Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_Thama]

Why is it that back in 2005 a bill was proposed by republicans, and McCain spoke on the senate floor urging congress to act without delay, regarding the inevitable crisis at FM/FM?

The democrats blocked, it plain and simple. Now they want to blame the republicans by giving these vague excuses of it being "under republican watch."

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency in 2005. How, then, would the Democrats be responsible for blocking this legislation?

McCain has earned a great deal of my respect through legislation such as this. The truth is, however, that most of his most admirable causes and bills have been those in direct odds with his own party. Had his party been fully in support of this legislation, then there would be nothing that Democrats could do to block it in the long run. Obviously, this was not the case.

[_Trevor]

Some of the pharmaceutical companies are already closing the doors of their R&D departments due to the economic slowdown. This will be a permanent development in the event of socialized medicine.

Huh. Their R&D was already a small fraction of their expenditure on marketing anyway.

[_Analytics]

So far no liberal has been able to answer the facts in a responsible manner.

Why is it that back in 2005 a bill was proposed by republicans, and McCain spoke on the senate floor urging congress to act without delay, regarding the inevitable crisis at FM/FM?

The democrats blocked its progress. Now they want to blame the republicans by giving these vague excuses of it being "under republican watch." They want to lie and say McCain never tried to stop it. Hell, he and three other republicans were virtually the only ones who really saw it coming.

I presume you are referring to the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190 [109th]) sponsored by Chuck Hagel, co-sponsored by McCain?

That bill would have replaced the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) with a proposed new agency, the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency.” The background is Fannie Mae was engaged in some shady accounting practices. The director of OFHEO was Armando Falcon (a Democrat, by the way). The OFHEO ruthlessly pursued the truth of Fannie Mae’s fraud. Falcon shined the light brightly on what they found out about Fannie Mae (for example, see here: http://financialservices.house.gov/medi ... 0604af.pdf). Fannie Mae eventually fixed its books and paid the government a $400 million fine.

Hagel’s bill was in response to problems detailed in the OFHEO reports, and was a reasonable measure to increase the government’s ability to hold GSE’s accountable.

The issues that bill addressed were only peripherally related to the current crisis. The current crisis was caused by several factors. Off the top of my head:

1- Greedy investment bankers with their unsound schemes.
2- The entire sub-prime mortgage industry for issuing loans that people couldn’t afford.
3- The Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low, thereby artificially inflating home prices.
4- Incompetent rating agencies that severely misjudged the risk of these instruments.
5- Materialistic home buyers who bought more home than they could afford.

While McCain’s effort to increase the GSE’s accountability is laudable, but he certainly didn’t see this coming or propose anything that would have prevented it.

[_dartagnan]

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency in 2005. How, then, would the Democrats be responsible for blocking this legislation?

It was sponsored by republicans only. Democrats spoke out against it. Barney Frank was the moron who told the newspaper that this was just an exagerration by republicans to make housing less affordable. He said there was no crisis with FM/FM. Republicans need a two-thirds vote in order to get anything done. Even if every Republican voted for it, that would have been only 51% in both the House and the Senate. This was clearly a partisan effort and failed because it wasn't a bipartisan effort.

McCain has earned a great deal of my respect through legislation such as this. The truth is, however, that most of his most admirable causes and bills have been those in direct odds with his own party.

Thank you. This goes against the popular liberal claim about McCain being a typical Republican. Its like they hgaven't taken any notice at all about how he has pissed off Republicans in the past. So has Palin. That is their common denominator and that is why he chose her.

Had his party been fully in support of this legislation, then there would be nothing that Democrats could do to block it in the long run. Obviously, this was not the case.

Huh? They need a two-thirds vote, not 51%. Technically that 1% bump gives one part "control" but that doesn't mean they can pass anything they want.

[_dartagnan]

When Obama was still running in primaries in coal states, he released a commercial saying:

Obama: “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.”

Oil worker: “Barack originates from Chicago. But he came to southern Illinois and he seen the devastation and the loss of the jobs in the coal industry. Washington, DC is not listening to us. Barack understands.”

Graphic: “The Obama Record: $200 million for clean coal"

Announcer: “In Illinois and in the USA Barack Obama helped lead the fight for clean coal. To protect our environment and to save good paying American jobs.”

Oil worker: “He’s figured it out. It takes trust in each other to get the job done.”

Now check out what Biden just said yesterday:

Joe Biden: “We’re not supporting clean coal. Guess what? China is building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it is polluting the United States. It is causing people to die...No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them, over there [in China]. Make them clean because they’re killing us.” http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bide ... not-for-us

But don't expect the liberal media to cover this. If Palin had contradicted McCain on anything, it'd be headline news for about a week and the subject of jokes at SNL, Comedy Central and The View. I mean the above contradiction shows how ignorant Biden is on his running mate's positions. So why is he running with him? Especially after he had just told teh world Obama wasn't ready to lead? And Palin gets lambasted for allegedly not knowing what the "Bush doctrine" was? The media is still talking about that, and nevr noting that Obama didn't know what it was either. I knew that once Biden started speaking more, he'd embarass the Democrat strategists who are attacking Palin.

These two guys are like two monkeys fighting over a banana. Obama also scolded McCain for initially saying he opposed the government bailout; he doesn't like the bailout but he is for it because he has no choiuce really. Little did Obama know, that is precisely what Biden said initially to the news as well:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -supp.html

If these guys cannot even get on the same page on basic issues, then how the hell are they supposed to lead a country? Biden is quick to jump the gun and Obama cannot make decisions unless he gets his slew of advisors to tell him what to say. This is why he voted "present" so many times while in the Senate. He can't decide what to do on too many issues.

[_Thama]

It was sponsored by republicans only. Democrats spoke out against it. Barney Frank was the moron who told the newspaper that this was just an exagerration by republicans to make housing less affordable. He said there was no crisis with FM/FM. Republicans need a two-thirds vote in order to get anything done. Even if every Republican voted for it, that would have been only 51% in both the House and the Senate. This was clearly a partisan effort and failed because it wasn't a bipartisan effort.

Republicans had a very substantial lead in the House, and slightly greater than a 51% lead in the Senate. In the House, all you need is the 51% unless trying to overturn a presidential veto. The Senate rules are more labyrinthine, and a 2/3 majority is needed to push a bill through all the filibusters and obstacles. Those are temporary measures, however (you really can't filibuster indefinitely), and a 51% majority is nearly always good enough to push a bill through if its proponents are patient enough and if it is important enough to suspend all other matters for a period of days or weeks. My suspicion is that the GOP support for this bill wasn't as strong as you think it was, especially given the negative response by many GOP senators and congressmen to current government intervention in the financial industry.

Thank you. This goes against the popular liberal claim about McCain being a typical Republican. Its like they hgaven't taken any notice at all about how he has pissed off Republicans in the past. So has Palin. That is their common denominator and that is why he chose her.

Nevertheless, he has campaigned as a typical (or even hypertypical) Republican, and I couldn't disagree more strongly on Palin. That was a cynical, insulting move. I hope the governing McCain is very different from the campaigning McCain -- if he's anything like he was in his heyday circa 2000, he'll be an absolutely massive upgrade over Bush.

[_asbestosman]

Just because the President is a republican doesn't mean he has power to create laws by himself. Do you guys really not understand how things get accomplished in US government?

Yes, I'm aware of that. In fact, I think I learned it in elementary school and again as a junior in high school.

So those are the facts. If you ignore them and continue with this ignorant "but Bush was president" nonsense, then you don't deserve the right to vote.

Uh, nope. I don't believe that Bush controlls the country alone and have not made such an argument. Anyhow, I suppose I am glad that there is no competency test for voting even if I also feel that many voters are quite ignorant. For one thing, it is my understanding that most economic consequences aren't felt until after a presidency which means that voters end up blaming the wrong guy for the economy.

[_dartagnan]

The bill was never voted on so there is no way to determine exactly how many reps and Democrats were for or against it. But the news article made it clear the democrats were the primary opponents. Four sponsors were on teh bill, none of which were democrat. In any event, none of this changes the fact that McCain, not Obama:

1. Identified the problem years in advance and

2. Tried to do something about it.

So nobody can blame McCain for sitting on his hands. But what the hell did Obama do about it? Nothing. Even if he attended one that mattered, he probably would have voted "present" anyway.

Since this election is between McCain and Obama, I think it is safe to say McCain has the upper hand here, or at least he should. One doesn't need to make it between republicans and democrats. We should just ask, what has each candidate done in the past on this issue? McCain clearly Trump's Obama.

But the media keeps spinning it in favor of Obama, insisting he knows more about the economy when he has never demonstrated such aptitude. It is just another liberal myth taken for granted that sees much circulation in the media.

Obama fought against red lining for years, and the failure to set lending standards to poorer people is what started this mess to begin with.

[_dartagnan]

he has campaigned as a typical (or even hypertypical) Republican, and

Let the record do the talking OK? He might have presented himself that way with words, because he didn't want to alienate the conservatives who were buying into Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter's extremist views, which they tell peopl eis the only form of conservatism that matters. Remember, Coulter said she would vote Democrat this year because she though McCain was more liberal than Hillary.

I couldn't disagree more strongly on Palin. That was a cynical, insulting move.

This is just gibberish rhetoric. I have yet to hear a coherent argument from the Palin haters. It insults nobody. He picked someone who he felt was more in tuned with his own demeanor in politics. They are both established reformers. He didn't want a product of Washington, which is what he would have gotten if he picked any other politician. I think it was a bold statement that he was serious about reform and I applaud him. And McCain wants someone to convince him to drill in Anwar, and she is the woman to do it.

[_Trevor]

And McCain wants someone to convince him to drill in Anwar, and she is the woman to do it.

He picked someone to convince him of something? Sounds like he is already more than half way there!