Well, maybe next time you should be more specific when expalining yourself. This is not what you posted at first. I based my comments on what you posted not what McCain had done previously. But as DrGuy said, 100-1, if you look hard enough your bound to find something bad about McCain. With Obama, there is no need to look, for anything, he's kind enough to put it all out while the camaras are rolling making it easy to find.

Well, I don't mean the Gov't should be fair, I mean we all have the same chances, it's up to each individual to take advantage of it.

Why would it shock me? As Ive said several times before there are members from both sides of the aisle who have their hands dirtied in all this. The lack of transparency/oversight I referred to is not of the GSA's. They were mostly guilty of cooking the books. It is within the institutions that were creating the mbs' and cdo's. Although the GSA's were feeding the frenzy by buying some of these mbs, it was Wall st. along with mortgage cos. that were doing most of the damage because the investment banks were creating improperly rated derivatives while the mortgage companies were creating "exploding" loans for Wall st to package into these derivatives. The 700 billion estimated bailout are for derivatives that are unrelated to the GSA's. And thats just the tip of the iceberg. They are scattered within money market and mutual funds as well.

A faux pas no doubt.  A naive statement by you none the less.  At least you now have ONE against Mccain.  So the score is 100 to 1.  And climbing!

Not in governance.  There is a reason that the founding fathers never mentioned fair.  It is subjective.  And therefore irresponsible.

No, the government say exactly what was happening.  Dont believe me?  read the notes from Barney Frank's committee meetings.  It will shock you (if you can be).  But in an effor to make them "fair" government screwed the pooch,

The cause of the problem was lack of transparency and oversight. Corporations were gaining access to credit by overstating the value of certain asset classes. Take a look at AIG. The insurance part of the business is sound however they failed because they leveraged the risk of the insurance part of their business with assets that were overvalued. The mbs's at the root of the current situation aren't even directly tied to morgages they are tied to their revenus streams and when you look at how they work you realize that they are practically guaranteed to lose both value and revenue over time.

To make matters worse many of  the very same people who cooked up this scheme have taken their millions and hedged the economy into further ruin thru the commodoties market and shorting.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I am all for fairness, but to me fairness is not if you have more you should give more or if you have less you should keep more. I don't like the idea that I am not part of constuction of this country when every time I fill out my taxes I get money back. That means I did not actaully contribute and therefore am not able to claim that thanks to me anything being paid with taxpayers money is in part because of my contribution. I don't feel part of this country because of this. That is not patriotic to me. BTW, I only figured this out this tax season, I am not much on how the Gov't works so I never figured I was never paying taxes at all. Now I know better.

Wow Laryy. I find it hard to believe (or do I?) that you actually made this mistake here.

fire - displace: terminate the employment of; discharge from an office or position; link

resign - vacate: leave (a job, post, or position) voluntarily link

From what I can see thy do not mean the same so McCain would not be breaking any laws as you claim.

Left to their own, the companies would not have gotten into the mess if congress had not tried to create "good intentions".  Obama would govern by "good intentions" (Check out his admission on taxes and his then continued insistance of being "fair").

I will say you have given me a reason to vote for McCain.  I am still not sold, but then being an economist, I see the dangers you so correctly pointed out about an OBAMA presidency.  America can survive most things, but good intentions are usually fatal.

They all saw it coming. It is something that needed to be changed as early as 2002. By 2004 the outcome which you are seeing today was irreversible. If the proposed bill was passed what is happening today would have occurred a year or two ago. It is no coincidence that this all unfolded right after the govt took control of the GSA's.   Once they could no longer buy the junk mbs's the credit market came to a grinding halt. So now as of Friday they are allowed to buy the junk again. Dont be fooled.There is no way this can be solved like the S&L crisis was with the RTC. The illiquid mbs's that are associated with arm's are junk not simply risky.

No what happened is it died in committee during the period when the republicans had control of both congress and the committee chair. Unfortunately it was too late anyhow because the problem was inevitable by that point. To make matters worse now that the GSA's are under the control of government they are now being allowed to buy up more of the bad mbs' that are the root of the problem.

John McCain, 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

That's over 3 years ago.

So what happened? Joe Biden helped lead the effort to shoot down the GSE reform legislation.

Yea, but it makes great headlines.  15 years ago, the State AG audited the agency I was working at, and the headlines blared "Agency loses $250,000 in COmputer equipment!"  That was when $250,000 was real money!  But nothing was lost.  We had sent a bunch of old clunkers to a Tech School (state run so the state still had the stuff) so their kids could get experience working on them for a vocation.  They were not worth the freight to ship them (old 8086, 86000, and 80286s back in 93???), but still on the books for purchased value! (about $2k-$4k each).

To answer your specific question, never of course.  Despite Dr. Guy's explanation, even a government has to sell assets at a price the market will bear.  Why buy a used piece of equipment at the retail asking price when you can have a new one for the same cost?  It's all a tempest in a teapot, anyway.

Ok, let me be more specific.  How many times or how often do you sell a vehicle that you sold it for more than you paid?  The point being that most vehicles depreciate quickly after purchase. 

Yes I see it.  I've noticed it on a few other blogs as well.

When Tony Rezko bought it from me.

Hey Daiwa, when was the last time you bought a vehicle and later sold it for a profit?

Governments do not depreciate.  Since depreciation is solely a tax gimmick, and governments (in the US at least) do not pay taxes, all assets are listed at the purchase price.  So saying it was sold "at a loss" is technically correct.  But hardly a scandal, and indeed if the valuation was done at market, instead of book, it would be incorrect.

Of course they are!  It is politics after all.  I dont think you are, but for the record, are you then implying that Obama's are not being overstated and exagerated?  Breaking news!  The sun rose in the east today!  Film at 11.

That hardly makes the allegation of 'misuse of authority' any more true than it was 10 days ago.

Acknowledged by whom, and on the basis of what valuation?  I haven't heard that.

Without defending the statements, per se, do you really believe that BO's 'achievements' have not been exagerrated?  This is politics.  We're all grown ups.  We can figure it out.

And thanks for your kind words.  Here's back at ya.

Yeah, I haven't seen Palin telling and quadriplegic people to "Stand up!!!" At least not lately.

That was so insane. All Palin said was that she wanted Georgia to become part of NATO. If Russians attack any member of NATO, all NATO members would have to respond. This policy goes back to WWII, so its odd that the press would have run a headline like, 'Palin seeks to attack Russia,' or whatever crazy thing they said. Whats even more insane is that you believe it.

No, Ms. Palin would not have any troops - the VP does not command any troops.  But the president commands many,.  So when do we start bombing Pakistan?

First remember Innocent until proven guilty? that pretty much sums up Palin firing her ex-brother in law.

There has to be a reason why the left is throwing so much crap at her life, could it be that they are afraid she might be the one reason people might vote Republican when there is no other?

I don't like McCain. Like Oboma even less, Biden is a jerk the one bright spot in this campaign is Palin.

At this point, Biden is looking more like BO's Eagleton than Palen is looking like McCain's.  Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that the Eagleton scenario involved a real health issue, rather than an alleged political liability issue.

I'm sure someone will come back with the claim that vetting is the real issue, but if BO had been 'vetted' in the way Palin's opponents would have vetted her, he would never have been allowed to run.

McCain/Palin '08   

Barack Obama’s reference to “lipstick on a pig” .... a slap at VP nominee Sarah Palin

Here is a quote from a reputable source.  CNN actually.  Seems clear from the quote that Obama was calling Palin a pig, right?  So it cant be refuted.

That is your logic.  However, reading the whole story indicates that is not the whole truth.  But since I referenced the story and it was reputable, it must be right?  And that is all you get. So what do you believe?

That in essence is what you did.  Cherry picked.  But you are wrong.  While I am the first to admit that I have made mistakes (and so admitted it to you), I do try to be fair and only call a pig a pig when it is a pig.  I thought you did the same as well - until now.  For whatever reason, you are now just another mesmerized Obamabot.  Nothing illegal about that.  And your ethics are your own, so I am glad you can excuse it away.  But dont sell me your bilge water and call it Eau de Toilet.

Well, that's to be expected.  You see, when one professes conservativism, you're not held to any standards anymore on this site - you can say whatever you want and get away with it.

You only quoted part of them, the part that would give the wrong impression and push an agenda.  Again, all perfectly legal.  But not very ethical.

I'd still like a specific reference to the initial and subsquent quotes.  This is the first time you've used the word 'repeated.'

Try as you might Larry, I don't think you're going to succeed in making a little gently rolling hill out of this molehill, let alone a mountain.  William Ayers is off-limits (I'm sure you're aware of the 'outrage' over the Kurtz interview on a Chicago radio station) but the Dems have at least 30 lawyers in Wasilla trying to pick every nit of Palin's political career & spin it as something bad.  And I think that they will not only fail, but that whatever they try to trumpet as evidence of evil will be met with an even more furious backlash than has already occurred. True colors are truly coming out.  I'm about to the point where I have only one more thing to say on this & that's 'Meh.'

Very true, and you did not see me censoring you (nor do I have the power to).  I do have the right to slam an obvious hatchet job such as you post.  Especially coming from one that appeared to pride themselves on accuracy and fairness.

I did not tell you that "this is my blog and I can post what I want to" when you called me to task on Gravel.  An honest tirade against something you dont like is one thing.  Printing half truths and lies as facts is another.  Both are allowable as this is a blog.  But I would expect that most would at least do a fact check (with the exception of the lunatics at du.org, daily kos, puffingtonhost, moveon.org and mickey moron) before going off on an obvious attempt to slime a candidate, and then to draw a very obvious erroneous conclusion based on the half truths and lies.

But write what you want.  It is apparent that your desire for the truth is being subverted by your hatred of one side.

I understand the trooper business has 'nuances' but I also understand there were other issues besides tasing his step-son.  At least 2 other occurrences for which I believe he was formally reprimanded - saw the source info for that a couple of days ago but can't put my finger on it just now.  I'll keep looking, but this is from the CNN interview you referenced:

Applying the reasoning you've applied to examining Palin: Those 'significant pattern' & 'last chance' parts clearly indicate that those two issues were just the 'tip of the iceberg,' not to mention the guy's been married four times.  While Wooten wasn't specific, he admitted to making 'mistakes' - so did OJ.  How could the State of Alaska possibly entrust a weapon & the authority to shoot to kill to such an unstable individual?  You see where this line of reasoning takes you?

Also, I'd like to hear the context in which Palin spoke the words 'smoking gun' - to paraphrase Inigo, I'm not sure she meant it exactly as you mean it.  Anyway, none of what's been made public so far constitutes 'misuse of authority' as I understand it, and I'm not sure whether 'authority misuse' is a crime or a political accusation.  Perhaps we should wait until the AG concludes what authority she actually had & whether she actually misused it in the legal sense of the word.  In the meantime, it serves her opponents to continue stirring this pot of shit.

The whole bridge to nowhere business (including the 'highway to nowhere') is fair political game & I have no doubt she'll get endless questions about how she went from supporting it to sending the money back.  Let's see how she answers them & how those answers square with reality.  Because the bridge became such a poster child for earmarks on the national level, I suspect 'reality' will turn out to have been somewhat murky.  We'll just have to wait & see.

Your initial article refers to McCain talking about the plane 'last night' which I interpret to mean McCain's acceptance speech.  I've looked through the entire text of the speech twice from two sources, the International Herald Tribune & ABC News, and I can't find any reference to the plane in it.  I swear I remember McCain making that little side comment, "Made a profit, too!," but I'm wondering now when I actually heard it.  Both sources include his other ad libs & deviations from the prepared text so it apparently wasn't in his acceptance speech.  Can you remember at what point he commented about that?

Try as I might, I can't see how who bought the plane has any relevance here.  Can't see how changing the subject helps support your accusation.  The plane was purchased by Murkowski's administration for 2.7mil, placed on eBay asking 2.7mil & then, failing to attract any bids, sold directly through a broker for 2.1mil.  You are correct, I haven't a clue as to the appraised value of the 20-year old aircraft, which was my point.  If it can be established that there was some 'sweetheart deal' in which the buyer got it for substantially less than fair market value, then it becomes somewhat relevant, but the failure to get any bids for the asking price undercuts that notion substantially and there were certainly 2.1 million reasons to unload the thing since it wasn't being used.  If you wish to attack McCain for 'mis-speaking' (once we sort out what he actually said) that's fair.  But there's just no 'there' here - nitpicking the definition of profit, an off-hand comment about profit no less, is just not an issue that is going to 'resonate' with the public.

Yep, I see the irony in journalists attempting to eat one of their own, too.  And thanks for owning up - snide those comments were, indeed.  What about her college career suggests she had a 'hard time' getting through?  Could financial or personal/family issues have played a role in the reality that she attended 4?  And just what is the relevance of that?  I know lotsa folks with only high school degrees who are now a helluva lot smarter & more successful than me.

As for 'personas' being held up to the public, none of them quite square with the records of their respective owners, so on that we can agree.  True for every politician in history.  To hijack an old remark of McCain's from the Keating Five business, 'It'll be a cold day in Gila Bend before that changes.'  However, I don't believe her 'persona' is any more of a stretch than those of the other three.  I can understand you being upset that her 'persona' has, at least for now, somewhat eclipsed BO's - that has to be unsettling.   And who can argue that her record during the past 20 months shouldn't be open for debate?  At least, she has one.  

Larry, with all due respect, these are just knee jerk affirmations of every tin foil hat conspiracy there is. Although, you did leave out the part where she bans books and calls black people Sambo. I've been watching Palin for months now and the Trooper scandal was the only thing worth even looking at. I don't think Palin did anything wrong from what I can tell, and I don't think McCain would have picked her if he thought she did either.

No, the issue was that Alaska is a debtor state since the residents receive $1.75 from the feds for each $1 they pay in taxes.  But that $1.75 includes defense (as well as Coast Guard) which Alaska has a disproportional number of defense installations in relation to its population size.

What, and it's funded through the Alaskan budget? That sounds unlikely.

All of the above Zoo.

(But more specifically, the advanced part of Norad is up there).

Slam with innuendo and half truths and run.

Seem to get less and less objective.

Starting to see a pattern here.

Heh, defense.   I thought Alaska was a pretty quiet place.

Defense from what?  Rogue moose?  Angry caribou?  Outlaws on snowmobiles?

Oh wait, is Russia canoeing over the Bering Strait? Or perhaps there are Canadian illegals crossing the border?

~Zoo