Obama in this video, addressing his work with ACORN litigation relating to the community reinvestment act and the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as they relate to the current real estate and financial crisis, states that, and I quote:
"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."
He further states:
"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."
Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
Obama in this second video is campaigning at a convention of Acorn and I believe two other "Community Activist" organizations. Ask if he will be their ally if he becomes President, Obama says, quote:
"Yes, but let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we are going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
See and hear it for yourself. Obama promised that Acorn and other groups like it will setting his agenda if elected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
See also: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."
See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2
Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.
Here We Go Again—Maybe
The election is far from over, but the historical handicapping has already begun. Will 2008 be the liberals' 1980? Or not?
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Liberals are trying to determine whether this election will be more like 1952 or 1980. In '52, Dwight Eisenhower— an immensely popular figure because of his military service in World War II—defeated Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson. But the victory did not put a stake through the heart of liberalism. Though Eisenhower enjoyed two terms and high popularity, Democrats regained control of Congress by 1954 and were back in the White House six years later.
The election of 1980 had a more lasting effect. Republicans would be in the White House for five out of seven terms and control Congress for most of the time between 1994 and 2006. Conservative think tanks, intellectuals and media would help conservative ideas gain mainstream legitimacy.
So which election will 2008 be like? The answer will make a huge difference in terms of whether this is a temporary turn in an otherwise conservative era or we are possibly starting a new political period. We can see similarities between the condition of conservatism today and liberalism in the late '70s that lead to the conclusion that the political status quo is in jeopardy.
Failed leadership: In 1980, liberals were devastated after Jimmy Carter lost. Although he was a centrist, he still represented the Democratic brand and became a national symbol for why Washington needed new leadership. Today conservatives are in a similar position. George W. Bush will end his term with some of the lowest approval ratings in presidential history. Many Republicans are deeply dissatisfied with him. He's tarnished the brand name of the GOP in ways that are comparable to what Carter did in 1980. John McCain has defined his candidacy in opposition to the Washington establishment of Bush, even while defending many of his policies.
Opposition mobilized: Though historians once focused on the unrest on college campuses among longhaired hippies, the real story, we now know, was that during the 1960s and 1970s, conservative activists built organizational strength. Evangelical leaders in the Sun Belt developed institutions capable of raising money and bringing out the vote. Conservatives established new think tanks, as well as new media outlets like talk radio, to spread their ideas. When a candidate emerged in 1980 to tap into the strength of this movement, they were ready to go.
While liberals have not quite achieved the strength of the conservative mobilization, we have evidence that something new is underway. In response to the Bush administration and decades of feeling excluded, Democrats have created a strong grass-roots infrastructure, which was pivotal to Barack Obama's defeat of Hillary Clinton. During the summer, the Obamaites devoted extensive resources to making sure this apparatus was ready for November. Liberals have also developed an extensive Netroots presence and established new think tanks and media outlets. Posts on Talking Points Memo have influenced nightly network-news coverage.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss