Ponderstorm My Brainstorm on Life & Politics

Yesterday director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and Bloomberg News columnist Kevin Hasset reported at Bloomberg.com that Democrats are the ones who created the current financial crisis that we find ourselves in as a nation. According to his commentary, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “exploded” and injured many bystanders (some fatally). “Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it’s hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.”

Hassett reports that as of the end of June 2008, “Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments.” He continues (emphasis mine).

Some might say the current mess couldn’t be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Hassett suggests that many Democrats may have opposed this bill due to the massive financial contributions they received from Fannie and Freddie. He continues Read More…

Posted under Barack Obama, John McCain, Politics

I’m sure this shocked many on the left and many in the mainstream media, but the Republican convention was more watched than the Democratic convention AP Television Writer David Bauder reported today. He writes: “The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier.” Also interesting is that John McCain and Barack Obama both were tied at 42.4 million viewers each for their respective party nomination speeches.

Overall, “more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin,” Bauder reports. “Three times in two weeks, political speeches were watched by more people than the ‘American Idol’ finale, the Academy Awards and the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics this year.” Interestingly, speeches by Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton didn’t achieve these numbers.

According to Nielsen Media Research there were an average of 34.5 million people watching the GOP convention over three days. Nielsen suggested that “proved people are becoming more interested in what the Republicans have to say.” Nielsen reported that the Democrats had an average audience of 30.2 million over their convention’s four days. That’s more than 4 million viewers for the Republican convention.

Interesting numbers and interesting times. I think these latest numbers show a reinvigorated Republican Party due in large part to the inclusion of Sarah Palin on the ticket with John McCain.

Posted under Barack Obama, Campaign, John McCain, Politics

From the early 1990s to the present it seems that the Democratic Party has been good for Bill and Hillary Clinton. But have the Clintons been good for the Democratic Party? I think not.

As President, Bill Clinton presided over a shrinking Democratic Party during an era of prosperity. In the 1994 Congressional elections we saw a historic switch in Party power that gave Republicans control of both chambers for the first time in a generation. Many feel he and his wife Hillary were catalysts in this transition.

Fast forward to 2007 to present and Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination for President. Recent efforts by her campaign, including her husband and former President Bill Clinton, seem to be polarizing the traditional Democratic coalition of white liberals, Hispanics and Black voters.

In her effort to attract a majority of the Democratic primary vote, Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems to be driving a wedge between Black and white voters in general and Black and Hispanic voters in particular. This is being done, I feel, by using racial stereotypes and drawing unfair comparisons to paint Barak Obama as the “black candidate.” Simultaneously, subtle suggestions are being made that Hispanics don’t support “black candidates” and thus should vote in block for the “white” candidate.

If I am right, and it seems many political pundits would agree, this is a very risky move for the longterm health of the Democratic Party, especially when when delivered by one some have called America’s “first Back President.” It effectively peals off a loyal block of voters and hangs them out to dry. Judging from history, a Republican Party with the ideals of Lincoln and a populist message like that coming from Mike Huckabee could once again attract a significant group of Black voters in the future.

With this in mind, I’m once again thinking about the Clintons and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been good for and to the Clintons but, apart from raising lots of money and attracting large crowds, the Clintons have not returned the favor. Instead, it seems that the Democratic Party is torn, twisted and harmed in the wake of a Clinton’s advance. Yes, I’d say the Democratic Party has been good for the Clintons but the Clintons have definitely not been good for the Democratic Party.

Posted under Politics

It seems that there is a lot of media attention being placed on the fact that Hillary Clinton teared up and got emotional during a campaign question today. While her move may have been planned in advance to show a human side to her otherwise rigid and calculating political image, I think we should ignore it and pay attention to what she actually says and spend less time debating her emotional disposition at the moment.

In the grand scheme of things, so what if she cried a little today? That fact alone doesn’t change who she is or where she stands in any way. It’s basically irrelevant and distracting to focus on this one instance and ignore her actual proposals.

Posted under Politics

While U.S. Senator Barack Obama officially announced his bid for President of the United States today, I find a few things strangely interesting. First, he is very young and relatively inexperienced. Second, he is no more black than he is white. Third, the Democratic race just got a lot more interesting. This leads me to a few conclusions. Read More…

Posted under Politics