John McCain is "embarrassingly and dangerously clueless" when it comes to the economy. That's the gist of Eugene Robinson's column today.
And that couldn't come at a worse time: McCain is running for president in a period when America's financial institutions are crumbling and anxieties among us ordinary Americans is soaring.
McCain's newfound zeal for regulation is laughable -- or would be if the stakes weren't so high. He has spent the last several decades bellowing about the evils of regulation and the virtues of the unfettered market. Now he's launched a thunderous crusade to tighten controls, broaden oversight and stiffen penalties on the lawless frontier of American banks and other financial institutions.
In this he is, as Robinson puts it, "running against his own record."
McCain enthusiastically backed the 1999 deregulation that's responsible for much of the current mess. That effort was led by then Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas. And guess who is at candidate McCain's side now, whispering advice in his ear? Yep, the same Phil Gramm. Pardon my skepticism at the thought of McCain as a regulatory crusader.
Over regulation represents a democrat party norm.
Adequate reglation is a Republican goal.
Corruption is a well documented phenomena of both parties.
In this case the individual parties have not all been identified.
To describe it otherwise is what has been attempted here.
"Adequate regulation," my foot! The mess on Wall Street is a fine example of the Republican strategy of "getting government off our backs" -- until they need government to come in and rescue them with multi-billion dollar bailouts. The Republicans (with complicity from the Democrats) have been systematically dismantling the safeguards that were set in place after the Great Depression to prevent that from happening again. We're reaping the effects now.
Right on Bart. The one sided attack dogs need to look at the big picture of both parties before spewing crap about them. Both parties have had shortcomings that have damaged our financial stability. Why bail out AIG and not the others and where do they have 85 billion dollars stashed at?
Since America believe in 'second chances' why the rush to not give Senator McCain the right to have changed his thinking.
MOI thinks that at least he is one man who is willing to put the interest of the country before his personal glory, and that is just what is needed.
To the extent that there is a so-called "mess" (debatable), it certainly didn't start with the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which was incrementally dismantled over a period of about 50 yrs, most recently led by Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Barney Frank, not just Gramm.
And guess what? That same cast of characters (minus the Republican Gramm, but with the addition now of Barack Obama) are the same people who fought to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from any kind of regulation at all.
Democratic Party "lumionaries" Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines looted the business and doctored the financials with impunity under Presidents Clinton and Bush, while Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Joe Biden, and even (in his brief and unremarkable Senate career so far) Barack Obama made sure that by law the SEC and any other agency except the laughably understaffed OFHEO was not permitted to lay a glove on them, let alone review their books.
It's the Democrats, not McCain, doing the about-face.
Tony...excellent analysis and if we can get the media to honestly analyze this I believe Barry is toast.Republicans or Democrats,whoever is responsible ...I want to see them led away in handcuffs(aka. doing the perp walk) on all network news channels. How come Client #9(aka A.G./Gov.Spitzer-D)couldn't sniff any of this one out? There 's probably a lot of puckered posteriors in D.C. right now worrying if they are going to be found out for the prostitutes they really are.I don't know about McCain yet but I'd bet my paid off home(no mortgage problems here) that the O' brothers (Obama and Obiden)may be experiencing mild discomfort that a case of Tucks couldn't cure.Mike(D)...the ratcheting up of your desperation is becoming apparent.You don't have to go down with the ship.Grab the life ring that is conservatism and I will personally pull you on board brother.Ditto for Rich,Adam,Scot,Wayne,Russ and Jimbo.
Thanks but no thanks Brian. I don't necessarily have any problems with fiscal conservatism, but the regressive nature on the social side of conservatism makes me nauseous.
The the Republican house of cards is crumbling, so so sad.
Bart,
"Over regulation" as opposed to "adaquate regulation". What's next, it depends on the definition of the word "is"?
Rob,
You stated;
"Since America believe in 'second chances' why the rush to not give Senator McCain the right to have changed his thinking."
I don't think the Republican campaign play book gives the opportunity to "chage thinking" I think you guys call that a "flip flopper".
McCain's record is clear on voting for deregulation. He made is bed now he is clearly "flip flopping".
Some of you have to "man-up" on this. At least I admit it is not soley because of Republicans Democrats as well contributed to this.
It feels good to kick McCain in the gut when he is down especially when his Clone (Bush) and the long held Republican House dismantled, weakend and did not properly regulate companies such as AIG.
I dont think the public is going to buy McCain's about-face on regulation before he was for de-regulation.
Yea Brian the mainstream liberal media will pound McCain to the ground on this. Maybe the same ones who got George Bush into office, how ironic.
The price of kool aid has evidently plummeted.
Oh yeah Bart? Don't you think that bit of news would be more relevant on the News & Business Blog?
Regressive nature on the social side sound so ambiguous ...almost cliche. What's regressive about defending the institutions that made this country great Adam? Where has being socially liberal gotten us over the last forty years? If you promote homosexuality and are in favor of abortion won't you render society to extinction.Now that's regressive.You'll have to count on the social conservatives to further civilization and that is ironic.You need us or there can be no you.
In response to Brian Murphy's comment
"If you promote homosexuality and are in favor of abortion won't you render society to extinction."
This is one of the most preposterous things I have ever read, are you really trying to pass off your obvious homophobia as the end to reproduction in this country?
You do realize that only approximately 3-4% of males, and 1.5-2% of women in this country are gay?
Or how about in 2007 there were a total of 17,537 abortions, out of a nationwide population of 305,201,000? That is only 0.0056%
So even if we take these at their extreme values, do you really expect me, or anyone for that matter, to believe that 6.0056 percent of the population, is going to "render our society extinct"?
Please, give me a break.
Re: Wesley Say.
It's amazing what finally induces us from just scanning the beehive to posting.
The 12 year free public education seems to be a waste of tax money when it comes to trying to make right wing nuts fit normal threaded bolts.
I'll give you a break...break over.Typical response is to call me homophobic when it was posed as a question to Adam's regressive nature on social issues post.What does that mean,maybe a few examples in his opinion would be nice.As far as your beef with me I'm not homophobic but conservative values on social issues promote reproduction(necessary to sustain a society)while the lefts do not.Lighten up...like me, your one of the lucky ones.Someone chose life.
If it were not for modern medicine, the AIDS epidemic may have well put homosexuals close to extinction. What is the message here: Homosexuality is against nature! Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle.
TOTAL ABORTIONS in the U.S. SINCE 1973: 48,589,993.
This figure has forced America to increase immigration numbers to it's highest level in our countries history, just to meet our labor needs. The mass influx of new immigrants has created the current mess we are in, with the immigration crisis.
Wesley
Correction to your post: Your abortion rate figure is vastly off-course.
In Wisconson alone, the number of abortions in 2007 was 8,267 (AP/Chicago Tribune, 6/30).
In this state, there has been a steady drop since peaking at 21,754 in 1980 (Aquino, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/30).
The latest stats show that there are about 3,700, every DAY in the US. That equates to 1.37 MILLION per YEAR. Worldwide, there are approximately 46 MILLION per YEAR.
adam,
Insider information, remember to mix it in water first. Fear not, by November it should be free.
By the way, looks like the new populist government in Pakistan is off to a bad start. They should have stuck with Mushariff. The Zadari administration is already in the untenable position of reviewing the meaning of security. I await the outcome to see how long it takes for them to appreciate what they have lost, a hard liner patriot and American ally.
Welcome Wesley...stick around, you haven't seen nothing yet. Brian and his team have some pretty wild notions. For example Redpeach's notion above that homosexuals would be close to extinction due to AIDS if it weren't for modern medicine.
Or, because of abortions, America is forced to increase immigration to meet our labor needs.
Yeah...they've got a million of 'em. It's gets funny.
Scat,why the sour puss...You're alive too!I have no team, only my opinions and beliefs.Are you on a team of socialists? What color are the uniforms? Pink?
I believe that when Scot describes epidemiological circumstances to which repeach is referring as a "pretty wild notion", that he is dangerously far from the truth.
Scot, your attempt to persuade someone you don't appear know that redpeachs' view has no validity demonstrates why the virus continues to be passed between the educated men of large urban areas with lethal resistance.
Redpeach, I have to ask you a question.
You say: "If it were not for modern medicine, the AIDS epidemic may have well put homosexuals close to extinction. What is the message here: Homosexuality is against nature! Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle."
So, according to your logic, if something is against nature, it is bad, yes? Don't you think modern medicine is against nature?
Mockery is the response given when you are not big enough to admit someone has made a point/argument that shakes the foundation of opinion, or value system.
My points about abortion forcing America to allow mass immigration to fill jobs is only common sense. Not only that, top economist and business point to the supply and demand theory to bolster the need for higher immigration rates. If you paid attention to someone other than libs for your news, you'd know this.
As far as modern medicine, and AIDS. Scot questioned that I must be against modern medicine. Now that is a stretch.
My point was that people like Scot are simply in denial, if the do not face-up to the health threats that homosexuality reke on our society.
Sexual perversions, and promiscuity, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, lead to many undesirable consequences in our society, including disease (AIDS, STD’s, incontinence, anal and cervical cancer), to the break down of family unity (rises in divorce, domestic violence, teen pregnancy, child molestation, and deterioration to self-image—which can contribute to other self-destructive behaviors, such as adolescent suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, etc.
In the attempt to push the gay rights agenda of legalizing gay marriage, today’s mainstream media are withholding vital information regarding the increased health risks homosexuality. Specifically, they fail to remind/inform us that the practice of sodomy leads to all kinds of despicable diseases. According to David Ferguson, an H.I.V. prevention specialist at the Utah AIDS Foundation, this includes these major illnesses—AIDS, hepatitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, prostate and anal cancer anal, and serious health conditions—incontinence, hemorrhoids, and fissures. Ferguson said, “A lot of the issues that gay men face regarding their overall health have been put on the back burner. Just because you're H.I.V. negative, doesn't mean you're entirely healthy. And if you're H.I.V. positive, there are still a lot of other things that affect your health.” Ferguson added, gays also face increased mental health risks, including same-sex domestic violence and the relation of spirituality to health. Additionally, studies have indicated that gay men are more likely than the general population to have health problems like substance abuse, depression and some infectious diseases.
(New York Times, For Gay Men, Health Care Concerns Move Beyond the Threat of AIDS, By DAVID TULLER Published: August 14, 2001)
Normalizing homosexuality is, and will increasingly make our children more prone to experimenting in homosexuality, thus more prone to the many health risks described above. Aids is once again on the rise, with a 12% increase among young men in the U.S. Cases of anal warts among young women is skyrocketing. Not surprising statistics when you consider societies rising tolerance towards homosexuality, sexual perversions, and promiscuity. Our children are watching and listening, as societies younger generation of parents display acceptance, and participation in perverted, and ungodly sexual behaviors.
Voters all across the U.S. are deciding whether to legalize or ban gay marriage. California will have the opportunity to follow the example of 27 other states, and secure the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in passage of constitutional amendments. Please vote yes on the Marriage Protection Act on November 4, 2008.
You know Red....I don't think California is the right place for you. You should maybe look into living in Utah or one of the southern states. I think you'd be much happier.
If that's your definition of mockery, you should look it up. Besides, you didn't make a valid point. You made a preposterous one. I don't need to fight you on it though. I know, and everyone who has read your point that abortion has caused more immigration, knows it's just plain stupid. I don't know how else to put it...there's just no way to give it any dignity. And it sounds just as stupid no matter how many times we say it.
Next point. You said:
As far as modern medicine, and AIDS. Scot questioned that I must be against modern medicine. Now that is a stretch.
What? Where did you read that? I never said you questioned modern medicine. I said: "For example Redpeach's notion above that homosexuals would be close to extinction due to AIDS if it weren't for modern medicine."
Is this maybe an example of you just interpreting whatever you want out of whatever someone says, not really listening? You speak as if homosexuals are a one-of-a-kind species and they would be extinct if it wasn't for modern medicine keeping them alive. Again...absolutely the most preposterous thing I've ever heard. And it sounds just as stupid every time I hear it.
Now the rest of the post. I actually agree with some of it. We have too much promiscuity. It spreads disease. It can affect the family unity and can certainly lead to self destructive behavior. And you're right, it's both heterosexuals and homosexuals, but not all. You can't generalize or single out.
As far as the anal sex goes I think we're all well aware that it's not unique to homosexual men. Personally I think "it's" an exit not an entrance, but I don't try to get into anyone's bedroom and tell them what they can and can't do. And if you stayed out as well, then you wouldn't have to worry about catching anything would you?
Funny that Peaches tries to make homosexuality a public health issue. Lesbian sex is about the safest sex there is.
Scot and Mike D.
Which part of our society became infected with AIDS, and spread it to the point of an epidemic? Homosexuals practicing anal sex.
You are in complete denial, or are being plain disengeuous if you do not admit the homosexuals and the AIDS virus are linked.
Hey redpeach, should we kick out all the African-Americans too? I hear they have a bit of an AIDS problem there as well.
Redpeach, it wasn't the Lesbians. Lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. So you should be all in favor of female/female marriage, then. Right? Or are you in denial?
So, Redpeach, in all seriousness, are you blaming AIDS on homosexuality? Or are you just drawing a correlation? Because you know heterosexuals get AIDS too, right?
I don't understand why you keep harping on this issue. Do you have a solution? You've claimed that AIDS is on the rise since some states started allowing them to get married. How do you explain the high infection rates of the 80's?
Isolation? Elimination? I'm curious to know what your desire for the homosexual population is.
Do you really think defining marriage as between a man and woman in CA will have the slightest effect on gay sex or AIDS?
Is it me or are we debating this exact same thing somewhere else?
Google:lesbian std infection rate and the first title is this one.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/PR_031208
Gotta learn to improve your research skills, Bart. The article is talking about infection rates among teenage girls generally, not lesbians.
Generally speaking it did not exclude lesbian behavior either.
Please excuse me for not considering you, instead the health of teenage girls in general.
Your previous point on the subject will remain in my limited view irresponsible or ignorant, your choice.