The latest lie from republicans is the one where they are using campaign contributions to tar and feather Obama about mortgage meltdown.  The problem started with mortgage securities being traded on Wall Street, downplaying risk, leveraging, and other practices.  So Fannie and Freddie got caught up just as banks and financial companies did.  Shyster loan outfits taking advantage of people, too.

Now they are claiming that McCain opposed it all along.  Here are some facts, you know the inconvenient truth, facts?

At least get the facts straight.....
This is some misinformation put out by the McCain Campaign. This was actually a bill that would give regulation authority to the banking industry. Like letting the fox watch the henhouse. The bill was killed in committee chaired by Republican Richard Shelby under the Republican Senate. The committee was composed of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. In 2005, McCain missed 9 percent of the Senate votes, to come in number 5 on the list of slackers.

Excerpt from a 2007 Interview (From ABC Video News - Yes it was John Talking)
Interviewer: "I mean you're a busy guy, you're looking at a lot of things, maybe subprime mortgages wasn't something you focused on every day.  Were you surprised?"
McCain: "This whole new derivative stuff, and SIBs and all of this kind of new ways of packaging mortgages together and all that is something that frankly I don't know a lot about. But I don't know of hardly anybody, with the exception of a handful, that said 'wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand and is overheating. So, I'd like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not."

The Bill 1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.  (Pay close attention to what it excludes and abolishes.)

McCains TOP 4 contributors 2005 - 2008

Merrill Lynch         $293,010
Citigroup               $251,851
Goldman Sachs  $223,995
Morgan Stanley    $212,821

Over $1 million from the banking industry that he was trying to de-regulate.

McCain's top 4 contributors were all from the financial sector. They have had a friend in John since the S&L theft of the Reagan years and the infamous Keating 5.  John was the only Republican of the bunch, guess that's why he's considered a 'maverick'. The U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of 747 S&Ls in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. The core allegation of the Keating Five affair is that Keating had made contributions of about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators, and he called on those Senators to help him resist regulators. The regulators backed off, to later disastrous consequences.

The senators' initial defense of their actions rested on Keating being one of their constituents; McCain said, "I have done this kind of thing many, many times," and said the Lincoln case was like "helping the little lady who didn't get her Social Security". Asked whether his contributions had bought him influence, Keating said: "I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so".

Keating was hit with a $1.1 billion fraud and racketeering action, filed against him by the regulators.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .. then for a duck I guess it's straight talk.

There's more...

Is Iraq going too well for the GOP?  It seems that people are thinking we could succeed soon and bring our troops home.

The cure for this?  A cynical way to make things worse before the election to boost McCain's chances in this election.

The Sunni awakening has gotten much of the credit for the reduction in violence in Iraq. Those people are being paid now to join the government and us and reject the terrorists.

But now it seems they have started arresting those same people for things they did before the awakening and consequently, these people may decide to reverse course and begin to support the terrorists again.  Why are they doing this when the strategy is so clearly working?  Perhaps its just my cynical nature but could it be that they don't want Iraq to appear too successful, thus assuring that people turn more to McCain thinking he can correct the problems that are now being created again in Iraq, just in time for the election.  Anyone else find this suspect?

There's more...

The republicans are using the same old tricks.  Don't like republican rule in Washington?  Well the maverick republican and his new side kick will swear to reform it.  Fact is Palin reformed Alaska, yep, but just who was it she reformed?  Why her own republican colleagues.  When John McCain says Washington is broken just who is he talking about?  Why its the corrupt cronies in the Republican administration.  And its so convenient after carrying the water in the Senate for President Bush now he claims we should trust him to clean it up.  Along with this woman who knows absolutely nothing about Washington.  Surely she would be effective, knowing nothing about the ins and outs or the players.  I'm sure they wouldn't be able to do a run around her, use her, deceive her.  Right.

And how about old man McCain.  Do you really think this man has the insight and skill to deal with his fellow republicans, destroy their careers, investigate his friends?  Do you think he could even see their corruption, since they run his campaign?

Then there is the original premise.  That he and his helper will "get government out of the way" of the general public.  Is that what is really wrong with the republicans or the government?  What about the insistence of the republican party that regulations are to blame.  If we had some regulations in the mortgage industry instead of the open season on home buyers and owners, perhaps we wouldn't be in the mortgage and banking disaster we have now.  But the republicans thought we had too many regulations in the way.  In whose way exactly were those regulations?  Not the buyers or the owners of those homes but the free for all mortgage shysters and the fire sale of these worthless securities on Wall street.

There's more...

Tues. night listening to Clinton speech I did not find it offensive.  In fact I thought her speech was great.  Yeah, that's right it was a great speech, but of course, the MSM panned it, calling it a horrible stepping on Obama's staging of his claim to the nomination.  This was patently wrong.  After all, Obama did not have the required pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, in fact, that is the only way to get the nomination prior to the convention, where the super delegates vote.  Now, enough super delegates have 'declared' for Obama for him to justify his claim, but until the convention, his claim is not reality.  

The biggest problem with Tues night was the Obama campaign trying to say that he had clinched it, but he did not have the required pledged delegates to make that claim.  Now that the MSM has once again attacked her for her having the temerity to celebrate her accomplishments, and the fact that in the face of his claim she actually won South Dakota, she had no right to thank her supporters, to list what her campaign did accomplish or to state clearly that she was making no decisions at that time?  I feel that the Obama campaign seems to always go for the theatrics, and then use the MSM to trash Clinton, as they have done repeatedly.  The Obama campaign should have not tried to be so cute, or so anxious to declare victory at her expense.  After all, he already has those super delegates in his pocket, so why try to force her to concede that night?

There's more...

We have the word of Michelle Obama when it is noted that Barack Obama thinks everything is about him.  Hence, when Hillary remarked about the RFK assignation, Obama piped in that it had no place in this campaign.  Well, actually Obama, the comment was in reference to the timing of the race, as in her reference to JUNE prominently in her comment.  She even emphasized the word June in her comment. I doubt that she was even thinking about you at the time. She was thinking about races going into June. That was what she was talking about.

The very people who lament that our politics is so bad, that they support Obama who claims to want to change politics, these are the same folks who used her comment to impugn her character, as if she were suggesting that Obama could be assassinated.  How disgusting that is!  Hillary Clinton is not suggesting anything like that and to twist what she said into that shows the sick nature of those people who simply must trash Hillary Clinton at every opportunity.

It is the same people who just decry the nature of the political climate, but contribute to that climate at every turn.  Without a doubt, they are using the very tactics that they claim to want to change.  Yeah right.  No, what they want is to use this kind of politics against their political rivals, but insist that no one use the same tactics' against them.

How disturbing that the Obama campaign decided to use this comment in the disgusting way and to interpret it in the most dishonest and insulting way possible.  Trying to imputed Clinton's character but knowing that she did not say that she was hoping or waiting for something bad to happen to Obama, although for me, I never stop hoping for something to happen that illustrates that Obama is not ready to do this job.

The republicans are going to make him the unacceptable candidate by the fall.  They have already done their worst to Clinton for years, no doubt the very accusations spread in liberal circles started in conservative rumor mills and promoted by sleaze balls like Mathews, as if accusations are the same as convictions.

The real truth is that we spent over $50 million on trying to prove some stupid garbage that was never proven, but still is spread by anyone who wants to spread the very hate and innuendo type of politics where you can't possibly mean just what you say and no more, but instead must have your words twisted in such a way as to prove that you are some kind of wacko who thinks (put your insult and lie here).  This is the very kind of politics which has been and is being promoted on such trash TV as Morning Joe, Mathews, Oberfart , and on the conservative side, ORilley, and all Fox rants.

The blogs spread specious lies and rumors, accusations fly all over the place, all designed to make said person some kind of ogre, absolutely unacceptable.  They use insults and twist everything into a most sinister and disturbing personal character assassinations daily, and now trying to make someone seem as if they are wishing for someone to be actually assassinated.  

This is an outrage and it is being perpetrated by press hacks who are allies of Obama, or who outright support him.  But for these people to get away with it, it must be acceptable for the audience.  I find this to be the most ugly part of this subject, because how ever small or large the public is, they seems to be immune to this kind of flagrant disregard for the real truth but insist on distortions and innuendo to sensationalize and destroy any one (Clinton) who they have collectively decided to insult, diminish and demean her character with no more that cursory acknowledgment of the real character of Hillary Clinton and instead daily they attack and impugn her motives, all the while saying that the can't possibly know her motives, but does that stop them?  No! The disgusting thing is that the people who listen to these jerks seem to feed into the lie, being apparently lead around by their very noses.  Can't they smell the rotten nature of their regard and the contents of the shallow and disgusting rhetoric?  Must they always stoop to the most lowest and twisted position or interpretation of some thing in regard to Hillary Clinton?

The women are especially disgusting.  They say such ugly things all the while their mouths twist in such a way as to seem that they are tasting something sour.  Yes, girls, you are tasting something sour, it is not the nature of Clinton's character, but instead it is the nature of your own vitriolic tongue.

When I see the distortion and ugly comments I am reminded that it it the nature of people who think that it is somehow right to insult and attack, without regard to the real truth and the obvious twisting that is going on, not from Clinton, but from her enemies, who think they just must simply find the most distorted interpretation of some comment, and find in it the most lowest thought that they can form, and then paste it on her.  But look where it is coming from, who is doing the interpretation?

Perhaps you are among them?

There's more...

If Obama is the statesman his followers think he is and if Obama is the politician that he needs to be to become president, then the best and most logical choice for V.P. Is Clinton, not someone from the Clinton camp, not some other woman but Hillary Clinton.

 This is the only choice that can guarantee that her voters would come along with Obama.  The biggest reason that people are voting for her instead of him is that he is less qualified, less full of realistic plans to accomplish the things he says he wants to do for this country.  If he really wants to be president, the person that can help that to happen is in fact Hillary Clinton.  She has proven that to be the case.  In fact, since Feb 19th she has received more votes and won more states than Obama.  People who are not sold on him, people who feel that he is too airy fairy, would be most reassured if he were to select her for V.P.  If he wants to actually win the White House, and not just prove something by getting the nomination, he will swallow his pride, disregard his wife's hatred of Clinton and do the only practical thing by enlisting her to work for his nomination, not just in word but tying her to him by tying her in as V.P.  Besides, if he is the poetry, she is definitely the prose.  He actually needs her and not the other way around.  Even if AAs think he is all that, the base of the party thinks otherwise because they have been consistently voting for her.  Half of the democratic party is voting for Clinton. Without her supporters at 100%, he will not actually win the White House. Any other choice will spell doom for him this fall.

Recall in the past that Jack Kennedy knew that his rival Lyndon Johnson was the best choice for him to win the White House and even though he didn't care for Johnson, he wanted to be president more than he wanted to dismiss Johnson and his voters.  This choice made Kennedy stronger.  In fact, one could argue that it was the reason he won.  Kennedy had a strong opposition because he was catholic. Now there is strong resistance because Obama is African-American. Hillary voters are voting for her because they already know her, the do trust her programs and plans.  Obama is an unknown, and the only way that some voters would select him is with her at his back.  Now I hear that Michelle Obama just hates Hillary, but really she is not going to even be the first lady unless she can get over her prejudice and hatred and do something for the good of her husband's run for the White House.  Her statements and her appearance of being too good for Clinton are beneath the first lady position.  The only way that Clinton voters would vote for Obama is if Obama's wife gets off her high horse and gets out of his way.  She needs to be an asset.  Hatreds and petty jealousy have no place in the White House.  She cannot stand in the way of him getting elected and this bone headed hatred is not politically smart.  Neither are Obama's advisers who just want to get rid of the Clintons and think that they could win without Clinton's voters.  They in fact cannot.

 Without her voters, Obama will lose and all the hopes and dreams he has will come to defeat unless he is a bigger man than the pundits think he is or than they themselves are.  His advisers are petty as well, they have they own deep seated hatreds and petty jealousy that needs to be purged from the Obama camp before this fall.  Many Obama supporters are just Hillary haters. Be smart Obama, be a real statesman and a good politician and realize that you do in fact need her and her voting block to win this fall.  That means keep your eyes on the prize, get rid of your conceit and make the only choice that can get you the White House.  Select her as V.P.  She would bring strength, and wisdom and some confidence that you will not make some mistake by your naive foreign policy misunderstandings or lack of knowledge of continuity for the federal government.

The base of the party needs her there, they are in need because of this failing economy.  They have confidence in her, you should too.  Be a better person  than your supporters give you credit for or are themselves, be a bigger man than the pundits think you are, do not be as petty as they are, they don't have to run a country but you will need all the help you can get, and the best help to win this White House is in fact Hillary Clinton.  To beat the experience of John McCain you need the experience of Hillary Clinton fighting on your side.  You say you want to bring an end to the policies of Bush, the incompetence of Brown and the lack of justice from the Bush White House.  If you truly want the White House select her as V.P. and you will get that chance, but if you do not, then it will be obvious to all that you don't really want to win the White House but only want to beat Clinton for the nomination.  That is perhaps somehow satisfying, but in the end, will not help you win the White House.  I am one Clinton supporter that will only consider voting for you if you can show some real judgment and class and get out of the way of naysayers and haters and go for the win. If all you do is give lip service to her and her campaign, if all you do is compliment her but fail to use her assets to help you win, then you will fail to show the real judgment needed to be the president of all the people, especially her supporters.  Compliments are not enough.  You have spent 18 months insulting both her and her husband, you need to repair this rift, you need to realize that you are not able to bridge the gap in the party by yourself.

You need her but more importantly you need her supporters to join you in this election.  This is the best way to get that support without damaging the party and your own hopes to win in the fall.

There's more...

Instead of arguing over whether a gas tax holiday is a good idea or not, or whether "experts" think it is good or if it would actually pass, people should consider other ideas that could help Americans at the pump and at the grocery store.  Obama criticizes the tax holiday but he offers nothing instead. Here is an idea that could work. (BTW I have already sent this idea to the Clinton campaign, perhaps someone should tell Obama to offer something instead on only trashing others ideas)

Fuel to Food Program

The Fuel to Food program would provide consumers with a $.50 per gallon rebate on gasoline purchased at the pump.  The rebate would be financed by leveling a windfall profits tax on Oil Company Profits.  The rebate would be in the form of a food coupon, which could only be used for the purchase of food items as described under the federal food stamp program.

Per Capita Gasoline consumption .. 8.7 gallons per week
US gasoline consumption........... 2.6 billion gallons per week

Oil Company Profits 2007 ......... $200 billion*
Oil Profits.......................  $3.9 billion per week
Estimated* based on the combined profits of the 5 largest companies and the reported 60% market share they hold.

Rebate $.50 per gallon (1) ....... $1.3 billion/week
Family of 4 ...................... $18 per week/$905 per year
Windfall tax rate................. 33percent/17 percent*
*based on Exxon's reported rate of 49 percent tax in 2007. Oil profits before taxes are $7.8 billion.  Rebate of $1.8 billion is 16.6 percent of profit before taxes.  This returns Oil company profits to approximately the 2003-2004 levels.  This does not include diesel fuel. Diesel would need to fall under a separate program as it is primarily a commercial fuel.

(1)Rebates are in the form of a 'food coupon' which has the same spending restrictions as the federal food stamp program (no alcohol, tobacco, etc.)

There's more...

I tried to post this comment in the diary about the polls and Hillary hatred, but was unable to.  I am also hearing Chris Matthews lambaste Clinton over her recollections about her Bosnia comment.  Now I would like to add here because there is no other place to put my feelings about this, why do these press dogs do this sort of thing to Clinton but don't do the same thing to Obama or McCain?  Why is it so important to try to destroy her?  Well my feeling is that people like Matthews feel this need to somehow be important.  In fact Matthews has this idea that he is the most important person, hence his continued hate insults against Clinton.  Is it merely his misogynistic feelings or is it that as he has said, Clinton has a bad press relation, they don't treat him and his over sized ego right, fawning all over him as he feels is befitting him. Who knows, but listening to him for even a few minutes makes me feel some how dirty and gives me a bad taste in my mouth.  Clinton is not allowed to be human, of course, she is not even allowed to have any valid experience as first lady, she cannot claim that she learned anything from being in the WH for 8 years, no we must insult her at every chance, and hate her unreasonably as well.

There's more...

Suppose you said that judgment is the most important quality, not experience?  How then do you get judgment?  by having some bad experiences, that's how.  You don't just have good judgment, it is earned through experience.  And you don't learn from success but from failures.  So it is such a stupid reach and do you know why?  Because Obama has no experience, but claims to have better judgment, but I dispute that he actually has this great judgment he is claiming to have.  How can a man who has such great judgment have a friend for 17 years and not know he is corrupt?  How can a man use his influence to get money for this friend, see that the work is not being done and still get more money for him to rip of his own constituents.  How can a man claim to have such great judgment that he would use that friend to acquire a property after he knows that the guy is under investigation to get said property and then casually say the it was a bone headed decision?  How does this prove this guy has such superior judgment?  Because he gave a speech where he didn't support a war that was supposed to find weapons of mass destruction?  Perhaps he had some inside information that told him that those weapons did not exist, maybe he did know they were not there, maybe he should tell us what that information was and where he got it because our intelligence agencies sure could have used it at the time.  Such great judgment that he would chose for his mentor in the senate one senator from Conn. who happened to be an independent who supported the very war he himself decries with such fervor now.  Same guy, same war, who now touts the support from men who also supported this war and voted for this war but then changed their minds, like so many Americans who have changed their minds about this war.  Maybe the same guy who claims than his judgment is so superior that experience of the other candidate means nothing, that spending 8 years in the WH gives her not one bit of experience to handle anything, no his judgment is supposed to outweigh hers why?  One vote in the senate?  Really?  How dross.

Now comes the claim that not only is judgment far better than experience but that his is better by far because he doesn't have any experience.  Is that right?  Because he has no experience that's better?  In fact, now that you mention it, being a first lady doesn't give you anything much to speak of, no you only had tea and crumpets with women, and we all know how unimportant women are in the world, they don't matter, so what if you were the wife of a president, doesn't matter, can't use that experience.  What if you have represented our country in other countries throughout the world, nope, doesn't matter, can't count any of that, but his experience in a state senate, now that's experience we can count on, wait I thought that experience didn't matter it was judgment we wanted, no in this case its experience, legislative experience, you see, its the number of years he has as a legislator, state senate is fine, counts, white house, not that doesn't count, you were not the president so you can't count that.  You see how ridiculous this gets?  What counts is what counts, right?  If you are talking about having experience, only his counts, because everyone knows that what a woman does representing her husband doesn't count, everyone know that right?

When you get right down to it, whatever Hillary Clinton brings to the table can be dismissed with a casual insult, but anything Obama does is well, great! right?  Right?  He's the ONE, right? O.K. then, pass the coolaid.  That stuff isn't spiked is it?  Cause I don't want anything that's spiked, gotta keep my wits about me.

There's more...

The problem with Susan Rice's comments about the qualifications of Obama and Clinton is that she is trying to totally discount Clinton's experience while in the White House and at the same time, suggest that neither Clinton or Obama are ready to take that 3 A.M. call in a crisis.

The news conference held by Clinton today was to highlight the fact that Clinton has been endorsed by 30 generals and military people.  This fact has been totally discounted by Rice and others by suggesting that Hillary has no experience any more than Obama.  This is false on its face.  Even if you accept that Hillary did not in fact have the responsibility to answer that phone call, nevertheless, she was there, she was an intricate participant in the policy and efforts to deal with problems and crisis' as they came up during the 90s.  Obama has no comparable experience.  What Hillary was saying, in my view today, was that the question of having the knowledge about the federal government, its agencies, pushing the right buttons, getting the right information and working on matters of national security have already been part of Clinton's experience.  What she was also saying is that Obama needs to present his qualifications.  She did not say he was not qualified, she was saying that she has the experience.  The generals were saying that she is qualified, that she passed the threshold, that they trust her judgment and her vision about the foreign policy of our country.

There's more...