I'm very frustrated by McCain's lack of response to Obama's charge that "Republican policies" of deregulation are responsible for the current financial crisis.  I know that many of you disagree with McCain and are against Republican policies in general, but I do ask that in the interest of intellectual honesty and clarity, you all take a few minutes to review some facts so you can argue fairly for your position. 

 

From the New York Times, September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago....

 

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the...Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

 

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Here's another excerpt from the Wall Street Journal about who endorsed and who opposed legislation to prevent this crisis:

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent....

 

If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

It turns out that the Democrats put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to lower their standards in order to enable people to buy homes who really couldn't afford to.  This was done out of compassion, but as I've explained before, misplaced compassion can have disastrous consequences when it directs government policy at the expense of standards and justice.  

 

In terms of the debate itself so far, I'm really interested to know what health care has to do with foreign policy.  What's going on with these questions?

Adam Graham at Culture11 has posted a short but insightful article explaining why the Left just can't stop talking about Sarah Palin...no matter how hard they try:

Read on at culture11.com.

During the recent civil forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, Senator Obama was asked point blank when he believed an embryo became a human life worthy of the same rights as any other American citizen.  Obama responded that the answer to that question was "above his pay grade." 

Fair enough.  We can't expect the President to be an expert on everything.  That's why he has expert advisers.  In this case, that's why he has an expert in bioethics. 



I'd be fine with Obama's response if it weren't for his promise to support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  According to Family Research Council, "FOCA would obliterate hundreds of state laws that protect women, parents, children, and health care workers, while forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for millions of abortions. It would overturn commonsense laws like parental notification, conscience protections, abortion waiting periods, informed consent, and regulations for women's health. In essence, FOCA would tilt the table for abortion."

Now, it seems to me that if the answer to the question of when a baby's life is worth protecting is above Senator Obama's pay grade, then a decision such as whether or not to sign FOCA into law should be even further above it. 

This isn't even a simple question of whether or not I think one should vote for a pro-choice candidate.  Should one vote for a candidate who strongly supports a position that he admits to not fully understanding?  Should one vote for a candidate who does not think deeply about his decisions, and who will enact policies without truly understanding the important issues?

Can you imagine if one of the candidates had said that they could not answer the question of whether or not the current war in Iraq was a just war, and then went on to promise that he would stay committed to the war and increase the number of troops???  Obama's answer makes no more sense.