Today, I'm going to print a newspaper column by Orson Scott Card in it's entirety. Card is a Democrat, and is brutally honest about the sorry state of so-called journalism in this country. He says what I've been trying to say about our pathetic media, but he says it better than I could. Everybody should read this in order to discover how badly the mainstream media is misleading America.
Without further delay, here's Mr. Card.
—
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
—
P.S. – On a related note, the Democrats, led by Henry Waxman (D-CA), have said they will begin Congressional investigations into the misdeeds of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac……on NOVEMBER 20th, 2008, AFTER THE ELECTIONS. How convenient for the Democrats. These are the people to whom you are about to hand unbridled power, America. Good luck with that. You'll need it.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
I would suggest a quick trip to the factcheck.org website for a more balanced assessment of this issue.
The writer is no Democrat….no matter what he or you say.
The material in this piece belongs in BizzarroWorld.
Just this Thursday, Alan Greenspan, Chris Cox and former Treasury Sec. Snow were asked if F & F caused the meltdown. Greenspan said that F&F were part of it but not the "primary cause" of the collapse. The other two agreed.
The same can be said about this….
"the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter"
To this day….not one shred of evidence has been presented verifying "savage attacks" on Palin concerning her daughter by main media.
The Rhinocerous Times? Surely, you jest.
Wikipedia says Orson Scott Card is primarily known for his Science Fiction and has this to say about his
Political identification
Card identifies himself as a Democrat because he is pro-gun control/anti-National Rifle Association, highly critical of free-market capitalism, and because he believes that the Republican party in the South continues to tolerate racism. Card encapsulated his views thus:[12]
“ Maybe the Democrats will even accept the idea that sometimes the people don't want to create your utopian vision (especially when your track record is disastrous and your "utopias" keep looking like hell)… The Democratic Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big money and rapacious free-market capitalism, here and abroad. After all, the Republicans seem to be dominated by their own group of insane utopians—when they're not making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the segregationist past. ”
He has described himself as a Moynihan Democrat, and later as a "Tony Blair" Democrat, saying he has to look outside the U.S. for someone representative for his views now that Moynihan has died and the Democrats oppose Bush. He has written columns condemning extremist liberals as being part of what's wrong with America, and praises Zell Miller for trying to save the Democratic Party. During the 2004 election Card wrote many articles supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket, criticizing John Kerry, and lambasting his own state's senator, John Edwards, as being absurd, insincere, and an opportunistic shill. Prior to the 2004 presidential race, Card had written that his state needed to regain control from people like Edwards and advocated running a strong primary opponent against Edwards should he run for reelection to the Senate.[13] He has also been a staunch defender of Fox News, stating that "It's a good feeling to hear about our war from people who actually think it would be a good thing if we win." [14] Card also publicly endorses children of illegal immigrants receiving in-state college tuition rates[15] and has stated there is a need for moderation in tax cuts.[16]
On November 6, 2006, just one day before a major election in the United States, Card wrote an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics, in which he encourages voters to support the Republicans:
“ There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror… I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations. But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. ”
On October 20, 2008, less than two weeks before the Presidential election in the United States, Card wrote an opinion piece for The Greensboro Rhino Times, where he chastises the US media for hiding the true blame for the 2008 Credit Crisis and for mis-directing public perception in favor of Senator Barack Obama. The article's aim is to find reporters who will vigorously report the truth, regardless of whether it is for or against their preferred political candidate.
If you have the time read his whole wikipedia entry because this guy is a "real piece of work."
Mary attacked the messenger without commenting on the message. SOP non-argument.
Tbomb and Rev – I have written plenty on the mortgage crisis, and I don't think it's ALL Fannie & Freddie that caused it. I never did, and I've stated that repeatedly. However, that does not change the fact that if Fannie and Freddie had been run into the ground by Republicans, and Republicans had thwarted reform and regulation of that institution, it would be front page news all over the mainstream media, and heads would be rolling. Because Dems were primarily guilty, we have virtual media silence.
Rev – The fact that you cannot see how Palin has been subjected to vicious personal attacks in this presidential campaign, and how Biden has been given a pass, says it all. You have zero objectivity and zero credibility.
You want a comment on the message — well I did not see anything in the message I have not read or heard before in MSM and on blogs which seems to contradict this "science fiction writer's" assessment. I always consider the source especially when the source obviously is so dazzled by his own brilliance. As Tbomb stated factcheck.org has a much more balanced and informational analysis on what caused the economic problems and as Rev said the MSM did not malign Palin's daughter over her pregnancy. I agree that sometimes the MSM is not as balanced in their reporting as they could be but oftentimes how balanced a job they are doing is in the eyes of the beholder — including me so I make it a point to investigate and investigate and investigate — even sources I do not agree with like you — and then make my own informed decision. Are you happy now?
I would like to ask Mary if she can point out who wrote the Wikipedia piece about Card. Somehow it sounds very much like some Democrat from the media could have been involved there. We all know that anybody who wants to can write for Wikipedia and that doesn't make it a very sound source, especially when political ideas are being discussed.
Somehow it seems to me that the Wikipedia thing is not much more than an attack on the man to discredit him much like the very attacks from the media on Sarah Palin. If that piece wasn't written by a Democrat to convince people that Card is in fact some kind of Republican I don't think I can see any other reason for it being done.
Rev, your attempt to cover Card with Pelosi (the word I use these days in place of BS) I don't know what it was. As for the Borking of Palin, I have to agree with those words because the woman has been treated too much like Judge Bork was by the Dems and their free public relations agency, the media. Pile that Pelosi on anything not from the Democrat Party and maybe you can keep people from knowing just what has been happening.
The media's bias and the hate it spews out against normal America has not gone unnoticed — the media and so-called journalists (i.e., the Obama-stooges) have a lower approval rating than even dysfunctional Pelosi/Reid congess.
The York Slimes is dying; layoffs contine at the LA Times; the ratings for the broadcast networks contine to shrink. All this is great news.
roysoldboy — I do not know who wrote the article on Wikipedia but I did as I said in my second post investigate, investigate, investigate and you can read the same stuff on several websites and on his own website and in his writings as published on yet other sites. I checked him out on multiple search engines. If you click the Wiki history tab you will find that the piece has been modified 1620 times since 2-25-2002. On average it is edited every 36 hours. There has been 710 editors and it has been edited 472 times this year and it seems that most of those revisions concern his suspected homophobia. There are almost no revisions to his political inclination. Are you saying there are some number of those 710 editors who are actually democrats trying to make Card look bad. The bottom line is that I found numerous writings on other sites stating exactly what Wiki said concerning his political leanings. I even found two claiming that he did not actually single handedly author the books he got awards for but I do not care enough about him to investigate those claims.
mary,
I'd rather focus on the message, as opposed to the messenger.
The message is valid. In my opinion, and in the opinion of every poll I've seen during this campaign, the media has been in the tank for Obama. That involves covering up any stories that might hurt his chances. That was Card's message, and I couldn't agree more. The mainstream media has not been in involved in objective journalism during this presidential election. They are largely advocates for Obama, and attack dogs against McCain and Palin, especially Palin. Her treatment by the media has been a disgrace. It's one personal attack after another. They even talk about things like $150,000 for Palikn's wardrobe, as if that's some big scandal, while ignoring the fact that Obama has smashed all records by spending over $620 billion on his campaign. There isn't even an iota of fairness in any of it.
"Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter"
This is a direct quite from Card's article and I repeat the MSM has not attacked Palin on the pregnancy of her daughter. I read plenty of attacks in blogs but not in the MSM. And as I said in my reply post oftentimes a person's outlook on an issue and their sources for information will affect that person's perception of how balanced a job the MSM is doing in reporting on an issue.
@Mary:
If you want, I'll concede the point that MAYBE the MSM has tried to be somewhat delicate about Palin's daughter. Given that, you can't possibly justify that she has been treated with the same deference they show to Biden. Only the Florida interviewer has asked him difficult questions and she has been vilified and denied further access to the Obama camp.
What is your response to the larger, other issues raised by Card? You're arguing a minor point while ignoring the the main concern of this article.
If this was high school debate, you might be doing OK on points, but in my view you ignored the larger issue. Unfortunately for all of us, the lack of journalistic integrity and credibility has created a huge divide in our society.
It seems we agree that truth has become a slippery concept today, as people only believe things through the biased filter of whatever newsource to which they subscribe.
I even have doubts about the integrity of various 'factcheck' sources. Which ones can be truly believed? Truth is 'where you find it', but in reality it is more determined by where you look and what the factchecker decides is important.
Cheers!
Factcheck orgs try to tell us which spin to believe these days, there's very little actual factchecking taking place.
I saw one recently that started with, "What McClain claims is literally true …," then spent 1500 words explaining why we shouldn't believe it anyway.
I mean…WTF?
Is FOX News main media? Is Rush Limbaugh considered main media with 10-20 million listeners?
In addition, the writer King posts here is fact-free…..just like FOX and Rush.
If it's true that McCain wanted to go all mavericky and regulate F&F…..then why in the hell did it not pass? Come on….why?
Republicans CONTROLLED the House and Senate in 2003. Any dispute about that? Bush, a freaking Republican, was the president in 2003. Any question there? Why didn't those Great and Fiscally Conservative Protector's of the Public Trust go ahead and regulate F&F? I'm waiting.
So don't tell me that the Democrats have the black eye on F&F. The audacity is sickening.
The problem came, as I mentioned up the thread, with the financial collapse, as Greenspan, another freaking conservative, said, was that Wise, Professional, Financier Experts controlling the money couldn't be trusted to police their own crooked and criminal actions of unbridled greed.
Deregulation and stripping of oversight is a GOP test of faith.
Enough.
I was running errands today listening to the Diane Rehm Show on WCPN. The 11:00 segment was on Midnight Regulations — a look at the regulatory changes made by presidents in the last days of their terms. One caller in particular made my hair stand on end concerning some regulations in the automotive industry. It was a very good show and well worth going to the website to listen to the segment or read the transcript.
And Reverend the 2004 mavericky bill never made it out of a republican controlled committee. Also Freddy and Frannie spent 2 million lobbying to kill the legislation. Read all about it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
I imagine no one will read this post this late in this post but there is a long and thought provoking commentary titled "Why McCain is getting hosed in the press."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html
Locke I gave my opinion in my post of 10-27 @8:22 but here it is again if you missed it.
I agree that sometimes the MSM is not as balanced in their reporting as they could be but oftentimes how balanced a job they are doing is in the eyes of the beholder — including me so I make it a point to investigate and investigate and investigate — even sources I do not agree with like you — and then make my own informed decision. Are you happy now?
King,
More good news on the media front.
The NY Times reported that the Star-Ledger of NJ will cut 40% of its news (propaganda) staff. The report went on to say that this leftwing rag, which has a weekday circulation of 345,000, is losing $40 million this year alone.
Can the ultra liberal ABJ and Cleveland's Plain Dealer be far behind? Hope so.
***Is FOX News main media? Is Rush Limbaugh considered main media with 10-20 million listeners?***
Let me add something to your question. Is MSNBC mainstream media? Are either of its attack dogs mainstream media? Is the crap they both spew any better or worse than Rush Limbaugh?
Somehow, Red, I think much depends on which side of the political aisle one is standing on when he makes those judgements. I never hear anything said by those from MSNBC because none of it is really based on facts, in my opinion.
You know that Card was 100% right. If you care to see them I can show you a number of like articles discussing this very subject and all of them come from people who write in the MSM.
"This is a direct quite from Card's article and I repeat the MSM has not attacked Palin on the pregnancy of her daughter."
I've seen several commenters say she shouldn't be running for VP while her daughter is going through such a traumatic time. I've also seen magazine covers with covers reading "Scandals and Lies," etc. during the time when her daughter's pregnancy was news of the day.
It's pretty disingenuous to say the MSM has not attacked Palin on that front. I've never registered in a party but have lost as much respect for democrats in general as I have for the media during this election cycle.
Rev asks, "If it's true that McCain wanted to go all mavericky and regulate F&F…..then why in the hell did it not pass? Come on….why?"
First of all, it's not an "if" about whether McCain tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie. That one is a fact. McCain did try to do it.
The reason it failed is because Democrats were in united lockstep against it, and so were a minority of Republicans. That added up to defeat.
Vince,
I don't know about the Plain Dealer, but the ABJ isn't doing so hot.
Maybe the financial hard times will result in the NY Times becoming a more balanced and fair newspaper. Probably not, but it would sure be nice. Their credibility can't get much lower than it is now.
King,
The hard times at the New York Times will eventually make that paper abandon its role as the propaganda arm of the Dim Party …. but not in the way you think.
I cite for you an article from Conde Nast Portfolio magazine [April 08] by Howell Raines. [You remember Raines. He was the editor at the NY Times who was forced out when his affirmative action appointee embarassed the paper and the entire media by making up stories. Ah, ya gotta love those quota babies, don't you? They're always on the ball.]
Anyway, Raines sees the likelihood that the value of the NY Times' stock will be driven down so low that Rupport Murdoch will buy the paper out. And that's when reform will come to the New York Slimes — with a vengence.
If this happens down the road, King, remember where you heard it first.
+++
Fear not. The Plains Dealer is slowly sinking, too. It is trying to recover by radicalizing it's editorial page even more with the addition of that Connie Schultz, a dingbat who is as big an abortion support as is B. Hussein Obama.
Da King you are wrong.
A bit late passing this along, but John McCain's claim that he issued a warning against the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the 2005-06 legislative year was given a "barely true" by Politifact. On 25 May, 2006, Senator McCain signed on as a co-sponsor to Chuck Hagel's effort to overhaul Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which Senator Hagel intoduced in January, 2005) following the publication of "a 340-page report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight."* However, as Politifact points out,
his attempts to depict those efforts as some sort of early warning that could have lessened the current credit crisis just don't wash. All McCain was talking about then was the potential fallout of accounting troubles in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He didn't say anything about a freewheeling climate among creditors that had major financial institutions becoming badly leveraged on bad loans.
Additionally, those rumors that Democrats alone blocked GOP proposal, S.190, to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Questionable claims, for the bill never got out of committee:
Last Action [July 28, 2005]: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead
So the bill was never brought to a full Senate vote. Recall that the Republicans were the majority in 2005-06, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs consisted of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats (for a full listing of the members of the 2005-06 Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, see this entry at Sourcewatch). In other words, the proposal could have been voted out of committee and brought to the Senate floor had the GOP members had supported it.
AND Fannie and Freddie hired a republican Lobbying firm and paid it 2 million dollars to be sure those Republicans did not support the bill and bring it to the Senate floor.
Vince,
You probably already know that Connie Schultz is Rep. Sherrod Brown's wife, but in case not, there's a tidibit of info. I used to correspond with Schultz by e-mail, and she is a way-out-there left-wing liberal, just like her hubby is. I used to call her Libby during our e-mail conversations. Sherrod Brown is another one of those restrictionist free trade guys. Somehow, liberals and sound economic policy just don't jibe. I'd like to send the lot of them to college and force them to study economics until they get it.
I'll take note of what you said about the NY Times (and hope that your forecast comes true).
Regarding Dims like Sherrod Brown and their ignorance of Economics 101.
B. Hussein Obama let the cat out of the bag on his felow Dims when he repeatedly said in interviews that he's more concerned about "fairness" than he is economic growth. How true.
The Dims are not about economic growth but of taking from Peter to buy votes from Paul, and from Rashian, and Schawan, etc., etc., etc.
But actually, Hussein Obama is lying here too because the Dims are not primiarly interested in 'fairness.' The Dims are interest in gaining political POWER so they can first remake America and then re-engineer mankind.
See how loony people get when they abandon God and embrace nonesense like Darwinism — they think man can play the role of God … what fools.
Waiting for a rebuttal of mary's definitive comment on McCain, the GOP, and F & F.
Waiting.
Still waiting.
______
Ghost: Wage that war against science my friend. Fight on. It worked well for the Catholic Church a few hundred years ago. I'm sure you'll be just as successful.
From mary's link….
"Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote."
Now why wouldn't Frist allow a vote…I wonder?
That is an R after his name.
And I'm, you know, pretty sure the GOP controlled Congress then.
McCain jumped on Hagel's bill quite late…..must be that mavericky mojo at work, huh?
mary,
I have written several posts about the attempts by Republicans to reform Fannie and Freddie from 2003-2006. There were numerous attempts. You can find my info under the 'housing' sub-tab on the blog.
All Fannie-Freddie reform measures from 2003-2006 were proposed by Republicans. Democrats stood in lockstep against reform every time, but that doesn't mean ALL Republicans favored the reforms either. A minority of them joined the Dems to defeat the legislation. I don't know what planet Politifact is on (planet propaganda, maybe), but they are dead wrong. McCain didn't write the Hagel bill, but he co-sponsored it, end of story. The Hagel bill went beyond just reforming accounting practices at Fannie-Freddie. Here is a brief description from the bill itself:
"Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Director, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; and (7) reporting."
The above is about regulatory reform, capitalization, and asset expenditure, not just accounting.
And Rev, thanks for the laugh with that "definitive" stuff. Truly hilarious. You'e a oner.
Vince,
I couldn't agree more. Political power is the real endgame of the Democrats. The more Americans the Dems can get dependent on the government, the better it is for the Democratic party. When the citizens depend on a government check from the Dems for survival, they will vote Dems into office. It's a form of bribery.
And it's working. The problem is, the Dems will soon have to govern. That's when it will all fall apart for them, because their policies are unsustainable. We have seen the experiments in big government socialism fail all over the globe for a hundred years. The Dems, by following this proven path of failure, will ultimately fail too.
King what is it about "never made it out of committee" you do not understand? There was no vote — nadda. The original bill had a cap on the value of F + F portfolio and the democrats wanted to change that cap so the committee agreed to add a change to the bill. They never did that. It never left committee. It was never voted on. Somehow someone lost interest in the bill — maybe it had to do with the republican lobbying firm F + F hired to kill the bill. Also the bill as written exempted the major reporting on the securities so therefore it would not have helped the oversite on the secutities which was the major part of F + F problem.
Politifact is a joint venture between the St Petersburg Times in Tampa (generally considered a conservative paper although it endorsed Obama this year) and Congressional Quarterly Review.
Mary,
I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about. The Hagel bill was killed by a voice vote in committee. I've written about this already, as I said before. I've even posted the arguments made in committee before. McCain co-sponsored the bill, therefore he was FOR the bill. All the Democrats were against it, but Republican controlled Congress back then, so it took some GOP help to kill it.
If you want to read what McCain said in Congress about the bill, read it here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
Democrats were against EVERY attempt at Fannie-Freddie reform. For that matter, Fannie-Freddie still haven't been reformed.