I keep hearing reasons...

[unixronin]

I keep hearing people trumpet reasons not to vote for McCain, with the unspoken implication that these constitute reasons to vote for Obama.

Well, OK.  Here's a pretty damned good reason not to vote for Obama.  You know this economic trainwreck that's currently happening right in front of us because Congress passed laws to allow (and even encourage) stupidly risky practices in home mortgage lending?

When the Bush administration tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie from continuing to engage in risky practices, guess who stepped in to block their efforts?  Democratic senators Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and -- are you ready? -- Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, guess who were the top four recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie between 1988 and 2008?

Senators Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and -- still ready? -- Barack Obama.

A coincidence, I tell you -- just a coincidence.

Further down in the same article,

While Barack Obama was getting campaign contributions from Fannie Mae's Franklin Raines, John McCain was sounding the alarm about the crisis to come and trying to do something about it.  On May 25, 2006, McCain spoke on the floor of the Senate on behalf of his proposed Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005:

[subquote elided]

However, McCain's bill was killed in the Senate when Democrats threatened a filibuster.

Yeah.  Now tell me with a straight face that I should vote for Obama and the Democratic Party because they're gonna make it all better.

The simple fact is, both parties have become part of the problem.

Comments

[ariyanakylstram.livejournal.com]

the choice has always been about "the less problematic one", since at least the days of my parents being the ones voting, while I asked impertinent questions about how they made their decisions.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Doesn't it suck to have to choose "the least bad" rather than "the best man for the job", though....

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

Yes, it does.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I have not identified a "least bad" choice in this cycle. They are both equally toxic, just on different topics. (Have you noticed that Obama dropped geek important things like net neutrality now that Biden is on board?)

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I recall (from the misty depths of time) a slogan scrawled on a construction barrier back in the Humphrey-Nixon race:

"Vote 'no' for president!"

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The rules of the political game are that the President, and his party, get the credit, or blame, for what happens during his term in office. Arguing otherwise is unAmerican.

The banks may still walk away from this "deal" if they think it is insufficient. The entire "economic stimulus" thing this last spring was to postpone this crisis. It has simply been a game of brinkmanship for the last two years. I really expected it to hit the fan after the election.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Then someone needs to find the balls to tell the banks, "This is the offer; take it as offered, or leave it and we'll watch you fail."

Honestly, much of the bailout is looking like such a bad idea I'm not certain it'd be a bad thing if they did walk away, on those terms. It throws a sop to homeowners at risk of losing their homes, but its main purpose is to cover the asses of bank executives who had no better sense than to gamble with money they didn't have because it made the quarterly balance sheet look really good on paper. "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses." Bad as the short-term consequences of not bailing the bastards out might be, in the long-term I think a bailout will just teach them that it's OK to do it again because the government will reach into the taxpayers' pockets to cover their losses. A bailout means the bankers get to walk away with no consequences, and probably without losing their executive bonus packages, while the taxpayers get screwed twice.
LET the bastards fail (and rot in jail) as an object lesson to the next bunch.

And as for those homeowners? Yeah, a sizeable chunk of them bought houses anyone who thought about it for five minutes should have known they couldn't afford, on mortgage terms that only a fool or a compulsive gambler would take. But for every one of those who's in trouble now, there's one who was doing the best they could but got screwed by unfair or even actively predatory lending practices, and another who honestly figured they could swing it if they worked their asses off but didn't plan on the economy coming to a grinding halt.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree, let the banks fail. After the S&L debacle in the 1980's, we are setting a firm expectation that the government will bail out financial institutions that do stupid stuff. I have problems with that on many levels. The biggest is from my personal understanding of economics, The tighter the safety net, the lower the opportunity ceiling. We are strangling then next Google or Wallmart in the cradle with this bailout.

The problem I have with the "blame the borrower" reaction, is that most of the borrowers were new to the finance system. (I hear that 18% are minority, with up to 65% first time borrowers.) We know that what matters is what is written down, not what is said. They did not. We understand that a budget is for more than 30 days. They did not. There is a significant chunk of knowledge required to responsibly use the credit system in place. If you don't have that knowledge, and you don't know that you don't have it, where do you get it? From the helpful mortgage broker? (They are being really helpful and nice.) I have a hard time telling someone they are economically screwed for life because they made a mistake trusting someone. I know that it happens, but the result is systematic, and large scale. I think the con men need to disgorge their take. Call me a liberal, but I think tax dollars should be used to help the taxpayers.

[ttocs.livejournal.com]

Yes both parties have.

And until he chose Palin, I was torn not liking anyone. Having palin a hearbeat away makes the decision for me. RUN AWAY

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Palin is warty, but despite her warts I'm still not convinced she's as bad as the combination of Obama and Biden. I'm still amazed Obama selected Biden as a running mate. But then, he is an Illinois Democrat, almost as much the epitome of nanny-statism as a California Democrat...

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

First thing I'd like to say:

One Million Dead

Our government has killed a million people in Iraq. McCain would like to attack Iran, starting a war with three times the population, far more control of the world's oil and very strong ties to the Iraqi army we've spent five years funding and building up.

Obama has already helped get us out of Iraq by taking a consistent stand against the war. He set a timetable, Ayad Allawi agreed to it, and it's become politically really difficult to keep up the kind of eternal occupation that McCain wanted.

Another reason to vote for Obama? Accountability. Nixon used the FBI as a personal security force. All that had to happen was for him to resign. Reagan made a deal with a terrorist nation to attain office. He finished two terms and his successor was elected. Bush has had people tortured and disappeared to secret prisons. He's exposed state secrets for political gain many times to the benefit of terrorist nations. That's what we found out when congress was aiding and abetting him for 75% of his term and just waiting for him to leave for the remaining 25%. He's removed everyone in the Justice Department or the federal courts that might call him on his misdeeds, leaving congress with no move except impeachment, which the Republicans have turned into political suicide. McCain will sweep the sins of the Bush administration under the rug.

Obama and Biden have said that they want to hold the administration accountable. I want to see what happens to Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Gonzales if they don't have executive privilege.

If the precedent is set that the Bush administration can get away with what it has done, then we're bringing the power of the executive a little closer to Pinochet through simple apathy.

A couple things about your article:

I don't know tons about Fannie Mae, but the Wikipedia page says it was turned into a private corporation in 1968. The article you site implies strongly it was a government institution just before the bailout.

As to the main claim, that Obama was instrumental to barring regulations to Fannie Mae, I'm not sure I believe it. It doesn't say how, and I don't see why a housing giant would lobby a newly-elected senator who isn't on the commerce committee. I'd like to see a claim that's more specific and not made by one of Bush's speechwriters.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Obama has already helped get us out of Iraq by taking a consistent stand against the war. He set a timetable, Ayad Allawi agreed to it, and it's become politically really difficult to keep up the kind of eternal occupation that McCain wanted.

Um, forgive me for being the voice of skepticism here, but it's easy to make deals that you don't have the authority to keep, then promise that you'll keep them if and when you get that authority. If Allawi bought into such a promise, then either he's just as big a fool as many have accused him of being, or he's just covering his bases just in case.
(That said, while I did hear about an agreement on when Iraq is to fully take over its own internal security, that's not quite how I recall it happening. But it doesn't surprise me if Obama is claiming credit for engineering it.)

Obama and Biden have said that they want to hold the administration accountable. I want to see what happens to Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Gonzales if they don't have executive privilege.

You really think it's politically even possible for them to do anything but what has become the usual forgiving of sins? Let alone whether they actually really intend to? What you use against your opponent this term, gets used against you next term. Congress has become a pack of thieves, and there's no honor among thieves.

If the precedent is set that the Bush administration can get away with what it has done, then we're bringing the power of the executive a little closer to Pinochet through simple apathy.

The precedent has already been set by Gerald Ford. We can debate whether that's a good or a bad thing all day. I personally believe it's bad; no-one, not even the President, should have a free pass for wrongs they have committed while in office. But I can see validity in the opposing argument too.

Obama has already helped get us out of Iraq by taking a consistent stand against the war. He set a timetable, Ayad Allawi agreed to it, and it's become politically really difficult to keep up the kind of eternal occupation that McCain wanted.

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'm not sure if the Bush administration will be held accountable if Obama's elected. You make perfectly valid points. On the other side, even the cynical side of me says that prosecuting the previous administration would be a good way to keep your approval rating. "You think I'm bad? The last guy is *in jail*" So Obama might not hold the administration accountable. McCain is supported by many of the same people, so he couldn't.

Obama did not take credit for Allawi's curring pro-pullout position. I'm giving him that credit because of the timing. Obama goes to Iraq (presumptive of a campaigning candidate, but McCain dared him to go, so he can't complain). He talked to Allawi. He tells Allawi, like he's told everyone who'll listen, that he would pull out all troops within eighteen months of taking office. Allawi says to a reporter, "Good idea." Allawi starts telling the Bush administration, "I want you guys out."

I personally find the sequence of events to be a pretty big sign, and I think any measure that ends the occupation a human rights coup and a success any politician could be proud of.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

On the other side, even the cynical side of me says that prosecuting the previous administration would be a good way to keep your approval rating. "You think I'm bad? The last guy is *in jail*"

Heh. You have a point. I wouldn't put it past them. But I have a feeling that once the knives come out, there'd be a lot of blood on the floor before they were put away again.

Obama did not take credit for Allawi's curring pro-pullout position. I'm giving him that credit because of the timing.

Ah, so. [shrug] I don't know. It could be a factor, it could be coincidence that his trip coincided with some existing move. We'll probably never know for sure.

[novel-tharkun.livejournal.com]

Regarding the idea that knives being taken out leads to much blood on the floor, may I quote an overquoted Jeffersonian phrase? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

What's wrong with starting the flow?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Did I say I had a problem with it? I just commented on the likelihood. :) If the Congresscritters were busy stabbing each other in the back, maybe it'd keep them too busy to fuck up anything else.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Fannie Mae was private, in that it had shares that could be bought, and was not directly controlled by congress. Fannie Mae still had access to cheap government money that no other financial institution had. On paper, it was a private entity, but there has always been the expectation, in the financial sector, that Fannie Mae would be covered by government money in the case of a problem. (It turns out that they were right.)

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I just want it to be over. I already know I lost. At least it would be quieter, and I could half of my flist back on.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That. I think we're screwed either way, until and unless we can clean house from top to bottom.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

Was that the same McCain who was saying just a week ago that the fundamentals of our economy were sound? How noble of him not to say, "I tried to do something to head off this mess in May 2006, but my opponent's party filibustered it." I'm sure he would have said that if he could have.

I don't know why the Dems filibustered McCain's bill. McCain's cozy relationship with Phil Gramm, whose banking deregulation measure inarguably had a lot to do with the current mess, is a bigger blip on my radar.

Neither Obama nor McCain is going to magically pull our economy out of the toilet, nor resolve things in the Middle East quickly and satisfactorily, nor instantaneously halt global warming, nor a dozen other important things. Even if whoever's elected agreed with me (or you) on absolutely everything, he'd have to deal with all the other idiots in Washington (and Sacramento, and Concord).

However, a few things tilt me toward Obama:

-- He's a hell of a speaker. He could, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, talk all six legs off an Arcturan megadonkey and persuade it to go for a walk afterwards. Not everyone feels that way about him, true, but not everyone has to; if he inspires enough of the people, that's enough. By contrast, McCain's about as inspiring as Dennis Kucinich.

-- He has a tax plan that gives me a tax break, not my boss (or, more accurately, my boss's customers).

-- He's less likely to appoint conservative mossbacks to the Supreme Court to further erode our civil rights.

-- He doesn't come with Sarah Palin. (Okay, coming with Joe Biden is no big thrill either -- but it's not so scary).

I completely agree that both parties have, to varying degrees, been co-opted by the moneyed and become part of the problem. What else would you expect? The rich have been running this country for centuries. Money, as California Democrat Jess Unruh said many years ago, is the mother's milk of politics. The debate on the $7B bailout should shed some light on who's been more co-opted. It will be amusing to watch the Republicans explain why the principles of free-market capitalism and accountability demand that we give multi-million-dollar severance packages to executives who ran their companies into the ground. The Democrats will make sure that gets all the limelight it can get -- and then they'll go along with it, probably with a few sops for us plebs.

Writing not only from California but from Berkeley I feel a little strange advising anyone to be realistic, but -- to be realistic -- what would happen if New Hampshire threw all four of its electoral votes to, say, Ron Paul? Would the winner of the 2008 Presidential election immediately start listening to libertarians? Maybe with 4/270 of an ear, he would.

No, in the art of the possible, third-party voters have to keep an eye on context. A Libertarian or a Green for city council, mayor, state legislature, Congress? For sure. Great oaks from little acorns grow. For president? Not this year. Let's say you're at a restaurant. Their menu offers three kinds of pie: apple, pumpkin, blueberry. The apple is horrible; the pumpkin is barely tolerable; the blueberry is divine. Not surprisingly, they're always out of blueberry. So when you place your order -- an order you cannot change or revoke -- do you order the unavailable perfect or the available second-best-by-a-long-chalk? If you're ordering for your whole party, the rational choice would be pumpkin.

To shift issues, both parties failed to protect us from warrantless wiretapping -- hell, they even SANCTIONED it. What do we do? Pick up a gun? Vote for a third-party candidate? Vote for the candidate who reluctantly voted to violate our privacy? All three smack of futility. I myself opt for the last, citing the "shaping" principle of behavioral psychology: you're not going to get the behavior you want today, but if you keep rewarding behavior that's in the right direction, you'll get it eventually.

Sorry to go on so long. If I posted half as much as I comment, I'd have a substantial journal!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Was that the same McCain who was saying just a week ago that the fundamentals of our economy were sound? How noble of him not to say, "I tried to do something to head off this mess in May 2006, but my opponent's party filibustered it." I'm sure he would have said that if he could have.

I'm not going to speculate on why he didn't. There's a lot of things they probably all could say that they don't. I'll bet Obama, in his place, would be saying it had it been his bailout er, (what's the word I want here?) responsible-lending bill that was threatened with a filibuster by Republicans.

I don't know why the Dems filibustered McCain's bill. McCain's cozy relationship with Phil Gramm, whose banking deregulation measure inarguably had a lot to do with the current mess, is a bigger blip on my radar.

Oh, there's many at fault. Not that Capitol Hill is likely to ever admit it. I'm not saying that this makes McCain a saint. "Reason not to vote for Obama = reason to vote for McCain" is as inherently unsound logic as "Reason not to vote for McCain = reason to vote for Obama".

However, a few things tilt me toward Obama:
-- He's a hell of a speaker. He could, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, talk all six legs off an Arcturan megadonkey and persuade it to go for a walk afterwards. Not everyone feels that way about him, true, but not everyone has to; if he inspires enough of the people, that's enough. By contrast, McCain's about as inspiring as Dennis Kucinich.

He is quite the speaker. But actions speak louder than words, and his actions have been party-line Illinois Democrat right down the line.

-- He has a tax plan that gives me a tax break, not my boss (or, more accurately, my boss's customers).

But he doesn't appear to have any more of a plan for actually paying for it than McCain does. His books don't balance either, despite his invocation of the magic "pay as you go" buzzwords. The basis of that plan is that if you run short of money (which his stated plan so far does, in a big way), you cut things. But he hasn't said what'll get cut to pay for his pet projects.

-- He's less likely to appoint conservative mossbacks to the Supreme Court to further erode our civil rights.

You're so sure he won't appoint judges who'll erode civil rights? Clinton did. More likely, they'll just erode different ones first. In the continuing struggle to either make sure we're not doing anything immoral or save us from ourselves, both parties seem to regard the Fourth Amendment as something that crawled out from under a rock (for example). And Obama seems to have little love of the First, either.

-- He doesn't come with Sarah Palin. (Okay, coming with Joe Biden is no big thrill either -- but it's not so scary).

Debatable. She looked like the bright hope at first, but she now looks to have significant warts. On the other hand, I KNOW from his record that Biden is an enemy of liberty.


Both sides of the ballot are pretty badly stained. And we don't have any way to say "Throw out ALL of these jokers, it's time to clean house."

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Obama gives a helluva prepared speech. As soon as he's off the script, tho, he's W with slightly bigger ears.

Not really sure this counts as a good reason to vote for someone...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Bigger ears than the Dubya? Say it ain't so, Joe!

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Obama taught constitutional law. He knows a lot more about law and governance than Bush, however much the idea upsets you.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

If he taught Constitutional law, you'd think he had some idea of the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed".

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine why Obama having taught ConLaw would upset me at all or what it has to do with how he Bumbly McGaffeMachine speaks when he's off his script. I always figured he picked Biden so that people would step back and say 'Hrm...well, he's no Joe Biden...'

And what does have taught ConLaw have to do with governance? Regardless of how you feel about any of the people involved, I gotta give the nod in knowing how to run a government to someone who's done it for 8 years rather than someone who read some books and then did nothing in the Senate for a coupla years.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I am sorry to say that both party's tax plans are dead in the water. With the current $700B tax giveaway to the financial pirates, neither party will have any ability to affect economic policy for at least two years, probably the entire presidential term. Our debt load kills our ability to change.

Biden is toxic to personal liberty and freedom. Bad as Palin may be, Biden is far worse for everything that I care about in this election. Obama is an amazing orator.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Sure. Looking at Obama and Biden and comparing them with McCain and Palin, no problem with the choice at all and this even though for me Obama's policies are not mine. Do we want a religious fanatic as VP and the person who picked her as President? People who lie like they are breathing? I mean, really? I've been saying for years that both parties are the problem. It remains the case that the Republican leadership made this problem--with some support from the Democrats, to be sure, but it was the Republicans who led this charge into the depths, and it's been so since Reagan and Volcker.

And then there are the war crimes.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There you go with that whole 'religious fanatic' thing again.

Look, Moq'tadi al'Sadr is a religious fanatic, OK? Fred Phelps is a religious fanatic. Whatsizname Huckleberry (I can't bring the right name to mind right now; you know who I mean) is pretty out there, but he doesn't make the bar for "religious fanatic".

Sarah Palin is just a little more fervently right-wing-Christian than you're comfortable with. (And more so than I'd prefer, but I'll take a relatively moderate right-wing Christian as VP over Joe Biden, thanks.) That doesn't make her a fanatic.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, no. She's as fanatical--or at least has joined churches as fanatical--as al'Sadr. See (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/09/pastor-muthee-witchhunter-all-right.html).

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Oooooh...does this mean Trinity Church of Christ and Rev. Wright are back in play now? This should get more interesting...

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Ya know, it also occurs to me that Biden's a member of a church that has actually killed uncountable people for heresy and for refusing to be converted and holds all kinds of crazy beliefs. Those guys are nuts. You've convinced me...we cannot afford a religious zealot like Joe Biden as VP.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I was wondering the same thing.

A little loopy, I'll grant. Mostly harmlessly loopy. But a fanatic? Uh ... No. Sorry.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Blacks are about 10% of the electorate. They vote 90% Democrat. Republicans consider it pretty important to figure out how to reach out to them, thus far without much success.

Evangelicals are about 25% of the electorate. They vote about 65% Republican. AFAICT, Democrats can't even conceive that any Evangelical would ever vote for a Democrat, much less that 1/3 of them do. Also, they can't conceive that merely by moderating their tone ('clinging to God and Guns' FTW!) that this might be able to make a significant dent in the Republican base.

Step 1 would be to stop refering to them as religious fanatics.