What happened with S. 190 and why was it not passed?

[LowlyPion]

It must be humiliating to publicly go before the country and not have any clue what you're talking about.

I mean, honestly. Does she not feel just a *little* stupid standing there making stuff up?

Things are working out great for her ... maybe.

She gets hours of face time with 10's of millions of people. Her exposure will be something she can build off of. And it's not costing her anything.

McCain on the other hand ... this is it. In 4 years ... who knows what his health or electability will be. I doubt he will be around much after losing. He may not even stand in 2010 for the Senate. It's likely his end of the road.

The maybe comes from what may happen back in Alaska. Can she buckle back down now? Can she escape the ethics damage and the revelations of her meanness and hang on in the office there? Or will she move to take over Ted Stevens seat if he goes to jail and grab at a broader national stage in the Senate? With the Democrats in office, there likely won't be any appointed positions to fatten her resume with.

 

[LowlyPion]

I see it reported by MSNBC that despite the euphoria at how well Palin allegedly did, and the McCain complaints the News Media filtered her message, she is not scheduled to be on ANY TV news show for live interviews, this weekend or until the election.

This looks like this is it for her ever answering any more questions.

So much for how well they really think she handled herself and can handle herself.

 

[Cyrus]

You betcha. I don't know LowlyPion, Ill get back to ya. :Wink:

pew pew pew pew...DING

 

[Astronuc]

So much for how well they really think she handled herself . . .

I would imagine the McCain handlers want the public to retain that image, so they won't allow Palin to go public. I'm waiting to see if there is a wedding (Bristol and her dude) just before the election.

 

[OmCheeto]

That was the other one: "Joe Sixpack". I noticed that she got negative points when she used this expression. The Ohio voters didn't seem to like that or "maverick", which surprised me.

Perhaps they were mad because they were only one square away from winning, and those weren't the phrases they were looking for...

http://www.palinbingo.com/"

Things are working out great for her ... maybe.

She gets hours of face time with 10's of millions of people. Her exposure will be something she can build off of. And it's not costing her anything.

Someone today told me that someone quoted her word for word some past Saturday, and everyone thought it was funny. Perhaps after the election, she can quote Tina Fey and be a new regular on SNL. Eh?

btw, has anyone nicknamed her Sarah Sixpack yet?

hmmmm...

I guess that was too easy. The http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...10/02/AR2008100204250.html?hpid=opinionsbox1" had the scoop on the obvious.

 

[lisab]

btw, has anyone nicknamed her Sarah Sixpack yet?

I prefer "Caribou Barbie"...

...wish I could claim the term, but a guy at work was using it...

 

[LowlyPion]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...10/02/AR2008100204250.html?hpid=opinionsbox1" had the scoop on the obvious.

From the Washington Post:

"Nice to meet you," Palin told Joe Biden. "Hey, can I call you Joe?"

"You can call me Joe," the senator obliged.

"Okay, thanks," she said brightly.

I am absolutely convinced that this was her setup up for the "Tell me it ain't so Joe" line.

Everything is so practiced with these people, I am quite certain she set that up so that she would not later be charged with being disrespectful of a US Senator that had called her Governor throughout the evening.

If only they would have applied that kind of interest to doing the Nation's business rather than crafting ways to retain power through deception and guile. In their valuing form over content. Image over policy.

 

[lisab]

From the Washington Post:

I am absolutely convinced that this was her setup up for the "Tell me it ain't so Joe" line.

Everything is so practiced with these people, I am quite certain she set that up so that she would not later be charged with being disrespectful of a US Senator that had called her Governor throughout the evening.

If only they would have applied that kind of interest to doing the Nation's business rather than crafting ways to retain power through deception and guile. In their valuing form over content. Image over policy.

Oh my, that's the only explanation for that strangely timed "Can I call you Joe?" comment.

BTW, I didn't get the winking thing...I'm looking for an actual leader, not a cheer leader.

 

[LowlyPion]

Oh my, that's the only explanation for that strangely timed "Can I call you Joe?" comment.

BTW, I didn't get the winking thing...I'm looking for an actual leader, not a cheer leader.

It was just too eager for my ear. Like she had so many bases that had to be touched in her talent section of the competition.

Fortunately for Biden they skipped the swim suit part of the program.

 

[mheslep]

For example - She still misrepresents McCain on the current financial crisis. McCain did not seen any of this coming!

“If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,”

If that is not a warning there is no such thing. Did he claim to see the entire financial crisis rolling out the way it has? No, and he stated that in the interview with the New Hampshire paper [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmIJ5Aag2Q"], which pfact can't bother to check. Pfact also ignores very similar warnings about the GSEs from both Greenspan and Bernanke in years past, and in fact the author contradicts both fed chairs with its own reinvention of the the cause.

First of all, congressional efforts to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extend back to the early 1990s, making McCain a latecomer to the debate. The regulatory efforts proved unsuccessful because of Congress’ complicated relationship with the firms, whose dominance in the home financing market makes their stability critical to the economy.

So what? Fannie/Freddie were a not significant threat in the early 90s because at that point they only held/guaranteed http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/gse_to_gdp_jul_08.gif" . Then, by 2003, as Greenspan stated they had become a threat.

The extent of the problems was not yet fully known, and it’s a leap of faith to suggest that regulators granted expanded power would have noticed a deterioration in Fannie and Freddie’s loan portfolios soon enough and would have sounded an alarm.

There was no need to do any close inspections of their books. It was well known that the main economic threat was that their portfollio as of 2000 was too large and undercapitalized. Period. Greenspan said so several times and later so did Bernanke. S.190, unlike the other bills before and after that only pretended to do anything, explicitly gave the regulators power to require more capital. S.190 would have immediately allowed regulators to force Freddie/Fannie to shrink, effectively putting on the brakes on the mortage market. No Fannie/Freddie, no buyer that could package Countrywide risky mortgages They knew it and put on a full court lobbying press to stop it.

We give McCain some credit for weighing in on problems surrounding Fannie Mae, even though he got involved after a comprehensive government report issued a loud alarm to anyone watching.

Anyone did not include Dodd, Frank, Waxman, Schumer telling 'anyone' listening that the report was alarmist, Fred/Fan were 'sound', and were critical to minority and affordable housing, implying the motives of anyone calling for GSE shrinkage were suspect.

Barack Obama’s campaign responded to McCain’s remarks by labeling his desire for tougher oversight a myth. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor noted ...

Good grief. How is some Obama response relevant to an objective fact check on a McCain statements about the GSEs? Where is the response from Elvis?

 

[Gokul43201]

This part really impressed me with Biden. Both times he brought it up, he was careful to include the specific reason McCain voted against it. Biden engaged in a thinking person's debate and honesty isn't a liability - at least if you're good.

If you thought that was impressive, you must have missed the first Presidential debate, where the same issue came up when McCain accused Obama of cutting funding for the troops, and Obama responded by pointing out why both he and McCain had voted to cut funding - and that the reasons had nothing to do with "supporting the troops". He could have easily listed all the times that McCain voted against troop funding but didn't. McCain-Palin took the dirty, low road by accusing their opponents of being unpatriotic, and trying to win cheap points in the process. Obama-Biden took the high road on that one, by trying to explain the reasons rather than engaging in insulting rhetoric.

Biden summed up the philosophy in his closing statement. It went something like this: I will never question the motives of the other person; I believe he wants to do as much good as I do. I will, however, question his or her approach.

 

[Evo]

I prefer "Caribou Barbie"...

:rofl:

 

[LowlyPion]

... an objective fact check on a McCain statements about the GSEs?

Poor McCain (and Palin too) have a troop of "What they meant to say" handlers trailing around behind him sweeping up their debris of misstatements and flipped positions.

Mr. Deregulation, Mr. Keating Five, Mr. Fundamentals Are Fine, ... poor McCain. Poor sad McCain. What area does he have any credibility on, other than by chance? If he was so warning everyone about GSEs a couple of years ago, where has he been since until the GSE's were brought back into the Treasury?

He's shot himself in the foot so many times at this point that I imagine he must have installed pop-in prosthetic sockets for easy field replacement.

The Straight Talk Express has gotten so twisted that its front bumper is chasing its exhaust.

 

[Gokul43201]

Any news on how this has shifted the overall national poll numbers?

Hard to say, since there is no statistically significant swing, but from what I've seen, no one can make the case that Obama-Biden have lost ground.

The only major national poll taken after the debate seems to be the http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history . They have Obama leading by 6 points, which is not significantly different from the numbers over the past week (ranging from 5% to 7%).

My guess is that the debate has gained McCain-Palin some nervous rank and file Republicans who were worried about Palin after watching the interviews, and now feel a lot better, but has lost them some vote among undecided independents.

In the electoral maps, Obama-Biden seem only to have gained, if anything. Below are some numbers for the electoral difference, (Obama - McCain), displaying Obama's electoral point lead over McCain, from different polling compilations/aggregates. I've only included compilations that update numbers at a daily rate (CNN, for instance, updates only weekly).

ELECTORAL DIFFERENCE: OBAMA - MCCAIN                 
                                                                 
Date      RCP1      RCP2*  Elec-Vote*  USAtlas  Pollster 

09/26      65        34        34        79        55  
10/01      86       158        96        79        76 

( u p ) b e f o r e  /   ( d o w n ) a f t e r 

10/04      101      168       153        92        87

*NOTE: RCP2 and Elec-Vote do not consider any states "too close to call" unless the polling difference is smaller than 1% for any given state. All the other polls do, and their margin is typically about 3% to 5% for deciding that a particular state is still too close to call either way.

Sources:
1. Previous numbers, from another thread
2. RCP1 and RCP2
3. Elec-Vote
4. US Atlas
5. Pollster

 

[Astronuc]

If that is not a warning there is no such thing. Did he claim to see the entire financial crisis rolling out the way it has? No, and he stated that in the interview with the New Hampshire paper [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmIJ5Aag2Q"], which pfact can't bother to check. Pfact also ignores very similar warnings about the GSEs from both Greenspan and Bernanke in years past, and in fact the author contradicts both fed chairs with its own reinvention of the the cause.

That was a press release from someone who doesn't do emails or understands computers - his staff does that - according to him.

Here's an interesting comment (the accuracy of which I have not been able to verify. There's a typo in the first paragraph):

S. 190; McCain "Supported" it After it was Dead
[This was supplemented on September 30]

People vehemently say that McCain was a champion of regulation despite his voting record and point to S. 109, a bill introduced in 2005. The bill was introduced by Charles Hagel on the Senate floor and several months later, after it had gone to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing Urban Affairs, McCain announced a in brief speech in the Senate that he was a co-sponsor of the bill.

People argue that it was over the valiant efforts of Republicans, particularly McCain, that the bill was defeated by the Democrats. The first thing that struck me as odd about this is that McCain stood up for the bill only after it had been in committee for several months and no action had been taken. He then said absolutely nothing about the bill.

Could the Democrats have blocked the bill in committee? This seems like an odd thing to say of the minority party. The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs was chaired by a Republican and Republicans held a clear majority of the seats on the committee.

I found the committee's rules of procedure for the year 2005 and the Republican chairman alone, without any vote could have launched an investigation into the financial trouble of the day that the bill was supposed to address. There was no investigation.

According to the rules the Democrats were powerless to block anything coming out of the committee to be voted on by the Senate but there was no such vote. All it took for the bill to get out of committee was a majority, which was held by Republicans. The bill was amended somehow and reported out of the committee but was never voted on.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/northwestlaw/archives/149530.asp

I'm trying to get to bottom of this. What happened with this legislation? I'm disappointed that I can't simply find a page somewhere that tracks a single piece of legislation through the process. It makes me wonder if Washington operates under 'plausible deniability' or 'rules of obfuscation'.

It may be that S. 1100 (110 th, 2007) got folded into the bailout bill. (?)

I'm going to start a separate thread on the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act.


I wonder if Congress or the Administration will investing Congress's role in this, i.e. why was this legislation not pushed? What obstructed the process? Campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?