I’ve thought long and hard about this campaign. When I learned that Palin, a newbie barely versed with the echelons of our national capital powerhouse, was selected, my first thought was, “It’s a ploy.” I didn’t even think, “Gosh, possibly the first female vice president ever” nor “Wow, McCain’s clever.” If anything, it is…wait…I’m going to borrow all the letters that spells Palin and type this word: appalling.
It puts me to shame that my own country is capable of choosing this path of trash. I don’t care that this is an historical moment. It is not about the gender thing. Obama stated this when interviewed about Palin’s selection, “I think that has less to go with gender than it has to do with her ideological predispositions, which are closely aligned to theirs.” It is as if McCain just Googled her and said, “there’s my girl.”
McCain alone was a fair competition against Obama. Nonwithstanding McCain’s geriatric contributions to the presidential ticket, he had a fairly respectful following by both parties. However, when socially ultraconservative and anti-abortionist Palin was plucked out of the oil-rich land, became an overnight sensation, and was dubbed as the “Hot Governor” or “VPILF,” McCain suddenly looked pathetic. And his actions have made many lukewarm Obama supporters into zealous pro-Obamans and pro-Obawomans. And unfortunately, started a trend of white women voters switching to the McCain/Palin side (there’s no telling yet how broad or limited this trend may be).
How did this happen? You know, when a couple meets, you hope they bring the best out of each other, affirming the phrase, “My better half.” That’s how it should be with presidential and vice presidential candidates–some kind of marriage that works. McCain and Palin. It’s like trying to wake up from a bad dream. McCain-Palin. It doesn’t exude that certain fuzziness as Obama, the change agent and Biden, the author of Violence Against Women Act (and entirely responsible for my current job, thanks).
But, it is still too soon to know how this would impact the voters, especially white women. Many of the white women voters were Hillary supporters. How many of them will be switching over to McCain/Palin ticket? The ephemeral novelty of McCain’s selection of Palin will soon come to an end. The hard part is to gain the same kind of momentum for six more weeks. Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln has also echoed the “Palin-will-wilt-in-the-spotlight theme.” Election 2008 is apparently the fight for white women voters. The scary thing is there’s no clue which direction they will choose.
One thing that is explicitly clear is this: Obama needs to garner support from white women voters now. According to Politico, there are over 52 million women voting in the general election.
Remember this when making a decision on who to vote that it’s not just the president that you may want now, it’s also the possible president should Obama or McCain somehow expire. Let me reiterate this: McCain’s 72. Palin as President? Good lord, I may want to hop on a plane aimed for the wolves and get as far away as possible from my country.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
No related posts
I’ve been hearing lots about this white woman trend but have yet to see any story confirming or even interviewing one woman whose loyalties switched from Obama (or, presumably, Clinton) to the McCain ticket after Palin’s selection was announced.
This morning on MSNBC, in fact, an anchor commented on the so-called trend that there seemed to be no large shift in numbers as far as they could tell. My take-away? Unfounded fear based on gender assumptions.
In fact, I’ve seen more confirmed stories/interviews on white women switching over to the Obama side after her selection.
Would love to see someone link something here that corroborates that white women on the Palin ship thing.
Oh, and Liz? The Pro-Obawoman thing? cute. :-)
Allison: you may want to check this out..
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.....hp?t=26179
Wow. Is THAT for real?
A Pauline Kael moment here? :)
*She’s a famous critic who, after Nixon totally demolished McGovern in 1972, supposedly expressed amazement that Nixon had won because she didn’t know anyone who voted for him.
Unfounded fear based on gender assumptions-great point. I also agree with this. Still, it may actually become more of identity politics (remember these days?) thing. Many women identify with Palin’s hockey mom persona.
Great note:
Historical Fact: Democrats were the FIRST to nominate a female for the Vice Presidency - Geraldine Ferraro. Democrats were the ones who pushed Hillary Clinton to the top and nearly became the first female nominee for President. Both had substantial experience and knowledge that qualified them.
On another note: This is from a serious conservative who has felt betrayed by the Republican party:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan.....tegri.html
Good article, Liz.
The corner I find myself backed into is that I don’t want to care that Obama is black or Palin is a woman, but I feel that I’m being forced to. For me the single most crucial issue of this election is oil, because it underscores so many other issues: national security, the economy, our energy needs (to name just a few). That’s what I want to get to and resolve and start getting it out of the way. Palin wants to drill, fine. Obama will drill as a compromise, fine. Both plans have some merit to them (though neither has enough merit on its own).
But is that the focus? No. My gut feeling is that McCain’s people felt they couldn’t win, so they bought in Palin’s gender to counter Obama’s color, and now we’re all supposed to be so “wowwed” by the whole spectacle it’s suddenly okay that little else is getting done.
And that doesn’t excuse Obama-Biden anymore than it does McCain-Palin. It doesn’t excuse Republicans or Democrats in general. You want people to see past gender and color? Get up on television and explain to the nation what’ll happen to the global economy once oil hits $200 a barrel. Or get up there and explain to people exactly what kind of an investment it’ll take to switch America over to non-carbon based energy sources (read this to start: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02332.html). That should do it. Nothing like a good dose of fear to put things in perspective.
Note to our new President: I’m plenty scared already, thank you. And neither Mr. Obama’s race nor Mrs. Palin’s gender are within my perspective right now.
In ways more than one, the Palin pick is a very brilliant move by McCain. Identity politics is one of them and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s part of the rumble and tumble of campaigning. Obama does that all the time with his use of the race card.
One reason why the pick is brilliant is it exposes the Democrats for who they are–hypocrites when it comes to women rights (which is not just about abortion), just as much as Republicans can be or even more so. The treatment Hillary received during the primaries further solidified that resentment and now there’s a makeshift movement representing these slighted women, PUMA (Party Unity My Ass). Biden and Obama, with their ill-advised remarks, do nothing except reinforce that perception.
Palin, to me, represents the Western conservatism (not the Yankee conservatism represented by Bush I or even the Southern/Tex-Mex compassionate conservatism by Bush II) which Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan greatly exemplified. She, with her no-nonsense pragmatic approach to politics, really complements the McCain message about reform. This message really appeals to Americans, who aren’t just stupid people in flyover country the liberal establishment seem to like to think.
It really baffles me that still to this day, Democrats are underestimating Sarah Palin. From Wasilla to Juneau and ultimately Washington, she’s leaving a trail of victims who underestimated her at their own peril.
As McCain said he will be President for only one term, I would not be surprised if she becomes the first woman President in 2012 and I think it would be fittingly appropriate that it’s under the Republican party designation.
One reason for the strong reaction Palin is getting from the media is because the selection breaks the expected narrative/meme that John McCain would select someone reputable but uninspired like Romney or Pawlenty and wage a honorable fight but ultimately lose to Barack Obama who will then bring hope and change to America.
Too bad this isn’t happening. With his coasting through the primaries, thinking that he’s the anointed one with a somewhat messianic sense of entitlement, resulting in his inability to close the deal earlier in March like McCain did, I don’t think he’s actually ready for the fight of his life. I’m not even sure he is even aware of that.
I agree with you that the Democrats are underestimating Palin, but I do not see her even remotely in the tradition of Goldwater or Reagan. She’s not even a conservative in the fiscal sense; she is all about milking the federal government for whatever subsidies she can get for those ostensibly “self-reliant” Alaskans. She is an excellent representative of what has for several years been a fiscally irresponsible Republican party.
She is not practicing what I think of as the Republicans’ historical commitment to self-reliance and small government.
And she has shown an interest in legislating how people live their personal lives. That’s not what I think of as a good conservative.
It is true, as you say, that both Goldwater and Palin are from the western United States. And neither of them profess(ed) any great love for the Soviets/Russians. But Goldwater was a real civic leader.
I wouldn’t mind a real conservative as a vice-president, but the Republican party is not offering real conservatives as candidates.
Christian, I’m curious what you think of Palin asking a librarian to ban books then firing her when she wouldn’t? The townspeople had to rally around the librarian so she’d get her job back. Do you think it’s a fabrication by the “liberal” media?
Christian, I hope you will find time to answer my question above. I have to throw in another quick question: are you deeply religious?
Christian –
I’ve never seen or read about anyone as unqualified (lack of experience, policy expertise and diplomacy) for the VP as Palin. McCain personally met her once in person and by phone the day before he announced the pick. It’s a contrivance to transform the election to a cultural war, and knee jerk categories of folks into a defense of their thinking and way of life. However, enough people will see past that gambit and elect the right future.
-Jeff Rosen
On the other side of the coin, I have never seen someone so inexperienced for the Presidency like Obama.
Community Organizer;
State Senator for 6 years who voted present 130 times; and
Senator for only 143 days with no significant accomplishments.
Or it really doesn’t matter because he has good intentions?
Christian –
Good question about Obama’s record, lets cut out with the braying and focus on factual assessments of his legislative accomplishments. I happen to think the wikipeda entry on Obama is a good source for this purpose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama , you’ll see a summary of his record as a state legislator and Senator. Theres no way that it can be said that Obama is clearly less experienced than Bush II, Reagan or even Kennedy before they were elected. Do we need to go back George Washington or Abraham Lincoln to argue the case about inexperienced candidates who became President?
Ever since Obama announced his candidacy about a year and a half ago, he has been under intense scrutiny and has been fully revealed to the American people what kind of leader he will be when he is President. His platform on issues has garnered wide bi-partisan support. He has a comprehensive plan for people with disabilities, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/disabilities/, (disclosure – I’m on his large and distinguished Disability Policy Advisory Committee), McCain has nothing substantive on his website on disability issues.
As a disability and deaf advocate, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Congress and watching McCain and Obama and working with their staff. McCain has a distinguished legislative record, I’ll give him that, but Ive seen him totally being volatile, a real hot head, sometimes vengeful, a history of bitter disputes with colleagues at Congress and often impulsive (see the Palin pick as exhibit a). Hes a great maverick to have in the Senate but would temperamentally be a total mismatch as a President if he lives long enough to finish the term. Obama on the other hand, looks beyond partisanship, consistently takes the high road, has been open and assertive in taking up legislative issues that are important to our people as a whole rather than special interest groups and rich folks. Based on what I’ve actually seen, not read in some bs media or chatted with someone over a beer, Obama has clearly demonstrated the right character and outlook to best pick us up from the ruins of the Bush presidency and get us back on track. Because right now, we need it, that tragic mistake in Iraq, the record deficit, our sinking economy, the huge cutbacks to our domestic programs providing for and protecting quality lives of Americans, all of that demands real change to begin happening soon.
We are going to get out the vote, vote well and get Obama elected, because enough of us understand that the well-being of our country depends on it.
Well said.
Christian:
Why specifically don’t you like Obama? I find your statements very broad and unsubstantiated, for example:
“Obama does that all the time with his use of the race card.”
How does he do this “all the time”? To me, it’s been remarkable how little he has mentioned race.
“Biden and Obama, with their ill-advised remarks”
Such as?
“Americans, who aren’t just stupid people in flyover country the liberal establishment seem to like to think.”
How does Obama assume that Americans are stupid? To me, one of the most refreshing things about his campaign has been that he assumes his audiences are intelligent.
“It really baffles me that still to this day, Democrats are underestimating Sarah Palin.”
What would you have them do — attack her? Criticism of her has largely backfired so far, making her a more sympathetic figure. I don’t think they are underestimating her appeal.
“I would not be surprised if she becomes the first woman President in 2012″
She seems like a nice person, but I find the idea of her being president very scary. She has barely been outside of the country. She has no experience in foreign relations. She presents herself as a reformer, but she supported the bridge to nowhere and hired a lobbyist to get millions in earmarks for her city and state. In her interviews, she came off as pleasant but decidedly not introspective or knowledgable.
“his coasting through the primaries”
Um — he fought Hillary tooth and nail in the primaries, only getting a few hours of sleep each night, etc.
I value your posts, but please provide evidence for your claims!
Exactly. A lot of projecting going on.
Indeed Christian.
Here’s my lengthy response about the whole Palin affair.
http://deafrepublicans2008.blo.....onies.html
If Palin was not so popular, would you be writing this article? I dont think so. Like Obama, you seem to be cracking under pressure.
The Palin emerge has been inspiring to the untold millions of Americans. And she did that without the help of the media.
I do not need to hear all that gobbledygook from some MSNBC commentator spitting out or some very select few Republicans who are not happy with McCain.
I gots the hots for Palin!
Democrats feel the threat. Go ahead and fly to Canada!
Make no mistake about it, Palin IS popular. Newsworthy and penworthy, too. I felt compelled to write because this is unprecedented. I wish I could agree with your sentiment that the emergence of Palin is inspiring. It should be and I want it to be. Well, it isn’t. Palin inspires contempt and horror in many of us.
It’s amusing to see people projecting all sorts of things on Obama.. He’s cracking! He thinks he’s messiah! When he says lipstick on a pig, he’s talking about Palin! Blah blah
Liz,
Yes, it’s a ploy indeed. But she is not inspiring contempt and horror is me. I’d say “give her a chance”. She will grow on you. Come November, she won’t be a novelty anymore.
Does your sentiment have to do with Palin’s allegedly zero connection to the Deaf community? Would your article be any different if she has a sister who happens to be deaf?
Robert –
In her first real (i.e., interactive) public appearances, Palin said she would support going to war with Russia (also saying she can see Russia from some parts of Alaska but has never traveled there), had no clue what the “Bush doctrine” was on foreign policy, linked Iraq to 9.11 (an idea that even Bush now publicly rejects) and at the same time saying she hasn’t “really focused much on the war in Iraq.”
I’m sorry, but I reject putting someone with a world class ignorance about foreign policy a heartbeat away from the presidency.
And Obama is more qualified than Palin on foreign policy issues? Yeah, sure, he’ll sit down with Ahmadinejhad over a cold one. Oh wait, that’s right, Ahmadinejhad cannot drink alcohol - maybe they’ll get some hot tea instead.
Of course he is more qualified. He has studied international relations intensively ever since he had decided that he’d run for president and already have met with other leaders, plus he has foreign policy expert in Biden, though.
Palin, on the other hand…throw me a bone, what are her qualifications in this area? She’s so lightweight that the Republicans had to friggin’ hide her from “unapproved” reporters. Obama isn’t afraid to stick his neck into a O’Reilly show.
Also she strikes me as even more belligerent than Bush. It remains to be seen what her stance to the world would be like.
It seems like McCain’s looking for a VP who will bring BOTH Moderate and Conservative Republican voters. My brother said Palin’s the one the few who can do that.
Great article, Liz. However I don’t understand the title. Was it intentional? Care to elaborate?
Obama scares me more than Palin. She’s the lesser of two evils.
Can you pls explain why you’re more scared of Obama.
I agree. Obama has hidden agendas! I mean, look! All of his speeches have been too murky. And frankly, who wants a President who gives nothing but shady talks? I am more concerned with a shady person than with someone who has less executive experience.
Correction. Obama has NO executive experience. Zero. As in “O”bama.
What executive experience does McCain have? All I’ve been able to find is that he led a training squadron in Florida in 1976.
There’s an article about Obama’s days as President of Harvard Law Review to get a gist of his leadership style: http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....ing_voice/
Executive experience shows certain leadership on getting things done such as a CEO, governor, mayor, vice president or president of the United States, military officer and so on.
McCain did have “executive experience” in the military sense since he assumed command of VA 174, the largest squadron in the Navy at the time. That means whatever a decision one has to make as a commander can be a life or death decision for his men. Not to be taken lightly if you’re a commander of one of the largest squadron fleet in the Navy. Commanders have to be constantly in a state of readiness as if they’re already at war. Being president of Harvard Law Review doesn’t cut it any more than being a president of a book club.
http://campaignspot.nationalre.....c1MDE5Y2U=
He assumed command of a squadron during non-war time and had it repair fighter planes. Nice.
Personally I’m impressed by Obama’s leadership style…For example, I read a few in-depth articles on that matter and they consistently say he really hears out both sides’ arguments before making a stand. I think that’s important to making good decisions.
But let’s not kid ourselves. We’re basically voting on issues.
I guess being an “community organizer” is worth a few points.
“STOP OBAMA”- if you’re inclined to learn where Obama stands on the issues, go to his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)
Bouyea, I don’t follow your first question. I can elaborate on the title though.
Three reasons:
1) I chose the title because it echoes what many people feel about Palin. They’re not crazy about her.
2) She’s being disgustingly objectified in the media as a momma babe. Hot Mama running for VP. Or the Hottest Governor from the Coolest State. This election has made politics easy to poke fun at, especially Palin. Here’s one: “She’s not bad-looking. She looks like one of those women in the Van Halen videos who takes off her glasses, shakes out her hair, and then all of a sudden, she’s in high heels and a bikini. All of a sudden, I am FOR drilling in Alaska.” —Jimmy Kimmel
3) This writer has a sense of humor.
My problem with Palin is her extreme religious conservitism. There is supposed to be a division between church and state in this country, and Bush has eroded a lot of our rights in this area in the last 8 years. If Palin becomes president, she will push to erode our rights even more. Jesus himself removed the “middle man” from between God and the individual. I do not need Sarah Palin trying to get back in the middle and legislate my moral decisions.
K.L., that’s absolutely rubbish.
Actually, that is not rubbish at all. I am concerned about your response to K.L’s commentary.
Palin, riding on McCain’s coattails, could very easily erode our religious rights, moral/ethic beliefs, etc. I, for one, do not need her telling me that wars started by us are God’s will.
It’s RUBBISH. Period.
Your last comment is also rubbish as well.
I agree. A bit of rubbish. Her prayer was taken out of context by Charles Gibson. It has been shown how that was the case. What’s clear is that she’s not asserting that we are doing God’s will but simply praying that we are. It’s the difference between me saying “Obama will win” and “I pray that Obama will win.” The first prayer asserts a secret fact, the second is an expression of desire or hope. What Palin did was the later.
Nice blog, Liz. Keep this in mind: Palin was selected by McCain for her role in the energy security issue - she got the natural gas pipeline deal finalized after being on the backburner on some years. In the next few years, the United States of America will have a serious energy and economic crisis, whether Obama or McCain is in the White House. That’s all I have to say, consider yourself “forewarned” in advance.
K.L.-
Can you please list the “rights” that were taken away from us during the past eight years? How many of those should actually be considered “privileges”? A true conservative knows the difference.
Hi JT:
“How many of those should actually be considered “privileges”? A true conservative knows the difference.”
I won’t argue with you, but I’d like to see what you have to say… from the conservative’s point of view, what’s the difference?
Chris,
I wrote that with half a tongue in cheek. I’m positive liberals would say the same for themselves! I think it all has to do with how we interpret the Constitution differently. Although I do believe that many conservatives and liberals actually hold similar goals; they just have different priorities and separate ways of getting there. For example, when the ACLU lost their wiretapping case before the Supreme Court last February, it did not rattle me. Some liberals I knew acted as if the world was coming to an end.
Speaking of that, why is it that so many Democrats think this country is headed straight to hell? It’s the most common motif I see on liberal blogs - everywhere. “Americans are headed straight to hell!”. Can you please explain that?
Hi JT:
I don’t think we’re headed straight to hell. Like the stock market we just sort of plunge and soar, plunge and soar, surfing the sulfuric updrafts…
I never really know what to make of the whole conservative/liberal - Republican/Democrat thing. I’ve always voted as I’ve seen fit over the last twenty or so years, and I’ve voted Republican as often as I’ve voted Democrat. The far right and the far left of conservatives and liberals increasingly sound no more or less… _______ …(try as I might I cannot think of the best word to put here) than those in the dead-set moderate center. It depends on the issue and the realities surrounding it.
Just a general observation.
Voting Republican in the last few years has brought to you and me the proposed $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street. That means an additional $2,000 to you and me each of federal government debt — money that could have been used for infrastructure renewal, national health care, and a sane energy policy. Instead, we’re funding Wall Street folks who make at least ten times the average Gallaudet professor’s salary.
Kind of a shame, that, eh?
A bill in 2005 was introduced to try and head off the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle only to have it blocked and stymied by Democrats.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....KSoiNbnQY0
Secondly,
It was Bill Clinton who in 1999 “signed into law a sweeping overhaul of Depression-era banking laws. The measure lifts barriers in the industry and allows banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge and to sell each other’s products.” That how all this mess got started.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....A96F958260
Plus a whole bunch of Senators, Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill before passing it to Clinton for his signature.
Plus, the White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings. In fact, Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone… Dems Ignored Warnings:
** 2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (”Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
** 2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market’s] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)
** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....19-15.html
Look no further than the Democrats who have stymied the whole process for the last 7 years. And it was Rep Barney Frank who said this in 2003:
” ‘These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’ Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.”
Exaggerated? Who is Barney trying to fool?
Get the facts straight, folks.
With respect to your first comment, I believe it was a Republican controlled Congress and Republican majority in the Banking Committee. It can hardly be said that the Democrats had any say pre-November 2006. The Republicans were quite good at quashing the minority party then and now they want the Dems to have (at least part of) the blame? Talk about hypocrisy.
With respect to your second comment, yes, Bill Clinton signed the Glass-Steagall deregulation. Ironically, that might have allowed the larger banks to survive the current crisis.
However, John McCain’s current economic advisor and the person slated to become the Treasury Secretary in a McCain administration, Phil Gramm, also pushed for the deregulation of commodities and derivatives. You know, the credit default swaps and derivatives that we’re all hearing about. This was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. “It mandated sweeping deregulation of investment banks, declaring off-limits to regulators most over the counter derivatives, credit derivatives, credit defaults, and swaps.”
http://www.washingtonspectator.....415fyi.cfm
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor.....12610.html
The end result is a Wild West of commodities, derivatives, and arcane issues that very few people, even on Wall Street, understand.
And, as they say, the music died.
And now, we’re in a fine pickle, and Gramm actually said we’re in a mental recession.
Republican hypocrites.
The current GOP would be summed up in two sentences:
(1) Borrow and spend
(2) Privatize profits and socialize losses
Oh, excuse me, and stick the taxpayers with the bill.
Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave right now.
The White House was uninterested in regulating anything. Just Google “Oxley and White House and finger” and you’ll get this –
“One key player in the push for tighter regulation was then-Rep. Michael Oxley, an Ohio Republican, who worked with Democrats to get a bill reforming regulation of government-sponsored enterprises passed in 2005.
Efforts to reach Mr. Oxley, now a vice president at Nasdaq, failed. But he recently told The Financial Times of London that the White House was unwavering in wanting Fannie and Freddie entirely privatized.
The bill died in the Senate.
“All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” Mr. Oxley told The Financial Times. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.””
http://www.thetimes-tribune.co.....05_loc.txt
Republicans have to recognize that reality has a liberal bias and lying and spinning isn’t going to change the fact that history will stick the responsibility of making the U.S. a third world country onto the Republican party.
Rep Barney Frank said this in 2003:
” ‘These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, ‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’ Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.”
Barney Frank said that Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were never in any financial crisis back in 2003. Though many have sounded the alarm since 2001 that these two institutions were indeed not doing things “properly.”
Even Democrat Chuck Schumer said today that home ownership is the problem here: “The lowly mortgage has brought our economy to its knees.”
And if Barney says there isn’t any financial crisis looming then all is well and the FM and FM will not manifest themselves into a horrible financial crapshoot 5 years later.
Secondly, you need to realize that any bill that is passed must pass both the House and Senate before it lands on the president’s desk for his/her signature. Review a little bit of history of the Worldcom, Enron, Tyco and few others during the late 90s’ and early 2000s that turned out to be one of the financial debacles that cost investors billions of dollars. Because of that, the Sarbannes-Oxley Act was passed in the Senate with a vote of 99-0 to help ensure greater corporate and financial reporting responsibilities. Bush signed it with great fanfare certainly shows that he was serious to get some reform going in the financial and investment sector.
As for reform, did you not read? Bush requested on numerous occassions since 2001 that FM & FM were in need of reform. And it’s funny how you say that “Democrats had any say pre-November 2006″ when in fact In 2005, the House of Representatives voted 331 to 90 on Wednesday to revamp the oversight of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Bank. An overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. But it didn’t go anywhere with the Senate at all. It died on the floor. Though all one has to do is look at Barney Frank’s comment back in 2005 saying there were no financial crisis with FM & FM. How sorely wrong he was and he knew very well there were financial problems. Unless he’s admitting stupidity seeing how it all finally collapsed this year.
I’m no super-duper expert when it comes to this crisis- but my gut feeling, and the gut feeling I have about my gut feeling is that it’s very accurate this time, is that BOTH parties are at fault.
I blame Republicans more so than Democrats. Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994 until 2006. Republicans have been president from Reagan, Bush I, and now, Bush II. Clinton was the sole Democratic president in recent years and he acquiesced to the standard thinking that deregulation provides the answers to all economic ills.
And, now, Republicans that are pure free market ideologues (Hayek variety) are holding up the bailout. They’d rather win elections than save the country from a Great Depression.
Hey, there’s a non-partisan fact-checking website I wish I knew about earlier:
http://www.factcheck.org/
It doesn’t take any sides. Be sure to check it out!
Liz-
I’m glad you wrote this blog, even if we don’t hold identical political views. It is encouraging that a good number of people are choosing to participate and comment in here; I would like to see more of that from the deaf community especially in the political ’sphere.
Agreed! Thanks for the nice comment. And thanks for participating. It took courage to post this blog. I hope to read other perspectives as the election takes shape in the next few weeks.
Path of Trash kind of caught my attention, words that I would not have used.
I worked in the school system, as a Sign Language interpreter, out in the valley. That’s how residents of Anchorage would refer to Wasilla and the surrounding area.
I understand Palin, her lifestyle and her choices. I also understand why McCain chose her. Transparent or not, the affect was as he intended it.
None of this gets me too terribly upset. Perhaps I am jaded. Political choices are made for, well, political reasons. Tremendous swaths of the country are pro-life, conservative, Bible-believing folks. I came from such an area, in the Midwest, and am proud and grateful for my upbringing.
My politics are informed by my youth, not dictated. Today, living in New Jersey, I cleave to fundamental values tempered by a life of experiences outside of the Midwest. But, as I have to often remind friends, there is a great country to our left - geographically - from where we stand on the eastern seaboard whose views are vastly different but no less valid.
Leave my country should Palin, by accident or election, become president? No, I’ll stay right here, thank you. Palin or not, this is my country, too.
Let’s see Palin has experiences as a mayor and as a governor. Biden has no real world operational experiences in foreign policy (never lived overseas inthe last 30 years, ignore the UN during the “war” in Kosovo). McCain was a naval aviator and served as an U.S. Navy officer (not everyone can do that). Obama flip-flop on his muslim father and confused something. Presidents and vice-presidents and elected officials are not required to undergo/pass background checks for security clearances (www.dss.mil and http://www.opm.gov) but Biden, Palin and McCain will pass if required. Obama can’t sinc ehe has foreign relatives overseas. Jeff, Obama’s disability policy is heavy on social welfare and nothing on economic development.
Can you please kindly point to the source that Obama “flip flopped” on his father and “confused something”?
Obama’s positions on disability issues: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/dahome/