The Gop is Not a Cult

131 responses so far

• 1 danbmil99 // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:36 pm

  Argh, I new this would come up. It is against my principles, but as a tactical matter I have to admit that the GOP could push anti-gay rhetoric as a way to woo socially conservative blacks and hispanics.

  What a faustian bargain, because they will lose latte libertarians such as myself with that tack.

  I think the only way forward on this issue (gay marriage etc) is a strong support of state’s rights.

• 2 gibberish // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:29 am

  Elsewhere in this blog pushing an anti same-sex marriage message has been cited as a cause educated voter disenchantment with the GOP or something that should be left to the states. It’s a genuine right-wing debate area…

  I doubt many people actually vote based on this 1 issue (except in referendums) but it probably gives a lot of people their impression of the GOP’s stance on many things.

  I think a lot of people see gay marriage as an example of GOP interference in other peoples personal lives. They may even agree, but doesn’t it muddy the conservative message of freedom/small government?

  Couple this to the Republican small government rhetoric/vast deficit making record it is no wonder people fail to flock to the message at the moment

• 3 mpolito // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:06 am

  A few thoughts: first of all, Bob Herbert is himself a “foaming at the mouth crazy.” He cannot believe that any minority is racist.

  Next, as the question of same-sex marriage, how exactly is it “interfering in people’s lives”? Civil marriage is a government institution, and so if people do not get to marry whomever they want they are having their liberty curtailed? This is an argument from positive liberty, akin to saying “well, I am not truly free because I do not get enough welfare money.” It is an acceptance of a major liberal claim.

  Finally, the tent is open. But there does come a point where enough is enough, Colin Powell did not vote for McCain; he is on record as saying how Americans want more government in their lives. Lincoln Chafee did not even vote for Bush in 2004 but he still got money from the NRSC in 2006. So please, enough with this.

• 4 gibberish // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:53 am

  “Civil marriage is a government institution”

  so why is it a conservative position that government should pick and choose who deserves it? Leaving it to the people – ie the states – seems a more freedom loving policy.

  It is the liberal that says this is what is right/wrong and then expects the government to enforce it. The conservative should get the government out of the question.

• 5 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:57 am

  Right now, it’s tough to define what a “true conservative” is, because of the economic crisis we got ourselves into. We were standing on the brink of a depression.

  In an emergency situation, you may have to bend or even compromise your principles, to save the nation from a catastrophe. That’s why I supported TARP as a necessary evil.

  It’s the same reason why, during the Cold War, conservatives who would normally like to avoid foreign entanglements were grudgingly led to support NATO.

  So right now, the true believers in the GOP base are shouting “RINO!” at any Republicans in Congress who take their responsibility to the nation seriously, and have had to support drastic measures to keep our economy from tanking, measures that are difficult for any conservative to swallow but are necessary evils.

  To resolve this, we should separate current policy (which is being distorted by the national emergency) from future policy–what we want for the nation long after the current crisis has eased.

  A lot of those so-called “RINOs” are more conservative on other issues not related to the current economic crisis–such as national defense, energy, etc.

• 6 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:02 am

  gibberish: Of course civil marriage could be left up to the states. The question then becomes what does one state do about a marriage from another state. If a gay couple marries in Massachusetts and then moves to Texas to take lucrative employment there, does Texas have to recognize their marriage?

  That’s what the fuss over the national Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Clinton) was all about.

  We’re a union of 50 states, and in economic matters, states are required by the “full faith and credit” clause to recognize each other’s contracts. Thus your driver’s license, issued to you in the state where you live, is valid to drive a car anywhere in the nation. OTOH, the courts have ruled that “full faith and credit” doesn’t apply to civil marriage.

  So right now, DOMA is the main issue.

• 7 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:16 am

  (continued) “This same blogger wrote the only reason you seem to be getting a forum on this political site is because you are a regular person who has had second thoughts about your vote, not because of your political expertise. All this sounds like cult talk to me.”

  (Those were my comments she is quoting BTW.)

  I don’t see this as cult-like in any way. It is merely an observation. I simply don’t see why Ms. Wright’s voice should be any louder than anyone else’s who comments here. I am an ordinary voter too. I have no degree in political science and am not a fellow of AEI or any other organization, but somehow I know the difference between McCain and Obama.

  Mr. Frum, please allow me to write a column or two here as well. My qualifications, political knowledge, and overall writing skills are at least equivalent to Ms. Wright’s.

  I need to repeat what I have said before. No one is saying Ms. Wright or Gen. Powell can’t vote for or endorse Republican candidates. Although these two had a chance recently to vote for a candidate who is considered moderate and somehow they didn’t. They both lecture us after the votes have been cast, and then claim someone is excluding them when the advice isn’t enthusiastically welcomed.

  In the case of Powell – if one wants to be seen as a Republican he needs to do a little more than assert his membership. You need to hold SOME views that differentiate yourself from other parties, otherwise it is a distinction without a difference – a mere label. Powell hasn’t done a very good job articulating his Republican views – the views that most Republicans share, mainly limited government.

  Ironically, I do not identify myself as a Republican. ( I used to until the party moved farther leftward toward statism) I am a libertarian leaning conservative. I am not a social conservative, although I sympathize with them generally. Social conservatives have a right to vote for and try to influence politicians just like everyone else.
  If there is a competent limited government Republican running who has some socially liberal views I would have no problem voting for him/her. Furthermore I would avoid voting for a social conservative who is not for limited government such as Huckabee. But belief in limited government is a symptom of conservatism, it is not a cause of it. Generally most of those who are for limited government find themselves at odds with Democrats on many other issues that are interwoven and related ideologically, but even on that one issue alone it should be no contest. It is one thing to not be happy with your own party. It is another level of naivete to be unaware of how damaging the Democrat party has been and is continuing to be when it comes to their desire to control, politicize and socialize all aspects of American life.

  This taints their credibility in the advice department.

  I can’t exclude Crystal or Colin from being affiliated with any group nor do I care to. So we have an irony here: I end up voting for Republicans who are not all the things that I may wish for and I am not even a Republican, and Colin Powell and Crystal Wright claim to be Republicans yet vote for Democrats because Republicans fail them on some level.

  And we STILL really don’t know why from either of them. They continue to speak as though being a Republican is like a club membership and not a constellation of ideas that makes up a political party, and that somehow the entire party must conform to their views or they not only will abstain from voting, they will vote for the other side! This displays an appalling lack of understanding of the fundamental (still) differences in the two world-views of D’s and R’s.

• 8 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:18 am

  Open the Tent and Let Those Who Haven’t Purchased a Ticket Run the Show – should be the title here because that is what you are in effect saying.

  Powell has never held or run for elective office in his life. He has been a military man immune from partisan politics and has served under Republican administrations.

  Powell eschewed many invitations and opportunities to run for office or join tickets as Vice President. Powell has never stood up for any Republican under attack from the left and always held benign uncontroversial positions on hot-button issues. Powell’s approval ratings are high precisely because he hasn’t had to come down strongly on any of these issues which actually running for office forces. What IS Powell’s position on gay marriage? School choice? I’m not sure Gen. Powell would agree with Ms. Wright on even these issues.

  Rush Limbaugh unlike Powell is clear on every issue. Of course there are those who will disagree and if Powell dared to come down clearly on one side or the other on a few issues his approval rating would instantly drop.

  Even when it comes to the size of government Powell seems more aligned with Democrats.

• 9 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:46 am

  If Colin Powell came out for privatizing Social Security and against Universal health care, that would be the end of his popularity and he would not be given a forum on nationally televised political shows of NBC CBS ABC or CNN to speak out on these issues. Powell is given a forum because he is bashing people the media hate and/or are envious of.

  If Powell were to come out strongly on school choice or even ” less taxation (flat tax), less regulation and more individual responsibility” his approval ratings would plummet (with the moderate Democrats who think they like him) The teachers unions would align against him and they would attack him on every level. He would no longer be invited to certain parties in Georgetown and his wife would take more flack from her liberal coffee clatch. This is the reality of American politics and why people align themselves with one or the other parties.

  So interestingly, Ms. Wright is to the right of Powell on these issues, and to the right Frum and others here on gay marriage. So far there isn’t one issue Ms. Wright has mentioned that differs from Rush Limbaugh’s stands, yet she takes Powell’s side and advice. I’m confused.

• 10 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:11 am

  “I guess you have to be a political expert to be a Republican and have your ideas heard not a regular person. Thats curious because liberal or conservative, regular people who live regular lives make up the majority of voters in this country, not political experts. Us regulars support messages and policies we understand not radicalism from wherever the source.”

  Ms. Wright completely missed my point here and distorts the implication. No one said she couldn’t be a Republican or is trying to prevent her from voting as one. I certainly didn’t, and she is relying on my quotes. Neither did I or anyone that I know of (and I’ve read the threads) say that she should not be allowed to voice her opinion. I merely was pointing out that she is simply one voice, not one that speaks from very much knowledge or experience in advising political campaigns or parties. The fact that she believes in the above issues’ privatizing Social Security, against Universal Health Care, school choice, yet voted for Obama is inexplicable and politically incoherent. Somehow we are supposed to be swayed by this one voter’s questionable political constructions?

  Was it really that difficult to grasp or is she being a bit disingenuous here? I made an observation. A) Ms. Wright voted for Obama. B) Ms Wright has no particular political pundit credentials, therefore the reason she was given a column is that she is an ordinary person who is the type of voter Frum wants to attract to his “new majority”. These are facts. Is there some other reason this particular person is given a column?

  “Us regulars support messages and policies we understand not radicalism from wherever the source.”

  That’s funny because she quotes radical Bob Herbert from the New York Times for support of your position against Gingrich.

• 11 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:44 am

  What we really need to do here is find out precisely why Ms. Wright voted for Obama. This is not meant in any way as accusation or a negative, but an objective inquiry. I would also ask if she has voted for Republicans before and which ones. That would inform us, as well.

  She believes in less government, great. Well, we are not getting that under Obama – not in the least, we are getting massively MORE government.

  If she didn’t know that was coming, why should we take her advice or use her as any kind of model for possible Republican voters until she can explain how she was either fooled or there is some other as yet unspecified reason for her vote? And if it is that she was fooled perhaps she will continue to be fooled, how do we then proceed? Be better at fooling her than Democrats?

  When it comes to voting we have essentially four choices, the Republican candidate, the Democrat, a third party, or to abstain altogether, so with that in mind I want to submit a question to Ms. Wright:

  Forget voting “for” the Republican candidate – At what point do Obama’s and overall Democrat policies PREVENT you from voting for the Democrat?

• 12 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:51 am

  Franco:
  I think she explained it the last time.

  While ideologically she was closer to McCain than to Obama, she saw McCain’s disastrous performance during the campaign and decided that he wouldn’t make a good President.

  Impressing the voters is a lot more than just taking positions they approve of. Anybody can recite canned talking-points. It’s also showing them that you know what you’re talking about, are unruffled under pressure, and have a vision where you want to take the country in the next 8 years.

  McCain failed those tests.

• 13 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 10:20 am

  I am confused by a few things – as to why they’re “conservative” in the “small government” vein.

  For example – “privatized” social security. To me, this implies we still have some sort of massive Federal bureaucracy tasked with collecting social security, auditing various investment plans, tracking people’s portfolios.

  Why is the conservative position not “eliminate Social Security”? This seems much more consistent with the concept of “more individual responsibility”.

  The basic premise of Social Security is that the individual cannot be entrusted with the decision of how much of their money they must set aside for retirement, disability, and survivor benefit purposes. Thus, the Government must establish an insurance pool to provide for those things and require everyone to pay into the pool.

  Personally, I oppose “privatized” Social Security because I do not trust America’s financial and banking sectors to have such a huge chunk of money directed by government into their coffers. After the 80’s S&L crisis, the 90’s stock market bubble, and the 00’s ARM/derivatives caused meltdowns, the idea of the Federal Government being the guarantor of last resort for more of their debacles causes me great grief.

  And make no mistake – if tens of millions of elderly Americans suddenly had huge amounts of their Social Security portfolios being erased overnight in a crisis, and faced destitution, the taxpayer would end up picking up the tab. The number of politicians who would oppose this “bailout” could fit in a phone booth.

  If you’re really conservative – just kill Social Security altogether. Anything else is still “Big Government”, isn’t it?

• 14 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 10:54 am

  sinz,

  OK so this is an anomaly and shouldn’t be applied to the Republican party in general. I agree McCain was a bad candidate. However, it was the moderate wing of the party that promoted him. So they put up a flawed candidate, people like Crystal don’t vote for him, actually vote for the other guy, and then they try to tell us it is because the Republicans are too far right?!?

• 15 Jeffryw // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:23 am

  Sounds like every issue you mention should recieve overwhelming Blacks support for the GOP. Yet 95% of Blacks voted for Obama. Gee, why was that? And what party is racist? Please tell me which party has the cult figure at its head?

  And I do not think you should be getting your views of teh GOP from the NY Times any more than you should get your view of the Democratic party from Guns And Ammo…actually G & A would probably be less partisan.

  But I digress.

• 16 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:30 am

  Here is the original comment I posted it is all the way at the bottom the first one:

  Franco
  6/2/2009
  8:15 AM

  Would you have voted for Romney over Obama?

  Again the Republican Party is not a cult. You don’t join. There is no secret handshake. Republicans are a diverse group. You can see here we have many arguments with each other yet often when all is said and done we end up voting for the same guy.

  I was TOTALLY against nominating McCain for many of the reasons you wrote, and I knew him well enough to know that he would be seen as you saw him, and fairly accurately in my opinion. I could even go farther than you in my criticism of him.

  The fact that you didn’t see Obama for what he is is what many here were talking about, but you perhaps don’t follow politics that closely. The only reason you seem to be getting a forum on this political site is because you are a regular person who has had second thoughts about your vote, not because of your political expertise.
  __________________________________________

  I had to find that and it is annoying me now that I have re-read my post. Notice she picked a few words out of my comment but didn’t bother answering my question or elaborating, just making more assertions based on nothing really. All of Ms. Wrights policy talk serves to explain that she does indeed hold some conservative ideals, but they aren’t evidence of what the Republican party has done wrong in not getting her vote. I’m not arguing against her positions in fact I AGREE with her on most of these issues and on McCain. But dare I question how she arrives at her decisions to vote for Obama or question her knowledge of politics and I and others are accused of virtually locking her out of the party as though we have the keys to the Republican clubhouse.

  I am neither in any way saying that Ms. Wright should not be allowed to write or express her opinion as she erroneously implies, I am simply observing that regardless of many other aptitudes and skills she may possess she might not be the ideal person to take advice from about what kind of candidate we should nominate if she ended up voting FOR Obama.

  The question was obviously read but no attempt was made to answer it.

  “All this sounds like cult talk to me.” What something sounds like to Crystal and what exists in reality can easily be two different things as she noted herself in regards to Obama being a centrist.

• 17 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  jeffreyw: “Sounds like every issue you mention should recieve overwhelming Blacks support for the GOP.”

  Not sure why one would say that, considering the socio-economic impolications.

  For example, I’ve heard it argued that since black males live actuarialy shorter than the rest of the population – and therefore get back less in social security payments – the system is biased against blacks. This neglects the AFDC component, where black families receive a significantly higher percentage of they payouts.

  I don’t even know how you “reform … the insurance paradigm from treating disease to prevention” while practicing less regulation, so I’ll skip that one.

  With respect to a federal healthcare system – the National Bureau of Economic Research reports “The occurrence of under-insurance is more than three times higher for non-white husbands and nearly twice as high for non-white wives as for their white counterparts.”

  While there certainly are blacks who support voucher plans for education – I think that in general they’d want it to be like DC, where large federal infusions of cash support the voucher system, so that it doesn’t gut the finances of struggling school districts. They would like the opportunity to afford better education for their own children, but there’s not a big move to eliminate the public school system for the communities they live in.

  I see one place where the numbers actually support the Republican position – gay marriage. But given how quickly the ground is moving on this issue nationally, relying on that as a basis as a commonality between the Republican base and the black community is building one’s church on shifting sands, indeed.

• 18 Captain America // Jun 8, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  sinz…

  So you mean to tell me that a PR campaign and a nicely tailored suit (Obama) matters more than a 25 year voting record in (McCain) and proven competence to any self-proclaimed conservative?

• 19 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  balconesfault “For example, I’ve heard it argued that since black males live actuarialy shorter than the rest of the population – and therefore get back less in social security payments – the system is biased against blacks. This neglects the AFDC component, where black families receive a significantly higher percentage of they payouts.”

  Wow. This is conflating two things that should remain separate but you are connecting them by race which is completely irrelevant given the differences of these programs.

  Social Security isn’t on par with welfare. For SS they take money out of your pay and your employer has to contribute equally, which of course means it is coming out of your pocket indirectly. AFDC is purely taxpayer money that comes primarily from working people of all races.

  Second people don’t (yet) have group rights in this country. Because people are the same color does not mean that they don’t have diverging interests and separate claims. Money going to blacks on welfare is supposed to make up for unfairness in the Social Security scheme, where working blacks are not differentiated from non-working welfare recipients because they have the same skin color? This gives us a line on your sloppy thinking and it reflects a sort of racist view of people.

  So the working black man who considers himself short-changed by Social Security is supposed to feel better because his peeps (the non working ones) are getting other benefits? Or the black leaders are supposed to see this as somehow fair and equal, balancing the racial spoils out somehow? Hilarious! Besides, SS is ripping EVERYONE off but those who got in on the ground floor of the ponzi scheme.

  And also since women live longer than men, white and black, by that measure it is unfair to men in general. But such is the problem with collectivism. From each according to his abilities…

• 20 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  “Wow. This is conflating two things that should remain separate but you are connecting them by race which is completely irrelevant given the differences of these programs.”

  Actually, you’re correct – I misspoke – while AFDC was established by the original Social Security Act, I was actually meaning to refer to the survivor and disability benefits to families – blacks account for 18% of those receiving Social Security disability payments and 23% of children receiving survivor benefits, well above their contribution rate.

  My apologies for the confusion.

• 21 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 1:48 pm

  “blacks account for 18% of those receiving Social Security disability payments and 23% of children receiving survivor benefits, well above their contribution rate.

  My apologies for the confusion.”

  Whatever, the issue is when you aggregate and collectivize and then separate by racial or for that matter any category to ascertain fairness you are going counter to the spirit of the programs. You can’t have programs that are meant to apply to everyone across the board be analyzed to see which groups benefit more by arbitrary categories like race and gender precisely because they are meant for everyone. There is no point. We won’t stand for discrimination in who is accepted, or for different pay out schemes for different groups anyway because that too is unfair. Of course these programs are unfair in many ways to individuals which is why I am generally against them. Some people or groups of people get the benefits while others don’t. Even in private insurance different groups are preferred because of the nature of the aggregation. A horrible driver who has yet to have an accident, or even has already had an accident, gets better rates than a conscientious honor student who is under 26.

  However the idea (not that I agree) is that we all benefit because we each may find ourselves disabled or out of work etc. The fact that people get different results and particularly to separate them out by race after the fact runs counter to the spirit of these programs. Just because more blacks benefit does not mean anything because more blacks are poor or whatever, and it is unfair and again sloppy thinking to hold one group accountable for another.

• 22 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 8, 2009 at 2:42 pm

  I think your someone David lets have a forum on here to keep people such as myself from leaving for good. He knows that the majority of people who write for the New Majority are too far right for main stream and he is trying to keep those who did vote for Obama at this site.
  I do agree with most of what you write though I think your wasting your breath. The nut jobs have figured out that they get the attention they lack in real life by blogging or making it to cable news…..eh David? LOL….. so they are not going to shut up and put the best interest of the country before their petty little needs.
  Racial bias should be a thing of past because I can lay money that NO ONE here has a family that is lilly white and all carry the blood of an immigrant in their past…many carry black blood if truth be known. All one has to do is check their genealogy back about 5 to 6 generations.
  When it comes to children? NO ONE should care what the color of their skin is if they need food or education. …but hey I am willing to let those that make it an issue explain to God where the difference in their skin color comes into their decision making process.

• 23 liv&win // Jun 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm

  I would like to see the republican party be more pragmatic and employ positive cooperation in dealing with some of the issues which give us a small tent:

  Abortion – we allow perfection to be the enemy of good. Would reducing abortions by 50% be better than continuing with the fight to ban them? If you agree, then there is enough overlap between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice to make that a reality.

  Public Education – this should be THE issue of the Republican party. We should be ashamed of public education, most especially in urban districts.

  Gay Marriage – All laws should apply equally to all people, period.

  Drug Legalization – Conservatives have been pro-legalization for decades

  Social Security – developed on actuarial assumptions that haven’t existed for 30 years. Every employer should be required to establish a 401(k) and employees should be required to contribute 15% of pay into that private fund.

  Medicare – Health Care Reform, awe shucks. Not enough space to get into this….if patients want reasonable access to quality health care at an AFFORDABLE PRICE, what do we as patients need to do to help doctors give us what we want? I have answers. But back to one law, one people, I am deeply offended that dozens of special interest groups are eligible for special assistance, but the rest of us are on our own.

  MLK – judge not by the color of ones skin but by the quality of ones character. One nation, under God. When dealing with the Federal Government, we are all Americans, not special interest groups.

  Energy Independence – all available resources and technology should be deployed.

  Environmental – It is our land sea and air which gives us life. The rp should be all about protecting and preserving our resources. We missed a great opportunity to learn from the American Indians on how nature works and how to manage natural resources.

  Religion – The rp should emphasize personal spirituality and jettison religion from all dialogue.

  These are the things I’d like to see the RP shift towards. The general shift is Pragmatic Positive Cooperation

• 24 zivatar // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm

  I certainly agree that the Republicans need to open the tent if they’re going to win elections. I have my doubts as to whether trying to cater to blacks with school choice and marriage will accomplish much, because I think that blacks are just too committed to the Democrats, especially now that Obama is at the head of that party, and will always vote overwhelmingly for Democrats except perhaps in elections in which there are black Republican candidates for them to vote for. But hey, I could be wrong, and I wouldn’t write ‘em off. I just wouldn’t hope for much. Former “Reagan Democrats” who have deserted the Republican party are much better prospective targets, I would say.

  And there’s no point in opening the tent to some while barring others, much less expelling others already under the tent. Snide comments about Limbaugh or Palin or about who has or hasn’t actually read Russell Kirk aren’t going to help, and indeed, those who take that tack NEED to be drummed out of the party, because they will lose more votes than they attract.

• 25 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  franco: “Just because more blacks benefit does not mean anything because more blacks are poor or whatever, and it is unfair and again sloppy thinking to hold one group accountable for another. “

  You’ve decontextualized my comment, and made it about something very different than what it was about.

  The poster I was responding to was wondering why blacks didn’t overwhealmingly support the GOP side on every issue cited.

  I went through the issues that were included, and Social Security Privatization was one. I have heard the argument that blacks should oppose the current SS program because, as I noted, actuarially black males live less, and thus receive less benefits from SS.

  This ignores the fact that SS is NOT just a big 401K program run by the government. It is a social insurance program – not only providing retiree benefits, but also disability benefits and support for families whose breadwinners pass away.

  When you consider the latter two benefits, the discrepancy in retiree benefits is eclipsed.

  If one doesn’t want it to be about race, fine. But the original poster was speaking directly to race, and I’m still not persuaded of his point having any validity.

• 26 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:23 pm

  Captain America:
  When the financial crisis hit, McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to go back to Washington DC to help solve the problem. He went to DC, where he accomplished absolutely nothing. He couldn’t sway a single Republican who was against TARP to vote for it. So then he resumed his campaigning as if nothing had happened. He seemed to be flailing about ineffectually–not what you want in a Chief Executive. And during the debates, McCain babbled endlessly about earmarks, while Obama talked about the global financial system and what needed to be done to restore confidence to it. McCain didn’t seem to “get it,” as far as the economic crisis was concerned.

  I agree with Ms. Wright. McCain came off as someone who was past his prime, and who appeared flummoxed by the economic mess. (McCain had admitted that economic issues had never been his strong suit–a disastrous admission at a time of national financial collapse.)

• 27 Jeremy // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  THere;s a lot here I would object to, but the republican attitudes towards health care truly baffle me. I’ve lived in Canada, France, and England, and all of those countries have lower per capita costs, and better outcomes than the American system. I have yet to meet an non-american – conservative, liberal, neo-marxist, etc, who desires that their health care system move towards an American private-insurance based system. There are so many reasons why – a healthier population is a more productive population; governments can buy perscription drugs en masse thereby drastically lowering costs; losing a job isn’t nearly as devestating when you get to keep your health coverage – I could go on. The idea that some bureaurocrat is sitting at the hospital interfereing with doctor/patient decesions is a total scare tactic,and trust me, I’ve spent enough time in the hospital to know that that line of criticism is total bs.

  Privatize social security? What, so you can let wall street manage your money? Put it under your mattress? I agree that gov’t doesn’t always make wise decesions, but only insofar as governments are populated by fallable people, like any organization (read private enterprise).

  Individual responsibility – great, I also think that people should be more responsible, but how can something like that be be a government mandated policy without seriousl treading on peoples freedom? Do you want to legislate responsiblility? Who decides what constitutes responsible behavior, and how on earth would you enforce it? Some guy standing at the beer store checking your bank account balance to make sure your have enough savings to meet your other obligations. Sounds like a nightmare.

• 28 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:33 pm

  “He went to DC, where he accomplished absolutely nothing. He couldn’t sway a single Republican who was against TARP to vote for it. “

  Call it the “Maverick” problem. While that was a selling point for the media, who loves someone who makes for a good story line (and what’s a better story line than “politician bucks party!”) – when you get right down to it “maverick’s” end up on their own on a lot of issues not simply because they don’t follow the party line – but because they can’t get others to follow.

  Also, McCain’s career is filled with flip-flops on fairly substantive issues. What politician wants to take the risk of following someone who is taking a controversial stand, only to have that politician do a 180 and leave them out there on their own? Lindsey Graham, maybe … but who else?

  As I’ve said before, McCain ran away with the primaries because the Republican Party gamed their system (lots of winner-take-all contests) to favor an early win for whoever got momentum. McCain’s name recognition, military record, years of fawning media coverage, and lets face it – there had to be an appeal to many that he was one of the very few Republicans who would say “torture is wrong” in debates – gave him pluralities while others fought for each others constituencies.

• 29 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:39 pm

  Franco & balconesfault: In 1960, the GOP candidate, Nixon, received 40% of the black vote against JFK–an excellent showing. But times were changing.

  In 1964, the GOP candidate, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed segregation in public places and in employment. It didn’t matter that most other Republicans voted for it. By nominating for President someone who opposed it, the GOP alienated black voters.

  From then on, the GOP became disinterested in getting black votes. When Nixon ran again in 1968, his “Southern strategy” was designed to peel off Southern (white) Democrats from Humphrey, the Dem candidate. By 1972, the South was firmly in GOP hands, and Southern white voters were voting Repub overwhelmingly. Many of these white voters were old enough to have supported racial segregation; why were they now voting Republican?

  It’s been on these issues of black civil rights that the GOP found itself increasingly on the other side, defending the status quo–and increasingly dependent on the votes of socially conservative white Southerners (whom blacks remain suspicious of to this day) to win in the Electoral College.

  Today, the fault line is affirmative action. Most blacks are all for it; the GOP is against it. Jack Kemp was one of the very few modern conservative Republicans to have significant support from the black community. But Kemp broke from his party on affirmative action–he supported it.

  If the GOP is to win black voters again, it has to answer two specific concerns blacks have:

  1. If affirmative action is repealed, what equivalent steps can the GOP do to ensure that blacks have all the opportunities to succeed that were long denied them?

  2. Today, the GOP’s solid base of support is white Southerners. Can the GOP assure blacks that the GOP has not won the votes of white Southerners by appealing to nativism or racialism?

• 30 Jeremy // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  THere;s a lot here I would object to, but the republican attitudes towards health care truly baffle me. I’ve lived in Canada, France, and England, and all of those countries have lower per capita costs, and better outcomes than the American system. I have yet to meet an non-american – conservative, liberal, neo-marxist, etc, who desires that their health care system move towards an American private-insurance based system. There are so many reasons why – a healthier population is a more productive population; governments can buy perscription drugs en masse thereby drastically lowering costs; losing a job isn’t nearly as devestating when you get to keep your health coverage – I could go on. The idea that some bureaurocrat is sitting at the hospital interfereing with doctor/patient decesions is a total scare tactic,and trust me, I’ve spent enough time in the hospital to know that that line of criticism is total bs.

  Privatize social security? What, so you can let wall street manage your money? Put it under your mattress? I agree that gov’t doesn’t always make wise decesions, but only insofar as governments are populated by fallable people, like any organization (read private enterprise).

  Individual responsibility – great, I also think that people should be more responsible, but how can something like that be be a government mandated policy without seriousl treading on peoples freedom? Do you want to legislate responsiblility? Who decides what constitutes responsible behavior, and how on earth would you enforce it? Some guy standing at the beer store checking your bank account balance to make sure your have enough savings to meet your other obligations. Sounds like a nightmare.

• 31 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  sinz says: “1. If affirmative action is repealed, what equivalent steps can the GOP do to ensure that blacks have all the opportunities to succeed that were long denied them?

  2. Today, the GOP’s solid base of support is white Southerners. Can the GOP assure blacks that the GOP has not won the votes of white Southerners by appealing to nativism or racialism?”

  You are being chauvinistic in your assumptions.

  Re 1: If you are against affirmative action how can Republicans promise “equivalent steps”. This would be simply another form of affirmative action! You believe that blacks still need affirmative action and/or you think it is a tool for getting the black vote and that Republicans should use the issue.

  You are are stuck in your own little box inside the debate or else you just don’t have principles. One or the other, and neither is pretty..

  And do I need to go through the problems and unintended consequences of affirmative action programs to a purported conservative?

  Re 2. Do you realize you are indulging in pure bigotry with that comment? Or else you are projecting bigotry on people who may or not be so. White Southerners? Really now???

• 32 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  Colin Powell voted for Obama and said most Americans want big government. For this Crystal lady to insist Colin Powell is a Republican is Orwellian. The guy even admitted he just voted for the guy he thought was best for the job, and he had voted for other Democrats in the past prior to Obama.

  It’s Crystal and Frum that want the Republican party to be a cult….the conservative base just turns out and votes simply because it’s the Republican party, even if that party no longer represents conservative ideals. To vote Party over Principle is like being a cult member. Nobody is stopping Crystal from voting for the GOP. For her to suggest that the conservative base is just a few “crazies” is insulting as hell, and it speaks to her arrogance as the self important “moderate”.

  The fact of the matter is the REpublican party is not even a contender with those “crazies” that Crystal sees fit to smear. It’s the liberal “moderaes” like Crystal that want to hijack the party and make it Democrat-lite.

  I’m getting tired ot this lady using her race and gender as a prop to attack the Republican party. Your opitnion of the GOP is not “more important” ‘because you have black skin and you are a female. You are going to vote for Obama in 2012 if you could not even stomach the uber-moderate McCain in 2008. You are smarmy as hell, and nothing you say even makes sense. Colin Powell is a Republican? Hah!

• 33 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  Colin Powell voted for Obama and said most Americans want big government. For this Crystal lady to insist Colin Powell is a Republican is Orwellian. The guy even admitted he voted for other Democrats in the past prior to Obama. Some Republican.

  It’s Crystal and Frum that want the Republican party to be a cult….the conservative base just turns out and votes simply because it’s the Republican party, even if that party no longer represents conservative ideals. To vote Party over Principle is like being a cult member. Nobody is stopping Crystal from voting for the GOP. For her to suggest that the conservative base is just a few “crazies” is insulting as hell, and it speaks to her arrogance as the self important “moderate”.

  The fact of the matter is the REpublican party is not even a contender with those “crazies” that Crystal sees fit to smear. It’s the liberal “moderaes” like Crystal that want to hijack the party and make it Democrat-lite.

  I’m getting tired ot this lady using her race and gender as a prop to attack the Republican party. Your opitnion of the GOP is not “more important” ‘because you have black skin and you are a female.

  You are going to vote for Obama in 2012 if you could not even stomach the uber-moderate McCain in 2008.

  You are smarmy as hell, and nothing you say even makes sense. Colin Powell is a Republican? Hah!

• 34 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  Sorry for the double post. This is the Soviet Union of websites.

• 35 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  It’s funny how Frum runs stories from the Huffington Post…some leftwing hack Palin-hater accuses her of plagiarizing some Gingrich speech even though she gave Gringrich credit throughout her speech.

  The fact that Frum would even post that obvious attempt to smear Palin shows us that our precious “moderates” are in want of character.

• 36 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:49 pm

  If Palin is truly guilty of plagiarism, that should enhance her in the eyes of moderates and Democrats like Crystal.

  See Joe Biden, plagiarist.

  Didn’t see that coming did you? I just ran a reverse.

• 37 Jeffryw // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  “Theres a large swath of Americans who support several GOP positions and would consider supporting these positions and MAYBE joining the party if it wasnt held hostage in the mud by a small band of crazies. As reported in the Washington Posts Reliable Source column, Lucky Roosevelt told Michael Steele at an event June 2 honoring Nancy Reagan in D.C., If the Republican Party wants to win elections, they have to open the tent.

  Who are these “crazies” that are holding the party hostage??? Michael Steele? John McCain? (Wasn’t McCain Mr. Moderate that the GOP ran? How’d he do?). Who does she mean? Talk show hosts who are just entertainers?

  This woman is swalllowing the media b.s. that places talk show hosts up as the head of the party only so that it can then cut it down. This would be like saying (efore Obama) that Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Alan Colmbs, etc. were “crazies” who held the DNC hostage. And did anyone see Howard Dean during the campagn? The guy was of balanced!

  How about all the crazies in the Dmeocratic party who hated Bush with a visceral passion? What is the difference? The dieifference is the way the media porteays the two parties. Since they are solidly Democratic they will of course try to create a narative that suits their party. And I think Ms. Wright has swaloed it hok line and sinker.

  She quotes the NY Times to back up her argument. I think that says it all.

• 38 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  Jeff,

  Don’t get too worked up over this lady. Frum just found some black female to use as a prop to make his case that the Republican party can win by pandering to people like Crystal. For all we know, Frum just posted a black woman’s picture up there and he’s writing the stupid things “she” says like “Colin Powell is a Republican”.

  That one statement should disqualify anybody from being taken seriously as a honest thinker.

• 39 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  I think polls actually show a majority of blacks OPPOSE gay marraige. A majority of Americans OPPOSE gay marriage. It even got slapped down in California, not exactly the bible belt. It’s well known for it’s bathhouses.

  It’s humorous how Frum and his columnists nobody has ever heard of before all assert that the GOP should run away from being against gay marriage when that is the majority opinion in America. How is that a political winner for the GOP, to support gay marriage?

• 40 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  Jeffryw:
  Perhaps you missed the furious reaction that Ms. Wright got on NM the first time she wrote a column here:

  “Please tell me you haven’t spawned.”

  “Please do America a favor and don’t vote anymore.”

  “Congrats, you are the poster child for all the ill-informed American women who voted on pure touchy-feely emotion and installed this afro-Leninist muslim usurper illegal alien into the White House.”

  “This is why conservatives are no longer going to tolerate moderates in a leadership position in the party, or in elected office. Moderates screw it up every time.”

  “Be careful with men, young lady, they aren’t always what they seem (women too, btw). I hope your naivete ends with your political choices.”

  “I’m torn between congratulating newly aware conservatives and hoping they’re the first in line in the bread lines.”

  The crazies comprise a good third (or more) of the GOP base. They are just not reality-based, and they are fiercely defensive to a point approaching paranoia.

  When they meet up with someone who deserted the GOP last election, their response is “Good riddance!” not “How can we win you back to our side?”

• 41 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 5:15 pm

  Dr. Tesla:
  From reading your comments and those of others on your side of the fence, it’s apparent that the GOP base believes that:

  1. The black vote should be written off.

  2. The Hispanic vote should be written off.

  3. The gay and lesbian vote should be written off.

  4. The moderate vote should be written off.

  5. The union vote should be written off.

  6. The youth vote should be written off.

  So, what that leaves the GOP with is this:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram-2008_Electoral_Vote.png

  How to win back states that went Blue in 2008? No answer.

• 42 danbmil99 // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:55 pm

  GOP: The party of dumb, white males?

• 43 Chrisc23 // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:31 pm

  The problem with Republicans like Colin Powell is that they have no allegiance. I’m a Republican and vote party line. Do I like every candidate on the party line? NO. But do I support them anyway? Yes. Did I think John McCain and Sarah Palin were great candidates? Of course not, but I did support them because they are Republicans. And that is what Colin doesn’t understand. I’m sure there are many Republicans who would support someone else if he was on the ticket. But people vote for him simply because he is a Republican, something we have in common.

• 44 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  sinz,

  I never said or implied any of that.

  You make the assumption that all blacks, hispanics, gays, moderates, union members, etc all think the same way on the issues. That’s simply not true.

  You want to write the individual off. I want the Republican party to appeal to people on the basis they are individuals, not faceless members of some group. To me, to go after the “black” vote and “hispanic” vote is rather a racist approach….you are suggesting that skin color dictates political philosophy. I hope that is not true.

  If unemployment stays at 10% and even goes higher, Obama going to lose to anybody the GOP puts up, even John McCain, a moderate that tried to pander to groups and lose to Obama.

  I don’t remember Obama going after the white male vote. The Jeramaiah Wright association and describing his ostensibly racist grandmother as a “typical white person” didn’t exactly seems like Obama was reaching out to white folk.

• 45 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  The problem is people talk a lot about Colin Powell despite the fact that he doesn’t really contribute anything to the arena of ideas.

  He doesn’ tlike Rush LImbaugh and Palin? So the f—– what? We get it, old man.

• 46 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:52 pm

  What I don’t get is how a person like Colin powell or this Crystal lady can vote for the most leftwing extremist president we’ve ever had but then call themselves moderates. McCain was the liberal/moderate on the ballot in 2008, and this notion that Palin was so right wing that she drove Crystal and Powell to vote for Obama is laughable. Exactly what was Palin so extreme on? Drilling for oil in America? Tax cuts? Smaller government that has fiscal restraint? Scary stuff.

  This Crystal lady tried to make Palin out as some kind of idiot, but what has this Crystal lady ever run? Palin’s been a mayor and now a govenor of a state…she has done something in her life. What has Crystal done in her life to put down Palin’s intelligence, etc? Her black skin and gender seems to be her big accomplishments, in her view.

• 47 Dr. Tesla // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:11 pm

  I just noticed that Crystal is attacking Gingrich for pointing out that Obama’s nominee is a racist. That’s crazy to Crystal…a hispanic woman can say racist things, according to Crystal. It’s people that criticize her for saying racist things that are crazy.

  I also see how she claims she is for small government and lower taxes. If that’s the case, how in the hell could she have voted for Obama? She obviously isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed if she thought Obama was some advocate of smaller government. I don’t know how you could be more uninformed than that on a political candidate.

• 48 danbmil99 // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:43 pm

  “The problem with Republicans like Colin Powell is that they have no allegiance. I’m a Republican and vote party line.”

  I don’t get this mindset. Do you care about your party more than your country? Dude, this is not a sports event. If a Dem candidate is going to be better equipped to handle the country, you’d still vote for the Repub out of a misplaced sense of ‘allegiance’?

  This is exactly what’s wrong with the GOP. It’s not supposed to be a club, a cult, or a religion. It’s supposed to nominate candidates based on a platform of ideas. This concept of us vs them is just nuts.

• 49 KL7212 // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:29 pm

  I’m a moderate Republican. I live in the Northeastern United States. The GOP is nearly extinct here in Southern New England and it is dying in my home state of Pennsylvania.

  We can talk about the “browning” of America and the demographic changes it has wrought, but the real problem with the GOP is not the alienation of Hispanic voters, who tilt Democratic and don’t nearly vote their numbers, but rather the loss of middle and upper middle class white suburban voters.To put it another way, had John McCain performed as well among this demographic group as George H.W. Bush twenty years ago, he would have won last year’s election in a walk.

  When “white flight” from the Republican Party was limited to the affluent suburbs around cities like Philaldelphia, Boston, New York and Chicago, it could be written off by the GOP as “liberal elitism” and counter-acted by Republican strength in the South and Mid-West. But as the last election showed, the damage appears to have spread beyond the boundaries of “Blue State” America into the urban centers and suburbs of “Red State” cities like Tampa, Columbus, Raleigh, Miami and Denver while the “bluing” of mid-sized, but crucial, states like Virginia and Colorado continues apace.

  At the Presidential level, the Democrats now have an Electoral College line up which is virtually unbeatable. Ohio and Florida, traditionally solid GOP states, are now swing states. Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey and all of New England are probably gone for good.

  In Congress, things aren’t much better. There are few safe Republican districts outside of the South. The Democrats are on the march everywhere else. Their ideological diversity allows them to draft candidates who have broad appeal beyond the party’s liberal base.

  Meanwhile, on the Republican side, doctrinaire conservative clowns like the Club for Growth are shooting moderate Republicans like former Congressman Wayne Gilchrist of Maryland (who easily won re-election in 2006) in the back and placing candidates who are too conservative for the states they seek to represent on the ballot–candidates who nearly always lose to Democrats in general elections.

  Increasingly, the Republican Party is seen as superstitious, narrow-minded and intolerant among white suburban voters outside of the South, a demographic which should be a natural one for GOP. The Democrats get it, why don’t we?

• 50 KL7212 // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:48 pm

  Dr. Tesla:

  “I also see how she claims she is for small government and lower taxes. If that’s the case, how in the hell could she have voted for Obama?”

  It appears Crystal voted for Obama for the same reasons I voted for him: She didn’t want to reward eight years of mind numbing fecklessness, profligacy and stupidity by putting the GOP back in the White House.

  Remember, we’re conseratives: We’re supposed to place enormous value competence, reason and responsibility. We believe in rewarding success and punishing failure.

• 51 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 9, 2009 at 4:47 am

  Responding to “Chris”…. where do you think we live son??? in Soviet Russia??? If we are Republicans I “must” toe the party line of the GOP???? in order to remain a Republican?? Really? I must give my ability for free thought and ability to make a decision and let some “party members” tell me how to think and vote? Herein lies the real reason the GOP has failed, and make no mistake the GOP of old is gone, it is because people refuse to accept that their “Party Line” will not be followed blindly any longer. Those days are gone and all that is left are the people who liked it that way…which apparently consistutes 21% of the voting public. The ones who in the privacy of their homes can hate blacks and immigrants, who secretly think controling the wife is their God given right and that everyone MUST pray to their God.
  NEVER will I use my vote the way some “Party” thinks I should. I WILL vote based on the person running and their ability.
  Yes, I am one of the ones that the Limbaughs/Palins think should be ran off from the GOP…him being thrice married and a drug addict but hey that’s apparently O.K or Sarah Palin who is not smart enough to be allowed to drive my kids across town so if thats the company I have to accept to be a member in good standing? I will remain one of the 47% who stepped across party lines to vote in Novemeber.

• 52 jsinger008 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:43 am

  Crystal,

  First of all, welcome to this website and thanks for sharing your thoughts about the GOP and the last election. Unlike “KL7212″, I did not vote for President Obama and I don’t agree with his assessment that a vote for Obama was somehow “rewarding success”, but I value civil debate very highly so I’m glad you decided to post your thoughts on David’s website.

  That said, as Dr. Tesla and Franco have already pointed out, it is unclear to me why you think the GOP is being “held hostage in the mud by a small band of crazies.” The one specific criticism you mention is Newt’s comment about Sotomayor — there are a lot of reasons I would have said what Newt said differently, but surely you can appreciate the offense us white males took at Sotomayor’s comment (actually, I took no offense, because I don’t know Sotomayor and have been less than impressed with her credentials the more I find out). But your quote from Herbert is telling — do you really think he represents a reasonable, moderate position on the issues?

  As numerous comments have pointed out, the GOP should be your home from a public policy standpoint. So the question then becomes, how do we win your vote? Or to put it another way, what were the issues that caused you to vote for President Obama? By the way, here in Chicago I vote for Democrats all the time, basically because the GOP in the city is lifeless. I try to pick competent, technocratic types, in the hope that they will govern more conservatively than your typical liberal interest group politician. So I can appreciate being presented with less than ideal alternatives in an election, but I’d still be interested why you voted for Obama over McCain since neither had the real world experience in dealing with economic issues and all we had to go on were their respective voting records as legislators (which did offer us a track record of sorts for judging the candidates).

• 53 ChristianMiller // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:05 am

  KL7212 “Remember, we’re conservatives: We’re supposed to place enormous value competence, reason and responsibility. We believe in rewarding success and punishing failure.”

  You are not a conservative. How do I know? Because you voted for Obama over McCain. That’s going to be my new definition of a definite non-conservative – if they voted for Obama. Not a bad rule of thumb. I can make many more distinctions and definitions but that test is easy. So don’t go voting for an obvious leftist and then claim you are conservative, OK?

  Now I didn’t vote for McCain either, but I didn’t vote FOR Obama. You are in for a big surprise when you find out what the Democrats have in store for our country.

  And while I don’t wholeheartedly agree with Chris I will defend him on this basis : Chris understands what is in store when Democrats run things. Cris know they plan to politicize everything, socialize everything, redistribute wealth and manipulate groups of people by falsely charging racism, xenophobia and other despicable political behaviors.

  Bulldoglover100 Doesn’t think for herself: if she really thinks that she is making the right choice voting for supposedly competent Democrats (Obama ?? Biden???) over less competent (seemingly) Republicans displays an ignorance of Democrat goals and methods. After 4 years of Obamanomics and takeovers and heavy handed government meddling she might get a bit of a clue.

  Till then she is a captive of the MSM and doesn’t even know it.

• 54 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:28 am

  Franco: Your argument is that no matter how badly the GOP has led the nation (and they got us into a useless war in Iraq and a collapsing financial system at home), conservative voters should continue to vote Republican solely on ideology.

  That’s a real tough argument to make. It assumes that one is a conservative first and an American second. I’m not. I’m an American first. I may be politically right of center, but I acknowledge that some Democrats are better capable at running the country than some Republicans.

  BTW, FDR’s successful leadership in WW2 had pretty much set liberalism as the dominant ideology in America till the 1970s. Self-identified conservatives were few, back then. If the voters had agreed with you, Eisenhower could never have been elected President. He wasn’t elected because he was more conservative than Stevenson. He was elected because he was perceived as a leader, given his WW2 experience.

• 55 jsinger008 // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:53 am

  sinz54,

  This argument keeps coming up — the GOP did a “bad” job of governing so they deserved to be “punished”. But what is missing from your analysis is the idea that Obama had an experience as a successful leader and/or had ideas for governing the country that would prove successful. Essentially, according to your analysis, Obama won the American vote because he convinced voters he would be more capable than McCain at running the country. But it is worth thinking about the implications of this, because Obama just didn’t have a record as a leader, so I guess it was his use of rhetoric and is personal demeanor that won people over?

  Finally, while this story of how Obama won over moderates (or those who didn’t like Iraq) might seem plausible, those of us who think ideology shapes public policy and therefore will shape how a leader governs, I would have to say it remains a mystery why anyone who is self-described conservative would choose Obama over McCain, despite the latter’s faults as a Senator and Presidential candidate.

• 56 ChristianMiller // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:31 am

  sinz54,

  “Your argument is that no matter how badly the GOP has led the nation (and they got us into a useless war in Iraq and a collapsing financial system at home), conservative voters should continue to vote Republican solely on ideology.”

  That isn’t my argument. I said this: “And while I don’t wholeheartedly agree with Chris I will defend him on this basis : Chris understands what is in store when Democrats run things.”

  I don’t wholeheartedly agree….is that too difficult for you to read?
  What is it with you females who insist on distorting words that are plainly spoken? Crystal here draws inferences out of my comments that simply weren’t there – she just makes things up out of thin air, and you are doing the same thing.

  And speaking of difficult arguments what about your bigoted remark about ‘white southerners”? You seem to have a quite narrow grasp of who your fellow Americans are. I don’t believe you understand this country well enough to know what is really going on.

  “(and they got us into a useless war in Iraq and a collapsing financial system at home)” Oh yeah?

  The Democrats precipitated the financial collapse and then promptly made it worse by a factor of 5 once Obama took control.

  You mean the war in Iraq that was caused by Clinton’s and Democrat policies of appeasement and reliance on the corrupt UN? It was not at all useless. You see, dictators around the world will take a lesson that maybe, just maybe, if they push the US too far they are going to get overthrown. Today what would Sadaam be doing? He would STILL not have WMD? I’m sure you folks all want to go on record saying that for the rest of history Sadaam would NEVER have done anything like develop and proliferate WMD.

  But back to the subject, did you also vote for Obama like the rest of the brilliant analysts here who want to change the Republican party?

  I’m sorry to tell you this but back in the 70’s America was ten times more conservative across the board than today. FDR passed the “New Deal” and we are paying for it today. He launched what became a giant ponzi scheme that is shortly coming due. FDR JFK Lyndon Johnson – none of them were for gay marriage all of them were against illegal immigration all of them were ready to defend America from enemies foreign and domestic.

  JFK would be called a right wing crazy by the folks here if he were alive today and held the same views as he did in 1960. Your historical analysis is out-of-context and the use of labels that meant different thing then than now seem to have convinced you of falsehoods. A liberal in those days is today’s conservative.

  The kind of conservative that I am. I am for preserving America as the country that was founded on the Constitution which is a Liberal Ccountry that promotes and protects the INDIVIDUAL. When someone no matter what they call themslves, wants to take away individual rights and substitute group rights I don’t care how competent he/she is they aren’t getting my vote. And that included John McCain. So please don’t go casually reading my posts and respond to things I didn’t say and ignore the things I did say.

• 57 Mara // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:31 am

  As the type of person that’s been drummed out of the party for being insufficiently rigid and doctrinaire, (Im a fiscally conservative, socially liberal) I’d like to point out that actually hating your fellow American does NOT endear them to you. Nor does sneering and name calling. When Crystal uses the snide “Democrat Senator” instead of the correct “Democratic Senator there are a LOT of you who chuckle and think this is clever word usage. Its not. Its immature and silly. And thats how the Republican party is being viewed. Angry, snide, silly, rigid, and small minded. And its even worse when you realize that Republicans, and conservatives in general, seem to blindly follow anyone who is put forward by the leadership. Its no longer an issue of governing philosophy or general ideologyits now all about beating the other guy. About being loyal to the one that brung ya, so to speak.

  Franco says You are not a conservative. How do I know? Because you voted for Obama over McCain. Forget that McCain chose as his running mate someone that nobody had ever heard of, who was not properly vetted, could not hold her own during an interview, and pretty much hid from the press and refused to answer questions. Forget that McCain had been against waterboarding before he was for it. Forget that the Republican party just led us through the largest expansion of government in history, as well as a record-breaking deficit and debt. Forget it all! Because if you didnt vote for the guy who rubber stamped this spending, picked this Alaskan nut-job to be President if he couldnt, etc if you voted for the wrong person, you couldnt POSSIBLY be a conservative. Demanding that kind of blind loyalty does seem like a hallmark of a cult.

  As are the silly over-the-top ravings of how Democrats (and Independents, one supposes) hate America and are contriving our destruction. For example – Franco (and Chris) insist the Democrats plan on “politicize everything, socialize everything, redistribute wealth and manipulate groups of people by falsely charging racism, xenophobia and other despicable political behaviors.”

  This is just plain silly. If I went out looking for a Democrat and tried to find one to match this descriptionId never find one! And I know a LOT of Democrats! Yes, the policies that most Democrats support MIGHT lead to socialized, politicized everythingbut that isnt the plan. No Democrat I know plans to socialize everything, but that doesnt mean that the policies they support wont result in such a socializing. No Democrat I know plans to politicize everything but their knee-jerk defensiveness over Republican sneers just might end up leading to such a politicizing. These accusations are so out of synch with the views and policies that ordinary, every-day Democrats espouse to their friends and acquaintances that it simply makes Republicans sound, wellcrazy.

  And it devalues serious concerns about the effects of Democratic policy.

• 58 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:58 am

  KL7212,

  Stating that you voted for Obama, a socialist Democrat that clearly had no problem with big government to include spending, entitlements, and higher taxes, to punish the Republican party for spending too much under Bush is a bit smarmy.

  If you had problems with spending, why would you not give McCain a chance, as the one thing he was conservative on was fiscal restrait?

  You are a leftwinger throwing up strawman arguements. No true conservative voted Obama. Trust in that.

• 59 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:01 am

  I’m not sure how Mara has been drummed out of the GOP. Who stops you from voting for the GOP?

  The GOP under moderates like Bush and McCain would seem to represent you more than true conservatives like me.

  The moderates can have the GOP party….conservatives need to start a Conservative Party.

  I’m so tired of moderates bitching about conservatives. Go vote Democrat or Liberterian…that’s what you are.

• 60 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:06 am

  Obama won because the economy was slowing down, the housing credit criss hit (due to Democrat policies I may add), and high gas prices (also a result of Democrat policies. The president in power is the scapegoat and a lot of the “moderates” that have no political convictions just voted for the Democrat because he was not a Republican. Obama’s skin color was also a huge reason why a lot of white people voted for him (white guilt) in addition to all the new black and minority voters that turned out for him.

  A true conservative candidate would not have lost Va, NC, OH, or Florida to Obama. Ohio and PA have always been swing states….Bush won it twice, and he campaigned more as a conservative than he actually governed other than tax cuts and national security.

  If the old media had actually examined Obama at all, I don’t think he even finishes ahead of John Edwards in the Democrat primary. He got a free pass because he’s black and the old white tradiational media doesn’t want to be accused of racism and in fact wanted a black liberal to be president.

• 61 ChristianMiller // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:21 am

  Mara,

  Saying the word “Democrat” is not snide and it isn’t meant to be. What is wrong with “Democrat Senator”? Democratic is a adjective and Democrats don’t have a monopoly on Democracy.

  And Mara you are a Democrat . That is fine go be one. I don’t care. You weren’t ‘drummed out” of any party. You chose another party of your own free will. It is so obvious by your post you will NEVER vote for a Republican, at least not one who is to the right of a Democrat. So I don’t care on bit what you think about the Republican party, you aren’t part of the debate, you are a member of a party that is interested in the defeat of Republicans. Why should anyone here listen to you?

  “Forget that the Republican party just led us through the largest expansion of government in history, as well as a record-breaking deficit and debt.”

  This is a lie. Obama spent more in his first 100 days than any President in US history and four times more than Bush.
  Obama is by far the most left-wing President in history.
  You are a naive Democrat if you don’t know who Saul Alinsky is and how Rahm Emmanuel and Axelrod are using his radical teachings to their ends. So no, it isn’t that smart to vote in a wealth redistributing socialist like Obama over the dunderhead John McCain.

  Sara Palin is smarter than Biden – by a long shot.

  And you seem to be another one who can’t read and makes up things that aren’t there. The Democrats I was referring to were elected Democrats not drone Democrats who don’t even know how left-wing their party is becoming.

  And do you have any idea of how the Democrat(ic) party is being viewed? Venal, corrupt, power-mad underhanded, narcissistic, manipulative, narrow-minded, race obsessed, angry, snide and hypocritical.

  You want angry and snide watch KO you want nasty sarcasm watch the Daily Show.

• 62 Mara // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:26 am

  Dr. Tesla says: I’m not sure how Mara has been drummed out of the GOP. Who stops you from voting for the GOP?

  And ends up answering his own question with this: I’m so tired of moderates bitching about conservatives. Go vote Democrat or Liberterian…that’s what you are.

  IOW, according to him, one CANNOT be moderate AND conservative. Which is why fewer and fewer people are willing to call themselves Republicans. In case you ideologues havent noticed, the majority of people hold a mix of conservative, moderate, and liberal views. I would support fiscally conservative policies if to do so I was not expected to repudiate my views on personal freedom and fairness. Unfortunately, that isnt possible with todays Republican party. As Dr. Tesla illustrates oh so well.

• 63 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:42 am

  Franco,
  I’m doing exactly what every political strategist does, including David Axelrod, Karl Rove, Richard Viguerie, and others: Identify key groups in the electorate who might be most responsive to certain appeals and who might hold the key to various states’ Electoral Votes–and then go after those groups to maximize our votes.

  You’re calling that “bigoted.” OK, then you have just agreed with black activists who claimed that Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” designed to appeal to white Southerners, was bigoted. I don’t think it was, because I don’t want to label all white Southerners, from generation to generation, as bigoted.

  Yet I know that black people are suspicious of such a strategy from the GOP. They remember all too well that white Southerners *used to be* the most bigoted against them of any groups in the nation. Some of the same white Southerners who voted for George Wallace (a genuine racist) in 1968, voted for Nixon in 1972.

  So what I asked is: What can the GOP do to erase this image of being indifferent or even hostile to black progress? The GOP has a legacy: Goldwater voting against the Civil Rights Act; Nixon’s strategy to win over the George Wallace voters; and, of course, the GOP’s opposition to affirmative action, which many middle-class blacks saw as their gateway into the American mainstream.

  If you’re going to be opposed to affirmative action, then what, if anything, can the GOP offer to help bring the rest of blacks into the American middle-class mainstream? Or is our answer to them “You’re on your own; good luck”? That wasn’t Jack Kemp’s answer. But it seems to be YOUR answer.

  Just ranting about “treating everyone as individuals” doesn’t address these specific concerns that I know many blacks have.

• 64 Mara // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:51 am

  Franco – “Saying the word “Democrat” is not snide and it isn’t meant to be. What is wrong with “Democrat Senator”?”

  (sigh)

  because it’s The Democratic Party, not The Democrat Party. Therefore the proper term of address is ‘Democratic Senator”.

  ? “It is so obvious by your post you will NEVER vote for a Republican, at least not one who is to the right of a Democrat.”

  I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and would have voted for him in the general, had he won. My Senator is a Republican, and I voted for him too. Over the years I have voted for Republicans more often than Democrats. So maybe you don’t know me as well as you think you do.

  ? “So I don’t care on bit what you think about the Republican party, you aren’t part of the debate”

  nor will any other moderate conservative be. Yes, I left the party of my own free will because I was not comfortable with the contempt, anger, and rigid ideology demanded by people like you. It’s unfortunate that anyone to the left of the Marquis de Sade is now considered ‘liberal’ and must therefore be a Democrat and the enemy.

  ? “Why should anyone here listen to you?”

  Because I think that a one-party government is not good for the country, whether that government is Democratic or Republican. And besides…I thought this site was dedicated to “building a conservatism that can win again”. If you people want to win again, I suggest that you cease insulting everyone who isn’t for everything you are for as rabidly as you are for it.

• 65 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:53 am

  sinz can’t make a logical case for affirmative action…he knows it’s racial quotas…if you make race a factor, it is racism. To justify AA is to be a racist.

  This Southern Stategy thing is laughable because the only former KKK member in the Senate is Robert Byrd, a very liberal Democrat. This notion that the racist Democrats back in the day switched over to vote Republican in the South is laughable…Robert Byrd blows that out of the water.

  Affirmative action was justified back in the day because there was rampant white racism. But this is no longer the case, and blacks realize this or they have been lied to by race baiting Democrats to believe America is still a white racist country.

  When the South was racist, it voted Democrat. Now that the South isn’t racist, it votes Republican.

  Sinz, your token race baiting and race obsessed leftwinger, of course, leaves out that observation.

  It should also be noted that blacks started voting for Democrats when JFK sprung MLK from jail, but they didn’t realize that JFK was the one that aprove the wiretapping that put MLK in jail. JFK also voted against civil rights legislation in the late 1950s, and he was never a champion of civl rights for blacks. Blacks voted for the Republican party prior to JFK…MLK was a Republican, and the Party was formed when it broke with Whigs over slavery…it was the abolition of slavery party.

  I’ll take the Repubilcan’s record on race over the Democrats record anyday. This is not to say there have not been Republican racists, but when the country had a white racism problem, the majority of them were Democrats, despite what race baiters like sinz wants blacks to believe.

• 66 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:55 am

  Dr. Tesla sez: “The president in power is the scapegoat”

  Uh, no. I don’t accept the argument that the President in power is just a prisoner of historical forces of the past. I didn’t accept that argument from President Jimmy Carter, and I don’t accept it from you.

  I much prefer Reagan’s metric of presidential performance: Are we better off under the incumbent President than we were before? And if the answer is “no,” then that President has that responsibility. His main job is not to leave the country in worse shape than he found it. And Bush blew it.

• 67 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:55 am

  Liberals that whine over the Democratic party being called the Democrat party just display how easily offended and anal retentive they are. To even think thats’ some kind of intentional smear is funny as hell.

  There are kids with cancer that don’t whine like liberals do over the most trivial things.

  This reminds me of the increasingly insane Peggy Noonan petty criticism of Palin for saying “mom” rather than “mother”. Get a f—- life.

• 68 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:57 am

  sinz,

  I was better of under Bush than Obama. Unemployment wasn’t approaching 10% under Bush. It hovered around the natural rate of unemployment of 5% most of his presidency and 9-11 occured on his watch.

  If you don’t think people just blame the party in the White House for things like high gas prices and the economy even if these things are out of their control, you really are one stupid guy.

• 69 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:59 am

  This post of mine deserves a reposting as sinz continues to advocate this “go after groups” based on skin color, gender, etc political stragy/

  You make the assumption that all blacks, hispanics, gays, moderates, union members, etc all think the same way on the issues. That’s simply not true.

  You want to write the individual off. I want the Republican party to appeal to people on the basis they are individuals, not faceless members of some group. To me, to go after the “black” vote and “hispanic” vote is rather a racist approach….you are suggesting that skin color dictates political philosophy. I hope that is not true.

  If unemployment stays at 10% and even goes higher, Obama going to lose to anybody the GOP puts up, even John McCain, a moderate that tried to pander to groups and lose to Obama.

  I don’t remember Obama going after the white male vote. The Jeramaiah Wright association and describing his ostensibly racist grandmother as a “typical white person” didn’t exactly seems like Obama was reaching out to white folk.

• 70 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:02 am

  If all blacks are liberals in political philosophy, as sinz implies, what good would it do to “reach out to them”. It would seem most blacks are rather close minded on political issues if Republicans must adopt liberal orthodoxy, such as affirmative action/racial quotas, to get their vote.

  I like to believe that blacks can be persuaded to be conservatives. Call me an idealist.

• 71 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:06 am

  Tessie: “Obama won because the economy was slowing down, the housing credit criss hit (due to Democrat policies I may add), and high gas prices (also a result of Democrat policies. “

  Yep. All the bad things that happened under Bush were a result of Democratic policies. That’s a sure fire rhetorical pathway to getting voters to entrust the country to the Republican Party once again.

• 72 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:06 am

  Mara, that’s right, you can’t be a conservative and a moderate. I think that was just common sense, but apparently you are lacking in that area.

  It’s apparent to me that you don’t believe in the majority of what the republican party has traditionally stood for. You sound like more of a Liberterian or Democrat to me. I’m just trying to liberate you from your confusion and/or delusion that the GOP is your poiltical home. I simply offer friendly advice that if you disagree with the GOP on the majority of issues, why not go vote for another party rather than try to transform the GOP? That’s just the logical thing to do.

  It seems to me you rather bitch, or you are just a libearl trying to elevate chaos in the GOP.

• 73 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:09 am

  balone,

  It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and the Clinton admin that forced banks to give loans to minorities and other poor people that could not pay them back. This lead to the housing crisis. It’s not hard to understand, but most people don’t follow poiltics and thus they simply blame the guy in the White House. That’s why I said Bush and presidents in general are often scapegoats.

  Democrats oppose drilling for oil in America, which limits our supply, and leads to higher gas prices. Again, a Democrat policy and approach that ends up hurting the American people but they also benefit poiltically as people who don’t follow politics just blame the president.

• 74 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:10 am

  balone,

  It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and the Clinton admin that forced banks to give loans to minorities and other poor people that could not pay them back. This lead to the housing crisis. It’s not hard to understand, but most people don’t follow poiltics and thus they simply blame the guy in the White House. That’s why I said Bush and presidents in general are often scapegoats.

  Democrats oppose drilling for oil in America, which limits our supply, and leads to higher gas prices. Again, a Democrat policy and approach that ends up hurting the American people but they also benefit poiltically as people who don’t follow politics just blame the president.

• 75 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:12 am

  Isn’t the Liberterian party liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues. They were also anti-war.

  Seems like many of the moderates bitching about the Republican party do have a party they could support.

  What’s the problem, not enough people support your ideals?

• 76 ChristianMiller // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:12 am

  OK Mara, then call Republicans Republicanists and the party itself Republicanistic party. If you don’t call it that I’ll be insulted. How’s that?

  No one’s keeping anyone here from voting Republicanist. Apparently they didn’t block you from voting for Ron Paul and if you have fully formed views you will likely again vote R regardless of what us “crazies” say. Oh and Ron Paul and the 9/11 truthers are real mainstream…..riiiight.

  We aren’t saying you have to agree with us we are merely saying you and others are misguided if you think that the party needs to moderate.

  Watch what happens in the 2010 elections. conservatives will win Democrats will lose.

• 77 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:13 am

  jsinger008: You got me all wrong. I was NOT suggesting that the GOP needed to be “punished” for Bush’s failings. In 2008, McCain was running for President, not Bush.

  But: In every election since 1876, whenever the incumbent President was highly unpopular, his party lost the White House in the next election–even if the party nominated someone else.

  That’s not so much “revenge” as it is fear that the party, if it wins the Presidency again, will continue the same unpopular policies as the incumbent’s.

  What McCain failed to do, was convince the country that he could lead the nation significantly better than Bush had led it. That’s a tall order. McCain had been a strong supporter of the Iraq War, which according to the polls most voters now regarded as a mistake. And just like Bush, McCain had assured the nation right through the spring of 2008 that the U.S. economy was doing well–and that Bush should even be given the credit for it. Yet only a few months later, the economy fell off a cliff.

  So McCain would not only have had to distance himself from Bush, he would also have had to distance himself from his own previous support of many of Bush’s policies, and his own sanguine view of the U.S. economy. If he had tried to do that, the Dems would have painted him as a flip-flopper. So McCain was caught in a trap of his own making–and lost the election.

• 78 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:18 am

  “It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and the Clinton admin that forced banks to give loans to minorities and other poor people that could not pay them back. “

  Really now? You want to tell me how Frank and Dodd and the Clinton Administration forced lenders to provide ARMs for people buying $500K tract homes an hour away from Los Angeles, or $800K townhouses in San Francisco? One of the biggest foreclosure markets in the country was Punta Gorda Florida – you’re really going to pin loans for inflated retirement golfcourse front houses and waterfront condos on Barney Frank “forcing banks to loan money to poor people”?

  Hell – I’m still unclear on how all this “forcing” occurred. Please tell us!

• 79 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:20 am

  McCain lost because he failed to energize the conservative base, as he is a libearl on most issues. He was the “moderate” that sinz the GOP must run in order to win.

• 80 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:23 am

  Um,

  Let’s look at this another way, balcone, my smart liberal friend.

  What bank would give loans to people that clearly could not pay them back…banks are in business for profit, and that is an obvious stupid thing to do if you want to make a profit.

  So answer this question, who else could have forced banks to give loans to people who could not pay them back, if not the government, if we agree that banks want to make a profit and thus don’t give loans to poor people.

• 81 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:28 am

  Dr. Tesla sez: “This led to the housing crisis.”

  I agree with you that the encouragement of subprime lending, by BOTH political parties (cf. Bush’s “ownership society”), led to a *housing crisis* when the cycle of home buying peaked. And that would have in turn caused a *banking crisis*.

  BUT that in and of itself would NOT have caused the collapse of a $40 trillion global derivatives market. It wouldn’t have caused the collapse of Wall Street firms like Bear Stearns and AIG. So what did?

  In the late 1980s, we had a banking crisis–the Savings & Loan crisis, which involved hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet America came through it well; and the rest of the world wasn’t affected much.

  What went wrong in the 2000s, was removal of regulatory firewalls that would have contained the housing crisis to the banking industry. Repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed Wall Street investment firms to speculate on securitized mortgages. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, co-sponsored by Phil Gramm and signed into law by Clinton, gutted the SEC’s ability to regulate derivatives.

  And investors speculated on securitized mortgages, leveraging themselves up to 30 to 1, with credit default swap derivatives as “insurance.” But those CDSs were sold to yet other investors, on the mistaken assumption that no one would ever file a claim on these “insurance policies.” This Ponzi scheme came tumbling down, and threatened to take the whole world into a recession.

  I agree with you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passage of Commodity Futures Modernization happened before Bush was elected. But those actions had the enthusiastic support of Republican conservatives, Bush and Phil Gramm included; and in July 2008, Bush went to the G-7 Summit and assured our trading partners that the U.S. economy had turned the corner and would be doing well. Two months later, the global financial system nearly collapsed.

• 82 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:30 am

  Sinz: “So McCain would not only have had to distance himself from Bush, he would also have had to distance himself from his own previous support of many of Bush’s policies, and his own sanguine view of the U.S. economy. If he had tried to do that, the Dems would have painted him as a flip-flopper.”

  Once again, we agree on causality. Had the 2008 elections taken place in 2004, McCain could have easily gotten elected. But his inability to really articulate (aside from *no earmarks!*) any new direction pretty much doomed him in an election where the country was convinced we were on the wrong path.

  Is there any other Republican candidate who could have done better? I don’t think so. I think that assuming the religious right held their noses and showed up at the polls anyway, McCain picking Romney instead of Palin would have kept the election considerably closer.

  But I think the improbability of Obama being elected – not to mention being elected with a large majority – is something many keep avoiding. Between now and 2012, will more people come to regard Obama as “the Other” (and Frank Gaffney’s recent editorial in the Moonie Times is instructive as to just how shrill that’s starting to sound) – or will more people come to regard him as a good family guy who rolls up his sleeves and works on solving the problems that are affecting their lives?

  If the latter, and if there is some turnaround in the economy and no major terrorist attack within the US between now and then, it will be harder to defeat Obama in 2012 than it was in 2008.

• 83 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:33 am

  tesla: “What bank would give loans to people that clearly could not pay them back…banks are in business for profit, and that is an obvious stupid thing to do if you want to make a profit.”

  Indeed – that question certainly flummoxed Alan Greenspan himself:

  http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=6095195

  Greenspan told the House Oversight Committee that his belief that banks would be more prudent in their lending practices because of the need to protect their stockholders had been proven wrong by the current crisis. He called this a “mistake” in his views and said he had been shocked by that.

  Greenspan said he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks in operating in their self-interest would be sufficient to protect their shareholders and the equity in their institutions.

  Greenspan called this “a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”

• 84 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:34 am

  I think picking Romney would have lead to a bigger blowout, as he had waffled on several social issues and he had supported some type of state mandated and run healthcare coverage. It’s hard to make the case that Romney would have generated the huge crowds that Palin did and energize the base like Palin did. McCain wanted to win…that’s why he picked Palin.

• 85 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:37 am

  balcone is a Democrat hack. To suggest that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Democrats did not have a major role in the housing crisis is absurd….banks were forced to give loans to minorities and other poor people, and this is perfectly consistent with what liberal Democrats see as “compassion”.

  Greenspan doesn’t know what he’s talking about if he doesn’t understand the Democrats role in the housing crisis. This isn’t even debatable.

• 86 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:50 am

  “It’s hard to make the case that Romney would have generated the huge crowds that Palin did and energize the base like Palin did. “

  As I said – Romney would have been more likely to have captured more centrist voters, first because he has serious economic chops at a time the economy was the major issue, and second because many of them favor some sort of national healthcare plan.

  Speaking to your point about rallies, I said “assuming the religious right held their noses and showed up at the polls anyway”. Had the religious right walked because they weren’t inspired by a McCain/Romney ticket (or scared enough of Obama) then you’re right, the margin would have been even worse.

• 87 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:51 am

  “banks were forced to give loans to minorities and other poor people”

  I’m still waiting for you to tell us how, and how big a contribution this was to the foreclosure crisis.

  “Greenspan doesn’t know what he’s talking about if he doesn’t understand the Democrats role in the housing crisis. This isn’t even debatable.”

  Thanks for playing. Greenspan is just one more liberal hack, right?

• 88 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:54 am

  It’s rather amusing how these “moderates” both argue that the GOP is irrevelant now but that they could have won if they just had picked somebody other than Palin.

  McCain had the moderate vote locked up. What he needed was teh conservative base, and I think Palin is just as strong as Romney on economic issues, if not more so. If Im’ not mistaken, he did not support the Bush tax cuts. McCain didn’t either.

• 89 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:57 am

  Greenspan is a liberal, yes. He made that clear in his book.

  I have no desire to debate the housing crisis with you. You are an Obamabot and you are just going to cut and paste nonsense from Media Matters, Daily Kos.

  If you truly believe that banks just chose to give loans to people with bad credit without government forcing them to do so, you are truly an idiot, and do not understand how business works even on a basic level.

• 90 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:00 am

  “If you truly believe that banks just chose to give loans to people with bad credit without government forcing them to do so, you are truly an idiot, and do not understand how business works even on a basic level.”

  You’re substituting invective for actual evidence. Not a great demonstration of your knowledge base.

• 91 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:03 am

  You are suggesting that banks would choose to give loans to poor people who did not have the means to pay them back. I contend the only way a business would do that is if the government forced them to do so.

  You can disagree with that logic if you want. You are a leftwinger so I don’t expect you to have common sense.

  You can play the victim card all day. Doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about, and you have displayed a consistent ignorance in almost all of your posts in here.

• 92 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:13 am

  “You are suggesting that banks would choose to give loans to poor people who did not have the means to pay them back. I contend the only way a business would do that is if the government forced them to do so.”

  I contend that you don’t really understand the free market very well, then. People make really bad decisions all the time – and the bigger the speculative frenzy, the worse those decisions tend to be.

  The problem in an unregulated market is that it takes a very small number of very stupid actors to pressure a lot more people into being stupid.

  For example – banks make money from lending money. If people are taking their business elsewhere because rates or standards are lower – then some number of banks are going to feel compelled to follow.

  By your logic, AIG and other insurers must have been forced by government to insure a lot of really bad loans. It’s impossible that a well established insurance company would suddenly throw caution to the wind and build up that massive a portfolio of risky insurance policies.

  Except that they did.

  Your logic isn’t logic. It’s a tautology. Logic actually deals with the evidence at hand, and your “logic” seems determined to avoid the evidence.

• 93 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:30 am

  By your logic, if I have a lot of money that I could loan you on interest, I would have no problem giving you that money even if you make 15K a year. I don’t think companeis make that kind of stupid decision unless the government forces them to do so in the name of compassion and “affordable housing” for the poor.

  I rest my case. If people want to believe your argument that giving loans to poor people is standard operating procedure for banks, so be it.

• 94 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:52 am

  “I don’t think companeis make that kind of stupid decision unless the government forces them to do so in the name of compassion and “affordable housing” for the poor.”

  Interestingly enough, one primary indicator of cultlike behavior is refusal to accept clear evidence that conflicts with dogma.

  You ignore the other examples I cite – of banks making loans with 5% down for half-million to million dollar homes that are now in forclosure and valued at 70% of the original price. Those were without question very stupid decisions by the lenders. And they had nothing to do with any pressure from Barney Frank to loan money to poor people.

  So unless we just discard that evidence, we know that banks are fully capable of making really stupid decisions without pressure from the government. Is your stumbling block that they’re able to make stupid decisions on their own when lending for a million dollar gated-community home … but that it takes pressure from government for them to make stupid decisions on lending for a 100K tract home?

• 95 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:06 pm

  You are conflating one issue with another on purpose to discard the issue that I’m talking about, which is Barney Frank and Democrats forcing banks to give loans to poor people in the name of “affordable housing”. This was a huge factor in the housing crisis, and the dogma is that Democrat hacks like you want to try to sweep it under the rugs because you know it hurts your party if the truth gets out.

• 96 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  Balcone,

  Do you contend that the government never forced banks to give loans to minorities and poor people? I’m going to prove you wrong on that is what you believe.

• 97 dendup // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  Dr T Your assertion that banks wouldn’t make bad loans without being forced shows you don’t understand how the securitization of bad loans was good business for the originating banks. This was encouraged by several administrations because creating innovative financial products was seen as necessary to keep enough liquidity in the system.

  As far as that went it’s probably true. Few were willing to risk a slowdown because of “over” regulation. (Who would say “I’m for over regulation.” or “We need excessive governmant interference.”? So why do so many feel compelled to come out against it?)

  Your assertion would be true if banks actually held the loans they originated – but that hasn’t been true for a long time.

  Greenspan a liberal? Who’s left to be a conservative?

  Just as a personal note – years ago my daughter had a school assignment to illustrate the makeup of an atom with pictures of objects or people in place of the electrons etc. She chose AG as the nucleus and put his picture in the center of her atom. Since then, whenever his name is mentioned we all shout, “The Nucleus!”

• 98 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  “Do you contend that the government never forced banks to give loans to minorities and poor people? I’m going to prove you wrong on that is what you believe. ”

  Just to be clear, your claim was “It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and the Clinton admin that forced banks to give loans to minorities and other poor people that could not pay them back.”

  In other words, I’m contending that the government never forced banks to give loans to minorities and poor people that were substantially more risky than the rest of their portfolios.

  Your burden is to prove that the loans to minorities/poor people represented a higher risk pool than the banks entire portfolios – that there was a significantly higher chance that they “could not pay them back” versus the banks standard lending practices.

• 99 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  It’s amazing how leftwing all the “moderates” in here are.

• 100 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  From the British newspaper The Independent:

  What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world’s banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush and other Republicans to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

  In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings to which its senior executives’ bonuses were linked by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae’s executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

  Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush’s attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush’s initiative, Frank declared: “The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially.” His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: “There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines.”

  When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that “our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent”.

• 101 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:48 pm

  You don’t seem to understand the concept of “leftwing”. Leftwing isn’t requiring banks to apply equal lending standards to minorities – leftwing is building huge subsidized housing projects on government dollars and giving them to people.

  That was the leftwing that was embraced by Democrats during the 60’s and 70’s, and was eventually rejected by the voting public.

  The “ownership society” was actually rooted in conservatism. The idea is that as more and more people become vested in the market through property ownership, they will take more responsibility and espouse more conservative values that are traditionally held by property owners, versus renters.

  From home ownership should flow increased stability in communities, more neighborhood pride, better schools, deeper roots. Home ownership should reduce the need for police and fire service, even, as people take more responsibility for protecting their own property investments.

  This needs to be tempered by pragmatism, which is what our society lacked a lot of recently. While we encourage everyone to own a house – or why else would we have mortgage deductions? – we need to understand that for a lot of reasons this may be a goal, but that it is unattainable. But your “conservatism” seems to be just damning the goal itself, and abandoning the principle that widespread home ownership is a virtue that greatly benefits our society.

• 102 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  Another column about the housing crisis:

  Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Now Obama and Biden want bankruptcy judges to bail out the same deadbeat homeowners. And once again, Barney Frank is helping.

  It’s been said that history is a lie agreed upon. Democrats are trying to rewrite history by blaming the Bush administration for the current crisis and claiming that the rescue bill is necessary to save the economy from Republican mismanagement.

  Last Thursday on Fox News, when Bill O’Reilly tried to suggest that both parties might share the blame, House Finance Committee Chairman Frank, in a not atypical meltdown, disowned any responsibility for his lack of oversight over the last two years and his complicity before that.

  Frank also claimed: “The fact is, it was 1994 that we passed a bill to tell the Fed to stop the subprime lending. We tried to get them to do it.” In other words, those rascally Republicans did it all when they took control of Congress that November.

  The legislation he spoke of was the Homeowners Equity Protection Act. It was supposed to empower the Federal Reserve to set the rules on mortgages. Problem was, the Clinton administration had its own ideas of what the rules should be.

  The Community Reinvestment Act, first passed in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, was intended to increase minority homeownership. It grew out of charges that banks were “redlining” entire inner-city neighborhoods as bad credit risks. Banks now were forced to perform outreach to these areas.

  In the ’70s and ’80s, banks could show that they were trying to do that by advertising in minority newspapers and having representatives sit on the boards of local groups. In other words, they were rated on the effort made and not on the results achieved. Creditworthiness still mattered.

  In 1995, as Howard Husock pointed out eight years ago in City Journal, “the Clinton Treasury Department’s 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance.”

  Creditworthiness and due diligence no longer mattered. As a 1999 New York Times editorial observed: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Bill Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and felt pressure to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

• 103 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  Column continued:

  On Frank’s and Clinton’s watch, the Community Reinvestment Act was changed to force the issuance of bad loans. Banks would be rated on the number of loans, not on their soundness. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were then encouraged to buy them up. It was all about affordable housing, even if the housing was unaffordable.

  “From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” Peter Wallison, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said back in 1999. “If they fail, the government will have to step in and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

  That prediction came true, but it didn’t have to.

  On Sept. 11, 2003, the Bush administration proposed to Congress a new agency under the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie. The new agency would have had the authority to set capital-reserve requirements, veto new lines of business and determine whether the two quasi-government lenders were adequately managing the risk of their ballooning portfolios.

  When former Treasury Secretary John Snow pleaded for Frank to support Fannie and Freddie reform, Frank responded: “These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

  Democrats believe in affordable housing even if it’s at the expense of the vast majority who watch their credit, work hard and pay their mortgages on time. But for the deadbeats, particularly Democratic constituencies, they have ways to make affordable the housing you couldn’t afford. So first, they forced them into housing they couldn’t afford, and now they give them a financial mulligan.

  In the vice presidential debate, Sen. Joe Biden said that “what we should be doing now and Barack Obama and I support it we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you’re paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal you owe.”

  To get this bill passed, Obama made a lot of phone calls particularly to members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including caucus chief Rep. James Clyburn assuring this would happen.

  Those paying their mortgages on time don’t get that break.

  Rep. Elijah Cummings said Obama told him that, if elected president, he would direct a Treasury Department official to work with homeowners in foreclosure to restructure their loans. Cummings said Obama also told him he’d seek changes in bankruptcy laws allowing judges to reduce what borrowers owe on their home loans.

  Section 110 of the rescue legislation has the Orwellian title of “Assistance to Homeowners” but only for the deadbeats.

  It describes somebody called a “Federal property manager” who “holds, owns or controls mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate.”

  Section 110 speaks of “modifications” that this manager can make to these mortgages including not only the reduction of interest rates but the reduction of loan principal.

  Not only is Uncle Sam now the world’s largest landlord. He can also arbitrarily set the value of property and the amount owed on it at will, thus distorting the free market.

  The vast majority of homeowners who pay their mortgages on time get the shaft. They’re the ones who’ll take up the others’ slack.

  Why? And why is the Community Reinvestment Act still law?

  Press Advertise Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Notice Contact Site Map Home
  Copyright 2009 Investor’s Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.

• 104 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  You should have noted that the piece in the Independent was authored by Dominic Lawson – son of former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson, husband of the The Honourable Rosamond Mary Monckton, daughter of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

  It is not reporting – it is political posturing on his part.

  What percentage of the bad loans made by American banks during the last decade were made by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

  I’m not going to insulate Frank and Dodd from blame – everyone in Congress is to blame for feeding the bubble. When ARM loans were being made on the assumption that house prices would increase enough by the time the rates maxed so that the borrower could refinance and make money on the deal – there was plenty of stupid going around for everyone.

  For your “Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac are to blame” argument to have merit, you have to assume that they directly influenced lenders to make ARM loans on half-million to 1 million dollar homes when it was clear that the borrowers could not afford the payments a few years down the line. I can’t see the causality.

  Rather, I just see shortsighted greed and herd mentality at play – as usually happens when there are piles of money to be made and no regulators limiting the amount of leverage that large companies can take on.

• 105 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  jsinger008:

  “I did not vote for President Obama and I don’t agree with his assessment that a vote for Obama was somehow “rewarding success”, but I value civil debate very highly so I’m glad you decided to post your thoughts on David’s website.”

  I said I was punishing failure not “rewarding success” by casting a protest vote for Obama last November.

  There is a subtle difference.

  JS, thanks for the civil response.

• 106 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  sinz54:

  “So McCain would not only have had to distance himself from Bush, he would also have had to distance himself from his own previous support of many of Bush’s policies, and his own sanguine view of the U.S. economy. If he had tried to do that, the Dems would have painted him as a flip-flopper. So McCain was caught in a trap of his own making–and lost the election.”

  But we should note that McCain hung in for so long because of two things: 1. His record as a war hero and 2. the widespread public perception that he stood apart from the Bush Administration.

  Why do think that the Obama campaign pushed the “more of the same” mantra and kept reminding voters that McCain voted with the Bush Administration “90% of the time”? It was because they were smart and they realized that voters, especially moderate indepedent voters, were inclined to see McCain as a “Maverick” who stood up to Bush.

  People like Franco and Dr. Tesla have it backwards. A more conservative candidate, one the masteful Obama campaign could have tied more easily to President Bush, would have been out of the race by Labor Day.

• 107 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  By the way, it should also be noted that McCain won 90% of the Republican vote in 2008–better than Reagan in 1984.

• 108 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  Franco:

  I’m a “small c” conservative, like most Americans. And those “small c” values–like temperance, rationality and restraint–were in short supply in the Bush years and during the McCain campaign.

• 109 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm

  Obama must be a small “c” conservative…he’s showing a lot of temperance, rationatiliy and restraint in government spending and his nationalization of the American auto industry and banks.

  And that’s what KL72 is all about….:)

  Polls show Obama actually beat McCain on the tax cut issue…that doesn’t happen with a true conservative with a record of cutting taxes. A true conservative like Fred Thompson would not have lost NC, VA, FL, or OH to Obama, at the very least.

  Obama woudl have lost if the old traditational media had treated him like a white Republican. Those radical assocations he had would have been enough to sink a Republican.

  He’s a black liberal, so he got a free pass.

• 110 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:08 pm

  The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the changes made to the law during the Clinton years were not the chief causes of the housing crisis. The vast majority of brokers who sold the “problem” loans were lending outside of CRA guidelines.

  Blaming poor (read: MINORITY) homeowners for the crisis misses the mark. After all, they didn’t speculate in Credit Default Swaps and mortgage backed securities.

• 111 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  Dr Tesla:

  “A true conservative like Fred Thompson would not have lost NC, VA, FL, or OH.”

  Are you serious? Ideology aside, Thompson was a dreadful candidate with little appeal outside of the Republican base. He would have lost all of those states and Missouri to boot.

  There’s no way Fred Thompson would have come close to raising as much money as the Obama campaign and he could have been easily tied to the “failed” policies of the Bush Administration.

• 112 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  Of course you are going to say that…you are a Democrat hack. They were not lending outside of the guiidlines….this is perfectly consistent with liberal orthodoxy of racial quotas to force creditors to give loans to minorities and other “oppressed” people. Here’s a repost of the core point:

  “In the ’70s and ’80s, banks could show that they were trying to do that by advertising in minority newspapers and having representatives sit on the boards of local groups. In other words, they were rated on the effort made and not on the results achieved. Creditworthiness still mattered.

  In 1995, as Howard Husock pointed out eight years ago in City Journal, “the Clinton Treasury Department’s 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance.”

  Creditworthiness and due diligence no longer mattered. As a 1999 New York Times editorial observed: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Bill Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and felt pressure to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

  On Frank’s and Clinton’s watch, the Community Reinvestment Act was changed to force the issuance of bad loans. Banks would be rated on the number of loans, not on their soundness. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were then encouraged to buy them up. It was all about affordable housing, even if the housing was unaffordable.

  “From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” Peter Wallison, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said back in 1999. “If they fail, the government will have to step in and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

• 113 Dr. Tesla // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  WE can speculate all day, but since Democrats lost the past two elections (Gore, Kerry) due to an inability to win one single southern state, I think it’s safe to say that Thompson at the very least wins NC and Va and FL. Ohio is a traditional swing state so I could go either way on that one.

• 114 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm

  “Polls show Obama actually beat McCain on the tax cut issue…”

  I don’t see where this comes from.
  22% of voters thought their taxes would go up only if Obama were elected – they voted 84% for McCain

  12% of voters thought their taxes would go up only if McCain were elected – they voted 88% for McCain

  In other words – data suggests that fear of tax increases had a greater benefit to McCain.

  I also don’t think that there’s any way that Fred Thompson, with no record of military service, outpolls John McCain in Virginia.

  Meanwhile, you still assign far too much blame to the CRA to be taken seriously, considering the magnitude of the meltdown and especially the massive paper losses on upper end real estate. Since you’re into article quoting:

  http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/Portals/33/Bradford%20Op-Ed%20on%20CRA.pdf

  The Blame CRA Campaign claims that the revision of the CRA regulations in 1995 forced lenders to invest in subprime loans and imposed harsh penalties on lenders who did not. On the contrary, the regulators made a point of emphasizing that nothing in the regulations sanctioned risky loans and that no specific loan standards, ratios or measures would apply to any lender. The regulations actually deleted prior provisions that allowed the regulators to enforce the CRA with the full range of penalties and restricted future enforcement to taking account of the CRA record in reviewing applications for new branches, acquisitions, and mergers.

  The Blame CRA Campaign wants to blame the victims and to ignore the high levels of fraud and exploitation in the subprime markets. Data from Treasury indicate that reports of lending fraud have increased thirty-fold since 1997. Collectively, the Federal Trade Commission and the attorneys general in every state have sued some of the largest lenders in the subprime markets (The Associates, Household Finance, or Ameriquest) for deceptive and abusive practices, resulting in over a billion dollars in settlements. None of these lenders were covered by the CRA.

• 115 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  Dr. Tesla:

  “Of course you are going to say that…you are a Democrat hack.”

  From 1994 until 2008 I could count on one hand the number of Democrats for whom I’d voted in the previous 15 years.

  “[Sub-prime] lenders were not lending outside of the guiidlines….this is perfectly consistent with liberal orthodoxy of racial quotas to force creditors to give loans to minorities and other “oppressed” people. “

  Do you realize how silly you sound and how some people might see racial prejudice in your words? Are you familiar with the CRA and its guidelines? Last September, Aaron Pressman of Business Week wrote:

  “The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But its even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that arent subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. “

  You’re missing another obvious point: Widespread mortgage defaults didn’t begin until 2007 when the economy started slowing down and the first wave of “exotic” mortgages began to re-set. You also conveniently ignore the fact that the Bush Administration weakened the CRA to make it EASIER for banks to float risky loans. In the same posting referenced above, Pressman also stated:

  “Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the laws reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasnt until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

  Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SECs puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agencys failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.”

  http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

• 116 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  “I think it’s safe to say that Thompson at the very least wins NC and Va and FL.”

  Except that those are states where McCain was especially strong against his conservative opponents in the primaries among REPUBLICAN voters.

  I don’t see how Thompson could have done better than McCain in Virginia. Thompson would have had little to no appeal to the increasingly liberal voters who have flooded into Northern Virginia over the last 20 years. Much the same can be said of North Carolina, where Obama cleaned McCain’s clock in the populous and affluent “Research Triangle”.

  And Florida is at least as much of a swing state now as Ohio, maybe moreso. We can no longer take it for granted.

• 117 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:16 pm

  KL7212 – sadly, on topics like this, people like Tesla give credence to the Steven Colbert joke – “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

  Tesla knows – because he has heard it no doubt repeated many times by Rush and Boortz (hell – I’ve heard it a bunch of times by Rush and Boortz, and I’ve probably only listened a fraction of the time to them that he has) – that Frank and Dodd and Clinton via CRA forced banks to make loans that were disasterous to them. It had nothing to do with a flaw in the underregulated free market.

  Because he knows this, any evidence presented to the contrary must by nature define the presenter as a liberal.

• 118 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:30 pm

  balconesfault asks: “Is there any other Republican candidate who could have done better [than McCain]?”

  Rudy Giuliani might have done better. Rudy Giuliani was a conservative who still got himself elected mayor of New York City, one of the Bluest states in the nation. Unlike McCain, Giuliani had executive experience, and seemed to understand economic issues. Giuliani was pro-choice (up to a point) on abortion–and yet when he addressed Christian evangelical and socially conservative audiences during the campaign, they liked him for his tough stance on crime, terrorism, and in support of Israel.

  Polls showed that Giuliani had a high national approval rating. Giuliani was popular throughout much of the Northeast–how many other Republican conservatives were?

  Giuliani, like Obama, could claim that when the Bush Administration was making the key decisions to march into Iraq, he was not involved. And hence he could take a fresh look at the problem.

  And because Giuliani was not in Congress when the financial system melted down, unlike McCain, he wouldn’t have had to suspend campaigning and actually do anything about it. Just talk about it.

  A Giuliani-Romney ticket would have given Obama-Biden a real run for their money.

• 119 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  I’d have liked Giuliani better against Hillary Clinton.

• 120 KL7212 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:43 pm

  Giuliani’s candidacy will always be one of those “might have beens”. I think the strategy of ignoring the early primaries to contend in Florida was fatal. Successive losses knocked Rudy from the front page and allowed McCain, Huckabee and others to gain momentum.

  More prosaically, I’m not sure Giuliani’s checkered marital history and socially liberal stances on abortion and gay rights would have been warmly received by religious conservatives.

  He was a great mayor, though…

• 121 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:48 pm

  As regards community lending:

  It is true that the original Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 existed for over 30 years without causing a banking collapse. However, in the 1990s, new legislation and regulations further expanded the CRA, increasing risk. First came the Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which forced Fannie and Freddie to support lending for so-called “affordable housing.” In practice, that became a euphemism for sub-prime lending to poor communities with higher risk.

  Next came the Clinton Administration, which wanted to repay blacks and Hispanics for supporting Clinton’s election. In 1995, Clinton issued new regulations that banned banks from refusing to lend in high-risk areas. Liberals called this practice “redlining,” when in fact it’s simply a recognition of statistical probabilities. (Liberals just shout “Racist” whenever statistical analyses produce a result they don’t like.)

  Having said all that, I still go back to my earlier point: These examples of Government meddling in the banking industry may well have contributed to the ultimate collapse of the banks. But that wouldn’t explain why Bear Stearns, AIG, Merrill Lynch, etc., also collapsed–since these weren’t banks. Nor would it explain why a $40 trillion dollar market in derivatives collapsed too, threatening to drag the entire world into recession.

  In the 1990s, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (both actions backed by Republicans and market-oriented Democrats in the Clinton Administration), greatly increased the risk that a failure in the banking sector would spill over into the financial sector, and ripple worldwide.

  We had been assured by Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin that the financial sector was self-regulating, owing to its vast worldwide size and complexity. But good old-fashioned greed overcame the safety mechanisms that the private sector had constructed for itself: Studies have since found that the rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, etc.), whose job it was to rate securitized mortgages for quality and risk, had too often overestimated their quality and underestimated their risk.

  Why did the rating agencies do that? Largely because they were paid to rate securities, NOT by the investors in those securitized mortgages, but by the *issuers* of the securities–a blatant conflict of interest. It would be as if Consumer Reports were paid by the companies whose products it’s reviewing, rather than by subscriptions and donations from consumers.

• 122 umuolo // Jun 10, 2009 at 4:25 am

  Only Dick Cheney and his types can join the Republican Party. You know, Rush, Hannity, Beck ! Blacks, who are decorated soldiers and did not get waivers to get off from serving in Vietnam needs not apply. Hispanics with brains, and a woman, too, need not apply. Gays and lesbians, definitely and absolutely, do not apply. Whitemen with narrow minded view of the world, please come right in. May I offer you some refreshment, say a glass of cristal? While you are at it, do you have some Oxy in the cabinet. How about some? Graduates with impeccable educational record of achievement, happens to have a Puerto Rican ancestry need not apply. Thank you for observing our sign that says we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, and that includes you. Thank you.

• 123 ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 7:05 am

  umuolo Yeah, that’s right. You are not allowed to vote for Republicans. I forbid you. We all forbid you. The door is closed and don’t even think about pulling the lever in the voting booth for anyone who calls himself a Republican. You are barred and excluded from the Republican party. We have our operatives spying and if we catch you voting for one of our guys…. well, it won’t be pretty. You don’t deserve good government, you deserve Democrats from now to eternity. Otherwise, have a nice day.

• 124 sinz54 // Jun 10, 2009 at 7:32 am

  KL7212: Giuliani got a better reception than I expected, when he addressed a meeting of Christian evangelicals.

  First of all, he was honest with them about having a different view on abortion. He stuck to his guns and didn’t try to pander or flip-flop, the way Romney had done. They respected that.

  Then, he recited some reasons why they should support him: His strong stance against crime and urban decay; his staunch support for Israel; his strong stand against Islamic terrorism (he reminded them that he was willing to call it “Islamic” in public).

  There are a number of reasons why Giuliani didn’t win the nomination. But lack of support from Christian evangelicals wasn’t one of them. After all, McCain managed to win the nomination without their support.

• 125 balconesfault // Jun 10, 2009 at 8:03 am

  Best I could tell, Giuliani lost the nomination because … well … the more he was around voters, the less they liked him. And unfortunately, perhaps because of a plan his strategists came up with to boost his standings wrt national defense, rather than emphasizing competence in government, his campaign did sound a lot like the glib Biden characterization of it – a noun, a verb and 9/11.

  In the general election, Giuliani would have suffered similarly to McCain – I can’t remember anywhere where Giuliani seemed ready to draw a distinction between how he’d govern, and how Bush had governed over the last 8 years. That was an anchor for any Republican.

• 126 sinz54 // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:35 am

  Jack Kemp knew that it was unlikely that even a large percentage, much less a majority, of blacks would ever vote for a Republican candidate for President. But he felt it was important to keep trying. Not just because every vote counts, particularly in urbanized states. But because he knew that a party that writes off minorities as unreachable will be viewed by the young (who are too young to remember the bitter civil rights battles) as bigoted or narrow-minded. It’s bad press for a major American party to let itself be defined as the party of white people.

  And yet, that’s what I keep hearing from the GOP base. They are perfectly content to let the GOP be the party of older white people. They have no interest whatsoever in working to appeal to Hispanics (who are the fastest-growing voting bloc in America). They have no interest whatsoever in working to appeal to young people. And no one has taken up Jack Kemp’s cause of outreach to African-Americans. Rather, they wrote a party platform that reflects their views, and they’re presenting it to the rest of America on a “Take it or leave it” basis.

  This insularity is going to doom the GOP–if it’s not changed. No one seems to notice that married white Protestants, the GOP’s bread and butter, are now down to only 51% of the electorate–and that percentage keeps dropping.

• 127 balconesfault // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:49 am

  “But he felt it was important to keep trying. Not just because every vote counts, particularly in urbanized states.”

  Kemp’s outreach here mirrors the conflict within the Democratic Party over the DLC plan (focus resources on Democratic strongholds) versus Howard Dean’s 50-state plan (don’t ceed huge portions of the country/blocks of voters simply because they’ve voted Republican the last few cycles).

  To do that, they accepted that certain issues that were important for those northeast/west coast urban voters – such as gun control – were going to be taken off the front burner. They pretty much announced that someone being anti-gun control wasn’t going to keep the DNC from supporting them in their elections, and wasn’t going to invite primary challenges.

  And the Dems did that without any illusions that the hardest core pro-gun voters were ever going to vote Democratic. But for folks for whom the 2nd Amendment is a secondary issue it was a sign that the Democrats weren’t as extreme anymore as they’d been led to believe.

• 128 whospeaksforyou // Jun 10, 2009 at 11:36 am

  What a great idea! Harness the homophobia of African-Americans as a path back to power for the GOP.

  Enjoy your years in the wilderness. And keep up the brilliant suggestions.

  whospeaksforyou.com

• 129 Dr. Tesla // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:37 pm

  It’s funny how liberals come in here and start smearing conservatives as racists, sexists, and homophobes, and then they falsely suggest we want to harness the “homophobia” of blacks as a way back to power.

  I did point out that a majority of blacks oppose gay marriage in polls that I saw, which was in contradiction to what the Crystal lady asserted. I don’t equate opposition to gay marriage to homophobia and hatred for gay people…that’s a liberal construct.

• 130 ChristianMiller // Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 am

  whospeaksforyou,

  Hahaha. Opposition to gay marriage=homophobia! That’s a riot!

• 131 PWallgren // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:48 pm

  Ms. Wright, given that you don’t have children yourself I don’t think you should write such strongly worded thoughts on how to “punish” parents.

You must log in to post a comment.