Wednesday, 17 September 2008
JEFF JACOBY ON SARAH PALIN
Readers of this blog know that I have said the attacks on Sarah Palin are the
most immediate and intense I have ever seen for any political figure in my
lifetime, and that Ms. Palin connects with people in ways that the beltway
and media elite will never understand.
I am delighted that Jeff Jacoby shares these feelings (and relieved too - I
don't like to disagree with Jeff, he's too smart to be wrong very often).
His latest column deals with the issues cited above and, as per usual with a
Jeff Jacoby column, is written beautifully.
Here it is:
September 17, 2008
In politics, cheap shots and
invective are occupational hazards. But when have we seen anything to match the
frenzy of rage and contempt set off by the nomination of Sarah
from the moment John McCain selected her, Palin has been under assault. There
has been legitimate criticism, of course. But there has also been a gusher of
slander, much of it -- like the slur that she isn't the real mother of her infant son,
Trig -- despicable.
someone who has been in the national spotlight for only three weeks, Palin has
been the victim of an astonishing array of falsehoods. Voters have been told
that she slashed funding in Alaska for special-needs children. That she tried to
ban books from Wasilla's public library. That shes a supporter of Jews for
Jesus. That she was a member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.
That she links Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. That she backed Pat
Buchanan for president. That she doesn't want students taught about
contraception. That she called the war in Iraq "a task from God."
Clinton's supporters complain that coverage of her campaign was tainted by
sexism, such as the Washington Post story
that focused on her cleavage, or Mike Barnicle's description of her on MSNBC as "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside
a probate court."
has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous comment -- the Fox News segment
that captioned a picture
of his wife "Obama's Baby Mama," for example, and the infamous New Yorker cover
showing the Obamas as terrorists in the Oval Office.
left's onslaught against Palin has been of a different order of magnitude
"Ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread,"
columnist Cintra Wilson wrote in Salon. Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into
our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's
easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as
a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism."
website of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, commentator Heather Mallick was even cruder. Palin appeals to "the white trash vote" with her
"toned-down version of the porn actress look," Mallick wrote. "Husband Todd
looks like a roughneck. What normal father would want Levi 'I'm a [bleeping]
redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?"
radio talk-show host Randi Rhodes came the smutty suggestion that the governor
of Alaska has an unhealthy interest in teenage boys: "She's friends with all the
teenage boys," Rhodes told her audience last week. "You have to say no when your
kids say, 'Can we sleep over at the Palins?' No! No!"
Ensler, the playwright best known for The Vagina Monologues, described her
Sarah Palin nightmares for the Huffington Post. She recalled how Republican
delegates chanted Drill, drill, drill! when Palin called for more oil
exploration in her speech at the St. Paul convention. I think of teeth when I
think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination.
. . . I think of pain.
smears and sneers have been without end. One liberal congressman
likened Obama to
Jesus -- and Palin to Pontius Pilate. A Democratic state chairman declared scornfully
that Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an
abortion." A University of Chicago professor seethed: "Her
greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
national media, meanwhile, have only further eroded what remained of their
reputation for objectivity.
months they refused to mention the infidelity of John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, yet they leaped with relish onto
Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Ravenous for any negative morsel on the GOP running mate, they deployed
legions of reporters to Alaska, who have produced such journalism as the
3,220-word expos in
Sunday's New York Times that upon winning office, Palin -- gasp! -- fired
opponents and hired people she trusted. The same can be said of virtually every
governor in the union. What cannot be said of most governors is that they enjoy
an 80 percent approval rating. Palin does -- but the Times relegated that
information to the 67th paragraph of its story.
the more she has been attacked, the more her support has solidified. In the
latest Fox News/Opinion dynamics poll,
Palin's favorable/unfavorable ratio is a strong 54-27. She is named by 33
percent of respondents as the candidate who "best understands the problems of everyday life," more than those naming Obama (32 percent), McCain (17), or
Joe Biden (10). Among independent voters, Palin's lead over Obama on this
measure widens to 13 points (35 percent to 22 percent). In a recent Rasmussen
poll, 51 percent of voters said the press is trying to hurt Palin through its coverage, versus just 5 percent who thought it
was trying to help -- a 10-1 disparity.
Suffolk University poll of voters
in Ohio -- a crucial swing state -- echoes those results. Asked which of the
four candidates is most like you, 31 percent named Palin, followed by Obama
(22 percent), McCain (21 percent), and Biden (13 percent). Among Ohio
independents, only 6 percent think Palin has been treated fairly.
of Americans, not all of them conservative, instinctively identify with Palin.
That is why the left's scorching assault, so ugly and unhinged, is backfiring.
The longer it goes on, the more it undermines the Democratic ticket -- and the
more support it builds for McCain, and his refreshingly normal running
Bingo. This is dead on target, a perfect bullseye.
And the more they attack her this way, the more votes for McCain/Palin at the
expense of Obama/Biden. Votes that, I suspect, that will be
But, like lemmings running to the sea, these people do not know how to
stop. They are so sneeringly dismissive of Ms. Palin and so invested in
insults and attacks instead of reasoned arguments that it just keeps coming out
Maybe the voters will teach these folks a lesson on November 4th -- one that
they won't be able to blame on hanging chads or voting machines. I hope
NO INTEGRITY, NO SCRUPLES, NO SHAME --- AND NO FEAR OF PROSECUTION?
I would lie if I told you it surprises me that a hate-filled left wing group
has hacked into Sarah Palin's private e-mail and blogged identity information
about her and her family. Michelle Malkin will tell you all about it:
Scroll for updatesWired News
confirmsMcCain camp responds: This is a shocking invasion of the Governors
privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the
appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails
will destroy them. We will have no further commentthe feds are investigating
Sometime early this morning, between approximately
3:00am - 4:00am, members of an infamous group of hackers broke into Gov. Sarah
Palins private Yahoo e-mail account. The incriminating discussion threads
included screenshots of Palins e-mail and private e-mail addresses of her
contacts. The threads have since been deleted.
Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who
broke into his colleagues e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a
maximum five years in prison.
The law will catch up to the hackers, but what
about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of
Palins private e-mail account all over the Internet?
The Gawker smear machine see here for all the
background you need has posted private family photos of Palins children that
were apparently stolen from the e-mail account.
They have used Bristol Palins illegally obtained
private cell phone number from her moms private account, recorded her voicemail
message, and posted it on their website.
They have reprinted her husband Todds private
e-mail address and son Tracks private e-mail address.
You think this is just a harmless prank? Those of
you who have had to deal with break-ins and identity theft know exactly what a
burdensome process it is to recover from crimes like this.
Gawker knowingly and deliberately published
illegally obtained photos of the Palin children.
Where are the privacy absolutists now?
You think Palin Derangement Syndrome is bad now?
These by-any-means-necessary lunatics are just warming up.
Let me repeat what I said about Nick Denton and
his slime businesses in 2006. Its
every bit as relevant now. And I expect the same cowards who said nothing then
to remain silent about the violations of the Palin familys privacy
There is a time to be tolerant and there is a
time to draw lines. If you dont draw those lines, bullies will be emboldened.
The smug Gawker smear machine is all about pushing those boundaries with the
expectation that no one will push back. They project their own cynicism,
recklessness with facts, intellectual laziness, and bad faith on everyone
But outside of Manhattan and Los Angeles, not
all of us think blogging is a for-profit enterprise founded solely to tear
people down with gossip, rumor-mongering, and damaging lies disguised as
satire. Funny how some of the loudest voices decrying the lack of civility
in the blogosphere are the biggest promoters of the bottom-feeders and
debasers at Gawker Media.
Bastards. Bastards all.
Michelle calls these people bastards. She's understating.
These people play by no rules. They don't care who they hurt.
Republicans are not human beings to them so it doesn't matter.
I hope the people responsible for this are prosecuted and
OBAMA AND THE STIMULUS PACKAGE
Max Bialystock, the dissolute blowhard Broadway has-been in The Producers,
said "When you've got it, flaunt it"
Apparently Barack Obama has taken on a different version of this
philosophy. "When you haven't got it, invent it".
Jake Tapper of ABC news, who impresses me more and more every day because he
goes after both sides, not just Republicans, provides the specifics below:
is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington
bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of
Obama Inflates Role in Creation of Stimulus
September 16, 2008 7:04 PM
In Golden, Colo., today, Sen. Barack Obama,
D-Ill., took credit for the stimulus package that passed earlier this
"In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our
faltering economy," Obama said, "which formed the basis for a bipartisan
stimulus package that passed the Congress."
Is that true?
Democrats on Capitol Hill who support Obama say
Wanting Obama to win, however, none will say so on
But media accounts from the time make it clear
that even though Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., all offered legislation to provide stimulus to the economy,
congressional leaders looped them and their legislation out of
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson worked with House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch
"Pelosi and Reid seemed to be ignoring the
detailed policy solutions being put out by her party's White House hopefuls,"
wrote the Washington Post on January 23.
"Among Reid's toughest tasks will be keeping Sens.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. who are on the campaign
trail touting proposals laden with ideas Republicans detest sidelined in the
talks while Democrats seek broader agreement with the GOP," wrote the Associated
Press the same day.
The bill passed 81-16 on February 7,
The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008,
Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax
rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that
passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle
class along the lines of what Obama proposed."
That is true.
Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class
families. Clintons approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted
at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies.
But though the bill that eventually passed more
closely resembled Obama's than either Clinton's or McCain's, those involved in
the drafting of the legislation say it was more a matter of agreeing on a good
idea and was not a matter of, as Obama claimed, his proposal having "formed the
basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress."
In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that
Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea.
Thats news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didnt
even show up to vote."
That's true. (McCain was there, and he voted for
Moreover, Obama today was guilty of inflating his
role in the creation of that bill.
Barack Obama has a paper-thin rsum that in no way
qualifies him to be President of the United States. He can't admit to this
because it would be political suicide. And he can't leave voters to see
him as he is.
So he invents. He inflates. He exaggerates. He tries to
convince you there is a level of substance to him that does not exist.
The question is, which mainstream news sources out there other than Mr.
Tapper are going to educate you about Mr. Obama's fraudulent
"accomplishments"? I hope you're not counting on the network news
on ABC, NBC or CBS. And I certainly hope you aren't waiting for
the New York Times to do a piece on it.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
is so thin you can
OF MICE AND MANIACS
My sister Barbara just sent me the following clip from www.memri.org, which is an invaluable web site
that monitors some of the utter lunacy emanating from radical Islamic
The clip shows a TV show in Saudi Arabia, in which an
apparently respected Muslim "cleric", advocates killing all mice -
including Mickey Mouse!!
CLICK HERE TO
This is why we fight. We fight for the freedom to live under western
culture instead of shari'a law, so that people like this do not run every
facet of our lives.
Is the fight worth it? That's for you to decide.
BOOK BANNING BS
During her time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin asked a
librarian how books could be banned - i.e. the procedure that would be used.
Let's be clear here. She did not ask that any books be banned
at that time or any other time during two full terms as mayor. She asked
how it was done.
This has caused a severe case of apoplexy among the left, especially the
Obamanite left. They either mistakenly believe Ms. Palin had books banned,
mistakenly believe Ms. Palin demanded they be banned and fired the librarian for
not doing so (the librarian was not fired) or know the truth and are just lying
about it in the hope of procuring some votes for Mr. Obama.
In any event, Michelle Malkin (not Obama) has written an excellent piece
about this, which I saw in the New York Post. She shows just how selective
this outrage is and how unproblematic book censorship is to these people
when the book in question disagrees with their political positions.
It is well worth reading. So I'm posting it below:
By MICHELLE MALKIN
September 17, 2008
EVER heard Hollywood liberals talk about suspected
jihadists the way they talk of suspected GOP "book-banners"? The 9/11 attacks
didn't turn celebrity leftists into hawks. But the minute they started reading
false rumors about Sarah Palin restricting access to "Daddy's Roommate" and
"Heather Has Two Mommies" in her hometown library, Tinseltown's doves became
Matt Damon, parroting Internet lies about Palin's
censoring novels while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, took a defiant stand against
the "terrifying possibility" of a McCain-Palin victory. "We can't have"
book-banning, he inveighed.
Feminist playwright Eve Ensler ("The Vagina
Monologues") seethed in a mass e-mail that Palin "has tried to ban books from
the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She
cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference."
Classic projection. Damon, Ensler and the
anti-censorship crusaders are the ones who can't tolerate independence,
ambiguity and difference. The rumormongers keep spreading a bogus banned-book
list attributed to Palin that includes books not even published when she was
mayor. No city records corroborate reports that she tried to keep any
books off government-funded library shelves available to children.
And even if she did inquire about the process, so
what? Regulating age-appropriate content is only alarming to the civil-liberties
extremists who oppose reasonable filtering of sexually explicit material in
If book-banning is such a life-and-death issue to
these celebrity foot soldiers for free speech, where were they four years ago
when John Kerry and his rabid minions were pressuring Regnery Publishing to
withdraw "Unfit for Command" from bookstores?
Where were they when members of the Borders Books
Employee Union openly advocated sabotaging book sales? A message on the union's
members-only Web site urged: "You guys don't actually HAVE to sell the thing!
"Just 'carelessly' hide the boxes, 'accidentally'
drop them off pallets, 'forget' to stock the ones you have and then suggest a
nice Al Franken or Michael Moore book as a substitute."
Where were they when left-wing hitman David Brock
of Media Matters for America sent a demand letter to Wal-Mart, Amazon and Barnes
& Noble urging them to pull "Unfit for Command"?
Where were they two years ago when two New Jersey
Democrats, Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender, called on merchants to
ban the sale of Ann Coulter's book "Godless" because of her remarks about
anti-Bush 9/11 widows? "
Where were they in 2005, when University of North
Carolina law professor Eric Muller called on his blog readers to get one of my
books banned from a bookstore?
Where were they when J. Millard Burr and Robert O.
Collins' "Alms for Jihad" was banned in Britain; Robert Spencer's "The Truth
about Muhammad" was banned in Pakistan; and "The Jewel of Madina" was banned,
And where are they now? Concocting horror stories
about terrifying Christian bogeymen who threaten peace, tolerance, independent
thought and difference. Patting themselves and each other on the backs as the
valiant protectors of dissent. (But only the kind with which they
agree, of course. Shhhhh.)
This is the same mindset as our wonderful, neutral media - who are spending
endless hours trying to ferret out anything they can use against Ms. Palin while
ignoring the U. of Chicago's release of the Annenberg Challenge documents, which
prove Barack Obama lied to our faces about his involvement with william
ayers. The common bond is looking the other way for Democrats while
I wonder if they talked about any of this at the $28,500 a person Obama-fest
in Hollywood last night. Maybe Barbra Streisand mentioned it between
DID NORM COLEMAN SEND A SOLDIER TO DIE?
I nominate this ad as the single most depraved of them all (so far) for
The "Democratic Senatorial Committee" in Minnesota found a nice looking
couple whose son died fighting in Iraq. These folks are understandably
disconsolate over their loss and very bitter about it as well. In short,
they are ripe for exploitation.
And exploited they were. Watch the ad below and see for yourself (if
you have trouble viewing it, click
How much more disgusting can this get? We have
a VOLUNTEER ARMY. Major Anderson joined that army of his own volition, knowing full well that he
might be called upon to fight in a war.
To take his parents, who are clearly devastated by his loss, and exploit them
in this way, is wrong. It is more than wrong, it is vile beyond
And to somehow tie Norm Coleman to their son's death does the near-impossible
and makes it even more vile.
I can only hope that Al Franken, who is supposed to be the beneficiary of
this creep show, loses votes because of it. A lot of
WHO TRIED TO REFORM FREDDIE MAC AND FANNIE MAE?
Now that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have gone blooey, Democrats are angrily pinning the blame on Republicans in general
and John McCain in particular.
Do they have a point?
No they do not. The truth is exactly opposite of what they are claiming. And here is the proof,
via a great research job by Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com:
September 17th, 2008
First, from a disapproving New York Times:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and
By STEPHEN LABATON
September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today
recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance
industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a
Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury
Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the
government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the
mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority,
which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve
requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines
of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing
the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by
the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which
together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt is broken.
A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac
manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie
Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
There is a general recognition that the
supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises
neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current
size, complexity and importance of these enterprises, Treasury Secretary John
W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with
Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the
power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the
administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about
the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising
at the companies.
The administrations proposal,
which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would
not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies.
And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the
companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables
them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor
would it remove the companies exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions
of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one
of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional
After the hearing, Representative Michael G.
Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard
Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to
draft legislation based on the administrations proposal. Industry executives
said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess
in the fall.
The current regulator does not have the tools,
or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises, Mr. Oxley said at
the hearing. We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and
questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the independent agency that now
regulates the companies.
These irregularities, which have been going on
for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator, he
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan
industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which
buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in
their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and
their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury
Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve.
Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under
those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income
families. This year,
however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are
better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both
Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administrations package. The
support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the
administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to
change the companys mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines,
Fannie Maes chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to
the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
We welcome the administrations approach
outlined today, Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of
the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to
appoint 5 of the companys 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company
preferred having the president select some directors. The company is
also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much
authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States
attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell
while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell
$2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4
percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to
97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the
Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting
too much influence over their regulators.
The regulator has not only been
outmanned, it has been outlobbied, said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana
Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal
and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. Being underfunded
does not explain how a glowing report of Freddies operations was released
only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not
world-class regulatory work.
Significant details must still be worked out
before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal
today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional
Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply
reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
These two entities Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis, said
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the
Financial Services Committee. The more people exaggerate these problems, the
more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat
of North Carolina, agreed.
I dont see much other than a
shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in
the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their
ability to get affordable housing, Mr. Watt said.
And three years later, from the Congressional Record:
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM
ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate
May 25, 2006
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this
week Fannie Maes regulator reported that the companys quarterly reports of
profit growth over the past few years were illusions deliberately and
systematically created by the companys senior management, which resulted in
a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversights 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 Maes former chief executive officer, OFHEOs 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
regulators examination of the companys 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 Macknown
as Government-sponsored entities or GSEsand the sheer magnitude of these
companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEOs report this
week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the
contrary. OFHEOs report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed
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.
Alas, thanks to the Democrat Party and the special
interests of the left, both of these attempts to reform the banking system were
But isnt it funny how our watchdog media have
missed these two stories?
Now that you've seen the proof, let's think about Steve's question: If
HE can research this and come up with this information, how come mainstream
media can't do more than just dutifully barf out what Democrats tell them to
How come the TIMES can't find IT'S OWN ARTICLE?
Was it that hard for media to check the congressional record?
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them