I'm sorry, you are aware of what caused the financial crisis aren't you?
Posted By: Emily Ayn on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: A serious answer - Sheesh
or you will just blame BUSH BUSH BUSH/CHENEY.
Please, do some research.
If my memory serves me, it started going downhill when a democratic congress took over.
Not only that, this MORTGAGE crisis was set into effect by the CLINTON administration and helped by a DEMOCRATIC congress.
Now let me be clear, I do not think Bush was a great president and he made mistakes, but DO NOT tell me that this financial crisis was his doing. I know you are going to flame me, but don't ignore the facts! Actually, that's what liberals do so nevermind, go ahead anyway.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
The present crisis was not caused by Bush or McCain...
both approached the Democrats a total of 4 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie regulated. We can't afford Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, AND a Democratic president. Whatever else Bush is or is not, he is NOT responsible for this current financial MESS.
Financial crisis meeting;
November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis
(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.
After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.
According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.
The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.
McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.
"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."
The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.
– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/
Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
25 people to blame for the financial crisis
You can vote on each of these.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/
You aren't aware of what compassion is.
It includes responding IMMEDIATELY to those in need. It includes a leader who makes RESPONSIBLE appointments to vital public posts (not lazy college drinking buddies who used to run horse associations). How carelessly you toss out accusations of taking political advantage while the leader you support carefully selects two black victims to hug on camera (the prettier the better)far from the stark reality of the war zone he helped create a few miles away. Or, stand in an airplane hangar trying desperately to smother his yawns while fauning public officials brief him on camera and tell him how well things are going, while badly needed helicopters are sitting uselessly behind him for impressive props. Political advantage? - Bush a la Rove has NEVER missed a single opportunity to take political advantage in every way possible, up to and including the death of every 9/11 victim, despite the fact that the victims' families are in no way satisfied with his bogus hand-picked impartial commission's findings. Please! You're just bitter because nobody likes your man anymore. The fact that he has royally screwed up not just this time but ALL ALONG is his fault, not ours. We're just pointing it out.
You aren't too aware of history. sm
Hitler's reign began with gun control. I thought everyone knew that.
In case you aren't aware (and I doubt you are)
I cannot figure what ever caused you to
have such deep hatred for Republicans, especially President Bush. It certainly isn't anything he ever did as president as your posts indicate that your hatred for him began at his first inauguration. I also get the feeling that you will never be able to let it go, as you constantly bring it up in almost every post you make. The major difference between you two that stands out is that he is a Christian and you are an atheist. He does not believe in abortion and you chose to have one. Maybe you have a guilt problem that you are trying to overcome before you can move on?
However, I can't see how you can use your hatred for Bush to justify Obama speaking to the French town hall meeting and, essentially, telling the world that America is not special to him and that Europe is the greatest nation. How can you say that is doing an awesome job?
It was too lenient on the ones that caused this mess (sm)
That's why it didn't pass last week. It was too one-sided.
Some of this is a rescue caused by those buying
nm
I hate to say it but BOTH parties caused it!
Wake up, America.
My post below that caused such a stink........sm
I have asked that this post be removed because it apparently was really upsetting to some people. While I normally don't post like I did below, I did it for what I had hoped would be a shock value, but it backfired on me. I had hoped that my shock value would be that it would get some people to understand my position, but that didn't happen. Therefore, I decided to ask the moderators to remove it.
I believe everyone knows my position on gay marriage and abortion as I have stated them numerous times on this forum, so I will try to refrain from responding to any posts involving those issues, at least whether as to whether they are right or wrong. Moral issues will always be that....moral issues...and are viewed through the individual's moral lens or compass. I cannot change any one's to match mine, nor can anyone change mine to match their's. Let's just leave it at that. 
If the sky falls, it wil be because Obama caused it
Just because someone doesn't LOVE your precious Obama, does not mean we are the pot stirring trolls as you call it. You want to believe Acorn is wonderful, well go ahead; just remember, free speech is exactly what Obama is trying to do away with.
You won't even be able to sit here and write your garbage much longer if he has his way.
Bush is the one that CAUSED this economic meltdown.
x
No dupa - the shrub caused the crash and burn.......
Memory loss can signify medical issues which need to be attended to. Also, delusions can spell multiple significant issues which need to be addressed ASAP. Go with God.
White people with blue eyes caused this
According to Brazil's President "White people with blue eyes causes the economic crisis".
Glad I've got hazel eyes. Whew! Glad to know it's not my fault.
javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
Hello?! 8 years of Bush cratered the country & caused this
nightmare in the first place. They are all frantically trying to keep us from another Great Depression caused by Bush & republican control. I personally think the damage runs so deep that it can't be stopped in time, but at least they're trying! Maybe next time the idiots will remember what Bush & his cronies have done & will be smarter than to vote republican...
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith
our conscience guide us politically?
I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make. My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am. I vote my conscience. I want political leaders who reflect my morality. I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me. There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial. There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial? The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!
Not to mention that the "Jihaad" holy war itself was caused directly from Daddy Bush having to
rush in with Desert Storm in order to secure the oil wells, securing the oil for all his oil baron friends and himself. Bin Laden himself said that when we rushed in, we had "tainted" Muslim soil and felt he had to retaliate. Of course, these are the ravings of a madman, but Bush policies directly inflamed the already hostile Taliban fighters. Also, the Bush and Bin Laden families have a long history in the business world, and the night of September 11th, the government made it pssible for Bin Laden family members in this country to flee and not face retaliation........please look it up in the newgroups, I have seen many amazing documentaries about these facts on Discovery, History Channel, Military Channel, and some of the news channels.
I know everyone's focus is on the financial...sm
news of the last several days just heard about a special on CNN tomorrow night and Sunday where Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and Warren Christopher engage in a forum and talk about foreign policy. I heard a few sound bites and it sounds very interesting. I am glad to see a forum where respected people from both parties with experience get together and express their views, agree or disagree respectfully. I will definitely be watching.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Financial bonuses
Two days ago on C-Span they seemed to congratulate the bigwigs of the financial companies who got BILLIONS in BONUSES. They ran down the list of those that were being questioned and how much they received. It's absolutely sickening. I had to turn it off.
I think most know that Air America has had financial woes.
Once it was learned that they had misappropriated monies which were supposed to have been used for charity, they lost some good backers. I would think it most probably is financial. There is not a plot behind every business dealing.
mcCain blames financial
crisis on Obama. Get that man a posey and some Aricept.
We have had our financial plan in order
for quite some time for just such a thing. We haven't spent foolishly or lived above our means. New toys and technology don't impress us much. We have been fortunate and blessed.
Well....buck up little soldier. I think the financial...
well being of the country trumps your party. Oh wait...what am I thinking.
I do agree with you about financial irresponsibility
they need to find some sort of middle ground ......
looked at her financial records lately?
she is definitely not a poor girl in my opinion. I think she could afford to buy her own clothes...
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
No, unions DO put them in a financial hole.
nm
I think they're aware, don't you?
I believe the actual estimated number was somewhere around 4 to 6 million people exterminated,about 90% of them Jews... and it was the advance of the Russian army into Poland that began the disruption of the majority of the death camp operations. We basically stayed out of the fray until the very end.
But as mentioned, you have to look closely at the FACTS to get a true picture of what was going on.
How could you NOT be aware of it?
SHE POSTED IT ABOVE, only to receive the typical neocon response:
What makes you think we don't have that?
What makes me think you don't have that is because you believe, just like the idiot president you worship, that it's okay to send everybody else's kids to their deaths, as long as they aren't YOUR kids.
To respond in such a heartless way -- on CHRISTMAS, no less -- when you all claim to have superior *moral family values* makes me ecstatic that I'm not one of you.
This site has allowed a Jewish person to be labeled as a *Nazi* on the CON board. When the person requested the offensive posts be deleted, do you know what happened? SHE WAS BANNED FROM THIS SITE.
The *Nazi* posts are still there, posted on 11/28, hidden in posts labeled *Happy Thanksgiving* but, as usual, revealing NOTHING but the HATRED YOU ALL SPEW. Why do you people hate the MOST on HOLIDAYS?
Considering the owner's handling of the Nazi posts and the heartless response to Carla, I'm ashamed to be associated with even knowing this site exists any more, let alone continuing to frequent it.
I feel the need to take a LONG HOT SHOWER to hopefully get rid of all the SCUM that lives on these boards.
And to the owner of this board: Don't bother banning me.
I'M BANNING YOU! I DESPISE BIGOTS.
GOODBYE.
Yes, I am aware of that. However. sm
She cites absolutely verifiable election results. So skip everything else and read that.
That's the best you can do? Are you aware you
xx
Do you think I'm not aware of that???
I wish I could support Obama as avidly as you support McCain. I DO NOT think either of them are honest. As to Obama throwing his pastor under the bus, in my opinion he was about 20 years late in throwing him under the bus. I simply would rather take a chance on him (unknown) versus McCain (known). Either way we are royally screwed IMHO. If McCain is elected and doesn't pan out as you seem to think he will, I hope you remember you voted for him. It's looking more every day like we're going to get Obama and I will remember I voted AGAINST McCain.
yes---and I am sure that she is still well aware...
that abstinence works, if it is practiced.
Right back at ya...with the addition of financial ruin...
if Obama and Biden are "hired."
financial disaster, war, health care
You decide what is most important to think about.
Actually, McCain was in financial meetings all morning....sm
and what I read on CNN is that McCain wasn't told of the content of Obama's first call. I can't find the link to it now, because their news keeps changing.
I believe McCain decided this on his own, without any input from Obama, or even knowing about the call.
I'm willing to bet that he won't give a darn if he loses the debate if he doesn't show up, as it sounds as if Obama refuses to cancel the debate to another time.
Just proves to me that McCain does, indeed, put the country first. He's acting like a true leader.
Okay....let's see...McCain picked the financial meltdown...
as the #1 issue. OBama picked his run for the Presidency. Meaning he is always going to put Barack first. McCain put his country first. End of story.
I am not in favor of the financial institution bailout either..... sm
I think it was just the first in a long line of folks parading to the White House with their hands out. I think we have opened a huge can of worms by bailing them out and there does not seem to be an end in sight.
I'd sure like to know when MTs are going to get their bailout! I'd probably get in line for that one! LOL
There IS no constitutional crisis.
Recession teetering on the brink of depression. WAKE UP, will ya?
Maybe it isn't a crisis, just extortion and
I bet it won't be long before some of the anti-union people (poster below) will be begging for union representation. Since Reagan kept his promise to break the unions it's been a downhill course and I imagine we've just about reached the bottom of the hill.
I am aware that AAMT is not
a worker's union; however my bone of contention with them is the fact that instead of promoting MT's here and making us feel that we are indeed valuable to the economy of the nation we live in, they decided to do what other corporations have and give more attention and resources to offshore MT's in India. IMHO that is a slap in the face to the MT's here who have worked like the dickens to provide the medical community with the highest standard of transcription that we all could take pride in. I'm getting off of my  box now....
Everyone is aware of what you don't approve of....
and it happens to be the same kind of life a lot of your party members live. Like I said...get out there and spread this message. You will do more harm to Obama's candidacy than all the conservatives combined can do. Get right after it. I DARE YOU. GO post it somewhere where it will make a difference if you really believe it.
He is not on their payroll that I am aware of....
there are many people who "work for the campaign" who are not paid members of the campaign. I have never heard Fox or any other network say he was a paid member of the McCain campaign. I said he was working on behalf of the campaign...so am I, but they aren't paying me either. Big difference. I don't think, and have seen no indication, the Rove will be a member of a McCain administration.
I am very aware of what she was referring to.
I am asking for facts/incidences that directly relate to the type of "personality" that proves this poster's observations on Mrs. Obama's character. What exactly has she done to draw this meaness from someone?
Actually, you are wrong about his role in this crisis....
concerning Fannie and freddie, he tried to get legislation passed to deal directly with them...and the Democrats blocked it. Fact is, John McCain was on the RIGHT side of this issue, and perhaps if the Democrats had listened to him in 2005 we would not be facing this crisis today. In the interest of full disclosure and truth, this is what he said regarding that legislation:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
He saw it coming, tried to tell the Dems, and they blocked it. Chris Dodd, head of banking and finance comittee, Democrat, largest recipient of donations from them. Guess who was #2?
crisis manufactured by Bush
they knew about this for weeks -- trying to railroad dems before election.
The truth about the housing crisis...
I will warn you this is long, but if your interested in the truth this is a good place to start.
|
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist,
and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current
state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper - almost every local daily paper
in America :
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's
journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before
the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague
emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late
1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more
accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized
to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to
be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor - which especially
would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these
people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a
house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -
along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.
One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried
repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such
attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political
contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to
make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were
allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to
contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support
increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who
produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a
position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700
billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which
politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage
lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party
or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a
vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank,
both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused
Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these
agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost
up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts
Matter?" ( ]" target=_blank>http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com<http://snipurl.com/457to>]
): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's
Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The
party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic
Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican
deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to
account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took
offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who
is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million
while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one
presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on
housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have
called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper
every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried
this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an
"adviser" to the Obama campaign - because that campaign had sought his
advice - you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain
of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to
the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles,
you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all
Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically
selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including
Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you
would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow
Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration
never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not
stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension - so you pounded
us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you
created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that
there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American
people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they
tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama
because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as
hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim
you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your
paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie
- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and
the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame
everything bad - even bad weather - on Bush, and they are responding as
you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and Editor would be
insisting on telling the truth - even if it hurts the election chances
of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth
even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what
honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He
has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time - and you have
swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin,
reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried
daughter - while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery
for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know
what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will
throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women
threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his
well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who
listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no
principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and
the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven
and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list
of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been
getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with
its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its
lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories
will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which
put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about
helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a
Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the
truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once
to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton
administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and
blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -
and vote as if - President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis,
then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats - including Barack
Obama - and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants
were Republicans - then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and
it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we
can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro ,
North Carolina , and is used here by permission. |
|
