SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Andrew N. Cothran who wrote (272364)10/4/2008 1:57:30 PM
From: Ruffian  Respond to of 793866
 
Onus on McCain to turn presidential race his way

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - One month before Election Day, Barack Obama sits atop battleground polls in a shrinking playing field, the economic crisis is breaking his way and the Democrat has made progress toward winning the White House.
ADVERTISEMENT

The onus is on Republican John McCain to turn the race around under exceptionally challenging circumstances — and his options are limited.

McCain's advisers say the Arizona senator will ramp up his attacks in the coming days with a tougher, more focused message describing "who Obama is," including questioning his character, "liberal" record and "too risky" proposals in advertising and appearances.

Obama's advisers, in turn, say he will argue that McCain is unable to articulate an economic vision that's different from President Bush's. In a new push, the Illinois senator is calling McCain's health care plan "radical."

Now that the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin is over, the contest returns to being entirely about Obama and McCain and likely will stay that way until Nov. 4. The rivals meet Tuesday in their second of three debates as the campaign enters its next unpredictable chapter.

Interviews with party insiders across the country Friday showed this: Democrats are optimistic of victory if nervous over whether Obama can hold his advantage while Republicans are worried that the race may be moving out of reach though hopeful that McCain will beat the odds as he did in the GOP primary.

Both sides note that plenty can change in one month — and they're right.

"Very confident, yet not overly so," said Ohio Democratic Party chief Chris Redfern, who said the financial turmoil is dreadful for the country but "politically it's advantageous" for Obama.

South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson said that given McCain's standing, "I'd be concerned at this time, but I would never count this guy out. He's got the political hide of an alligator."

The Electoral College battle playing out over roughly a dozen states puts McCain's challenge to reach the necessary 270 votes in stark terms.

McCain can't prevail without holding onto most of the states that Bush won, and he's now virtually tied or trailing in public polls in at least 10 of them — Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia — as he tries to fend off Obama's well-funded advertising onslaught and grass-roots efforts.

The GOP nominee also is only playing in five states that Democrat John Kerry won in 2004 — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine — and he's running behind. McCain abandoned efforts Thursday in one other, costly 17-vote Michigan, as Obama approaches a double-digit lead in the high-unemployment state and it became clear McCain couldn't shake Bush's drag.

Some Republicans close to McCain's campaign fret in private that Obama may be pulling away for good; others aren't so pessimistic. But there's unanimity in this; McCain has dwindling chances to regain momentum in the face of stiff headwinds, and the upcoming debates are critical.

"He needs to be able to speak to his strengths and remind people of why they like him," said Tom Rath, a New Hampshire delegate to the Republican National Convention. Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer said McCain must clearly "distinguish between the two approaches to governing." And Ted Welch, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Tennessee, said: "He has to give voters enough reasons to vote for him. He hasn't yet."

That doesn't appear to be the campaign's priority in the final weeks. GOP operatives say the goal is to undercut Obama, likely by raising questions about his associations with convict Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a former Obama top fundraiser, and Bill Ayers, a founder of a 1960s radical group.

"We're looking at a very aggressive last 30 days of turning the page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans," senior adviser Greg Strimple told reporters Thursday.

McCain himself suggested a strategy shift during a Colorado event that day when a voter asked, "When are you going to take the gloves off?" He answered, "How about Tuesday night?"

The campaign's latest advertisement asks, "Who is Barack Obama?" and asserts, "He's not truthful on taxes."

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton counters that McCain will try to distract voters from the economic crisis by launching character attacks.

Clearly, McCain's campaign believes that focusing on McCain's biography and record isn't enough and making Obama supremely unacceptable in voters' eyes may be the Republican's best — if not only — shot at winning the presidency.

The risk: Voters could be turned off if McCain goes too far.

From his national headquarters to his campaign plane, McCain's staff has been discouraged by the difficult environment over the past two weeks in which the race dynamics were largely out of their control — discouraged but no less determined to win.

Advisers contend that McCain is rebounding following Palin's strong debate performance Thursday that quieted GOP critics who questioned her qualifications after several TV interview missteps. Independent analysts say she improved her image and staunched the ticket's bleeding.

Congress approved the bailout plan one day later, and advisers hope the issue now will fade; McCain had struggled to strike the right chord amid the crisis. But there was no indication that other campaign topics would overtake the issue and more economic woes are possible; the nation lost 159,000 jobs in September and Americans will soon open their third-quarter 401(k) statements.

One bright spot: the Republican National Committee pulled in a hefty $66 million last month to help supplement McCain's advertising. Unlike Obama, he can spend only $84 million in taxpayer money.

Obama, meanwhile, was lifted in polls by voters who think he's better able to handle the economy and better suited to lead the nation through the financial crisis. Surveys also showed that skeptical voters having trouble envisioning him as president started to come around. He's a 47-year-old freshman senator from Chicago who would be the country's first black president.

The Democrat has been using his financial heft and freedom from fundraising limits to swamp McCain in TV advertising, spending roughly $13 million to $11 million for McCain and the RNC combined last week.

Obama, to be sure, still has work to do to lock down his lead. His advantage easily could disappear if he stumbles — or if an adverse outside event, a so-called "October surprise," occurs.

"He needs to give a little bit more of a window into Barack Obama as a human being ... reveal himself in a way that people who like Barack Obama say, 'I really want to embrace this guy,'" said Steve Grossman, a Massachusetts Democrat and former national party chairman.

Said Joe Erwin, the former Democratic Party chief in South Carolina: "We've just got to swim our own race at this point, and not react to what the Republicans do because we know that we're doing is working."

___

On the Net:



To: Andrew N. Cothran who wrote (272364)10/4/2008 2:00:22 PM
From: Ruffian3 Recommendations  Respond to of 793866
 
Pelosi without question is the scariest politician this country has ever see.............worse than D. Duke....imho........



To: Andrew N. Cothran who wrote (272364)10/4/2008 7:07:08 PM
From: KLP2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793866
 
Out of the UK...Dominic Lawson: Democrat fingerprints are all over the financial crisis

Independent.co.uk

The least well off are going to face the most stringent terms for mortgages

Friday, 3 October 2008
independent.co.uk

Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings – to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked – by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent".

Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now, members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to own their own homes.

From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans". This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance their lending to minorities.

Again, this was based on a noble idea: to stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of the Manhatta *Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards couldn't just apply to minorities.

If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards promoted by the Government."

One of the few journalists to see where this would lead was Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe. Last week he reminded his readers what he had written in 1995: "Our banks are knowingly approving risky loans to get the feds and the activists off their backs... When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians and regulators plans to take the credit?". Jacoby adds now: "Barney Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco."

It's true that the improvident lending was not initiated by Fannie and Freddie: their role in this was to buy these loans and sell them on – but then the music stopped. Cynical students of the American political system will note that the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the munificent duo of Fannie and Freddie over the past 20 years was one Christopher Dodd, Democrat Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee.

Rather surprisingly, given that he has only been in the Senate for four of those years, the second biggest beneficiary was Barack Obama. In August the Washington Post reported that Obama's presidential campaign team had sought the advice of Franklin Raines "on mortgage and housing policy matters".

Perhaps Mr Obama's team just wanted to know where all the bodies are buried – there are rather a lot of them.

The saddest outcome of all this within America – apart from the crippling cost to the nation's taxpayers – is that the very people the Democrats had intended to help will be the biggest victims: for many years to come banks will demand the most stringent terms for mortgages to the least well off.

In the meantime, let us praise Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, who confessed this week: "Like a lot of my Democrat colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised. I wish my Democrat colleagues would admit that we were wrong."

I fear Congressman Davis will not go far with this attitude – but at least he will be able to look at himself in the mirror.

d.lawson@independent.co.uk