Utter nonsense. Here’s the difference between these three examples:
Barack Obama was referring to the 57 contests (though I believe there were actually 56) in the Primary campaign and it simply came out wrong. He doesn’t really think there are 57 states, and everybody with 2 brain cells in the universe knows that.
John McCain might’ve been laughed at for making a gaffe, had he called the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia just once. But he repeated it, several times. This very clearly points to the fact that he has no fucking clue that there is no such place as Czechoslovakia anymore.
And Sarah Palin didn’t make a mere slip of the tongue or a Spoonerism or some such. She made a campaign statement that clearly shows she has no fucking clue what she’s talking about.
It is not dangerous to have a president who slips up and says 57 states when he means 57 contests. It can be dangerous to have a president who can’t keep track of what countries are which. It is dangerous to have a president (remember that heartbeat away thing) who has no earthly idea how our 2 biggest mortgage lenders even work! It’s truly outrageous.
Eh, it’s filed in the same “hear-no-evil” file his “New Pennsylvania” gaffe, his “My Muslim faith” gaffe, and his lie about selective service…all in the last few days.
But oh, the man can speak! (When he has his teleprompter on).
What a load of crap. First off, admitting that you don’t know details about something is a million times better than getting caught bullshitting about something you don’t know about. Second, Hanford is a relatively obscure hazardous waste site, whereas Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac have been in the news for months, and are vital to the national economy. Anyone that regularly reads a newspaper would have been able to give a better answer than Palin did regarding Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Very few would be able to give you any information about Hanford.
I realize that she’s a conservative, and therefore you are obligated to defend her, but this is a pathetic attempt, even for you.
There’s nothing opaque or convoluted about understanding the taxpayer bailout of FM&FM was a bailout of private companies. It’s ben in all the papers. Even I understood it and I don’t follow finacial news at all. She’s supposed to know more about the housing crisis than I do. Her ignorance on this subject is not defensible in a person who’s trying to comvince me she’s qualified to step in immediately as the President of the United State. I want someone who’s smarter than me in the White House.
Who gives a shit about the Hanford nuclear waste disposal site? Now that IS a relatively obscure issue as compared to the housing crisis, and at least Obama is honest enough to admit when he isn’t up to snuff on something instead of just trying to bullshit his way through it.
I haven’t seen the MSM saying jackshit about Palin’s gaffe today, and it’s a far more significant bit of ignorance than what Obama admitted to in response to a gotcha question about some nuclear waste site.
If the media was really fair we’d see them going after Palin’s nutburger church, the anti-semitic speaker at her church saying that terrorism is God’s judgement on Jews, the “pray away the gay” stuff, her inane statements that the Iraq War is God’s plan, and so is the Alaska pipeline.
Oh, and now it turns out she’s a Rapturists who thinks that Alaska is going to be a refuge for those “left behind.”
The media is taking it hella easy on Palin so far. Hell, they won’t even talk about her troopergate scandal.
But we thought that all that executive experience made her ready on day one! This statement betrays ignorance that could have been remedied by reading the stories in the NY Times or Wall Street Journal.
Plus, the bailout is not really political. Both McCain and Obama support it, and I haven’t seen a lot of people from either side saying it isn’t necessary.
Give me a fucking break. Are you claiming that Hanford is equally important to the American public as the ability to get mortgages? There are tons of detailed issues I’m sure you could trip up either candidate on, but even McCain, with his stated lack of understanding of economics, gets this one. (Or listened to his advisers who did.) This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue, this is a knowledge vs ignorance issue.
First of all, you’re not telling us that you actually BELIEVE the Muslim bullshit, are you?
Seconds of all the Selective Service thing is really, really specious. He said he registered when he graduated high school in 1979. It turns out he actially registered in 1980. Somehow, we’re all supposed to think this was a deliberate lie? For what purpose. For God’s sake, it was almost 30 years ago. If you asked me exactly what year I joined the Navy or got fucking married, I’d have to think about it. He was off by a few months, for fuck’s sake. Are you seriously trying to present this as evidence of “lying?” Seriously?
First, here’s the video of him getting and answering that question. He didn’t hum and haw in any way whatsoever. And to portray it as if the woman asked him about “the Hanford nuclear waste disposal site” is disingenuous in the extreme. She just said "Every year the government promises to fund the Hanford cleanup project. . . " never once mentioning it in context that it was the nuclear waste site she was referring to.
Second, he was asked a question he didn’t study or plan for and obviously didn’t connect “the Hanford cleanup project” to the “Hanford nuclear waste disposal site” since that’s not how it was described to him. For all he knows, there could be other places called Hanford that have a some kind of cleanup project. That he couldn’t draw it from memory on the spot is hardly outrageous, regardless of how familiar he ought to be with it in context.
And lastly, he didn’t research, write and deliver a stump speech with factually incorrect information in it about the Hanford nuclear waste disposal site. Palin, on the other hand, did exactly that with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Watch it and see for yourself.
And John McCain stood beside her and CLAPPED when she said that stupidity!
You are completely incorrect. FNMA and FHLMC are subject to oversight from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“OFHEO”). OFHEO is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The head of OFHEO is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The role of OFHEO is specifically to ensure capital adequacy and financial soundness. OFHEO makes an annual report to Congress. Here is a link to the pdf of the 2008 report, which in the opening letter from the Director makes a specific call for additional legislative action regarding regulation reform.
It’s a bailout of private companies that taxpayers did not support. You can’t spin your way out of this. She clearly didn’t know what she was talking about.
Yes, the Government has regulatory oversight over the FMs (and every other financial institution), but that’s not what Palin was saying. You don’t use government oversight to “cut bureaucracy”. The only way the “cut bureaucracy” bit makes sense is if Palin thinks the Government runs the organizations.
I’m responding to both Shayna and Diogenes in this post, because their points rebut each other.
I’m well aware of that. Palin said the institutions are too big for the taxpayer; the author of the article goes on to point out that the cost of a bailout will be absorbed by the taxpayer. My contention is that Palin’s words referred to the eventual inevitable cost of a bailout, not to the present (well, the up-to-last-weekend) status of the Freddies.
While Diogenes criticizes my response because he thinks it suggests Palin gets credit for the whole line quoted, your response here suggests that the entire paragraph is Palin’s.
Or maybe you don’t suggest that – but you must realize that the line about what leading economists think is drawn from the author of the article, not from Palin’s mouth… and is thus reasonable to consider the bias of the author.
Your line to me was that it’s not just liberals who think Palin’s wrong – but in support of that, you link to a piece chosen for display by a highly partisan web site. If your aim was to prove that her comment garnered criticism from neutral sources, not just liberal partisans, that cite is not sufficient.
I have addressed the content. Palin was referring to the inevitable taxpayer cost.
I am still deeply confused. If she were referring to the inevitable taxpayer cost, then how could she support the bailout? If it’s too big and expensive, let it die.
I’m not spinning anything. I am doing my best to speak plainly and accurately.
Calling them simply private companies is incorrect. They are government sponsored private corporations. I think most people understand that they are a in a special class of companies. Acting like they are just like your average private company ignores history, commonly understood facts, and the current situation.
Saying that they are not taxpayer supported can be argued either way. It is true that they have historically operated without taxpayer funds. Further, it is true that they were not explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government. However, as you likely know, it is a widely held belief that they have an implied government backing. The implied government guaranty is strong enough that they have been able to borrow at lower rates than a typical private company. It is intellectually dishonest to simply make a statement that they are not taxpayer supported. They are clearly in a gray area. Further, the events of the past few days bolster the belief in the implied guaranty.
Finally, it is not clear that she “didn’t know what she was talking about”. She said nothing that was definitely incorrect (unless her statements about McCain’s calling for reform are untrue, which I haven’t seen challenged). If she were questioned in detail, I have no doubt that she would prove herself to be uninformed about the topic. Unfortunately, she hasn’t made herself available to questioning.
Of course not. Why would anything in my post lead you to believe that I think that government regulation equals government sponsored entity?
I think by the quotation that I included, I made it absolutely clear that I was correcting the completely untrue statement that “the Federal Government had zero control pver how the FMs were run.” Just to rehash it. Here is what I was responding to.
The Federal Government clearly has more than “zero control”. McCain, as a Senator, clearly had a way to “reform things”. Stating that there is a Federal Government organization charged with oversight over the entities that is headed up by a director that is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, and that makes an annual report to Congress, and that specifically requested reform clearly made the statements from Treis incorrect.