The stupid old fool just couldn’t bring himself to place the blame squarely where it belonged, because it wouldn’t be “nice” and “bipartisan” - his “friends” across the aisle wouldn’t be his friends anymore and he wouldn’t get invited to the Sunday Morning talk shows so Stephy and Blitzer can call him a “Maverick.”

Don’t blame the newspapers, they were out to elect Obama, we knew it, and by September (I think) our candidate knew it. They did what we knew they would do, essentially campaign for the Democrat by hiding inconvenient facts, as they have done in every election for the past four to five decades.

That we had no plan or infrastructure to deal with this sort of eventuality after all this time is our fault and our fault alone.

about McCain, it then raises the question of why didn’t the Administration and the Republican controlled Congress insist that reforms be made back in 2001?

To me, Karl Rove’s column is an example of too little, too late.

As one who still bears frustration towards the Bush Administration for its unwillingness to properly explain why the war in Iraq was/is a just cause and not illegal, I’m waiting with baited breath for a Rovian explanation in an upcoming WSJ article.

The Ds got their legend out there and it is now a KnownFact that greedy Republicans and their crooked bankers caused all the problems and are all now sitting on a beach drawing 20% off the bailout money.

That said, I’m certainly no fan of the mortgage industry; even the good ones played fast and loose because they just wanted something they could tie a bow on and sell. I can’t believe some of the things I was offered and we have a generally conservative banking and mortage industry here - those that weren’t didn’t survive the Oil Price Crash of ‘86.

And Martin is right, the old fool had the chance and might have even been able to hold on to his lead if he’d gone out front on this issue. As it was, any hope of winning ended with the stupid suspend the campaign stunt and then just meekly going along.

having made hundreds and tens of millions in bonuses off the hedge funds that were disguised as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

How these purported advocates of “affordable housing” that profited wildly as housing became very unaffordable get a free pass on destroying the wealth of lower income folk with their policies is beyond me. As usual, these Democratic leeches used the implied credit of the US government to obtain below market funding rates (the govt w/ it’s ability to tax is more credit worthy than, say, Citicorp). Further, Fannie & Freddie had the blessing of the govt to leverage itself up to levels questioned by Republicans but protected by Democrats.

Excerps from a prescient Fortune article dated 11/20/2007 Why were capital ratios so low for Fannie and Freddie?

…Such capital increases will have to be very large. Neither Fannie nor Freddie is close to having sufficient capital to weather a full-blown recession.

Freddie Mac had $25.8 billion in capital at the end of the third quarter, which is equivalent to just 3.2% of assets. Fannie Mae’s $40 billion of capital as of Sept. 30 is equivalent to 4.8% of its assets. Compare that with 8.8% for Bank of America, which has more than $270 billion of residential mortgages on its books.

Why were capital ratios so low for Fannie and Freddie? One reason was that, as government sponsored entities operating under a congressional charter, investors perceived both companies to have an implied government guarantee on their debt. Over time, that lulled investors into becoming comfortable with low capital ratios. In addition, because Fannie and Freddie’s mortgages were mostly loans to people with good credit, losses weren’t expected to be high on them.

But it has been clear since late 1990s that real and large losses could occur on the financial instruments that both companies use to insure against adverse movements in interest rates. And then Fannie and Freddie started to become exposed to mortgages to people with incomplete or poor credit histories. Losses have started to come in on those.

OFHEO recently penalized Fannie and Freddie for misleading accounting and poor oversight. As part of its measures against the companies, OFHEO has demanded that they hold 30 percent extra regulatory capital. But for Freddie that higher capital number - $34.6 billion - is still equivalent to only 4.4% of assets.

Yup, that capital increase is going to have to be very large indeed.

with much that has been said, especially as it concerns the gross failure of Bush and McCain to coherently explain their positions on this, Iraq, and any number of other issues. But the fact that they failed in that way does not make the underlying problems their fault. It makes the truth that much harder to explain to the masses, but it doesn’t shift the blame.

As for why Bush and the R’s didn’t do something about it, it was a pretty small window between when Bush got settled in at the WH and 9/11. Could it have been done, probably, but there was no way to know that they only had a few months until their attention would be diverted and all political capital otherwise expended.

And Martin, I do blame the newspapers. Regardless of how bad the media is, that does not change what their responsibility is. The fact that they have replaced reporting with editorializing is not a reason to avoid holding them accountable. Under the guise of relaying facts, they consistently pass on Democratic talking points. Until they either report fairly or explicitly and officially acknowledge their role as liberal cheerleaders instead of reporters, it is their fault.

You are not getting it. McCain never raised the issue because he doesn’t and can not talk economics. He is a national security guy. He votes conservatively on economic issue because he doesn’t know what else to do. There is no way he could have debated this isssue without making a fool of himself.

As for President Bush, he never insisted on reforming the GSEs because he was too preoccupied with the Iraq and Afganistan wars. Moreover, he never fought back against the Dems on any issue. I beleive that this was a result of the VP’s advise that good policy is good politicas and that he shouldn’t worry about bad press. Anyone who has ever runa campaign knows that in the ordianry person’s mind, the unanswered attack, not matter how farfetched becomes the truth. Witness the Katrina fiasco and the “Bush doesn’t like black people” lie. I am still mazed that people actually beleived it but they did and it was because the Administration didn’t respond to its critics.

As onservatives, we must take the fight to the liberal-dems at every level: School Board, City Council, county Comm, State Legislature. It is okay to fight and lose and election. Let’s not let the liberal-Dems win by default.