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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

I'll take note of what you said about the NY Times (and hope that your forecast comes true).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html

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/

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 saw one recently that started with, "What McClain claims is literally true …," then spent 1500 words explaining why we shouldn't believe it anyway.

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!

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.

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.