Bush’s role in the housing crisis

During the Presidential Campaign I got an earful one evening about the Clinton Adminstration’s fault in bringing on the credit and housing crisis etc., how they put pressure on the industry to give loans to people who couldn’t really afford them. I didn’t really argue the point, because for one thing I wasn’t that hip on the details of the Clinton Admin.’s involvement, but also because it wouldn’t have surprised me to discover that Bill and his crew were at least in part to blame. My point was, even if Clinton set up rules for this kind of thing to happen why didn’t Bush do anything about it? I mean, Bush was supposed to be the MBA President, the Commander in Chief that new about such things blah blah blah. Clearly he didn’t.

An article on the front page of today’s (Sunday’s) front page explores significant depth Bush’s role and that of his cronies in this crisis. It begins with a quote from our MBA President himself early on in his tenure in the White House:

“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002.

After which it jumps to the present:

WASHINGTON — The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, “scared the hell out of everybody.”

After having the impending economic shit storm spelled out for him, how does Bush respond:

“How,” he wondered aloud, “did we get here?”

Discouraging to say the least, but still a legit question, which is more than it seems one has come to expect from this President.

Of course Bush came into office with the idea of making it easier for people to buy and own homes, a noble intent one can suppose, although one can also suppose that the intent was also significantly if not mostly politically — you can win support among poor Blacks and Hispanics if you help them to buy their own home. Perhaps….if ultimately if effort hadn’t made matters worse. Too many of these people have had their credit severely damaged thus lessening the possibility of ever owning a home in the future.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

And that is what this article details in full, to pretty damning effect.

I’d like to pass this article along to the parties that pissed in my ear about Clinton’s culpability, which I still do not refute, if for no other reason than to sort of say, suck on that, Bush is to blame too, although I’m inclined to think that it would be a pointless effort.

Clinton may have laid a path toward the brink but Bush and his ilk rustled the cattle and drove them over it. Move along little dogies.

For me, here’s the difference between Obama and Clinton…Bill that is

After Clinton won, I pretty much stopped paying attention to politics. I vaguely recall watching some of the Inauguration and The Inaguarl Ball in 1993, but in 1997, after Bill’s re-election I tuned out. I’d tune back in occassionally, or when something really important happened. But for the most part I wasn’t all that interested.

I’d thought that would be my reaction this time as well, more or less anyway. But so far I can’t seem to stay away from the news. I find myself eager for information about Obama’s staff and cabinent appointments, any little rumor really. For the most part I couldn’t really tell you who was in Clinton’s cabinent, except for names that really stand out, like Albright and Reno and….well, that’s my point.

I wonder if I’m suffering some kind of election withdraw? I’ve read a few articles about this sort of thing. I was sick of the election up until early last week, but perhaps I was just getting a second wind. I don’t know.

Perhaps I will still lose interest, drift away, but it doesn’t really feel that way.

Bill Clinton on Letterman (9/22/08)

 

Watching Bill Clinton on Letterman from the other night, I was reminded why I voted for hime. Twice. And you know what, I would again if he were to run. Damn, the dude is smart.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

And Obama would do well to tap the man’s knowledge and experience, as well as Hilary’s.

I was as pissesd as anyone at some of the shit Bill pulled during the election, Hillary too. But hey, the primary is over, and guess what, Obama won. That’s enough. What’s the point of making Bill and/or Hilary kiss Obama’s ring? What good will it do? Let it got and let’s move on and win this election!

Bill Clinton on the Daily Show

Just finished watching Bill Clinton on The Daily Show. And I got to say, he made a lot of sense, not just on how this bank bailout thing should go down — if we give this institutions money it should be an interest rate so that we can make money form it – but also on what Obama needs to be doing to win this election. Clinton’s been getting a lot of flack for not showing Obama enough love. That’s been my take on it, I admit, but I’m thinking now that’s a mistake. It’s a waste of energy that could be better directed elsewhere.

Like Clinton said, it’s great that Obama has so many  people that love him but that’s not where the election is going to be won. He has to win over new supporters.

So I’m dropping my anomoisty toward the Clintons. Even if they aren’t doing everything the can to help Obama, my bitching isn’t going to change that.

Clinton has also said that we need to lay of Palin. Stop wasiting time criticizing her. And he’s right. No one ever won attacking the VP.

It’s the stupid Boomers that just might sink Obama

I’ve got a serious blog-crush on Lisa Chamberlain, author of the recently published Slackonomics. Shit! How could I not, the way she bitch slaps around the Baby Boomers for their seeming willingness to sink Obama just because he isn’t one of them and openly, and proudly, proclaims it.

Chamberlain takes Hillraisers to task for likely taking on the roll that Nader supporters did in 2000:

But ya’ll are flirting dangerously with becoming this election’s Naderites — that is to say, political suicide bombers. It’s not just your bras that are going to be on fire, ladies. It’s going to be planet earth. Hyperbole? Think back to the 2000 election when Naderites argued there was little difference between Bush and Gore, and even if Bush won, it would be by such a narrow margin he would have to govern from the center. Really. Think. About. That.

Yeah. They’re too consumed with feeling disappointed and unappreciated blah blah blah to think.

But make no mistake this is a generational conflict at work here, as Chamberlian points out, quoting Charlie Cook, a political analyst that I’ve never heard of (but what do I know, right) but which she admire a great deal:

“It finally dawned on me that white Baby Boomers are the group that is really hurting Barack Obama,” Cook wrote in his National Journal column. “Of all people, the generation that brought us the Vietnam War protests and the Summer of Love is proving to be a very tough nut for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to crack.” Cook pointed out that among whites between 50 to 64, Obama is losing by a whopping 18 points, 51 percent to 33 percent. I don’t know if the numbers have moved much since June, but that was after Hillary “suspended” her campaign.

Doesn’t surprise me one fucking bit. In fact, it is pretty much what I expected out of that generation of jerk offs.

Cook calls this lack of support from Boomers a burden. Yeah, no shit. And the burden that they are is only going to grow.

Chamberlain concludes thusly:

I can forgive the misguided Naderites who were too young to know better – hell, I’ll admit to having been one. But when it comes to boomers, age does not seem to equal wisdom. It’s like a Dennis Hopper retirement commercial writ large, as The Onion brilliantly satirized: “Retirement planning means a lot of decision making, and thank God I have the soothing presence of that amyl nitrite–huffing, obscenity-screaming, psychosexual lunatic from Blue Velvet to guide me through it.” Substitute “retirement planning” for “voting,” and that approximates how I’m starting to feel about Election 2008, thanks to the soothing presence of bra-burning, man-hating, post-menopausal ‘feminists’ to guide me through it.

I won’t admit to being a Naderite in 2000. because I wasn’t. I voted Gore. And not because he was the lesser of two evils. I believed then, and I am more convinced now, that Gore would have made a more competent President than Clinton ever was, if for no other reason than he had far less severe Boomer psychodrama to live out on the world stage. Gore just wanted to live up to his Daddy’s expectations. Where as Clinton had (and may still have) to keep convincing himself that he wasn’t the poor little daddy-less fat kid by rutting with (or at least diddling with a cigar) every unfortunate female creature who’s scent he happened to latch onto.

Hilary’s canidacy is like Michael Myers

It just won’t die!

Even if Hilary herself has (publicly) moved on, her supporters are like politically flesh-hungry zombies that you just can’t seem to shoot in the head. And instead of moaning, they whine and they whine and they whine. And they won’t shut up. Apparently, the plan being to annoy the rest of the Democratic Part into giving them what they want.

And what do they want now? For Hilary’s name to be entered in the roll-call at the convention in Denver. This despite the fact that most in the Democratic Party believe this would result in a “dangerous show of disunity.”

Michelle Cottle, a senior editor at The New Republic, addresses this matter in her pesky column in this Sunday’s New York Times opinion pages.

Her rebuttal to the MAJORITY opinion in the Dem party that does not want Hilary’s name entered into the roll call is this:

It’s true that having America watch as some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,640 pledged delegates thumb their noses at Barack Obama would disrupt the party’s vision of a carefully scripted Denver love-in.

No, Mich-ey, you got it wrong. It is Hilary or at least her embittered supporters that want the love-in. Because according to you they NEED….

a constructive way … to channel their anger and disappointment could wind up being the path of less destruction for Mr. Obama’s campaign. Plus, it’s the right thing to do.

Maybe these mostly Boomer ladies need to take a lesson from their Generation X sisters (and brothers too, who supported her undisciplined husband when he was in the White House diddling interns with cigares) and suck it up because the contest is over and their candidate lost. That is the right thing to do.

Cottle claims that:

You don’t have to be a die-hard Clintonite, or even much of a feminist, to be moved by the significance of her presidential campaign.

Oh, I was moved all right. I was moved by her code speak to white blue-collar workers that they could not trust a black man to treat them fairly, a myth that Obama continues to struggle to overcome. Not to mention her macbre allusion to Robert Kennedy’s assassination, which no matter how she tries to spin was a sick suggestion that a black man running for president, never mind holding the White House, could end up with a bullet in his head from the gun of some whack job. And then of course there was the moving race baiting by her husband. Oh yeah, it was a moving campaign all right. I was moved to never pay this woman any deference ever again, never mind support her in any way shape or form.

Cottle of course points out that Hilary’s run was historic. Yes. That is true. And now it is historically over. Democrats need to focus on winning the White House, with the winner of the Democratic Primary, Senator Barack Obama. But of course that just can’t be done. Why? Because some Hilary supporters still need some kind of “catharsis and a bit of closure.”

Shit. I’m not sure which concept is more annoying? Hasn’t all the whining been catharsis enough? And what more closure do you need than BARACK GOT MORE VOTES. There’s your fucking closure. It’s done. It’s over. Move on. If you just can’t bring your poor broken heart to support Obama then don’t. But shut the hell up about it already. And keep in mind that if Barack loses there are those of us, who otherwise would have supported Hilary, who if the results seem to show that bitter Hilary supporters played a significant roll in sinking Obama’s chances, may at least consider seriously not only not supporting Hilary’s next run at the White House but just might actively work against her. That petty bullshit works both ways, ladies.

And for those still griping about Hilary getting a bum rap from the media. Take it up with the media. Not the Democrats in your own party, for crying out loud.

But back to the historic nature of Hilary’s campaign. I love how Cottle refers to the excitement over Obama’s also historic campaign derogatorily as hullabaloo, suggesting that Hilary’s campaign was more historic, more serious, more important. Bullshit!

I guarantee you that if Hilary had won the nomination there would be zero tolerance for even a fraction of the griping coming from disappointed Obama supporters. It would be squashed, effectively telling the young black buck to stay in his place and wait his turn until the white dame of the nation has had her turn. But in the case of Hilary having won that would not have been necessary. Obama supporters, though disappointed, would have come around to support Hilary without all this pissing and moaning.

But that isn’t what happened; Hilary didn’t win. It may be sad for some but it is fact. Obama won because he got more votes, which is how it works not, as some of Hilary’s supporters would have it, by said supporters throwing a big enough fit to get their way. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. All this grand gesturing making is an unnecessary distraction. But it seems like it may be a distraction that Obama will unfortunately have to endure, as will we all.

If Obama does except this condition by Hilary and her legion, it won’t be because it is the “right thing to do,” as Cottle puts it. It will be because he was forced to comply by a bunch of whiners who claim they were treated unfairly while at the same time demand special treatment that no male candidate would ever receive.

Bubba’s ready to play Obama ball

Well, bless his heart. Bill Clinton says he’s finally ready to do whatever it asked of him by Democratic Nominee, Barack Obama. Yeah. It’s about time jerk off.

Of course, he’s ready to do something. He has to be. Otherwise he’d have to be out of the action, and he simply is incapable of doing that.  Boomer drama queen that he is.

I’d link to the article on CNN but for some reason it is already gone. What up with that?

In the article, Clinton says, in response to being asked what he believe his role will be in Obama campaign, that he hasn’t even thought about it. Bull Shit!

Barack’s VP?

I was intrigued by this post on CNN’s political ticker, speculating on the possibility that Barack my select a Republican as his running mate. Specifically Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who is traveling with Barack and some other Congressional colleagues. I like the idea of Hagel on the ticket, although it seems like a long shot. He’s a strong and reasonable, one of the few Republicans to stand up to the Bush Administration. In terms of cowboy analogies, which abounded with Texas Bush’s wrangling of the White House, Hagel is Gary Cooper to Bush’s Dean Martin. Hagel could also be in the running for a John McCain’s VP. That would spook me quite a bit. He’s a relatively unknown politician but I think when the county get to know him they like him, more and more, which could only improve McCain’s chances.

According the article, Hagel could also be considered for a cabinet post in either a Obama or McCain Administration:

The Nebraska Republican could also be a contender for a Cabinet post like Defense Secretary if either Obama or McCain wins, according to strategists in both parties, because of his friendship with both candidates.

Also mentioned in the article is Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. I’d never heard of him before but apparently Obama likes the guy.

Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, is an Army veteran who is respected in both parties for his knowledge of national security issues. Democratic strategists privately say Reed is highly-regarded by Obama and could also find himself on the short list for a variety of posts in a potential Democratic administration.

Both Reed and Hagel seem like good people to have working for you.

Of course there is still the possibility of Hilary as Obama’s VP. I’m still not fond of this idea, believing that she and Bill would be too much baggage, especially Bill. But as many have been saying you cannot simply dismiss The Clintons, which if unfortunate as far as I am concerned, because they are two Boomers that need to go the fuck away, which is precisely whey the will not. The will force their relevancy if they can, and the can.

Now that Barack is the official Democratic nominee…

(It was made “offical” with Hilary’s concession speech (finally) yesterday)

….I can officially begin fretting about the General Election proper. I am inspired by Barack Obama but I will remain cautiously optimistic about his chances. Which means that I can’t help looking for every possible indicator either in his favor or that works against him.

For example, I was at a get-together yesterday and had an encouraging discussion with a guy who seems quite pleased with Barack’s victory and wants to support him in his bid for the White House. The guy was older, early fifties and white. By many standards a Republican and conservative. He’s a business owner and religious enough to be pro-life and believe in marriage as defined by a man and a woman, but no zealot. He has been disenchanted by Bush and Cheney, particularly by the Iraq war, which he argue must end ASAP! Even more encouraging is the suggestion that his wife, who is more stridently Republican and Conservative, having voted for Bush twice, seems to like Barack. That doesn’t mean he’s got her vote, though.

The factor that always needs to be considered is the one being bandied about the media and web etc. And that is there are some people who like Barack and who say that they would vote for a black man but in the end won’t do it. That may be a contentious thing to say but it can’t be ignored. The only question is how serious is it? And can Barack overcome it. I’d like to think he can, but it makes me nervous.

But hell, everything about this election year makes me nervous. It would have been a lot easier if either Barack of Hilary had flamed out early one, but of course that didn’t happen. And now we have this talk of a dream ticket. But I am still not convinced that this is a good idea. There is too much baggage, most of it coming from Bill as far as I am concerned. Still, I’m trying to keep an open mind. Not always easy, believe me.

Fortunately, the VP does not have to be selected right now. Who knows would might develop?

In the mean time. It is on!

Lucky Bill

Article on slate.com this morning argues that Bill Clinton’s political success has been as much due to luck as political skill, perhaps aven more so. And his luck continues to hold with Hilary’s loss. Why? Because for a dude with an over-inflated ego and a desperately pathetic need to be the center of attention having Hilary as president would be like hell on earth. He’d be relugated to hosting the Easter Egg Roll on the White House front lawn, which he claims he’d be glad to do.

Wothy of particular note:

A Hillary presidency would also surely mean that Bill would have to disclose every past contribution to the Clinton Foundation and Library. (For a partial list, click here.) Bill’s reluctance to do that has reportedly emerged as an obstacle to Hillary’s vice-presidential aspirations.

Question here: can the Obama people use this to good enough effect to keep Hilary off the ticket, which they’d prefer? As would, my friends. As would I.

It isn’t just Bill’s shady business dealings, which are as much Hilary’s as they are his, but also his pecker problem, ie keeping it in his pants. Even if the Vanity Fair article is bullshit, there’s always going to be the spectar of it there, hanging around, like a  perverted little ghost. No doubt Bill would get off (pun of course intended), but Obama simply does not need that baggage going into the election and, if fortunue shines upon him, into the White House.

What say you people?