Politico's Mike Allen again promotes myth of McCain as straight-talker, who "resist[s] pandering"
SUMMARY: Politico's Mike Allen wrote, "It looks like Senator [John] McCain will resist pandering when he speaks later today on the housing crisis." Allen cited prepared remarks in which McCain said: "Let's start with some straight talk. I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis," and claimed that he has "always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." But Allen has yet to note that McCain said he does not think the Federal Reserve acted improperly by extending a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of the near-bankrupt investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.
In the March 25 edition of his daily "Playbook," Politico's Mike Allen wrote, "It looks like Senator [John] McCain will resist pandering when he speaks later today on the housing crisis, to the Orange County Hispanic small business roundtable." Allen cited McCain's prepared remarks, in which the Republican presidential candidate said: "Let's start with some straight talk. I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis." Allen also cited McCain's statement that he has "always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." Allen did not cite any specific proposals by McCain on the housing crisis or make any other mention of McCain's economic plan. Nor did he provide examples of political officials who do advocate "bail[ing] out and reward[ing] those who act irresponsibly."
Allen has not updated his March 25 entry and did not mention in the March 26 "Playbook" that, as Think Progress has noted, McCain said he does not think the Federal Reserve acted improperly by extending a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of the near-bankrupt investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase. Allen ignored McCain's statement about the Bear Stearns acquisition in the March 26 "Playbook" despite quoting from a Philadelphia Inquirer headline that also referenced McCain's assertion that, in the Inquirer's words, "it's not [the] government's job to reward the irresponsible." Allen also did not mention in either the March 25 or March 26 "Playbook" the portion of McCain's prepared remarks that read, "In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital."
Sen. Hillary Clinton specifically criticized those who oppose government assistance for homeowners, while supporting the Federal Reserve's involvement in the potential Bear Stearns-JP Morgan Chase deal.
Clinton said in a March 24 speech on the housing crisis:
Now, some may claim that the plan I've outlined today is a "bailout." They'll argue that it's not government's role to help. Well, that is the same kind of tired rhetoric we've been hearing for years now. And I think the American people know better. We've had enough of that old ideology. We're ready for solutions here and now.
And to those who object to our government helping middle class families and low income families devastated by the housing crisis, I say this: We've given Bear Stearns a $30 billion lifeline, we've given their creditors, their lenders their customers and those associated with them the same lifeline. We are now lending billions of dollars a day to help Wall Street banks that aren't regulated, that are not held accountable. How can you tell a family about to lose their home that there's nothing we can do to help them? How can you tell them that if they had failed spectacularly we would've helped them but because they are failing quietly, desperately, we are turning our backs? How can you tell them that there is nothing we can do to rebuild the American Dream?
As Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, here, and here), the media's characterization of McCain as a "straight-talker," who tells the public the truth rather than what they want to hear, is pervasive, despite his numerous falsehoods and flip-flops.
From the March 25 edition of Politico's "Mike Allen's Playbook":
It looks like SENATOR McCAIN will resist pandering when he speaks later today on the HOUSING CRISIS, to the Orange County Hispanic small business roundtable. From his prepared remarks: "Let's start with some straight talk. I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy. ... I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense."
Hmmmmm..
McCain resisted pandering when he kissed Jerry Falwell's big white butt a few years ago, after referring to him as an "agent of intolerance" in 2000?
Has the Politico become the Onion without realizing it?
Has the Politico become the Onion without realizing it?
You mean like how the New York Times is morphing into the Washington Times?
Read this article by Glen Greenwald (Salon.com) titled "Who runs the Politico"?
truthseeker77, I think I got you confused with another Truthseeker (###) the other day, and wrote something not so nice. Sorry.
ps- McCain is old and I call him "Gramps". or "Geezer".
not only is his historical comaprison ludicrous, he DOESN"T KNOW MUCH ABOUT ECONOMICS.
Why are people going to vote for a President who doesn't really know how the economy works?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Any person who depends on a paycheck for his or her living and votes Republican is really voting against their own best interests.
Pavlov would be proud.
A typical liberal response that assumes everyone is too stupid to run their lives and needs the government to hold their hand when they buy a house.
Certainly no greedy reublicans over bought in real estate hoping to get rich flipping houses.
While we are in this government bailout mood, I have a third cousin who is a month or so behind on her car payment and risks respossession. Now, she listened to a slick car dealer who preyed upon her ignorance and sold her a car she couldn't really afford, and if she loses this car it is just as detremental to her and her life and her family as anyone who loses their home. I mean people don't have to live in a home they own, they can rent - but my lowly third cousin needs that car, and I think it's the government's job, our job, to bail her out.
But it's okay to bail out Bear Stearns for their financial mishaps?
Individual losses come and go, but a wholesale duping of the American Public is not something that should be subsidized by the Government. They, then, are participating in the fraud, IMO.
fair enough.
What do you see as a solution to this problem?
Generally speaking, people bought houses they couldn't afford, it is their responsibility to educate themselves as much as possible when making a major purchase such as a home, not mine. It isn't fair to those who waited and decided to be financially prudent and not overextend themselves with homes they couldn't afford, and now we should bail out those that didn't.
As I said, what about slick car salesmen who used predatory lending practices to dupe people into buying cars they couldn't afford? Why shouldn't they get help?
I don't pretend to have an answer..... maybe this is just a hit we have to take.
In an ideal world, we would allow those people to sink if they put themselves in water that was too deep for them to swim in? Peraonal responsibility and all.
See, I think we're a compassionate nation that recognizes that sometimes people get into situations they should have avoided but didn't without understanding the risks, and we help them out, just like we save stupid people from drowning. Just like we save big corporations sometimes.
It not only saves that individual, or that corporation, but also helps everyone that depends on that individual or corporation. There's significant value in helping others. I'm sorry you're so hard-hearted that your political views don't let you see that.
Sue, Get off your bleeding heart rhetoric, I am not impressed.
None of you seem to be one bit concerned about treating fairly those who were responsible in their decisions and didn't buy homes they couldn't afford.......too bad for them? Where is your compassion and sense of fairness where they are concerned? Or screw them, just let them pay for someone else's irresponsibility?
Typical.
I'm not sure this comment was addressed to me, but in any case, I do care about letting people off the hook, but I'm willing to balance that with a recognitiion that good people do bad things and we have a moral obligation to help them out if we can.
It's not me who cannot see the forest for the trees here. As another poster told you, it's not just the person whose house is foreclosed upon who suffers for their stupidity. It's the other homeowners on that street, and the stockholders at that bank, and the businesses that person used to patronize and the credit cards that used to benefit from the interest they got on that person's purchases. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
How about a hard-headed, practical approach to the issue? Actions by the government that arrests the rapid rise of foreclosures helps prevent a freefall in home values that would badly hurt those individuals who were responsible in their decision-making. Not to mention suffering from a variety of other economic consequences that would also affect everyone.
None of the measures proposed let the irresponsible entirely off the hook, pain-free. They may get more of a break than some think they deserve, but it serves a greater societal good across a broad swath of American society.
These people, who became homeowners thought they were availing themselves of the American Dream. Instead, many have become victims of the American Scheme.
Laws were broken. Lending institutions knew full well that they were creating a pyramid and the lenders made billions.
Most of us are not as financially astute as we should be. We rely on doing business with financial institutions with solid reputations. These institutions have been deregulated and have very little government oversight. We've allowed many of our fellow citizens to become homeless because of the conservative philosophy of not putting any impediments in the way of the quest for profits.
If you don't have a problem with practices like these, that favor the dishonest lender and punish the people who are trying to better themselves that's fine. But there should be some way for our government to meet in the middle and not be an advocate for either side, but offer protection against criminals.
A good start might be to place large signs over the doors of our lender's offices that say "abandon hope, ye who enter here".
No, the government has no business here. It is a contract between the seller and the buyer, people who bought these homes knew full well they couldn't afford them, I don't buy the victim status at all. They figured the market would keep going up and their equity would as well, they were shortsighted and irresponsible in buying something they could not afford.
And you fail to address the unfairness to those who didn't go this route, why should they, and you and I, bail out those that threw caution to the wind? And what is to prevent people from continuing to manage their finances this way if they know the government is going to be there to bail them out?
Because we all do better when we all do better! Helping out the less fortunate and admittedly, uneducated, borrower does benefit the economy as a whole. If there is a huge dropout at the bottom end of the housing market, it will affect the value of YOUR home regardless of how big your down payment was or was not. It is why the Fed is taking this action because they are not short-sighted enough to see that the BROADER affect on the economy if you let the less educated (even irresponsible) among us to fall would be disastrous!
So let the housing market level itself out, fix itself - just like the inflated dot.com boom in the 90's.
Less fortunate? Are you kidding? What is less fortunate about an irresponsible person making $50,000 a year and buying a $750,000 home in LA, which is what many did.....payments went from $1200 a month to $4000 a month, and now they cry foul? Please, there is nothing "less fortunate" about that, sell that down the street. It's ridiculous.
Here's the problem, from the point of view of someone who owns a very tiny home that I bought with a small local bank loan, that I can afford through good times and bad:
In the desire to sell as many mortgages as possible, to make the most money as possible, there is evidence that the mortgage makers misrepresented the true risks to the potential home buyers, in order to sell the individual mortgage, which was then bundled and sold again to investors. To suggest that risk was clearly detailed on the loan application or the loan agreement "contract" is simply not true. The terms of the loan do not describe the potential risk to the buyer of a price collapse in the housing market. Read your own loan papers if you're not clear. For most Americans there will be only one home purchased in our lifetime. This is our biggest investment, and while one can try to compare this to buying a car (which one generally does more often than one purchases a home), for most of us, buying a home is a once-in-a-life proposition. When we got to a bank or mortgage broker, they are, de facto, the authority based on experience and position. We ask them to lend us outrageous sums of money (or in my case, a modest sum of money) and we hope that they will look at our credit report, our finances, our employment history, and judge us worthy. When I went to the bank, they looked at my paperwork and judged that they would loan me, what I considered, an irresponsible amount of money. Irresponsible on their part. So when you judge who is "responsible" for this mess, I find it curious that you absolve the banking and loan industry free from responsibility and blame only the individual. One would think that a more measured response would be, at least, to blame both and/or then bail out both. (Not just the Bear Sterns but the little guy, too)
So, let's say that the mortgage crisis is the fault of both bad loan practices by some US corporations and bad borrowing practices by some American people. Your answer seems to be: well, too bad for them, why should the rest of us (good guys) have to pay for their veniality or stupidity. OK. Problem is, as this is collapsing, you and I (the good guys), are paying for it and will be paying for it through losses sustained by our retirement accounts and pension funds invested in Wall Street, through the depression of home prices in our neighborhoods (our equity goes down as comparables drop), the revenue generated by property taxes to fund local services is diminished and so are our public services, our property taxes increase in order to make up for lost revenue stream, our neighbors who work in the building or real estate or loan industries face layoffs and require public assistance, our unemployed neighbors no longer have the ability to shop at our stores or hire other neighbors to work, etc. If you think doing nothing eases the burden on people like you and me, you're wrong. It's our burden one way or another, whether we like it or not.
The problem with this crisis is the shear SIZE of the crisis. Perhaps you might have a point if this was a small fire, but it's not. If your neighbor's sub-prime mortgaged house was on fire, would you really suggest that government should not intervene (no fire department, that was closed due to lack of funding) and that your house is in no danger (because you had the foresight to install lightening rods, and get a good loan), so the guy should just fight it alone with a garden hose since it's his house and his stupid mortgage, and not ours? That the rest of us are in no danger of a flying apark or a spreading fire, because we have lightening rods on our houses? This is like the proverbial cutting off your nose to spite your face. (btw, the fire analogy isn't an accident, there has been an increase in arson as a result of this crisis, if you live in an area of new homes, my guess is that your insurance rates will be climbing.) Why do you think the US government of George W "anti-regulation, pro-business" Bush ponied up the money so quick? Because this portends a housing collapse which portends a larger economic collapse. Sometimes you have to spend money to save more money down the road. Do I wish the government had acted sooner (years ago) to regulate the subprime loan market so this would not have happened? Yes. But it didn't. So we can cry about it now, or we can act to stave off a worse future.
The Republicans in power today are all about short-sighted thinking.
They were not trying to fix Social Security for the long haul, but were trying to help rich people today have more money in their pockets.
They weren't trying to resolve issues in the mideast to bring longlasting peace to the area, but were trying to gain control of Iraqi oil reserves to help them over the next few years. There were lots of worse dictators around the world, and Bush knew before we invaded that they didn't have any WMD's in Iraq.
I could go on and on. There are countless examples of the failure of Bush and his cronies to understand long-term consequences and benefits. Let's tax rich people less today and cost our middle income grandchildren and great grandchildren tens of thousands of dollars for decades to come.
I'd agree with you if we're talking about speculators and investors but mostly it was the working poor who were effected. They bought homes not for the luxury but to own the roof over their heads.
Buying a home you cannot afford is, absolutely. Is owning a home the only way?, people can rent.
Sorry, we disagree.
But what about those who bought houses in Cleveland, Wilmington, Camden, Baltimore, or Philadelphia.
Housing prices were in line with salaries. Families bought their homes and tried to rebuild neighborhoods. Vacant houses were occupied, crime was decreasing.
Your logic breaks down in the inner cities of most major cities.
Many of us are one illness or accident away from financial ruin. Even those of us with health insurance.
Once again, I'm not talking about the middle class, but about the working poor, who are the ones losing their homes on the East Coast.
If housing prices were in line with salaries, why can't they make the payments?
There were lots of people confused about the risks and enamored of the benefits who bought sub-prime loans to finance their homes.
Stupid decisions, without a doubt. If we don't help them, we'll all suffer. Bailing individuals and corporations out is something I believe strongly in, within limits. People who build homes in flood plains, nope. If they get flooded out in a major way once, then they should have to move using the money from flood insurance once, and then not be eligible to rebuild in that flood plain. We shouldn't let people make the same mistake over and over again, but when people make a mistake once, I don't believe they should get no empathy.
Actually, McCan't only has to do two things to keep the Knuckledraggers happy..... (1) Appoint one more Neanderthal to the Supreme Court and (2) Keep the War in Iraq churning so that the stage will be set for the return of Jeeeeeezzzzzzuuuuuusssssss.
I think he's willing to do that.
It's an impressive little formula they've developed for winning elections. They can't govern worth sh*t, but that's not their goal. Every term they control the government, they can scoop up a little more wealth and stuff it in their cheeks..... and isn't that what it's all about?
McCain is not doing anything to please the powers that be in the republican party. It seems he is going out of his way to antagonize them. The speech he gave yesterday at the world affairs council in l.a. was most disheartening, with his one world notions, global warming pronouncements, calls for ever greater regulation of our lives, etc
I don't see much difference between him and the o man.
Here's one, huge difference, Rumple: 100 years in Iraq or leaving.
Take this test to see more:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/poll.php?race_id=13
here's a tidbit
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31673.html
so because mccain is not critical of what was an appropriate bailout of bear stearns, that is a factual inaccuracy in the media? if you guys want to hear left wing nonsense, at least go to a site that is upfront about its intentions rather than be duped under the guises of objectivity here. and by the way, for anyone who has been living under a rock, financial institutions are the foundation of our financial system. if they crumble, the house i.e. the consumer mortgage market, comes down with it. shore up the base then start rebuilding the rest. if you think credit is tight now, esp. for homeowners, i'd like to hear some guesses as to how much tighter it would be had bear stearns collapsed and inevitably taken other banks with it.
'Nor did he provide examples of political officials who do advocate "bail[ing] out and reward[ing] those who act irresponsibly." '
here is a hint, their names are the hillary clinton and barack obama. people purchased homes which they a. couldnt afford but hoped the homes would appreciate or rates would moderate, or b. sought to use as investment vehicles, or some combination of both. that is, contrary to the blanket bailout that the dems advocate, not everyone deserves assistance because people buy homes for different reasons, not everyone's home represents their "american dream" as the dems would lead you to believe. (see the television shows "flip this house", "flip that house"...that sort of behavior is not limited to television.) do we bail out people who make risky stock purchases? no, and this is no different. mccain specifically said he would be willing to help those who did not purchase their home for speculative purposes, which is the most prudent course of action, yet "K.E." decided to omit that from his cutting edge report.
this website is like being "educated" about smoking from tobacco company, they are pumping you full of leftist opinion under the auspice of factual objectivity.
As if there is one answer that fits all? Why oversimplify and generalize?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If housing prices were in line with salaries, why can't they make the payments?