You recall that when Obama signed a bill named in honor of Daniel Pearl, his father, Judea Pearl, was not afforded the opportunity to speak. He’s a blunt man, so that may have been a wise move by the Obama White House. He is an especially effective spokesperson when it comes to “Muslim outreach.” The JTA reports:
Pearl told JTA that while he was “touched” by [Imam] Rauf’s appearance and speech at his son’s memorial, “many Muslim leaders offered their condolences at the time.” More to the point, Pearl said he is discouraged that the Muslim leadership has not followed through on what he hoped would come from his son’s death.
“At the time, I truly believed Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the reaction of the civilized world toward terrorism,” said Pearl, who engages in public conversations with Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic studies professor at American University, on behalf of the Daniel Pearl Dialogue for Muslim-Jewish Understanding. The established Muslim leadership in the United States, Pearl said, “has had nine years to build up trust by pro-actively resisting anti-American ideologies of victimhood, anger and entitlement.” Reactions to the mosque project indicate that they were “not too successful in this endeavor.” …
“If I were [New York] Mayor Bloomberg I would reassert their right to build the mosque, but I would expend the same energy trying to convince them to put it somewhere else,” he said. “Public reaction tells us that it is not the right time, and that it will create further animosity and division in this country.”
So I suppose David Axelrod and Daisy Khan would say that Pearl is simply following in the footsteps of infamous anti-Semites. I guess Nancy Pelosi would want him investigated. But under no circumstances would Obama want him back at the White House.
Reid’s winning the media argument for the moment, however, as the polls suggest.
Let the House Republicans put unworkable proposals out there. It’ll give McCain a chance to seize the Great Middle.
Hang them all. Every. Last. One.
Lowry also proposed a reasonable compromise: Clean Bill + Availability of Insurance and other mechanisms to Treasury Secretary. Include a phase-in, and propose and further develop alternatives. Why not unless you hold with the vast Chicken Little component that only $700 BN right now regardless of Xmas Tree ornaments is the only solution?
Harry Reid lies like the rest of us breathe. I wouldn’t believe him if he told me the sun rose in the east. I also don’t know that he’s winning the media arguments when all the pols say their email and phone calls are running 90 – 10 or more AGAINST the bailout.
The fact that Paulson is in bed with the Dems also tells me this form of bailout is good for Dems (Frank, Dodd and the rest of the criminal element in Congress) and bad for the rest of us and the country as a whole.
t.ferg, I totally agree. Hang every one of them (or put them all in front of a firing squad).
But, what if the House Republican’s have the most workable plan for the market and the taxpayer. Give me the calcs and spreadsheet analysis that says Paulson has a legitimate reason outside of “pride of authorship” to reject the plan. How about an independent agency or firm (PWC joint with CBO) do an side by side and see which one has the best NPV for the taxpayer. Yeah, I know the government isn’t concerned about the IRR of their $700Bn investment but I am and you should be as should you and you and you out there that are solvent, have legit mortgages and are 700+ points on your credit score.
Right now, there is very little reason for the Democrats to give in on their major objectives. They have won the battle. Not only is this a turning point in the campaign, but, I believe, a turning point in our economic profile. We are headed toward, no, not a collapse, but a European-style social democratic government. Major pro-market ideas will be marginalized, as will conservative Repubilican ideas. Few disasters probably, but even fewer achievements.
The Democrats have most people convinced that the Republicans created this mess, which is laughable considering that Democrats blocked attempts at fixing it years ago, and were instrumental in forcing loans for poor risk borrowers. They also have most people convinced that the $700 billion is all about the Republicans bailing out their rich buddies on Wall Street. Passing the bailout with little or no Republican suport puts the lie to the latter, and might cause people to start looking a little harder at the former. The Dems want it all. They want Republicans to get the blame for the collapse, the blame for the bailout, but will take the majority of the credit in the future if the bailout plan works well.
CK, McCain can take the most risible aspects of Paulson– say, $700 billion right away, here, take it!– and impute them to Obama, who’s signed on to Paulson whole hog. Obama = Paulson, while McCain can propose moderate changes but underline the need for a deal.
Am I wrong, or is this setting up nicely for Mac?
The republican plan doesn’t have a chance and they know it… it is just a way of playing the “we told you so, you should have followed our plan” card when the economy slows down.. which is inevitable.
Just politics.
Today’s Diageo/Hotline tracking poll has Obama widening lead to 49% vs. 42%
Today’s Gallup poll has Obama 48, McCain 45
Today’s Rasmussen poll has Obama 50, McCain 45
Today’s Research 2000 poll has Obama 48, McCain 43.
I’m sure JPOD will be penning several posts based on these, just like he does when some outlier shows that McCain is not getting his head handed to him.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Here’s a great quote from a former McCain advisor on how McCain lost his nerve.
“It just proves his campaign is governed by tactics and not ideology,” said Republican consultant Craig Shirley, who advised McCain earlier in this cycle. “In the end, he blinked and Obama did not. The ‘steady hand in a storm’ argument looks now to more favor Obama, not McCain.” h/t Sam Stein
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
At least this hubbub keeps the focus off Palin, which has now become a critical objective for the McCain campaign.
Per Ed Schultz:
“McCain Camp insiders say Palin “clueless”
Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people
are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held
a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”‘
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Brought to you by your friends in the reality based community.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I approve this message. SwampFox.
Robert,
When did the democrats block attempts to fix this? This problem could only have been averted by action more 4 or 5 years ago and at that time, republicans ran the congress and the white house. The dems have only had congress 2 years now.
PondScum, I mean SwampFox, if your Republican insider is right about Palin, that leaves her nearly at Joe Biden’s level.
We have exactly the government, and the candidates we deserve. Fat, happy, and stupid perfectly describes voters of both parties. I say, let it crash. Real misery is the only thing that will make us pay attention. We can no longer afford the current level of ignorance and stupidity in our electorate. Smart, competent progressives could run the country Ok. Smart competent conservatives could run it Ok. What we have now, venal, corrupt, stupid career politicians will no longer do.
I still don’t understand how the minority party in the House of Representatives can be accused of “blocking” any bill that the majority wants to pass.
Still, to the extent that they are going to fight this at all, they shouldn’t be fighting this on the fundamental disagreement over bailout vs. insurance, but to stripping all of the non-esential liberal Christmas tree ornaments the Democrats have hung on it, like 20% of all profits derived going to ACORN.
Hank in Michigan,
Here you go, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
Introduced and co-sponsored by John S. McCain no less… btw, house republicans on some banking subcomitte have been trying to introduce regulation reform of the GSE’s since at least 2000, but could not get enough support to overcome the democrat minority.
I can drag that up too if you cant manage to figure out google, I believe Wallis from AEI has written a number of articles on it.
Two point s to remember.1/ the arguement that we should let the market solve this is just mistaken.There is no free market in money supply.The govt has a monopoly on creating money or withdrawing it.Their duty is to provide enough to assure well functioning markets with enough liquidity to let the economy work.2/the crisis is generally understood to be not about assets, or wealth, but liquidity so that markets can function.In the thirties,the new deal took the view many espouse today.There were then too many chickens too much corn, and now we have too many houses.The decision then was to eliminate the supplies so as to allow prices to rise.Too many banks, so eliminate them by withdrawing credit.Today we have the option of providing the liquidity to allow transactions to take place, and to allow the temporary misallocation of too much credit to housing markets to be worked out by the banks and other institution which own these mortgages.No one else can borrow at three % and buy debt( mortgages)which will yield after defaults a very healthy return.The alternative is a return at least temporarily to the kind of economic conditions which led to the depression,political extremism and eventually world war 2.
Joel Mackey,
That was dated
May 25, 2006
Section 16
Again, repeating myself now.. way to late to do anything about it, the vast majority of bad loans were already out.
Overcome the democrat minority? What are you talking about.
“non-esential liberal Christmas tree ornaments” Dudley Smith
Sure, for once we liberals publicly display our love of Christmas and you jump all over us. What hypocrites!
We’re going back to stuffing out Happy Holidays cards with cash.
Everyday this goes on is a bad day for McCain, regardless of what the polls are saying, in my opinion.
Reid kept referring to Roy Bacchus, I think he meant Roy Blunt (R-MO).
If he can’t even get the name of the Republican #2 right, why should I trust him on bigger things?
Rob,
Imagine if McCain had picked a VP with economic credentials instead of the hail marry pick of
Palin. This coulda been his key to victory but instead sealed his fate.
I’m still wishing Obama had picked Bloomberg.
Jack, it’s hard to replicate in one little note, but we’ve been talking that over at Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute.
The gist of it is that there is a current liquidity crisis, and because of that a credit crisis. The insurance scheme would work great if we could apply it in 2006; right now, it wouldn’t prevent the credit lockup.
#21
He was referring to Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala) who ticked off fellow Republicans yesterday when he announced a deal had been done. Which it had. Until McCain blew it up.
No, he’s talking about Senator Bachus of Alabama.
NPR reported that the House Republican’s plan that was brought up at the White House yesterday
“had the backing on McCain”. They reported it as if it was McCain’s idea. Of course their only
proof was that McCain as sitting next to the represenative that spoke up on it….
Question: does anyone know for a fact what was McCain’s support or lack thereof for the House Rep. proposal?
No no, I’m pretty sure he meant the piano teacher at http://www.brettbachus.com/
#26
The way I heard it, McCain just said that the House’s concerns should be considered. Not sure where McCain stands. Maybe he can be quietly-in-the-background-testing-the-winds in Chief.
Charlie (Colorado) Says:
September 26th, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Jack, it’s hard to replicate in one little note, but we’ve been talking that over at Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute.
The gist of it is that there is a current liquidity crisis, and because of that a credit crisis. The insurance scheme would work great if we could apply it in 2006; right now, it wouldn’t prevent the credit lockup.
Sorry Charlie,this is an insolvancy crisis;you’re 18 months late.
The very last person we need in charge is moron Bloomberg.
Al,
How in the world do you feel Bloomberg is a moron?
Why would McCain insiders be talking to Ed Schultz?
Pedant, did you score debate tickets? Get down there and clap inappropriately.
No, darn it, when I went down there a week ago, the place was already getting locked down. They has security road blocks and I was told I would have to be out of the library by 5:00.
Maybe there will be an act of terrorism attempted and Maverick personally disarms the guy while Obama cowers behind the podium. I’m sure that would happen in Maverick: The Movie.
“The plan’ does not need the Republican votes, only cover requires that. Let the Democrats pass it. If it’s so good, they’ll be in power at least 12 years.
Hank,
My bad, I thought you could read and comprehend the name of the bill. S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
That number at the end of the title is the year it is introduced.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
The whole reason the GSE’s were dealing in this paper in the first place was because if the Republicans opposed it, Frank, and Dodd and Schumer et. al. would go on every news show that would have them and call the Republicans racist for not allowing this loose credit to low income minorities. Therefore when the Republicans had their majority, which was always very narrow in the Senate, they could not overcome the Democrats combined with the RINO’s to force through the reforms that everyone knew needed to be done.
The only reason the GSE history is not common knowledge is because the mainstream media do not and did not splash the huge scandal of Raines tenure as head of fannie mae across their front pages, due to it being a Democrat scandal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17241-2004Dec21.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
and a teaser from the following link:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22514/pub_detail.asp
“Congressman Richard Baker (R-La.) has been concerned about the risks created by Fannie and Freddie since 2000, when he first introduced legislation to augment the powers of their regulator. However, the alignment of the political stars was so unfavorable at the time that Baker–then the chairman of the House subcommittee that had jurisdiction over the GSEs–could not find sufficient support for his bill to bring it to formal consideration and possible amendment by the subcommittee (what is known as “mark-up”). Successive bills in 2002 and 2003 met similar fates, although the threat of legislation brought Fannie and Freddie to agree to modest changes in their financial procedures and voluntary registration of their equity securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ”
also this little tidbit:
“In what turned out to be a huge strategic error, Fannie and Freddie chose to fight legislation in the Senate Banking Committee that embodied the administration’s minimum requirements, particularly the receivership provision, in the late spring of 2004. The companies called in their chits and managed to obtain solid Democratic opposition to the bill crafted by the committee’s chairman, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). The committee also watered down the receivership provision. The partisan nature of the vote to send the bill to the floor virtually assured that it would not be taken up in the Senate unless Fannie and Freddie relented in their opposition, and the administration opposed the committee bill because of the weakened receivership language. Administration spokesmen warned the companies that if they continued to oppose the bill in 2004 there would be a tougher version in 2005, but Fannie and Freddie would not budge. It may be that the GSEs were banking on the defeat of President George W. Bush and on the assumption that a Democratic president would abandon the effort to pass tougher regulation. If that was their thinking, it was an exceedingly costly error. “
One problem for the Democrats.
They don’t need the House Republicans to pass something out of the House.
So, it’s up to Pelosi to get some balls if she wants a particular plan passed. Can’t blame the Republicans for trying to drive some thought into the process.
The House Republican minority is a minority. They utterly lack the power to block this legislation. The House ain’t the Senate. The majority doesn’t need cloture.
Nancy should call the vote. She’s got at least 218 house votes among her own party, right?
Okay people, my broker just told me that Bank of America (!) has cut all credit lines to MacDonald’s franchises. You deserve no break today. That’s it, this deal is going through, warts and all, the minute they run out of burgers.
The Dems will pass the plan without the House Republicans if they need to. But why would they need to? McCain’s campaign rests on his ability to bring the wayward Republicans into the fold. It will be a bitter pill, but Boehner will have to swallow it. And the House reps will never again be able to claim that they are the defenders of small government.
Are the Dems really prepared to tell the country that the bailout is the right thing to do but we can’t do it because we might lose our jobs in two years because the Republicans won’t also endorese the bailout? Haven’t the Dems learned anything from Bush’s ‘you may not agree with me but you know where I stand’ approach that has won Bush independents through two elections?
Hank in Michigan, see also:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt
Republicans, including President Bush, have been trying to do something about this for quite some time. Democrats have been blocking it. Yes, it’s true that they were the minority party, but there are plenty of ways to block legislation if the minority party cares enough about something to do so. Just as the Republican party refused to allow the Democratic Congress to surrender in Iraq, the Democrats had the same ability to block legislation if it meant enough to them. First, you can use the rules of the Senate, which effectively means that legislation with anything less than supermajority support can be blocked. Then there is the lovely tactic of accusing your opponents of trying to take houses away from poor people, examples of which you can see right in the article I linked. That’s hard to counter when voters don’t understand the problem you’re trying to fix in the first place. Oh, sure, it makes sense NOW – but at the time it was heartless, and cruel, and probably downright evil when you get down to it.
I didn’t read all the responses, but has anyone pointed out that the Democrats don’t need the Republicans to pass something? You think you’ve got a better idea? Pass it!
The Dems are stuck in this mess up to their necks and Reid is leading the way with his untruthfulness. The Dems have complete ownership and the truth will reach the American people as long as communications like this are allowed to continue. Drill here Drill now!