John Sydney McCain

[dude1394]

So let's start a little thread on the candidates. Fill 'er up.

First off...John Sydney McCain on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mae. Looks like John and Dubya were ahead of the curve on this one.

Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier. McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (via Beltway Snark):

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.

[dude1394]

And since hillary was the most serious of the democrat candidates, what does one of her prior supporters say.

Exmaple 3 - former major Hillary supporter:

A top Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser threw her support behind Republican John McCain on Wednesday, saying he will lead the country in a centrist fashion and accusing the Democrats of becoming too extreme.

“I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party — and they will continue to — too far to the left,” Lynn Forester de Rothschild said. “I’m not comfortable there.”

…

“I believe that the McCain-Palin government will be a centrist government,” Rothschild said. “It’s not going to be an ideological government.”

Couldn't be more on-point, Obama, Pelosi, HarryReid, MoveOn.org, most liberal ticket in american history. Couldn't be more on-point.

[chumdawg]

Didn't McCain get in a lot of trouble 20 years ago for accepting a bunch of money in order to keep regulators away from the savings and loan industry?

[FINtastic]

I like John McCain cause he is a Maverick and I'm an MFFL!!!!!

[Flacolaco]

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.

He called it. There isn't much else to say other than...he freaking called it spot on.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Didn't McCain get in a lot of trouble 20 years ago for accepting a bunch of money in order to keep regulators away from the savings and loan industry?

I believe you are referring to the keating 5 I assume. ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating..._poor_judgment

McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981,[10] and McCain was the closest socially to Keating of the five senators.[21] Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona.[18] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[22] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.[6][23]...

Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[24] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[27]

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[25][24] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[28] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]

Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[29][30][31][11] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[29][31] Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."[30] The Vice Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, agreed with Bennett, but the Chairman, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, did not agree.[11]

Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[32] Glenn has described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.[7]

[chumdawg]

Yes, now I remember. Keating Five, it was called. Something to do with senators taking money to block regulation so that the S&L's could make a ton of money, and then those S&L's crashed and burned and cost a lot of people a lot of money. It was a big deal at the time.

[rabbitproof]

John McCain thinks Spain is a rogue state in South America

Enough worrying about Sarah Palin's foreign policy expertise, time to return to John McCain's.

The Spanish press -- in Spain, on the Iberian Peninsula, east of Portugal and south of France -- is having a field day over a Cadena SER radio interview in which the senator seems to confuse Spain's prime minister with a strongman in Latin America.

In the beginning of the interview, McCain discusses how he would not sit down with presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Evo Morales of Bolivia and certainly not with Raul Castro. Standard fare. The interviewer then says, "Let's shift to Spain, would you invite President [Jose Luis Rodriguez] Zapatero to meet with you in the White House?" This is a big deal for Spaniards; Zapatero never received such an invitation from President George Bush. At first McCcain gives a vague answer about how he'll work with anyone who cooperates withe U.S. but is determined to stand firm against our enemies. When pressed again, he makes no promises but notes "the importance of "our relationship with Latin America."

Perplexed, the interview blurts out "But I'm talking about Europe. About Spain!" Even then, McCain indeed does stand firm. He never giving a clue that he acutally knows who Zapatero is. He speaks in English and a Spanish translater is speaking over him so I'll translate back to English: He'll be friends with our friends and stand firm against those who oppose us."

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...ccain-thi.html

---

from 2:58, video: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217792.php

---

OKAYYYYYY... I guess he can't see Spain from his porch or something. He just can't give a straight answer about Spain?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

John McCain thinks Spain is a rogue state in South America

Enough worrying about Sarah Palin's foreign policy expertise, time to return to John McCain's.

The Spanish press -- in Spain, on the Iberian Peninsula, east of Portugal and south of France -- is having a field day over a Cadena SER radio interview in which the senator seems to confuse Spain's prime minister with a strongman in Latin America.

In the beginning of the interview, McCain discusses how he would not sit down with presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Evo Morales of Bolivia and certainly not with Raul Castro. Standard fare. The interviewer then says, "Let's shift to Spain, would you invite President [Jose Luis Rodriguez] Zapatero to meet with you in the White House?" This is a big deal for Spaniards; Zapatero never received such an invitation from President George Bush. At first McCcain gives a vague answer about how he'll work with anyone who cooperates withe U.S. but is determined to stand firm against our enemies. When pressed again, he makes no promises but notes "the importance of "our relationship with Latin America."

Perplexed, the interview blurts out "But I'm talking about Europe. About Spain!" Even then, McCain indeed does stand firm. He never giving a clue that he acutally knows who Zapatero is. He speaks in English and a Spanish translater is speaking over him so I'll translate back to English: He'll be friends with our friends and stand firm against those who oppose us."

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...ccain-thi.html

---

from 2:58, video: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217792.php

---

OKAYYYYYY... I guess he can't see Spain from his porch or something. He just can't give a straight answer about Spain?

If his advisors say bomb, he'll do it. He's a soldier after all...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

John McCain thinks Spain is a rogue state in South America

Enough worrying about Sarah Palin's foreign policy expertise, time to return to John McCain's.

The Spanish press -- in Spain, on the Iberian Peninsula, east of Portugal and south of France -- is having a field day over a Cadena SER radio interview in which the senator seems to confuse Spain's prime minister with a strongman in Latin America.

In the beginning of the interview, McCain discusses how he would not sit down with presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Evo Morales of Bolivia and certainly not with Raul Castro. Standard fare. The interviewer then says, "Let's shift to Spain, would you invite President [Jose Luis Rodriguez] Zapatero to meet with you in the White House?" This is a big deal for Spaniards; Zapatero never received such an invitation from President George Bush. At first McCcain gives a vague answer about how he'll work with anyone who cooperates withe U.S. but is determined to stand firm against our enemies. When pressed again, he makes no promises but notes "the importance of "our relationship with Latin America."

Perplexed, the interview blurts out "But I'm talking about Europe. About Spain!" Even then, McCain indeed does stand firm. He never giving a clue that he acutally knows who Zapatero is. He speaks in English and a Spanish translater is speaking over him so I'll translate back to English: He'll be friends with our friends and stand firm against those who oppose us."

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...ccain-thi.html

---

from 2:58, video: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217792.php

---

OKAYYYYYY... I guess he can't see Spain from his porch or something. He just can't give a straight answer about Spain?

EVERYONE brainfarts occasionally. These guys are constantly getting grilled about specific this or that, while they simultaneusly are plotting in their head the bigger pictures. I don't put much stock into any one gaffe here or there. Palin and W, on the other hand.... it was/is never about one particular gaffe here or there, it was about individuals that were/are constantly shielded from the press, and then when exposed constantly channeled their comments to a few well scripted before hand answers, whether the answer really had anything to do with the question or not. These are problemeatic cases

McCain chats with the press constantly, on wide ranging and meandering topics. He is credible enough in his stronger areas to accept that a gaffe was a gaffe ... get him taking about ECONOMICS, however, and all bets are off.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

EVERYONE brainfarts occasionally. These guys are constantly getting grilled about specific this or that, while they simultaneusly are plotting in their head the bigger pictures. I don't put much stock into any one gaffe here or there. Palin and W, on the other hand.... it was/is never about one particular gaffe here or there, it was about individuals that were/are constantly shielded from the press, and then when exposed constantly channeled their comments to a few well scripted before hand answers, whether the answer really had anything to do with the question or not. These are problemeatic cases

McCain chats with the press constantly, on wide ranging and meandering topics. He is credible enough in his stronger areas to accept that a gaffe was a gaffe ... get him taking about ECONOMICS, however, and all bets are off.

Well, McCain's brainfarts (specifically on issues like these - Shia/Sunni, anyone?) are more than occassional, and I don't think it's a brainfart. I think he just doesn't know the difference between Spain and Mexico. Or who knows what.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-s...-get-dumb.html

From the article, quoting Randy Schuenemann, lobbyist for Georgia:

"The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and ID'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview," he said in an e-mail.

-----

So no, he's not having a brainfart. Straight from his own campaign.

[dude1394]

John S. McCain.

We need reform in Washington and on Wall Street. The financial markets are in crisis. Times are tough. Enormous strain is being put on working families and individuals in America. I know that the events unfolding can be difficult to understand for many Americans. The dominos that we have seen fall this week began with the corruption and manipulation of our home loan system. The reason this crisis started was the abuses that took place within our home loan agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and within our home loan system.

Two years ago I warned this Administration and Congress that regulations for our home loan agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, needed to be fixed.

But nothing was done.

Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae's CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie's former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn't lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That's not change, that's what's broken in Washington.

[chumdawg]

McCain has a big bag of nothing. Actually, he has several big bags of nothing. Each day he tries out a new one.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

He called it. There isn't much else to say other than...he freaking called it spot on.

that is an incredibly niave statement.

The context of the above quote (i believe) was the hearings related to Freddie's accounting scandal a few years back. Every single politician involved in the hearings had some vaugue sort of quote that offered some somber tones about oversight and the huge potential liabilities that Fannie and Freddie represented. Every single one.

it was all blather and throw away lines...
Politicians speak ALOT. that is what they do.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Your opinion is wrong.

Oh, okay. Got it.

[rabbitproof]

McCain Flub? Republican Says He'd Fire SEC Chair as President

ABC News' David Wright reports: At a joint rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Thursday, Republican John McCain slammed the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for being "asleep," saying that if he were president, he would fire Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC since 2005 and a former Republican congressman.

McCain said the SEC has allowed trading practices, such as short selling, to stay in place, that turned the "markets into a casino."

"The regulators were asleep, my friends," McCain said. "The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president, and in my view, has betrayed the public trust. If I were president today, I would fire him."

But while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.

From time to time, presidents have attempted to remove commissioners who have proven "uncooperative." However, the courts have generally upheld the independence of commissioners. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Supreme Court ruled the president acted unconstitutionally.

Rest of it: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-blasts-o.html

----

Acting unconstitutionally? We're used to that!

About the potential flub, McCain must not be able to see the SEC office from his house...

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

McCain Flub? Republican Says He'd Fire SEC Chair as President

ABC News' David Wright reports: At a joint rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Thursday, Republican John McCain slammed the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for being "asleep," saying that if he were president, he would fire Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC since 2005 and a former Republican congressman.

McCain said the SEC has allowed trading practices, such as short selling, to stay in place, that turned the "markets into a casino."

"The regulators were asleep, my friends," McCain said. "The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president, and in my view, has betrayed the public trust. If I were president today, I would fire him."

But while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.

From time to time, presidents have attempted to remove commissioners who have proven "uncooperative." However, the courts have generally upheld the independence of commissioners. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Supreme Court ruled the president acted unconstitutionally.

Rest of it: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-blasts-o.html

----

Acting unconstitutionally? We're used to that!

About the potential flub, McCain must not be able to see the SEC office from his house...

Technically, he can request their resignation, which they usually adhere to, but I don't think McCain knew that when he said it. I think his campaign came up with such a way out after the fact.

By the way, is McCain still using the whole 'She sold her jet on e-bay and made a profit' lie? I haven't been watching.

[dude1394]

What John really says about social security.

For the record, McCain has said that he would seek a bipartisan deal with Congress to fix Social Security's financial problems.

During a Republican candidate debate last year in Orlando, Florida, he said:

McCain, Oct. 21, 2007: Look, what Americans need is some straight talk. They need to know -- every man, woman and child in America needs to know that both of these are going broke. They're going broke and we've got to do the hard things. We've got to fix it for the future generations of Americans. Don't we owe that to young Americans today? I say we do. ... It's got to be bipartisan. ... And you have to got to the American people and say we don't -- we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we got to fix this system.

The system isn't exactly "going broke." But the latest official projection is that the trust fund will be exhausted by the year 2041, after which current tax rates will finance only 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits. We agree that "straight talk" is needed and that finding solutions will be hard. Ads like this, however, misinform the public and make the job of fixing the system more difficult.

[rabbitproof]

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...nt-you-to-see/

A "negative" ad: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs

[rabbitproof]

Wall Street Journal editorial board skewers McCain
Posted: 12:00 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


McCain said he would fire SEC chairman Cox.
(CNN) — John McCain's recent comments on the economy aren't just coming under fire from Barack Obama's campaign: arguably the country's most conservative editorial board said Friday the Arizona senator's recent "populist rifting" was downright "un-presidential."

A Friday Wall Street Journal editorial sharply criticized McCain for his recent condemnation of Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Committee. The Republican presidential nominee told an Iowa crowd Thursday Cox had "betrayed the public trust" and should be fired.

"Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino," McCain said.

Fact check: Does McCain oppose financial regulation

In the bruising editorial, the Journal said those comments an "assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair."

"It's also un-Presidential," the Journal said.


Specifically the editorial says many of McCain's allegations against the SEC were misleading — particularly his claim the SEC allowed "naked short selling" and eliminated the "uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years.

According to the editorial, the SEC never condoned the practice of "naked" shorting, and has sought to eliminate the practice during Cox's tenure. The Journal also supports the SEC's decision to eliminate the uptick rule, calling it a "Depression-era chestnut" that "protected no one."

"In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution," the editorial also said. "He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...kewers-mccain/

[Mavdog]

what the heck is the mccain camp thinking by making these comments about the failed bill? mccain does an incredible job of doublespeak:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Sen. Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame. It's time to fix the problem,” McCain said in a hastily called statement to the press here today.

Mr. McCain's campaign lashed out at Mr. Obama, with a top policy adviser saying the Democratic nominee "failed to lead."

"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------------
wtf? this campaign is schitzoid, and it does not reflect well on mccain.

in fact this reveals a very poor ability to manage the campaign, poor decisions on the staff that is advising him, and lastly poor judgement by the candidate himself.

[mcsluggo]

McCaine has not had a good last week or so... his campaign really needs to take some deep breaths and re-establish som e stability and focus if they are going to have any chance what-so-ever. I am not saying it is a done deal quite yet... but the mac-team seems to be TRYING fairly hard to make it so right now.

[Mavdog]

john mccain does know how to throw a punch. I don't view this as a "negative attack" by mccain.

mccain has always responded aggressively when he is behind, and right now he is way behind.
--------------------------------------------------------
Remarks By John McCain In Albuquerque, NM


October 6, 2008


ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery at the McCain-Palin 2008 rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

In less than a month, the American people will make a choice on where they want this country to go, and who they trust to lead us in a time of war and economic crisis. The time for debating and electioneering is drawing to a close. Soon it will be the time for choosing.

Today we have seen a reminder of the importance of that choice. The action Congress took last week to address our financial crisis was a tourniquet, but not a permanent solution. Today we are seeing the stock market fall, and the credit crisis spread to other parts of the world. Our economy is still hurting -- working families are worried about the price of groceries, the price of gas, keeping their jobs and paying their mortgage -- further action is needed. We need to restore confidence in our economy and in our government.

Washington is still on the wrong track and we still need change. The status quo is not on the ballot. We are going to see change in Washington. The question is: in what direction will we go? Will our country be a better place under the leadership of the next president -- a more secure, prosperous, and just society? Will you be better off, in the jobs you hold now and in the opportunities you hope for? Will your sons and daughters grow up in the kind of country you wish for them, rising in the world and finding in their own lives the best of America? And which candidate's experience -- in government and in life -- makes him a more reliable leader for our country and commander in chief for our troops? Who is ready to lead? In a time of trouble and danger for our country, who will put our country first?

I set out on my own campaign for president many months ago. I promised at the beginning to be straight with the American people, knowing that even those who don't agree with me on everything would expect at least that much. I didn't just show up out of nowhere, after all -- America knows me. You know my strengths and my faults. You know my story and my convictions. And though familiarity in politics can be both helpful to a candidate, or not so helpful, it does at least fill out the picture and answer the essential questions. You need to know who you're putting in the White House -- where the candidate came from and what he or she believes. And you need to know now, before it is time to choose.

In 21 months, during hundreds of speeches, town halls and debates, I have kept my promise to level with you about my plans to reform Washington and get this country moving again. As a senator, I've seen the corrupt ways of Washington in wasteful spending and other abuses of power, and as president I'm going to end them -- whatever it takes. I will propose and sign into law reforms to bring tax relief to the middle class and help to businesses so they can create jobs. I will get the rising cost of food and gas under control. I will help families keep their home, and help students struggling to pay for college. I will make health care more accessible and affordable. I will impose a spending freeze on all but the most vital functions of government. I will review every agency of the federal government, improve those that need to be improved and eliminate those that aren't working for the American people. I will confront th e ten trillion-dollar debt that the federal government has run up, and balance the federal budget by the end of my term in office.

This is the agenda I have set before my fellow citizens. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent. Even at this late hour in the campaign, there are essential things we don't know about Senator Obama or the record that he brings to this campaign.

We have all heard what he has said, but it is less clear what he has done or what he will do. What Senator Obama says today and what he has done in the past are often two different things. He has often changed his positions in this campaign, and the best way to determine where he would really take this country is to examine where he has tried to take it in the past.

My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote -- "take off the gloves." Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.

Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I don't need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn't seek advice from a Chicago politician.

My opponent's touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy who's already authored two memoirs, he's not exactly an open book. It's as if somehow the usual rules don't apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there's always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, "a good idea." Well, Senator Obama, that "good idea" has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you'd think he'd always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign.

He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn't he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won't tell you, but you deserve an answer.

Even after he refused to lift a finger to prevent this crisis, when the crisis hit, he was missing in action. He didn't start making calls to round up votes until after the rescue bill failed in the House and the markets crashed. We continue to see the price of delay today as the markets continue to fall. Today the DOW has fallen below 10,000. And yet, members of his own party said they felt no pressure to vote for the bill. Why didn't Senator Obama work to pass this bill from the start? Why did he let it fail and drag out this crisis for a full week before doing a thing to help pass it?

Again on taxes, we see a difference between what Senator Obama says today, what he said yesterday and what he has actually done. Over the course of this campaign, he has had many different plans to raise your taxes. During the Democratic primary, he promised to double taxes on every American with a dividend or an investment. He promised to raise payroll taxes. He promised higher taxes on electricity. Now, Senator Obama claims he will give 95 percent of Americans tax relief. He actually promised the same thing when he was running for Senate in Illinois, but once elected he never introduced legislation to do so. Instead, he voted for the Democratic budget resolution that promised to raise taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars a year. At the time, he even said his vote was intended to get "our nation's priorities back on track." If he's such a defender of the middle class, why did he vote to raise their taxes? Whatever ha ppened to the tax relief he promised them when he was a candidate for the Senate? And why should middle class Americans trust him to keep promises he has already broken?

Senator Obama and I both have differences with how President Bush has handled the economy. But he thinks taxes are too low, and I think spending is too high. The government's out of control spending has resulted in a weaker dollar, raising the cost of groceries and gasoline, and killing jobs.

I will veto pork barrel legislation and cut wasteful government spending. Senator Obama has a different plan. According to third party estimates, he will increase government spending by over 860 billion dollars. He has denied it, but he has refused to tell you how much he does plan to spend. What is the total of his increased spending? Americans deserve to know just how much more of their money Senator Obama intends to spend, and how much more debt he plans to burden them with.

Senator Obama has also criticized earmark spending, those wasteful pork barrel projects stuck in spending bills behind closed doors. And yet, despite his talk on the campaign trail, his actual record is full of requests for earmark projects. In his three short years in the Senate, he has requested nearly a billion dollars in pork projects for his state -- a million dollars for every day he's been in office. Far from fighting earmarks in Congress, Senator Obama has been an eager participant in this corrupt system. In one instance, he sought more than 3 million dollars for a new projector at a planetarium in his hometown. Coincidentally, the chairman of that planetarium pledged to raise more than $200,000 for Senator Obama's campaign. We don't know if they ever discussed the money for the planetarium, and no one has asked Senator Obama. But even the appearance of this kind of insider-dealing disgusts Americans. I'm going to put a stop to that, my friends, if I'm President.

I have made every single donor to my campaign publicly available, while Senator Obama has taken in over 200 million dollars from undisclosed sources. We have already seen the potential for fraud because of his refusal to disclose his donors. His campaign had to return $33,000 in illegal foreign funds from Palestinian donors, and this weekend, we found out about another $28,000 in illegal donations. Why has Senator Obama refused to disclose the people who are funding his campaign? Again, the American people deserve answers.

On health care, Senator Obama has been misleading you about my plan to give you more money for health care, and he has been equally misleading about his own plans. He has said his goal is a single payer system where government is in charge of health care and bureaucrats stand between you and your doctor. Under the plan he has proposed, he will fine families that don't have the kind of health insurance that Senator Obama tells them to purchase. He will fine employers who do not offer the health insurance that he thinks they should offer.

What he doesn't say, and what nobody has asked, is how big his fines will be. What he doesn't want you to know is that with a small fine, his plan will encourage companies to just pay the fine, drop existing health care coverage for their employees and leave them with only one real option: government run health care.

Who is the real Senator Obama? Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch?

Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can't change the system with someone who's never fought the system.

Washington is on the wrong track and I'm going to set it right. The American people know my record. They know I am going to change Washington, because I've done it before. They know I'm going to reform our broken institutions in Washington and on Wall Street because I've done it before. They know I'm going to deliver relief to the middle class, because that's what I've done.

You don't have to hope that things will change when you vote for me. You know things will change, because I have been fighting for change in Washington my whole career. I've been fighting for you my whole life. That's what I'm going to do as President of the United States. Fight for you and put the government back on the side of the people.

Thank you

[chumdawg]

That's a hell of a speech. Hell of a speech.

Too bad, for McCain's sake that it is far too little far too late.

[kg_veteran]

Fantastic speech, and it's about time.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Fantastic speech, and it's about time.

To consider it all in context, the speech was a whole lot better on paper than it was when I heard Mac give it.

I guess the best way I could describe it succintly is to say that McCain does not do all that well when he tries to get serious on any topic besides himself. This is something his speechwriters may want to consider.

[Flacolaco]

It doesn't really matter what his speech writers do at this point.

What they should do when it's all over (formally) is point out that he lost because of a financial crisis that he himself prophesied 3 years ago. Irony ftw.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

It doesn't really matter what his speech writers do at this point.

What they should do when it's all over (formally) is point out that he lost because of a financial crisis that he himself prophesied 3 years ago. Irony ftw.

I suspect the postmortem will focus more on the haphazard, blow-with-the-wind, utterly themeless campaign he ran.

[fluid.forty.one]

sydney? sounds like a terrorist name to me...

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I suspect the postmortem will focus more on the haphazard, blow-with-the-wind, utterly themeless campaign he ran.

You are making a good point, but the theme has been pretty easy to see. It is Obama is too inexperienced to hand the reins to with a war going on. Not that there aren't some huge tactical errors, which breaks the trend for recent Republican performances. If they do pull it off, it will be a stunning event. Even now, an Obama 3% lead has to be less than comfortable for the Dems.

This election shouldn't have ever been close. Or the two prior ones, where the main reason they lost was from having candidates that were so stiff you could surf on them. If it wasn't for Hillary's ego and the inexplicably terrible performance of Congress diluting Bush's negative approval rating we'd have a done deal.

[Epitome22]

Back to learning about the candidates. It is common knowledge that John McCain once beat 3 large grizzly bears to death with his bear hands whilst protecting a stranded bus of kindergartners from their onslaught.

[alby]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

Back to learning about the candidates. It is common knowledge that John McCain once beat 3 large grizzly bears to death with his bear hands whilst protecting a stranded bus of kindergartners from their onslaught.

Presidential material

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

It is common knowledge that John McCain once beat 3 large grizzly bears to death with his bear hands whilst protecting a stranded bus of kindergartners from their onslaught.

Yeah, but has he ever derailed a train with his penis and then eaten it piece by piece?

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yeah, but has he ever derailed a train with his penis and then eaten it piece by piece?

Back in his wild college days. He's matured since then.

[fluid.forty.one]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/cov..._mccain/page/5

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/cov..._mccain/page/5

That's an interesting story...but, you know...what would Bill Ayers have done? It's not about McCain or Obama, it's about Ayers.

[fluid.forty.one]

probably would have drank as much and snitched as much as mccain... but he's not touted as this country-before-self maverick.

[chumdawg]

Oh, I think everybody already gets the facade that fronts the "maverick" theme. Ayers had more balls than McCain ever dreamed of having, at least you can give him that.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Oh, I think everybody already gets the facade that fronts the "maverick" theme. Ayers had more balls than McCain ever dreamed of having, at least you can give him that.

well you can bet your ass that if ayers were to do something patriotic, he would rather go with the bomb than betraying his fellow americans with cowardly loose lips.

and you'll be damn sure he wouldn't fabricate the story to make it 10x more badass than it really was.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

well you can bet your ass that if ayers were to do something patriotic, he would rather go with the bomb than betraying his fellow americans with cowardly loose lips.

and you'll be damn sure he wouldn't fabricate the story to make it 10x more badass than it really was.

But of course, he wouldn't be running for president. For McCain, making it ten times more badass than it actually was is all he has to go on.

McCain is a one-trick pony. It's his POW status or else. At every turn otherwise, he has proven himself less distinguished than anyone else who would attain to the presidency.

And the sad part of it all, for the hardline right-wingers who would turn their heads and support him, he's not even a real Republican. Often enough, he was a Democrat wearing the (R) by his name.

What he is, is the last guy left standing in the Republican party (at least nominally so) who would and could take a bullet for the party this go round.

The rightwingers are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and they don't even seem to realize it. That, or they just don't give a shit as long as the (R) still holds the throne.