Hell and Yeah. It's about time McCain started punching hard on this one:



Via hot air.

More on the close connection between the Dems and the financial meltdown from the UK Independent:

Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

It's all true, of course, but I sort of wish he'd found a different way to describe Barney Frank.

[shudder]

Sarah Palin did very well last night, I think that much is clear. The Wall Street Journal has a fine editorial noting this fact, and also pointing out where McCain and Palin can improve their message when it comes to the financial crisis:

Maybe John McCain should fire the advisers who won't let Sarah Palin do more interviews. The Alaska Governor has faced two major campaign challenges -- her acceptance speech and last night's debate -- and each time she's shown herself worthy of the national stage. Let Mrs. Palin be herself, and then when she makes a mistake, as every candidate does, it won't be treated like some epic judgment on her fitness to be Vice President...

...Mr. Biden had his strongest moments on the economy, trying to link Mr. McCain to the current financial problems and "deregulation." On this point, neither Mrs. Palin nor Mr. McCain have yet offered Americans an adequate response. It isn't enough to denounce "greed and corruption" on Wall Street, as Mrs. Palin did every few minutes. If that's the problem, voters will elect the Democrats as more practiced class warriors.

On the second point: I think this isn't so much a Palin problem as it is one of McCain reacting to the crisis with populism rather than an appeal to the truth of the situation. Hopefully that changes soon.

The New York Times, September 30, 1999:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits....

...''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. [ed - Obama advisor Franklin Raines] ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''...

...''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Remember, it's a Republican Scandal^TM.

Sarah Palin was accused of making her first big gaffe on the campaign trail yesterday when she said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had gotten "too big and too expensive." The Huffington Post jumped all over this, arguing that no taxpayer money has been spent to bail out the businesses to date. But isn't a $200 billion blank check... big and expensive?

The Palin comment is well within the margin of error on the campaign trail. There is no "gaffe" here. Congress earlier this summer -- in the housing bill that both John McCain and Barack Obama supported but didn't bother to vote on -- gave Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. a blank check* to invest in Fannie or Freddie. It OKd a big bailout. Perhaps in your book a blank check freshly signed by Congress is not "too expensive." Perhaps you trust the government not to spend a blank check. Perhaps pigs have wings. Palin was right: The very existence of a blank check means that Fannie and Freddie are too expensive to taxpayers.

*In a comforting bedtime story that several members of Congress actually believed, Paulson said the blank check was so big and powerful (a bazooka of cash!) he would never have to use it. By the time Palin spoke, it was clear that Paulson's attempt at "verbal intervention" had failed and that real taxpayer money will be spent to prop up Fannie and Freddie. No one knows how much, but the Treasury has signed contracts to invest up to $100 billion in each company. Oh, and loan them money too. Oh, and buy their mortgage-backed securities. Do you really want to argue that she made a mistake by saying the two companies are "too big and too expensive to the taxpayers"?

Point: Palin.