Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Santa Ana Winds Edition (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2293)

bkjazfan 10-16-2008 09:04 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Talk about associations Dick Morris is trying to make hay out of the Acorn bru-ha-ha. Of course, he is known to be way off on his predictions like the book and articles he wrote saying Hillary would be the next prez. He does include the caveat that it's no big deal so far since people are shaking in their boots over the stock market downward tilt instead of paying attention to the upcoming election. Even if the economy was even Steven I doubt that Acorn would make a difference.

One thing about the debate last night that was puzzling was hardly any mention about the whys and wherefores of the recent financial debacle and the candidates respective cures or solutions. On top of that they proceeded to talk about all the spending they would do. The second debate they laid out a laundry list of different military conflicts confronting America: "the stans," Russia, Darfur, Iran, North Korea - it was hard to keep up with it. Now, is all the money for social, military, and financial institutions going to come from raising the taxes on people making over $250,000? Burt Bachrach had a tune sung by Dionne Warwick that gives a clue: "Promises, Promises."

John

defender 10-16-2008 10:35 PM

Uglier attacks than Airs
 
Off the top of my head:

1) The daisy ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyVn9k6d1og

2) Insinuations that Bill Clinton is racist from the Obama campaign.

3a) Adams partisans accusing Jefferson of being an atheist and wanting to bring the chaos and bloodshed of the French Revolution home.

3b) Jefferson partisans accusing Adams of being a monarchist and pro-British.

Both of these attacks came in one of our first contested elections and were far more inflammatory and dangerous than any other campaign attacks I can think of.



Im sure if I took the time to do some research it would be pretty easy to find more baseless and ugly attacks than: Obama is associated with an unrepentant anti-American terrorist. That does after all happen to be true.

And no Robert, the semantics of “pals around with” vs “paled around with” doesn’t impress me, the basic fact is it’s a legitimate attack, and splitting hairs doesn’t change that. Getting so worked up over it, only shows his love of The One is irrational and he cant handle it being challenged.

Smithy-XL 10-16-2008 10:45 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Mickey ...

Before you riff about how the Nobel Prize committee gave Krugman his prize because they're a bunch of captured lefties, you should bother to check the facts.

The Nobel Foundation--the one that is supposedly very lefty--doesn't give out a prize in economics.

The economics prize is given out by the Swedish central bank and is only known as the "Nobel prize in economics" because it has Nobel in the name. Alfred Nobel's foundation money doesn't go to the winner.

That's why the economics prize tends to go to people who are more conservative (central bank economists are more on the conservative side, just to state the obvious), and, yes, the other Nobel prizes are more political.

So you're just wrong, even if the official Nobel prizes are more political. And you're still wrong if Krugman is a bad choice.

Because facts matter Mickey and you got that fact wrong.

uncle ebeneezer 10-16-2008 11:26 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
What is wrong with this statement?: John McCain pals around with and DEFENDS the man who caused the economic crisis!!!

OK so maybe the present tense is misleading because I was actually talking about someone that McCain hasn't palled around with in 20 years (Keating.) And sure I was actually talking about the S&L crisis not the current crisis. But factually my statement is just as accurate as "Obama pals around with terrorists."

Think people see a difference between the past and the present? Think people see a big difference between the Weathermen of the 60's and Al Qaeda of Today? Think the GOP loses any sleep about the fact that their statements draw people to the wrong conclusion? I doubt it.

Blister 10-16-2008 11:28 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Relative to the discussion toward the end about how people might be more willing to use their positions to promote candidates than they used to be:

I assumed the discussion was going to be about Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin, maybe Bruce Willis and Lee Iacocca, but it turns out that you are talking about the professional information services or media, outfits like Time Magazine, and you are acknowledging but not remembering much about the Hearst papers and Colonel McCormick. You guys aren't that young, and you could do better.

When you were kids Time Magazine was the equivalent of The Corner at NRO, only slick, and the Hearst papers and the Chicago Tribune operation under McCormick were the equivalent of, say, Confederate Yankee at the high end and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the low end. The whole media setup, with very few exceptions, was balls-out mainstream Republican from end to end where it wasn't just barking lunatics like Westbrook Pegler, Winchell toward the end, David Lawrence at US News and World Report, or Luce himself, clamping down the iron hand of willful ignorance on all attempts to note which end was up out in the world.

The current crop of right-wing pundits and television personalities didn't just burst forth from the thigh of Ronald Reagan. They slither in a long history of American publishers, editors, and opinion columnists, and you should be able to figure that out from just the bow-ties. The revelation that a pathetic doofus working at Newsweek tried to help get Dukakis elected, and now assumes that everyone else must have been operating in the same fashion, adds nothing except enhanced understanding of the pathetic doofus. Which is something we can get plenty of by just listening to his blogging head.

Well, I'm trying to remember what happened in "Red Wind" that might be worth following up. The only thing I can remember is that the sympathetic junior cop was Mexican, didn't like being called a "guinea", and was probably an anchor child for illegal immigrants and the first wave of the reconquista. Raymond Chandler saw guys like Mickey Kaus coming before he was even born.

Bob M 10-16-2008 11:49 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
A few points:

1. My understanding is that Fannie Mae did NOT make bad loans that helped lead to the financial crisis. In fact, I believe they were legally prevented from making the types of loans that could be securitized as collateralized debt obligations. They may have helped support the market for securitized debt by BUYING those derivatives. Still, I don't accept the conventional wisdom that Freddie and Fannie are principally responsible for the bursting of the real estate bubble and the resulting financial meltdown. See this Daniel Gross' article in Slate.http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
2. Krugman won the John Bates Clark, which is only awarded half as often as the Nobel, several years ago. Winning the JBC medal is a strong predictor of winning the Nobel. I don't think it is fair or reasonable to ascribe political motives to the award.
3. Does Mickey think that McCain's multiple, friendly appearances on the domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy's radio show is as irrelevant as his association with the Cuban terrorists? As Matt Yglesias reminds us, Liddy plotted the bombing of the Brookings Institution!
4. Why no discussion of McCain's whining about his hurt feelings over Rep. John Lewis' comments? McCain seems to be one of these candidates (like Paul Tsongas and Bill Bradley) who thinks that the race is about his personal virtue and high mindedness and not about what he actually plans to do for the American people. Obama has not been totally immune to such solipsism, but Hillary seems to have cured him of it.
5. It would be ironic if Obama's willingness to buck the Democratic Party on education resulted from his work on the Annenberg Commission. No? Could it be that his best example of setting aside partisanship and working with Republicans on an important issue is undermined by Ayres participation on the panel?

claymisher 10-17-2008 12:08 AM

Re: Ayers and Kissinger
 
Well, I made it as far as the end of the "palling around with terrorists" section. I'm starting to lose respect for Bob now. Kaus is just awful. Why a smart guy like Bob wants to give him a platform, or even waste his time with him, I just don't know.

I keep giving up on Bob/Mickey and I keep coming back, because I'm such a fan of Bob, but Kaus is just nuts. I'd rather listen to Bob talk to a real conservative like Frum, or a real progressive like Yglesias, or a real "other" like Sullivan. Kaus is just a jerk. Maybe not in real life, but he sure is on BH.

Namazu 10-17-2008 01:24 AM

Re: Ayers and Kissinger
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bramble (Post 94326)
Oh yeah, I'm surprised that nobody has brought up Bob's screeds against Kaus for palling around with Coulter. In fact, I'm surprised Kaus didn't bring it up...but maybe he did, I didn't watch the whole diavlog.

Yeah. Either Bob has no moral compass or he's secretly jealous. If you ask me, Coulter is obviously a transsexual, which of course raises more questions. What do we really know about this Bob Wright?

Namazu 10-17-2008 01:49 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 94258)
Imagine someone was a racist in the 60s. Imagine further he was a member of a racist organization members of which killed a few African-Americans. Imagine that he personally set off a few bombs that that didn't kill anyone, but damaged property of anti-segregation government officials. Now, finally, imagine this fellow became a distinguished professor of English at the University of Arizona, and refused to disown his past actions, but was proud of them. If he had "palled around" with John McCain four years ago, would you find that relevant to assessing John McCain?

Here's an easier one. Suppose he had a history of bombing abortion clinics. Anyone ready to claim that wouldn't be page 1 material every day of the campaign?

Tara Davis 10-17-2008 03:32 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Well done. All three of those despicable campaigns are far worse than using an unflattering expression ("pals around with terrorists") to express what is, frankly, a true statement. Ayers is most certainly a domestic terrorist, and Omama is much closer to him than he's willing to acknowledge.

Yes, Palin is clearly hoping that some inattentive voters respond to the word "terrorist" with thoughts of crazed foreign threats, but for Obama's defenders to say "that's misleading because Obama's terrorist friend is actually a white US citizen" does not ring to me as a particularly persuasive argument.

To this list, I would add the shenanigans of Nixon's re-election campaign, and the October Surprise of 1988. Both far worse than Palin's comment.

Come to think of it, the way both sides played the race card in 1992 with television ads (Willie Horton vs. lynching stories) was also at least as bad.

burr 10-17-2008 03:54 AM

That Washington youtube
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/151...3:50&out=34:55

I may be mistaken, and maybe it's too rough for this community, but this is what Wright's alluding to, I think, in the above clip. Just for clarity and larfs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

If you're offended by the cartoon, please accept my apologies and see a psychologist about your sense of humor.

MikeDrew 10-17-2008 05:22 AM

Mickey Admits Obamanoia
 
He sees everyone doing their part. Maybe some are. I agree there was politics in the Krugman prize. But how it helps Obama is unclear. Krugman openly despises Obama. The Nobel awarded Krugman to poke Bush. Plain and simple. It doesn't help Obama. If it is plain to voters, it hurts him.

Then Mickey goes to Rachel Getting Married. Black guy from Hawaii. Obviously represents Obama. Mickey sounds crazy. Paranoid. Um, racist. Sad.

HarryLime 10-17-2008 05:33 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
You want more despicable than "palls around with terrorists"? How about the Johnson campaign's 1964 "daisy" ad suggesting that Goldwater would launch a nuclear war?

Here's the YouTube link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

sharkdog 10-17-2008 05:34 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Ok your right. Ayers is not a terrorist. He is an unrepentant ex terrorist. I would never under any circumstances even think of voting for someone who would associate with such shit.

robarin 10-17-2008 06:58 AM

Grace under pressure
 
I loves me some Bob & Mickey. Lately I've been listening to the MP3s more than watching (any chance the early DVs will be made available?).

Listening to them sort out the technical glitch -- Mickey's "Jesus!" in particular -- was good stuff. :) Apollo 13 II.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/151...9:12&out=29:39
________
Extreme Vaporizer Review
________
LadyHotBody live

nyc123 10-17-2008 08:20 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
why so much vitriol and ad-hominem against Mickey?

oh...right, the Ayers thing.

If it's an important issue to some people, those people might have reasons. If choosing Palin shows poor judgement, so does Ayers et al. Obama should have just said from the start, "As a politician, I had ambition and these are the people in Chicago I had to align myself with." Kind of like Clinton should have said (in 1992) "Of course I inhaled, it was the 60s."

If the dino-media were actually involved in vetting our politicians instead of anointing them (by ignoring short comings), then perhaps critics would not feel the need to be so shrill. No, instead the NYT goes rabidly after a small town plumber-guy who is "not a union member" and "unlicensed" (my god, are the toilets of Toledo Ohio safe?!? - lets have a federal plumbing oversight committee...)

I'm voting Coolidge.

DoctorMoney 10-17-2008 09:35 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nyc123 (Post 94359)
If the dino-media were actually involved in vetting our politicians instead of anointing them (by ignoring short comings), then perhaps critics would not feel the need to be so shrill. No, instead the NYT goes rabidly after a small town plumber-guy who is "not a union member" and "unlicensed" (my god, are the toilets of Toledo Ohio safe?!? - lets have a federal plumbing oversight committee...)

I'm voting Coolidge.

The Toledo paper was the one that went nuts on Joe The Plumber.

I know that doesn't fit your thesis, though. Continue cocooning. :)

iron pimp hand 10-17-2008 10:58 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Bob's theory on the alleged purpose of the "palling around with terrorists line" - that is was deliberately unspecific so as to play to the fears of her audience - doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. An excerpt from the speech in which he said the now infamous line

“I get to bring this up not to pick a fight, but it was there in the New York Times, so we are gonna talk about it. Turns out one of Barack’s earliest supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, and they are hardly ever wrong, was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that quote launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and US Capitol. Wow. These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes.

“This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America. We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy and can live in a country that would allow intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for for all of us. Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?”

It was obvious who she was talking about and even if it hadn't been the millions of dollars the McCain camp has spent on ads explicitly linking Obama to Ayres would have cleared it up for everyone.

What can also be seen from the excerpt is that Bob's quickly jettisoned attempt to put the quote in context(terro..terrorise...terrorise everyone!) was wrong. She neither stated nor implied that ayres was currently a terrorist. Quote. "was a domestic terrorist", that's past tense, Bob.

thprop 10-17-2008 02:32 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Undertoad gets a link from Mickey in Kausfiles!!!!!

Check the 11:52pm entry - Slate has a weird way of formatting its blogs.

del 10-17-2008 02:59 PM

Re: Old Man on the Offensive
 
I give Mickey credit for correctly anticipating the MSM conventional wisdom about the debate, but the post-debate polls strongly suggested that no one wants an angry/giggly old man on the offensive . . . more generally, I love anger as much as the next person, but I think both Bob and Mickey have consistently overestimated how much "aggressiveness" the electorate wants from these particular candidates . . . from a middle-aged effeminate white guy like Kerry, sure, but I feel they've consistently been fighting the last war on the "toughness" issue throughout Campaign '08.

P.S. I see they did get to the anger issue later on -- good stuff.

del 10-17-2008 03:23 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Interesting discussion of "pals around with terrorists." I fully agree with Bob's "cynical" interpretation of the intent of the remark but from an ultra-PC point of view that actually puts him on somewhat ethically shaky ground. I know a lot of academics committed to the view that there's no empirical association whatsoever between terrorism and "Arabia" / Islam, and, as such, they'd probably accuse Bob of overdrawing the distinction between going to a fundraiser hosted by Ayers x years ago and going to a fundraiser hosted by Bin Laden x years ago . . . obviously, almost anyone except these academics "just knows" that there's an enormous distinction there, and maybe there are some substantive differences, but I think they'd accuse Bob of letting simple non-conscious cultural assumptions establish the distinction on their own.

stari_momak 10-17-2008 05:15 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Please, every single politician is given leeway to use colloquialisms and slight stretching of the truth. But here are some facts

1) Ayers committed several bombings himself.

2) Ayers first girlfriend in the WU blew herself up with a nail bomb. Nail bombs are anti-people, not anti property. It seems unlikely Ayers didn't know. In fact, I didn't realize the WU was so active, I thought

3) Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama at the start of the Obama's career explicitly to help launch Obama as a politician. Certainly under a colloquial use of 'palling around' that qualifies.

4) Obama was the chairman of the board of one of Ayer's major projects. Certainly that working relationship involved some 'Paling around'.
(and no, I don't care who else was on the board, no one else was chairman, no one else is running for president)

Now, you might not like these facts, but facts are stubborn things.

I do agree the issue doesn't have much potency, but I see that as a problem with American society.

stari_momak 10-17-2008 05:27 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
You know, its time to attack Wright. Bob seems like a good guy, and Mickey and him get along great together. But seriously, is their anyone that is a greater illustration of the white, western man's deathwish. The man is simply down on hands and knees in front of anyone slightly darker, anyone not Christian, anyone not western. Think of his response to Islamic terrorism. Oh, oh, we have to love them, can't criticize them, can't react the way a health, normal man would to protect their kith and kin. No, we must accomodate, let more Muslim immigrants in. Same thing with illegal Mexicans. Oh, oh, it would be so unjust to make them go back. Well Bob, no, what is unjust is people breaking our laws and people like you approving it. Grow a spine, be proud of your heritage and ancestors. Get off your eff-ing knees, white man!

DoctorMoney 10-17-2008 05:34 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 94409)
Grow a spine, be proud of your heritage and ancestors. Get off your eff-ing knees, white man!

yipe.

AemJeff 10-17-2008 05:35 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 94409)
You know, its time to attack Wright. Bob seems like a good guy, and Mickey and him get along great together. But seriously, is their anyone that is a greater illustration of the white, western man's deathwish. The man is simply down on hands and knees in front of anyone slightly darker, anyone not Christian, anyone not western. Think of his response to Islamic terrorism. Oh, oh, we have to love them, can't criticize them, can't react the way a health, normal man would to protect their kith and kin. No, we must accomodate, let more Muslim immigrants in. Same thing with illegal Mexicans. Oh, oh, it would be so unjust to make them go back. Well Bob, no, what is unjust is people breaking our laws and people like you approving it. Grow a spine, be proud of your heritage and ancestors. Get off your eff-ing knees, white man!

Take off your eff-ing sheet, hider behind online anonymity.

Usernumberone 10-17-2008 05:56 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
It's not despicable if it's true. William Ayers is a terrorist and until he started running for president Obama was 'friendly' with him. I just don't understand what Bob finds so bad about it. His attempts to parse 'pals' and 'palled' reminded me of Clinton.

I can see how it happens. Nobody else was shunning Ayers so Obama goes with the flow. I guess a lot of other people would too. But I'd like to think a president would be exceptional and say "hey, wait a minute this is f'd up. You don't deserve any role in public life after you committed violent acts subverting our democracy."

I'm voting for Obama anyway, but I'd be much happier if he'd shown either more judgement or strength of character re Ayers.

AemJeff 10-17-2008 06:00 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Usernumberone (Post 94416)
It's not despicable if it's true. William Ayers is a terrorist and until he started running for president Obama was 'friendly' with him. I just don't understand what Bob finds so bad about it. His attempts to parse 'pals' and 'palled' reminded me of Clinton.

I can see how it happens. Nobody else was shunning Ayers so Obama goes with the flow. I guess a lot of other people would too. But I'd like to think a president would be exceptional and say "hey, wait a minute this is f'd up. You don't deserve any role in public life after you committed violent acts subverting our democracy."

I'm voting for Obama anyway, but I'd be much happier if he'd shown either more judgement or strength of character re Ayers.

This is a strange meme. The meaning of "pal" is irrelevant. Any attempt to interpret a sentence in the English language containing the word "pal" that happens to be inconsistent with the usage of one of the most grammatically challenged public figures in recent memory is to overparse that sentence with politcal intent.

Sheesh.

stari_momak 10-17-2008 06:04 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
AEMJeff, you seem to be anonymous too.

Attack was a poor word choice, I meant it in the sense that you people always attack Mickey. (Idiot etc)

As for the sheet, these is not about unjustified violence against innocent people (i.e. which the Klan carried out). It is about a whole generation or two of white folks or various nationalities that have no pride in themselves or the societies they have created, and are willing to hand them over to non-whites and non-westerners. It is about people who get upset about an Coulter's quite understandable outburst after 9/11. I don't think that putting them to the sword is a good policy, but expressing such a desire in the heat of the moment is human and health. A continual , harping denouncement such expressions is the sign of societal sickness just as surely as trying to put such a program into action in the cool light of a few days.

People like Bob seem to relish the everything that is not white, not western, they seem to be able to find no wrong in any non-white. This self-abasement gives them some sort of moral status. I just don't get it. I don't hate Muslims or Mexicans or Kenyans. But I like the country my ancestors created, and they were not Mexicans Musims or Kenyans, and see no reason to turn it into something resembling either Mexico or Egypt or Kenya.

And in fact, AEMJeff, I do say such things, although perhaps a little less explicitly, to people in my everyday life.

AemJeff 10-17-2008 06:11 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 94418)
AEMJeff, you seem to be anonymous too.

Attack was a poor word choice, I meant it in the sense that you people always attack Mickey. (Idiot etc)

As for the sheet, these is not about unjustified violence against innocent people (i.e. which the Klan carried out). It is about a whole generation or two of white folks or various nationalities that have no pride in themselves or the societies they have created, and are willing to hand them over to non-whites and non-westerners. It is about people who get upset about an Coulter's quite understandable outburst after 9/11. I don't think that putting them to the sword is a good policy, but expressing such a desire in the heat of the moment is human and health. A continual , harping denouncement such expressions is the sign of societal sickness just as surely as trying to put such a program into action in the cool light of a few days.

People like Bob seem to relish the everything that is not white, not western, they seem to be able to find no wrong in any non-white. This self-abasement gives them some sort of moral status. I just don't get it. I don't hate Muslims or Mexicans or Kenyans. But I like the country my ancestors created, and they were not Mexicans Musims or Kenyans, and see no reason to turn it into something resembling either Mexico or Egypt or Kenya.

And in fact, AEMJeff, I do say such things, although perhaps a little less explicitly, to people in my everyday life.


I'm not making racist assertions from behind my nom de pixel. Anonymity is not the issue. Using it as cover for extreme incivility is.

Usernumberone 10-17-2008 06:12 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
But what about the fundraiser? That's a little bit more than serving on a board together.

harkin 10-17-2008 07:49 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Earth to Bob,

It's not just Mickey's 'policy nerd friends' who are worried about Card Check, it's any worker belonging to a union who wants the ability to vote without someone looking over his/her shoulder. Are you truly failing to grasp this or are you seriously willing to sell out the little guy for political payback?

And why does everyone who somehow still believes Ayers is a 'distinguished educator' never ever link to his subversive education curricula goals or his praise for Chavez' indoctrination practices?

Bob, you also just negated all the white-washing of Ayers' acts being something that happened when Obama was a child by saying Obama hasn't 'paled around with' him this week. LOL - A domestic terrorist who has never regretted his acts launched Obama's career, fact.

As to Krugman and his prize for Bush-bashing, Stuart Taylor today lays out how wrong a nobel prize-winner can be:

"Many conservatives have gone so far as to blame Fannie, Freddie, and their Democratic sponsors for the entire meltdown. Some (not including Wallison and Calomiris) also blame the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which forced banks to lend and invest more in minority and low-income areas.

This accusation has spurred furious rebuttals by Democrats and their media friends. Some have been well reasoned. Some -- especially a July 14 column by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics this week -- have been flat-out incorrect.

As Wallison and Calomiris demonstrate, Krugman was egregiously wrong in writing that "Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending." He was wrong again in stating that "they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't ... by law." He was further wrong in writing that the GSEs were "tightly regulated with regard to the risks they can take."

elementaryteacher 10-18-2008 12:38 AM

Mickey and his policy nerd friends...
 
Ah, I don't know what kind of policy institute that would be, but it must have an EXTREMELY low level of rigor...

Witness his backhand suggestion that the CRA caused the current mortgage mess. This has been an ONGOING cannard on right wing blogs, and repeatedly disputed by economists (http://www.google.com/search?q=cra&b...ew.typepad.com)

The latest (and it's one of MANY) argument against Mickey's allegation is that the housing bubble (over pricing of the residential market) is not limited to the U.S., but is now popping in Britain, where they don't have CRA or Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

In my own city (one of the top 10 in foreclosures nationwide) foreclosures are not limited to poor and minority areas (although they are not immune), but include large swathes of "house farms" on former farmland, that were purchased, but NEVER occupied, in non-CRA census tracts.

I find the nasty way that Mickey skirts the edge of racist comments like this (and the defense of Atwater's ad tactics) nauseating, and intellectually dishonest. I hope this was just the weather talking, but I've heard it for a while from him. Frankly, I grew up in the San Fernando Valley, and while you might loose civility, I've never seen it cause a melt-down of intellect which is the only excuse for this sloppy thinking.

kcandaele 10-18-2008 02:51 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
I can't believe that Mickey Kaus is worthy of this site. He is a "crude approximation" of a person one should listen to. It's simple, he is not smart. How in the world did he rise to this position, lowly as it is? Robert, ditch this guy, for the sake of your audience.

kerry candaele
venice, ca

Bobby G 10-18-2008 04:57 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
What did he say that you thought was so stupid that he doesn't deserve to be on this site?

Wonderment 10-18-2008 05:00 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

What did he say that you thought was so stupid that he doesn't deserve to be on this site?
Reconquista.

nyc123 10-18-2008 07:03 AM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorMoney (Post 94363)
The Toledo paper was the one that went nuts on Joe The Plumber.

I know that doesn't fit your thesis, though. Continue cocooning. :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us...ics/17joe.html

Perhaps a Toledo paper went nuts to a greater extent, or earlier. Maybe the author of the above piece, Larry Rother, was informed by the Toledo article. You could have politely asked for a link, which I would have provided.

The fact that any paper chooses to tell us more about the economic background (and ideology) of an average citizen than a presidential candidate is problematic.

Your practice of dismissing others without actually addressing the underlying point must make you feel superior, continue stroking yourself. Here is something else to make you feel superior, I'll missspellll someting and then you can dismiss me for that.

Wow, did you invent that "cocoon" meme? Brilliant. How about throwing in the timeless "you are the weakest link" or "where's the beef"? - that would have put me in my place.

rcocean 10-18-2008 01:53 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/151...0:00&out=22:28

Most despicable? What about:

1-Republicans making a campaign issue of Cleveland's illegitimate child in 1884?
2-Democrats accusing Harding of being "tainted" by Negro Blood in 1920
3-T.R. being accused of being a drunkard in 1912
4-F.D.R & Eleanor being accused of being "Secretly Jewish" and changing their name from Rosenfeld.
5-Nixon accusing Douglas of being a communist "The Pink Lady"
6-Lindbergh being accused by FDR cabinet members of being a Nazi because he took a trip to Germany to report on the Nazi Aircraft industry.
7-Goldwater being pronounced insane by American Psychiatric Association in 1964. Or Schorr reporting on CBS that Goldwater had established "secret links" to Neo-Nazi's in Germany.
8-Bush accused of secretly meeting with Iran to delay the release of hostages until after the election.
9-Clinton accused of complicity in the death of Vince Foster and running a drug operation in Arkansas.

And that's just the incidents I recall with no research.
And I haven't mentioned the massive number of Isolationists being smeared as Nazi's in the 1940s, or Liberals being smeared as communists in the 1950s; or the politicians being attacked as Negro Lovers by segregationists, or later as Black hating bigots by Liberals.

AemJeff 10-18-2008 02:41 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 94496)
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/151...0:00&out=22:28

Most despicable? What about:

1-Republicans making a campaign issue of Cleveland's illegitimate child in 1884?
2-Democrats accusing Harding of being "tainted" by Negro Blood in 1920
3-T.R. being accused of being a drunkard in 1912
4-F.D.R & Eleanor being accused of being "Secretly Jewish" and changing their name from Rosenfeld.
5-Nixon accusing Douglas of being a communist "The Pink Lady"
6-Lindbergh being accused by FDR cabinet members of being a Nazi because he took a trip to Germany to report on the Nazi Aircraft industry.
7-Goldwater being pronounced insane by American Psychiatric Association in 1964. Or Schorr reporting on CBS that Goldwater had established "secret links" to Neo-Nazi's in Germany.
8-Bush accused of secretly meeting with Iran to delay the release of hostages until after the election.
9-Clinton accused of complicity in the death of Vince Foster and running a drug operation in Arkansas.

And that's just the incidents I recall with no research.
And I haven't mentioned the massive number of Isolationists being smeared as Nazi's in the 1940s, or Liberals being smeared as communists in the 1950s; or the politicians being attacked as Negro Lovers by segregationists, or later as Black hating bigots by Liberals.

As a recidivist rcocean basher, I'd like to point out that this post is remarkably well balanced. Good points.

DoctorMoney 10-18-2008 03:04 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 94502)
As a recidivist rcocean basher, I'd like to point out that this post is remarkably well balanced. Good points.

But do any of them rise to the level of implied treason? Even if Bob backpedaled to something like 'one of the top 10 most despicable accusations in a presidential campaign', we're still in pretty firm territory.

AemJeff 10-18-2008 03:11 PM

Re: Santa Ana Winds Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorMoney (Post 94504)
But do any of them rise to the level of implied treason? Even if Bob backpedaled to something like 'one of the top 10 most despicable accusations in a presidential campaign', we're still in pretty firm territory.

I'd say that Nixon comes close, but your general point is correct (unlike rc's.) Still at least in compiling the list he didn't go for the obvious cheap shot.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.