Business has not been especially peppy in the grievance industry past few months. We have a half black president; a majority of Americans see race as incidental; a majority of blacks no doubt care for their family and community just as much as the next guy, sick of the constant reminders of a racism that they themselves rarely encounter. These conditions are not good for business for Jackson, Sharpton, H.L. "Skip" Gates and the rest who depend on racial conflict for a living. So, if it no longer comes naturally, they will manufacture it. This explains the recent accusation of racial profiling in Cambridge.
Most of us endeavor to stay alive. Post 9/11 the left flew into a tantrum when Muslims were questioned before boarding an airplane. But passengers and crew knew that although all Muslims were not terrorists, all terrorists were indeed Muslims. Naturally the precaution. The chatterers would see the wisdom of this if they were on the wrong plane.
Similarly, it is well known that blacks commit violent crimes in numbers far in excess of their presence in the population. Because of that, and human nature, law enforcement may sometimes error to the side of caution. After all, even Jesse Jackson said that if a black man’s behind him on a dark street, he’s nervous. Yet in the Cambridge situation, the arresting officer (as we all know now) had an exemplary reputation of dealing with the black community. All evidence indicates he acted property. Still, he was accused of profiling by the professor.
Instead, as most Americans realize, the only party guilty of racial profiling was Gates. And the situation was custom made for his industry. Without conflict he would have to transfer; maybe the literature department would fit. But then Gates once compared the lyrics of the rap group 2 Live Crew to the playwright Shakespear. "It’s like Shakespear’s ‘My love is like a red, red rose,’" he noted. Oops. That line was written by the Scottish poet Robbie Burns, about 200 years after Shakespear. Oh well. That won’t work. But then, with Obama's help, he won't need a transfer.
Robert Craven
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Palin's Gift
Certainly the intellectually honest must now acknowledge the in-bred, pre-programmed liberal bias of the mainstream media. The left can no longer deny the suddenly obvious, and thanks to Sarah Palin. She, without intending to do so, exposed the whole shebang.
Palin as an individual tripped something in the liberal media that spotlighted the rotten core - CNN, NYT’s, AP, ABC, Newsweek, Time. Newsroom reaction to Palin’s candidacy reflected to the average American just why these folk are rapidly going broke.
Media vulnerabilities were especially accentuated in the coverage of Palin. What these "journalists" exhibited in 2008 was epitomized by an eradication of the lines between fact and opinion – and, even more troubling, between reporting and propaganda. Some journalists were content to repeat Democratic party talking points or bloggers' rumors as though they were established fact, interspersing them with ideological commentary. For example, remember Palin’s decision as governor to cut Alaska's special education budget by 62 percent? After receiving emails to that effect, CNN's Soledad O'Brien cited the figure on-air. Oops. Palin actually tripled the state's spending on special needs kids. Recall the one about her membership in the Alaska Independence Party, which favors secession from the union? That made The New York Times, and again, wrong.
The coverage of Palin’s family life took media behavior from reckless to indecent. "A day of stunning Palin disclosures," was how the Associated Press greeted the news that Bristol Palin was pregnant. "A political stunner!" echoed CNN's Campbell Brown. In one 30-minute stretch, CNN reporters and anchors referred to the teen's pregnancy as "a bombshell" four separate times. And of course the Palin pregnancy hoax by Bill Mayer and Vanity Fair. From our favorite liberal, Camille Paglia , "The vicious double standard is pretty obvious. Only the tabloids, for example, ran the photos of a piss-drunk Chelsea Clinton, panties exposed, falling into her car outside London clubs a few years ago. If Chelsea had been the scion of Republican bigwigs, those tacky scenes would have been trumpeted from pillar to post in the U.S. as signals of parental failures or turmoil in clan Clinton."
Perhaps it was the 10/02/08 debate which was most revealing, the night Biden exposed his total lack of a grounding in government and constitutional affairs, the night incidentally that Palin cleaned his clock. No one in the media even saw it, or, chose to report it. Leading up to the debate, such luminaries as John Alter of Newsweek wrote that, "She is a far-right conservative who supported Pat Buchanan over Bush in 2000. She thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in public schools." She did not support Buchanan, she questioned whether climate change is man-made (not whether it's occurring) and gave creationists the most minor of rhetorical nods – and never questioned the teaching of evolution in schools. Hah! Too much.
And then the debate. Biden erroneously claimed that McCain voted with Obama on a budget resolution and asserted wrongly that Obama wanted to return to the Reagan-era marginal income tax rates. When the talk turned to national security, presumably Biden's purported area of expertise, he went completely off the grid. For example, he said Pakistan’s nuclear weapons can hit Israel. That is false. Pakistan has no intercontinental missiles. He said we "kicked" Hezbollah out of Lebanon. That is false. The US never "kicked" Hezbollah out of anywhere. Biden criticized Bush for supporting elections of the West Bank and said BO did too because it would legitimize Hamas. He was confused. Fatah controls the West Bank. Biden was thinking of Gaza. With Afghanistan, facts matter he said..."we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan." "Let me say that again," he said. He did and he was wrong both times. The facts here were that at the time Biden was speaking, the U.S. had spent $172 billion in Afghanistan over the 7 years. The Iraq War consumes between $7 billion and $8 billion every three weeks. What a clown. What a buffoon. Or when dressing down Dick Cheney, who was not present, for supposedly being unfamiliar with the Constitution. "The idea that he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States – that's the executive branch – he works in the executive branch," Biden said. Unfortunately, Article I defines the legislative, not executive, branch.
All of us know that if Palin had said any of this, she would have been laughed out of town. Biden got a pass. How come? As SJ Valley neighbor Vic Hansen role plays the journalists view, "Can’t smart people see that Palin’s naugahyde family is a reification of all this middle-class, mindless consumerism, without style, erudition, nuance and skepticism? How infuriating to sit here in New York and think that a winking tart could ever be elected, when seasoned sophisticates like Joe Biden and cosmopolitan metrosexuals like Barack Obama, who see it all, might not have been."
One intellectually honest, liberal journalist, a chief Washington correspondent for a news service, put it this way, "In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession." Facts matter.. "But they didn't in 2008, not when it came to Joe Biden (our guy) against Sarah Palin (odd outsider). The ladies and gentlemen of the press were more interested in her hair, her glasses, her wardrobe, her accent, her sex life, her kids' sex lives, and her hunting habits than in whether her opponent knew anything about foreign policy, the Constitution of the United States, or the job he was running for."
Thank you Sarah, for the gift of illumination.
Robert Craven
Palin as an individual tripped something in the liberal media that spotlighted the rotten core - CNN, NYT’s, AP, ABC, Newsweek, Time. Newsroom reaction to Palin’s candidacy reflected to the average American just why these folk are rapidly going broke.
Media vulnerabilities were especially accentuated in the coverage of Palin. What these "journalists" exhibited in 2008 was epitomized by an eradication of the lines between fact and opinion – and, even more troubling, between reporting and propaganda. Some journalists were content to repeat Democratic party talking points or bloggers' rumors as though they were established fact, interspersing them with ideological commentary. For example, remember Palin’s decision as governor to cut Alaska's special education budget by 62 percent? After receiving emails to that effect, CNN's Soledad O'Brien cited the figure on-air. Oops. Palin actually tripled the state's spending on special needs kids. Recall the one about her membership in the Alaska Independence Party, which favors secession from the union? That made The New York Times, and again, wrong.
The coverage of Palin’s family life took media behavior from reckless to indecent. "A day of stunning Palin disclosures," was how the Associated Press greeted the news that Bristol Palin was pregnant. "A political stunner!" echoed CNN's Campbell Brown. In one 30-minute stretch, CNN reporters and anchors referred to the teen's pregnancy as "a bombshell" four separate times. And of course the Palin pregnancy hoax by Bill Mayer and Vanity Fair. From our favorite liberal, Camille Paglia , "The vicious double standard is pretty obvious. Only the tabloids, for example, ran the photos of a piss-drunk Chelsea Clinton, panties exposed, falling into her car outside London clubs a few years ago. If Chelsea had been the scion of Republican bigwigs, those tacky scenes would have been trumpeted from pillar to post in the U.S. as signals of parental failures or turmoil in clan Clinton."
Perhaps it was the 10/02/08 debate which was most revealing, the night Biden exposed his total lack of a grounding in government and constitutional affairs, the night incidentally that Palin cleaned his clock. No one in the media even saw it, or, chose to report it. Leading up to the debate, such luminaries as John Alter of Newsweek wrote that, "She is a far-right conservative who supported Pat Buchanan over Bush in 2000. She thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in public schools." She did not support Buchanan, she questioned whether climate change is man-made (not whether it's occurring) and gave creationists the most minor of rhetorical nods – and never questioned the teaching of evolution in schools. Hah! Too much.
And then the debate. Biden erroneously claimed that McCain voted with Obama on a budget resolution and asserted wrongly that Obama wanted to return to the Reagan-era marginal income tax rates. When the talk turned to national security, presumably Biden's purported area of expertise, he went completely off the grid. For example, he said Pakistan’s nuclear weapons can hit Israel. That is false. Pakistan has no intercontinental missiles. He said we "kicked" Hezbollah out of Lebanon. That is false. The US never "kicked" Hezbollah out of anywhere. Biden criticized Bush for supporting elections of the West Bank and said BO did too because it would legitimize Hamas. He was confused. Fatah controls the West Bank. Biden was thinking of Gaza. With Afghanistan, facts matter he said..."we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan." "Let me say that again," he said. He did and he was wrong both times. The facts here were that at the time Biden was speaking, the U.S. had spent $172 billion in Afghanistan over the 7 years. The Iraq War consumes between $7 billion and $8 billion every three weeks. What a clown. What a buffoon. Or when dressing down Dick Cheney, who was not present, for supposedly being unfamiliar with the Constitution. "The idea that he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States – that's the executive branch – he works in the executive branch," Biden said. Unfortunately, Article I defines the legislative, not executive, branch.
All of us know that if Palin had said any of this, she would have been laughed out of town. Biden got a pass. How come? As SJ Valley neighbor Vic Hansen role plays the journalists view, "Can’t smart people see that Palin’s naugahyde family is a reification of all this middle-class, mindless consumerism, without style, erudition, nuance and skepticism? How infuriating to sit here in New York and think that a winking tart could ever be elected, when seasoned sophisticates like Joe Biden and cosmopolitan metrosexuals like Barack Obama, who see it all, might not have been."
One intellectually honest, liberal journalist, a chief Washington correspondent for a news service, put it this way, "In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession." Facts matter.. "But they didn't in 2008, not when it came to Joe Biden (our guy) against Sarah Palin (odd outsider). The ladies and gentlemen of the press were more interested in her hair, her glasses, her wardrobe, her accent, her sex life, her kids' sex lives, and her hunting habits than in whether her opponent knew anything about foreign policy, the Constitution of the United States, or the job he was running for."
Thank you Sarah, for the gift of illumination.
Robert Craven
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Palin - a little fun this Thur am
My, my, my, my, my but our friends from the left are hysterical about all this Palin stuff. They can’t contain themselves, poor things. I tried to talk to my pal at the nursery about plant material, but mid sentence - "I’m sick of that Palin! Did you here her rambling quitting speech? Typical." Ok pal, how about selling me some plants? "No. How could a quitter run for president. I’ll never vote for her!" Ok. Maybe she is just sick of having her kids brutalized by your kind, maybe just a TV show? "I’ll never watch that. Never!. I mean it." OK ok. We know, we know. The Palins are just like those trashy folk who pile out of their Tahoe, in the way at the Safeway just as our pal is parking his Volvo. Sure that’s infuriating. Sure it is.
But really now, shame on Palin for resigning. Of course, just like Dole, and Bill Weld, Fred Thompson and Bill Bradley. And of course - no other than Obama. Shame on BO. The notion of leaving an elected office after only two years. (Of course, BO did it on the public’s dime, ever resourceful.) And then there’s Col. George Washington. He quit the Virginia militia. The IBD editorial board, the best in the business, takes us back: Ed Rollins: "Everyone is shocked by this and everyone assumes there's another story. You just don't quit the Virginia militia," notes Ed. "You certainly don't do this as a steppingstone to anything else. This makes George look terribly inept. I think that's one of the questions that people have about him. Is Washington substantive enough to be a serious candidate for anything else? This just doesn't make sense." Or pundit Maureen Dowd, " Georgy Porgy is one nutty puppy," pundit Maureen Dowd wrote on hearing the news. "George wanted everyone to know that he's not having fun in the Virginia militia and people are being mean to him and he doesn't feel like serving anymore." Other journalists in the 13 Colonies agreed that George Washington was finished as a military leader. It was decided beyond a reasonable doubt that Washington by dropping out of the militia had ended what might have been a promising career.
But really now, shame on Palin for resigning. Of course, just like Dole, and Bill Weld, Fred Thompson and Bill Bradley. And of course - no other than Obama. Shame on BO. The notion of leaving an elected office after only two years. (Of course, BO did it on the public’s dime, ever resourceful.) And then there’s Col. George Washington. He quit the Virginia militia. The IBD editorial board, the best in the business, takes us back: Ed Rollins: "Everyone is shocked by this and everyone assumes there's another story. You just don't quit the Virginia militia," notes Ed. "You certainly don't do this as a steppingstone to anything else. This makes George look terribly inept. I think that's one of the questions that people have about him. Is Washington substantive enough to be a serious candidate for anything else? This just doesn't make sense." Or pundit Maureen Dowd, " Georgy Porgy is one nutty puppy," pundit Maureen Dowd wrote on hearing the news. "George wanted everyone to know that he's not having fun in the Virginia militia and people are being mean to him and he doesn't feel like serving anymore." Other journalists in the 13 Colonies agreed that George Washington was finished as a military leader. It was decided beyond a reasonable doubt that Washington by dropping out of the militia had ended what might have been a promising career.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Ground Zero (And the Willfully Blind)
Outraged over AIG bonus money? Come on. Get a life and get off the couch, turn off the TV and peer below the surface. This AIG business is peanuts. Read on.
The history of politics offers few opportunities for observers to say - "Yes, that was the trigger," or in this case, for the Democrats to say, "Yes, I am afraid we as a party are responsible." Aside from 1) a courageous congressman from Alabama and 2) ex-President Bill Clinton, Democrats have yet come to own their culpability in this mess. There was not, "plenty of blame to go around," as one friend from the left asserted the other day in his attempt at a defense.
It is ironic that the Republicans, saddled by the left with the mantra of "never regulate," tried repeatedly to regulate the twins (Fannie / Freddie) and every single time the Democrats blocked the legislation. We highlighted this early on; now it is common knowledge. Naturally from the viewpoint of the left, the sooner forgotten the better. And that we can understand. Witness the viewing below, Democrats in the flesh, cheering for (now disgraced) Raines, assuring Americans the twins are healthy. Two of these blithering idiots - Maxine Waters and Greg Meeks - are enough to stir any self respecting Democrat to wonder. The committee is the Financial Service Committee, or, subcommittees of that body: At the conclusion of the video, Bill Clinton joins us in putting this crisis right at his party’s doorstep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Throughout the video, one can witness Democratic members of Congress defending 1) the management of the twins and 2) the business practices of the twins. We know now that management cooked the books; we know that the twins dumbed down their underwriting standards and increased their leverage to hazardous levels, levels which several Republican officials (House & Senate) warned would prove disastrous.
I sat before this committee. I can attest that neither side, Rep nor Dem, are well posted in economics. But one need not be an economist to observe the obvious; it was the willfully blind, and the politically correct that put us in this mess. When the only qualification for a mortgage was a good jump shot, one would have thought most would have seen the warning signs. Why just the Republicans?
Robert Craven
The history of politics offers few opportunities for observers to say - "Yes, that was the trigger," or in this case, for the Democrats to say, "Yes, I am afraid we as a party are responsible." Aside from 1) a courageous congressman from Alabama and 2) ex-President Bill Clinton, Democrats have yet come to own their culpability in this mess. There was not, "plenty of blame to go around," as one friend from the left asserted the other day in his attempt at a defense.
It is ironic that the Republicans, saddled by the left with the mantra of "never regulate," tried repeatedly to regulate the twins (Fannie / Freddie) and every single time the Democrats blocked the legislation. We highlighted this early on; now it is common knowledge. Naturally from the viewpoint of the left, the sooner forgotten the better. And that we can understand. Witness the viewing below, Democrats in the flesh, cheering for (now disgraced) Raines, assuring Americans the twins are healthy. Two of these blithering idiots - Maxine Waters and Greg Meeks - are enough to stir any self respecting Democrat to wonder. The committee is the Financial Service Committee, or, subcommittees of that body: At the conclusion of the video, Bill Clinton joins us in putting this crisis right at his party’s doorstep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Throughout the video, one can witness Democratic members of Congress defending 1) the management of the twins and 2) the business practices of the twins. We know now that management cooked the books; we know that the twins dumbed down their underwriting standards and increased their leverage to hazardous levels, levels which several Republican officials (House & Senate) warned would prove disastrous.
I sat before this committee. I can attest that neither side, Rep nor Dem, are well posted in economics. But one need not be an economist to observe the obvious; it was the willfully blind, and the politically correct that put us in this mess. When the only qualification for a mortgage was a good jump shot, one would have thought most would have seen the warning signs. Why just the Republicans?
Robert Craven
Monday, March 23, 2009
OVERVIEW
We have pondered crowd behavior, past few weeks - how it is that the equivalent of a cult figure could end up as president of the United States? But that’s not it either. How did this individual, devoid of accomplishment, end up where he is? Because he’s half black? Because the economy tanked pre-election, implicating McCain’s party? That’s all part of it, yet......
We knew up front that Obama had no job qualifications. But so did his admirers. We knew up front that he demonstrated a lack of judgement in his past associations, with criminals and shake-down artists. But so did his admirers. We knew he was on the take from Fannie Mae, along with Frank, Dodd and Clinton. But so did his admirers. We knew his Ill. / Senate voting record. But so did his admirers.
Perhaps H.L. Mencken has the answer, in his Notes On Democracy (1926): "Public estimation of eminence runs in reverse ratio to its genuineness," writes Mencken, anticipating Obama, "the sort of eminence that the mob esteems most highly is precisely the sort that has least grounding in solid worth and honest accomplishment." Menken’s mob in this case is the Kool-Aid crowd, swooning coeds, the press, the Eastern establishment, the left right here in Marin County.
The masses think this guy is genuine because they "think" with their glands/hormones (female fantasies re Obama - ok, we won’t go there). But so does Obama consider himself the genuine article. It is a matter of relativity. He has always been surrounded by extremely liberal people. His background is one dimensional. What he considers center-of the-road is to most of us - far left. His whole idea of where the middle might be, is well to the left of where the average American might think it is. To a man like Obama, as he has let slip on too many occasions when away from his teleprompter, "Middle America" is not something to be compromised with, but rather, something that must be manipulated, because it is stupid.
Thus, BO stated two weeks ago that he is not in favor of "big government". He means that. To him big government is a pure socialist state, and not even he would go there. Instead he targets something less extreme - the socialist democracies of Europe, which is where he is intent on directing us. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. And he knows he has about a year before the masses wake up. "A good catchword," Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ‘can obscure analysis for 50 years." As one observer noted, "To pass a vast program changing the relationship of American government to its citizens, Obama only needs to obscure analysis for about a year."
Robert Craven
We knew up front that Obama had no job qualifications. But so did his admirers. We knew up front that he demonstrated a lack of judgement in his past associations, with criminals and shake-down artists. But so did his admirers. We knew he was on the take from Fannie Mae, along with Frank, Dodd and Clinton. But so did his admirers. We knew his Ill. / Senate voting record. But so did his admirers.
Perhaps H.L. Mencken has the answer, in his Notes On Democracy (1926): "Public estimation of eminence runs in reverse ratio to its genuineness," writes Mencken, anticipating Obama, "the sort of eminence that the mob esteems most highly is precisely the sort that has least grounding in solid worth and honest accomplishment." Menken’s mob in this case is the Kool-Aid crowd, swooning coeds, the press, the Eastern establishment, the left right here in Marin County.
The masses think this guy is genuine because they "think" with their glands/hormones (female fantasies re Obama - ok, we won’t go there). But so does Obama consider himself the genuine article. It is a matter of relativity. He has always been surrounded by extremely liberal people. His background is one dimensional. What he considers center-of the-road is to most of us - far left. His whole idea of where the middle might be, is well to the left of where the average American might think it is. To a man like Obama, as he has let slip on too many occasions when away from his teleprompter, "Middle America" is not something to be compromised with, but rather, something that must be manipulated, because it is stupid.
Thus, BO stated two weeks ago that he is not in favor of "big government". He means that. To him big government is a pure socialist state, and not even he would go there. Instead he targets something less extreme - the socialist democracies of Europe, which is where he is intent on directing us. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. And he knows he has about a year before the masses wake up. "A good catchword," Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ‘can obscure analysis for 50 years." As one observer noted, "To pass a vast program changing the relationship of American government to its citizens, Obama only needs to obscure analysis for about a year."
Robert Craven
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Ground Zero & Barney Frank
Could it be that just a handful of individuals, maybe just one or two are responsible for this crisis, or, if not the scope of destruction, at least the birth of the event? The left tells us that there’s plenty of blame to go around, things are just too complex to isolate a primary cause or a villain.
But of course. Complexity provides shelter. Seeking shelter in this case - the Democratic party, and, Barney Frank specifically.
We isolated ground zero, our Heart of Darkness, very early on - the Democrat’s refusal to reform the twins, with Frank as the paladin in that effort. Now, figuring an offense to be the best defense, Frank of all people is seeking prosecution for those responsible for the meltdown! Hah! Too much! And that was indeed too much for the Investor’s Business Daily which puts a great big fat cross hair on Frank’s backside. From today’s editorial: "From the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie. Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control. He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was ‘no federal liability there whatsoever’. In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?"
Readers know the Bush administration pushed for major reform of the twins, reforms the NYT’s called, " the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." These were always blocked by the Dem’s, the last in ‘06, with Frank as one of the chief engineers in that effort.
Repeating what we have offered earlier, the IBD says that Frank, "perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration."
What was Frank thinking? We know the twins were a cash cow for him (and Dodd, and Clinton, and Obama). Could that have been it? The IBD guesses that it may have been his boyfriend at Fannie. Maybe that’s it. Whatever the motivation, those of our friends from the left who are a tad unhappy with their 401K need look no further.
Robert Craven
But of course. Complexity provides shelter. Seeking shelter in this case - the Democratic party, and, Barney Frank specifically.
We isolated ground zero, our Heart of Darkness, very early on - the Democrat’s refusal to reform the twins, with Frank as the paladin in that effort. Now, figuring an offense to be the best defense, Frank of all people is seeking prosecution for those responsible for the meltdown! Hah! Too much! And that was indeed too much for the Investor’s Business Daily which puts a great big fat cross hair on Frank’s backside. From today’s editorial: "From the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie. Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control. He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was ‘no federal liability there whatsoever’. In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?"
Readers know the Bush administration pushed for major reform of the twins, reforms the NYT’s called, " the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." These were always blocked by the Dem’s, the last in ‘06, with Frank as one of the chief engineers in that effort.
Repeating what we have offered earlier, the IBD says that Frank, "perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration."
What was Frank thinking? We know the twins were a cash cow for him (and Dodd, and Clinton, and Obama). Could that have been it? The IBD guesses that it may have been his boyfriend at Fannie. Maybe that’s it. Whatever the motivation, those of our friends from the left who are a tad unhappy with their 401K need look no further.
Robert Craven
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Great Heist
We have outlined the priorities for a recovery in our accompanying economic blog, for the most part reserving judgement when adorning those pages. We are not writing from the cheap seats; we distill events for our readers, then offer a solution. So have many others; it is not a mystery now what needs to be done. But it suddenly dawned on us that we may have been taken in. This calls for a comment in this arena - politics - a response before Obama lays waste to what remains of our social and economic fabric.
Without a viable banking sector the stimulus package and the budget mean nothing. Simply noise. Everybody knows that. You don’t have to be an economist. But the Obama administration has shied away from embracing any bank solution. What? Under this administration, has a single toxic asset actually been seized, separated, sold, or de-toxified? Don’t think so.
We wondered why BO has done nothing to address the bank problem. (So has the equity market which is exactly why it is in the tank.) How silly of us. The recovery is secondary to BO and his pals. The goal - nothing more than to effect a shift in power to politicians and bureaucrats, to in fact weld a lock on American society. Ths crisis then is a gift to the far left. The stimulus package, as the IBD put it, "is nothing more than a down payment on a socialist economy. It raises taxes on the successful, brings back the welfare state....," hands out favors to friends of the Democrats and imposes controls on the free market in ways that just a year ago would have seemed unimaginable.
What is transpiring my friends is in fact the greatest political heist modern man has ever witnessed. When Emanuel laid out his "Rule One": "Never let a crisis go to waste," he was being brutally candid, exposing his and his boss’s agenda in crystal clear fashion, to all who may have been listening. This is a dream come true to this bunch.
It’s all about spending, taxing and - key - the deep insertion of gov’t in our daily lives that goes with it. A pal in the gym intoned the other day, "Hey, that Pelosi sure slapped Obama around, huh?". Well, not quite. That was a set up. As Rich Lowry put it, "By giving Pelosi running room and enduring a few embarrassments, he got what he wanted, which was as much new spending as quickly as the political system could bear." And by cheerleading for the economy the past few days (changing roles from pallbearer the previous week) he hopes to do the same for his budget plan.
Robert Craven
Without a viable banking sector the stimulus package and the budget mean nothing. Simply noise. Everybody knows that. You don’t have to be an economist. But the Obama administration has shied away from embracing any bank solution. What? Under this administration, has a single toxic asset actually been seized, separated, sold, or de-toxified? Don’t think so.
We wondered why BO has done nothing to address the bank problem. (So has the equity market which is exactly why it is in the tank.) How silly of us. The recovery is secondary to BO and his pals. The goal - nothing more than to effect a shift in power to politicians and bureaucrats, to in fact weld a lock on American society. Ths crisis then is a gift to the far left. The stimulus package, as the IBD put it, "is nothing more than a down payment on a socialist economy. It raises taxes on the successful, brings back the welfare state....," hands out favors to friends of the Democrats and imposes controls on the free market in ways that just a year ago would have seemed unimaginable.
What is transpiring my friends is in fact the greatest political heist modern man has ever witnessed. When Emanuel laid out his "Rule One": "Never let a crisis go to waste," he was being brutally candid, exposing his and his boss’s agenda in crystal clear fashion, to all who may have been listening. This is a dream come true to this bunch.
It’s all about spending, taxing and - key - the deep insertion of gov’t in our daily lives that goes with it. A pal in the gym intoned the other day, "Hey, that Pelosi sure slapped Obama around, huh?". Well, not quite. That was a set up. As Rich Lowry put it, "By giving Pelosi running room and enduring a few embarrassments, he got what he wanted, which was as much new spending as quickly as the political system could bear." And by cheerleading for the economy the past few days (changing roles from pallbearer the previous week) he hopes to do the same for his budget plan.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
