??!!?? He does not want any government regulation of business at all, i.e. lassiez fair capitalism. Paul favors no regulation of corporations at all. And then, Nader?? I remember when Ralph Nader was a young man just beginning his attacks on corporate America. He's never moved away from those beliefs. You're thinking Ralph Nader will join Ron Paul on the Republican ticket???!!?? Are you writing pure sarcasm? If not, someone is purely nuts.
from your mouth to Gods ear. A 3 rd party run by Palin would be GREAT!
Necie
Actually some of US thinks it none of Our Business unless Weiner has solicited underage children because some of US still believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty!
Not always "Guilty" in the Court of Mass Media!
All I've send so far was just really bad taste and more distraction nonsense from the Corporate Talking Heads!
So if NY wants to re-elect a really big WEINER..............
Stop the wars and spend the 2 billion a week on education says one post. While I agree we must stop the wars and improve our education system but this 2 billion a week is BORROWED money. Why not apply this 2 billion towards the 13 trillion debt.
Opps, sorry, off topic, different window open on my computer.
First thoughts about sara palin vs the GOP establishment?
My first thought was wishing BOTH would disappear, completely from the face of the Planet.
It would make the world a far better place, virtually instantly!
The following quote is typical of the left wing agenda of placing blame on their political opponents even when they should know better. How in the hell do you lefties expect to cure our economic problems when you don't even understand how we got to this mess in the first place. I hate to burst your bubble because I know how blissfully happy that blaming George Bush makes you all. There is a quote that reads ignorance is bliss but if you choose to remain ignorant I really don 't think you are going to remain blissful much longer.
Great Conservative narrative, Rick. You're maintaining as does the entire right-wing echo chamber that Liberals are blaming GW Bush for everything that's wrong. Very convenient as Conservatives look at the fantastically unpopular Bush and maintain consistently that he "wasn't even really a Conservative." We'll save that lie for later, but let's get one thing perfectly clear.
We blame the entire Conservative agenda starting 30+ years ago with Ronald Reagan. We blame the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and all the other Conservative propaganda mills for the lies they were founded to spread. We blame decades of Voodoo Economics, Supply Side theory, and radical deregulation for leading us down this path of stagnant wages and increasingly dramatic bubbles culminating in the 2007 Bush Recession. We blame ALL the Conservative power structure for a war on the middle class that has made it increasingly difficult for the economy to bounce back from any and all trouble. We blame the wealthy elites for buying the entire Republican Party and some Democrats as well, imposing policies that break the traditional requirement that Capitalists treat their workers with some semblance of respect and dignity.
Yeah, George W Bush failed. So did the rest of Conservative ideology. THAT is what USN is talking about. Conservatism and the entire GOPTP gets off entirely too easily if you manage to pack all that blame in Dubya's wagon and roll him down the hill.
And I don't care how far back you go. Maybe I could go back to Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society Program that has held back the black man from attaining his true potential and maybe I could go back to Jimmy Carter and his failure to deal with oil prices when he had the chance and of course the middle east radicals. Clinton would be closer to accurate but none of those are solely responsible just as George Bush is not responsible. That is why I'm worried about us now, you liberals have no idea what caused this recession and YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.
Rick you don't make any sense. It isn't a question of blaming a certain personality who happened to live in the White House in the run up to the recession, it's a question of looking at that president's policies and asking, did they contribute to the problem?
You are probably too young to remember, but Jimmy Carter pushed Americans to conserve energy, and boy did they hate that. He urged us to get off foreign oil, but Americans did not want to hear it. How did that work out?
George Bush said cutting taxes would result in economic growth, but the opposite happened. The middle class lost income during the past decade, even as the wealthiest people got richer. George Bush said the Iraq War would pay for itself, but gas prices are high and we are trillions of dollars in debt from his decision to invade two countries. Wall Street played games with split derivatives, and you know the rest.
When Democrats point to the causes of the Recession in the previous administration's policies, they aren't " blaming Bush" They are describing reality. The right wing in this country is in heavy denial over the failures of its policies. They are attacking President Obama to distract the public from the part the Republican ideology played in the cause of this Recession.
No, it is you and your liberal friends that are clueless. And I was very much live during the Carter years. In fact I voted for him. I guess he did push to conserve but it fell on deaf ears. During that time the winter holiday season came up. I was staying in a small town in South Carolina on I-95. That interstate highway was like a parking lot from north of New York to Miami even though they could only buy like 5 gallons at a time so the country just proved to the Arabs that we would pay any price for our oil. The attempt Carter made to deal with the Iranians proved to be a dismal failure. The same with Clinton and his dealings with the terrorists. And the country has spent trillions of dollars with the stated goal of improving the lot of a particular group of people. Only to drastically increase the number depending on the handout
But still, the cause of our economic problems now are due to the derivatives market in general and credit default swaps in particular. Why can't you all deal with that instead of blaming in on the previous administration. George Bush warned us in 2001 and then again in 2003 but his warnings went not only unheeded was fought actively by those that gained political capital (and possibly financial gain) from allowing the cds market to go unregulated until it went bust in December of 2007. And Amy, it you think that most liberals don't blame George W. Bush in particular you have either not been following Newsvine or you are just refusing to open your eyes.
OK Rick, since you've mentioned supposed failures of the Great Society programs twice I'll get into that one next. The poverty rate was 30% in 1950, 22% when Johnson took office, a mere 13% when Richard Nixon took office in 1969. The poverty rate remained 11-13% right up until it started to rise during the GW Bush administration. So much for your claim that the Great Society programs increased poverty. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/con_poverty.cfm
I'd like to ask you...in a free market how did President Carter "prove" that Americans would "pay any price for our oil"? Did he have some ability to take oil they refused to pump? Did he have some ability to keep Americans from paying the pump price?
Btw, the embargo that occurred during the Carter administration was the SECOND Arab oil embargo...the first coming in 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis By your own logic this means that Republicans proved "we would pay any price for our oil."
As far as Iran is concerned the failure occurred decades earlier and is part of a pattern of bad foreign policy decisions by Republicans and Democrats alike. When the US and Britain overthrew the functioning democracy of Iran in 1953 in favor of autocratic rule by the Shaw it preordained that one day the Iranian people would be our enemies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
Note that in fact that the overthrow of democracy in Iran set into motion decades of unintended consequences. When the people of Iran rose up to overthrow the Shah we immediately became their enemy because we supported their oppressor. This created a situation in which we believed that we needed a new "friend" in the region so we backed and armed Saddam Hussein. How'd all that work out?
I'm going to have to ask for a source if you expect us to believe George W Bush wanted to increase regulation of ANYTHING, and particularly the derivatives market. If he really wanted to regulate derivatives he wouldn't have appointed regulators who were AGAINST such regulation. http://www.propublica.org/article/top-regulators-once-opposed-regulation-of-derivatives
So, the jist of it is that Reagan forced the party to move to the right. That worked so well that we now need Sarah to take us even further to the right. Good luck for the nation if it chooses to buy it.
The American people should never have been exposed to someone as stupid and ignorant as Sarah Palin. We should not even know her name.
The fact she is even being given house room or media coverage of any kind is appalling and reflects negatively on the rest of the population.
It means any schmuck can run for President, and no one needs two brain cells to rub together to do it. She's proof positive.
Cynth
I've been reading Palin's emails and I find it so depressing.Are all governors this useless? No wonder Republicans ridicule government, if this is how they approach their job in office. The former governor of my state, John Baldacci, sought to establish trade with partners overseas, to win over investors in alternative energy for our state, to get Mainers covered by insurance and to protect our environment. I'd love to see his emails, I doubt he wasted time on feuds or fuming over the press, certainly not on getting a tanning booth! There ARE public servants with depth and integrity, Sarah Palin just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Sarah Palin---the Female Forrest Gump, only he had a better movie and he could RUN. Maybe she needs to go to Vietnam and get shot in the a$$ too. Might improve her thinking ...
MSNBC has stated they have spent over 1000 hours just getting the e-mails ready to post on line. I suspect if anyone is willing to invest the time and effort to embarrass Sarah Palin as MSNBC has then there would probably be embarrassing e-mails on just about any public figure. If you don't believe me just check out Anthony Weiner.
Just remember one thing.
PUCK FALIN 2012
2008 was probably the worst time to elect a president that had practically no experience in governance. I wish Mr. Obama had chosen a better time to run. We all should be angry with the liberal media because they totally ignored the issues that were important at the time and made the race about personalities. Why do we trust the media so much to make our decisions for us.
John B, Des Moines, IA
I said it has kept the black population from realizing its potential. Sure it lowered the poverty rate but at what price. We will never know.
And since you had to mention the wonderful democracy that was experienced by Iran I don't know where you see that. Since the 1900s the rulers were largely ineffective and the country was in a constant state of unrest. Particularly because of the Brits and the Russians. Reza Shah Pavlavi and Mohammed Reza Shah Pavalavi were substantially more effective than Ahmad Shah Qajar. What seemed to get the latter Shah of Iran in trouble was his land reform and increase of women's rights which angered the clergy. Read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Qajar
And yes Bush II warned twice (actually some sources say 17 times) see the videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
And for good measure, Brooksley Born warning Clinton about the derivatives market.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html
It is beginning to look like you all only hear what you want to hear.
Sounds like you're the one who only hears what he wants to hear.
What justified the overthrow of the democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, elevating the Shah from what had become a largely ceremonial position to absolute dictator?
Your Youtube video about Fannie and Freddie isn't even relevant, since they only controlled 20% of the subprime market, which wasn't even where the crisis started. They've become the go to fall guy for Conservatives but it just doesn't wash.
I'm fully aware of Brooksley Born, and your selective history is deceptive. WHO stopped Born from imposing proper regulation on the derivatives market? Answer: it was Alan Greenspan, the Ayn Rand devotee who was appointed to the Federal Reserve Board by Ronald Reagan. Republicans in Congress obediently passed legislation to prevent Born from regulating the industry.
After the debacle created by Enron, creature of George W Bush "Pioneer" supporter Ken Lay, Dianne Feinstein sponsored legislation to regulate derivatives. She was stopped by Republicans in Congress. http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/financial-privacy--security/financial-privacy--security/industry-associations-oppose-senate-legislation-to-prevent-quotanother-enronquot
Just LAST MONTH House Republicans were still working diligently to prevent regulation of derivatives. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/g-o-p-lawmakers-vote-to-delay-derivates-rules/
There's no point in continuing to pretend this was anything other than a massive failure of Republican ideology and Supply Side economics. The facts just don't support any other conclusion.
From your links it looks like Senator Feinstein wanted to control energy derivatives and you should know that the problem was credit default swaps. Fannie Mae alone had in the neighborhood of 1.4 trillion in cds which is about how much Obama added to the national debt his first year. And the bills that you speak of were written by the two biggest roadblocks to earlier attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC. And it was the democrats that attached legislation to the deregulation bill that required that financial institutions meet certain criteria regarding high risk, low income loans to get a merger approved. Add to that Barney Frank getting his live in boyfriend a high profile position with Fannie MAE just as the subprime loans became popluar.
There is no point continuing to pretend this was anything other than a massive effort by democrats to buy votes with our tax dollars.
BTW, I noticed you conveniently left out Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers the two who actually advised Clinton to ignore Born's warnings.
You continue to complain about derivatives and credit default swaps while continuing to evade my accusation that Republican deregulation efforts set up the collapse in the economy. Your response consists of endlessly crying "Fannie! Freddie! Fannie! Freddie!" That isn't a rebuttal, it's a shiny object designed to change the focus of the argument.
Yes, the Bush Administration forced Fannie and Freddie to take over a big chunk of cds-related debt midway through 2008. Fannie and Freddie didn't originate these loans...it was an effort to prevent the failure of private companies by moving that debt onto the American tax payer instead. Doing so is what caused Fannie and Freddie to become insolvent.
Privatizing profit, socializing risk. It's what Conservatives do.
You continue to complain about derivatives and credit default swaps while continuing to evade my accusation that Republican deregulation efforts set up the collapse in the economy. Your response consists of endlessly crying "Fannie! Freddie! Fannie! Freddie!" That isn't a rebuttal, it's a shiny object designed to change the focus of the argument.
Yes, the Bush Administration forced Fannie and Freddie to take over a big chunk of cds-related debt midway through 2008. Fannie and Freddie didn't originate these loans...it was an effort to prevent the failure of private companies by moving that debt onto the American tax payer instead. Doing so is what caused Fannie and Freddie to become insolvent.
Privatizing profit, socializing risk. It's what Conservatives do.
But Barney Frank and his boyfriend put pressure on the lending institutions to approve high risk, low income loans for two and three family dwellings, loans that defaulted at five times and two times respectively the rate of other high risk loans. And the GSE held 1.6 trillion in debt when the take over happened. No they did not make the loans but they were the mortgage underwriters which was very profitable until the collapse. Profits that went to certain congressmen. Congressman Barney Frank (ranking member of the Committee on Finacial Services) was the biggest obstacle to regulation of the two GSEs.
Spending other people's money to buy votes - that is what democrats do. It was the attachment of the Community Reinvestment Act to Graham-Biley-Leach that caused the problem. And I find it a little difficult to understand how Bush's actions contributed to a world wide recession. One other thing, the deregulation took place concerning the sub prime meltdown took place during the Clinton administration so explain to me once again how it is George W. Bush's fault.
It was not Republican deregulation and even if it was it was not George W. Bush. The deregulation happened during the Clinton administration. And at its peak the derivatives market peaked at 687 trillion which is around 10 times the GDP of all countries. Please explain how that did not affect the global market. Maybe there would have been a recession anyway but not anywhere as severe. Something like the one that occurred at the start of the Bush II administration.
To summarize;
1) The Republican devotion to deregulation hasn't been harmful to the economy. To the extent that deregulation has damaged the economy it's been entirely the fault of Democrats.
2) Somehow a gigantic collapse in the economy originating in unregulated derivatives and credit default swaps was caused by Fannie and Freddie guaranteeing 20% of subprime mortgages.
3) You've only temporarily deflected attention away from the original point in this discussion, which was;
Since that time you've done nothing but argue that none of this is the fault of Republicans.
How 'bout we turn away from the policies both you and I agree failed (though we disagree on source and responsibility) and concentrate on rebuilding America?
No, I've argued that it is not Bush IIs fault. I personally think and have stated many times that there is plenty of blame to go around. A favorite tactic of posters like you is to state that since the problem with the subprime meltdown was due to failure to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC then it must be the republicans fault because that is what they do yet you can't specificall fault the republicans with the failure to regulate. You can almost blame it totally on Barney Frank and his cohorts.
The following is what I responded to. It looks like the poster is blaming it all on "a previous administration." I guess I assumed too much when I thought he was talking about Bush II. Apparently he was talking about Clinton.
US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired The time is quickly approaching where the citizens of this great Nation will have to make the decision as to do we rebuild America or do we continue down old failed agendas of a previous Administration that got us in this mess for the most part
Rick,
I read in John's post that Freddie and Fannie mortgages only made up 20% of all mortgages. It is a falsehood to say Democratic efforts to increase home ownership among low income people ultimately caused the housing crisis.
The mortgage companies needed no encouragement to lend to unqualified people: they were OKing dubious applications right and left in order to sell them in bundles to spectulators, in order to make a profit.
Twisting and turning to paint this Recession as Clinton or Barney Franks "fault" is as fantastical as it gets. We all know "deregulation" is the mantra of the Right, we hear it all the time, and as much as Congress passed and Clinton signed bills that allowed bankers to create these split derivative "products," it is the Republican ideology that drove, and STILL drives this policy.
So now that you can't blame it directly on the republicans you are are going to blame it on democrats that were thinking like republicans. No, Fannie Mae did was not the cause of the recession itself but it caused a domino effect and once one fell the rest fell like dominos. Why is it so freaking hard to accept that democrats just may have screwed up this time. And I don't care how much you hate it. The credit default swaps and the collapse of the housing bubble is why the economy sucks now.
And it was not deomcrats in general but just a few that made out like a bandit from Fannie And Freddie. People should go to jail.
Amy - maybe you should not spout off without doing some research. It was all tied together. Barney Frank, Herb Moses, pressure to guarantee high risk loans, deregulation to allow Lending and depository institutions to merge, qulifications requiring loans to high risk, low income individuals, failure to heed warnings, regulatory bills dying in committee, campaign contributions, political capital just to name a few. Check out Brooksley Born, Barney Frank and Herb Moses, George Bush warnings, Barney Frank denials, Credit Default Swaps, Derivatives. You can look them up yourself because I know you won't believe me. Sometimes I'm convinced you believe ignorance is bliss and you don't want to know, if you did you would have read all the posts.
Ok, I get it now. Even though it was Bill Clinton that signed the bill into law that repealed 'Glass-Steagall thereby making the practices that caused the housing bubble and subsequent meltdown, It was only because Clinton was thinking like a Republican. And I guess Frank was thinking like a republican when he allowed the subsequent bills to regulate Fannie and Freddie to die in committee. Terrible lapse on their part.
Fascinating, isn't it Amy? Rick even mentioned Graham-Leach-Bliley, and still completely blows by the fact that these were 3 REPUBLICANS who wrote a bill deregulating the banking industry, with REPUBLICAN Alan Greenspan (then considered some sort of genius) testifying that deregulation was the holy path to economic nirvana, and pins it all on President Clinton. I believe that Clinton's "triangulation" strategy of being a Conservative on economic and defense issues and a Liberal on social issues was a mistake from the beginning. That doesn't change the fact that it was Reagan's "the government is the problem" philosophy driving the dialogue for most of the last 30 years.
As it turns out we have government for a reason. Too bad Conservatives are too blind to see.
Indeed it is fascinating. Maybe the industry would have been self-regulating but we will never completely know. The repeal of Glass-Steagal was to allow investment banking firms to merge with depository banks, something the banking industry and republicans had been pusing for years. To get the democrats to agree the republicans had to allow the democrats to attach a newer, stronger version of the Community Reinvestment act which required that these banks meet certain criteria in making high rish, low income loans. Like I said earlier, shortly after Herb Moses became Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives, Fannie started puting pressure on the lending institurions to approve two and three family dwellings which already had been defaulting at five times and two times respectively the rate of single family dwellings. If you have to blame republicans for the recession there are democrats that are just as guilty.
And there are those of us that agree that we have government for a reason. But a lot of us don't feel that reason is to take my money away and give it to some bum who refuses to work for it.