Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Jared wrote: The Republican part strategy with Palin (and actually, their whole campaign) seems to be the stereotypical Italian/Mexican soccer player strategy (or, for you MLS fans, Carlos Ruiz). Play dirty all game long, and then if their fouled once (phantom foul or not), go down like they've been shot and whine to the ref.
I think it's more along the lines of a coach taking his player off the field for a few minutes to get fitted for a protective cup because the referee keeps kicking him in the nuts.Jared wrote:
The Republican part strategy with Palin (and actually, their whole campaign) seems to be the stereotypical Italian/Mexican soccer player strategy (or, for you MLS fans, Carlos Ruiz). Play dirty all game long, and then if their fouled once (phantom foul or not), go down like they've been shot and whine to the ref.
Except in this game, the referee is supposed to kick you.FatPitcher wrote:I think it's more along the lines of a coach taking his player off the field for a few minutes to get fitted for a protective cup because the referee keeps kicking him in the nuts.Jared wrote:
The Republican part strategy with Palin (and actually, their whole campaign) seems to be the stereotypical Italian/Mexican soccer player strategy (or, for you MLS fans, Carlos Ruiz). Play dirty all game long, and then if their fouled once (phantom foul or not), go down like they've been shot and whine to the ref.
What in the world are you talking about? The Obama campaign has done that more than anybody, Jared! They're even playing the race card now, for pete's sake, and allowing it to be done without one word of correction or protest. Not saying McCain's camp is clean, but c'mon-you can't limit this to one campaign.Jared wrote:RobVarak wrote: Some insight into the Palin smear jobs. 91(!) rumors debunked, many of which have appeared in the national media without correction or retraction.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dissecting ... umor-mill/
The Republican part strategy with Palin (and actually, their whole campaign) seems to be the stereotypical Italian/Mexican soccer player strategy (or, for you MLS fans, Carlos Ruiz). Play dirty all game long, and then if their fouled once (phantom foul or not), go down like they've been shot and whine to the ref.
Campaigns are like sports. They're never as well run as they look when they win and never as poorly run as they look when they lose.JRod wrote:
I bet after the election if we don't see an October suprise from McCain, we'll hear how this one of the worst run campaigns. In the same league as Gore/Kerry/Dukakis.
And because it's true. That you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Can't see wind, either.Jared wrote:Note that in the analogy, it's not like the other team doesn't ever foul (there've been a few Obama ads that I've completely disagreed with, for example). But it's the number of fouls and (importantly) the reaction to any contact (phantom or otherwise). Like making a page of 91 "rumors", when in actually it's nothing like that. Or when the media reports things that are true and complaining about it. Or baseless complaining about media bias against conservatives when it's not there.
And btw, I'm not saying it's not an effective strategy. The Republicans are doing it, and have done it (see "liberal media bias") because it works.
No, the referee is supposed to treat each team equally. If he doesn't call obvious fouls on one team but does on the other team, that's bad. If he commits fouls himself against a team he doesn't like, that's even worse.JRod wrote:Except in this game, the referee is supposed to kick you.FatPitcher wrote:I think it's more along the lines of a coach taking his player off the field for a few minutes to get fitted for a protective cup because the referee keeps kicking him in the nuts.Jared wrote:
The Republican part strategy with Palin (and actually, their whole campaign) seems to be the stereotypical Italian/Mexican soccer player strategy (or, for you MLS fans, Carlos Ruiz). Play dirty all game long, and then if their fouled once (phantom foul or not), go down like they've been shot and whine to the ref.
Your argument would be a whole lot stronger if Sean Hannity didn't lop soft balls to Palin. I agree you can go after someone without tearing them apart. But the very fact that Palin is so inaccessible should set off red flags.
This isn't a supreme court nomination. You have to answer questions even if you don't like it. If Palin/McCain were skilled politicians they would be able to turn the media on itself instead of attacking the media. For example, they would do a better job of having the media reevaluate how they cover Obama. Clinton tried this and made ground late, by this time it was pretty much impossible for her to come back.
Instead by keeping Palin and also McCain at arm's length, the campaign is making this the story, not the treatment of Obama.
I bet after the election if we don't see an October suprise from McCain, we'll hear how this one of the worst run campaigns. In the same league as Gore/Kerry/Dukakis.
I think the more accurate analogy for the Republicans is Sir Alex Ferguson, complaining about the ref's continually prior to the big game in order to get more sympathetic calls, with Palin's place taken by Christiano Ronaldo doing fancy stepovers and then falling over clutching his shin after a phantom foul!Jared wrote:Note that in the analogy, it's not like the other team doesn't ever foul (there've been a few Obama ads that I've completely disagreed with, for example). But it's the number of fouls and (importantly) the reaction to any contact (phantom or otherwise). Like making a page of 91 "rumors", when in actually it's nothing like that. Or when the media reports things that are true and complaining about it. Or baseless complaining about media bias against conservatives when it's not there.
And btw, I'm not saying it's not an effective strategy. The Republicans are doing it, and have done it (see "liberal media bias") because it works.
Some things work because they're creative, others work because they're trueJared wrote: And btw, I'm not saying it's not an effective strategy. The Republicans are doing it, and have done it (see "liberal media bias") because it works.
If you read as: responses to 91 rumors, instances of innuendo, and false or misleading attacks, then it's fine. For example, the part about running Alaska isn't debunking a false rumor, but it is a valid response to the attack line that governing Alaska is a cakewalk and therefore should count for nothing.Jared wrote:Note that in the analogy, it's not like the other team doesn't ever foul (there've been a few Obama ads that I've completely disagreed with, for example). But it's the number of fouls and (importantly) the reaction to any contact (phantom or otherwise). Like making a page of 91 "rumors", when in actually it's nothing like that. Or when the media reports things that are true and complaining about it. Or baseless complaining about media bias against conservatives when it's not there.
And btw, I'm not saying it's not an effective strategy. The Republicans are doing it, and have done it (see "liberal media bias") because it works.
Well I'm not going to get into an argument of the sport's analogy. But there is no rulebook for the press.FatPitcher wrote: No, the referee is supposed to treat each team equally. If he doesn't call obvious fouls on one team but does on the other team, that's bad. If he commits fouls himself against a team he doesn't like, that's even worse.
The media's job is not to bring people down, as you suggest, or to promote people or agendas. It's to provide information in a neutral fashion. In this race, it's blatantly done both of the things it shouldn't: taking pot shots at Palin in a decidedly non-neutral fashion while ignoring or downplaying her accomplishments, and building up Obama based on nothing but smooth speeches and ethnic and party affiliation while ignoring any negative aspects of his candidacy to the greatest degree possible.
Sean Hannity? He's a partisan hack and admits it gladly. No one watches his show to get the unvarnished truth; they watch it for the opinions. Same deal with Keith Olbermann. There's no pretense to objectivity there. It's the people and organizations who odiously claim the mantle of objectivity while pushing their agendas that are the problem.
I don't think Palin's inaccessibility is unusual. There has to be some time for her to get in sync with the McCain campaign and to get a crash course in national politics. Otherwise you see stuff like with Biden and Obama where they are contradicting each other and confusing people. I don't see how those crossed wires help voters at all. And of course, it has been abundantly clear from the time she was picked that the media going to subject every word out of her mouth to levels of scrutiny unheard-of for a vice-presidential candidate, so she has to have a little time to practice dotting her i's and crossing her t's. Finally, the campaign wants the focus to be on McCain, so they are letting this full-fledged obsession with Palin die down a little instead of feeding it.
So you're basically saying, if you define "rumor" not as the definition of the word, but something that rumor doesn't mean, then it's fine.FatPitcher wrote:If you read as: responses to 91 rumors, instances of innuendo, and false or misleading attacks, then it's fine. For example, the part about running Alaska isn't debunking a false rumor, but it is a valid response to the attack line that governing Alaska is a cakewalk and therefore should count for nothing.Jared wrote:Note that in the analogy, it's not like the other team doesn't ever foul (there've been a few Obama ads that I've completely disagreed with, for example). But it's the number of fouls and (importantly) the reaction to any contact (phantom or otherwise). Like making a page of 91 "rumors", when in actually it's nothing like that. Or when the media reports things that are true and complaining about it. Or baseless complaining about media bias against conservatives when it's not there.
And btw, I'm not saying it's not an effective strategy. The Republicans are doing it, and have done it (see "liberal media bias") because it works.
It's funny watching people crying about the injustice of chain letters saying Obama is a Muslim while trying to justify or ignore the Palin smears from the Obama campaign, the Democratic political apparatus (DNC, dailykos, etc.), and the mainstream media.
Yep, just like Pelosi's "THE PARTY IS OVER!" soundbite disguised as a diatribe today. She stumbled and tripped over her tongue with every phrase between her repetitions of the mantra, "THE PARTY IS OVER!" It was f*cking hilarious, seeing just how incompetent and out of touch she really is.FatPitcher wrote:Congress will fold, as always. When push comes to shove, none of them--or more accurately, neither party controlling them--is willing to go out on a limb and risk being the one who f***ed up the world's economy, especially right before an election. We'll also get a bunch of meaningless crap added on to Paulson's plan so that Congress can preen their feathers and say how tough they are.
But even the legit stuff like Troopergate isn't being presented neutrally. In how many of the stories you read do you find out about the numerous factors indicating that it's all a farce? The partisan nature of the inquiry and its leader, its suspicious timing, the obvious fact that the trooper has no credibility and deserved not only dismissal but jail time, etc. Instead, we are expected to infer that because she has a lawyer, she's guilty of something, etc. It's beyond silly.Jared wrote:
As for the Palin "smears", you have to define what they are, who's disseminating them, etc. They seem to be in two categories: stupid rumors that are smears, but (importantly) haven't been disseminated by any of the mainstream press, and have if anything given her sympathetic attention) or things that are true that McCain/Palin doesn't like being covered (Palin not going up for a subpoena, Troopergate, her Bridge to nowhere exaggerations, rape kits, etc.). McCain/Palin is using the existence of the former to whine against anything that could be construed as negative against them.
They're found time and page 1 space for all sorts of stupid Palin s*** but can't be assed to put the same effort into research on the murkier areas of Obama's background.Jered wrote:Just because the press isn't covering Biden's gaffes much (maybe because they're unimportant compared to a possible recession and a $800 billion dollar bailout) doesn't mean they're in the tank for Obama.
So what if the rape kit story is true? The only reason it was even a story on CNN, much less the headlines is because they are trying to discredit her. They figure any little negative thing with the word Alaska or Palin in the headline will help to cut her down. It's an obvious systematic process they are going through. For all the dumba$$ things Biden has said, I have yet to see even one of them mentioned on the front page of CNNs site.Jared wrote:As for her town meetings, she hasn't taken any questions, and she's had one interview with Gibson, and one with Hannity. Matt, the Palin stories you mentioned were about how there's been an increase in demand in Palin's glasses due to her popularity (positive story) and the rape kit story is true.
Are you serious? If anything what you described has been Obamas strategy. He whines about how we need to stay on the issues and immediately follows it up with an ad about how McCain is old and out of touch. Every time he hears something negative (and mostly true) about him, he calls timeout, only to sucker punch the opponent as they are asking if he's ok.Jared wrote:The Republican part strategy with Palin (and actually, their whole campaign) seems to be the stereotypical Italian/Mexican soccer player strategy (or, for you MLS fans, Carlos Ruiz). Play dirty all game long, and then if their fouled once (phantom foul or not), go down like they've been shot and whine to the ref.
Not just schadenfreude.RobVarak wrote:Well they could be equally fatal, regardless of the merits of either position.FatPitcher wrote: In Congress, the Republican position seems to be, "Hold on, that's a lot of money to be spending," and the Democratic position seems to be, "Hold on, let's add free moneys for everyone!"
And that's also not strictly accurate. Much of the Democratic questioning that I saw was about making sure there was enough schadenfreude from punishing the CEO's and the GOP seems much more concerned about who can make the cleverest references to communism. Neither is a particularly productive use of time.
Okay...then the weather vane shows a strong west (left) wind, apparent to anyone who actually looks up at the thing...Jared wrote:
Teal,
You don't measure wind by seeing it...you use a weather vane, an anenometer, etc. If you're looking for wind without the right tools, you're gonna find it even when it's not there.
She's the best!!pk500 wrote:Yep, just like Pelosi's "THE PARTY IS OVER!" soundbite disguised as a diatribe today. She stumbled and tripped over her tongue with every phrase between her repetitions of the mantra, "THE PARTY IS OVER!" It was f*cking hilarious, seeing just how incompetent and out of touch she really is.FatPitcher wrote:Congress will fold, as always. When push comes to shove, none of them--or more accurately, neither party controlling them--is willing to go out on a limb and risk being the one who f***ed up the world's economy, especially right before an election. We'll also get a bunch of meaningless crap added on to Paulson's plan so that Congress can preen their feathers and say how tough they are.
Take care,
PK
Someone on the Left please break ths down for me. Explain to me why as a Libertarian I should vote for anyone in your party. Hell Obama has only been in the Senate for 4 years yet he is second behind Dodd in getting money from Fannie and Freddie. Yet he and the Dems are pointing fingers at Bush and McCain for this mess. They tried to stop it years ago.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:
** 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.
Why aren't the media reporting these connections?In a 2005 video Daniel Mudd, at the time the interim CEO of the catastrophically failed mortgage lender Fannie Mae, affirmed his fealty and that of Fannie Mae to the Congressional Black Caucus. The top three campaign donation recipients were Democrats, number two of which was Barack Obama, yet the media is laying mum on these facts. One wonders what would be going on in the media if John McCain were a top recipient of campaign donations from a market crashing, government bail-out getting organization like Fannie Mae?
The three top campaign donation recipients from Fannie Mae were all Democrats. Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) got $165,000, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was given $126,349, and failed presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) took $111,000 from the folks at Fannie Mae.
Most of the top Fannie executives were also Democrats each of whom worked closely with Democratic presidents and Barack Obama. Franklin Raines, Clinton White House budget director, ran Fannie Mae and pocketed $50 million. Jamie Gorelick was a Clinton Justice Department Official (famous for adding to our intelligence failures helping cause the attacks on 9/11) was paid $26 million. Jim Johnson, who most recently served on Obama's VP search committee, was the CEO of Fannie Mae and has also made millions. These Clinton/Obama associates sat at the head of a failing financial agency all the while raking in millions and donating hundreds of thousands to top Democrats.
So what, you may ask? Well, there is a reason that these Fannie Mae officials donated to Democrats. It was because Democrats continued to stymie Republican efforts to fix these failing lending agencies. Democrats protected these rotten lending practices and the Fannie Mae executives knew who were the sugar daddies that needed greasing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_S ... donors-oba
The thing is, these factors aren't really factors. The partisan nature of the inquiry? The Legislative Council, consisting of 4 Democrats and 8 Republicans, voted 12-0 to hire an independent investigator to look at the issue. Yes, it's headed by a Democrat..a Democrat that was voted to do this unanimously by that council. Partisan? No.FatPitcher wrote: But even the legit stuff like Troopergate isn't being presented neutrally. In how many of the stories you read do you find out about the numerous factors indicating that it's all a farce? The partisan nature of the inquiry and its leader, its suspicious timing, the obvious fact that the trooper has no credibility and deserved not only dismissal but jail time, etc.
And then the "murky" Obama background, which is this seven degrees of guilt by association crap. But quickly, this stuff has been reported by the press. And Obama has even talked about it (for example, see his 90 minute interview with the Tribune about Rezko, where he laid everything out). Again, it's another example of Republican whining about why won't the media report the way we want to spin things (Obama knew Ayers, therefore Obama luvs him some terrorists).FatPitcher wrote: They're found time and page 1 space for all sorts of stupid Palin s*** but can't be assed to put the same effort into research on the murkier areas of Obama's background.
