We’ve all heard Obama repeatedly point the finger at McCain & Republicans for deregulating Wall Street - leading to this financial mess. Obama has basically become like a bad song on the radio - you hear something enough, it actually starts to sound decent, or in Obama’s case, seem like truth.
But deregulation isn’t really at the heart of the issue, according to American Enterprise Institute Fellow in recent Bloomberg piece (bolding added),
In the debate on Sept. 26, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama argued that the current crisis in the financial markets is the result of Republican deregulation.
The credibility of the charge depends on ignoring several important facts:
– There has been a great deal of deregulation in our economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the financial sector or has had anything to do with the current crisis. Almost all financial legislation, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991, adopted after the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s, significantly tightened the regulation of banks.
– The repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 — often cited by people who know nothing about that law — has no relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis, with one major exception: it permitted banks to be affiliated with firms that underwrite securities, and thus allowed Bank of America Corp. to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Both transactions saved the government the costs of a rescue and spared the market substantial additional turmoil.
None of the investment banks that got into financial trouble, specifically Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., were affiliated with commercial banks, and none were affected in any way by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
– Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill (for which McCain was a voluble co-sponsor) for Fannie and Freddieover the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible. [...]
– The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought – and the market in these mortgages that their buying spawned — are the underlying cause of the financial crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.
Obama & Democrats are pulling a bait & switch with regard to subprime lending as well. Apparently, Democrats had nothing to do with pushing home ownership for those who couldn’t afford homes. At-will dementia is a powerful and pathetic thing.
I’m posting this partly because I’ve received 5 summons to appear on jury duty in the past 2 years - you’d think that there are more eligible jurors in the cycle. Luckily, I don’t have a land line so I’m unlikely to experience this jury scam that bullies me into giving SSN & other info over the phone. But, for those of you who do have home phones (or ever wished you weren’t plagued by jury duty), watch out for this…
The caller claims to be a jury coordinator. If you protest that you never received a summons for jury duty, the scammer asks you for your Social Security number and date of birth so he or she can verify the information and cancel the arrest warrant. Give out any of this information and bingo; your identity was just stolen.
The fraud has been reported so far in 11 states, including Oklahoma, Illinois and Colorado. This (swindle) is particularly insidious because they use intimidation over the phone to try to bully people into giving information by pretending they are with the court system. The FBI and the federal court system have issued nationwide alerts on their web sites, warning consumers about the fraud.
This has been verified by the FBI (their link is also included below). Please pass this on to everyone in your email address book. It is spreading fast so be prepared should you get this call. Most of us take those summonses for jury duty seriously, but enough people skip out on their civic duty, that a new and ominous kind of fraud has surfaced.
Greg Mankiw (if you’ve ever taken macro, you know this prof) received a note critiquing the critics of Paulson’s Plan. It’s important to hear from the folks in the field, no matter how much you may distrust what they have to say. Note follows with my bolding.
Academic economists don’t like the Treasury plan, but nearly all of the Wall Street economists are for it. You don’t have to be all that cynical to say that the Wall Street economists are talking their book. But I’d like to think that there is at least in part a sense in which they are more attuned to the reality of the situation in credit markets — that last week we were a day or two away from a breakdown of the financial system.
Here are three common critiques from the academics and journalists and what they are missing:
1. “Treasury must overpay for this to work because otherwise you are not injecting new capital, only adding liquidity.”
Treasury is talking with the experts you would expect — prominent academics who have designed auctions. It’s complex because there are so many different MBS (Mortgage-backed Securities), but Treasury is committed to get the market price as best as it can. It will not intentionally overpay. But the assertion that the plan will not boost capital is wrong. If Treasury gets the asset prices exactly right next week when the reverse auction starts, those prices will be higher than the prices that would have obtained before the program was announced. That difference means that by paying the correct price next week we will be injecting capital relative to the situation ex-ante. Treasury does not need to overpay. And the taxpayer can still see gains — say if the announcement and enactment removes some uncertainty about the economy and asset performance, but not all. Then prices could rise further over time. But the main point is that it is not necessary to overpay to add capital. I think Krugman is a leading purveyor of the “they must be intending to overpay” assertion.
2. “Taxpayers will be better off if Treasury gets warrants.”
This is essentially the assertion made in David Leonhart’s column in the NY Times on Wednesday. And it again illustrates that we would all be better off if high schools taught the Modigliani-Miller theorem. MM implies that the price of the asset (again,assuming the auction gets it right) will adjust to offset the value of any warrants Treasury receives. In this case of a reverse auction, imagine that the price is set at $10. If Treasury instead demands a warrant for future gains of some sort, then the price will rise in the expected amount of the warrant — say that’s $2. Then the price Treasury pays for the asset will be $12. Some people might prefer to get $12 in cash and give up a warrant worth $2 in expected value. Fine, that’s a choice to be made. But the assertion that somehow warrants are needed is simply wrong.
3.”The plan should be to inject capital instead.”
This is the Luigi Zingales criticism. Again, that’s a fine plan and might be a good idea. But that’s a complement to an asset purchase plan, not a substitute — and it’s one allowed by the Treasury proposal and indeed envisaged in some cases. But that will take much longer to implement than an asset purchase. That’s why it’s a complement not a substitute — Treasury needs to act now. The particular ideas from Zingales et al that there should be a forcible capital injection are pure ivory tower, unfettered by the practicalities of legality, enactment, or implementation.
Why should McCain go to Washington? Obama doesn’t think there’s a need to re-visit the rank and file of the Senate to solve this problem. He has spoken with Democrats in Congress & Secretary Paulson and opined in his joint economic statement with McCain,
“The American people are facing a moment of economic crisis. No matter how this began, we all have a responsibility to work through it and restore confidence in our economy. The jobs, savings, and prosperity of the American people are at stake.
“Now is a time to come together — Democrats and Republicans — in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people. The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail.
“This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.”
Precisely what is the difficulty with Paulson’s Plan, and is it worth suspending a Presidential campaign?
A number of elite economists think that there is enough wrong with the Treasury’s Plan to issue their own joint statement to Congress urging them that this is serious (see here for full list of economists):
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America’s dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
Though Obama & McCain have issued a position statement, Obama is satisfied with letting the Congress work out the details for his (potential) vote. But the devil is in the details, so though it’s potential political suicide for McCain to suspend his Presidential run, the Maverick is rolling up his sleeves & getting to work.
McCain & Obama’s differing attitudes toward tackling the economic crisis has kept the country, already reeling from the financial saga, focused on the presidential race. Act II of this saga: McCain’s risky, indeed maverick, move to delay the first debate is considered by liberal MSM & polled voters as a mistake, while conservative proponents view his decision to focus on the economy as presidential and verification that McCain does indeed put “Country First.” Obama remains focused on his campaign (easily able to handle both debate & legislation to save the economy), quick to voice caution, and reluctant to return to Washington (though he did come back for a meeting today at the behest of the current President).
Right now, the Presidential Debate Commission says the Friday debate is still on, and whether it’ll turn into an Obama stump speech is definitely possibility. Is this crisis really important enough for either Obama or McCain to postpone their campaigns, or does the crisis merit more discussion (i.e. debate) from the candidates for voters to better determine how they would act as President?
The bubble in home prices, fueled by the ready availability of credit, resulted in an underestimate of the risks of residential real estate;
The peaking of residential home prices in 2006, combined with lax lending standards were followed by a very high rate of delinquencies on subprime mortgages in 2007 and a rising rate of delinquencies on prime mortgages;
Losses thereafter on the complex “Collateralized Debt Obligations” (CDOs) that were backed by these mortgages;
Increased liabilities by the many financial institutions (banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds) that issued “credit default swaps” contracts (CDS) that insured the CDOs;
Losses suffered by financial institutions that held CDOs and/or that issued CDS’s;
Cutbacks in credit extended by highly leveraged lenders that suffered these losses.
McCain characterized the consequences of these actions in his address yesterday (my bolding),
We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted.
Many have called for the debate to go on and believe that is political suicide for McCain to suspend his campaign. Perhaps so. McCain has made clear, political stratagem or no, that he is going to live up to his pay grade and develop an appropriate solution and build congressional consensus behind economic legislation.
Obama’s statement on the economy urged congress to focus on the “broad principles” that he & McCain put forth (my bolding).
There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above and — politics, and do what’s right for the country.
So, in my mind, actually, it’s more important than ever that we …try to describe where we want to take the country and where we want to take the economy, as well as dealing with some of the issues of foreign policy that were initially the subject of the debate.
Indeed, in this statement, Obama highlights just how much he speaks,
I have been in constant contact with leadership in Congress. I have talked to Secretary Paulson just about every day. I spoke to him twice today…
I have spoken to congressional leaders every day this week. I have spoken to Secretary Paulson every day this week.
But, keep in mind, again, I’m talking to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the congressional leadership, Hank Paulson, I’m talking to them every single day.
We have an economic crisis with the potential to financially cripple millions of lives - the absence of liquidity in the markets has serious ripple effects that must be addressed. Congress must submit a timely, appropriate solution signaling confidence in the market system to prevent companies from artificial or premature collapse (from investor panic and liquidity calls).
The difference between the two candidates is starkingly clear. McCain is a man of action & risk (indeed as a military officer, he had to quickly assess the situation and act - or else face death). Obama feels the need to “describe” the issue to convince voters of how he would act - a step shy of acting himself. Voters need to decide if the saying, “actions speak louder than words,” really has merit after all.
With the issue of race inevitably comes the question of poverty. Obama is a self-described champion of people “afflicted” by poverty, and as a “citizen of the world,” understands the moral call to eradicate global poverty. Why is it, then, that Barack Obama’s half brother, George Obama, still lives in a Kenyan slum?
Despite numerous reports, from Vanity Fair to CNN, that found George in a Kenyan slum and several charity funds (www.helpgeorgeobama.org, George Obama Compassion Fund, etc.) established in George Obama’s name, Barack’s half-brother has not moved out of his slum nor has Barack Obama made any ostensible gestures to George since these reports have surfaced.
George Obama, reportedly living on $1/month (Vanity Fair), was further questioned about his living conditions. He apparently reconsidered, saying
They say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by people who don’t want my brother to win…I was brought up well. I live well even now. They exaggerated everything.
That “they” (Vanity Fair, CNN) are considered as anti-Obama media is rather doubtful. But it’s worthwhile to listen to George himself:
Seems that though he seems content with his quality of life (indeed, this is the norm for him), George Obama clearly recognizes that his circumstances could be better and that Barack Obama moves in another stratum. Also interesting is George’s statement that Barack will win the Presidency, not because his brother is the better contender, but because Barack wants to win.
Obama’s answer to improve George Obama’s circumstances is to get the taxpayer to fund it. In 2008, Obama re-introduced the “Global Poverty Act of 2007″ which aimed to aid George Obama by
eradicating extreme hunger and reducing hunger and malnutrition, achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100,000,000 slum dwellers.
This Global Poverty Act (note the bill hasn’t gone beyond its introduction) perhaps reflects Barack’s general response mechanism. Instead of addressing George’s very real straitened circumstances, Barack Obama has turned them into a global cause, with taxpayers footing the bill. As was clearly seen at the Saddleback Forum, Barack Obama has a habit of talking around the issue with his “nuance” and “intellect.” The question remains whether this presumptive philosopher king can put the talking aside and actually tackle the issues.
No response to the financial market turmoil has provided a quick and easy answer to quell the general apprehension out on the street. Obama and McCain stuck to their brands, with varying and questionable success.
Obama, ever cautious, deliberated — preferring to address the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” as a bench warmer. Obama’s nuanced views apparently rendered him incapable of providing his supporters with the “common sense, practical leadership, & economic stewardship” that they needed. His criticism of McCain & the Bush Administration - doing “nothing as the crisis hits” - would be leveled at Obama’s own reaction by conservative critics.
And McCain? His maverick persona may have gotten the better of him this past week. McCain certainly was no shrinking violet. And supporter or no, rightly or wrongly, McCain puts his position out there for voters to sink their teeth into - as many in the media did this past week.
As we all know, the financial crisis isn’t a band-aid fix, and taxpayers will bear the brunt of any solution passed. Therefore, it is especially vital to consider economic and tax policies of both candidates with the inevitable burden of the financial market bailout. NBC did a brief rundown earlier this year:
Obama’s fairness doctrine, which Biden famously muddied with patriotic language, is income redistribution and welfare advancement on a scale we haven’t seen in decades. But it’s nothing new - America has taken this pony ride before. Stephen Moore’s article looking at income mobility in America points out our past:
Q. Are high tax rates on the rich a good way to redistribute income?
A. No. History teaches us that high tax rates are the worst way to redistribute income to the poor and the middle class. I recently reviewed IRS tax return data by income group going back to 1972. The results are jaw-dropping. In 1972, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70 percent and the top capital gains tax rate was 35 percent, the richest 1 percent of Americans paid 17 percent of the income tax burden. Today, with a top income tax rate of 35 percent and capital gains at 15 percent, they pay 39 percent. With higher income tax rates the rich shelter more of their income through tax carve-outs, they invest less in the United States and more abroad, and they work less. The Robin Hood strategy has almost always failed because it means less income, not more, to take from the rich and give to the poor.
Contrary to what Obama (and some Democrats) would have us believe, the “poor” are not stuck in poverty, and the “middle class” are not on the verge of collapse. Quality of life and consumption standards have improved across all economic strata.
Q. Have the income gains by the rich come at the expense of the middle class and the poor? A. Since 1983, every income group has seen an advance in after-tax income (see graph 1). Yes, the gains of the very rich have increased the fastest. But that is in part because of a statistical illusion. When poor people earn more over time, they move into the middle class or the upper class and are no longer classified as poor. Consider someone who was earning $20,000 a year and saw her income move to, say, $50,000 as she moved up the career ladder. That 150 percent gain in income isn’t apparent, because we no longer categorize her as poor. But every penny of income gain by a rich person is counted, because there is no higher income class she can move into.
Another problem with comparing the distribution of income from one point in time with another is that up to 1.5 million new immigrants enter the United States every year. A fairly high percentage of these immigrants start at the bottom of the income ladder, replenishing the people who are at the bottom rungs. This creates the impression that poor people do not make significant progress in the American labor force.
Q. Is there really a ‘war against the middle class’ in America as claimed by people such as CNN’s Lou Dobbs? A. Well, if the middle class is fighting a war, they’ve been winning. Graph 2 shows the income range needed to be considered in the middle class in the United States (between the 40th and 60th percentiles in income for families). In 1967 the average middle-class pre-tax income was about $40,000; in 2005 it was about $60,000. And this does not include the increased generosity of non-wage and non-salary benefits such as healthcare, pensions, flexible workweeks, and more family leave, vacation, and holidays.
Most economists agree that when these income numbers are adjusted by a more accurate inflation measure—one that takes full account of the improved quality of the products we now have access to, such as cell phones, laptop computers, and new medical technologies, for example—the purchasing power of the American middle-class family is about one-third higher today than in the 1970s.
The Census Bureau family income data indicate that in 1967 one in 20 families had an income of $100,000 or more (in today’s dollars). In 2005 one in six families did. There are three times as many families earning more than $75,000 a year today than there were in 1967.
The challenge for the future administration is to provide real economic growth. The tax burden of the financial bailout cannot be alleviated through mere tax increases. In this fragile economic period and highly sensitive consumer confidence, the economy cannot afford to withstand the sophist’s “fair” and “patriotic” tax policy totally devoid of historical perspective.
Chalk up another guy with Palin derangement syndrome. Rep. Charlie Range, Chairman of House Ways & Means Committee, suggested that Palin was mentally “disabled” (i.e. retarded) and therefore not viable as a vice-presidential candidate. Here’s the video including Rangel’s interview:
Oops. Well, not surprising given Rangel’s history. Even if Palin didn’t have a child with Down’s Syndrome, it’s still inaccurate and inappropriate. It’s hard to believe that a “politically” disabled Palin (or anyone) could work her way up from City Council to Governor with 80%+ approval ratings. The natural corollary to Rangel’s statement is that only “disabled” voters would appoint Palin in office - so do we infer that the state of Alaska, former Hillary supporters like Trump, and McCain are all “disabled” as well?
Backtracking a bit on statement by qualifying Palin’s disability as “political,” he then makes a strange argument for foreign policy, saying that proximity to a foreign nation has no bearing understanding that nation. No doubt Palin has a lot to catch up to foreign policy-wise; most governors (not to mention people in congress) who leap to the national stage do. But Alaska has long history with Russia, and yes, part of that has to do with its proximity.
And as the actual physically disabled person on the video points out, Rangel really puts his foot in it with a backhanded slap to one a revered Democratic model - Franklin Roosevelt, who suffered from polio.
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr is using legalese to throw out both Obama and McCain from the Texas ballot because both parties missed the state deadline to register presidential & vice-presidential names to appear on the ballot. The Dallas Morning News reports,
The Libertarians are contending that the Democratic and Republican nominees are disqualified from appearing on the ballot because they missed the state’s Aug. 26 deadline to certify candidates. During the national conventions, Mr. Obama was not voted as the nominee until Aug. 27 and Mr. McCain claimed the GOP nomination on Sept. 3.
No one can legally certify something that has not yet happened, Mr. Barr argued. In addition, Sarah Palin was not named to the GOP ticket until Aug. 29 and so it would be impossible to certify her name by the deadline.
The Libertarians claim that both major parties knew of the late conventions and did not go to either the Legislature or the courts to seek a remedy.
Sounds like the legal tactics Obama pulled when he applied for his first State Senate seat, right? Apparently Libertarians are dishing out similar litigation they (and other third party candidates) have received over the years from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ultimately at issue is the validity of the two-party system. Currently, Libertarians are fighting to get on the November ballot in Maine, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma. The Constitution Party is litigating in Pennsylvania courts to get on the Ballot. The Green Party is fighting in Alaska. Expect to see multiple third party Presidential candidates on your ballot from the Libertarians “Barr/Root”, Constitution Party “Baldwin/Castle”, Independent (sometime called Nader’s Party) “Nader/Gonzalez”, and Green Party “McKinney(yes, that’s CYNTHIA)/Clemente.”
Considering the late date of both Republican & Democratic Conventions this year, the late registration isn’t surprising. Both campaigns should have been aware of the state requirements. At the minimum, Barr has as valid a point as Obama did in his first state campaign (where Obama invalidated thousands of signatures because they were printed, not in cursive). It’s a little surprising that among Obama’s vast army of attorney’s, this technicality slipped by - perhaps they were all busy running for cover from caribou in Alaska.
Despite this ballot kerfuffle, Texas voters will likely see Obama & McCain on the ballot come November. Both Democrat & Republican parties have an advocate in the attorney general and the final decision lies with the Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade, who has “discretion on the ballot and its appearance.”
Obama is getting plenty of practice from the bully pulpit. He’s not arguing for freedom or democracy, however. Instead, Obama’s campaign threatens heckling cries of “Unpatriotic!” if you don’t give more money to the government and “Racist!” if you vote for John McCain. With swarms of MSM helping Obama spread his word, it’s easy to feel like fodder amongst thousands of ants.
ACORN makes Code Pink look like tea-time
What many voters don’t fully understand because MSM doggedly glosses over is that Obama has basically grown up in an ant farm that acts in relentless concert to propel radical goals. ACORN, an activist group acting under the non-partisan guise of voter registration, has schooled Obama in radical anti-capitalism, re-distributionist philosophy and militant political tactics. See Stern or Malanga to understand how ACORN operates.
ACORN uses intimidation to terrorize its targets. From Kurtz’s article on ACORN*:
“Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protesters in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protesters against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.”
Stern notes ACORN’s pride in its bullying tactics, as ACORN leaders
“point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result.”
Mr. Obama goes to school
Two accomplishments that Obama most often cites from community service days are cleaning up asbestos at an apartment complex and starting a voter registration initiative. It was inevitable that Obama would develop a relationship with ACORN. Between ACORN and the Chicago political modus operandi, Obama’s formative years embraced intimidation tactics and political machination.
A rundown:
Madeline Talbot, leader at Chicago ACORN, enlists Obama (between college & law school) to train her staff.
ACORN requests Obama as legal representation in “motor voter” case.
Obama (post law school) in partnership with ACORN organizes “Project Vote.”
Obama enlists ACORN volunteers for State Senate, (failed) Congress, US Senate campaigns.
Obama hires Daley-team to run State Senate election, kicks other 4 contenders (including incumbent) off the ballot, and wins by running unopposed (How did Obama’s legal team invalidate thousands of signatures? See article & video for more).
Obama directs millions in grants to ACORN.
Presidential race - an ACORN practicum
Despite flowery rhetoric over past months, clearly Obama is succumbing to his own charges against McCain; these days, “more of the same” intimidation, “more of the same” blackmail, “more of the same” political mudslinging the core of Obama’s message. His rearing at ACORN has taught Obama well.
Obama has repeatedly waged phone-jamming campaigns to stop discussions about his relationship with Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and ACORN. Most recently, his “Obama Action Wire” has rallied thousands of phone-jammers against writers David Freddoso & Stanley Kurtz’s appearances on WGN radio. These are ACORN tactics at their most typical. Perhaps more interesting is that Obama introduced legislation against phone-jamming tactics a couple years ago. Obama waging political warfare is like drawing up the Geneva Conventions, then flouting them at the first opportunity.
Biden hasn’t managed to get much press amongst the political contenders, but this week his threat to Americans was steeped in ACORN-based philosophy. That Americans should subscribe to mass re-distribution of wealth is patently UNpatriotic. The American Dream is chucked to the wayside as ACORN anti-capitalism and mass welfare abound in the Obama presidential platform. Biden hopes that intimidating Americans with patriotism will fill government coffers to distribute as Obama sees fit.
Now, Obama has his political soldiers and MSM liberals blackmailing voters by crying racism & threatening riots if Obama doesn’t win. A vote for Republicans is a racist vote - and America will be asking for trouble if McCain wins in November.
This obviously begs the question, was it racist of Democrats to deny Jesse Jackson (arguably, a real community organizer) the nomination on multiple occasions? Were liberals racist when they excoriated Clarence Thomas? What about the liberal racism that undermined Michael Steele’s bid for Maryland governor? Please.
It is absolutely dishonest to cry racism when the philosophical & experiential differences between Obama & McCain are so obvious. The total lack of integrity when threatening race riots in an effort to extort Democratic votes certainly gives a more nuanced, sinister interpretation to this “empty suit.”
Obama’s history up to now could be characterized as that of a “Unifier,” as long as we remember that, in his world, there really has been only one agenda. Obama successfully worked his way into Chicago political ranks, not as an agent of change, but as a minion of Mayor Daley. During his time in the US Senate, Obama has maintained a one party mentality (that he cites a widely-accepted, politically insignificant nuclear non-proliferation treaty as reaching across party lines is laughable), rarely straying from the liberal position.
The most powerful son of ACORN has done them proud. Obama is taking his honed bullying & blackmail tactics to the ultimate national stage. ACORN is planting their teams in cities across the US to intimidate voters. Voters better watch out - lipstick on a pig may not be pretty, but lipstick on an “empty suit” is uglier still.
