Philosophical debates arise at the oddest times, and in the heat of this election season, one is now rising in Republican ranks.
The narrow question is this: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president?
Most conservatives say yes, on the grounds that something that feels so good could not possibly be wrong. But a few commentators, like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Ross Douthat demur, suggesting in different ways that she is unready.
The issue starts with an evaluation of Palin, but does not end there. This argument also is over what qualities the country needs in a leader and what are the ultimate sources of wisdom.
There was a time when conservatives did not argue about this….
Yes, experience does matter. Brooks’ candid look at Bush’s bumbling first term and the false sense of the meaning of “populism” are brilliant. For a party that has long promoted excellence over egalitarianism, it is amazing how cynical it can be in those they put forward to stroke their base at considerable cost to the Nation. In this case, perhaps disastrous cost with this VP.
I would be delighted to see a ticket of Brooks and Shields. In fact, I’d say that is exactly what we really need.
It’s a thoughtful column and Brooks is usually right, but his column raises the question: Does Barak Obama have the sort of experience he’s talking about? His analysis begs the question! And let’s not forget who’s running for President and who’s running for Vice President.
If Pailn is unqualified to be Vice-President, then isn’t Obama, by definition, unqualified to be President? At least Palin has some executive experience. What executive experience does Obama have?
While Palin probably isn’t the best qualified running mate for McCain, at least she has more executive experience than any of the other candidates for president or vice president.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Talking about Obama is changing the subject. It’s the easy way out. Deal with Palin. Deal with the article.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
A fascinating “begging the question” essay.
The “experience” question is merely the question one asks the undecided and the “moderates” or [i]when all else is equal[/i] and one is comparing two people who have the same ideals and principles. The experience question is what is asked, generally, of people who haven’t really established any principles of government or the economy or foreign affairs. The “experience” question is not a question for those who have established those principles and have them in firm and clear view.
Let me show how this works. Suppose Obama was really 55 years old, and had served in the Senate for 23 years, and as governor for one four-year-term.
Of course, I still wouldn’t vote for him, because I utterly disagree with his principles of government, the economy, foreign affairs, and pretty much anything else that could come up in the running of the government. No other conservative would either.
But let’s suppose that Sarah Palin were actually . . . my younger brother, a man with absolutely zero experience in anything political at all, but instead a physician. I would, of course, vote for him in a heartbeat, over McCain or Palin, and most especially over Obama.
I agree with his principles of government, the economy, foreign affairs, and almost everything else that is likely to come up in the running of a government.
Would he be in over his head, if he were suddenly elevated to that position? Sure!
But he’s well-educated, very bright, articulate, principled, and smart enough to appoint excellent — and conservative, of course — advisors to his cabinet and other important positions.
He’d do just fine.
When David Brooks opines that experience matters, he’s of course right. Experience matters. For example, were I required to do surgery on another human being, it’d be a tough proposition.
But — were I out in the wilderness and that was the only way to survive, and had I cell phone access to a qualified and articulate surgeon who could advise me . . . I’d have to do my best.
It’d be nice, of course, if a guy were running for President who shared my and other conservatives’ beliefs about principles of government, the economy, foreign affairs, and many other things.
It’d also be nice if that guy had 23 years of experience in the Senate and House, and two governor terms . . . .
But those aren’t the kinds of people that either party chose to run, so . . .
One has to then fall back on “what do these people believe”.
Chris, Thank you for your very thoughtful analysis and response. I would disagree about Bush Jr. He was a legacy student at those institutions, not bright, and bumbling at about anything he’s done in the real world — especially business.
I think the deeper matter, which Sarah addresses in part, is why the Palin choice at all? I think this populist point needs exploration. Is it valid, or is it cynical pandering? In Palin’s case, I think it’s cynical, and the consequences given McCain’s age and health pretty potentially outrageous.
I much prefer Palin as a neighbor or member of my parish than Biden, but that’s not the point here.
I agree with three. If the experience criteria is valid and is the basis for decision and rules out Pailn then it also rules out Obama who has less experience than Pailn. Obama is a very junior Senator and he has spent most of his time running for the Presidencey.
[i] Comment off topic with a discussion of President Bush instead of Gov. Palin. [/i]
yep #9, too bad Ann Richards isn’t around to tell us how one “misunderstimates” Bush at his peril. And the horrors of it all: he had better gardes at Yale than the Goracle did at Harvard. And the former graduated from HBS while the latter dropped out of divinity school. Whoops that does not fit the narrative now does it…..
[i] Comment deleted. Ad Hominem [/i]
Look at recent VP candidates – Agnew, Eagleton, Quaile, Ferraro, Edwards, Mondale, Gore, Biden, etc. What is the problem with Palin?
[i] Off topic. [/i]
It is not a matter of scorn, but national embarrassment. I should have said it more nicely, but the provocation is any defense of his educational credentials. Your other points are excellent.
In #11 I meant #10 and not #9. Sorry.
I am and have been a big fan of Brooks for a long time so this is a challenging article to read. What with the whole “let (s)he who has ears, hear” and what not.
My whole take on the experience thing is not so much “does she have enough experience?” but rather “does she have the right kind of experience?” Those that argue “not enough” always come across as the elitist pilloried in Brooks’ article. What most mean by “not enough” is that she lacks the “right kind” of experience–which for many is that she hasn’t been a “politician” long enough. Think about the irony in that idea for a minute.
But who decides what is the right kind of experience? Is there some kind of school for becoming VP that one can register for on-line? Now I might lose a lot of respect for what I’m about to say but when Alan Keyes was running for President he had a great riff on the whole “experience” argument that was thrown at him. Hint–think Cincinnatus. Like most arguments thrown at Keyes, he knocked it out of the park and then some (but sadly being a tremedous orator and thinker is not “enough” to be president, right?)
Since reading this column I’ve been trying to think of a great U.S. President who might have come from something approximating the background of Sarah Palin and the closest I can come is Harry Truman and Gerald Ford (who doesn’t really count because he wasn’t elected). I’m sure others of you out there can do better than this. I think of Truman because he was truly from the heartland and not a legacy of either the great northeastern or the Western establishment. But Truman clearly had more experience than Palin (and Obama!). Does Jimmy Carter count? What I think Palin does have that is catching fire and will probably push the Republican ticket to victory is Truman’s knack for speaking plainly so that plain people can understand her. You’ve also got to give her a lot of credit — even if you don’t like her, for making her way to the top of the political pile in Alaska. Talk about a woman who really made it on her own, this one did — certainly far more than Hillary did. She does not have the experience, I can’t argue with that, and in a normal year that would really turn me off big time. However, I don’t think the electorate is looking for experience, I think they’re looking for something VERY new and different — that’s why Obama and Palin are catching fire and McCain and Biden are not. This election isn’t about experience, it’s about change. But back to my original point, which past US presidents do you feel truly fit the mold that Brooks is saying Palin fits. It certainly isn’t W! Whether you think he’s legacy or not, he’s MOST CERTAINLY NOT a hockey dad from the heartland. He had all the “right” education and plenty of experience, he just isn’t too bright at the end of the day. That’s why Brooks’ analogy with Palin fails for me. If she’s not Harry Truman, which former U.S. President or Vice President do you think she’s most comparable to and why?
[i] Slightly edited as requested. [/i]
[i] Off topic. [/i]
[i] Off topic. This is NOT a thread about President Bush. [/i]
Apparently, the NYT heavily edited the Brooks submission:
[url=http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/09/17/david-brooks-on- why-experience-matters-the-uncensored-version/] see….[/url]
[i] Off topic. [/i]
I am utterly embarrassed to be a participant in a board where there are members who are so disresepectful of someone for whom I pray daily.
Where are the elves?
[i] Sorry. We weren’t paying close attention. Thanks for a head’s up. [/i]
There is a You Tube of Obama when his telemprompter went down, he could hardly utter a coherent sentence. Contract that to Palin and Guliani when the teleprompter went down during their speeches at the convention.
And remember, the complaint back in the 50s was that Eisenhower was a dolt and Stevenson was for the educated. Also Reagan was a clueless actor who managed to run circles around the Dems.
This sort of intellectual elitism by the Democrats and the MSM is nothing new, nor do I expect it to ever change.
Wow, I not only got “edited” by an Elf in #6 above for the first time ever, I got totally deleted. How do I find out why?
[i] Honestly? I deleted almost every single reference to President Bush. I haven’t yet had a chance to read the whole thread yet, so I will need to get back to you. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Elves – this is not the first time I have seriously considered giving up commenting in this space. My pieces – all three of them – were entirely on topic. If you all bothered to read Mr. Brooks’ article you would have noticed that he makes it a point to compare Mrs. Palin’s level of experience to that of President Bush when he took office. My comments were thoughtful and entirely on point. In the future, please – for charity’s sake – please, read both the comments and the piece being commented on before thoughtlessly dismissing what someone else has spent time and effort producing. You have not honored yourselves or Canon Harmon by being so sloppy.
[i] It appears I edited too quickly. My apologies.[/i]
-Elf Lady
Chris, if you compare Obama’s academic pedigree to McCain’s, Obama comes out stronger.
Sarah is probably right: choose the person who you identify has your view points. But Shara is very optimistic about the sorts of people Palin would appoint. It seems as though she would appoint mainly her friends and family. Would this be a good way to run a government?
Obama would probably run things with attention to what works. One Nobel Laureate, James Heckman, said “I’ve never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.†Obama’s people would surely be experts. It might be that the most important qualification for getting a job in a Palin government would be being for or against Roe v Wade.
Does she have the right kind of experience? Brooks says that there is something about knowing the peculiar patterns of government. I think he’s right. McCain probably has that knowledge; but he’s sometimes impetuous in his judgment, as his selection demonstrates. Obama seems to reflect that sense of prudence: he decided to put someone who has MORE experience than he does. It shows humility and a belief that having a good vice president, who is tested, matters.
Palin did hire an administrator to help her manage her town of 9,000. That’s a few less than Obama’s campaign. She’s also been good at getting earmarks for her state. Thats the sign of a good governor. Is she the sort of person that will bring change to the GOP? I doubt it. If anything, she’s a lot like George Bush.
Here is an interesting story about Palin’s spending $50,000 on redecorating her office in Wasilla: “I thought it was an outrageous expense, especially for someone who had run as a budget cutter,” said Carney. “It was also illegal, because Sarah had not received the council’s approval.”
According to Carney, Palin’s office makeover included flocked, red wallpaper. “It looked like a bordello.”
Although Carney says he no longer has documentation of the expenditures, in his recollection Palin paid for the office face-lift with money from a city highway fund that was used to plow snow, grade roads and fill potholes — essential municipal services, particularly in weather-battered Alaska.
Carney confronted Mayor Palin at a City Council hearing, and was shocked by her response.
“I braced her about it,” he said. “I told her it was against the law to make such a large expenditure without the council taking a vote. She said, ‘I’m the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can’t.'”
“I’ll never forget it — it’s one of the few times in my life I’ve been speechless,” Carney added. “It would have been easier for her to finesse it. She had the votes on the council by then, she controlled it. But she just pushed forward. That’s Sarah. She just has no respect for rules and regulations.”
Carney, who comes from a long-established homesteading family in the area and once ran the city’s garbage collection business, has decided to speak out for the first time since Palin’s vice-presidential nomination. He is viewed as a longtime Palin gadfly, ever since he sided with her opponent in the 1996 mayor’s race. After Palin won, she froze out Carney, refusing to call on him at City Council meetings and deep-sixing his proposals. “That’s the way Sarah is,” Carney said. “She rewards friends and cuts everyone else off at the knees.”
[i]I can do whatever I want until the courts stop me.[/i]
That is a form of leadership, I suppose.
Mr Wilkins – Like “Elflady”, you seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that this article is about the presonality of Mrs. Palin. It is not. It is an expression of Mr. Brooks’ belated discovery that Conservatives have developed a populist streak that expressed itself in the (I won’t say the man’s name for fear of having another post “edited” out of existence) ongoing administration and is continuing in the current Republican campaign. His analysis is simplistic, to say the least. A previous, very popular president whose two terms ended in 1988 also came into office as a populist, as has pretty much every Republican president since 1968. Oh, and the Democrats have not been untainted with elitism, one might also note, though perhaps at the risk of being likewise considered off topic.
Thanks Elf lady. I think there may be a bit of hyper-sensitivity to criticism of the current president which I and others have run afoul of today. Although I think Brooks is making pretty much the same criticism of the current administration, no hard feelings — you have to call them as you see them. Please delete the last 8 words or so of the next to last sentence of my comments in #15 above too. It was very helpful to read the uncensored version of this column – thanks Tom, #18 above. Brooks is raising a fair question about experience and I’m glad to know that his reservations in this regard extend to Obama as well.
“Elflady” – My regrets on the testy tone of #’s 23 and 26 above. I’m sure you can understand the frustration and I gratefully accept your apologies. God bless you – DWM
I don’t think John Nance Garner was ready to be VP, much less president. There are perhaps 25 other VP’s who were not worth a bucket of warm spit for one reason or another. (Does one need to mention Agnew?)
Sarah Palin has quite a bit going for her and she is a fast learner. Give her a chance. Remember, Joan of Arc did her best work at 18 years of age. Alexander the Great ruled the whole known world at the age of 20. How much experience did he have? About four years, all in the military.
r.e. Daniel Muth’s #26, the only Democratic presidents elected since Kennedy have run on a more-or-less populist program. I’m thinking particularly of Carter and Clinton, but LBJ might fit, too. (Before my time.)
Republicans, on the other hand, are about half-and-half. Nobody voting for Bush 41 had any thought that he was actually populist, but then Dukakis wasn’t either. Nixon wasn’t, really. But Reagan and Bush 43 both ran populist campaigns.
The idea that one must has a certain caliber of experience in the federal government in order to be qualified to be President, and so VicePresident as well, runs entirely counter to the idea of citizen democatrcy that founded our country. If anything, what we need are peoiple of sound judgment with the least amount of contaminating experience of government possible. Otherwise we will become slaves to the governing class.
Shoot the lawyers and elect the formers.
Subtle, but still a smear job.
Brooks is missing the point, though, and why does everyone want to paint McCain as either dead or with one foot in the grave?
Palin is not at the top of the Republican ticket. And McCain is, and appears to have a great many of the qualities that Brooks is bellyaching about.
I like where Palin stands on most issues, Obama virtually none and McCain some (I’m definitely opposed to his speech-crushing campaign finance “reform” debacle). I almost always vote Libertarian in presidential elections, but I’m going with McCain this time.
A question about her academic pedigree vis a vis that of others: Where did Abraham Lincoln graduate from? Harry Truman?
oops, elect the farmers.
The shooting lawyers is still good, but we should start at the top.
Gawain, the “academic pedigree” issue that you raise just reinforces what I oultined in #21 – Dems think it’s all about being the smartest, while Republicans look more at character.
Brooks isn’t the only one. Wick Allision offers [url=http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E]”A Conservative for Obama”[/url].
I think we are all afraid, and rightly so, of anything less than complete competence. As Brooks suggests, “we’ve seen too much.”
Well, Albany, maybe you should consider this guy:
[blockquote]Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created†by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. 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.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.[/blockquote]
That was John McCain in 2005. The bill died when the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, killed it. Not surprisingly, Dodd is the top recipient of Fannie and Freddie swag. The #2 recipient, Barack Obama, did nothing to keep it from happening.
Competence?
RE: “and I gratefully accept your apologies . . .
ElfLady . . . where are my apologies?
What about me?
Why do I never receive apologies from the elves?
[i] Timing. It’s all in the timing. [/i]
The adults don’t get apologies after the kids’ playground fights. ;->
Isn’t Brooks a commentator for the New York Times? I think he’s been contaminated a bit. Or maybe too much exposure to Shields.
With her moose hunting background, they will next be making her out to be a reincarnation of Aaron Burr.
38#
You seem intent to ignore that the “de-regulation” “get government off our back” mantra started with Regan and has been advanced during 12 out of 14 years of a Republican controlled House and Senate with 8 years of GW Bush. It is phony to tie this enormous debacle of Wall Street and corporate greed to Democrats. AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, GM, Enron, Washington Mutual, etc are not GSEs.
From Wikapedia:
Financial deregulation
In 1999, McCain voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which passed in the Senate by a vote of 54-44.[49] The deregulation bill loosened restrictions on the activities of banks, brokerage houses, and insurance companies. In 2002 he voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which passed the Senate without opposition.[50] In 2007, however, McCain stated that he regretted his vote in favor of Sarbanes-Oxley,[51] which strengthened financial reporting requirements for publicly held companies but which has been the subject of complaints from businesses.
In 2008, in the wake of the widely publicized crises involving the insurance company American International Group and the brokerage houses Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, McCain stated: “In my administration, we’re going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we’re going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place.”[51]
I guess he was against de-regulation before he was for regulation. Competence?
I don’t see it as unethical for McCain to change his mind or rethink his vote in this case.
He’s not the one with all the rich Freddie/Fannie cronies working in his campaign or chairing his VP committee.
Re #39: Actually, Sarah, they only apologize to you if you’re cute.
#36 Deserves are thanks. Please read this excerpt from the former Editor of National Review.
Wick Allision offers “A Conservative for Obamaâ€.
“Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.†We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.
But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative†credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.
Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.†It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,†a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.
This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.
“Every great cause,†Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.†As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.”
Amen.
RE: “In 2007, however, McCain stated that he regretted his vote in favor of Sarbanes-Oxley,[51] which strengthened financial reporting requirements for publicly held companies but which has been the subject of complaints from businesses.”
Now that’s good news. Sarbanes Oxley was a huge boondoggle for big-40 accounting firms to increase their services and fees — and does nothing for the people hurt by the inevitable failure of public companies. An idiotic new onerous regulatory pile which does absolutely nothing that people need for investments.
Now he wants more onerous piles of regulations for more companies. Big mistake.
The government needed to let some of these companies fail. Particularly Freddie and Fannie which, after all, were government creations anyway.
The persistence of the illusion is astonishing.
[blockquote]You seem intent to ignore that the “de-regulation†“get government off our back†mantra started with Regan and has been advanced during 12 out of 14 years of a Republican controlled House and Senate with 8 years of GW Bush. It is phony to tie this enormous debacle of Wall Street and corporate greed to Democrats. AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, GM, Enron, Washington Mutual, etc are not GSEs. [/blockquote]
The current unpleasantness is entirely the result of the meltdown in the mortgage sector, which is itself a result of the ballooning of the same. That is itself the direct result of the swelling of Fannie and Freddie, itself a joined-at-the-hip organization with the DNC, as we’ve discussed. Bush and McCain have both tried to rein in these behemoths and been smeared for doing so.
The repeal of Glass-Stegall (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) has nothing to do with it. BTW, GLB passed the Senate 90-8 as I recall…it was hardly a matter of Democrats bravely standing in the gap as wicked Republicans bulldozed them. Oh, and I’m sure you know that Jim Leach is the point man of Republicans for Obama. Care to tar your new Messiah now?
Related: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/archives/273689.php]One Big Happy Family[/url]
#49
So are you seriously saying that the relentless climate of Republican much-sought-after deregulation has nothing to do with the present mess?
I’m saying I see you asserting a lot, but supporting very little. I also see me showing how conservatives and libertarians have, for years, tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie and been pilloried as flint-hearted ogres, panting to short-circuit the American Dream for the oppressed, for their troubles.
Freddie and Fannie are creatures of Democrats, run by Democrats and protected legislatively by Democrats. And now that the tab is coming due, they want to, shall we say, socialize their political losses. Like Bart Simpson, they’ve made their beds, and now want to weasel out of it.
Jeffersonian — HOW CAN YOU say such mean things about Fannie and Freddy, when after all, their intent was *sincere* just as the intent of the failing Sarbanes-Oxley regulation was *sincere*.
The new regulations added masses of new costs to doing business — and absolutely zilch to protecting consumers.
But if they were [i]sincerely meant[/i] to help consumers . . . then that, of course, is all that really matters.
Sincerity of intent, not effectiveness.
That would explain alot the obsequiesness of “liberals” to Uncle Fidel’s glorious experiment in the Caribbean, Sarah.
#53 Even IF everything that you say of Freddie and Fannie is true, it still requires a highly corrupt corporate culture to bring about the present result. And as Aristotle said, “Where there is not conscience, there must be law.”
What I find frightening is you’re unwillingness to place an iota of blame on the Republican de-regulation culture. And yet you think I have ideological blinders on!
#54 And Sarah, after all we’ve been through, I suppose we should trust an unregulated to watch our backs?
#53 Even IF everything that you say of Freddie and Fannie is true, it still requires a highly corrupt corporate culture to bring about the present result. And as Aristotle said, “Where there is not conscience, there must be law.â€
What I find frightening is your unwillingness to place an iota of blame on the Republican de-regulation culture. And yet you think I have ideological blinders on!
#54 And Sarah, after all we’ve been through, I suppose we should trust an unregulated free market to watch our backs?
Albany, when you can show me how some amorphous “Republican de-regulation culture” brought about what has happened, I’ll be glad to agree. But don’t come waving this vague concept at me like some witch doctor’s talisman and expect me to quake in my boots…be concrete.
What I find amusing here is the complete lack of condemnation of these plunderers of the public purse once it’s shown that high-level Democrats are in it up to their eyebrows. No, we have to denounce [i]Republicans[/i] for failing to keep the boot on Democrats’ necks. If you’re trying to make the argument that modern liberals shouldn’t be allowed near a single public dollar, Albany, you’re doing a good job.
Since I’m so clueless, would you explain step-by-step how Democratic mischief and greed at Fannie & Freddie caused Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc, etc in the “free market” in a way that leaves the “free market” blameless and not in need of government oversight and regulation?
By the way, I do not hold that conservatives of your kind are to be “pilloried as flint-hearted ogres, panting to short-circuit the American Dream for the oppressed.” I do find it a bit self-congratulatory and a bit of the victim mentality conservative generally bemoan.
I also find myself puzzled by an ideology which finds nothing wrong with a free market giving the departing Lehman head a salary averaging $17,000 an hour over his time there while find a minimum wage law something to be fought.
Watch the video I linked in [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/16254/#278865]this post[/url], Albany. It lays out pretty well what happened and why. It wasn’t a lack of regulation, it was a too-cozy relationship with government that provoked this.
[blockquote]I also find myself puzzled by an ideology which finds nothing wrong with a free market giving the departing Lehman head a salary averaging $17,000 an hour over his time there while find a minimum wage law something to be fought. [/blockquote]
The $17,000/hr figure is only for the last year of his tenure. I can’t defend the compensation without knowing how well he performed over all the other years he was at Lehman, but let’s take a hypothetical case where CEO A would steer the company into a $500 million profit and take but $1 million in salary, but CEO B would garner $1 billion and cost you $50 million. Wouldn’t you be willing to pay CEO B fifty times what CEO A would get to earn another $500 million in profit? I know my answer.
The minimum wage should be fought for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is anti-worker and anti-free market. The minimum wage is never what it’s set at…the minimum wage is always $0/hr. And that is the wage someone will make if his skills are not worth what the government has set.
The video is helpful and clearly points to ways in which Fannie and Freddie are in need of greater regulation, went off the rails with its leadership, and have questionable but not significant ties to Obama. I did not find that those ties have a depth that leaves him tarred until some genuine knowledge of wrong-doing and complicity can be established.
The video is however enlightening in Fannie and Freddie’s role in the present mess, which mostly traces to its leadership. This is a Democratic embarrassment to be sure. I don’t believe that I have denied that in the past but only wished to contextualize it properly, and assign true and proper weight to the relevant parts in this mess, which is what you have suggested you are doing but I don’t believe that you are doing. You’ve yet to come clean on the enormous and principal role of the free markets in this mess and the conservative mentality that would leave them de-regulated.
The video simply fails to address, in a way I find predictable, what I find you also fail to address:
[i]…would you explain step-by-step how Democratic mischief and greed at Fannie & Freddie caused Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc, etc in the “free market†in a way that leaves the “free market†blameless and not in need of government oversight and regulation?[/i]
Simply the proportionality of the losses makes clear the complicity and principal hand of the free market in this crisis, it’s insufficient regulation, and its greedy opportunism without regard to the well-being of the public or indeed the world economy.
An insightful and honest account of this mess would include a candid talk with a mortgage broker. I think that you know what I mean, and our conversation would improve if your side of the ideological divide would simply concede the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT22kKUTTtg&feature=user
First of all, I tend to agree with the guy in the video (though they themselves seem conflicted): We should not be bailing out private companies. The prospect of winding up ruined and broke is a far better regulator than some top-down bureaucratic measure.
You ask the wrong question, Albany. Fannie and Freddie were government creations and they were deliberately joined at the hip. It wasn’t a lack of regulation, it was the fact they were too cozy with the federal government and everyone knew they could load them up with debt because Uncle Sugar would step in if the whole thing blew up. “Regulation” presumes an arms-length relationship that simply did not exist here. It was free, or virtually free, money being passed out by the very people you say should have been regulating things.
Free money, no risk…these are not things one finds in a free market. And when all this money started chasing a slowly-expanding housing stock, prices soared and even more money entered the chase. When the bubble this free money created burst, the reverse happened: equity evaporated and people stopped paying their mortgage payments and all of a sudden the gravy train came off the rails. All because these GSEs (and remember, the “G” means “government”) artificially inflated the market.
Bear Stearns, Lehman and others then bought the bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie and securitized by those lousy mortgages. That’s what brought them down…when the mortgages backing the bonds were shown to be worthless.
What was the Democrats’ part in this? Well, Fannie and Freddie were Democrat creations, semi-privatized by Democrats, run by Democrats and protected legislatively and executively by Democrats who, not surprisingly, were well-financed by the profits raked in by the Democrats running the show at the companies.
Tell me, what part didn’t Democrats play in this fiasco?
Mortgage brokers have been able to sell their mortgages for a long, long time in America. After all, that’s what Fannie Mae was created for: To buy mortgage loans made by others so they would then have more money to loan out. That’s been around since the Depression, when Fannie was created.
The current crisis was created when Fannie and Freddie began buying riskier and riskier loans and then securitizing those through the sale of bonds and, I’m betting, understating the risk to clients.
No, what I’m saying is the F & F are the only ones doing it on this scale and with the implicit, now explicit, guarantee of taxpayer money to bail them out when, not if, it blows up in their faces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxADYfdpD0
From Bloomberg:
McCain says of Wall Street, “Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard” and does not single out Fannie and Freddie as the sole or even primary culprit. What part of the Republican candidate for President’s statement do you disagree with and why? Otherwise, I will need to agree with Matt about your partisanship while claiming to be reasonable.
#66-67 The reason why F&F;are so important in the current situation is that they facilitated the origination of about 75% of the US mortgage market. They did this with an explicit guarantee of the US government. Therefore, they could resell these “guaranteed” assets (which is what a mortgage is to the actual lender) on the market as bundled “collateralized mortgage obligations”.
Now, the buyers had this governmental guarantee reducing their risk, but where the whole operation fell apart is when nobody wanted to buy these assets.
Despite having a printing press for currency, the federal government can approximate going bankrupt when nobody wants to buy its liabilities, and the F&F;paper became such a security. With no buyers, the paper goes to a zero value, just as what happens in a bankrupt corporate situation. That situation was the reason why the feds took over F&F;, not due to the mortgage market’s or feds’ tender concerns for the US homeowner.
And aided and abetted by Wall Street, as McCain says — a point it has been more than difficult to get conceded here by some.
The plot thickens. I’d would love to hear Jeffersonian’s reaction:
McCain’s Fannie and Freddie Connections
John McCain railed against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the campaign trail today, saying that the CEOs that led the lenders to ruin “deserve nothing” and should have to pay back their severance packages. In an Wall Street Journal op-ed co-bylined by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, McCain suggested bold reforms for Fannie and Freddie that would “terminate future lobbying, which was one of the primary contributors to this great debacle.”
If that’s the case, McCain should look first to his campaign staffers as the cause of that debacle. One of them was Fannie Mae’s head of lobbying, and spread tens of millions of dollars around Washington in the form of lobbying contracts. A number of McCain staffers were on the receiving end of those contracts, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the lenders to rep their interests. And McCain’s campaign manager served as president of a lobbying association that fought to protect Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the sort of regulation that McCain is now proposing.
In McCain’s op-ed in the Journal, he and Palin wrote:
For years, Congress failed to act and it is deeply troubling that what we are seeing is an exercise in crisis management rather than sound planning, and at great cost to taxpayers.
We promise the American people that our administration will be different. We have long records of standing up to special interests…
But McCain’s own campaign staffers are those special interests, a fact that casts doubt on both McCain’s hiring judgment and his ability to pursue tough reforms of Fannie and Freddie.
Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant’s $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.
And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain’s top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign’s vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss’s sentiments. “[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test,” Davis wrote. “The toughest in the financial services industry.”
At a campaign rally Wednesday morning in Fairfax, Virginia, John McCain said that the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ought to give back the millions of dollars they’ve earned. What about the lobbyists who helped Fannie and Freddie game the system? Maybe McCain can ask them — at the next campaign strategy meeting.
Jefferson might want to check out Thomas Frank’s [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122221440058969313.html]article[/url] in the WSJ’s Wednesday opinion.