The House ends the suspense by passing the Treasury rescue package and the stock market slides anyway. The Dow closed down 157 at 10, 325 and the S&P lost 15 to 1099. Both indices were much higher (the Dow up about 300) when the vote was taken.
Well, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the vast purchasing of bum assets - presumably we will see the credit markets start to loosen up next week, or not.
NATIONALIZE THIS: Here is a round up of economists who want to recapitalize banks. Well, no approach is bing offered with guarantees at this point. My guess is that the Paulson plan is predicated on the belief/hope/fantasy that once the Treasury has hoovered up a sufficient quantity of mystifying assets of uncertain value, private capital will return to the financial services sector. That might work, too.
My single favorite idea:
...removing the signaling penalty by having the government require banks to stop giving dividends in the short run...
There may be some surprising second-order effects. Although I'll grant that dividends don't mean much other than as a signal, the value of a stable and predictable dividend policy is that investors can match their investment objectives to the company's policy. My guess is that somewhere there is an investment fund that can only hold dividend-paying stocks which will be forced to dump bank stocks. Somewhere else is a trust fund holding stock in the bank grandpa founded which is only allowed to distribute dividends.
Its a second-order issue, so I'm not saying we shouldn't ride roughshod over these objections.
IRKING ME: IIRC, I linked to the essay which proposed the mandatory dividend suspension but can't find it now. [Here we go - from Sebastian Mallaby on Sept 21:
Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago suggest ways to force the banks to raise capital without tapping the taxpayers. First, the government should tell banks to cancel all dividend payments. Banks don't do that on their own because it would signal weakness; if everyone knows the dividend has been canceled because of a government rule, the signaling issue would be removed. Second, the government should tell all healthy banks to issue new equity. Again, banks resist doing this because they don't want to signal weakness and they don't want to dilute existing shareholders. A government order could cut through these obstacles.
So here's a research question - what are the total common dividend payments made by the banking industry? Or to keep it simple, the top twenty, or fifty US banks? How much (or little) capital are we talking about?
A quick estimate - figure the average bank has a 5% dividend yield (this is from a year ago). A dividend suspension would add 5% to the market value of common equity - helpful but not decisive.
I think it's time to start talking up the "tax earmarks" and hold 172 Democrats responsible for their vote. Scoundrels, the lot of 'em.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 03, 2008 at 04:34 PM
lipstick on a pig, I tell you....more fat than Henny Youngman's wife....
Posted by: matt | October 03, 2008 at 04:34 PM
presumably we will see the credit markets start to loosen up next week, or not.
And once the
bailout passescredit market improveshousing market bottomsTreasury starts minting Franklin Delano Raines dimes, the McCain campaign is going on offense.Posted by: bgates | October 03, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Speaking of which,bgates--Steyn is back:
"When Regular Joe Six-Pack Bluecollar Biden tried to match her on the Main Street cred, it rang slightly wacky. "Look," he said, "All you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me, where I spend a lot of time." Why? Is he moonlighting as a checkout clerk on the evening shift? Or is he stalking that nice lady in Lighting Fixtures? As for Katie's Restaurant, ah, I'm sure it was grand but apparently it closed in 1990. In the Diner of the Mind, the refills are endless, and Sen. Joe is sitting shootin' the breeze over a cuppa joe with a couple other regular joes on adjoining stools while Betty-Jo, the sassy waitress who's tough as nails but with a heart of gold, says Ol' Joe, the short-order cook who's doing his Sloppy Joes just the way the senator likes 'em, really appreciates the way that, despite 78 years in Washington, Joe Biden is still just the same regular Joe Six-Pack he was when he and Norman Rockwell first came in for a sarsaparilla all those years ago. But, alas, while he was jetting off for one-to-one talks with the Deputy Tourism Minister of Waziristan, the old neighborhood changed."
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/joe-drill-palin-2178636-mccain-biden>Biden's ersatz authenticity
Posted by: clarice | October 03, 2008 at 04:45 PM
TM, You linked to something that's not there? Hmmm--You've been hanging around Biden for too long.
Posted by: clarice | October 03, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Clarice;
I want to know if he reappy spoke with Joe at the gas station as well.....seems to me that the august Senator would be spending most of his time either Amtraking to and fro to DC or at work....Don't imagine he gets out much to fill his tank like the rest of us. remember George Bush Sr's supermarket moment and the way he was castigated?
Posted by: matt | October 03, 2008 at 04:52 PM
reappy? really....
Posted by: matt | October 03, 2008 at 04:52 PM
the McCain campaign is going on offense.
Do you think it's possible for them to be more offensive than they are right now?
Posted by: TGO | October 03, 2008 at 04:56 PM
This is my favorite line from Steyn:
Sarah, at her best, sounded like the citizen-politician this country's founders intended.
I remember thinking that last night. Since just about everyone is sick of typical politicians, in an informed world she would win by acclamation.
Posted by: Jane | October 03, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Clarice: thanks for the Steyn link!
O/T Drudge says Fox News had 11.1 million viewers last night, meaning they beat CNN. Good for them, again.
Posted by: centralcal | October 03, 2008 at 05:00 PM
If the market going down on Monday was due to the suddenly dismal outlook for the bailout, then what can explain the over 300 point drop today once the bill actually was passed and signed? (an even bigger drop if you count yesterday's drop when it became pretty clear that the bailout would make it through).
It makes no sense, the market goes down because the bill was defeated, it goes down after the bill was passed. A cynical sort (who, me?) might wonder if the movement in the Dow was independent of the bailout and we were just bamboozled into supporting the bailout....
Posted by: steve sturm | October 03, 2008 at 05:01 PM
then what can explain the over 300 point drop today once the bill actually was passed and signed?
There are 159,000 good reasons for the market to be unhappy today.
Posted by: TGO | October 03, 2008 at 05:10 PM
I have seen a Wells Fargo prepared slide show, (I actually have it as an email attachment but dont know how to put in on here ). In it they state they have completed due diligence and their mark to market on the pick a pay loans was to take a 26% writedown.
These were the loans that were originated by Golden West Financial that was purchased and merged into Wachovia. Generally known in the industry as being the skunkiest subprimes around.
The pick a pay referred to the notion that you determined your loan payment, and might actually generate negative amortization or accretion.
I guess you can see why they were so popular. Apparently after George Soros and Steve Bing, the Sandlers ( who sold Golden West Financial just in the nick of time ) are next on the Democrat money parade. How quaint.
Posted by: Gmax | October 03, 2008 at 05:18 PM
"was to take a 26% writedown."
GMax,
Would you clarify what that means - write down to 26% of face (or current par) or 26% write down from face (or current par).
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 03, 2008 at 05:29 PM
That much of an increase in unemployment would have been good for at least 160 points down.
Back of the envelope, the 10 days we just went through were probably good for 50,000 jobs lost in itself.
Figure it took two weeks to get to this state, it will take at least two weeks for the markets to recover.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 03, 2008 at 05:31 PM
I'd normally read "a 26 percent writedown" to mean reducing value by 26 percent; ie, 74 cents on the dollar.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 03, 2008 at 05:32 PM
He said, fingers crossed.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 03, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Good point. The slide is not very clear, but I guess its likely to be an additional mark off book value of 32 B on the remaining book balance of 122 B. The slide said 6/30 balance.
Still Wells wants no FDIC assistance and had total adjustments including this 32 B at 74 B I think. All of that goes to goodwill in purchase accounting.
So WaMu resolves without cost to the FDIC and now Wachovia resolves without cost to the FDIC.
Both were therefore liquidity casualties. All the more reason for Treasury to work all weekend and gets some results pronto tonto.
Posted by: Gmax | October 03, 2008 at 05:46 PM
A dumb blind guess from a seriously under informed citizen would be that because of the delay in the "bail-out/asset swap" bill in Congress, a lot of institutions are in the "sell to raise capital" mode already.
And that's why the DJIA and other indexes went down today, IMHO. I think two weeks is a little soon to anticipate a "recovery", but I would bet that year end (2008), the DJIA closes at around 12,500.
Posted by: E. Nigma | October 03, 2008 at 05:56 PM
McCain's path to electoral success was to tack to the right on this and oppose Bush and the Democrats. (Also the right thing to do in terms of fundamental economics, free market ethics, etc.) He is now overwhelmingly going to lose the election.
Posted by: TCOisbanned | October 03, 2008 at 05:57 PM
Hedge funds are getting slaughtered in a lot of things, they may be triggering sales to effect a flood of redemptions. I think those come at quarter end, so the first Friday after the quarter is need some cash time? Just guessing, I dont really have any direct knowledge on hedgehogs.
Posted by: Gmax | October 03, 2008 at 06:04 PM
"and the stock market slides anyway."
It looks to me like that should read "resulting in the stock market sliding back to the low set when it first became apparent that Bush and the other Democrats were going to force the thing through".
Posted by: Larry Sheldon | October 03, 2008 at 06:12 PM
"Do you think it's possible for them to be more offensive than they are right now?"
You tell us you're The Great Offender.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 03, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Dow finished down 193. LOL.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 03, 2008 at 06:24 PM
K-K-K-Katy's.
Joe used to sit around with gang there and watch The FDR Show kinescopes:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | October 03, 2008 at 06:29 PM
You may be right, TCO. But he did it his way.
If he cannot make headway on pinning the Fanny and Freddy debacle on Obama and his cronies, he has a problem.
If I don't hear McCain go after Rezco, Ayers, Bogdanovich, et al in a debate, it will be a bad sign.
Also, he should send Gov. Palin to Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota and have her appear in a whistle stop style "throw the bums out" campaign a'la Harry Truman's "do nothing congress" campaign.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet | October 03, 2008 at 06:35 PM
"C.J. Bart's, which according to features reporter Ryan Cormier in a May 2008 News Journal story became " a spot with an unsavory reputation as a magnet for panhandlers and worse."
That's the Katie's I remember.
Posted by: Joe | October 03, 2008 at 06:37 PM
Everyone is being forced to see by luciferians who deny their God. The hearing in bed all night was nice. For some reason they used the bodies too..........
i don't think I'm smarter than any troll here, realy.
Posted by: Vatykan | October 03, 2008 at 06:48 PM
That's the Katie's I remember.
Say it ain't so joe...
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 06:50 PM
Ace has a post up that Barney Franks "domestic partner" was a Fannie Mae exec?????
And he just keeps getting a pass on his role in this fiasco.
And this "rescue" is not nearly enough to fix the crisis.
Thank god Palin was on her game last night because today has literally suckered all of us, and a bright spot was so refresshing before this carp deluge.
Posted by: Enlightened | October 03, 2008 at 06:52 PM
And that's why the DJIA and other indexes went down today, IMHO. I think two weeks is a little soon to anticipate a "recovery", but I would bet that year end (2008), the DJIA closes at around 12,500.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant for the *credit* market to recover in the sense that TED spread and LIBOR will be close (say within 10 percent) of precrisis levels.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 03, 2008 at 07:05 PM
Charlie,
I don't think it clears that quickly. The CDS auctions run from the 6th to the 23rd and nobody knows the actual exposure levels. The UBS liquidation of its commodity contracts suggests that European bank exposure may be quite heavy. I don't see how the trust necessary to run the overnight market efficiently can be regained that quickly.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 03, 2008 at 07:18 PM
Enlightened,
Link to Ace's bit at "Naming Names" - LUN. Scroll down if it is not at the top.
Posted by: M. Simon | October 03, 2008 at 07:30 PM
A question I ask in my piece: - How is a guy from one of the most corrupt cities in America in line to become President after his cronies assisted in flushing a trillion dollars down the drain?
LUN - "Naming Names"
Posted by: M. Simon | October 03, 2008 at 07:35 PM
TM
NYT downplays Obama/Ayers connection.Article says they met in 1995:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?hp
Posted by: clarice | October 03, 2008 at 07:45 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?hp>Fast Link to Guy in Neighborhood
Posted by: clarice | October 03, 2008 at 07:46 PM
O/T Drudge says Fox News had 11.1 million viewers last night, meaning they beat CNN.
That carp CNN runs alongside the debate broadcast should be illegal.
A good news organization just runs the debate without trying to tell voters what to think while it's running. They have plenty of time to try to influence opinions afterward.
Posted by: MayBee | October 03, 2008 at 07:46 PM
"WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.
So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.
Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.
"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 07:50 PM
WHAT JUST HAPPENED?
Great new add fron RNCC...Maybe they should by a cable station.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/274814.php
Posted by: Fisher | October 03, 2008 at 07:55 PM
Yeah we had that linked on the other thread...I think its a killer ad EVERYONE needs to see....I would contribute to a special fund just to divulge it...
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 08:04 PM
NYT headline: "Obama Has Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close"
Has the NYT ever gone out of its way to point out that Bush and McCain aren't close?
Posted by: DebinNC | October 03, 2008 at 08:13 PM
A live link for Fisher's post
Posted by: PeterUK | October 03, 2008 at 08:20 PM
"NYT headline: "Obama Has Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close"
Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist bomber...why is it acceptable they had any kind of relationship????
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 08:24 PM
--O/T Drudge says Fox News had 11.1 million viewers last night, meaning they beat CNN. Good for them, again.--
they were only 2 viewers shy of network CBS!
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 03, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Washington Times:
"The FBI is investigating a former Illinois state senator who is a poker-playing buddy of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.
According to Chicago authorities, the FBI visited the offices in Joliet, Ill., of a Will County auditor to ask questions about Larry Walsh, a longtime friend of Mr. Obama's, and his chief of staff Matt Ryan.
Mr. Walsh, who served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2005, was endorsed by Mr. Obama in his county executive election bid. With the support of some of Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate volunteers, he easily defeated incumbent Republican Joseph Mikan.
Will County auditor Steve Weber confirmed that his office had been asked by the FBI to assist in an investigation, but he did not elaborate on the specifics.
Two FBI agents out of Chicago reportedly spent more than an hour in the Will County offices on Wednesday morning.
According to sources, the Walsh investigation may be tied to lobbying firm Smith Dawson and Andrews, which was hired in 2006 for $10,000 per month to help Will County acquire federal grants."
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 08:41 PM
"NYT headline: "Obama Has Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close"
Not for another 32 days anyway.
Posted by: Barney Frank | October 03, 2008 at 08:42 PM
sudden ten point swing for McCain on Intrade...wonder what's up..as someone said here Intrade has no inside knowledge, they just respond to polls...
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 09:05 PM
Ben, isn't that 1.0 point, not 10 point?
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 03, 2008 at 09:08 PM
NYT downplays Obama/Ayers connection
It's a backfire. They know what's coming.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 03, 2008 at 09:13 PM
They know what's coming.
Yes; a fifteen page article on Charles Keating in the NYT Sunday Magazine. With 3D glasses.
Posted by: TGO | October 03, 2008 at 09:29 PM
"Ace has a post up that Barney Franks "domestic partner" was a Fannie Mae exec?????"
It's been posted on JOM a number of times by various posters. There are a whole lot of others tied to Fannie Mae too.
One of the worst conflicts is shown here:
"NBC DAVID GREGORY WIFE'S FANNIE MAE FIXER"
"David Gregory and BETH WILKINSON NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT & LAWYER.Wilkinson served as Fannie Mae's executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary February 2006 until September 2008.
" Her husband is David Gregory - the new and improved chief lefttard at MSNBC (who recently replaced unhinged leftards Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews."
LUN
The link says Dick instead of David. But it is David and one can be sure, no reports that reflected badly on Fannie Mae were going to go out if he had any control over the stories.
Posted by: pagar | October 03, 2008 at 09:30 PM
"Ace has a post up that Barney Franks "domestic partner" was a Fannie Mae exec?????"
It's been posted on JOM a number of times by various posters. There are a whole lot of others tied to Fannie Mae too.
One of the worst conflicts is shown here:
"NBC DAVID GREGORY WIFE'S FANNIE MAE FIXER"
"David Gregory and BETH WILKINSON NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT & LAWYER.Wilkinson served as Fannie Mae's executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary February 2006 until September 2008.
" Her husband is David Gregory - the new and improved chief lefttard at MSNBC (who recently replaced unhinged leftards Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews."
LUN
The link says Dick instead of David. But it is David and one can be sure, no reports that reflected badly on Fannie Mae were going to go out if he had any control over the stories.
Posted by: pagar | October 03, 2008 at 09:32 PM
Ben, isn't that 1.0 point, not 10 point?
It is now, but all of sudden McCain went from 29.3 to 35.5 and Obama from 70 to 66....but it didnt last long..
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 09:34 PM
Sorry about the double post. I swear I hit it only once.
Posted by: pagar | October 03, 2008 at 09:36 PM
LUN
Fannie Mae Projects a Happy Image. But as Its Debt Grows Bigger and Its Executives Get Richer, Should Taxpayers Start to Worry?
read it and weep.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 03, 2008 at 09:37 PM
oh - that LUN is from 2002.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 03, 2008 at 09:37 PM
PAGAR
Is it any wonder the media doesn't report on this...
For instance...The Urban Institute's Board of Trustees?
Jamie S. Gorelick1,2
Partner
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
Judy Woodruff
Special Correspondent
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
http://www.urban.org/about/trustees.cfm
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 03, 2008 at 09:40 PM
Some bloggers have recently speculated that Mr. Ayers had engineered that post for him.
In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.
Ms. Graham said she invited Mr. Obama to dinner at an Italian restaurant in Chicago and was impressed.
“At the end of the dinner I said, ‘I really want you to be chairman.’ He said, ‘I’ll do it if you’ll be vice chairman,’ ” Ms. Graham recalled, and she agreed.
link
Posted by: TGO | October 03, 2008 at 09:43 PM
Well since the NYT's says there is no story, it must be true. They'd never publish lies for political advantage in their newspages.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 03, 2008 at 09:49 PM
If something is in bold does it mean its true? Just asking....
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 09:49 PM
"In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. "
That's often the case in crime rings and drug cartels, the people involved don't admit to anything.
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 09:50 PM
Beth Wilkinson
Executive Vice President - General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Beth A. Wilkinson is Fannie Mae's executive vice president - general counsel and corporate secretary. She reports directly to the chief executive officer. Wilkinson has oversight and management responsibility for all legal issues, strategies, services and resources. Additionally, she serves as the business-oriented, senior legal advisor to the board of directors, chief executive officer, and members of the senior management team.
Prior to joining Fannie Mae, Wilkinson was a partner and co-chair, White Collar Practice Group for Latham & Watkins, LLP, Washington, D.C. Before joining Latham, Wilkinson served as special counsel to the deputy U.S. attorney general. During her tenure at the Department of Justice, Wilkinson was appointed principal deputy of the Terrorism & Violent Crime Section and a prosecutor on the trial team in U.S. v. McVeigh and Nichols.
Wilkinson served in the United States Army as an assistant to the general counsel of the Army for Intelligence & Special Operations. While in that position she was selected to serve as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida to assist in the U.S. v. Noriega case. Wilkinson joined the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Wilkinson twice received the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award, the only two time recipient in the history of the Department of Justice.
Wilkinson has a juris doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law and a bachelor of arts from Princeton University.
Originally Published: February 22, 2006
Last Revised: December 18, 2007
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 03, 2008 at 09:50 PM
In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40 employees of American Continental Corp. McCain would spend more than $550,000 to win the primary and the general election.
In 1983, as McCain contemplated his House re-election, Keating hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for him, even though McCain had no serious competition. When McCain pushed for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000.
...................
Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain.
On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.
The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.
McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Total cost: $13,433.
When the story broke, McCain did nothing to help himself.
"You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.
link
Replace the names Keating and McCain in the above story with Ayers and Obama, and tell me that this board wouldn't erupt in a self-righteous rage.
Motes and beams, my friends, motes and beams.
Posted by: TGO | October 03, 2008 at 09:55 PM
If this was my blog, assholes like TGO would be banned.
Posted by: Antimedia | October 03, 2008 at 09:57 PM
"Keating and McCain in the above story with Ayers and Obama, and tell me that this board wouldn't erupt in a self-righteous rage."
There was not impropriety in the Keating case and in any event Keating may have been many things but he was not a terrorist bomber.
NRO
"Have you ever been a friend or business associate of a terrorist? Not someone who, to your shock and horror, turned out secretly to have bombed government buildings. No, the question is whether you’ve ever befriended an unreconstructed radical whose past was well known to you when you entered his orbit and walked through doors he opened for you. Have you been chummy with an unapologetic terrorist who, years after you’d known and worked closely with him, was still telling the New York Times he regretted only failing to carry out more attacks — and that America still “makes me want to puke”?
Barack Obama has."
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 09:59 PM
More from the NRO
"Obama has lied about his relationship with Ayers, whom he now dismisses as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Ayers and Obama have made joint appearances together; they have argued together for “reforms” of the criminal justice system to make it more criminal-friendly; Obama gushed with praise for Ayers’ 1997 polemical book on the Chicago courts; and they sat together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a left-wing enterprise that distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their ideological allies. Most significant, they worked closely together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC)."
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Regarding the NYTimes article "Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," it might be worth several folks raising substantive objections with the author. You can click through to a web mail form here: Scott Shane.
I notice (in almost invisible light gray print at the bottom of the article) that, "A version of this article appeared in print on October 4, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition." They clearly intend this to be the final word.
You know what I would like to see? I'd like to see another newspaper doing front page rebuttals to the New York Times' front pages.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 03, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Says the reporter that can't get Obama to explain why he's lied about Ayres.
Posted by: MayBee | October 03, 2008 at 10:04 PM
TSk9, How many conflicts of interest do you think we'd find if we really went looking for them. That one you found was a good one. Gorelick is tied to a long period at Fannie Mae too, I believe.
Posted by: pagar | October 03, 2008 at 10:06 PM
TGO you live in an alternate universe...Ayers is a terrorist who launched Obama's career from his own house, Rezko is a convicted felon involved in Obama's campaign and personal home purchase, and Wright is a racist anti-American radical who married Obama. Their relationships with Obama are documented. Some people might think his Messiah mantra trumps his horrendous bad judgment in associating with ANY of these people. I beg to disagree.
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Obama and Ayres also spoke together on a forum Michelle Obama put together.
Michelle Obama served on a gala planning board with both Bernadine Dorhn and Susan Klonsky in 2000.
That doesn't prove they were friends, but they certainly traveled the same circles consistently.
Posted by: MayBee | October 03, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Scott Shane is incurious. I think that exhibits a lack of intellect on his part.
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Y'all click on over to Antimedia's blog (who posted above.)
Hmm.
We Are Winning...and can only fall in this election if you give up.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 03, 2008 at 10:10 PM
"I'd like to see another newspaper doing front page rebuttals to the New York Times' front pages"
Good luck, won't happen. But you might get a banner headline
"Palin failed to kill moose with clean shot in 1992, had to reload. PETA Director Claims Moose Suffered Horribly".
Posted by: ben | October 03, 2008 at 10:10 PM
I do love it that this story comes out after we've seen the emails trying to confirm how Obama got on the board.
Obviously, the story was getting out of control and the players had to make sure their version got out there.
Is it true? Who knows? It would have been easier to believe if someone had actually said it before the campaign started spinning one ridiculous lie after the next.
I think Scott missed the "kids go to school together" defense, too.
Posted by: MayBee | October 03, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Tom Hayden finds Obama to be too conservative. What a scoop!! A Pulitzer for Scott Shane!!
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Can't win by hoping for Rezkoayers bombshell.
Stuff envelopes, convince undecideds, donate cash, make phone calls and go door-to-door.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 03, 2008 at 10:15 PM
I can tell you that I did volunteer work with a woman who killed her husband, and I saw no evidence of her plans to do it.
Who knows how well this guy knew what Obama did with his time, or even who his friends were? It's hard to know what people do in their time away from you.
Posted by: MayBee | October 03, 2008 at 10:16 PM
From wiki;
[At the April 9 1987 meeting] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." Glenn said, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," while DeConcini said, "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act? ... It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators." The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating. Glenn continued to help Keating after that revelation, by setting up a meeting with then-House Majority Leader Jim Wright, which turned out to be the only questionable thing Glenn did throughout the whole affair.
Ethics investigation; Cranston: reprimanded.
Riegle and DeConcini: criticized for acting improperly.
Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment
So McCain, in this instance, for a short time demonstrated judgement almost as poor as the fighter pilot, astronaut hero John Glenn.
And somehow that's the same as working with a known terrorist, declaring him to be mainstream and lying about the relationship with him.
You were actually less boring as cleo.
Posted by: Barney Frank | October 03, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Jim Ryan, that's not my blog. My blog is on hiatus due to a hosting company's failure to renew my domain and the registrar's refusal to transfer ownership to me.
Posted by: Antimedia | October 03, 2008 at 10:30 PM
"In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment."
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
(Line borrowed, with a couple of changes, from Many Rice-Davies.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | October 03, 2008 at 10:33 PM
BTW, I've seen recent comments in other blogs claiming a blowout for Obama. Some media have been showing him with 380 electoral votes. Think back to the past two elections. Do you really think the nation has changed that dramatically? This race will come down to a few votes in a few key states, and the electoral vote will be extremely close - no matter who wins.
Posted by: Antimedia | October 03, 2008 at 10:37 PM
In the book CHARLIE WILSON WAR there was a discussion about the keating five. The Democrats insisted McCain be added to the list,knowing full well he did nothing.The book also talked about Murtha.I gave my copy away,but remember it was an eye opener
Posted by: jean | October 03, 2008 at 10:38 PM
So McCain, in this instance, for a short time demonstrated judgement almost as poor as the fighter pilot, astronaut hero John Glenn.
And I, as a liberal agree with your evaluation. It is the most straightforward and generous interpretation of the information presented, and I cast no aspersions in McCain for his conduct.
But the same consideration is not extended by Republicans to Obama in the Ayers story, just breathless innuendo and slander based on much less evidence than was presented against McCain in the Keating episode.
You want nothing more than to juxtapose the word 'terrorist' with Obama. The circuitous and tortured logic required to arrive at that position is of little concern to the members of this board.
Keating had a much closer relationship to McCain than Ayers ever did to Obama, but you would never discern that fact from the posts on this board.
Posted by: TGO | October 03, 2008 at 10:41 PM
It will be quite a collection at Camp Lakoff:
What will the Obama camp spin on this be? Out of context? A bizarre half-contrary to fact conditional? If Hayden's lucky he'll end up building a bridge to Ketchikan instead of patrolling with the ANWR protection battalion.
Posted by: Elliott | October 03, 2008 at 10:44 PM
bad-
Scott Shane is incurious. I think that exhibits a lack of intellect on his part.
He is a reliable lefty voice, a Joe Wilson booster (one of Obama's astroturfing firms was also connected to Wilson via Jawa, a clue?), and wrote quite a bit on the Justice Department (Gonzales, "wire tapping", and the US Attorneys firings) for someone who is supposed to work the "intelligence beat" (he published the piece naming KSM's interrogator and quite a few others during the CIA's Leak War). He's probably hoping that his coverage will be celebrated along with Duranty and Matthews.
Haven't found a bio though-should send him an email, but I'd probably be far too vulgar.
Wonder how much the Obama campaign is paying him-he seems to be a pretty heavy hitter to write up a story about "some guy who lives in my neighborhood"?
Posted by: RichatUF | October 03, 2008 at 10:45 PM
IBD Editorial:
This article talks about the Obama tax plan as well,
LUN
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 10:46 PM
If we get nearly as many news stories about Obama and ANY of his associates as we did with McCain and Keating 5, I'll be satisfied.
Posted by: MayBee | October 03, 2008 at 10:49 PM
..he seems to be a pretty heavy hitter to write up a story about "some guy who lives in my neighborhood"
The only info in his article I hadn't read elsewhere was the Hayden stuff. Remarkably incurious for someone who is supposed to be a heavy hitter.
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 10:50 PM
When Zero's fans spam up comments, isn't it a sign of the weakness of the candidate? I know that Zero has never done much of anything and that his supporters realize that he's a cheap bagman who is unable to complete a sentence unless he's reading it from a teleprompter but don't they realize how stupid it makes them look to toss this crap into comments?
Zero is comfortable around a terrorist, a racist (actually many racists) and felons.
Those are his kind of people and they always have been. If we are so unfortunate as to have Zero succeed in stealing the election, those are the kind of people we'll be seeing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. People with less class than the totally classless Clintons. I never thought there would possible to get lower than Bubba in terms of ethics but Zero has him whipped.
It is crystal clear that he sold himself to Rezko, he pushed the legislation that is going to get Blag a cell next to Tony Rezko and he was on the pad to Rezko for years. He was dirty then and he's dirty now - it won't change if he's elected.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 03, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Is this TGO's "conciliatory but incredibly, ridiculously obtuse" mode?
Anybody that lived in Ahia during John Glenn's time in the Senate realized that he was too dumb to do anything willfully crooked in the Keating scandal. Plus he was incredibly negligent on repaying his campaign debts on his ill-fated runs for president.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 03, 2008 at 10:55 PM
It is crystal clear that he sold himself to Rezko, he pushed the legislation that is going to get Blag a cell next to Tony Rezko and he was on the pad to Rezko for years. He was dirty then and he's dirty now - it won't change if he's elected.
Another case of total lack of curiosity. Are Sarah Palin's coffee grounds and catlitter really more fascinating than Obama's relationship with Rezko?
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Anti,
Oh, right. Forgot about how common LUN is here.
As Emily Litella said, "Never mind."
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 03, 2008 at 11:01 PM
When Zero's fans spam up comments, isn't it a sign of the weakness of the candidate?
Obama/Biden 353...McCain/Palin 185; But don't worry, it's just a flesh would
Posted by: TGO | October 03, 2008 at 11:03 PM
I say let the poll gloating go unabated among the libtards. All it does is make it that much easier for the knucklehead college student, shiftless union hack, or smarmy Eurotrash wannabe bleeding heart to roll over on election day and dream of victory.
Rather than work hard until then and vote.
Posted by: Soylent Red | October 03, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Her tanning bed, her daughter's car accident, her husband's former membership in the AIP, the Palin's tax returns (hum how does a sitting senator increase his income from 4 million to 7 million a year-book royalities?)
Incurious indeed. What's especially grating is that it's the NYT's, a local beat reporter and a student intern could look up old school newspapers and the NYC radical press in the early to mid 1980's and probably piece together a pretty good story of Obama's great New York adventure. That sort of risky reporting wouldn't win a Duranty Prize though.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 03, 2008 at 11:16 PM
I finally came up with a name for Palin's conservative critics: Sarahtics.
Posted by: Elliott | October 03, 2008 at 11:17 PM
That sort of risky reporting wouldn't win a Duranty Prize though.
More likely a pair of cement overshoes...
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Excellent as always Elliot.
Posted by: bad | October 03, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Good thinking, Soylent. I'm not confident I have a great beat on what's going on but something has changed over the past few days. It's happening. You can feel it.
Posted by: Elliott | October 03, 2008 at 11:24 PM