Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
She’s Clueless, He’s Worse
Ignorance is bliss, which perhaps explains Gov. Sarah Palin being so confidently wrong about the root cause of the federalization of most of the nation's mortgage market. But what is Sen. John McCain's excuse? Both act as if the financial meltdown of the U.S. economy has nothing to do with the policies of the political party they represent -- but she at least may not know any better.
Distracted momentarily from her campaign revelries of maverick opposition to the "bridge to nowhere," which she had supported until it became a public relations debacle, and congressional earmarks for which she, as a small-town mayor, had hustled piggishly at the federal trough, Palin made the mistake of dealing with an unscripted subject.
Referring to the government's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Palin opined that the two had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers," displaying abysmal ignorance of the fact that only now will those privately owned banks become a huge taxpayer obligation, as the federal government takes them over. Nor can the meltdown of home values be traced to those two beleaguered institutions, because they did not make the original subprime mortgage commitments.
The housing bubble was the result of the Ponzi-scheme antics of those other financial entities: commercial banks, stockbrokers and hedge funds, which were allowed in a GOP-deregulated market to get into the "swap" business. Through the rampant reselling of loans, the obligation to collect on a loan was divorced from the act of selling it in the first place, so who cared if the recipient of the loan was not at all qualified or the appraisal of the property value was inflated, as long as the paper was traded away, or insured, before the moment of foreclosure?
As with any Ponzi scheme, the perps, who included the legislators as well as the bankers who exploited the loopholes they provided, expected to bail long before the bubble burst. The role of the legislators, Republican-led but with far too many Democratic running dogs, was critical to the success of the scam.
The mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector were made legal only as a result of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, pushed through Congress just hours before the 2000 Christmas recess. Gramm, until recently co-chair of the McCain campaign, also had co-authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which became law in 1999 with President Bill Clinton's signature. That gem, which Gramm had pushed for years with massive financial industry lobbying, destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies. Those two acts effectively ended significant regulation of the financial community, and no wonder we have witnessed an even more rapid and severe meltdown in housing values than during the Great Depression.
Not surprisingly, Gramm was rewarded for his service upon retirement as a senator and as head of the Senate Banking Committee with a top position at the Swiss-based UBS bank, which is close to drowning in the subprime mortgage nightmare he helped create. These folks have no shame, as was evidenced when the senator's wife, Wendy, was named a director of Enron, whose roiling of the energy market had been made possible only through yet another provision of Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
While neophyte Palin can claim ignorance of such matters, that would be particularly difficult for McCain, who as a senator consistently lined up with Gramm in his deregulation crusade. Clearly McCain had not learned much from his previous involvement with the savings-and-loan debacle about the risks to consumers in unregulated banking.
McCain served as chair of Gramm's abortive 1996 presidential campaign, and Gramm returned the favor, providing critical support for McCain with the hard-line Republican base, including the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. It was assumed in the business press that Gramm was the front-runner to be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration. Gramm left his role as the top economic person near McCain only after he made an embarrassing statement blaming the current economic downturn on "whiners," an awkward reference to the victims of his disastrous legislation.
Amazingly, the turmoil in the housing market, which has led to the socializing of the nation's revered homeownership market in a massive expansion of the role of big government, has apparently not troubled McCain's conservative supporters. As I said, ignorance is bliss, and evidently not just for the newbie Palin.
- Posted in



270 Comments so far
Show AllI find it hard to believe so many are so terrified of Gov. Palin.
Perhaps some truly honest soul searching may help.
Do only "certain women" get support from our women's advocates?
sure sounds like it to me.........
"I find it hard to believe so many are so terrified of Gov. Palin."
Maybe that's because she's obviously as ruthless and cutthroat as the man she may replace. OR maybe it's because she's become the protected darling of those who've done such damage to anyone who dares come to face up to them. Then again, it could just be that she reminds them of a woman they've come up against in their lives - a mother, a boss, a sister, a wife?
"But after school is over they go home to their fat and psychopathics wives who thrash them within inches of their lives... da, how can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
"OR maybe it's because she's become the protected darling of those who've done such damage to anyone who dares come to face up to them."
In other words, "but, damn, isn't she oh-so-cute"!
You must be a Limbaugh fan:
LIMBAUGH: No! No, no it's - no, no, no, no. We're talking about Hillary here. It's not that she's not black enough. We're talking about white men and their fear, loathing, dislike -- there's no denying it exists. I mean, her disapproval number's at 49 percent. And there's a reason for it. It's -- a lot of it's attitudinal -- she just -- she reminds men of the worst characteristics of women they've encountered over their life: totally controlling, not soft and cuddly. Not sympathetic. Not patient. Not understanding. Demanding, domineering, Nurse Ratched kind of thing. Everything you do, you have to do behind her back, that kind of -- and then, after all of that, with Mrs. Clinton with this -- the characteristics I just described -- with the flick of a light switch, all of a sudden, she's a victim of evil men and bad Republicans and she starts crying and she wants sympathy. She's a classic manipulator. And this is the thing that -- nobody wants to be manipulated, especially in a circumstance where they have no choice, they can't get out of it. When the only way to have peace is to be manipulated. But nobody wants to walk around looking over their shoulder, walking on eggshells, making sure that there's not an eruption just because you're being who you are. This is how she's seen.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150004
Typical. Nothing penetrates with that glazed over look in your eye. Did you hear a thing? Did you see a thing?
She terrifies me because FOOLS LIKE YOU, blinded by your latest swoon over some deliberately maufactured image(just like Bush being a regular guy to have that beer with), will be the cause of everyone's greater hopelessness should your blind stupidity rule the day. How many times do you have to get your arse kicked before you get a clue as to who is kicking it?
Did you actually read the article? Her response to the question at hand shows a dangerous level of ignorance of one of the most important current domestic issues in this country. That was the response of an airheaded beauty contestant, not of a woman who may be one stroke away from the most powerful position in the world 4 months from now. But, don't let silly things such as policy positions or basic understanding of the issues sway you from your infatuation.
Yes, little Blugie, only certain women - women worthy of advocacy - get that support. Women who protect choice, not radical anti-abortionists. Women who are open-minded and inclusive about education, not women who try to ban books. Women who favor comprehensive sex education, not the abstinance-only type which has failed in the Gov's own home. Women who have compassion and empathy for their fellow creatures, be they human or animal, not right-wing religious hypocrites who kill while proclaiming they are pro-life. Woman who understand foreign policy and economics, not ex-sportscasters with no qualifications.
Go home, Blugie - you are in way over your little head here.
Biden is no prize either.
VOTE NADER
What good is that going to do? Dream on.
JaneM
Yes. The dream of what can be, rather than what is. This good dream is better than the two nightmare major party candidates. Voting for Nader, anything other than the two corporate party stooges. is just what might set in motion the dynamics needed to break the stanglehold of two-party fraud. Run Ralph. Run!
"is just what might set in motion the dynamics needed to break the stanglehold of two-party fraud."
Precisely how, pray tell, will that occur? If the polls are correct, McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead heat, and Nader, McKinney, and Barr (et al.) collectively are garnering about 6% of the vote. Therefore, THEY LOOSE! In a two-party winner-take-all system like ours, the losers do NOT set in motion ANY dynamics, they have absolutely ZERO INFLUENCE on the winning party; ZERO! NONE! ZIP! NIL! NADA!
Pissing away your vote on someone without a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is for all practical purposes voting for the Fascist Republican Right. Nobody cares about your high-minded ethics or rationalizations, only the the consequences of the choices you make. When a drunk runs over a kid on a bicycle, nobody gives a damn that he was on his way to church with a sincere and heartfelt desire to repent.
Try telling that to the record turnout for leftist parties in 1932, who then had a real grasp of their own numbers and kept the popular pressure on FDR. No Worker's, Farmer's or Socialist votes and there would have been no New Deal.
Eiméid September 10th, 2008 1:51 pm
"Pissing away your vote on someone without a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is for all practical purposes voting for the Fascist Republican Right."
And pissing away your vote on the lesser of two evils is for all practical purposes voting to continue our sinking decline into fascism, be it from the Republicans or the Democrats. At least with a third party/independent vote there is hope that enough other people will wake up to stop the decline and reverse it.
Lobo Gris
You know what, I might've agreed with you when it was Gore v Bush and I am not one of those who blames Nader. Nader has my highest regard and respect. But since that time, don't you think with Gore we would be better off today--and considering the unspeakable disaster of the last 8 years, how can you, in good conscience, with full knowledge of the hordes of clueless out there who could even make this a tight race, claim the luxury?
You really need to think it through.
Gore won remember? Then Gore played dead! And 350,000 Democrats in one Florida county alone voted FOR G.W. Bush, so spare us. In my conscience, I can never ever again vote for the two Corporate Parties. Never. They are the root of all that is wrong with the country.
Vern September 10th, 2008 2:55 pm
"You know what, I might've agreed with you when it was Gore v Bush and I am not one of those who blames Nader."
You claim not to blame Nader then do just that. Yes we would have been better off with Gore than Bush but Gore didn't lose because of the Nader voters. Enough Democrats in Florida voted for Bush that if they hadn't he would have won. Gore would also have won if he could have won his own home state or the state of the sitting president. Fact is Gore ran a lousy campaign and that is why he lost.
And the same applies to Obama. He has reversed himself on all of the positions that got him the votes to become the Democratic candidate.
He now has no intention of ending the Iraq war on a set timetable, 16 months. It is now up to the commanders in the field.
He wants to expand the military and the war in Afghanistan.
He voted for the new FISA bill which gave the telecoms immunity for spying on us.
He wants to continue Bush's faith based initiative and give federal tax dollars to Churches
He said he wanted to fix NAFTA then sent an emissary to Canada to let them know it was just overheated campaign rhetoric.
Just to name a few.
You really need to think it through.
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris September 10th, 2008 3:19 pm
Oh yeah, forgot, Obama also now says that it isn't his job to govern by polls. So he will be immune to influence after he is elected, same as Bush.
Lobo Gris
I do not think Obama is ideal. I think there is the possibility that he might offer a better shot than the Clintons. I know he will be a vast improvement over McCain. That is as good as it gets in our present political landscape. You are dreaming about Nader--and I am more worried about the dumbed down clamoring to turn our nightmare into a living hell.
Vern September 10th, 2008 3:43 pm
"That is as good as it gets in our present political landscape. You are dreaming about Nader--and I am more worried about the dumbed down clamoring to turn our nightmare into a living hell."
It's already a living hell if you haven't noticed and voting for the lesser of two evils won't improve it.
Lobo Gris
BTW I don't dream about Nader, he is not a messiah, just the best candidate.
Obviously Bush has been terrible, but I think its a mistake to make this comparison to the 'Oscar winning' Gore of today. Gore has not been under the Washington thumb, with neo-con Lieberman. And yeah, risking the Supreme Court...but its just a nomination, if you're willing to vote Democrat, have some faith in those Democratic Senators. Anyway, my point is we, third party voters, for the most part, have thought it through.
Tell that to Eugene Debs or Norman Thomas. As for this comment "Pissing away your vote on someone without a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is for all practical purposes voting for the Fascist Republican Right." Bullshit. I am in a friggin' SAFE state for Obama - Vermont. So stick it. My vote for Nader is just that, a vote for Nader. Your fascism is what would make it into a vote for someone else. What is it about democracy that you despise so much? What is it about the Corporate Party sock puppets that you love so much? What is it about the Democratic Party screwing you that you like so much that you come back for more? Haven't you noticed that your Democratic Party took the voters and shoved them off the cliff after 2006? And that Bill Clinton screwed the working class with NAFTA. That Democrats gave G.W. the authorization for Iraq, torture, extreme endition, FISA immunity, that Obama voted FOR immunity. Perhaps, "Nobody cares about" my "high-minded ethics or rationalizations...", but I FRIGGIN' DO. So up yours! And as for your contention that you care about "the consequences of the choices" I "make", what you mean is that you DEMAND my choices be what YOU want it to be. Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
"Pissing away your vote on someone without a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is for all practical purposes voting for the Fascist Republican Right."
You're close.
Pissing away your vote on fascists or their enablers is the problem. When enablers help fascists enact their agenda, that means that we have ZERO INFLUENCE. ZERO. NONE!
Voting for a candidate who more-or-less represents you is the only way to make your vote meaningful. Nobody cares about your high-minded sanctimony and proprietary claim on all non-Republican votes. When a drunk runs over a kid on a bicycle, nobody gives a damn about the moral authority of his buddy who handed him the bottle.
Ralph can't win, and he couldn't govern if he could win. He's a side show at election time, serving only the Republicans. His consistently correct policies need to be leveraged into the Democratic Party to the extent possible, and much more grassroots work needs to be done to develop a third party with progressive legs.
Correct. Absolutely correct when you say, "His consistently correct policies need to be leveraged into the Democratic Party to the extent possible". And THAT is why he IS running, but the Democratic Party won't do it. So then, you are proving that Nader is best candidate because of his "correct policies" while suggesting people vote for candidates they disagree with simply because they have a higher probability of winning. Brilliant! How is that going to change anything?
Ralph doesn't serve Republicans, he draws from 'both' sides and he and the Greens bring many people to the big dance that were not asked by the Democrats. We do need to build the Third party, yes, but you don't do that by making them wallflowers at the dance.
Instead of posting evidence that you are in ignorance of Nader's positions and reasons he campaigns as he does, perhaps you might spend a few minutes and a couple of brain cells reading his speeches and his positions. He states firmly that, in the 2000 election he asked for a meeting with both candidates to push the progressive agenda. He was rebuffed by Bush, met with Gore who made it clear he wasnt amenable to doing such. That is why Nader runs, for you and me, even if you do not deserve his efforts.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
How utterly dismissive of you...did it make you feel good to denigrate the casting ones ballot for the only real Progressive in this race? Or do you simply enjoy that frontal lobotomy that allows you to vote, time and again, for the same old same old, perpetuating a sick and sad system?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Comparing Biden to Palin is an incorrect usage of the word compare. Biden may not be your or my cup of tea, but he has earned his qualifications, not like the pretender from Alaska. Only the scumbag Republicans would think so little of this country as to put the likes of her up for VP.
man, i agree with you. the republicans are a bad lot. they have the stink of the Brownshirts about 'em. that's why I'm voting obama. block 'em.
Fannie Mae was one of FDR's outstanding projects that has been privatized and plundered by the corporate robber barons. Bush/Cheney and their Evilgelical Neo Cons have just put a 5+ trillion dollar millstone around the necks of the American tax payers. Now that they have effectly murdered the American dream of home ownership they tell us we are on our own and to swim or sink by ourselves. I think we should all go on strike until we have an honest government.
We will never come back from that strike...
"Amazingly, the turmoil in the housing market, which has led to the socializing of the nation's revered homeownership market in a massive expansion of the role of big government, has apparently not troubled McCain's conservative supporters. As I said, ignorance is bliss, and evidently not just for the newbie Palin."
Ha! I knew it! The republicans are Commie Dupes! They're working for the international communist party to restore the socialist glory of the USSR and to build factories in China for the Glorious workers of the Socialist paradise. G W. Bush, McCain and all the so called arch anti-communists have brought about Marx's prediction that the capitalist would buy and sell the rope need to hang himself. Bush will have statues of himself placed next to the glorious Lenin!
Comrades, we have nothing to lose but our chains!!@#$!@$!%@#$235
The republicans have always been great socialists, when its risk on the line not profits.
They've sold the country to Communist China. But at least Castro is still feeling the wrath of our non-recognization!
This focus on Palin isn't getting the Dems anywhere. They need to focus on McCain.
The Dems are really screwing this up, big time !!! Obama just inserted both feet into his mouth with his "pig" and "fish" remarks, what the h*ll was he thinking ??? He's behind, in the polls now, he cannot afford to make such mistakes.
Only a mistake for those whose agenda it is to spin it--or anything else that way.
No, I have heard it said that Obama has too much class-is too gracious to wallow. But with all his talk about a new politics and playing nice--he is living in some fantasy, because these crooks will roll right over him. Perhaps Obama is the wrong man for the job--though he is a far cry better than the bottom feeders, because someone has to stand strong and confront it head on.
Really, what are you doing here?
Those foot in mouth mistakes are not the real problem.
McCain wants the surge to be framed a success, Obama gives it to him.
Republicans want to drill, Democrats give them that.
Democrats have proven that they can't win by taking Republican issues, but they wont try a clear opposition.
Its almost like, at the core, they want the same things. Imagine that.
It boggles my mind how the surge can be classified a success. OF COURSE MORE TROOPS MEANS MORE SECURITY! Any child could connect the dots on that logic. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE TROOPS LEAVE? As Juan Cole pointed out in an article last week, the levels of violence are reduced, but still very high relative to other conflicts throughout the world.
All this surge talk IE. "I was right that more troops occupying Iraq resulted in less violence" is taking away from the real issue that the US and UK should never have been there in the first place! I wish the Dems would jump on this.
I doubt the Dems will. You can jump, third party.
If they jumped, I'd consider voting for them.
desertdreamer,
It seems Obama is trying to avoid getting trapped in oppositional politics and to focus on out-performing McCain on policy and solutions. He has been outperforming McCain from the outset, but unfortunately substance may not win this election. You're correct that the Dems and the country (especially progressives) need some unequivocal opposition here. There's a whiff of fear in the shying away from opposing views and positions, which is blood-to-sharks. Or barracudas.
Or Independent voters.
Its no mystery that most people vote on some factor of identity, and an Independent is just that, not always some purple person in the 'middle'.
Same goes for you, A Theist. Just go home; you're in way too far over your tiny head here.
What we now witness is the emergence of the "Kakistoics" -- those "bottom of the barrel" leadership figures the ancient Greeks experienced emerge when their democracy was in decline. Our body politic has been exploited and its immune system now hosts any virus that enters. Witness the parade of idiots, crooks and self-destructive, ignorant figures who remain clueless to the bigger picture of life and true, democratic governance. The Mc Cain-Palin float now rolls by and its theme is one of "God, Guts and Guns!" Truly, they are latest of the stupid idiots to march in this parade of folly!
No worse than the Obama-Biden float.
Comments like this show your utter lack of comprehension and ability to discriminate. Do us all a favor and go home; stop wasting your and our time.
Utter lack of comprehension ... about what ?
You're just ticked off because you're an Obama groupie and I don't like your candidate. You fail to understand that a progressive, while voting Dem more often than not, doesn't necessarily like all Dem candidates.
You haven't paid attention or been around here long enough to know I was never an Obama groupie. In fact I was a Hilary supporter because the Republicans hate her and she hates the Republicans and maybe we would have gotten some self-righteous fireworks out of a Hilary campaign rather than the weak-ass gentility of Obama's. Does that mean I'm gonna abandon every principle I have and vote for the scumbag Republican party which has destroyed this country and their lying sad-sack candidate McCain because he's picked a person with a vagina as his running mate? Would I think the Republicans would ever espouse a single progressive ideal I hold dear? Of course not. Only a completely amoral idiot with no comprehensive ability would do that...oops...
I think Obama is a lying sad-sack. Like I stated elsewhere, I think the Dem and Repub choices are: assh*les vs idiots. I'm not going to vote for Obama just because he might save Roe v. Wade.
You are not an Obama groupie, but you have taken on their tactics. You want me to vote for Obama, but your method for winning my vote is to hurl insults at me ? I know I'm not an idiot, I'm only amoral in the religious sense (I'll bet my life that I'm better behaved than 99.9999% of Christians), and my comprehension is just fine thankyouverymuch. So your insults don't hurt me, they hurt YOU and your preferred candidate. Bad tactic, I tell you. Really bad. This is why Obama will lose.
You're a lost cause, which is why I throw insults your way. I don't want to convince you to vote for Obama but any Hilary supporter who switches to McCain because there's a vagina on his ticket never had any good reasons for supporting Hilary in the first place.
A Theist: "If Obama had picked Hillary I would be voting for them in November."
A person who reverses their vote for spite is an amoral moron. Thus, you.