Perhaps This is Why He Got Tagged

Elliot Spitzer was going after the Bush Administration for trying to cut regulators off at the knees. Spitzer was a bad boy, for sure, paying for exotic sex, but some bad boys get caught, and most walk free. I suspect he went after the wrong people, and got stung. (“Crimebusters” are to satisfy themselves going after low-level drug offenders, and leave the big boys alone.)

This is from the Washington Post, February, 2008:

Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Elliot Spitzer

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers’ ability to repay, making loans with deceptive “teaser” rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York’s, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

Mr. Spitzer is Governor of New York

Imagine …

I’m used to living in the United States, and I love it that we don’t have double standards here. We instead have triple standards, quadruple standards. We can stand for anything that is convenient at the moment. We can be against invasions while we invade, against torture while piling Iraqi bodies on top of one another for photo-ops … there’s a portion of the public that will buy anything. I just don’t know what percentage of us they are. I fear the answer to that question.

So I jus’ love Levi Johnston words from My Space – you know him – he’s the babydad of Bristol Palin’s love child. This is what he said before the McCain people got hold of him:

I’m a f*****’ redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s*** and just f*****’ chillin’, I guess.
“In a relationship. I don’t want kids.”

He wants to use MySpace

“for networking or for dating …Love kids, but not for me.”

In other words, he’s white trash. He’s not the guy we want standing at the front of the church as our precious one walks up the aisle.

It’s amazing that the Republicans can pull this stuff off, turning on a dime, embracing the things they are against while at the same time continuing to be against those things. I admire their ability to manipulate their base that way. No doubt politicians everywhere would love to find a voting bloc as gullible as the right wing Christians.

That’s the double standard. I’m used to that. Here’s the triple standard: Imagine that Barack Obama, a black guy, had a knocked-up daughter, and that the babydaddy was a thug. Just imagine.

Debate Thoughts

What I’ve garnered from focus groups and polling seem to indicate that Biden had a strong victory. Fox News gives a slight edge to Palin, but that’s to be expected.

On TV, the actual words spoken are not as important than images and moods, so it does little good to analyze what was said. Joe may have gotten in a good jibe here and there, and so did Sarah. But it’s more about demeanor (and screw ups – there were none).

For example, who can remember what McCain or Obama said in their first debate? But do we remember McCain’s sneers, Obama’s friendliness? McCain lost to Obama because he was mean and snarly and petulant. Obama was kind and his smile was genuine, and he was calm and cool. He showed gravitas – seriousness and weight, along with a good nature. People could actually picture him in the Oval Office.

Last night Joe Biden came off as a serious and knowledgeable candidate with a real résumé, while Sarah Palin was more like a student trying to make an F into a C- after a night of cramming. Her rote responses and non-responses did not help her. The winking was annoying. The folksiness might be genuine, but it may be put on too. (It worked in Alaska.) The fact that she didn’t screw up only reassured her base – they breathed easier. The rest of us could see that she had been heavily coached.

In the focus groups I’ve read about, the percentage of people who think she won at is around 35% or so – McCain is polling at around 43% average, so it appears as though she even failed to impress even many of those who are going to vote for the top of the ticket. She did not help his cause.

Note: Apparently, Palin only learned this morning, on-air on Fox, that the McCain/Palin campaign had abandoned the state of Michigan. She’s not exactly an insider – more of a prop.

Caribou Barbie’s ‘Just A-Workin’ the Ref’

Conservatives are attacking Vice Presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill, saying she’s probably biased towards Obama.

Ifill, a host on the news channel for higher IQ folk, PBS (no, I don’t watch it), is also author of a forthcoming book “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” It is presumed that she is biased towards Obama because of the book, and as a subtext, because she is black.

What the conservatives are doing is the same tactic they’ve been using against the media since the 1970’s – working the referee. By drawing attention to Ifill, they are hoping she will be self-conscious, and will back off playing hardball with Barbie.

The tactic usually works. We’ll see.

A Change of Tactics, But Not Stripes

Conservatives often change tactics, but never stripes. Their formula is simple, if not simplistic – Ronald Reagan said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Conservatives want to make government small and insignificant – so they say. They don’t see much in the way of practical use for it, and believe markets self-regulate and self-correct and that we are all best served by deregulated markets.

When evidence flies in their face, as with the current crisis, they usually find a way to blame government. And when it painfully apparent to most all of us that deregulation of the financial markets has created a massive financial squeeze – a near panic putting us on the brink of depression – conservatives go right along insisting that deregulation is a panacea in other areas too. Like, for instance, heath care.

Merrill Mathews, of the right wing think tank Institute for Policy Innovation as a marvelously innovative solution for our health care crisis: deregulation. But he’s not calling it that. He says it’s merely a different kind of regulation. In his op-ed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (McCain is Right on Interstate Health Insurance), Mathews offers up a long-standing right wing cure to health care woes: eliminate the barriers that prevent us from buying health insurance in states where we do not live.

Mr. McCain backs legislation sponsored by Arizona Rep. John Shadegg. Known as the Health Care Choice Act, it would allow individuals living in one state to purchase health insurance being sold to people living in other states. The policy would still have to meet the regulations of the state in which it is being sold, and would be subject to additional federal oversight.

In other words, the McCain-Shadegg reform would allow a person living in New Jersey or New York to buy health insurance that is being sold in and regulated by Pennsylvania or Connecticut. That’s hardly the Wild West of health insurance.

Various states around the union have looked at products offered by health insurers, and found them inadequate, often deceptive. So they have mandated coverages for things like maternity leave, mental illness, addictions, and many other items. The reasons are simple – for one, people gravitate towards the cheapest coverage when they are healthy, and usually under-insure themselves. In addition, many public health problems simply go untreated for lack of coverage. Health insurers want to minimize their financial risk, and so offer a range of coverages that tends to minimize their exposure.

Yes, it is more expensive to cover things than not to cover them, but there are valid public policy reasons for doing so. The insurance model is an inadequate vehicle for public health, so we have attempted to fix its deficiencies though law. Insurers don’t like it – they want to tailor coverages to maximize profits, and would rather not cover things that are highly likely to occur. That’s a guarantee of higher costs.

So addiction and mental illness go untreated, and maternity coverage is restricted to men over age 50. That’s the health insurance model.

Under Mathews plan, state regulations would go out the window, and we would automatically default to the policies of the state with the fewest regulations and cheapest insurance. All of Montana’s thoughtful legislation regarding health care policy would be set aside as our people go to Pennsylvania for their coverage. And insurers would flock to the state with the fewest regulations. Pennsylvania would become the new Delaware. We’d be right back where we started – too little coverage. That’s bad public policy.

Mathews surely knows this, but listen to him:

Mr. Obama opposes interstate sales … he doesn’t believe a market can work in health insurance. He believes it is necessary for the government to look over everybody’s shoulder to make sure patients are getting the care and coverage the government thinks is appropriate at a price the government considers affordable.

…Creating an interstate option for individuals to purchase health insurance doesn’t solve every problem faced by the 45 million Americans who are uninsured. But the choice isn’t between a regulated or unregulated health-insurance market. The choice is between an overregulated market favored by Mr. Obama and a regulated market favored by Mr. McCain that provides more options to help individuals afford health coverage.

So Mr. McCain actually favors a regulated market, and would give it to us by doing de facto deregulation.

I love conservatives – they never change – they don’t adapt. Perhaps they are doomed to extinction.

Just Passing This Along

A different take on Monday’s vote, which I heard on talk radio this morning and am now mindlessly repeating: What if the Republicans, connivers that they are, were hoping to hang the bailout on the Democrats? It’s enormously unpopular.

In this scenario, they would have negotiated a bailout bill in bad faith, led the Dems to think they were on board, and then pulled out at the last moment, making it a Democratic bill.

There’s some support for this theory in the fact that the Republican National Committee ran an ad criticizing the Democrats and Obama for passing the bill. It was apparently run by mistake, just as an AP story was run in Butte and Bozeman announcing passage of the bill.

This would make the true heroes of the day those Democrats who refused to be bullied into going along.

♫How do you solve a problem like Miss Sarah? How do you catch a cloud …♫

National politicians are generally heavily protected by both staff and our media. FDR could not walk, but that fact was concealed from the bulk of the population. Especially in his second term, Ronald Reagan was debilitated by Alzheimer’s, and yet his image was projected on us as a skilled and confident leader.

I had an exchange with another blogger one time about the Reagan situation, and was told that Reagan seemed competent and effective until after he left office, when he began to wither. That was precisely the point – when he left office, the curtain came down, and we saw him as he really was. He was no longer protected.

Joe McGinniss, in his 1969 book The Selling of the President chronicled how Richard Nixon in 1968 was packaged and marketed to us as a product. He was nothing like the images projected on our TV screens, but Nixon’s people understood that television created an alternative reality. Which is real? The man, or the perception?

In the mind of the voter, it’s the perception. If marketed correctly, the man or woman is irrelevant. If their true nature becomes known to us, as Nixon’s did, it is only an accident.

Sarah Palin’s true nature has been exposed – the McCain people seem to have really screwed up.

Marketing is both an art and a science. It doesn’t always give us the silk purse. While John McCain’s handlers have done a credible job of selling his image as war hero and decisive maverick, Sarah Palin has been hopelessly exposed as a beauty pageant queen. Her “brand” is sullied. She may have marketed herself effectively in Alaska – God only knows what that was about – but on the national stage she she splashes before us as an innocent child in a bath tub.

It’s a conundrum. If McCain dumps her, he’ll enrage his Christian right wing base. If he keeps her, he can only hope that she becomes the object of sympathy, the victim of a malicious media. Those are his choices.

What to expect from the “debate” on Thursday? I’ve no clue. Like Reagan, she can be effective when scripted. It’s a question of how much retention she has. She’s being crash-schooled in things apparently beyond her grasp, things she never thought or had to care about up north. The Democrats have to treat her gingerly, so not to be seen as mean-spirited. At the same time, they’ve got to prevent her from grabbing the upper hand, as she did at the Republican convention. We’ll see how smart everyone is.

As McGinnis noted in 1968, there’s little substance to connect a political campaign to what a politician will really do once elected. Barack Obama is effectively selling the image of the calm hand, the reasoned leader. Not so with the McCain people – they have lost control of the narrative. Their brand of toothpaste is not selling. They’re inept. They’ve shown us too much of reality. That’s always a mistake.

Only one thing can save them. Election fraud.

Finally: An Election Fraud Whistleblower

Vodpod videos no longer available.

GOP Cyber security expert Stephen Spoonamore is the person we have been waiting for, the inside expert who is now detailing how election fraud is done. Spoonamore is founder and former CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies. This clip is part of a ten-part interview – go to You Tube to see it all – click here*, and the rest of the clips will be available on the right hand side.

Spoonamore, a Republican and McCain supporter, claims that Saxby Chambliss lost by five points to Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002, that Bush lost to Kerry in 2004, and that the machinery is in place to steal the current election. He details how it is done – in a separate case now working its way through the courts, King Lincoln v. OH Sec. of State, he describes how the electronic part of the Bush “victory” in Ohio in 2004 was done: Votes that were supposedly to be transmitted to the Secretary of State’s office were first routed through a computer based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. That computer happened to be owned by a company called SmarTech. That is coincidentally is the same company that hosted the domain for the Bush White House that allowed them to communicate outside official channels. That’s where the tallies were likely changed.

According to an affidavit filed by Spoonamore in the case, “computer placement, in the middle of the network, is a defined type of attack.”

Spoonamore also claims that the “religious Christianist far right” is behind much of this fraud. That would make sense – fundamentalists are so sure that they are right about everything that any means justifies their ends. That’s the danger of fundamentalism.

This is from Mark Crispin Miller, who has done a yeoman’s job in working the election fraud issue:

According to this piece from Black Box Voting, the election results in Illinois, Colorado and Kentucky will be routed to private servers–just as in Ohio in 2004. As Stephen Spoonamore has made clear, this is an extremely dangerous arrangement, whose only purpose would be to facilitate the theft of the election.

The primary reason that this story doesn’t get a full public airing, and that it is relegated to back burners and assigned to conspiratorial limbo, is that the Democratic Party won’t take the issue seriously. When McCain waltzes into the White House after a stunning upset on November 4th, when forecasted congressional gains don’t materialize, and when lightweight beauty pageant queen Sarah Palin becomes our Vice President, perhaps they will take note.

But I doubt it.

*Best quote from the interview: “Diebold machines are not poorly designed. They are brilliantly designed. They are designed to steal elections.”