It's fair to point out the bulk of negative ads run against Christine Gregoire in this cycle were run by independent groups, not the Rossi campaign. And as much as conspiracy theorists like to believe that candidates have a say in such things, they most definitely don't.
Meanwhile, did Christine Gregoire run any negative ads? Did Evergreen Progress, AFSCME, or the NEA?
Of course they did. Gregoire's own campaign ran them in spades, including disingenuous shots on stem cell research and the minimum wage that the Seattle Times ended up fact-checking as inaccurate. And all the independent ads on her side were copious shots at Rossi (which grew much more effective in the closing weeks of the campaign).
Nonetheless, Horsey revealing either his narrow perspective or his lack of understanding of campaign finance law, does touch on an important point:
Voters writ large don't differentiate much, if at all, between ads from the candidates themselves and ads from independent groups supporting them. Did the barrage of anti-Gregoire ads from the RGA and BIAW end up creating an overall tone that didn't comport with the optimistic Dino Rossi from 2004 and that which was on display whenever he spoke to the camera directly in his own ads?
That's more than possible and would hurt Rossi more than a similar effect on Gregoire (given that she has never been known as a candidate with a strong personal appeal).
Of the many lessons learned from this election year, that might be a good one for interested, independent groups to absorb.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 05, 2008 08:29 PM | Email ThisThat's certainly true, but they were the difference between my Rossi vote in 2004 and my Gregoire vote this year. The sex offender nonsense was inexcusable and convinced me not to leave my vote blank. I hope you guys will figure out after another year of getting spanked how not to shoot yourselves in the foot.
Posted by: thehim on November 5, 2008 08:57 PMp.s.--how's that circulation number coming, PI?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 5, 2008 09:11 PMThe Queen in Today's Pravda-Inelligentsia sputtered:
"It is time for us to unite again as one Washington and move forward."
translation: forget I've crapped the bed for the past four years and failed in nearly every conceivable manner possible. I promise not to continue this trend in the next 4 years I've been given...oh and GO SONICS!!....uh, errr, uh...Damnit you stole my THUNDER!!
"We are going to have some tough times in the days ahead and it's going to take every one of us working together, no matter party affiliation, no matter what. It's going to take every one of us. As (Obama) said, it's going to take some sacrifice."
translation: "You'll pay more taxes and like it, Damnit!".
"Barack Obama is an individual who shares our values," she said. "He shares our vision. He shares what we want to accomplish throughout Washington state."
translation: Hope, change, marxist agenda, partial birth abortion, black liberation theology, redistributive justice...you know, just like getting back to the old Washington state common sense values of yore.
He blamed her for sex predators roaming the streets when the responsibility fell on law enforcement and the courts who got an undeserved black eye which also backfired.
He really had bad advice or he followed his own too much of the time, which proved fatal.
Posted by: The Boxer ears on November 5, 2008 09:34 PMyou can ponder that tomorrow morning while your going 5 MPH on 405, 520, or I-5.
A most effective campaign commercial the SHOULD have run would have been a camera on traffic. Nothing else.
Posted by: Andy on November 5, 2008 09:38 PMOther than that our campaign finance system works splendidly, right?
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 5, 2008 09:45 PMYou may want to look up who the state top law enforcement official is then. You may just put that puzzle together by yourself.
Well, I'll be on the bus, continuing to be happy about the passage of Prop 1.
Posted by: thehim on November 5, 2008 09:49 PMThe sex offender nonsense was inexcusable and convinced me not to leave my vote blank. I hope you guys will figure out after another year of getting spanked how not to shoot yourselves in the foot.
There is no evidence that speaking the truth about Gregoire's record of supporting light sentences for sex offenders hurt Rossi. SSOSA is an abomination.
Posted by: pudge on November 5, 2008 09:56 PMAnd there's no evidence they negatively harmed the candidates who were favored by those ads.
The only story here is that Obama won the WA governor race.
Nothing would make Democrats happier than for you to be the bellwether of Republican conventional wisdom for the next 4 years. By 2012, you might be the only Republican left.
@6
Eric,
You and I know full well that there's communication between campaigns - on both sides of the political spectrum - and the independent groups who support them. If a campaign is aware that an independent group is going to "pull a Pudge" and say stupid things that actually backfire and hurt their candidate, they can have influence over that.
We patriots will now rebuild a country trashed by decades of bigoted, divisive political campaigns and thievery by the beneficiaries of such nasty campaigns. You can join us or not as you will; this will be the ultimate test of your citizenship and character. Let me know how it goes; the rest of us have too much work to do after the next Congress and President take office.
Posted by: tensor on November 5, 2008 10:05 PMThat's funny, Obama's "spiritual" advisor Jeremiah Wright encompasses all 3 of those latter traits you mentioned, and as we all know (and Obama said as such), "the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree."
Posted by: Rick D. on November 5, 2008 10:10 PMI'm sure you aren't referring to this type of patriot are you, tensor? You know, Obama's friend that has bombed the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon and other U.S institutions of a Democratically elected government?
Obviously not, right?
Start cleaning up right now... Follow the Asian markets from yesterday - all were cautiously up until the polls started closing. They flatlined. When That One was announced as the winner, they all started tanking.
Then the Europe markets tanked. The DJIA and NASDAQ dropped today.
Then the Asian markets continued to crash today, and the futures for Europe and the US tomorrow are also done.
Total damage since That One's election - 6% drop in world market cap. That's around $3.1 TRILLION dollars gone.
And it all starts exactly when he's projected to be the winner - literally down to the minute.
So the economy's dying and it's That One's fault. Get right on that, will you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 5, 2008 10:40 PMExactly.
@15
I'm sure you aren't referring to this type of patriot are you, tensor?
No, he's not. And the reason that you think he would be is exactly why John McCain lost. William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Barack Obama was qualified to be president. The fact that the McCain campaign believed otherwise is the heart of why they failed to connect with independent voters.
I'll say to you what I've said to Pudge. You are helping the Democrats by being so off-the-wall whacked out. The more Republican campaigns cater to your insanity, the more electoral contests you're going to find yourself on the losing end of.
Seriously, why does Barry and WeeZee, and all you Obamabots think this country was a complete s***hole until Barry ascended to the mountaintop? They most assuredly are including the Johnson, Carter and Clinton years, since that encompasses their "lifetimne". There is nothing that needs to be rebuilt, you seditionists.
Bigoted? That's hilarious!. This is not like the first time a Black man has run for higher office. If, up until now, Blacks could not get elected to higher office, explain to me why Lynn Swan or Ken Blackwell did not get elected Governor of Penn. when he ran? Why didn't all the blacks and "enlightened" overwhelmingly back him? Why didn't blacks elect Lt. Governor Michael Steele, MD when he ran for Sarbanes open senate seat? Why didn't Alan Keyes get elected President when he ran? You and I both know the answer. It's because they are REPUBLICANS. So, the story here is that if you are Black and want any success in politics nationally, you better be a Democrat. We can't be votin' for no Black Conservative.
What was your point about bigotry, again?
Posted by: Dave on November 5, 2008 10:52 PMIt's really sad that you think it is OK for Gregoire to support letting child rapists out of prison after less than a year.
As to "pull a Pudge," hm, last I checked Walser was down by double digits. Shrug.
tensor:
A wonderful thing happened yesterday. A message of unity, hope, and change triumphed over the politics of division, hatred, and greed.
No, you have it backward: Obama *won.*
I mean seriously, who do you think you're kidding? From the beginning of the campaign, Obama's message was "hate McCain because you hate Bush." And the left did just that. Are you really that blind, are you really that manipulated?
Because that's just sad.
He, and you, manufactured propaganda against Gove. Gregoire for years
Please give examples, I am interested in how deluded you are.
We patriots will now rebuild a country trashed by decades of bigoted, divisive political campaigns and thievery by the beneficiaries of such nasty campaigns.
Again, no, Obama *won.*
You can join us or not as you will; this will be the ultimate test of your citizenship and character.
Oh, right, just like you joined "us"? Again, who do you think you are kidding with this bullshit?
The Boxer:
Jeremiah Wright is why you guys lost the WH. You kept playing the same old card
Um. What? Wright was hardly mentioned. Fantasyland.
McCain admitted he didn't want to discuss the economy
No, in fact, that never happened.
and Rossi did virtually the same thing
Um, no, in fact the economy was the main point of Rossi's campaign.
It's like you people have gone to Delusion School.
thehim:
The fact that the McCain campaign believed otherwise is the heart of why they failed to connect with independent voters.
Um. McCain could well end up with the third most votes for President in history. With his own party's self-ID at record lows. And this is failing to connect with independent voters? Delusion.
I'll say to you what I've said to Pudge. You are helping the Democrats by being so off-the-wall whacked out.
Yes, you said that, but what I said was fact. Gregoire supports letting child rapists out of prison after mere months. If you don't know this is a fact, I'm sorry, but it is. Read up on SSOSA.
If someone votes against Republicans because of such truth, well, that's not something for you to brag about.
Look, at this point what you guys (conservatives) have to do is fight his policies and try to get your party back together for the next election. You don't continue to campaign.
Like the Democrats did for the last eight years?
Come on, John. The Democrats have been in nonstop campaign mode, except maybe taking off a few weeks after 9/11, since Gore lost. Let's not pretend that the Democrats didn't do precisely this, and it actually WORKED for them, so don't blame Republicans for trying it.
Now, I am with you actually, I think that sort of thing was too low even for the campaign, and certainly afterward. I would rather the Republicans don't sink to the level of the Democrats. But I recognize that many Republicans will.
Sorry your guy lost the election, but this sort of venomous demagoguery is exactly why so many of us are excited about Obama.
So you can get a different kind of demagoguery? The kind that you get with a smile and a handshake, right before he tells the public that because you won't compromise on your core principles, the same ones that got you elected by The People, that you are "being partisan"?
Obama takes passive-aggressivenes to a whole new level.
And for crying out loud, these democrats pulled their predictable play out of their disgusting playbook and drew Rossi into their usual faked-up lawsuit to 'dirty' him up. Where is their apology?? These people have some nerve being critical of HIM. THEY used the courts to abuse him! Dems, you owe DINO an apology.
And how about that really immature attack piece the democrats mailed out against Toby Nixon?? Talk about cheesy and really lame---they have not yet apologized for THAT. How about it, dems? Or Roger Goodman himself?? We won't hold our breath. No, I don't accept any of their 'criticisms.' They run the dirtiest of dirty campaigns of anybody, using Judge Kallas to abuse Dino and parade him in front of everyone as if he'd done anything untoward (which he hasn't).
There is nothing that needs to be rebuilt, you seditionists.
The World Trade Center is 'nothing' to you? The U.S. Army is 'nothing' to you? The country of Iraq is 'nothing' to you? The U.S. economy is 'nothing' to you? (How many billions of OUR dollars disappeared without accounting in Iraq?)
I wasn't necessarily referring to racial bigotry. "Bigotry" simply means failure to think, to consider evidence which contradicts a familiar and comfortable belief. Your inability even to converse in a civilized manner with your fellow citizen demonstrates bigoted hatred at it's very finest.
I offered you a chance to work with the new leaders of your country, and you spat venomous bile at me, calling me a traitor. Have a nice life decorating your new home: the dustbin of history.
Posted by: tensor on November 5, 2008 11:16 PM"Milwaukee experienced election fraud eerily similar to what we saw in King County,"
(http://soundpolitics.com/archives/004377.html)
Judge Bridges then ruled that no evidence of fraud had been presented. Sound Politics never issued a correction for this false claim of fraud. A Republican US Attorney, Washington State's Republican Attorney General, and King County's Republican Prosecutor have never filed for fraud charges. Claims to fraud are propaganda, nothing more. Trivializing a serious crime for political attack is a really low failure of citizenship.
"WA Republicans announced yesterday that over 1,000 felon were found to have voted in Nov. 2004. Naturally, state Democrats claim that most of these are Rossi voters:"
(http://soundpolitics.com/archives/003823.html)
Again, never corrected, even though Judge Bridges' ruling supports the Democrats' claim. More guilt-by-association propaganda, and even the basis of the smear is later revealed as false in court.
Don't you have a tree-house to fill with automatic weaponry and your pathetic, self-aggrandizing delusions of persecution?
Michele, I guess Obama is the kind of "barbarian" that is elected as our president.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 5, 2008 11:43 PMStill waiting to hear what kind of barbarian you voted for that would be so callous to want baby boys and girl--"the least among us" words Obama likes to throw around..to die helplessly.
we're still waiting....
The KERNING! On his (foreign) birth certificate! WHAT ABOUT THE KERNING!!?!!1!?
Posted by: tensor on November 5, 2008 11:56 PMA Republican US Attorney, Washington State's Republican Attorney General, and King County's Republican Prosecutor have never filed for fraud charges.
So? And O.J. was never convicted.
I do not share the belief that there was fraud. I don't know. But there's good reason to believe it happened, even if there's no proof of it.
Scooter Libby was never charged with illegally leaking anything about Valerie Plame; do you defend him from such claims? Of course you don't.
"WA Republicans announced yesterday that over 1,000 felon were found to have voted in Nov. 2004. Naturally, state Democrats claim that most of these are Rossi voters:" ... Judge Bridges' ruling supports the Democrats' claim.
You're lying. It does no such thing whatsoever.
the basis of the smear is later revealed as false in court.
You're lying.
continuing to bring up Ayers, Wright, Hussein, or other crap is just tone deaf
Maybe. Maybe not. Again: it worked for the Democrats against Bush and the Republicans.
Questioning the president's patriotism is not going to help conservatives or anyone else.
And again, I am not defending doing it. I am against doing it. But, again, it worked for the Democrats against Bush and the Republicans.
I grew out of the Hater stuff a long time ago. I did not attack Obama over his name, or his associations (though I did one time, with both Ayers and Wright, criticize Obama's *response* to criticism). I try to focus on the issues. I focus on Obama's record and stated views on guns, on taxes, on credit cards, on health care, and so on.
The facts of his positions gives me more than enough to hate. :/
Pudge? Your parents took that tooth, and put the quarter under your pillow. You can stop believing now. Just sayin'.
"Scooter Libby was never charged with illegally leaking anything about Valerie Plame; do you defend him from such claims? Of course you don't."
Libby was convicted on half a dozen felony counts, of perjury and obstruction of justice. No one was ever even charged with voter fraud in connection with the 2004 governor's election here, even though Republican elected officials with the power to do so occupied offices here. They have a direct, vested interest in clean King County elections -- their very jobs depend on such elections -- and they've absolutely refused to have anything to do with this site's numerous claims of fraud. Do you really think they're that stupid?
And you can drop the tired charge of lying. We all know it just means you lack any real response.
Posted by: tensor on November 6, 2008 12:23 AMBut certainly, politics is involved even after the election ends, which is why Karl Rove had a taxpayer-funded position and Clinton had a never ending campaign. But Ayers and Wright and ACORN are a particularly stupid and negative area of politics, and these sort of "judgment and association" questions are just ridiculous once the polls close.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2008 12:48 AMSometimes they do.
It appears that Rossi did at one point this past year. Which was a big mistake.
Posted by: jan on November 6, 2008 05:33 AMBottom line is: Dino 'is back in the business world', 'doesn't need a political career', etc, et al. Let's all remember these lines and see if and when he surfaces yet again with political aspirations. :)
Posted by: Duffman on November 6, 2008 05:50 AMthehim/HALee @ 18
Posted by thehim at November 5, 2008 10:41 PM :
"No, he's not. And the reason that you think he would be is exactly why John McCain lost."
Well, he said "we patriots" didn't he? Just wondering if Obama's close associations with radicals and subversives qualify as fellow patriots in his eyes. Fair question right, Lee? McCain lost because a large segment of the electorate voted emotion rather than reason. This election was a repudiation of G.W. Bush more than it was the acceptance of an unqualified Obama. Thinking otherwise is just plain delusional.
"William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Barack Obama was qualified to be president."
You're right. He was wholly unqualified without them. Because he was never properly vetted by the press and had so little resume to run on, the only way to assess an unknown like him is by their associations. The chi-town assclown could not pass a standard FBI background check given his associations. That is a pretty pathetic new low in presidential politics I'm sure, but of course, the press will never print that simple reality.
"I'll say to you what I've said to Pudge. You are helping the Democrats by being so off-the-wall whacked out. The more Republican campaigns cater to your insanity, the more electoral contests you're going to find yourself on the losing end of."
Riiight. We aren't the one with friends that have sought the overthrow of the U.S. government there, einstein. When you speak of "whacked out" and "insanity" in describing us, you really show how utterly removed from reality your "world view" is Lee.
Stock up on the kool-aid packets, 4 years is a long time.
"WRONG"
It didn't work with FDR and it won't work now.
I never want to hear you dem's bitch about the debt ever again.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 6, 2008 06:23 AMindependence and self-reliance and minimizing the nanny state will NEVER be out of touch--unless, of course, one's world view is that of the perpetual victim; and victimhood is being promoted at every level--schools, govt, p.c. laws, immigration mess, bailouts, criminals' rights etc.
we disagree on fundamentals; you're entitled to your opin;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 6, 2008 06:38 AMAnd so it begins. The trolls were out last night deflecting attention from the needs of the country and the state. So, trolls, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
I read yesterday from one of the pundits. The pundit wants all of us to tell the trolls that we will treat the new Pres with the name respect they gave the last Pres. However, the McCain side is not like that and will treat the new electeds the same way as before- with the facts.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2008 07:10 AMThis election was about Bush's failed policies not Obama's answers.
Let me see.
Invasion of Iraq - 2/3 of the American public think this was a bad idea.
Deregulation - Caused the mortgage meltdown.
No pork - Constituents like pork. The Democrats have this down to a science. Look at Murtha, he calls his constituents racists but because he bring their district a lot of pork he won.
And in the Puget Sound the majority want mass transit. Sound Transit passed their initiative in a recession!!!!!!
I have heard talk that Eric Cantor and Phil Ryan are going to save our Party. These two supported the invasion, are anti-pork, and believe in deregulation, and are against Amtrak.
Until Republicans change, we will continue lose.
Ok, here's a quiz:
Which party was for tighter regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac years before the mortgage meltdown and which party blocked those regulations?
Go drink some more Kool Aid.
Posted by: Palouse on November 6, 2008 07:49 AMhttp://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/06/republican-rising-stars-shape-partys-future/
Look, we are fortunate McCain was able to draw 46%. Bush was a terrible President when it came to Economics and COMMUNICATING. Bush lost me when shortly after the War started, he takes of for his ranch and horseback riding! What an idiot! He should have talked to the American People nearly every day and taken NO VACATION while our troops were fighting.
What McCain did was miraculous all things considered. 2010 could be a great year.
Obama has 2 months tops to establish himself and take ACTION. After that, there will be growing in-fighting with the Democratic Party AND the 46% who said Obama wasn't ready, willing or able will be fanning the flames.
Don't give up! The glass is half-full. We must never, ever, ever elect a boob like Bush again. Jeb Bush?? NO WAY! Time to move forward and get behind the great Young Gun Conservatives like Jindal, Crist, Pawlenty, Cantor & Palin. And we have Romney & my favorite, Mike Huckabee.
The old Republican Guard failed us...they can either follow us Conservatives or get the f*ck outta the way. I'm tired of some of these a$$holes who failed to stand steadfast with Conservative Principles.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 6, 2008 08:03 AMPudge you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to SSOSA. You believe the lies and outdated facts, instead of researching the law as it applies today. Yes, in the past, it may have had problems, but today it isn't an easy-out as you and others want to claim.
Fact 1: Here is the current law. You will notice in section 2(a) that people who commit the most serious crimes are excluded. Those who still are offered the option are required to plead guilty, and they can no longer use the Alford type plea.
Fact 2: Once they plead, the process is as follows: (1) If the judge accepts the sentence, they are taken to jail and the sentence is sent to the Dept of Corrections to review, (2) If DOC agrees to the plea, only then are they allowed to be released to carry out their sentence under the SSOSA alternative, (3) under SSOSA, they are under the supervision of DOC and have to regularly report to their Corrections officer, be subject to the DOC limitations (See Fact 3), submit a DNA sample, submit to random, periodic drug tests, and participate in weekly counseling. All this is on their "dime," not the tax payers. They have to pay a monthly fee to DOC for their supervision, and they have to pay the weekly counseling fee ($60/wk). They also have to find their own housing (lots of luck there since most places screen and reject felons, especially sex offenders), and try to maintain/find employment in order to pay for this cost (plus food, etc -- most all places reject felons, especially sex offenders, no matter the level or seriousness of the crime).
Fact 3: The DOC conditions that Sex Offenders have to abide by are: (1) DOC has to inspect and approve the living conditions, (2) DOC has to approve the place of employment, (3) the SSOSA participant can not partake in alcohol and the only drugs involved are prescribed medications, (4) the SSOSA participant can not possess or live in a residence that has firearms, (4) the SSOSA participant can not go to public spaces like parks, unless approved by their CCO in advance and then only if accompanied by an CCO and counselor approved chaperone, (5) they can not view any pornography or sexual content media (movies, TV, Internet, printed), nor visit any sexual related establishment, (6) they can not visit taverns or bars where the prime aspect of the establishment is sale of liquor (as opposed to a restraunt that happens to have a bar), (7) they can not have contact with the victim, and (8) they can not have contact with minors, outside the victim, unless accompanied by a CCO and counselor approved chaperone.
Fact 4: Going back to the RCW, you will also notice 2(e). To be elibible for SSOSA, the offender had to have an established relationship with the victim where the connection wasn't for the purpose of committing the offfense (e.g., sibling, parent, relative). Predators who prey on innocent children are no longer eligible for SSOSA.
Therefore, what we are talking about are crimes within the family, which in themselves are devastating on the family. The purpose of the law, as it stands now, is to allow family members to come forward and report these crimes. If SSOSA was did away with, these crimes may go unreported and the offender would not be receiving treatment. A lot of families would like the offender to receive treatment, but don't want to see the person severely punished. They wouldn't come forward if the only option was extended jail time. As it is, any sex offense, no matter the seriousness (and there are plenty of less serious offenses that still fall in this category) is basically a life sentence. In today's society, if one is labeled as a sex offender, no matter how old they were when they committed the crime (e.g., 13 years old is the same as the adult perp), you are the "leper" and forever outcast.
Now, I do not want to limit the severe punishment of the law for Predators, but I think teenage offenders who due to hormones and lack of reasoning who commit family offenses should be treated differently. For them, treatment is the most needed action, not punishment. There family's suffer no matter once. To have society and the law also continually to beat them up is just plain cruel punishment.
Posted by: tc on November 6, 2008 08:15 AM...is that the 'excuse train' I hear chugging down the track?
Posted by: Rick D. on November 6, 2008 08:18 AMCynical, I think Palin is toast as a national figure. She may run for the GOP nomination in 2012 but I doubt she would win and if she does it will be an easy re-election for President Obama.
As for the rest: Huckabee is interesting and in the right circumstances I could see myself voting for him which is amazing since I tend to dislike social conservatives. Romney might have a chance but he needs to go back to the image he had as Gov. of MA. I don't know enough about the rest to have any sense of their ability to win 270 electoral votes.
The Republicans would need to run someone like McKenna to have a chance of getting my vote on the national level. For that matter McKenna is one of the few Republicans I could see voting for in the governor's race in 2012. Hopefully Rob continues to trust his own political instincts and doesn't get sidetracked by a Senate run in 2010 (barring anything dramatic, Murray is going to be near impossible to defeat). Also he needs to avoid tracking too far to the right or going too negative.
With luck the voters will get a clean issues based race between McKenna and Insley in 2012.
Posted by: Chris Stefan on November 6, 2008 08:21 AMThanks Chris, we can do without your vote.
WOw-just wow
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 6, 2008 08:28 AMRead this if you want some actual facts:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
One particularly relevant quote:
"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards..."
And on the CRA, which is often blamed for this mess, McClatchy writes:
"Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans."
The mortgage crisis proceeded from the combination of lax regulation on private non-bank lenders, ridiculously easy money to be made by mortgage brokers shoveling mortgages out the door as quickly as they could regardless of the borrower's qualifications, incentives to mortgage brokers for pushing borrowers into higher interest rate subprime loans even when they qualified for traditional loans (accounting for something between 1/2 and 2/3 of all subprime loans issued), and basic human corruption and greed.
Posted by: Prometheus on November 6, 2008 08:46 AMMy guess is Palin will run for Ted Stevens Senate Seat...likely to be available in the next 2 years.
I doubt she will run for President in 2012...but she will end up being an important Republican figure. She was demonized beyond all decency. She is a fighter and will rise again...proving she has the fortitude. Plus she has been fully vetted, something Obama has escaped to this point.
I suspect the 2012 Ticket may be something like Huckabee/Jindal...or vice versa.
Obama will have his hands full...not only with the issues, but with the raving lunatics on the Left that he pandered to. I doubt his tear-jerking speeches will have any effect on them at some point. Obama's rhetoric has a half-life. You will see a disaster and attempts to deflect criticism of Obama as "Racist" will grow thin with white Americans who reluctantly voted for him as a protest to Bush.
Obama MUST deliver miracles in the next 2 years...or 2010 will be a bloodbath for the Dems ala 1994. In 1992, Republicans were discouraged and counted out....yet 1994 did happen. And History has a way of repeating itself.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 6, 2008 08:49 AMThe most powerful Republican, GWB, tried for years to impose tighter regulations on Fannie/Freddie and was opposed by Democrats. The Democrats refused to even acknowledge there was a problem! Yet, with the media's compliance, the mess is blamed on Republicans.
The CRA is also to blame for this as well, I agree. The CRA was initiated under Clinton. Which party blocked the tighter regulations because of the CRA? Bingo, Democrats. They were "concerned" that tighter regulations on GSE's would limit access to home ownership by minorities. Never mind that these people couldn't actually afford those mortgages.
even when they qualified for traditional loans (accounting for something between 1/2 and 2/3 of all subprime loans issued)
FALSE. This is not proven whatsoever. There have been some "estimates" by both Fannie and Freddie, but not hard numbers by either. And those estimates were 15-35% by Fannie and 50% by Freddie. Again, unproven. The people who were credit worthy of loans refinanced anyway, and were not the problem.
Posted by: Palouse on November 6, 2008 09:07 AM"SSOSA is an abomination."
SSOSA was adopted by a Republican legislature in 1982 under Republican governor John Spellman. Rossi voted in 2003 to keep SSOSA on the books.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 6, 2008 09:14 AMFannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't hold the majority of subprime loans. The private non-bank lenders who held the majority of those loans were never subject to the provisions CRA, so it's awfully hard to blame the CRA for their bad behavior.
There's plenty of blame to go around between the parties, because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans ever tried to apply even the most basic regulation to non-bank mortgage lenders, and neither group ever tried to get a handle on the enormous risks created by financial derivatives like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.
To blame the whole thing on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the CRA, and the Democrats in Congress ignores the real problem, which neither party ever tried to address, and which I'm not convinced either party ever even recognized as a risk (notwithstanding Warren Buffett's warning that CDO's constituted "financial weapons of mass destruction" -- he was one of the very few people who got it right from the beginning.)
"I just wanted to drop by and be amused for a moment by reading all the "sky is falling" shit falling from your mouths. Yeah, the libs are going to take your guns, tax you out of business, lose the country to terrorists. Yup all of it is going to happen. You are all a bunch of sore losing dick heads. Enjoy."
...he said has he sawed off the very branch he was perched upon...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on November 6, 2008 09:23 AMOn the topic of qualified borrowers being talked into subprime mortgages, there's a ton of information out there. But here's just one example from an entity as conservative as the Wall Street Journal (no friend of liberals):
"An analysis for The Wall Street Journal of more than $2.5 trillion in subprime loans made since 2000 shows that as the number of subprime loans mushroomed, an increasing proportion of them went to people with credit scores high enough to often qualify for conventional loans with far better terms.
In 2005, the peak year of the subprime boom, the study says that borrowers with such credit scores got more than half -- 55% -- of all subprime mortgages that were ultimately packaged into securities for sale to investors, as most subprime loans are. The study by First American LoanPerformance, a San Francisco research firm, says the proportion rose even higher by the end of 2006, to 61%. The figure was just 41% in 2000, according to the study. Even a significant number of borrowers with top-notch credit signed up for expensive subprime loans, the firm's analysis found."
Original article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119662974358911035.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today
So it wasn't just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac claiming that this was true. Independent analysis confirmed it.
So answer why did the dem's fight so hard to stop any reg's on Freddie and gave BIG bucks to the dem's who made reg's for it.
Sorry but your amswers ane not cutting it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 6, 2008 09:30 AMSo answer why did the dem's fight so hard to stop any reg's on Freddie and gave BIG bucks to the dem's who made reg's for it.
Sorry but your amswers ane not cutting it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 6, 2008 09:31 AMMore regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn't have made the difference, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't responsible for the majority of subprime mortgages, weren't responsible for dishonest mortgage brokers pushing both qualified and unqualified buyers into subprime mortgages they had no hope of paying off, and weren't responsible for CDO's and CDS's that overleveraged the mortgage industry to a degree that was completely insane.
But as I said, before, I've never known anyone of any political or economic persuasion to change their minds about anything based on a blog, and certainly not based on a partisan blog of either the Left or the Right.
And now it's time to really get back to my day job.
I never did solely blame the CRA, but it was part of the problem. Fannie/Freddie were responsible for the massive securitization of bad debt, and then blocked regulators from actually doing something about it. The Democrats wanted to keep that going so they didn't want tighter regulations on GSE's. The securitization of that bad debt by Fannie/Freddie is what CAUSED the lax lending standards by private lenders. It was a free-for-all. THAT is the ultimate cause of the meltdown.
Posted by: Palouse on November 6, 2008 09:37 AMAnd libs, I ain't going anywhere - GET USED TO IT!
Posted by: pbj on November 6, 2008 11:30 AMCan you say "useful idiots"? I knew you could.
Posted by: Michele on November 6, 2008 11:43 AMDo this state a favor; cancel your newspaper subscriptions and stop advertising in newspapers who are biased.
Posted by: ap on November 6, 2008 11:46 AMJohn (I served in Nam) Kerry could be our next Sec of State.
Yeah baby, four years of laughs!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 6, 2008 12:12 PMYou right-wing numbskulls just don't get it, do you? Your beloved Greedy Old Party divides the electorate so they can win with an energized base. Ignoring that after winning an election they actually have to govern. Ignoring that running on "government is the problem" pretty soon people figure out that's true when the GOP is in charge. People are so tired of the sleaze and the slime. Rovian tactics have been rejected, finally!
Does all this mean Democrats don't get dirty? Hardly, but by comparison it's not even close. If McCain had been a Democrat, there would've been a "POW Vets for Truth" accusing McCain of being a traitor for getting shot down or some such nonsense.
Wake up. If conservatism is good for the country (and I believe there are parts of it that are) then make your arguments based on policies and truth. Use facts, not rumors and innuendo to support those arguments.
If you can't do that, then you deserve what you get.
El Dude
Posted by: El Dude on November 6, 2008 12:24 PMIf facts ran your world, then you wouldn't vote communist. But you do, right, doodoo?
Posted by: Hinton on November 6, 2008 12:42 PMYes, you and I know that Bill Clinton and Barney Franke are mainly to blame for the mortgage crisis.
Perception is reality, Republicans are known to not favor regulation.
The Republicans had a chance to show leadership on this crisis in 2005. There was a bill sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel, yes the same man demonized by conservatives for his stand against the War in Iraq, that could have lessened the depth of the crisis or prevented it. Bill Frist refused to allow a vote on it. George Bush could have stepped in but he did nothing. So now the Republicans are receiving the fallout.
And truly, there weren't that many extra voters this time around.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2008 01:02 PMYou guys got your assess kicked - which everyone does once in awhile. The test of character is if you learn from it. From your comments, you have yet to figure out that being sleazy may win you the battle, but won't win you the war.
Our country is in economic decline - being sold out to Wall Street and big corporations. (What Ron Paul called corporate facism) You want to buy the right-wing propoganda, that's your problem. But don't lay a turd here and expect anyone but other kook-aid drinkers to call it beautiful.
El Dude~
Posted by: El Dude on November 6, 2008 01:27 PMTry a tad more reading. Banks were under pressure to make these loans. Guess who also get's money to push these loans onto banks. try LaRaza & Acorn. And guess what party tried to give them more money with the bail out bucks..
I hate to ask this, but what the heck. Do you even think banks want to make bad loans knowing it and they will fail. (shareholders) don't like that.
Try econ 101 next time.
Sorry, but that excuse doesn't work for my kids and it sure doesn't work for you. I don't excuse bad behavior from one party just cuz the other one does it. No matter if you're ripping off Indian tribes or stashing $90k in your freezer... it's corruption.
I also don't like government getting in my business - no matter if it's helmet laws or Patriot Act. See, in many ways it's easier to have principles without a party than a party with no principles.
El Dude~
Posted by: El Dude on November 6, 2008 01:37 PMEl Dude~
Posted by: El Dude on November 6, 2008 01:45 PMThey sold them to other institutions that bundled them up into CDO's (mortgage backed securities), a practice invented by Bear Stears. The ratings agencies like Standard & Poors, who are paid by these same institutions, gave these mortgage backed securities much higher ratings than they deserved based on the absurd assumption that housing prices would always go up, making them appear to be "safe" investments.
The mortgage backed securities, with their artificially inflated ratings, were sold to investors (i.e. us), pension funds, and other countries -- which is how Norway ends up getting screwed into virtual bankruptcy by the US mortgage crisis.
The real problem here is that since mortgage brokers were incented to sell as many high interest mortgages as possible, and banks were able to sell them into the secondary market, and the secondary market was able to bundle them up and sell them to investors, the link between making a mortgage and assuming any risk for that mortgage was broken.
No one anywhere in the chain had any incentive NOT to make risky mortgages, since each player just took their cut of the fees and passed the risk onto the next sucker in the line, until it landed in the laps of investors, and ultimately in all of our laps thanks to the $700B plan to bail out the industry.
This is simply the most recent take on a process that's been going on for a while, under both Republicans and Democrats. Ever since the S&L crisis (if not before), we've been socializing risk while privatizing reward. We've removed the incentive for banks, brokerages, energy companies, S&Ls, and others NOT to cheat.
And that's why we need at least some level of regulation, to rein in the bad actors. Too much regulation is death, of course. But too little turns out to be equally bad, as even Greenspan finally came to admit.
Right, and guess who bought trillions of dollars of those CDO's over the years? That's right, Fannie and Freddie. That market would not have existed if not for those GSE's because they are the ones who created the liquidity by having guarantees against default. Guarantees that you and I have paid for through taxes to the federal government.
If CDO's were purely private sector instruments, banks would not have been able to sell those Alt-A loans so easily because the bonds would be rated junk with a high risk of default. So those banks would never have made those loans. But since Fannie/Freddie were guaranteeing those instruments so they could fuel the housing boom, the private sector banks were free to let their lending standards go out the window. There is a research paper that proved this debt securitization caused the lax lending standards. I can find it for you later if you want.
Posted by: Palouse on November 6, 2008 02:09 PMDon't foget though, that the big investment banks were deregulated by the Phil Gramm "Commodities Futures Modernization Act" slipped into an obscure appropriations bill at 11pm on a Friday night and signed into law by lame duck Bill Clinton right after the 2000 election.
This allowed them to issue "Credit Default Swaps" which were essentially insurance for the MBS (Mortgage-backed securities). To the tune of $40 - $50 TRILLION dollars. This doubling down on stupidity to hide the risk of MBS with subprime crap is what caused the so-called "credit crisis." None of this had anything to do with Freddie/Fannie.
And by not calling them insurance, the investment banks were able to avoid the requirement that they hold sufficient reserves to cover losses. Voila, goodbye big investment banks and us taxpayers kiss goodbye to billions (not to mention the trillions our 401k's lost).
Yes, Freddie/Fannie and the Dems contributed to the mess. (So did banks and borrowers. So did the voters who fell for Bush's schtick.) But only dogmatic stupidity would lead one to conclude it was ALL their fault.
El Dude~
Posted by: El Dude on November 6, 2008 02:11 PMI notice you avoid my question about the dem's controling the banking and getting large funds from frannie.
The REP's have been talking about this coming mess since 2000.
Barney Frank and others smeared anyone who tried to bring these bad loans under contol and Ranies too.
Now I'm sure you not living under a rock when the C-span video was shown proving what we have talked about.
PS... please tell us all why the MSN barely talked of this. ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC and on.
You make good points. They'd carry more weight if you didn't jump in here and immediately start calling people a bunch of names.
Posted by: jimg on November 6, 2008 02:22 PMI recall Congress didn't change hands until 2006.
Posted by: BA on November 6, 2008 02:53 PM:-)
If you'd like to hear me slam a Democrat, ask me about Hillary Clinton. Also, can you believe the DOJ declined to prosecute Spitzer? What happened to the loyal Bushie U.S. Attorney? If ever a Dem needed to be nailed... (pun intended)
So, I'm equal opportunity and calls it likes I sees it... with rhetorical flourishes. Fun!
El Dude~
Posted by: El Dude on November 6, 2008 03:11 PMThat didn't stop the Republicans from jumping into the Shiavo thing. Demonstrating once again that pandering to the religious nutz was more important than responsible governance.
Besides, the GSEs were/are only a part of the problem. To this day Credit Default Swaps are largely ignored. (See my post #94)
El Dude~
Posted by: El Dude on November 6, 2008 03:19 PMTo this day Credit Default Swaps are largely ignored.
See my post @93. The collapse of companies from bad CDS would not have happened without the underlying defaults of the subprime loans, which would not have happened without CDO's, which would not have happened without Fannie/Freddie. Eventually it ALL comes back to the GSE's.
Posted by: Palouse on November 6, 2008 03:31 PMThe Obama worshipers are so far out in left field and symbolize a lot of the electorate, both young and old, who voted on emotion and did not pay much attention to reason. My logic was to vote for divided government (McCain/Palin), that looked promising in September, but was soon washed away in October by the perfect storm - the economy and to the party in power - its the economy, stupid - but in this case there could have been a convincing argument made to blame the party in control of Congress, but it was not to be as the Republican party is in disarray and in need of an overhaul after being run into the ground for the last 8 years.
Their image needs to be changed - why not call them the Conservative Party ? as exists in Canada and the UK. That would change their image.
Posted by: KS on November 6, 2008 07:50 PMhow are the paid subscriber & renewal circulation numbers coming? can't blame it all on advertizing drops or the "failed policies" of whomever...
didn't Voltaire once say, "...laugh while you can..everything has its time.."
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 11, 2008 04:56 PM