As far back as 1999, The New York Times warned us of the implications of lowered credit standards, and the possibility of a Government bailout being necessary if the economy were to slow:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

..By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

The warning signs were there, and went completely ignored by Congress. Lest we forget, in 2003 President Bush warned more oversight of Fannie Mae would be necessary, and Democrats scoffed at him, worried new regulations would reduce home ownership in low income neighborhoods.

“Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book: you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing: this isn’t 9-11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out.”

Well that is a fine campaign speech Senator, but how do you really feel about commissions?

Among the presidential campaigners, Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at New York’s Cooper Union late last month, blamed corporate lobbyists for carrying deregulation too far and he pledged regulatory reform, but nothing more specific than the creation of a financial oversight commission.

Francis Beckwith notes this is not the first time Obama has called for a commission either:

Apparently, then, we can dismiss Senator Obama’s call for commissions on Social Security (11/2007), torture (9/2007), war crimes (8/2008), and financial oversight for Wall Street (4/2008) as four separate instances of the senator pulling “the oldest Washington stunt in the book.” Perhaps the person who ghost writes his teleprompter can first do a Google search on the senator’s behalf to see whether he had opined on prior occasions on the matter of commissions.

Ed Morrissey quips:

So let’s get this straight. Obama called for a bipartisan commission on Wall Street oversight five months ago. John McCain now agrees with that suggestion. After McCain agrees, Obama says it’s nothing more than a political dodge? That’s far worse than John Kerry’s famous flip-flop on the $87 billion in war funding in 2004; it’s an admission that Obama was never serious in the first place.

We should try to correct the problems that caused this. And what’s caused this? The profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John wants to continue.

I’ll give you a moment to ponder over that statement……. So Joe Biden believes the millions of foreclosures occurring nationwide are as a direct result of George Bush’s tax cuts? This is taking Bush derangement syndrome to a new level! Working in the financial sector, I have been following the credit crisis very closely and this is the first time I have heard this argument used. The only way Biden’s statement could be considered as a rational one, would be if the tax cuts led to less revenue, which in turn forced the Government to scale back regulatory departments which were in charge of overseeing mortgage lenders. The tax cuts however, led to higher revenues so this clearly is not the case.

Joe Biden is now asking wealthier Americans to express their patriotism, in the form of higher taxes:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Ed Morrissey expresses my sentiment on this:

Now Biden wants to tell us that paying higher taxes is patriotic. You know what would be patriotic? Congressmen like Barack Obama and Joe Biden attacking government spending, not trying to beef up government revenues (and doing so in the most destructive way, by attacking capital needed for investment). Biden could be patriotic by revealing his pork-barrel record, something he has consistently failed to do. Who gets Biden’s earmarks? Why can’t Biden be patriotic and forego earmarks?

Most Americans look at their tax bite and figure they’re patriotic enough. They’d prefer electing people who start acting responsibly with their money, rather than demand even more from them to prove their patriotism.

The credit crisis, in simplified terms, is as a result of people who borrowed money and were unable to repay the loans. With the American Government being the largest borrower in the world, paying interest of almost half a trillion dollars per year, why are neither of our candidates focusing on the government’s pending credit crisis? I have said repeatedly that if a politician wished to raise taxes, and pledged that any increase in government revenue would be used to pay down the national debt, I would be all for it. Obama and Biden have not even hinted they would reduce the deficit, much less the debt itself.

“Democrats are notorious for whining when things go bad,” she said. “A presidential campaign is not for the fainthearted.”

An Obama loss would certainly lead to four years of incessant whining from Democrats, and charges of racism would be at the top of their list of things to cry about. Jack Cafferty has already started to walk down that path, claiming the only reason the polls are so close is because of racism. That is the only explanation as far as Cafferty is concerned, and somehow I doubt Brazile would disagree with him, except for this other little nugget of information she let slip out in the same interview:

“People still have lingering doubts about Obama as to whether he can be trusted as commander in chief,” Brazile said. “I thought his campaign would have more meat on the bones by now. They did great job at the convention, but it was short-lived.”

While fully acknowledging Obama’s meatless campaign coupled with peoples lingering doubts about the first term Senator, Brazile can’t help but wonder aloud if skin color will be Obama’s downfall. As I stated last month however, any charges of racism by Democrats, could only be directed at Democrats:

This was to be the year of the Democrat, as most political analysts agrees Republicans will lose 10 or more seats in the House and 2 to 4 seats in the Senate. This is to be expected as the number of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats was 14 percentage points higher than the number who said they were Republicans in a recent survey.

Currently Obama only has the support of 78% of registered Democrats, down from 81% earlier this month. With almost 1 out 4 Democrats not supporting the parties candidate, and liberals proclaiming that not supporting Obama amounts to being racist, the question remains, do Democrats believe that almost one quarter of their own party is made up of racists?

I expect race to become more of an issue as the election nears, with Democrats attempting to cash in on white guilt.

The House voted late Tuesday to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore.

Democratic leaders called it a step toward energy independence, but Republicans labeled it a “sham” because most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil believed to lie below off-limits coastal waters are within 50 miles of land and will remain out of bounds.

Even had the bill allowed drilling within 25 miles of land it would have been a joke. The bill requires oil companies to get State approval before drilling off their coast, yet there is no revenue sharing plan in place to compensate the States for oil taken off their shores. Without the promise of revenue, there is little to no incentive for any State to approve drilling of their coast.

The whole purpose of the bill seems to have nothing to do with offshore drilling, and everything to do with raising taxes on oil companies:

The House voted to roll back nearly $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for the five largest oil companies and require energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties they avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill “represents a new direction in energy policy” and a “bold step forward that will end our dependence on foreign oil” by using billions of dollars collected in taxes on large oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy efficiency.

The oil industry is already the highest taxed industry, operating on profit margins of roughly half those enjoyed by the banking industry, and less than a third of the software industry. To Nancy Pelosi though, the 8.5% profit margin Exxon realized last quarter was still to high, and needs to be taxed more, and for what purpose? To subsidize crap alternatives such as corn based ethanol.

Nancy Pelosi and company will look upon this as a victory for their propaganda machine once Bush vetoes the bill. It will allow them to run ads for the next two months leading up to the election claiming Democrats tried to lower energy prices but Bush would not let them. In the meantime, Americans are still waiting for a real energy bill to be presented in Congress.
Update: I was just making my way around the blogsphere to see what others thought about the bill. Although I have not had the opportunity to read it yet, if what the American Conservative Union claims is true, this bill is even worse than I had originally believed it to be:

Once again, as in other energy legislation, the bill needlessly increases taxes that only serve to increase the cost of energy. The bill will also increase electricity bills for the average consumer by forcing utility companies to use alternative fuels regardless of the cost. This provision has already been rejected by the Senate in a previous energy bill.

CQ Politics admits this is a political ploy on the part of Democrats:

Democratic leaders hope the legislation will provide political cover for moderate members of their caucus who face tough re-election fights.

Politics over policy.

Ed Morrissey did some digging in the New York Times and found this article from five years ago:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Five years ago the Bush administration acknowledged that oversight of the two lenders was broken, so what did he do about it? He asked Congress to create a new agency which would determine capital reserve requirements, and ensure the two companies managed their risks properly. As we know now, those calls for tighter regulation by the Bush administration went unanswered, and here is why:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

This is yet another example of Democrats placing emotions before common sense. It makes them feel good to say they are acting on behalf of low income Americans, a claim which they make often, but they refuse to take the blame when their actions (or inaction) have negative consequences for those same people. The Clinton administration was another example of this:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

Democrats felt it was unfair that a low income worker with a poor credit history could not purchase a home, so they did something about it. They effectively forced mortgage lenders to lower their standards and give loans to people who would not have normally qualified. When those people could no longer pay their mortgages, Democrats were quick to blame “predatory lending” practices on the part of the mortgage company, while absolving themselves of any part in it.

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama claims that it is in both nations interest not to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with the Bush administration because of its “state of weakness and political confusion.” The only political confusion I see however is with regards to Obama’s position on troop withdrawal. His claim is that he would like troops withdrawn immediately, however he would like the Iraqis to hold off on any agreement until he is President.

As Maliki noted, Obama has a “political debt to the anti-war lobby”. He intends to pay off this debt by keeping American soldiers in Iraq until it is politically viable to pull them out. As John McCain had said regarding Obama position on the surge, “It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways,” Once again we see Barack Obama putting his own interests instead of those of our country.

The Siena Research Institute poll has Obama, a Democrat, leading Sen. John McCain 46 to 41 percent among likely voters in the heavily Democratic state. He led 51-33 in the June survey.

Kerry won New York with 58% of the vote in 2004, and Gore won by an even larger margin in 2000. If Obama were to lose New York, it is practically inconceivable that he would win the election, regardless how many swing States he were able to pull in.

Aside from New York now being in place, another survey released Friday reveals that New Jersey is in play as well:

Another poll shows the race for New Jersey’s 15 electoral votes tightening: Barack Obama leads John McCain by three percentage points, 48%-45% among likely voters including leaners, according to a Marist College Institute for Public Opinion poll released tonight.

The three point lead among likely voters is within the margin of error, making New Jersey a toss up at this point. If Barack Obama can’t hold onto Democratic strongholds like New York and New Jersey, his failed Presidential bid may do more than simply put McCain in the White House. Democrats were expected to pick up at least a couple of Senate seats this election, and maybe about a dozen seats in the House, this may no longer be the case.

Update: McCain is also leading by 5 in Pennsylvania. The wheels appear to be falling of the hopeyness express.

The Post decided is was not simply enough to throw a misleading attack at Palin somewhere around paragraph three or four however, they did so right in their headline, “Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska“, then continued from there;

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

StopTheACLU calls this attack willful ignorance, I prefer to think of it is willful deceit. The Post is fully aware that we are not engaged in battle with the country of Iraq, as evidenced by that last sentence “it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion”. Therefore the ‘enemies’ Sarah Palin was referring to was not the government of Iraq, who are now our allies, but those who wish to overthrow the government of Iraq, the very same militants the Post itself acknowledges are tied with al-Qaeda.

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Charlie Gibson, with this one question, has just reassured the American people that ABC News lacks the journalistic integrity necessary to report on an election. Gibson used a truncated quote in order to give people the impression Sarah Palin believed our soldiers are on a task from God.

Here is what she actually said:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

She was asking for our prayers that our leaders were sending our soldiers out on a task that is from God, as in pray that our leaders are making the right decision. Gibson, much like the lefty blogs have been doing all week, attempts to insinuate that Palin is claiming that our soldiers are doing Gods work. While I would expect such a misrepresentation coming from the likes of The Nation, the American people should demand better from a National News Network.

But then again, the American people have probably come to expect such drivel from ABC and the other networks by now, which would explain why Fox News has such a high rating.