Prodromus

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Congressman Barney Frank in a hearing from September 2003 on an administration proposal to alter the regulation of GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.”

“The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn’t bail them out.”

In the 2008 election cycle, the list of the top recipients of donations from the financial services, insurance and real estate sector included the leading presidential candidates.

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama took in $22.5 million, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with $21.5 million. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was close behind with $19.6 million.

Money also rained down on the top members of Congress. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a candidate for president during the primaries, received $6 million. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), received $720,000 this year.

The No. 2-ranking Democrat on Frank’s House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, collected $755,000, and ranking Republican Spencer Bachus of Alabama took in $704,000.

Are you surprised we are in this mess?  Stop the partisan bickering and blame game.  Our political leaders are held hostage by their corporate donors who finance their obscene lust to get re-elected.   What are YOU going to do to make a difference?  Do you honestly believe either McCain or Obama will represent change?  What would George do?

With the conventions behind us, it seems as if the actual campaign will finally start.  I am looking forward to the debates, an opportunity to see the candidates head-to-head.  It should be interesting to see how they do when facing each other on the same stage.  Will McCain’s temper get to him and cause him to come across as a mean old man?  Will Obama be able to maintain his image as eloquent and articulate if he stumbles and trips over his words while trying to find the “safe” words to a direct question?

I was hopeful that Obama would take up McCain’s offer to do weekly town-hall style debates.  In my opinion, it is worrisome when a candidate tries to minimize his appearances with the other candidate.  How do you feel about the upcoming debates?  Would you like to see more, or are you already sick of the campaign and just want the election to be over?

Last week we had a spirited discussion about the Fairness Doctrine, and out of that discussion, a number of readers commented on how the current status quo in Washington results in little progress. The fierce partisanship between the Republicans and Democrats seems to be resulting in more grid-lock and greater vilification of each other, rather than the goal of finding common ground in the making of public policy.

I have been a disgruntled Independent since I was 18 and voted for Ronald Reagan many years ago. In fact, Ronnie was the only Democrat or Republican that I have ever voted for President. I am a strong believer in the need to create a strong third party within the US. The current two-party system creates an environment that is a quite a paradox. As the two party’s policies actually move closer together, the division and ranker in both the elected and the electorate are actually increasing. Strange days indeed, quite peculiar Mama.

I had high hopes for the Reform Party, however Ross Perot ultimately proved he was a bit crazy, and abandoned the party once it was not all about him. I would have liked to have seen him provide support even after he was no longer a candidate. All of the other third parties sit too far outside the common mainstream “silent majority” to really have a chance. Candidates like Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Michael Anthony Peroutka, and Cynthia Ann McKinney have not really been able to draw much, if any, attention.

In order for a third party to gain a foothold it must have a nationally known political figure step up to the challenge. In 1912, that was Teddy Roosevelt, who had lost the Republican nomination, and created the Bull Moose Party. Later in 1980, John Anderson ran against Carter and Reagan. Then in 1992 and 1996 Ross Perot tried to mix it up with Clinton and Bush. Ultimately they all failed, and no true third-party ever lasted past their nominee.

So, that is where Hillary steps in… Ok, stop laughing. If Hillary split from the Democrat Party, and announced her run as an Independent, I would guarantee that she would easily win the coming election. If she selected a young, middle of the road conservative as the VP candidate, she would effective split the Republicans and Democrats, and ride to the White House on the 49.5% of the public who love her, and Bill.

Who would you vote for as a third party candidate? Would you support Hillary?

According to a recent poll done by Rassumessen, nearly 47% of Americans seem to support some version of the Fairness Doctrine.  I am shocked that almost half the country feels that it is fine for the government to regulate Free Speech.  My guess is that if folks actually understood what was being proposed, we would see that number drop dramatically. 

For those too young to remember, The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.

The new version would be specifically targeted at talk radio, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levine.  The Democrats are unhappy that talk radio is dominated by Conservative shows, without a balanced number of Liberal shows.  Radio stations argue that they cannot generate ad revenue with Liberal shows, that they just are not popular with their audience.  Apparently, however, they are conformable with the Liberal TV news media (ABC, NBC, and CBS).   They are only suggesting that radio should be regulated, for now.

Having the government regulate the content and views of radio stations seems like a step backwards in terms of free speech.  If a station had a guest on talking about the importance of good child nutrition and the dangers of child obesity, would they than have to also have a guest that advocated McDonald’s?  Who makes the decision on what is “honest, equitable, and balanced”?  Nancy Pelosi or George Bush? 

Do you think the Fairness Doctrine an infringement of Free Speech?