The bill was never brought up for a vote. You are inferring the democrats blocked it. Other interpretations are possible. In any case signing a letter accomplishes nothing. You want to blame the democrats for the republicans failure to do anything about the problem when they controlled the legislature and executive branches. That's not a plausible position. For $100, Alex? barfo
It is a plausible position. The Senate Banking Committee wasn't ALL Republicans. WikiPedia's definition is my understanding as well: That is, they count the votes for a specific bill before it's brought for a vote. If it is brought up for a vote, the party in control knows ahead of time if it will pass or fail. There is a whip on both sides. The whips also keep their party in line so keep mavericks from voting the opposite way the leadership desires. If the leadership of the Banking Committee (both parties) wanted to pass the bill, they'd have instructed the whips to go count the votes in support of the bill. Since there was no desire on the part of Christopher Dodd to even see the bill get voted on, there was no effort on their part to get any votes for the bill. Dodd received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists. He wasn't going to vote in the peoples' interest.
So what? The banking committee did pass the bill. The senate itself didn't vote on it. So you are saying since the democrats weren't willing to strong-arm their own members into voting for it, the Republicans gave up (despite the fact that, as the majority, they can pass legislation without a single Democratic vote)? barfo
Why is there such a huge need for people to place blame? It's everybody in Washington's fault, both parties.
Actual words count for little. Words are easy and no-risk, on matters like this. There's no risk to saying financial problems are looming. If you are right, you win a little bragging rights and if you are wrong, no one's going to care that you warned incorrectly. But not putting it to vote, or working to create a bill that would draw support. Either they saw this financial maelstrom coming, in which case they were visionary but criminal negligent in doing everything possible to avert it, or they didn't actually see it coming and thus weren't motivated to find a way to make it work once they discovered their original bill didn't have the votes. I think the second one is true. I don't think they would be criminally negligent.
Obama's running around saying McCain was 100% against regulation. This bill, other bills (from 2003), his speeches on the floor of the senate, etc., say otherwise. The quotes of democrats who opposed fixes to Freddie and Fannie are the criminally negligent ones, though they can't be charged with the crime (see the US Constitution).
Obama has used direct quotes against him. He isn't making it up. I guess McCain's against regulation, and for it, depending on who he's pandering to.
They've both running around saying politically convenient things. Do you feel that candidates painting their opponents with the narrative they want the public to believe is new, and hadn't happened in US politics prior to this election? They can't be charged with a crime because disagreeing with you politically has never been a crime.
LOL They can't be charged with a crime because of Article I, Section 6: <emp>Section 6.</emp> The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Barfo and Minstrel, are you guys really so biased that you can't even admit when a Republican might have been correct about something and done something right? Please, try to be a little more reasonable. I've seen you guys give Obama credit for being against the war and giving warnings before it happened. Should we completely dimiss his judgement because he wasn't able to pursuade enough voters to vote against the war? Obama appears to have made good judgement against the war, and McCain appears to have made good judgment on Fannie and Freddie. It is OK to admit it.
I think you might have missed a nuance. It isn't that we won't give him credit for having the right idea. It's that having an idea isn't sufficient when you are in power. You have to act. McCain signed on as a sponsor to that legislation only after it was already dead. He didn't do anything, other than signing that letter, to remedy the situation. No, because he wasn't even in the senate at the time, and his party wasn't in power. All he could do was speak against it. Had he been in the senate, and in the majority, and he spoke against it but the war was still authorized, then I'd have to say he and his party would have failed to act. Sure. It's just that we elect people to act, not to write letters. It's a higher bar once you get elected. You have to actually do something to get credit. barfo
Actually, that is exactly what you are doing. Unless I missed something above, you never gave any credit. As you know, I'm not an Obama fan, but I can still give him credit for good judgement. I would think you could manage to do the same for McCain. Yet you have no problem with the Obama love-fest. Since Obama has such little time in the Senate, Obama supporters are going off of judgement (their own and what Obama has spoken about), not actual action.
Us giving him credit hasn't been the topic of discussion. And frankly, I haven't read the bill in question, so I don't know for a fact that the bill was even on the right track. But assuming it was a good bill and would have helped avoid what happened, then I hereby give McCain credit for being on the right side of the issue in 2006. Just did. That's correct. Obama supporters are at least partly voting for him based on what they believe he will do, not what he's done already. That's not inconsistent with judging McCain on his record. McCain has had 26 years in the Senate. One has to assume that if he was going to accomplish anything in that position, he has had ample time to do so. It would be hard to make a case that judging McCain by his Senate career is unfair. Plus he's rather old - whatever personal potential he had has presumably been reached already. Obama, on the other hand, is 25 years younger, and has only a few years in the Senate (most of which, as has often been pointed out by his detractors, have been spent running for the presidency). His career is still on an upward arc. Thus judging Obama by his Senate work alone may not give an accurate picture of his capabilities. Which is not to say he shouldn't be held responsible for what he has or hasn't accomplished in the Senate. barfo
Awesome! That wasn't too bad, was it? This seems inconsistent to me. Above, you said that we can only give politicians credit based on their actions. I can understand you judging McCain on his past actions, and not liking them. But to turn around and say that you don't need to see action during Obama's time in the senate to judge him, is a little strange.
No, I don't think that's what I said. I said that in a position of power, they have a responsibility to act. It isn't that words don't matter, it's that they aren't sufficient to take credit for fixing a problem. Not really. As I said, Obama hasn't had much time to create a long record. As a bottom-of-the-totem-pole junior senator, it isn't surprising he doesn't have a long list of accomplishments. McCain doesn't have that newbie excuse. It is fair to judge Obama on what he has or hasn't done - but it isn't fair to expect him to have accomplished as much as someone who's been in the position for 26 years. barfo
Except they didn't do anything. That's the point. No, you haven't. You are assuming you have because you've decided to conflate me with your idea of what "liberals" say. Maybe. Of course, there's a difference between a single senator and a party in power. And, as barfo noted, he wasn't even a senator then. If I thought either one was an example of "good judgment," I agree it would be okay to admit it. However, I don't know enough about either instance to decided if it were good judgment or easily-bandied-about rhetoric. With no results or any major actions undertaken by either, I remain skeptical.
I believe both parties are completely out of touch and corrupt. However, in this instance I believe a far off analogy might help. In this case the Democrats are the bunch of hooligans beating up an old lady in the street. The Republicans are the people standing by watching and not doing anything about it. Yeah, I know that is a little extreme but I watched something on tv today and heard people like Barney Frank talking about giving people a mortgage because it was more fair. Even though they couldn't afford it. It would be more fair if I could get famous actresses to sleep with me. Just not realistic.
The anit-McCain panic is deep in this thread. He saw the problem; Obama accepted money from the problem. DEAL WITH THE FACTS.
