One of the more annoying corporate media storylines since the midterms dwells on whether or not Barack Obama will move to the “center” in order to have better luck in the 2012 elections. The conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton did this after terrible losses in the 1994 midterms, and his “triangulation” proved once and for all that successful Democrats move to the right.
There are several reasons this is nonsense—Clinton was more or less the original DLC “New Democrat,” so he was consciously and conspicuously to the right of the party base all along. The press wanted to nudge him even further to the right. The idea that Obama should finally break with the left is equally nonsensical, since he’s been happy to cross the base for two years.
It’s telling that some of the strongest support for Obama’s tax compromise has come from right-wing columnists and Guardians of the Political Center like David Broder. Broder’s Post colleague Dana Milbank (12/12/10) joined that crowd over the weekend, writing:
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of President Obama.
I’m not particularly proud of the tax-cut deal he and the Republicans negotiated. But I’m proud that he has finally stood firm against the likes of Peter DeFazio.
It’s not the policy, then—it’s the fact that Obama stood up to a “hard-core liberal.” Apparently Obama has been letting such Democrats control his policy decisions so far,”to his peril over the past two years.” This was what doomed the healthcare debate, according to Milbank—Obama let liberals waste time supporting the public option. Paul Krugman responds:
The debate over the public option wasn’t what slowed the legislation. What did it was the many months Obama waited while Max Baucus tried to get bipartisan support, only to see the Republicans keep moving the goalposts; only when the White House finally concluded that Republican “moderates” weren’t negotiating in good faith did the thing finally get moving.
So look at how the Village constructs its mythology. The real story, of pretend moderates stalling action by pretending to be persuadable, has been rewritten as a story of how those DF hippies got in the way, until the centrists saved the day.
That media mythology is deep. This weekend, NBC Meet the Press anchor David Gregory wondered:
You know, Harold, the question was, was this a Sister Souljah moment, to go back to the Clinton era, for President Obama, standing up to the base?
Clinton’s “Sister Souljah moment” came before he was even president—a poor example of a chastened president moving to the “middle.” But that timeline is mostly forgotten—as are Clinton’s other moves to the right, many of which came before the 1994 midterms.
Even stories that try to knock down the Clinton/Obama comparison—like Peter Baker’s Week in Review article in the New York Times (12/12/10)—wind up having to play along with the storyline. As Baker noted about Clinton’s surprise appearance at a White House press conference:
Equally riveting and astonishing, Mr. Clinton’s blast-from-the-past performance in the White House briefing room on Friday afternoon reinforced the impression of political déja vu, the sense that once again a Democratic president humbled by midterm elections was pivoting to the center at the expense of his own supporters.
Baker goes on to explain why the comparison misses the mark, but it’s telling that this history lesson is the exception in the media and not the rule. Apparently there is something irresistible about moving Democrats even further to the right.
Even as the more extreme continue their goose step in lock step to the right talk about the “liberal media” even if it either supports them or doesn’t criticize them we see that Liberals and Progressives, much less anyone else, get left in the cold.
Obama is passive when it comes to helping us, but aggressive when we are displeased with his helping our enemies and he fights back—at us.
This has exceeded the level of farce. The double standard in storyline between right wing and left wing bases has become painful.
I would be curious to do a Lexus/Nexus search for the number of times the media cheers Republicans for “standing up to their base” or encourages the GOP to ignore their “retarded” tea party fringe. You won’t find it. What you will find are article contemplating how the GOP can appease their base, or capture its vote, or whatever. 180 degree difference in premise.
Wether or not you believe Obama is a true liberal or not matters little to we conservatives.Trying to confuse and confound ,by rewriting, re reading,and reconfiguring history and the present -is not going to sway us so don’t waste your breath.Calling grassroots constitutional movements like the tea party “retarded”(politically incorrect boys)is just waving a flag at the bull that will soon hand you your lunches.Clinton joining BAM was interesting but Im afraid the old saying “fool me once shame on you…”is the only one that rings true.The Dems pork laiden bill shows another try at a head fake.Onward the lame duckers push trying to set military and economic pace forgetting they were voted out.Rs should vote for nothing till the calvary gets here.Sorry guys,you still dont get it.This last election was not about working todether.Or interest in Obamas deep deep liberal heartbeat.Or if we will accept him if he triangulates.Or doesn’t.It is about sponging clean him and all his works,and moving forward with a conservative government.
You know there’s capitulation to the right in the air when Bill Clinton is up on stage doing his schtick, trying to soften the blow of an insider deal for the rich who control Congress. He’s got some nerve to come back for an oncore next to Obama, the current supreme capitulator sell-out. Compromise is not where it’s at.
So where’s all the money Bill Clinton pledged to Haiti after the earthquake? Just as I thought, mostly a photo op for, who knows who, Americans who still think he’s not a complete liar? How many rubes does that amount to?
People need to understand how reporters like Dana Milbank, Juan Williams and others attempt to appear centrist, or even liberal, but in reality talk in support of regressive policies advocated by the right-wing. It makes sense that an employee of the corporate mainstream media empire would not openly support progressive policies. These fakes must be called out, to be replaced with real progressives. It’s gotten to the point where the 4th estate needs to be watched just like Congress.
Well said!. I’ve long been disgusted with the mainstream media framing Clinton as “liberal” when he never really was. There’s nowhere to turn on TV for the truth on Obama; I used to be able to watch Bill Moyers and now there’s only Bill Maher.
It’s nice to see SOMEONE speaking the truth. Thanks.
ObamaniBILL is a $3 counterfeit, triangulated into three single BetrayUS notes (Bush Wars’ DEATH, Health DEFORM and now Tax DEPRESSION), Each as WORTHLE$$ as the single, original $3 CLINTONENTAL!
Clinton is a self serving individual? I too would like to know where all the money for Haiti is? It is all mirrors and how to put more and more make-up on Bill to make him look better and better to others. At least George Bush doesn’t even pretend to care; following in step with his father Poppy who hasn’t done anything for the American people since he left office. Self enrichment is the career of ex-Presidents (all except Jimmy Carter who everyone likes to dump on!). Shame on Clinton for backing such a stab-in-the back deal. And Hillary has become just as bad in my opinion. I wouldn’t support Clinton’s Foundation or trust it to do anything except to fill this couple’s pockets, just as I wouldn’t trust any Republican to do anything for anyone except him/herself! Just look at Palin enriching herself and thinking no one notices!
That’s right, ed mcc, but as the post points out, neither Obama or Clinton ever had to do much movin’ to move to the Right. The dopes in the Tea Party, who think their butter’s on the same side of the bread as Palin and the Bushes, were so easily gulled into thinking that Obama (and of course Clinton before him) was a Leftist or even a Socialist (!) that one wonders what will come next. There is nothing that the rentier class can say (and do) that the gullible among us won’t believe–that should trouble anybody who thinks that our stunted, fractured democracy has a fighting chance against malefactors of great wealth and the politicans who serve them.
The worst thing about this is that the President actually seems to be proud of his sell-out–after all, he accomplished his greatest, Boy-Scout-like goal–bringing sides together, the magical bi-partisanship, so important to Mr. Clinton as well. Of course the actors and clowns who portray journalists in the Beltway love him now. Just think of it! In a year or so, when the President, “in sadness,” must contemplate drastic cuts in Social Security, he can use this deal as a sort of template, a guide on how to cave in, sell out, and bury the middle and lower classes. But it will all be worth it, in his mind, because “bi-partisanship” is the Holy Grail in craven, groveling, DC politics.
MG and Meldfeld, doesn’t it occur to either of you, that Clinton is the preeminent politician of our time? Judging from your hate-filled crap, we ought to expect Clinton to be the most widely despised figure in politics today. But look at the real world! Clinton is the most beloved, the most popular, the most respected, the most admired politician in the country; something that has been revealed in poll after poll. He polled 10 points ahead of Obama a while ago, when the president still had some standing in the polls. You people are muddleheaded. Clinton didn’t “…come back for an oncore,…” in Obama’s place, face it MG, you just hate Clinton and can’t find enough bullshit to throw at him. Obama “asked’ Clinton to come to his aid.
I just watched, as Bill Maher, appearing on Larry King, asked Clinton why the latter had not come on his show. Clinton replied, and wondered if Maher had ever invited him. Maher said, yes, “every year.” I once saw Maher in front of my bookstore, and took the chance to ask him about Clinton, and Maher quickly replied by telling me how much he admired Clinton. Maher must have a “writer” among his writers, that dislikes Clinton. But Maher loves the guy.
Clinton the politician, in my view, is not a liberal, he’s not a moderate, he’s not a conservative, he’s not a progressive, what he is, is a politician that will negotiate the best outcome he can in the circumstances he faces, for the country. If the “best” he can do, turns out to be something that makes Clinton “appear”conservative, it isn’t because that’s what he wanted personally, it’s because that’s the only thing he could get. I consider Clinton “the man,” a liberal. But not president Clinton “the politician.” Politics is always about the “possible.” Getting what you want is only possible in the world of “fantasy,” and dictatorship. Clinton will have been a liberal, when he was “in a position” to be one. My problem with Obama, is that he posed as a Savior, a bringer of Change, then, when in office, he went against “everything” he promised. He gave the government to the republicans, after promising to put them in their place. He has no “leadership” in him. He’s a pretender, he acts like someone that sneaks and cheats and lies his way into a job, and doesn’t tell the fools that are hiring him that he has no qualifications for it. When they find out, it’s too late. It’s not the kind of job, that they can easily fire him from.
I once heard Ralph Nader describe Clinton as the best republican president we’ve ever had. The very next day, I heard Pat Robertson describe Clinton as “the most liberal politician in the United States.” I’m sure MG and Muldfeld know, which of these ivory tower inhabitants is right about Clinton.
There are people like you two, angrily throwing rocks at Clinton, and always bitching about him. But you’re not the only ones looking, and most of us have been looking for years, and we see a much better man, and a much better president, than you’ll ever see, because you’re blinded by hate. What we know about you, and what you can’t admit is, that the “hate” was there to begin with.
How can there be a “center” when there is NO real LEFT in the U.S.? During the brainwashing of the better-dead-than-red era, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. / President Obama has a unique problem: he must roll with the racism as if it didn’t exist. And he has lost support of those who said, “Well, I’ll give the black guy a chance” and gave him the white-guilt vote and were the first to jump ship when he didn’t wave a Baguette Magique. / My not-so-humble-opinion is: There are few who are more intelligent or better informed than president Obama. 2 lousy years to turn around the years-long-developing, corrupt tax-economic system?! I’m hangin’ in for at least 2 more years. At least. // Jean Clelland-Morin
Jean I have no idea of his intelligence.It seems average.Of course he is well informed (as Bush was).They are after all “the president”.Problem is he came in totally unqualified and loaded down with unworkable ideological baggage.As with every president he is conforming to the realities of Washington.So now even his faulty compass is broke.We would be better off if he promised and did nothing for two years.7 of eight Bush years were in most economic guides robust in spite of all that was going on.But his cancer was the same as Barracks is now.Bush spent like a drunken sailor as Barrack does. Bush did not have the where with- all to stop the Fanny and Freddies and under regulated spending . Barrack has neither the intent, nor a clue of how to do that job that is so anthem to his nature.He has no idea how to energize this economy. You see Barrack believes in this keynesian madness.Of course we can argue all day of keynesian vs free and open markets.I believe a better managed open market capitalist system will be the best for us.Coming your way November hence…..
Good Lord, I didn’t think I would get to the Theater this Christmas, so how lucky I was to watch that farce of a press conference. The King excused himself lest the queen come clobber him for being late to the ball. The great pretender grinned and held forth. What shall we pretend about today. They ended my last pretense of DADT. All those good homosexuals being exquisite soldiers as long they pretended there is no such thing as homosexuality. Maybe we should pretend the word “is” is dog today. Maybe we should throw money at the feet of our owners and handlers and say what a gift we give to the average American. Scrooge would be proud, very proud.
Well, John P., both of the posters you cite do indeed know what they’re talking about, and after reading just a bit of your screed, I was not at all surprised that you couldn’t tell the difference between Pat Robertson and Ralph Nader. That Mr. Clinton has managed to blur all distinctions for you is a tribute to his political savvy. However, Mr. Clinton is indeed a conservative fellow–in fact, what he is is something called a “neo-liberal”–not too hard to figure out, if you’re paying attention. Pat Robertson? A greedy, supremely ignorant charlatan and religious mountebank. Ralph Nader? A smart, observant man of considered opinions who thinks before he opens his mouth. How do I know these things? I devote a bit of time to the study of people who say and do things in our culture.
Despite what our media would have us (you) think, not all opinions carry equal weight, and just because someone is a celebrity and rich doesn’t make them wise (celebrities as various as Glen Beck, Bill Clinton, Pat Robertson, and yes, Ralph Nader). If you can’t discern differences between the above mentioned people, and you think they all have valid and sensible world-views, then you will fall prey to the most horrendous lies and equivocations–precisely the point, if, say, a low and amoral back-stabber (I’m thinking of a few folks here) wants to “mend” Social Security or put those pesky teacher’s unions in their place.
P.S.: If you want to see a guy really express a sound (and savagely funny) opinion that is right on the mark, check out Lewis Black’s take-down of Glenn Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1hTZopwvuA&feature=player_embedded#! Notice how Black marshalls his evidence, and presents it in an entertaining and deeply informative way. That’s how you do it.
Tim …here is a surprise.Who do you think worked for Nadar?Me!surprised?I learned a great deal.Mr Nadar is a great man- though i don’t think he would of been a great president.He like Ron Paul would not…could not ,compromise his beliefs.All well and good if those beliefs are correct. Both share Smarts and faith that what they believe is “THE TRUTH”.That is all well and good,but almost no flexibility.Still i hope and pray they both are allowed in the debates between the Rs and the Ds.They wont be because they would make them look silly.
I looked at Black on Beck.I know Beck thinks mr black does a hysterical satire lampooning what he (Glen) does.Glen loves him.Thinks he is a hoot.Me????i thought it was weak.Glen does 4 hours a day- plus a Tv show 5 days a week for an hour a day.Massive shows.Tours.Books etc….That is all Mr Black could come up with in his comedy routine?Pointing out a possible inconsistency when placed in a comedic context of a phrase or two? Say it aint so Joe.
I am surprised that someone who purportedly worked for Ralph Nader doesn’t know how to spell his name.
As our beloved President once said, change does not come from Washington but from the people (that’s the people with money, of course.)
Jim damn you are right .How in the hell?That is uncalled for .Though….. he more than once got my name wrong -so tit for tat i suppose?……….
Yesterday I actually told my lady I thought she may of gained a few.I really better pull it together.
Fair is right on in thumbing their nose at the no names as Frank Rich did Sunday in the NYT. The Health Care Bill was stalled for months while Baucus listened to Good ‘Ol Chuck Grassley wimper about “I wanna vote for Healthcare BUT…” and then vote No a Thousand Times even after Obama publicly acknowledged Chuck’s “bipartisanship”.
What is so Liberal about wanting Healthcare for people? What is so Liberal about bypassing the enormous cost of emergency wards and providing minimum Public Healthcare? What is so Conservative about letting the Medical System and the Insurance companies rape the public treasury (who pays 60% of the bill) with the most expensive healthcare in the world?
This is not a Conservative/Liberal argument this is a dispute between Yes America Can and the No More Government folks who don’t want the rich to pay taxes
Jim you are framing the argument in a way that answers all your fears.Let me put it this way.We conservatives believe in healthcare for people.We believe in bypassing enormous healthcare cost at the ER.We dont believe in allowing healthcare and insurance companies (or anyone else) to rape the public treasury…And we don’t believe the rich don’t pay taxes(they pay the majority).What we believe is Liberals don’t have a clue how to fix any of the problems mentioned.They know how to tax and spend- period!This iS a conservative/liberal argument.Damn straight it is.And yes America” can and will”.Soon as we empty the swamp of the Obama regime.Look at the job Gov Christy is doing in New jersey.Fantastic.Turning that ship of state around through the storm of liberal protests.We are invigorated.Tea party activists ready to roll up our sleeves and help get the lights back on and everything running. Conservative values have never failed us.Bushes fault was whenever he forgot that fact.Time for positive- rugged individualism with a belief in American exceptionalism to respond to the nanny state lethargy that has infected us.
Dear Michael (anonymous)E)
What you have to say is so predictable that I don’t have to read the 3rd scroll of right wing crap that you have lunched in this post ….
You might consider the system a bunch of inmates invented because they had heard the stale old jokes too many times to be bored again. The rule was they numbered all the jokes and instead of going on forever they just stood up and called out the number and everybody laughed…that would be a good system for your propaganda … instead of taking up our time with your predigested ideology just call out the numbr and we’ll all have a good laugh
Jim Greene
Perhaps we are missing the point in a topic such as this. Could there be a more insidious fundamental problem?
“We hear about the democratic deficit all the time, but it is the epistemological deficit that is putting democracy at risk. Epistemology signifies the “science of knowing” and expresses a civilizational conviction that truth, objectivity, science, fact and reason are fundamentally different from opinion, subjectivity, prejudice, feeling and irrationality. The science of knowing insists on the fundamental distinction made by the Greeks between episteme (true knowledge) and doxa (opinion or prejudice, a root of our word “orthodoxy”). The Greeks understood that there is a potent difference between knowledge claims rooted in reason, or in facts that reflect some version of a real or objective world, and the subjective opinions by which we advertise our personal prejudices. We may not always be able to agree on what counts as real knowledge rather than mere prejudice, but we can and must agree on the criteria by which the distinction is made. Indeed, our science, our society and our democratic culture depend on the distinction.
Knowledge as episteme denotes claims that can be backed up by facts, good reasons and sound arguments. This doesn’t mean there is perfect truth, but it does mean there are good and bad argumentsâ┚¬”Âclaims that can be verified by empirical facts or rooted in logically demonstrable arguments and those that cannot be. Because democracy relies on words rather than force, reason rather than compulsion and an agreement about the value if not the substance of objectivity, it works only when we agree on the distinction between knowledge and opinion, between claims that can be verified by facts and validated by sound reasoning and subjective personal beliefs that, however deeply felt, are incapable of being corroborated or falsified.
There are those who will say that democracy is simply government by the people, smart or dumb, knowledgeable or ignorant. But democracy is government by citizens, and citizenship is defined by education, deliberation, judgment and the capacity to find common ground. This is the difference between democracy as mob rule and democracy as deliberative civic engagement. Mob rule asks only for the expression of prejudice and subjective opinion. Democracy demands deliberative judgment.
Yet far too many Americans, including not just many of the new Tea Party politicians but established leaders like former President George W. Bush, honestly think the difference between, say, evolution and creationism is merely a matter of opinion: you think man is descended from the apes; I think he is a creature made by God. Two competing belief systems, two forms of personal conviction equally salient. Tolerance, to Bush, means we respect both views and acknowledge their common creditability, because, after all, we both feel deeply about the matterâ┚¬”Âwhich means, in turn, we teach both views in our schools.
* * *
The trouble is that when we merely feel and opine, persuaded that there is no possible way our opinion can be controverted or challenged, having an opinion is the same as being “right.” Being right quickly comes to trump being creditable and provable, and we lose the core democratic faculty of admitting that we might be wrong, and that our views must be judged by some criterion other than how deeply we hold them. Our polarized antidemocratic politics of personal prejudice is all about the certainty that we are right paired with the conviction that nothing can change our mind. Yet democracy is wholly contrary to such subjective certainty. To secure our liberty in a world of collectivity, we must remain endlessly sensitive to the possibility that we might be wrong. And hence to our reciprocal willingness to subject our opinions to corroborationâ┚¬”Âand to falsification. We teach evolution not because it is “true” in some absolute sense but because it is susceptible to falsification. Creationism is not, which is why evolution is science while creationism is subjective opinionâ┚¬”Âa fit candidate for belief but inappropriate to schooling.
Yet what has happened to American democracy is that we have substituted opinion and prejudice for science and reasonâ┚¬”Âor, worse still, no longer recognize the difference between them. Larry King can thus interview both bigger-than-life cosmologist Stephen Hawking and a psychic-for-hire who talks to the dead in a way that suggests there is no difference in their methods. Ghost stories can appear on the History Channel next to World War II documentaries. And candidates can say just about anything impulse dictates, confident that their constituents will have neither an authoritative basis on which to judge nor any reason to think they need one. As Obama learned, many Americans are likely to associate a call for “proof”â┚¬”Âfor epistemological authorityâ┚¬”Âwith “elitism” and suggest that pushing “knowledge” is less a common way to put ourselves in the service of reason than someone’s private way of announcing his own supposed superiority.
The great African-American author James Baldwin once said, “People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction.” Many Americans seem to have turned reality itself into a set of television shows utterly detached from reality. Daniel Boorstin, a former Librarian of Congress, wrote, “We risk being the first people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them. We are the most illusioned people on earth.”
The tyranny most corrosive to democracy is not the tyranny of money but the tyranny of illusion. As Chris Hedges says in his book Empire of Illusion, “A populace deprived of the ability to separate lies from truth, that has become hostage to the fictional semblance of reality put forth by pseudo-events, is no longer capable of sustaining a free society.”
The November 2 elections were many things: a manifestation of anger and resentment, a tribute to citizen organization, a demonstration of protest politics, an invitation to polarization and a proof of the enduring role of money in politics. But they also offered distressing evidence of our emerging epistemological deficitâ┚¬”Âa long, destructive erosion of our Enlightenment faith in reason and reasoning and of our willingness to recognize that facts and good arguments must prevail if freedom is to survive. The elections sent a lot of politicians home, but the real loser was democracy.”
Benjamin R. Barber
Jim what can i say but “right back at ya”.On these blogs if the sky is gloomy it is Bushes fault.Im the only one saying that their could be another reason for a cloudy day.So who is it that is stuck in neutral?
Raymond I have always thought the right was more the party of facts.As i have aged I see it is as Regan said”(So much of what the left KNOWS is wrong)” You believe they are the party of illusion.Ok fair enough.We conservatives hear your logic and facts we simply dont agree.And THAT is very hard for you to understand because you BELIEVE.Little like a faith i would say.
And Religion is not right or left.It is both. And neither. And no It is not science. Science is in one sense the limits to what we now understand. Medicine is the practice. Religion is to imagine those things beyond our limits.And that in effect is the first step toward understanding. The mysteries of our existence. First dreamed ,then studied, then understanding . The methodology of the human brain.Your own president and almost every legislator in the United states consider themselves spiritual.To use one to prove or disprove the other will probably have to wait….For all of us to die and find out! But who knows.
There has been weird rumors that Obama will admit we have much more info on UFO’s than we have admitted. Friend of mine who has duel Doctorates in physics , and is quite literally a rocket scientist- is a non believer based on hard facts concerning time- space and the limits of the speed of travel over those factors.I asked him what happens if the prez rolls one out.He smiled and said..”so i was wrong..Sue me”:)
Unfortunately, if Obama wanted to “move to the center”, he would have to take a turn to the LEFT. The right has become so extreme that it defines “middle” as something just short of fascist.
Suze I really feel that that is the way it is seen but has little truth to it.The word extreme is not extreme at all.The new definition is those who diametrically oppose the Obama agenda.And that is as polls show the majority of this country.Conservative thought is-common sense in the end..Most people are very conservative in their life styles.Sure there are a few social issues that are to stay in disagreement (gay marriage /abortion)but honestly the American people will decide those things not legislation,so it is an empty worry.A political pawn.
The left wants huge government intrusion- the right wants little.The left wants control of the airwaves- the right wants little.The left wants to empower the Fed- the right wants the reverse.In many ways the right is being herded by everyday Americans living a typical lifestyle.I feel the hearding on the left is an academia based movement.With little base in reality.Obamas economic gu-ru said on her way out that using the formulas she had developed in academia simply failed in the market place.She never had any experience in the free market- how could she be put in charge of running it?Nothing showed the disconnect more.
The left has worked hard.Everyday in every way toward the policy of personal destruction.Their entire body of power is turned toward this end.To make people fear the view that says no to Obamamania.Sarah Palin is a great example.Gallop polls indicate 53% agree with her views.29% with obama.Yet she is shown to be the extreme through manipulation of image.Her show on alaska is beautiful.Anyone who sees it comes away with an admiration for her and her family.Good people living a good healthy life.Look into her record and you see a tough -smart cookie with strong values and a good heart and a refusal to let america be anything less the the dynamo we all know it to be.She believes in people who will be governed but never ruled.And that make her enemy number one.To be derided and hated by the machine on the left.Bush i never for one moment saw as a conservative.Like obama when he used conservative ideals they worked.The same can be said of Obama recently.It was when they both moved from that that the house fell in.Bush in not ending Fanny and freddy by sending in the military if need be to shut down that leftist disaster…..and obama (well it is too numerous to even get into ).The new conservatives coming in will be I think in a very different model.America i believe will respond well.Gov Christy in new jerseyis a prime example.Doing a wonderful job.People are seeing the results.Soon i hope you will see results and realize a few truths.
“Gallop polls indicate 53% agree with her views.29% with obama.”
This is the second time Michael has mentioned this nonexistant poll …
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Gallup+polls+indicate+53%25+agree+with+Palin+policy+views&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85
and it’s gallup
What kind of troll just makes stuff up?
…there’s some serious problems with trying to blame the entire economic collapse on Fannie Mae
Barry Ritholtz May 13th, 2010
The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;
-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders
-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.
-Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street â┚¬” NOT Fannie & Freddie
-In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.
-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages â┚¬” in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.
-The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.
Barry Ritholtz – June 12th, 2010
Joe Nocera cuts right to the heart of the â┚¬Ã…“Blame Fannie and Freddieâ┚¬Ã‚ argument in today’s NYT. It is an article well worth your time to read.
He looks a the CATO/AEI narrative â┚¬” that the government forced the GSEs (and the banks through the CRA) to make ill advised loans to people who could not afford them. This, goes the the claim in the economic fantasy leagues, was the prime cause of the credit crisis and economic collapse.
Except there is no data that supports this argument, and enormous evidence that demolishes it.
Nocera sums up nicely the role of the GSEs:
â┚¬Ã…“Indeed, conservatives tend to view the affordable housing goals imposed on Fannie and Freddie as the central reason for the credit crisis. â┚¬Ã…“In order to increase homeownership, Fannie and Freddie were required to decrease their standards,â┚¬Ã‚ said Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and perhaps the country’s leading critic of the G.S.E.’s. â┚¬Ã…“We made a big mistake in trying to force housing onto a population that couldn’t afford housing.â┚¬Ã‚Â
But, to my mind, that view is only half-right. Yes, people got loans who had no hope of paying them back, and that was insane. But Fannie and Freddie’s affordable housing goals â┚¬” which the G.S.E.’s easily gamed â┚¬” were not the main reason. Rather, it was the rise of the subprime lenders â┚¬” and their ability to get even their worst loans securitized by Wall Street â┚¬”Âthat was the main culprit. Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards mostly because they were losing market share to the subprime originators.â┚¬Ã‚Â
That is precisely correct. The GSEs were chasing profits and market share. Fannie (and Freddie) were just another crappy bank, no different than Citi or Goldman or Bank of America or Lehman or Countrywide or Merrill or Bear Stearns.
Blaming the government for what are obviously private sector motives is a blatant attempt to exonerate the guilty. I find that intolerable . . .
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/rewriting-the-causes-of-the-credit-crisis/
“.er show on alaska is beautiful.Anyone who sees it comes away with an admiration for her and her family.Good people living a good healthy life.Look into her record and you see a tough -smart cookie with strong values and a good heart..”
That’s a pretty incredible comment considering Michael was typing it one handed.
Ho hum Helen….Look even to the Rasmussan Poll around Sept 10 and you will see their figures show 52% with Sarah and 40% with Obama.You libs remind me of my 5 year old neice…prove it prove it.So tiring.
As far as your Fanny and Freddy re write….You are talking to a guy who gave endless speeches against the coming collapse that Fanny and Freddy would cause.I was called every name in the book.I was told I did not care about the poor.I was told by liberals big and small that my figures were wrong, as they twisted the facts this way and that.Barney Franks….Dodd…Schummman… Maxine Waters all basically told me(guarenteed me )all was well and to zip it.So for years i was told my forecasts of disaster were bunk as i argued the facts.They(F and f) were the main players believe me.The folks you are dumping blame on were not even part of the equation.When Clinton put pressure on the banks i let out a howl.That was the beginning.When i at least first raised the clarion call.When Bush failed to rein it in i screamed louder.So please…please..for years i took the abuse with a good nature.But the house fell in as many of us knew it would.It insults the intelligence………Just say oops we were God damn wrong and move on.
I recently met a guy named Ron who was at one of my “town hall meetings”.I do remember him as one of the loudest screamers against my views.He walked up to me shook my hand and APOLOGIZED.At least he could admit he was wrong.So now we have the great re write.Helen save it!Again so tiring
Yeah, it hit me last night that a real pollster like Gallup wouldn’t be doing bullsh*t like that…of course it was the GOP water carrier Scotty R cranking out that junk…Sadly the poll is behind a firewall so i can’t see the questions….
Ironically enough if you Goolge Sarah, Gallup and 52% you get this:
November 12, 2010
More than half of Americans, 52%, now view Sarah Palin unfavorably, the highest percentage holding a negative opinion of the former Alaska governor in Gallup polling since Sen. John McCain tapped her as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. Her 40% favorable rating ties her lowest favorable score, recorded just over a year ago.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144491/palin-unfavorable-score-hits-new-high.aspx
Political Wire recented cited an election poll of Sarah vs President Obama and she won with just three groups: Republicans, Conservatives and FauxNews viewers.
Yeah i know, that’s actually one group.
A slim 8 percent of all registered voters say they would definitely vote for Palin for president, while 31 percent say they would consider doing so. Fully 60 percent say they definitely would not. Among all Americans, 59 percent say they would not vote for her, up from 53 percent in November 2009.
Her highest support comes from Republican women and conservative Republicans. Even so, only about one in five in each group say they would certainly support her presidential bid.
Neither does Palin enjoy wide support among independents: 62 percent say they definitely would not vote for her. Among moderates, 66 percent write off her prospective candidacy.
In a hypothetical head-to-head general election matchup against Obama, the president prevails by 13 percentage points over Palin among registered voters, 53 to 40 percent. Palin draws 78 percent of Republicans in that test, while Obama enjoys support from 89 percent of Democrats. Independents break widely – 56 percent to 35 percent – for the incumbent.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/60-of-voters-wouldnt-even-consider-voting-for-sarah-palin-for-potus/
“When Clinton put pressure on the banks i let out a howl”
The idea that the CRA was a factor in the housing collapse is an article of faith among the right. It’s not true. The timing is all wrong, for starters. The real scoop: circa 2000, all sorts of boomtown banks literally threw their lending standards into the garbage can. Thers is no credible evidence that a single bank issued a single morgage loan that they didn’t want to sign off on.
————————
The 345 mortgage brokers that imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation. The vast majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.
The biggest foreclosure areas aren’t Harlem or Chicago’s South side or DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it hs been non-CRA regions â┚¬” the Sand States â┚¬” such as southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is Detroit â┚¬“ and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had something to do with that.
The CRA remains a marker, one that separates proponents of intellectually honest debate versus the parrots of partisan talking points, not worthy of your time or effort.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/
PS
“(F and f) were the main players believe me”
Why would anyone do that. Your track record of being wrong over a wide array of subjects precludes that.
Helen as far as Sarah goes….My feeling is that she is just as unqualified as Obama going in(well not quite)and although her core values are stronger and she would be miles better- that is still a hard nut to get around as we have seen with BAM.As far as the banks go……my speeches ran about 45 minutes.Yes their were many other factors and i covered them add nauseum.The who’s ,the whats, and the where’s.Bottom line is I screamed that when F and f went down their would be people who would try to shift the blame as the country collapsed.And Barney Frank said to me “Fanny and freddy are healthy.If they do fall i will be glad to take the blame…because they wont”Your discourse shows no blame is being accepted exactly as I knew would happen.Look i was right,and all those liberals who tried to shout me down were dead wrong.This all goes back to Carter.This nightmare.Read Janet Reno talking about Clinton asking her to put pressure on the banks(community reinvestment act)….I always thought that when the list of names that caused this collapse on F and F were seen to be all Ds we might see a re thinking.But no those same names were put in charge of the Obama economic move.Some folks never learn.Till you vote them out.And you are smart enough to know banks did not only sign off through arm twisting.They signed anything the government guaranteed.And it goes on…F and f have an unlimited credit line payed for by us!Why is that?Look you remind me of all those libs who said I was wrong when i said sell sell sell and buy all the gold you can (which I did)The government is full of shit.So i am gonna sit back as you pontificate on how wrong i was.And what you did that was so much better.Sorry to be a pompous wise ass but as Regan said “So much of what Liberals KNOW is wrong”My track record by the way has been good.My predictions(aired on a major opinion talk show)are running an respectable 90 plus percent.I was asked if i have a crystal ball.Nope…just a damn good BS meter.My last one is that Hilary will take the mantle from bam in the next election.I am worried about that one.She has been very silent.So merry christmas Helen.No hard feelings we just do not agree
Uh, the economy collapsed before fannie and freddie went down…
And the banks were issuing loans to anyone they could find breathing because they wern’t keeping the paper on their books…they bundled the contracts into packages and sold them off…
Just saw this on the Truthdigs Facebook Page
Chat is Live Now! Robert Scheer on Obama’s Call for Less Regulation
http://www.truthdig.com/q_a/item/robert_scheer_on_obamas_call_for_less_regulation_20110118/