Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (a white paper)

     The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) which was designed to offer mortgage credit though all areas not just wealthy areas was passed during the Carter Administration and subsequently managed by Jack Kemp during the Regan Administration.  It was not designed to insure credit was made available to unqualified borrowers.  It wasn’t until 1994 during the Clinton Administration that this Act of Congress became a useful tool for activist organizations like Acorn (which is facing criminal investigation in many states) and Community Organizer Lawyers like Barack Obama to leverage it to the advantage of their political and activist goals.  Janet Reno staked out the new policy of the Clinton Administration which was to be a policy of rigorous enforcement: 

“No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”     

     The way the law was implemented was to deny banks the ability to grow or buy out other banks unless they were in deemed to be in “compliance” with the CRA and individual ad hoc groups were authorized and encouraged to bring legal action against the banks to enforce this action.  The lawsuits that were filed against the banks could literally bring all plans to a “standstill” on mergers or expanding their capital base.  The litigious nature of these groups caused many banks to “play ball” with them and approved very questionable loans and to concede to financial contributions in the multi-millions of dollars to organizations like Acorn to keep peace.  It was in reality a sort of a “protection” plan administered by the activist groups (especially Acorn) much like the Jesse’s Jackson’s Operation Push shakedown.  You had to pay up or they would drag you through the coals and label you as a racist.  In short the shoddy loan practices of the banks were forced upon them through this process, not corporate greed as advertised.

     In 1994 a Lawsuit against CitiBank was brought by Acorn (and soon to come association with activist Chicago lawyer named Barack Obama) in: 

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/InsuranceDocket / Court 94 C 4094 (N.D. Ill.) FH-IL-0011 State/Territory Illinois,

and in 1995 such suit was granted “class action” status and Barack Obama joined the suit with his own clients in the following three Illinois cases he was personally representing:

FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000.

     This case was to force CitiBank to abandon their loan policy of not making loans in risky markets and to risky creditors.  The political pejorative for this was Red Lining.

     In 1997 CitiBank “settled” out of court after the Democrats in Congress at the behest of Acorn forced a reduction in mortgage loan standards for banks through coercion on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then began “donating” large sums of money to ACORN and reversing their practice of “red lining” districts and borrowers that were not qualified for loans.  Enter James Johnson.

     James Johnson was the Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae after previous political activity as serving as the Campaign Chairman of Walter Mondale’s failed 1984 Presidential bid.  It was during his tenure that the goals of Acorn and many activists in Congress such as Maxine Walters, Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank we’re supported by Fannie Mae by providing the ultimate backstop for Citibank’s agreement to issue what were risky loans by agreeing to guarantee those loans and in fact purchase the loans in many circumstances from CitiBank.  (We know now that  those loan guarantee and purchases resulted in the ultimate demise and conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.)

     During this time (1991-1998) that Johnson was Chairman and CEO of the quasi Public organization (Fannie) he and Fannie reported that he was paid $6-7 million (wow for a quasi public corporation) but it was discovered by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) in 2004 that Fannie Mae had deferred $200 million in expenses in 1998 through the accounting techniques identical to that of Enron and WorldCom (I can say this being an accountant) to enhance the appearance of profits.  Since the current crowd of operators initiated a “bonus” program that was based on profits, millions of dollars of fraudulent bonuses were made available to Johnson, his successor Franklin Raines and Raines’ ultimate deputy Jamie Gorelick (Both Raines and Gorelick were Clinton appointees).  OFHEO also found that Johnson had misrepresented Johnson’s compensation as $6-7 million after the audit and found that it was actually $21 million (talk about Public Servants).  Johnson (along with Chris Dodd D-CT Chairman of the powerful Senate Banking Committee who originally said he didn’t know Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial) received special “below market” loan approval on a private personal loan directly from Mozilo of Countrywide who was the first major domino to fall in the Sub-Prime housing market.  It was found that Mozilo had a personal list of people under his direct authority for obtaining special loan approval.  It was called his VIP list.

     It should be noted that Johnson subsequently served as Chairman of the John Kerry Vice President selection committee and was providing similar advice to Barack Obama after he secured the Democratic Presidential nomination.

     When Johnson left Fannie Mae in 1998  Franklin Raines was appointed by Bill Clinton as Chairman and CEO and took the financial scam to new heights.  He appointed as his deputy a loyalist from the Clinton Administration that had not one minute of financial education or experience Jamie Gorelick (the author of the Clinton policy of the “absolute wall of separation” between U.S. intelligence organizations which had substantial impact on the proverbial left hand not knowing what the right had is doing issue leading up to our intelligence gaffs on bin Laden and 911.  The US Government was not allowed to share intelligence information between the CIA, FBI and other intelligence gathers………….think about it and how devastating that result was.)

     With the settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit against CitiBank (the largest in the USA) and Fannie & Freddie taking all the loans you can present, banks like Citi and others based on these precedents wrote zillions in mortgages to unqualified buyers knowing that the Federal Government would “guarantee” re-payment and even purchase the loans.  Purchasing the loans became the game of the day at these quasi federal agencies since Raines had taken his remuneration package to the Board to have it tweaked to the number of loans that were written with the sweetener to obtain agreement by the Board of Directors was an offer of increase in their pay.  As a result during Raines tenure he was able to take out $90 million in bonuses and Jamie Gorelick (deputy) took out and additional $25 million.  Raines later settled out of court on a civil case for “cooking the books” but most of the settlement (about $3 million) was paid for by an insurance policy (paid for by Fannie) and a few hundred thousand dollars of other costs while allowing him to keep nearly all the $90 million.  [It is time for criminal charges to be pursued.]  You should know that Raines is today a financial consultant to the Obama campaign though after initially bragging about it they now deny it.

     The purpose of this “White Paper” is to shed light on what really was the template for the ultimate collapse of the mortgage industry in this country since thousand upon thousands of these unqualified loans were written.

     Barack Obama is still going around blaming Wall Street greed for the financial fiasco while the truth is that Wall Street bought into this program through the pressure of Freddie and Fannie when Freddie and Fannie took packages of these loans and turned them into “securities” that they could market to Wall Street.  This was all the result of a series of events of which Barack Obama played a significant role early on.  Wall Street (i.e. the investment banking community) bought into the commercial banking products because they had been pressured and they were told they were “riskless” by Franklin Raines (I heard the tape where he told the Congressional Banking Committee when asked about the degree of risk they represented he answered “riskless”).  The more they could securitize and push to the investment banking community the more cash they would have to buy more loans from the lenders and increase “bonuses.”  And I should add that Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, only being topped by Christopher Dodd (Democrat-CT) Chairman of the powerful Senate Banking Committee.

      During House Financial Services Committee hearings in 2003 when the BUSH administration was becoming aware through OFHEO there were real problems with Fannie and Freddie and proposed regulatory legislation, a major row occurred in the House Committee by the minority leadership Barney Frank where he read the administration the riot act and as reported at that time by the New York Times (9-11-2003) the following statement:

Bush today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.  Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill.  Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders (of course) and the Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies. 

And in the direct quotable words of Barney Frank (ranking Democrat-MA on the Financial Services Committee)

“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,”  “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” 

     Don’t you find it interesting that Barney Frank and his cohorts in the House and the Senate are blaming the Bush administration for “lack of regulation?”  It didn’t start there nor end there.  In January of 2005 the Senate introduced a bill titled “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 S. Bill 190.  This bill could well have brought the practices of Freddie and Fannie into check and regulation.  This bill had 3 Republican sponsors including John McCain and zero Democratic sponsors, but in the Senate you need 60 votes to move legislation and the Democrats made it clear (on party lines) that they would not support this legislation. [But of course the lie being told is that it was Bush, McCain and the Republicans that resisted regulation of the financial industry.  They only need to repeat this lie 29 more days to where it won’t matter so much when the truth finally comes out.     It is time for the Republicans to get with it and start to defend their conduct over the past 10 years on this issue and illustrate that it was nearly a 100% operation of the Democrats to thwart regulation which is directly opposite of what they are saying now.  There are many other instances where the administration attempted to bring these matters under control and were thwarted by the Democrats.

     This financial disaster is the direct and proximate result of the bastardization of the Community Reinvestment Act by the Democrats in the 1990’s in order to extend their “social engineering” to the financial markets.     Please serve as a counter force to the largest and most sinister scam, in my opinion, that is being thrust on the American public.  Share this narrative about the “bailout” (which I supported) as a direct result of the Democratic meddling in the mortgage community and Congressional Oversight role for the past 10 years.  They would have you believe they are trying to help out Bush after his financial policies failed.  The biggest financial problem we have ever had since the Great Depression is a direct result of socially engineered housing policies of Clinton and Banking Oversight Policies of the Democrats in Congress…………..period.  The Democrats are flat out lying about this every day and it needs correction.  And I’ll tell you that any body that knows what actually went on will not want to debate this issue.

October 5, 2008 | Filed Under American Left, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Politics, Presidential Politics, The Left 

comments

10 Responses to “Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (a white paper)”

  1. Toney Dougherty on October 6th, 2008

    I just hope and pray that this begins to unravel at Tuesdays debate,
    even then I am concerned a lot of people still will not believe.

    It is amazing how clear it is regarding the democrats and thier cronies have caused this mess!!

    Hi Toney………..thanks for dropping by. I’m with you on that. It’s frustrating to tune in every day while some Democrat is standing at some microphone with their drolls standing behind them complaining about how Bush and his policies for 8 years caused the financial mess. They are hoping and praying that they can prepetuate the lie for only 29 more days………..steve

  2. Angel on October 6th, 2008

    Don’t you find it interesting that Barney Frank and his co-horts in the House and the Senate are blaming the Bush administration for “lack of regulation?” ..what tools they are!..great stuff and great to see u at WHT again..come more ofen eh!!:)

    Hi Angel……….It is absolutely amazing that Frank and his friends would even go down that path when they are not only “also” culpable, but independently culpable for this mess. I told one person that in this particular matter the only culpability of the Bush Administration was his lack of fortitude to plow through the racism inuendo and fix the problem anyway. He wouldn’t invest any capital in the fix. Thanks for coming by………..steve

  3. matt on October 6th, 2008

    i think that this whole mess smells of greed on three equivalent sides.
    1. i bet obama will answer this charge succinctly by saying that he saw discrimination in lending to minority groups (of all economic classes)who actually had a clean and coherent mortgage application (from my view he is sociologically right). the law of unintended consequences is evident here. it is not his fault the greed of others preyed upon leveling of the mortgage lending playing field. that said, steve has done a detailed post on the left’s involvement in setting up the storm, all be it one that they did not have a nefarous objective in its inception. my geuss is that they did an absolutely poor job of assessing the level of greed going up and down the money food chain. to hold obama exclusively responsible to me is partisan politics at its finest.

    Matt….was the discrimination economic or racial based. I think we take a term and turn it into a racial pejorative without exploration. Acorn wasn’t happy (joined by Obama) until the gate was wide open. And Matt I must say that I am shocked to hear your take on my post as being a suggestion that Obama has been held exclusively responsible. Though this entire operation starting with the Democratic management of Fanny & Freddie, I have accounted for a littnay of “players” in this operation. Though it is true that Obama had a role in it, his biggest crime now is lying to the public stating that the failure of the credit markets is a direct result of 8 years of Bush and his failed economic policies……. Does that not bother you about him, especially when you know the truth of the series of these events? …….sc

    P.S. How can you say that this series of events wern’t of a nefarious nature when Johnson, Raines and Gorelick all cooked the books (as determined in audit) and lost lawsuits and took out over $125 million in bonuses between the three of them and publically lied about their pay. This was after Raines took the “improved” ($90 million to him alone) bonus arrangement to the Board of Directors and solicited their approval by recommending a raise in their compensation. And of course you know that ACORN is basically an outlaw organization and used the sucess of the Citi suit to shake down donations in the millions and are now being investigated for where that money went……….not to mention their primary fraudlent voter registration strategy.

    obama had nothing in…
    2. people being greedy for life in a house that was beyond their means. it may seem odd to some readers, but would they like to revisit thier opinions of jimmy carter and his “malaise” speech he gave before reagan took advantage of it. now i am no carter fan, but hearing it as an adult, i think it was rather prophetic and oddly enough, he never used malaise, he just wanted to point out that we need to live inside our means. and is this really a bad thing? hindsight is 20-20, but our culture is highly competitive and the consumer economy that so deeply depends on middle class people spending thier money needs a reality check.

    3. wall street creating a nebulous market and selling it to rich people as a novel way to make more money. when will we hold them (you know supposedly the smartests and brightest people) accountable for selling junk as a great investment. how can people not see this as welfare for the rich? …yes, that is a rhetorical question and not sarcasm… it might be that paulson’s aid is necessary for the lifeblood of the economy, but lets call it what it is. if we were really advocates of the free market, lets let the market clean it up. why do we need the governemtn to step in? i am sure that paranoia and scare tactics will be used on multiple sides to overinflate the problem.

    Matt……..Wall Street didn’t create the nebulous market, they just middled it. Remember this paper came as a result of Fannie and Freddie pressuring the banks for more loans and then repackaging them to sell to Wall Street (who were middlemen) that in turn sold it to the investment community. It all goes back to that Fanny and Freddie situation as its prime cause. I don’t mean without all this the mortgage market wouldn’t have problems, but it wouldn’t be the crisis we are experiencing……..steve

    in the event this polemic goes over like a lead balloon, i can link to some of my favorite blogs of financiers and economists in varoius sectiors i read. they have done a better job and non-partisan job than me in addressing the situation. my first language is of chemistry and physical sciences, not the languages of the social sciences (economics, sociology, poltics and psychology).

    I’m not defending Wall Street, but they came to this party at gun point that was loaded by Clinton, Reno, Acorn and Obama………they were told they couldn’t avoid lawsuits which blocked acquisitions or recapitialization unless they wrote low quality loans (NINJA: No Income, No Job or Assets). In the end they played and profited, but it was the only game they could play. Is it greed or compliance with the powers that be. It was Freddie and Fannie that restructured their management bonuses to the amount of profit and then the number of loans (referred to as housing) that enabled them to encourage the Banks to drop off the loans to them which they recycled. In many ways the investment banking houses are victims of this bad paper that Raines testified was “riskless.”…..steve

    in the event someone has made it this far…
    i am convinced that if someone want to vote obama or mccain, they have already made up thier minds and partisan politcs will not change it. i was hoping that this election could have been different, but it only underscores for me how both men want a piece of that “imperial” presidency at 1600 penn ave.

    Matt………keep in mind you haven’t heard Bush blowing the horn on Johnson, Raines, Gorelick, Dodd, Frank, Obama or Walters. The partisan crap starts with the likes of Pelosi, Frank and the rest of the Democrats and now joined by Obama in trying to blame Bush for the mess. I hadn’t posted on this matter until Obama started making the lie a primary thesis of his campaign. He is selling a lie and I am trying to show the truth…….steve

  4. Mommy Zabs on October 6th, 2008

    this whole mess makes me so mad (i’m trying not to cuss on your blog). Mainstream media will cover up for their messiah b. obama. Just like they have avoided the topic of his shady friends. I’m totally depressed that he has pulled the wool over so many eyes of people I love.

    MZ………I feel your pain. My post is motivated by Obama adopting this stratgey of false blame. They complain about Palin “going negative” by showing his associations. God forbid if McCain served on a board with David Duke or joined him in a radical education initative or had his initial political campaign kick off in his living room. Obama has long been trying to convict McCain of guilt by association by making the ridiculious assertion that McCain and Bush are so close :) But Obama is going negative first by blaiming the current financial mess on Bush/McCain when it is a flat out lie. You can’t discuss likely facts of peoples lives because it is negative but you can make them up. I may have been born yesterday, but I was downtown last night. Now Obama is trying to tie McCain to the Keating 5. This is another subtle lie. The Democrats kept him in that investigation so it maintained a bi-partisan issue. The results of the Democratic controlled committee concurred of McCains innocence and many Democrats were embarrased that McCain was dragged through it. Obama knows this and is not just choosing to go negative but to perpetuate another lie as well (and I am not a big fan of McCain, but truth is truth)…….dad

  5. matt on October 6th, 2008

    the part about obama being fully responsible is in reference to what the right leaning media will do during the pending debate. you are above that, but the media is not. believe me when i say that lying is a sin, but i recognize that all presidential hopefuls will lie their rear off to get in the white house. that is the pull of the executive branch being an “imperial” presidency.

    Well I want to reiterate that McCain is not my type of guy, but you got to admit he has been very passive up until this weekend on his attack on Obama. They let Sarah Palin loose this weekend and she challenged him on his association with some distasteful people. Those links were and are much stronger than he is willing to admit and I am not talking about the Pastor or the Priest.

    what follows is not meant to be hostile, but to encourage open looks at we can all recognize as grey and not black and white…

    can we all agree that both candidates lie about issues they know they cant change (abortion on down to the war effort). however, mccain lies from the “straight talk express” which makes him worse in my opinion than having to acknowlege changes on campaign promises. also, when romney called him out as a liar, he mentioned that mccain would say anything and lie to get into the presidency. so, if it is about lying, then the playing field is clearly level for both parties. and both parties will stretch the info regarding the other for their benefit.

    I disagree that McCains lies are worse than Obamas. In the arena of Presidential campaigns and lies and broken promises, I don’t believe you can go lower than to knowingly falsely accuse your opponent of a crime (and the Credit Crisis is indeed a crime) when you carry far more responsibility yourself and when McCain introduced legislation to curb the abuses Obama sided with the Democrats on a party line basis to block such effort. McCain was one of 3 senators to indroduce legislation in 2005 SB 190.

    i am convinced that if he were to talk straight about palin, he would say that he needed to shore up the republican base and that is why he chose her. dont get me wrong, i like her as a person, but i dont vote for the vice-pres, i vote for who is taking the president position.

    Of course your are right here.

    i find it astonishing that two republicans (coulter and limbaugh) have been incredibly vocal in their “absence”.

    I really don’t follow your point here…….please qualify the point of “absence.” Who’s absence?

    also, if mccain is such the maverick, why does he not run under the maverick ticket with their base and support? i would seriously have been behind a huckabee presidency. (thanks mommyzabs for the original shoutout to huckabee months beofre he started his campaign. we could only wish he were in it now)

    Matt……..this is like asking if Obama is for change why doesn’t he run under the change ticket. Euphemistically they are both running under those respective monikers, but it was Obama that said there will be no change with McCain and it is only fair and reasonable for him to reply. Obama is making a nauseating comparison of McCain to Bush, but you and I know that this doesn’t stick.

    i am personally glad that mccain has abandoned the “who do you want answering the phone at 3 am lines. personally, torture and solitary confinement and the subsequent ptsd are not the experiences i want in someone who has a finger on the nuclear button. yes, it is a huge tragedy and compelling story, but is this the on the job experience we can/should request for the highest office? since, we might never know the answer, why cant we hear from the college sweetheart who was waiting for him while his was in North Vietnam—the woman he traded in for a younger, blonder, cleavage-displaying, beer heiress. some might say the origianl mrs. mccain has an axe to grind, but might she also offer more truth than rhetoric?

    I see your criteria her for President and you are free to disqualify his military experience and tragedy, but I have the same problem with Obama. I don’t see a single element of qualification here and back to your point on Palin…..In light of her lack of qualification I see more qualification than in Obama, but I take more comfort at least in the fact she is only running for VP and not President. Need I repeat what many Democrats including HRc and Biden said of his qualification. Both of them strongly said that McCain was more qualified than Obama.

    this is alot and is by no means meant to criticize anyone posting here. just want to keep an honest attempt at dialog on a vital isue.

  6. matt on October 6th, 2008


    NOTE TO NSL READERS. Those of you that do not know about ACORN please read this comment from Matt and my response.

    regarding the ps above, i did not know those things. acorn sounds shady, but i think it is in my best interest to reserve judging those who might have been unknowingly involved. a good friend told me once that osu removed my “irony gland” while working on my thesis. in this case, it is possible that said self-interest group was/is nefarous. myself, i am trying my best to be objectively against partisan politics and media bias in this election.

    Matt…….If you are not familiar with ACORN I will give you a view from one perspective. They have been meddling in the election system in the US for some time. They hire workers with no qualification nor training and then tell them to go out and register voters and then offer to pay them by the signature. When they come back with names that are directly from the cemetary rolls or made up from whole cloth you have to believe that they are given some training in something. The result of this in 2004 in Ohio alone was to create voter rolls in some counties in Ohio that exceeded the population base. Sometimes they would turn in interim voter reports of thousands upon thousands and they have found instances of very low accuracy, like 6 votes out of 10,000. There have been innumerous investigations and prosecutions, but ACORN defends their activity not by denying the illegal nature of the fraudulent registrations, but their claim that these are “mistakes” of the people that work in the field and get carried away. The payment to the workers being by the number of names they provide is nothing more than a nod and a wink. Right now in the 2008 election cycle they are being investigated by 7 states and just wait until the following month passes and additional states will arise. Saying they are not guilty is like claiming that the Mafia is a community organization. They claimed that as well. These guys are thugs and nothing more than a criminal element. They shake down people like CitiBank and have taken in millions. They are being investigated because there is no accounting for hundreds of millions of dollars. Obama has defended them, given them money for assistance during the primary to work on “voter registration” ($800,000). He joined them in the CRA lawsuits of the 1990’s and has kept good company with them all along. This is not a judgment on him, but a fact. I know we can’t judge a person by the company he keeps…………or I suppose the ones he gives large sums of money to……………….or the ones he joins as a sympathetic party in a law suit……….or the ones he claims are beyond reproach, but eventually you have to say “if it walks like a duck…..” …………………….Steve

  7. matt on October 6th, 2008

    the coulter and rush comment was their absence of vocal support. ann did say that she would vote for hillary if mccain got the nomination… and rush, if i am not mistaken said nothing, either for or against. at least i would like to hear the big dogs say that they reluctantly support. their absence of comments to me is of interest.

    Rush is more against Obama than he is for McCain. They are, I believe, reluctant supporters (wrong word) of McCain. Did I tell you that Susan and I spent about 2.5 hours with Rush on the Saturday of the U.S. Golf Open in a joint in Palm Beach and sat with them while they ate and week talked quite a bit and his girlfriend and Susan danced when the live band came on at 9PM. M2 wasn’t impressed with that report. :) We walk by Anne Coulter’s house on our typical walking circuit. She is 7/10ths of one mile away………….steve

    as a side note, when i was young (i think it was 79 or 80, but could be 84) my dad used to rail against “yellow dog” democrats. can the same be said of republicans here in 08? not to say thoughtful republicans cant come to the conclusion mccain is thier man, but where is the cognitive dissonance? i struggle deeply with voting for mccain as much as a message to send to rep. leadership that they gave us the wrong guy. dont know if that came out right. stated another way, would a vote for obama (hence the obama republican) be a strong message to the rnccain and rnc leadership that it is time to right the ship. can we get lynn swann, michael steele or someone with some backbone (like mz’s huckabee!!!) who does not resort to campaign games.

    and yes, i am still bitter that my man perot in 92 did not factor in the way i would have liked. i told my wife once, “i take partial responsibility for clinton in 92, but full responsibility for bush 00 and 04″. dont know what that is worth, but i am trying to avoid all the political handwaving and evaluating what the candidates will actually do rather than say.

    Matt…….I’m assuming that you mean Perot not factoring as you would have liked means that he did factor in electing Clinton………..

    do appreciate the back and forth with you. can we get an “acron” docudrama movie on the lifetime channel, history channel or pbs? from the sounds of it, hbo would be the one to do it the most justice. or, as a shoutout to you 24 fans, can jack infiltrate them, or would he need 48 or 72 hours for the job…

    Matt……..You know that the media is in the tank for Obama so you are not going to get much from them on attacking ACORN…..steve

  8. matt on October 6th, 2008

    i think you did mention the visit. would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for your conversation with him though.

    as far as the media loving obama, i see the bias and that is why we try to get multiple streams of input, parse the info to the best of our discerning and do the best job at loving others in spite of political tension in the country.

    here is a hypothetical… would palin be a lock for the rnc ticket in the even obama is number 44? i think that if obama does win, she will have an excellent chance to carve up an undeniably strong resume in the next four years. depending on how she manages it, she could be a huge force in 2012. mccain did seem to give her a huge push to the top of the rnc food chain. elevated above olympia snowe (61 now, but who willl be 65 in 2012)

    Yeah, she will probably be a future factor. Here is the hypothetical scenario I see if McCain isn’t elected which is the likely outcome, Ted Stevens is re-elected in the Senate by a squeaker but must step down later on ethics charges and she takes his seat……..we’ll see. Also, you might have to rank her not only ahead of Snowe but but take it out of a party distinction and add HRc as well :) …………steve

  9. matt on October 6th, 2008

    yeah, i really wanted perot to get elected. during that time, my dad told me stories about goldwater and mcgovern (i think) who tried the same (thing in the 60’s?) as perot. he warned me that it was a wasted vote. but, the one unintended consequence of the perot vote was that clinton did balance the budget two years later. those clintons… they sure kept an eye and ear to public opinions so that their power run was in full force

    Matt……..McGovern was on a mainstream ticket (Democratic) in 1968 and lost all but one state I believe. Goldwater was a Repbulican nominee for President in 1964 and lost to Johnson. So I don’t think they ran a 5th colum candidacy. Clinton would have never balanced the budget if the Democrats had retained control of the legislature….steve

  10. the Grit on October 10th, 2008

    Hi Steve,

    Excellent work. Now, if you can just reduce it to a 10 second sound bite and email it to the major news agencies, perhaps the American public will start to understand just what they’re getting into if they elect Obama.

    By the way, it’s good to see you writing again. I’d almost given up on you.

    the Grit

    Hi Grit………thanks for stopping by. Thats the problem, proving the truth about this thing being the result of the Democrats taking “social engineering” to the finance industry resulting in a disaster is more than 10 seconds. That is definately an advantage for the Democrats as they are trying to “play out the clock” on clear understanding of these facts for a few more weeks. I’v been unable to open your Blog “Conversations of Brit and Gritt” ………….Steve

Leave a Reply