Here’s a good summary from Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe of the Democrats’ culpability in the mortgage crisis, and their current efforts to weasel out of their responsibility:

…while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits they weren’t the ones who “got us into this mess.” Barney Frank’s talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn’t wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so – or else.

….

…Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that “these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

The remaining question: Will the DeMSM be able to keep the truth under wraps until November 5th?

John Kerry, appearing this morning on Fox News Sunday, told a huge whopper, even by Washington DC standards:

WALLACE: Senator Kerry – and we’re running out of time in this segment, but I want to address something that McCain went after Obama on, and that is proposing more than $800 billion in new spending.

Doesn’t Obama have a government solution to every problem?

KERRY: No, absolutely not. If you look at his health care plan, which John McCain mischaracterized, calling it a government plan, you will see a plan that is entirely a market-based, market-oriented, free-choice plan, nobody mandated to do anything. So the answer is no, that’s not true.

Really, Senator Kerry? Nobody mandated to do anything? Can anyone think of any examples of federal laws that don’t require anyone to do anything? Don’t laws by definition require somebody to do something? Do liberals ever think before they speak? Do they ever consider the truthfulness of their statements before they make them? These are of course rhetorical questions.

Obviously, there are all sorts of mandates in Barack Obama’s proposed health care plan. And of course, this would only be a first step. Once they establish the collectivist notion that it’s the federal government’s responsibility to provide health insurance to every American, then there will be additional mandates and taxpayer expense later.

From the Obama website:

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 – $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

So that’s the plan – higher taxes, and anti-market mandates, quite the opposite of Kerry’s ridiculous assertion.

As an aside, the opening line from Obama’s health care page:

“On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes – government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules.”

This is also quite obviously untrue. Who’s proposing that there be “no rules” for health insurance companies? John McCain isn’t advocating anything like that. The Republicans in Congress aren’t advocating anything like that. It’s a complete and total straw man, they just made it up, with total disregard for the truth. We’re beginning to see a pattern here from Obama and his spokesmen, and it’s not change, or anything else, we can believe in.

Sarah Palin has been taking quite a beating from commentators on the right and left for her interview with Katie Couric last week. Much of the criticism is fair; Palin needs to get out there, do a lot of interviews, get off the cram-session talking points, and just be herself.

But we’d also like to offer a bit of praise, having just watched again another piece of the interview.

Here is Palin on the question of supporting Israel:

It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

This one paragraph shows more moral clarity and wisdom than most of the leadership of the Democratic party, including Barack Obama, have uttered in the last eight years. This is infinitely more important than being able to rattle off the names of foreign leaders, or the countries one has visited, or the titles of legislation one has co-sponsored. So drop the talking points, and set Sarah free!

As we all learn the details of the proposed federal government bailout of Wall Street, one important point needs to be remembered. All parties have agreed that this is a real crisis, that threatens to possibly throw the U.S. economy into a deep recession or even a depression. In the midst of trying to negotiate legislation to help fix the problem, the Republicans in the House tried very hard to keep American taxpayers off the hook for as much of this $700 billion bailout as they could. The Democrats tried to inject various pay-offs to their left-wing political cronies, like union bosses and ACORN-type Democrat-allied political organizations.

This is truly scandalous, a gross violation of the public trust. Just try to imagine the outcry if Republicans had worked to give billions of taxpayer dollars to right-wing political activist groups in a bill to fund the cleanup and rebuilding after hurricane Katrina. It’s absolutely shameful, and the public ought not be allowed to forget it (Certainly Barack Obama, who once worked for the corrupt ACORN, ought to be asked about it).

The Republicans need to drive this point home at every opportunity from now until November 4th, and beyond.

Here’s a great video of liberals being their typical tolerant and inclusive selves, via The Jawa Report (Warning: these are liberals – contains much uncivilized behavior and vulgarity not suitable for minors):

Ahhh, Barack Obama – bringing Americans together even before the inevitable inauguration on November 5th.

A few quick observations on the first debate between Senators McCain and Obama:

Barack Obama showed a comfort and command of the issues. We of course disagreed with the substance of most of his positions, but just in terms of his delivery, he came across well. That alone probably makes it a win for Obama, although McCain was good most of the way too, so it wasn’t by any means a knock-out blow for Obama. Given McCain’s narrative that he’s the one with decades of foreign policy experience and Obama is an inexperienced rookie, the expectations were on McCain to excel in the debate. He did well, but didn’t score a knock-out.

What was most striking to us was that McCain seemed to fail to play many of the cards he had available to him, especially early on, he seemed to hesitate to go after Obama.

For example, Obama in the first few minutes laid the blame for the current economic crisis on the Bush administration and a “no regulation” ideology. McCain failed to go after Obama’s big donations from Fannie Mae, his ties to Fannie Mae CEOs, his failure to do anything about the issue before now (hitting the “talk is cheap” theme), the inaction of the Democrats and their support of loosening lending standards that lead to the crisis at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the fact that the administration and Senator McCain sponsored legislation years ago to try to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He left all of it off the table, a lot of glaring and important omissions.

McCain should have pointed out that Obama is trying to buy votes with his “tax cuts for 95%” scam – 95% of the people don’t pay income taxes, Obama is talking about sending checks to people. That’s spending, not a tax cut. Obama also referred to actual tax cuts as “spending” at one point; a typical lefty, he doesn’t understand whose money he’s talking about.

McCain should have noted that Obama wants to raise taxes on energy producers, which will increase energy prices, including the price of gasoline.

On McCain’s support of the initial invasion of Iraq, he should have quickly pointed out that Joe Biden also voted to authorize military force in Iraq, that there was broad bipartisan agreement for the authorization to use military force and broad bipartisan agreement that Iraq was a national security threat and a state sponsor of terrorism, and that Obama was in no position to do anything on the issue in 2002, but that he’s been wrong on the issue ever since he joined the Senate and actually had a vote on the issue, which is what matters – doing, not talking.

McCain should have pointed out that the notion we’ve been focused solely on Iraq is a ludicrous and vacuous talking point from Obama.

Obama kept claiming that the Bush administration opposed any diplomacy with North Korea. This is a lie. The administration pursued multi-lateral talks with North Korea, the approach the Democrats usually demand, when their not engaging in disingenuous, knee-jerk opposition to the Bush administration.

Wit that little anecdote about Kenya, was Obama saying that immigrants don’t want to come to America any more? Our “reputation in the world” is soiled among the elitist international left. immigrants still want to come to America by the millions.

McCain did better as the debate went on, and finished strong. That may help him a great deal in the overall reaction. People will remember the end more than the beginning.

A few quick points on Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric on CBS News today:

1) The question about Rick Davis being a [former] lobbyist is a canard designed to deflect attention from Obama’s ties to Fannie Mae. Couric asked the question twice, and Palin answered it twice, hesitating the 2nd time because she had already given an answer. It’s McCain’s position that matters, not Davis’, and McCain has a record of calling for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

On the other side, Barack Obama has received big campaign donations from Fannie Mae, has had former Fannie Mae CEOs as advisers, and has done nothing whatsoever about oversight of Fannie Mae, or much of anything else for that matter. Did Couric ask Joe Biden to rattle off a few of Obama’s major accomplishments the other day?

2) Palin will receive some criticism, especially from the DeMSM, for alluding to the Great Depression. But she was responding to the reference in a loaded question from Couric.

3) A dumb question:

Couric: You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

It isn’t reasonable or fair to assume Sarah Palin would have detailed knowledge of McCain’s Senate voting record. It would have been fair to ask what kind of oversight they advocate going forward. It would have been a fair question earlier when Couric interviewed John McCain. Couric’s question also contained the assumption that more regulation is by definition better than less regulation. So should we just count the number of pages in the Federal Register to decide how well the economy is doing then? Palin should have responded to the effect that more regulations do not necessarily solve problems, and can in fact create additional problems, including a slower economy.

In short, Palin’s mistakes in the interview were mostly related to her inexperience in dealing with a hostile, biased mainstream press, not on the substance of her policy positions.

From today’s Washington Post:

Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.

….

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support.

From The NY Times – September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

….

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

So let’s get this straight:

The Democrats push to loosen the requirements to obtain mortgages so people with lower incomes and poor credit ratings can buy houses.

Leading Democrats in Congress take huge donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and oppose new regulations on those companies.

Back in 2003, the Bush Administration warns of problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and proposes legislation to improve regulation of those companies, and is thwarted by the Democrats.

Back in 2006, Senator McCain warns of problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and proposes legislation to improve regulation of those companies.

Now, after these efforts, the Democrats accuse the Republicans, including John McCain, of being “anti-regulation”.

As a Senator, Obama takes large donations from Freddie and Fannie, and does nothing whatsoever to address the problems.

As an Illinois state legislator, Obama was in bed with corrupt real estate developers like Tony Rezko, shoveling millions of taxpayer dollars to political allies to build, then neglect, Chicago slums.

Democrats promise to improve the economy with higher taxes and more regulations on America’s employers.

And this leads voters to trust Obama and the Democrats more to handle the economy? It’s just bizarre. There seems to be a lot of irrational emotional reaction going on out there.

The McCain campaign really needs to stop with the generic populist talk and work to clarify these facts. Perhaps Friday’s debate will provide a good opportunity. Update: perhaps not.

Obama is caught with another blatant falsehood in one of his campaign ads and in his stump speech in Florida. Telling lies to scare little old ladies to win the election – talk about dishonorable. And they have the nerve to call Sarah Palin a liar because she claims to have opposed a bridge project when she in fact killed the project?

And isn’t it Barack Obama himself who has been telling audiences that it would be the Republicans who would use “the politics of fear” to scare voters into voting against him? Talk about hypocrisy.

If Obama and his surrogates in the DeMSM are going to run around like schoolgirls screaming “liar, liar, pants on fire!” every time they dispute a statement from the McCain campaign, they’d better at the very least get their own house in order first, and stop with all these blatantly false ads and statements.

Here is a great video in rebuttal to one of the many mischaracterizations of Sarah Palin that have gained traction in the DeMSM effort to discredit her. According to the narrative from the left, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton must all be extremist neocon theocrats akin to the Taliban.

The repeated attempts by the radical secularist left to try to airbrush our Judeo-Christian foundations from American culture and history don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. On the other hand, as we’ve noted for years, liberals don’t object to bringing religion into politics at all if it’s used to further a left-wing agenda.

“Swampland” is a good name for Time magazine’s blog, as they’ve really crawled down into the mud with this slanderous assertion by Karen Tumulty, accusing the McCain campaign of racism for daring to show two Democrats who happen to be black in the same ad. This is just pure projection by a typically race-obsessed liberal. That, or Tumulty doesn’t believe a word of her slander, and is merely using race as a political weapon in service to the Obama campaign. Either way it’s disgusting what she wrote.

They may have taken a cue from the Obama campaign, which is also wallowing in the muck, trying cynically to divide Americans along racial or ethnic lines for their own political gain. In other words, just another election cycle. Except Obama promised he’d be different.

At this rate, pretty soon they’re going to accuse the McCain campaign of racism if they show Barack Obama by himself in an ad.

So after prominent Democrats like former Clinton administration officials Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick clean up (for themselves) at Fannie Mae, we learn today that Barack Obama is a big recipient of campaign money from the failed mortgage company. It seems like this would be pretty good fodder for a journalistic investigation and a McCain ad:

NEW YORK (CNN) — When it came to buying influence in Washington, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were among Corporate America’s biggest spenders.

The two mortgage giants paid $174 million to lobbyists over the past ten years to ensure the political climate would remain friendly to growing the mortgage business – even as the housing bubble began showing signs of bursting, according to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

….

Sen. Barack Obama is the No. 3 recipient of Fannie and Freddie campaign dollars, having collected $123,000 from the companies since he first ran for the Senate in 2004, according to the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics.

It’s not difficult to imagine how the DeMSM and the rest of the Obama campaign would react if John McCain were the number three recipient of campaign dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, especially given what’s happening today on Wall Street.

But Obama today responded to this serious crisis with some meaningless boilerplate:

In a statement issued shortly after 6 a.m. on the U.S. east coast, Obama said he did not blame McCain, but “I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It’s a philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”