J's Cafe Nette

Archive for September 24th, 2008

While I appreciate the fact we are in a national turmoil regarding our economy, the fact is we still have a presidential race on our hands with the first presidential debate scheduled for Friday night.

John McCain has decided to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to try to work out a deal with other members of Congress on the economic crisis.

While I admire his putting country first I have to ask myself if it’s a political stunt. (I don’t think so as this type of thing is what has earned him the “maverick” label.) But I can see how others can see it that way.

He invited Sen. Obama to join him and Sen. Obama has declined, saying a president must deal with many things at one time. I agree, and that seems to be what McCain is doing if he attends the debate.

I have called the McCain campaign and begged them to go on with the debate. I see no reason Sen. McCain cannot attend the Senate to try to work out a deal and still be in Mississippi on Friday night for the debate.

Otherwise, he is giving the entire debate to Sen. Obama to say whatever he wishes to say with no opposition to his statements.

I can’t believe John McCain is not prepared for this debate so I have to believe he believes this is the best thing to do. But it’s only the best thing to do if both sides agree.

Right now his website is still showing the debate is scheduled.

Update from the AP

President Bush invited John McCain, Barack Obama and congressional leaders to the White House on Thursday to discuss his administration’s proposed bailout of the financial industry and press them to back the plan.

The invitation was extended Wednesday evening, and Bush called Obama personally to ask him to the Thursday afternoon meeting, which Obama accepted, his campaign said.

The latest development served as a prelude to President Bush’s TV address to the country at 9 p.m. EDT Wednesday, in which he was expected to rally support for his plan.

It also caps a day in which McCain said he was suspending his presidential campaign to focus on working in Washington on the bailout plan, while Obama called that decision unnecessary and rejected calls to postpone the two candidates’ debate Friday night.

The proposed $700 billion bailout plan, in its original form, has faced strong opposition on Capitol Hill this week. By Wednesday, Congress seemed open to a less costly plan as Democrats won a key concession from the White House, which agreed to limit the pay packages of Wall Street executives whose companies would benefit from the proposed bailout.

Update 2: Via the AP:

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama issued a joint statement Wednesday night in which they said the American people are facing a moment of economic crisis.

Moments before President Bush’s scheduled address to the nation, the Republican and Democratic candidates said now is the time for both political parties to come together in the spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people.

They said the $700 billion plan the administration has proposed to bail out the financial industry is flawed, but that the effort to protect the U.S. economy must not fail.

Bush has invited both candidates to a meeting at the White House on Thursday with congressional leaders to discuss solutions to the economic crisis

.

Tweet This Post

This is not a post I had hoped I would ever write and it is written with a great deal of sadness.

I’m going out on a limb here with an assumption as to the piece used as a reference so I hope to be corrected quickly if I am mistaken.

“White Privilege” was addressed yesterday in our comment section which piqued my curiosity. In doing a Google search this is what I found.

What Privileges Do McCain and Palin Receive Because They’re White?

Mr. Wise’s website is available here.

Let me be as clear as I can be. Supporting John McCain is not something I thought I would ever be faced with. He was certainly not my first choice in the GOP field but he now is one of two candidates who have the opportunity to become President. I did not make my decision to support him following his selection of Sarah Palin (and yes I do like her, flaws and all) and most certainly did not make my choice based on race and find it insulting that anyone would suggest that were the case.

Mr. Wise says:

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women and made them give your party a “second look.”

This makes the assumption that white women are what? Stupid? Illiterate? No! Maybe they are just searching for a reason to feel they made their vote count in this election with candidates for the top office who are far less than inspiring in my opinion.

He speaks of Sarah Palin coming from a state with a small population yet makes no mention of the fact that Joe Biden is from Delaware with a population of only 200,000 more, certainly not a hugh gap given the population of the United States.

The authors assumption that all “whites” are of the same mind when it comes to race is sorrily mistaken. Do all those from other races view this election through some sort of racial mirror?

I hate, yes, hate what this election cycle is doing to us as a people. If Mr. Wise has his way, the divides along racial lines will widen so he can continue to earn a good dollar explaining to people how they should feel.

I am not going to fight a racial fight here or anywhere else. But, I will not stand idly by and allow the likes of Mr. Wise to paint an entire race with a wide brush. What happened to phrases such as we are Americans first?

This site endorsed John McCain some while back, therefore, the writing here will be far more pro McCain, less so Senator Obama. That is the fact, plain and simple. No one has been told they cannot disagree and never have we broken anything down along racial lines.

Again, if I am quoting an incorrect source, please let me know and I will make the necessary corrections. Even if that is the case, I hope readers will check out the work of Mr. Wise as I believe promotes all that is wrong with the thinking not only in this election but in this country.

Tweet This Post

The following is the response of the John McCain campaign to this NY Times hit piece on campaign manager Rick Davis:

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times’ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times — in the absence of any supporting evidence — has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain’s long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this “report” from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions — to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama — under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper’s reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:

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.

Tweet This Post