Newsflash: John McCain says something I can cheer
Now, this is progress. Just a first step. But significant progress nonetheless. In January, I posted my Wanted: A Suck It Up candidate column, which assailed the lender-bashing and irresponsible homeowner pandering in both parties, and I’ve been pounding the drum all year.
Good news: John McCain has heeded the call. His speech yesterday is the best statement on the subprime crisis and bailout-palooza I’ve heard from any presidential candidate. An excerpt:
Let’s start with some straight talk:
I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.
I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.
In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.
When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.
Does he really mean it? I don’t know. But at least he’s on record, in clear terms. The entire speech is here.
The L.A. Land blog notes a few other key passages with comment:
Earlier I wrote that it was hard to pick a headline out of Sen. John McCain’s housing speech today, and tonight I stand corrected, by The New York Times: “Drawing a sharp distinction between himself and the two Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain of Arizona warned Tuesday against vigorous government action to solve the deepening mortgage crisis and the market turmoil it has caused, saying that ‘it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.’ ”
A long headline, but a good summary of an important speech.
More: “… in a departure from Democrats, who have focused on the lending industry’s role in the crisis, Mr. McCain suggested that some homeowners had also engaged in dangerous practices, including borrowing too much in hopes that a rising market would cover their mortgages.”
…–”But in the process of a huge, and largely positive, upturn in home construction and ownership, a housing bubble was created. … The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation.” Comment: It was a bubble — sounds obvious, but you didn’t hear this from Sen. Clinton yesterday; her lengthy analysis of the housing problem failed this pass-fail test of intellectual honesty.
–”Some Americans bought homes they couldn’t afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.” Comment: Again, sounds obvious, but Clinton’s speech treated falling prices as a crisis to be stopped, not a reality to be faced.
Straight talk. Here’s hoping it sticks.
Now, about that Juan Hernandez and La Raza…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- McCain gets it right. « Firearms & Freedom
- FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Barack Obama Chides John McCain on “Sit Back and Watch” Economic Policies
- UrbanGrounds
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » McCain Marginalizes U.S. Power, & sells his Globalist Ideology. I will never vote for him.
- John McCain Really Wants Me to Vote for Him--Army of Dog
- Liberally Conservative » Blog Archive » Hillary Clinton’s Big Giveaway - It’s A Wonderful Life
- Random-American - News Analysis and the Rantings of an Ordinary Citizen » John McCain’s ’straight talk’ on the mortgage crisis
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Stupid: Hillary gets another 3 a.m. phone call — about mortgages
- Michelle Malkin » Hey, remember when I praised McCain’s housing stance? Forget it.
- Michelle Malkin - whereIstand.com
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Subprime crisis
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Green Room
» Times Slimes Obamic ClimesLegal Insurrection
» Nation Mag Outs Secret U.S. Anti-Terror Program
Well I wonder if McInsane is listening to the folks calling in on the radio today in So. Cal. He’s taking one hell of a thrashing over his amnesty plans.
Most welcome. Now, about the stimulous raid on the Treasury…
One small step at a time. Please, McCain get on board dealing with illegals. That is the issue most important to me.
L
Ding! Ding!
I think my contacts are bad….who said that??? Did you actually say McCain??
/incredulous
We cheered in this home as well…now lets cover enforcing our laws and securing our borders Senator…..
oh, and say bye to Juan…..
If only more people agreed.
Interesting considering McCain’s chief economic advisor is partly responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis (see Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999).
Also of note, for those that think Obama is an empty-suit void of good judgement, Obama saw this coming well before any of the other candidates.
Well, that’s great, if he’s serious. It seems lately he’s been SAYING all kinds of things to try to mend ties with conservatives.
Was he quoted as saying, “I’ll make that G.D. speech if they want me to.” before he said it? That’s what he said about the border fence in which he doesn’t really believe.
Yeah Otherside, March 2007- What a visionary. Thank you Barack “Capt Obvious” Obama.
Notably absent is any talk of personal responsibility for the affected homeowners who bought beyond their means or bought houses as speculative investments.
He’ll solve everyone’s problems if it takes every dollar you have!
And stating the obvious does not fill out that suit for me.
Seems to me the changes I made here apply. Wonder what McCain would say to those changes? Would he become a fabulist like Hillary?
#3 letget,
I couldn’t agree more. National polls show that it’s not very high on the list of concerns. Personally, I question the validity of those polls.
If we could just get him to support stronger sanctions for employers and closing the anchor baby loophole in the 14th amendment, we might have a candidate we could get behind.
It’s only a baby step, but that sounded positively conservative. Hope it continues.
Hey, OtherSide, #8:
About half the talking head econimic commenters on TV saw this coming in 2006. So what if Obama parroted their concerns in March 2007? He ain’t no oracle for that letter, he was just willing to say it out loud. (I will give him credit for saying it, at least. that is one thing most other pols weren’t willing to do.)
The unfortunate reality is that there are too many Americans who don’t want to be told to shape up. They just want a hand out, and certain pols will pander to those people just like they pander to Latinos on immigration.
Good- he is right on one thing and wrong on almost everything else from a conservative-libertarian viewpoint.
Speaking of irresponsibility and having bad behavior…..
is he ALSO referring to himself regarding his stance on Illegals and their behaviors in our country ? ? ?
To quote the great white wizard, “foreseen and done nothing.” What has Obama done, besides parrot liberal talking points?
Ohblama and Hilldebeasts campaign.
They’re both burnt toast.
“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly…”
Like illegal immigrants? No no, they should be rewarded with taxpayer money.
Well if the cause came in 1999 and Obama’s great vision recognized the problem in 2007, I would say that it takes 8 years for him to see a connection between cause and effect. Lets see, US wins in Iraq and 8 years later he can say he was wrong in saying that he would not support the war.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but McSame proved he is also McStupid in his speech today (3/26). He spoke as a true left wing nut: open borders from the tip of South America to the North Pole, global warming compliance by America, conformity to European politics, close GitMo and provide humane treatment of captured terrorists, free trade rather than fair trade, admiration for Communist China economic development, more of the same but I could take no more. He is demonstrating the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of easy victory.
I am not voting for McSame for the sake of the Republican Party. I will campaign for the lowest Republican vote in any general election and McSame can go back to being McSameoSameo.
If you consider sponsoring or co-sponsoring 570 bills in Congress
(15 of which have become Law), and introducing amendments to 50 bills (16 of which were adopted by the Senate) doing nothing, then I guess you are right. Please compare these number to McCain and Clinton over the same time span.
Concerned Citizen, I’m with you. I do not believe the polls. I talk to lots of folks here in South Texas, and immigration is at the top of all of their list of concerns! They must be polling only illegal aliens to receive those numbers!
Uh, didn’t we all see the bubble last year? But his letter warns of “predatory lending practices”. Yeah, low-interest loans. That’s pretty predatory – making home ownership more affordable. We don’t all have criminal friends helping us purchase real estate (the “good judgement” you refer to perhaps?), so personally, I’ll take a low-interest loan.
Slightly OT…
PS – for those who are hurting and need to refinance, 5.25% 30 year fixed mortgages were available in Honolulu last week, and banks had money to lend. Check it out in your area.
Did he just say “systematic risk?” Who uses terms like that. Oh, those who understand finance. No wonder I haven’t previously heard it from the political vampires. I won’t say he’s earned my vote yet, but he’s moved in that direction.
Glad to see Senator McNasty is one of the few in the beltway that has openly stated bailing out the housing industry with our tax dollars is a bad idea. Now if we could only get him to shut up about global warming and open borders. Every time he takes one baby step forward in meeting conservative values he opens his mouth and ends up taking two giant steps back toward liberalism.
Perhaps, McCain is starting to come around? Okay, let me rephrase that…. perhaps he’s got more economic common sense than people think. Too bad that the economically lazy and uninformed among us have decided that handouts for their misdeeds and irresponsibility should come at the expense of all those not having trouble paying their mortgages.
Too bad his words are too little too late.
LOL AJ, and with the price of gas these days, I doubt their campaigns can afford to fill that tank.
sure he means it. It is saying that the government shouldn’t bail out people for making poor financial decisions. This is a free country. In a free country we are free to fail as well as succeed.
If he said he would give everyone a home, that would be pandering. But this isn’t pandering to anyone. This is saying specifically that he’s not going to pander. And he shouldn’t pander. We are a capitalistic society. Washington DC should recognize that at some point.
Obama co-sponsored 570 pieces of legislation? BS. He has not been in the senate that long. He did nothing in Illinois accept take responsiblity for bills written by others. Obama is a fraud.
Wow, that is amazing. Maybe he just misspoke.
Not BS…please do your research
As I provided evidence of my claim (see link above), could you be so kind as to do likewise with your claim.
Yet McCain completely and totally buys into the globaloney religion of “global warming” or “climate change”, the biggest liberal-greenie scam ever, that believes Man is ruining and warming the planet…
Sorry but his being right on one thing does not and will not undo the damage he has done, is doing, and will do as President.
And where’s the G-d fence, McPain?
As a poster on Lucianne asked, “Will someone please explain to me how voting for one liberal Republican after another will help the party get back to its conservative roots?”
And I would further ask, how will voting for liberal Republicans help our country get back on track?
Thanks also to another poster who pointed out that McVain has taken or takes the wrong (non-conservative) position also on all these issues:
Global warming
Illegal immigration
Campaign finance
Economics understanding
Guantanamo and enemy combatants
Waterboarding
Supreme Court justices potential
Taxes
Opening ANWR
Nuclear power
Public education funding
Seriously not being argumentative here, but I checked out the Thomas archive as you mention and I cannot get 570 returns under Obama’s name, either by full word search or through the dropdown (which I presume is only for primary sponsors and does not include co-sponsors).
How did you arrive at 570? I also had a difficult time finding the 15 that became law… Again, just saying. Perhaps I’m running the search wrong, but it’s just not coming up that way for me.
I suppose this is all off topic, anyway. I apologize to others for falling down the rabbit hole.
TheOtherSide: loc.thomas.gov only shows current sponsorships I think and shows Obama sponsored 120 bills. Better provide another source if you want to avoid being called a weenie hypocrite troll. Nah, you know what I’ll just call you a weenie hypocrite troll anyway.
BTW, the ratio of bills signed into law garnered him a “poor” rating compared to other senators’ records. I have a source for that myself but I’m not going to list here just to spite you. Look up yourself since you’re apparently so “good” with facts and research.
Dweeb.
I couldn’t care less if Obama co/sponsored 570 or 570,000 pieces of legislation, he’s still a far-left liberal Democrat and, save for the handful of usual suspects, I doubt there are more than two voters on this site who would be willing to cast a ballot for him.
In fact, if has supported 570 bills, then that proves he supports big government and gives us even more reason not to vote for him.
Senator McCain talks a good game, but he still supported the Bear Stearns bailout. A bailout where the government spends a ton of cash on something of no benefit to all but a very few of the American people.
Why does McCain support helping Bear Stearns but not homeowners? If I had to choose between the two, I think the latter would be better for the country.
I know that most people here, including our hostess, don’t like bailouts, period. McCain is not one of you.
Newsflash: John McCain says something I can cheer
Am I on the right weblog?
On March 26th, 2008 at 3:32 pm, Rusty said:
Because, until now, B-Sterns employs thousands of people and holds within its portfolios the investment/retirement incomes of millions of people, homeowners do not.
Even though I am an avowed supply-sider who feels bailouts (b/o’s) are an anathema to free markets, I do remember enough from my business major days to know it is imperative that B-Sterns be helped asap, and that a b/o is the only feasible way to do it.
Plus, the B-Sterns b/o is not like the semi-successful ones used to help NYC and Chrysler before it; this one is predicated on the folding of B-Sterns into JP-Chase, bringing the private sector into the fray, which is bound to produce vastly improved results over previous b/o’s.
For the knucklehead that thinks Hussein Obama is some legislative genius; only one I heard of from the lib was a few weeks ago. BHO was championing a global poverty bill.
For the Kool-Aid drinkers this means a tax on US citizens equal to about .7% of our GDP. Our money is to be distributed throughout the poverty stricken
USAworld.McCain cannot be trusted for anything, actions speak volumes.
Has he fired Juan Hernandez???
#41 On March 26th, 2008 at 3:29 pm, DBNinKY said:
“I couldn’t care less if Obama co/sponsored 570 or 570,000 pieces of legislation, he’s still a far-left liberal Democrat and, save for the handful of usual suspects, I doubt there are more than two voters on this site who would be willing to cast a ballot for him.
In fact, if has supported 570 bills, then that proves he supports big government and gives us even more reason not to vote for him.”
Your last paragraph beat me to it!
You’re exactly correct.
Why on earth should it be considered a good thing that meddling, mretricious legislators, who have contributed mightily to screwing up this country over the last 40 years, should be praised for passing yet more legislation?
Why should the agents of screwing up our country be praised for pouring yet more gasoline onto the fires that they started in the first place?
Oh, and to most of you:
Ignore the troll.
To see why absolutely nothing this troll posts should be taken seriously, just go to the troll’s website (just click on the troll’s blogname), and read the troll’s roughly month-old proud, public posting, complete with GPS map location, of a deposit he left from his “abdominal event”.
As far as I am aware, the troll never apologized for, expressed remorse for, nor acknowledged the simple wrongness of, his disgusting, childish, narcissistic, exhibitionist website post.
Unless and until that happens, do not pay him any more serious attention than you would an attention-seeking 4-year-old.
If you have a mortgage you are not a home owner. The house belongs to the lien holder (check your mortgage). If you have no equity in the house, a bailout is lunacy.
Well, at least one candidate has stated that government isn’t “Mommy and Daddy” to go running to, when we screw up. I’m moving shortly to SE Virginia, and getting a townhouse. I’ve looked at what I am getting, and I’ve looked at my budget. If I screw up, which I won’t, it will be my fault. I don’t want the Nanny State to be “standing by” to rescue me. It’s called responsibility and self-respect; something this country was built on, but, now, is fast becoming non-existant, as the children we’ve raised…err…cuddled, want the government to replace “Mommy and Daddy”.
#48 On March 26th, 2008 at 5:24 pm, graysonret said:
“If I screw up, which I won’t, it will be my fault. I don’t want the Nanny State to be “standing by” to rescue me. It’s called responsibility and self-respect; something this country was built on, but, now, is fast becoming non-existant, as the children we’ve raised…err…cuddled, want the government to replace “Mommy and Daddy”.”
Good post.
Apropos of that, I cannot recommend Jonah Goldberg’s new book, “Liberal Fascism”, highly enough.
McCain believes he will gain more Hispanic votes than votes he will lose from those who want immigration laws enforced and the border secured.
I predict no change from McAmnesty
Salt:
You need to do an archive search. You only get 120 if you search for the 110th Congress (deafult search settings).
Lincoln:
Actually, the ratio of bills signed into law is “Average”. It is his low percentage which have made it out of committee which is rated as “Poor” (not suprising considering that much of his tenure has been under Republican controlled committees). By comparison, McCain’s rating is “Extremely Poor” for percentage that have made it past committee. On a note of fairness, McCain’s rating is “Very Good” for bills successfully enacted.
DBNinKY:
By that logic, all Senators and Representatives support big government. And I guess that whole FISA bill is all just about big government too. Very weak argument.
rooster:
Proof please. That’s not explicitly in the bill. Or is this just more right-wing fearmongering.
granite:
What should I be apologizing for exactly?
#51 TheOtherSide:
You are not being referred to.
I won’t banty words with a
foollib.The fact that B Husseins Obama’s first real legislation is something of a global poverty bill says it all. If I do recall correctly, this was pushed through very quickly as his co-conspirators did not want much light on this bill. Imagine if American citizens knew they are being taxed specifically to fight poverty in every country but ours!
No need to do your fact check, otherside, I normally ignore known lib bias.
John McCain got a kudos from Michelle Malkin. There’s hope for him yet.
Is it ok if I now don’t hold my nose quite as hard anymore come November?
He got a half kudos. He can’t be trusted until he comes clean on Juan Hernandez.
No need to respond, rooster, I normally ignore known ignorance.
Like many above, I admire McCain on some points, and am exasperated on others. Some conservatives are so frustrated with him that they are tempted to stay home in November, if not punish the Republican party.
I think the question that needs to be asked in December is this. How did we get to this point anyway? If the conservative movement is so strong, why were we unable to nominate a thorough, consistent conservative in the primary process? Yes, at the beginning the conservative vote was fractured among many candidates (which is why, as a Ph.D. mathematician, I recommend a different voting procedure called the instant Borda runoff to determine a winner, not the plurality winner). Yet even as conservative candidates dropped out of the race, McCain remained in the lead and eventually won.
Does the fault lie within us? Did part of the GOP electorate feel nervous about nominating a consistent conservative in a year when the Republican president (who has often betrayed conservatism) is so unpopular? Maybe the GOP primary voters decided to take a chance on a partial conservative rather than none at all.
Your thoughts?
I wish I were more excited about these McCain quotes than I am, but sad to say I can’t bring myself to make the effort. Sure he would likely be more fiscally responsible than Obama, Hillary, or Bush, but gosh, that wouldn’t be very difficult. The point is that he says he won’t reward “reckless” borrowers or lenders, but how is that to be determined? There is a fine line between reckless and just making a mistake or even bad luck and if it up to anyone to determine that, it would have to be a court of law — and good luck on that. How would the law be written? The problem of legislation would not go away.
What I want to hear but didn’t and won’t is: let the market do its work. When there is an outright case of fraud, then yes, let the law be involved. Otherwise, the government must stay out — it has done enough damage. I didn’t hear that and knowing McCain, I never will. He makes an imposing statement, which is one of the reasons he won the nomination — he comes across a lot tougher and determined than he really is. I doubt in the end there would be much difference from the results of the other guys. Sorry people, but again no sale.
On March 26th, 2008 at 5:52 pm, TheOtherSide said:DBNinKY:
My point is, given the short amount of time Obama has been in public service, supporting 570 bills seems a bit excessive, and leads one to wonder, with the exception of the vote on Iraq, has there ever been a bill he has not supported?
Here, you lost me. So I’ll respond by saying government only becomes cumbersome and unmanageable, “big”, when Senators and Congress begin passing/supporting every bill that comes before them, which appears to be Obama’s m.o. with 570 bills under his belt.
FISA isn’t “big” government, it’s smart government; targeted e-surveillance of phone calls between non-citizens in this country and known terrorists abroad is government protecting its people. The U.S. has neither the resources nor the inclination to randomly monitor the phone calls of its citizens.
And yet you still felt the need to respond.
Just out of curiosity, “TheOtherSide” of what – party affiliation (Rep vs. Dem); political philosophy (cons vs. lib); or opposing viewpoint (maj vs. min)?
DBNinKY,
The bottom line of my rebuttal is that in comparison with most members of Congress, Obama’s 570 sponsored/co-sponsored bills is not that extreme. There are Republicans with the same tenure that have approximately the same number. In other words, 570 isn’t really as high as you make it out to be. Thus, if you make the argument that his 570 make him “big” government, than the bulk of Congress (based on their numbers) are too.
That’s my point. Without identifying the bills Obama sponsored/co-sponsored individual, how can you make a blanket statement about his 570 meaning his “big” government. Might some of those 570 be “smart” government.
I am a registered Democrat. I would say I am fairly moderate. I lean more to the right on fiscal policy, more to the left on social policy.
I’d just like to make an observation about the arguement in this thread on what number of bill’s sponsored constitutes a legislator as being big gov’t.
Some are arguing Obama’s 570 bills makes him big gov’t.
Some argue it is average.
I’d like to posit that both of you are right. 570 bills may indeed be average today. The problem is that most legislators have actually become quite BIG GOV’T.
Members of both right and left usually arrive in Washington thinking they all have to do something. The truth is we’d all be a lot better off if they would ALL do a lot less.
Just my inflation adjusted 0.241 cents worth.