In the first Presidential debate, Barack Obama used the line more than once that this credit crisis we’re in stems from policies that "shredded" regulations, and that assumed that regulation is "always bad".  But that characterization is simply not true, and in the cases of Freddie and Fannie, which are government sponsored enterprises (GSE), government oversight is especially required.

First of all, GSEs are a non-free-market concept, contrary to Rep. Barney Frank’s assertion that this credit crunch is a failure of the free market.  It is a government program to target certain sectors with cheap loans.  Overall, it has been fairly successful, but it is not a free market issue.  This is government stepping in to deal with a situation it wants to see changed.

The second issue is that when Democrats pushed Freddie and Fannie to create what became known as the subprime mortgage market.  That was the subject of the previous video I posted on this subject.  It became the late-20th-century version of "a chicken in every pot" promise.  Everyone gets a home!  Well, not really.  Everyone gets a mortgage, including some who couldn’t afford it.  But Freddie and Fannie took this mandate and went wild.  It was essentially a big-government solution being administered by a big-government program; again, not a failure of the free market. 

During this time, Republicans realized that more regulation of these types of loans and the securities backed by them was required, but Democrats did not believe there was a problem.  Those were their words; not a problem.

Roll the tape, and listen to their words.

So Obama’s sweeping contention that Republican consider regulation "always bad" is demonstrably false.  Less regulation is a hallmark of conservatism, true, but where it’s required, especially in a government program, it should be done.  But Democrats, when faced with tightening the purse strings on a constituency that they claim for themselves, will see no evil.  Being for the little guy does not mean setting them up for failure.  It’s partisan politics, pure and simple.

And by the way, where’s the MSM on this?  Quiet as a mouse.  FactCheck.org’s checking of debate facts is silent on this issue.  The objectivity on this issue is pointing out some glaring blind spots.

Update: Roger Kimball gives the roots of this crisis a closer look, with suitable linkage.  Short and sweet, but informative.

This is a 10-minute video that sets the Way-Back Machine to 1995 and documents, with quotes, news articles, charts & graphs, how we really got into this mess.  It also notes who contributed to it and who tried to stop it before it happened. 

Keep your mouse on the Pause button.  It packs a lot of information into those 10 minutes.

…or "on empty", depending on how you look at it.  Last Tuesday this came out about Obama’s latest ad.

Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign hit Republican John McCain today over his family’s ownership of foreign cars, saying it would air a TV ad in Michigan highlighting McCain’s statements on buying American.

But the ad, which accuses McCain of misleading Michigan voters by saying he’s bought American vehicles “literally all my life,” doesn’t say that of the 13 vehicles owned by the McCain family, only one is registered to McCain himself – a 2004 Cadillac CTS built in Lansing.

The 12 other vehicles include a 2005 Volkswagen convertible, a 2001 Honda sedan, a 2007 Ford half-ton pickup and three Gem neighborhood electric vehicles – essentially road-worthy golf carts built by a Chrysler subsidiary.

Cindy McCain is the legal owner of 11 vehicles. The Lexus she drives is registered to Hensley & Co., the Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship she inherited from her late father.

He’s unfit for office because … he owns cars, of all things!  And he married into 11 of them!  Oh, the humanity.

If the Obama campaign is trying to say that being rich means you’re elitist, then it’s just the same old class warfare that Democrats have used for decades.  So much for "change".  "Elitism" is an attitude, not the result of a balance sheet.  I would say that racism is elitist, thinking your race is better than others, but anyone from Joe Sixpack to Donald Trump could have that attitude.  You can be in an elite group of people, such as the super-rich, but not necessarily have an elitist attitude.

I would say that suggesting that Pennsylvanians cling to guns and religion during bad times (like that’s a bad thing) is elitist.  And especially after you’d just returned from Pennsylvania praising those same people. 

But my main point is that this sort of ad — calling attention to what he owns instead of what he thinks — smacks of desperation.

Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-Oz), speaking to the National Jewish Democratic Council, used this fine bit of prose to attack Sarah Palin.

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," said Hastings. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Well, there’s a leap I don’t think I’ve ever heard made.  "Don’t vote for Palin; she clings to her guns and mooses."  And the connection to caring about Jews and blacks is obvious, right?  Right?

Rusty Shackleford’s Jawa Report blog is reporting that the first link in his suspected chain of command in the Palin smear viral video has admitted to producing the video.  However, it appears that Ethan Winner is falling on his sword, claiming full and sole responsibility for the production of the video.  Shackleford isn’t convinced, and he spells out why.

Developing…

This report from Rusty Shackleford has been all the rage on the right side of the blogosphere today.  It links viral video with false claims about Palin back to a PR firm that Obama and the DNC have used, though it was made to look like a grassroots effort.  Most telling is that shortly after this scam was exposed by Shackleford, the videos came down and accounts were deleted.

The connection to Obama himself may be tenuous, but there is a better link to his chief media strategist.  It helps the the voiceover artist used is the same one used on other Obama ads.  Yeah, it smacks of conspiracy theories, but Rusty lays it all out (with screenshots and video, especially for the stuff that has since disappeared).  He reports, you decide.

Is this something that only political junkies would even notice?  Perhaps, but in the Internet world of MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, campaigns have to sometimes answer charges that don’t make it into the mainstream media.  Although in this case, the New York Times and a number of liberal pundits did pick up and run with the charge that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a secessionist group.  A big enough deal was made out of it that even FactCheck.org had to debunk the rumor.

Is this the "change" and "hope" and new kind of politics that Obama has promised his supporters?  They may have been sold a bill of goods.

Though “stealing” would be more the verb I’d use.  In Obama’s latest ad running in the southwest, with narration in Spanish, he ties McCain to Limbaugh and then quotes Limbaugh on immigration issues.  It calls McCain two-faced and a liar.  But as Jake Tapper of ABC News discovers, the ad itself is where the deceit is.

The Obama camp draws a very tenuous link between Limbaugh and McCain to start the smear.  Essentially, they say, they both supported the Minutemen.  Well, except McCain didn’t, and Limbaugh has openly and loudly disagreed with McCain on immigration for a long time.

And then the two quotes from Limbaugh are out of context, one in the extreme.  They took a quote from Rush’s sense of what American immigration law would be if they were like Mexico’s.  He paraphrased protest laws for foreigners in Mexico by saying, “shut your mouth or get out”, and the ad makes it sound like he’s speaking to immigrants.

Tapper’s article has the full context for the quotes and both sides of the story on the “lies”.  Karl Rove would be proud.

Oh, and someone please tell Ed O’Keefe of the Washington Post that his entirely uncritical reporting on this new ad does a disservice to his readers (but a rather nice service to Obama).

From Bruce McQuain at Q&O, comes a quiz:

1.  Who identified and tried to fix what presently ails Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 5 years ago?

2.  Who opposed the plan, saying they were not in any kind of financial crisis?

McQuain gives a hint as to what the answer to #2 is; the same folks who say Social Security is just fine, and Medicare is doing well, too.  Bruce has a link to a contemporaneous New York Times article that explains the proposal and the smack down. 

Remember this when Dem…er, certain politicians try to place blame for this and try to use it as a campaign gimmick.

Everybody says they want more politicians in office that fight corruption, wasteful spending, and are willing to go after their own party to do it.  Yet Sarah Palin is continually talked down by Democrats, who’s concerns about corruption seem to have taken a holiday.

Now comes word that their concerns about bipartisanship — about both parties working together — is also on vacation.

Sen. John McCain’s record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama’s efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

Democrats say that they want bipartisanship, and indeed have praised McCain’s overtures to them in the past.  But all of a sudden, that seems to be ancient history.

Now, I will say that I’m not entirely a big fan of some of McCain’s bipartisanship. McCain-Feingold “First Amendment Abridgement Act” (my name for it, not theirs) is a prime example.  But outside the campaign season, politician and voter alike keep complaining about how all this bickering in Washington keeps them from doing “the people’s business”.  But here we are, with the most bipartisan politician for President I think we may have ever seen, and suddenly Democrats have lost all interest in it.

Oh, and Sarah Palin is also quite adept with respect to bipartisanship, getting a 75% job approval rating from Alaska Democrats.  Congress can only dream of such high numbers.
Guess “bipartisanship” just means “doing what I want you to do”.

The media has seemed to take Obama’s side in McCain’s ad accusing the Democrat of signing a bill that would bring "comprehensive sex education" to children as young as kindergarten.  The Obama camp called this a lie, that it was mostly about inappropriate touching at the young ages, and the media have played it that way.

Except that, as Byron York notes, when you actually read the bill and speak to its cosponsors (well, the one he could ever contact about it), that’s not necessarily the case.  Now, Obama may have had his own reasons for voting for the bill, but as York summarizes:

But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten.  Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

Read the whole thing(tm).