OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Teal]

I'll be completely honest -- I don't know who Andrew Sullivan is. By the nature of your comment I understand that he is a left leaning pundit, but that's really not why I thought that article was worth mentioning. As a matter of fact, I believe that article can do more good for GOP supporters as it significantly lowers expectations of Palin before the debate, something republicans are trying very hard to accomplish.

Mostly, I wanted to revert the discussion toward Thursday's debate, as well as point out that by now, Palin's absense from the media is just borderline absurd.

Yeah, I know, and I think the rest of us know. And that's why any discrediting was not done toward you.

As far as Palin's absence is concerned, I'd be inclined to agree with you to an extent. But I'm not one who thinks that the media are necessarily the big players they like to think they are, and that we give them too much credit in that regard for. If it were me, if I were the VP, I'd tell the media to stick it, really, but the difference between me and Palin's handlers is that I'd have no problem telling them that in an interview. The stump is where she needs to be, and it's on the stump that she's on her game. Her handlers have been too 'safe' with her-hell, let her be herself, and let it rip. If she goes down after that, at least it'll be in a blaze of glory...

[Teal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_b ... a9iP1v24cA

They edited it from the original title, which was, I believe, 'F*cking Stupid, Partisan Talking Point Analysis'...

*NEWSFLASH* Congress just did this to *pay back* McCain... riiiiiiiiight....

The bullshit meter just went off the charts...

[MACTEPsporta]

Congress doesn't give a s*** about the plan. They have their own election to worry about. 8 out of 38 congressmen in close-race districts voted against the plan. Everyone else was split 50/50. They just want to be able to say, I voted against this plan, down the road, not to mention please their current constituency, which, in large won't support the plan.

Truth be told, the more I learn about the plan the worse it sounds. It could be the worst financial decision in history. I personally am starting to acquire a view shared, strangely enough, by many conservatives -- let it bleed out. I used the analogy with broken pipes before, I think now is the time where you move out of the house and let it collapse. Build the new one on top, and make it better this time around. This would be the purely economical decision. Unfortunately matters are complicated by the elections and the war, so neither party can afford to take a step back and watch everything crumble. They must intervene, even though, it will most likely result in a bigger crisis down the line.

[Jared]

Well, while we're at the 'who to blame for what' game...

OK. I've mentioned this before in the thread...the issues at Fannie and Freddie Mac being discussed in that video have little, if anything to do with the current financial crisis. (And before I am called a staunch defender of Fannie/Freddie, there were and are problems with Fannie/Freddie, including misleading accounting in the past). The changes that Republicans were suggesting re: Fannie/Freddie wouldn't have done anything to solve this financial crisis. Corruption in Fannie/Freddie is (at best) a very minor factor in the current state of the market.

I'm going to quote Krugman here from a few months ago...if he's making mistakes, feel free to let me know.

But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.

Partly that’s because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.

So whatever bad incentives the implicit federal guarantee creates have been offset by the fact that Fannie and Freddie were and are tightly regulated with regard to the risks they can take. You could say that the Fannie-Freddie experience shows that regulation works.

In that case, however, how did they end up in trouble?

Part of the answer is the sheer scale of the housing bubble, and the size of the price declines taking place now that the bubble has burst. In Los Angeles, Miami and other places, anyone who borrowed to buy a house at the peak of the market probably has negative equity at this point, even if he or she originally put 20 percent down. The result is a rising rate of delinquency even on loans that meet Fannie-Freddie guidelines.

Also, Fannie and Freddie, while tightly regulated in terms of their lending, haven’t been required to put up enough capital — that is, money raised by selling stock rather than borrowing. This means that even a small decline in the value of their assets can leave them underwater, owing more than they own.

And yes, there is a real political scandal here: there have been repeated warnings that Fannie’s and Freddie’s thin capitalization posed risks to taxpayers, but the companies’ management bought off the political process, systematically hiring influential figures from both parties. While they were ugly, however, Fannie’s and Freddie’s political machinations didn’t play a significant role in causing our current problems.

[Jared]

MACTEP, there a few people around with less credibility on Palin-related news than Andrew Sullivan. I'm actually surprised that FiveThirtyEight relied on his "sources." OTOH, Sean Quinn is significantly more partisan than Nate Silver, so I shouldn't be that surprised.

Original source of the story was radio talk show host Ed Schultz.

http://www.wegoted.com/

[RobVarak]

MACTEP, there a few people around with less credibility on Palin-related news than Andrew Sullivan. I'm actually surprised that FiveThirtyEight relied on his "sources." OTOH, Sean Quinn is significantly more partisan than Nate Silver, so I shouldn't be that surprised.

Original source of the story was radio talk show host Ed Schultz.

http://www.wegoted.com/

I've seen him on panels etc., but didn't know who he was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Schultz

"straight talk from the heartland" from a "gun-totin', red meat-eatin' lefty."

Interesting angle

[wco81]

Some numbers on CDS:

The CDS market exploded over the past decade to more than $45 trillion in mid-2007, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. This is roughly twice the size of the U.S. stock market (which is valued at about $22 trillion and falling) and far exceeds the $7.1 trillion mortgage market and $4.4 trillion U.S. treasuries market, notes Harvey Miller, senior partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges. "It could be another — I hate to use the expression — nail in the coffin," said Miller, when referring to how this troubled CDS market could impact the country's credit crisis.

Credit default swaps are insurance-like contracts that promise to cover losses on certain securities in the event of a default. They typically apply to municipal bonds, corporate debt and mortgage securities and are sold by banks, hedge funds and others. The buyer of the credit default insurance pays premiums over a period of time in return for peace of mind, knowing that losses will be covered if a default happens. It's supposed to work similarly to someone taking out home insurance to protect against losses from fire and theft.

Except that it doesn't. Banks and insurance companies are regulated; the credit swaps market is not. As a result, contracts can be traded — or swapped — from investor to investor without anyone overseeing the trades to ensure the buyer has the resources to cover the losses if the security defaults. The instruments can be bought and sold from both ends — the insured and the insurer.

All of this makes it tough for banks to value the insurance contracts and the securities on their books. And it comes at a time when banks are already reeling from write-downs on mortgage-related securities. "These are the same institutions that themselves have either directly or through subsidiaries invested in the subprime market," said Andrea Pincus, partner at Reed Smith LLP. "They're suffering losses all over the place," and now they face potentially more losses from the CDS market.

http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... 52,00.html

Mortgages are dwarfed by the size of the derivatives market based on those mortgages.

[Brando70]

I'll be completely honest -- I don't know who Andrew Sullivan is. By the nature of your comment I understand that he is a left leaning pundit, but that's really not why I thought that article was worth mentioning. As a matter of fact, I believe that article can do more good for GOP supporters as it significantly lowers expectations of Palin before the debate, something republicans are trying very hard to accomplish.

Mostly, I wanted to revert the discussion toward Thursday's debate, as well as point out that by now, Palin's absense from the media is just borderline absurd.

No, Sully is a conservative gay pundit who got excommunicated from the faithful because he thought you shouldn't torture Muslims and that gay people should be treated as people. But he is notoriously unreliable, as most bloggers who fail to get off their asses and actually do any investigative work are.

However, I think the Palin debate is going to be an epic failure. When in the history of American politics has a vice presidential candidate had to be sequestered from the media because she's too goddamned inept to talk to the reporters? She couldn't get through an interview with Katie f***in Couric without looking like a buffoon who could only repeat the same five phrases when you pulled her string. She's going to channel Chevy Chase doing a Ford impersonation during the debate. I can't wait for her to say, "it was my understanding there would be no math during the debate."

[FatPitcher]

I'll be completely honest -- I don't know who Andrew Sullivan is. By the nature of your comment I understand that he is a left leaning pundit, but that's really not why I thought that article was worth mentioning. As a matter of fact, I believe that article can do more good for GOP supporters as it significantly lowers expectations of Palin before the debate, something republicans are trying very hard to accomplish.

Mostly, I wanted to revert the discussion toward Thursday's debate, as well as point out that by now, Palin's absense from the media is just borderline absurd.

No, Sully is a conservative gay pundit who got excommunicated from the faithful because he thought you shouldn't torture Muslims and that gay people should be treated as people. But he is notoriously unreliable, as most bloggers who fail to get off their asses and actually do any investigative work are.

However, I think the Palin debate is going to be an epic failure. When in the history of American politics has a vice presidential candidate had to be sequestered from the media because she's too goddamned inept to talk to the reporters? She couldn't get through an interview with Katie f***in Couric without looking like a buffoon who could only repeat the same five phrases when you pulled her string. She's going to channel Chevy Chase doing a Ford impersonation during the debate. I can't wait for her to say, "it was my understanding there would be no math during the debate."

He was conservative. Now he's reliably left-wing. And in a completely unrelated twist, his logical faculties have completely eroded.

[Jackdog]

Truth be told, the more I learn about the plan the worse it sounds. It could be the worst financial decision in history. I personally am starting to acquire a view shared, strangely enough, by many conservatives -- let it bleed out. I used the analogy with broken pipes before, I think now is the time where you move out of the house and let it collapse. Build the new one on top, and make it better this time around. This would be the purely economical decision. Unfortunately matters are complicated by the elections and the war, so neither party can afford to take a step back and watch everything crumble. They must intervene, even though, it will most likely result in a bigger crisis down the line.

I am feeling the same way. The more I read,the more I agree with the vote today. Oil dropped $11 today and it's going to fall more tomorrow. The US dollar had the single biggest gain in 15 years. It gained nearly five cents on the British pound today.The market should have a nice bounce tomorrow because everything was terribly oversold today. We shall see.

[fsquid]

market will fall again tomorrow because it is the last day of the quarter.

[Teal]

When in the history of American politics has a vice presidential candidate had to be sequestered from the media because she's too goddamned inept to talk to the reporters?

At the moment people started conjecturing that as the reason. Look, I don't know why they're doing it, but, frankly, neither do you. Inept is a guy who likes to think he knows when a TV was invented, and who was president at the time, who has more bloopers than Dick Clark, and gets a pass in spite of it all. And there's a damned looooong record to go by.

Did Palin drop the ball in the Couric interview? Yes. Is she judged by a different criteria than other VP's, and, frankly, Presidential candidates? You'd better believe it.

I may be totally wrong, and am willing to be, but I'm saving my talk until after Thursday night. It might be a cluster f***, I don't know. But it's precisely because I don't know that I'm not going to carry on beforehand. I see this 'inept' talk creep up, not based on facts, but on conjecture and opinion that is based upon biases, to a degree. I'm not saying she couldn't have done a MUCH better job, but I AM saying that...she COULD'VE done a much better job, if the reins weren't pulled so tight. She's proven that already.

I'm getting really tired of the bullshit talk about Palin. It's as though some of you HOPE she's as inept as you THINK she is...

I don't mean to unload all this on you, Brando, but I've kind of stayed out of all the armchair quarterback talk regarding Palin, and I need to vent. I'm not terribly interested in counterpoints, as I didn't put this out here with any intention to debate anyone on the subject. But could we cut out the Quayle-ification rituals? They simply don't fit her yet.

[RobVarak]

I'm going to quote Krugman here from a few months ago...if he's making mistakes, feel free to let me know.

http://volokh.com/posts/1216064965.shtml

Conn Carroll responds:

Where to begin? First let’s stipulate that Fannie and Freddie never did “any subprime lending” … but not for the reason Krugman states. Freddie and Fannie never do any lending: They buy mortgages from lenders only, so that those lenders have more cash to make other loans (like subprime ones). But Krugman is either lying or being intentionally obtuse when he says “Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.” The Washington Post reports:

In 1995, President Bill Clinton’s HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

… In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low “teaser” interest rates and ignoring borrowers’ qualifications.

HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.

That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number.…

But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie’s purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising. …

In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion — 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent.

Let’s review that last paragraph again. Krugman is trying to convince his readers that Freddie and Fannie are only innocent bystanders in the housing bubble. Fannie and Freddie purchased 44 percent of the subprime securities in 2004. Does that sound like the behavior of an innocent bystander to you?

And Carroll's argument doesn't even account for the fact that F&F's particiapation in the market legitimized the subprime market for other institutions.

The video is still powerful evidence of the fact that Congress was more than willing to overlook potentially fatal economic fallout in order to protect the GSE's, and the expansion of "fair housing."

PS Anyone else getting confused about which thread we're posting in?

[Jared]

Conn Carroll responds:

Where to begin? First let’s stipulate that Fannie and Freddie never did “any subprime lending” … but not for the reason Krugman states. Freddie and Fannie never do any lending: They buy mortgages from lenders only, so that those lenders have more cash to make other loans (like subprime ones). But Krugman is either lying or being intentionally obtuse when he says “Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.” The Washington Post reports:

Look at the comments section of that thread. People there (that are loathe to defend Krugman) noting that the WaPo is using a different definition of subprime than Krugman. From Wikipedia, and in defense of Krugman:

In the United States, mortgage lending specifically, the term "subprime" refers to loans that do not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines.

It's likely that the WaPo article is using the definition of subprime as any loan that goes below the prime rate for any substantial period of time.

Some more on the topic, a link by Calculated Risk on Krugman's column, and Krugman's response:

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008 ... -gses.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... r-follies/

And a good summary from the Calculated Risk post below:

I think we can give Fannie and Freddie their due share of responsibility for the mess we're in, while acknowledging that they were nowhere near the biggest culprits in the recent credit bubble. They may finance most of the home loans in America, but most of the home loans in America aren't the problem; the problem is that very substantial slice of home loans that went outside the Fannie and Freddie box. But Krugman is right to focus on the fact that it was the regulatory and charter constraints of the GSEs that kept that box closed. In the schizoid reality of the GSEs, when they had their "shareholder-owned private company" hats on they did plenty of envelope-pushing. When they had their "affordable housing" hats on, they rationalized dubious theories of credit quality--like the fervent belief that low or no down payment can be fully offset by a pretty FICO score--to beef up their affordable housing goals, often at the expense not of the poor put-upon "private sector" but of FHA, whose traditional borrower pool they pretty thoroughly cherry-picked. Nonetheless, the immovable objects of the conforming loan limits and the charter limitation of taking only loans with a maximum LTV of 80% unless a well-capitalized mortgage insurer took the first loss position, plus all their other regulatory strictures, managed fairly well against the irresistible force of "innovation." If there has ever been an argument for serious regulation of the mortgage markets, the GSEs are it.

[RobVarak]

Conn Carroll responds:

Where to begin? First let’s stipulate that Fannie and Freddie never did “any subprime lending” … but not for the reason Krugman states. Freddie and Fannie never do any lending: They buy mortgages from lenders only, so that those lenders have more cash to make other loans (like subprime ones). But Krugman is either lying or being intentionally obtuse when he says “Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.” The Washington Post reports:

Look at the comments section of that thread. People there (that are loathe to defend Krugman) noting that the WaPo is using a different definition of subprime than Krugman. From Wikipedia, and in defense of Krugman:

In the United States, mortgage lending specifically, the term "subprime" refers to loans that do not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines.

It's likely that the WaPo article is using the definition of subprime as any loan that goes below the prime rate for any substantial period of time.

Some more on the topic, a link by Calculated Risk on Krugman's column, and Krugman's response:

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008 ... -gses.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... r-follies/

CR's analysis is easily the most persuasive for me. And the net result is still that the GSE's were a significant player in the crisis.

I don't understand this rush to minimize the role of the GSE's...

Furthermore, both GSEs were major culprits in the growth of the mega-lenders. Over the years they were struggling so hard to maintain market share, they were allowing themselves to experience huge concentration risks. As they catered more and more to their "major partners"--Countrywide, Wells Fargo, WaMu, the usual suspects--they helped sustain and worsen the "aggregator" model in which smaller lenders sold loans not to the GSEs but to CFC or WFC, who then sold the loans to the GSEs. In large measure this was a function of pricing: the aggregators got the best pricing from the GSEs--the lowest guarantee fees, the best execution options--making it more attractive for a number of reasons for small lenders to sell to the aggregators.

In the schizoid reality of the GSEs, when they had their "shareholder-owned private company" hats on they did plenty of envelope-pushing. When they had their "affordable housing" hats on, they rationalized dubious theories of credit quality--like the fervent belief that low or no down payment can be fully offset by a pretty FICO score--to beef up their affordable housing goals, often at the expense not of the poor put-upon "private sector" but of FHA, whose traditional borrower pool they pretty thoroughly cherry-picked. Nonetheless, the immovable objects of the conforming loan limits and the charter limitation of taking only loans with a maximum LTV of 80% unless a well-capitalized mortgage insurer took the first loss position, plus all their other regulatory strictures, managed fairly well against the irresistible force of "innovation." If there has ever been an argument for serious regulation of the mortgage markets, the GSEs are it.

I think we can give Fannie and Freddie their due share of responsibility for the mess we're in, while acknowledging that they were nowhere near the biggest culprits in the recent credit bubble.

Here's what we know.

The GSE's were a significant factor in the current crisis. Maybe not the largest and certainly not the only factor, but an important one nonetheless.

Even before the current crisis the GSE's were engaged in illegal and improper activity.

Despite the efforts of some in Congress and the White House, the patrons of F&F on both sides of the aisle either willfully or negligently overlooked the perilous financial straits that these institutions were in. In doing so they turned their back on enormous risk to the economy if these instutions were to fail.

These same patrons, cynically cloaking themselves in the rhetoric of civil rights and fair housing, attacked the regulators trying to ferret out the illegal activity and who were whistleblowing with respect to dubious financial status of the institutions.

There should, at the very least, be a political price paid by these patrons.

Other private sector or government actors may have done worse or been larger factors in the crisis, but this should not exonerate this gang of idiots.

[matthewk]

Here's what I know:

- A lot more than I did a month ago, thanks to the politics/crisis threads here.
- My head hurts from trying to absorb of all this.
- I need a drink. Or two. Or more.

[F308GTB]

One thing is clearly obvious from the bailout stuff and the campaign trail - neither candidate, in my opinion, has the stuff to lead. With a huge perceived problem that will be inherited, if I were running and still drawing a paycheck as a senator, you can bet I'd be in the trenches rather than out on the campaign trail.

I've pretty much made up my mind this election year to vote straight non-incumbent based on the last week.

[Naples39]

The thing I'm wondering about is if this will help either candidate. More specifically does it make McCain look like a fool for his 'stunt' last week, or does it make Obama look like someone who puts campaigning above all else at a time when a stronger voice from the two most visible senators might have rallied more votes and gotten the deal done?

I tend to lean towards the latter. There's already an AP article running about the former, but I simply don't agree that the candidates should've stayed out of it. This is going to be a major issue for the upcoming presidency--shouldn't the candidates be in the thick of it?

[GTHobbes]

I see this 'inept' talk creep up, not based on facts, but on conjecture and opinion that is based upon biases, to a degree. I'm not saying she couldn't have done a MUCH better job, but I AM saying that...she COULD'VE done a much better job, if the reins weren't pulled so tight. She's proven that already.

I'm getting really tired of the bullshit talk about Palin. It's as though some of you HOPE she's as inept as you THINK she is...

I'm guessing you didn't see this story about Caribou Barbie over the weekend:

"WASHINGTON (CNN)— Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama's support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists

"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest," McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. "In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."

Saturday night, while on a stop for cheesesteaks in South Philadelphia, Palin was questioned by a Temple graduate student about whether the U.S. should cross the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

During Friday night's presidential debate in Mississippi, Obama took a similar stance and condemned the Bush administration for failing to act on the possibility terrorists are in Pakistan.

"Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan," Obama said after McCain accused the Illinois senator of wanting to announce an invasion. "If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."

McCain emphasized Sunday, Palin "shares" his view on the matter."

[RobVarak]

One thing is clearly obvious from the bailout stuff and the campaign trail - neither candidate, in my opinion, has the stuff to lead. With a huge perceived problem that will be inherited, if I were running and still drawing a paycheck as a senator, you can bet I'd be in the trenches rather than out on the campaign trail.

I've pretty much made up my mind this election year to vote straight non-incumbent based on the last week.

I think it's more a function of the campaigns than the candidates. Modern Presidential campaigns are monumentally inflexible animals. They are built upon a hierarchy of sameness: consistent message, consistent themes, consistent packaging etc. Everything is focus-grouped, studied and meticulously crafted. It's kabuki writ large.

I agree that it reflects badly on both candidates, but there's just no capacity in that kind of stifling culture to carve out a response to an event so large and complex in short order.

You can say that a leader should just shrug all that off in a crisis, but I think it defies human nature to ask someone to do something that they've been told for years is what's necessary to win such high elected office.

[Brando70]

I don't mean to unload all this on you, Brando, but I've kind of stayed out of all the armchair quarterback talk regarding Palin, and I need to vent. I'm not terribly interested in counterpoints, as I didn't put this out here with any intention to debate anyone on the subject. But could we cut out the Quayle-ification rituals? They simply don't fit her yet.

No problem, I have the executive experience to deal with forum criticism

Also, I did preface my rant with "I think," so I agree I'm just stating an opinion. We all know what those are like....

As for Senator's vs. Candidates, I think once Obama and McCain became the presumptive nominees, their Senate careers take a back seat to campaigning. Rob makes a lot of good points about how its inevitable, but I also think it's desirable. For all the apathy and annoyance with politics, choosing a president is a big deal. A big enough deal that we have our army in Iraq so Iraq can have this ability. I think its good for these two candidates to get out there and let us see as much of them as possible so we can make up our minds about the election. Obviously, they should work in the Senate when they can, but the campaigning is important.

[Brando70]

He was conservative. Now he's reliably left-wing. And in a completely unrelated twist, his logical faculties have completely eroded.

He's always been a d*****, no matter what his affiliation. He's never been very persuasive or a very good blogger. He only gets attention because he tries to be provocative.

[matthewk]

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

U.S. journalism in the 21st century at it's finest.

So somebody asks her if we should go into Pakistan to get terrorists. She responds with "If that's what we have to do" and suddenly she's agreeing with Obama? I'm guessing her idea of what conststutes "what we have to do" is very different from what Obama is suggesting. But of course it's easier to just take this little soundbyte and come up with their own meaning for what she was trying to say.

[GTHobbes]

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

U.S. journalism in the 21st century at it's finest.

So somebody asks her if we should go into Pakistan to get terrorists. She responds with "If that's what we have to do" and suddenly she's agreeing with Obama? I'm guessing her idea of what conststutes "what we have to do" is very different from what Obama is suggesting. But of course it's easier to just take this little soundbyte and come up with their own meaning for what she was trying to say.

Grandpappy (or is it Sugardaddy) came to her rescue:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... gotcha.cnn

[Teal]

Grandpappy (or is it Sugardaddy) came to her rescue:

You know, with knuckleheaded comments like these, it's a wonder anyone ever takes you seriously.