Friends of Obama (FOOs)

You remember the “Friends of Bill,” right?  They were an unsavory bunch.  However, I’m beginning to suspect that, if Obama becomes President, the FOBs will look like pussy cats compared to the Friends of Obama.  The FOBs were merely corrupt; the FOOs are dangerous (not to mention virulently antisemitic).

Be Sociable, Share!
  • BrianE

    “THEN
    2006: Wrote McCain-Kennedy bill, which would have given 11 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
    NOW
    Jan. 2008: In GOP primary debate, was asked whether he would still vote for his own bill: “No, I would not.””- Ozzie

    “Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won’t pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the ru le of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.” February 7, 2008; Sen. McCain’s address at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference)

    The following is an excerpt from the January 30, 2008 Republican debate at the Reagan Library in California:

    HOOK: Senator McCain, let me just take the issue to you, because you obviously have been very involved in it. During this campaign, you, like your rivals, have been putting the first priority, heaviest emphasis on border security. But your original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here.

    What I’m wondering is — and you seem to be downplaying that part. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

    MCCAIN: It won’t. It won’t. That’s why we went through the debate…

    HOOK: But if it did?

    MCCAIN: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate — it won’t. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever — that proposal.

    But, look, we’re all in agreement as to what we need to do. Everybody knows it. We can fight some more about it, about who wanted this or who wanted that. But the fact is, we all know the American people want the border secured first.

    MCCAIN: We will secure the borders first when I am president of the United States. I know how to do that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary.

    I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. And then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, probably as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And that will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.

    There’s 2 million people who are here who have committed crimes. They have to be rounded up and deported.

    And we’re all basically in agreement there are humanitarian situations. It varies with how long they’ve been here, et cetera, et cetera.

    We are all committed to carrying out the mandate of the American people, which is a national security issue, which is securing the borders. That was part of the original proposal, but the American people didn’t trust or have confidence in us that we would do it.

    So we now know we have to secure the borders first, and that is what needs to be done. That’s what I’ll do as president of the United States.

    COOPER: So I just want to confirm that you would not vote for your bill as it originally was?

    MCCAIN: My bill will not be voted on; it will not be voted on. I will sit and work with Democrats and Republicans and with all people. And we will have the principals securing the borders first.

    And then, if you want me to go through the description all over again, I would be glad to. We will secure the borders first. That’s the responsibility and the priority of the American people.

    http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/McCainPres08.htm

    This is an area that some conservatives will continue to disagree with McCain, but I accept his statement that we will secure the borders in a real, not political sense.
    We may still disagree with him about what to do with the illegals already in the country.

    My daughter and son-in-law teach in a school district that may be 85% hispanic, of which a significant percentage are illegal. They are necessary for the type of agriculture in the area. With a few exceptions, they are hard working individuals contributing to America. We will have to come to grip with this. One of my son-in-laws history students expressed real anxiety over her future. She grew up here, has family in Mexico who she does not know, but this is her home. She wants to be an American.
    These are difficult issues that need to be addressed. I personally think that the children of illegal immigrants should be given a path to citizenship, after they demonstrate a commitment to education, etc. I don’t think their parents should be allowed to become citizens, without returning to Mexico and getting in line. This may mean that the younger children have to return to Mexico with them.
    We do need a better guest worker program to meet the needs for agriculture workers.

  • Ozzie

    Brian,

    Here’s anther example on McCain’s 2000 stance vs the one he holds today.

    How he felt/feels about the Relgious Right:

  • BrianE

    Ozzie,
    Stop. I need a break!
    In the interest of fairness, please give me a couple of examples where Obama has substantively changed his position.

  • Ozzie

    In the interest of fairness, please give me a couple of examples where Obama has substantively changed his position.- Brian

    I’m sure he has changed his position. All politicians do, though John McCain’s track record appears to be worse than most.

    I would never say of ANY politician that “John McCain is a man of his word,” as you did.

    They all lie. James Madisan said that all men with power ought to be mistrusted, which is sage advice.

    But you then brought up my quote “I used to like and admire John McCain.”- and said “Remind me again when that changed?”

    I gave you a couple examples of how he changed though there are several YouTubes which further prove my point.

  • BrianE

    Buy the way, this group gives John McCain a “D” for his record on immigration.
    Pretty bad, except Obama is given a “D-” and Pelosi and Reid and 27% of Democrats in congress received an “F”.

    Who is more likely to craft an immigration policy that a modicum of sanity?
    As bad as he has been, I accept John McCain’s word that he will secure the borders. That’s at least half of the equation.

    As an aside, 66% of democrats receive a “D” or below.
    5% of republicans receive a “D” or below.

    http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_all.php3?Flag=DEM

  • BrianE

    “I would never say of ANY politician that “John McCain is a man of his word,” as you did.
    They all lie. James Madisan said that all men with power ought to be mistrusted, which is sage advice.
    But you then brought up my quote “I used to like and admire John McCain.”- and said “Remind me again when that changed?””- Ozzie

    I know this may be too subtle for you to recognize, but lying and changing your position aren’t necessarily the same thing.
    Changing your position and lying are the same thing when you say one thing to one group and another thing to another group within the same time frame.

    I’m not sure it would be fair to characterize changing your opinion over a period of say, eight years, qualifies as lying.

    Lying would be when you say you would meet with a despot without preconditions and then saying you didn’t say that.
    Or saying that a country is small and not a threat and then saying it represents a significant threat.
    Within a matter of weeks.

  • Ozzie

    I know this may be too subtle for you to recognize, but lying and changing your position aren’t necessarily the same thing.- Brian

    That’s true. I think the Real John McCain thought that the Relgious Right harbored “agents of intolerance,” but the John Mcain who wants to be president realized he can’t get elected without them (Hence the Palin pick)

    Other YouTubes feature John MCain lying about what he said about Iraq, however.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

    Anyone who holds a politicians up as a paragons of virtue hasn’t been paying attention to polticians.

  • BrianE

    “I’m sure he (Obama) has changed his position. All politicians do, though John McCain’s track record appears to be worse than most.”-Ozzie

    “I used to like and admire John McCain.”- Ozzie

    OK, so he started lying in 2000, since that’s when you decided you no longer admired him? Can we agree then, that prior to 2000 he was a man you admired and that as politicians go, he was an honorable man? If we can agree on that, then we can concentrate on his record since then.

    Now, we’ve dealt with the immigration thing, the tax thing, the torture thing, and that leaves the regulation thing.

    We’ll leave aside the Religious Right thing for now and that last piece of propaganda you linked. Let’s agree, no more youtube hit jobs. Let’s stick to articles where the quotes can be evaluated in context.

    Of course, McCain has a record to be evaluated, unlike his opponent whose major achievement is running for President.

  • BrianE

    “THEN: March 2008: Told The Wall Street Journal, “I’m always for less regulation.” Called for “removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments” to financial markets.
    NOW: Sept. 2008: As Wall Street melted down, declared, “We’re going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place.””- Ozzie
    As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee McCain has championed deregulation that has benefited consumers.
    As it relates to the financial markets, this is by far the most complicated policy to explain, since it encompasses events over the last 10 years. When liberals criticize McCain’s regulatory postions on financial institutions, they usually start with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed banks and investment houses to merge. Actually, Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin were also championing this. In fact, Travelers and Citibank and already merged, providing the final push to advance the legislation.
    In 2000, new options legislation, which exempted Credit Default Swaps, was passed. At the time Credit Default Swaps had a market of about $100 billion dollars.
    At this point deregulation was doing its thing, markets were expanding after the recession and dot.com bubble of 2000. In 1999 Franklin Raines, Clinton’s former budget director and head of Fannie Mae, announced they were going to write $2 trillion dollars in subprime loans by 2010. Interest rates were low, investor’s looking for safety were sold ABS, with a layer of CDS to hedge the risk. In fact, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, economic advisors to Obama said that Gramm-Leach-Bliley had no impact on the current credit crisis.

    Obama said McCain “has fought time and time again against the common-sense rules of the road that could’ve prevented this crisis,” neglecting to mention that his new brain trust on the crisis includes two Clinton administration Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, who helped negotiate the deregulation of the financial services industries in 1999. In an interview on Friday, Rubin said the law, named after its now-retired congressional sponsors — Phil Gramm (Tex.), a top McCain economic adviser; Jim Leach (Iowa), who heads Republicans for Obama; and Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (Va.) — “had no impact, zero,” on the current crisis.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/32011?cp=3
    So what’s to regulate? There was a connection between ACORN, Countrywide and the GSE’s that needs to be addressed. And there is this:

    NEW YORK (MarketWatch) Feb 27, 2007 — Freddie Mac FRE said Tuesday that it will tighten its standards for buying mortgages held by borrowers with the weakest credit ratings. The firm said it will stop buying mortgages, “that have a high likelihood of excessive payment shock and possible foreclosure.” The company said it would only buy subprime adjustable-rate mortgages, and securities backed by such loans, that have been qualified at the fully indexed and fully amortizing rate. Freddie Mac also said it would limit the use of loans that do not require income verification or other documentation, and will recommend that lenders collect adequate escrow for taxes and insurance payments. And, the company said it is developing new fixed-rate and hybrid adjustable rate mortgages, “that will provide lenders with more choices to offer subprime borrowers.”

    By then the market was already declining, and Freddie already held enough of these loans to cause the meltdown.
    What does need to be addressed is the proper equity requirements of writers of CDS. CDS are a two-edged sword. They were meant to provide a hedge for the subprime loans, and without them fewer of these loans would have been written. But then, wasn’t that the goal– to increase home ownership? Once again, it’s a balancing act. Increasing capital requirements of writers of CDS would be appropriate, in fact, leverage ratios are likely to be lower across the board for the forseeable future.
    So, in this case, deregulation wasn’t the culprit, the lack of oversight of GSE’s, which democrats and some republicans are responsible for, since it is unlikely that in 2000 the proper regulations on CDS would have been implemented anyway. But all of this could have been corrected as late as 2004, and no one had the foresight to do that., including the Federal Reserve, Congress or the Executive Branch, with the exception of a few congressmen, including John McCain.
    Let me remind you, if you think that de-regulation caused the credit crisis, remember that the future Treasury Secretary under an Obama administration disagrees with you.

  • BrianE

    John McCain who has served his country honorably, has demonstrated his commitment to his country with sacrifice and valor, and has a good plan to keep America secure and provide for its future prosperity.

    John McCain is a man of his word and countries around the world will know that America is a country that keeps its word.

    John McCain is committed to humane treatment of prisoners, without compromising the safety and integrity of our military and others.

    Vote for John McCain if you share these goals.

  • BrianE

    I need to make a clarification to post #56:
    “Or saying that a country is small and not a threat and then saying it represents a significant threat.
    Within a matter of weeks.”- Me

    I revisited that quote and Obama said Iran was a small country and not a threat when compared to the threat Russia posed during the cold war.
    I certainly don’t want to accuse Obama of something he didn’t say.

    In one sense he is correct. Russia had (and has) a nuclear arsenal that could have devastated life in America and elsewhere. So if you compare the few nuclear weapons Iran is likely to possess in the next few years (depending on who you believe), they certainly don’t seem to pose an Armageddon level of threat. But what would be the effect of one nuclear bomb set off in the middle east?
    I guess it’s the difference of a world facing a nuclear winter and fighting extinction, and a world in global depression facing a slower, in some sense, more brutal extinction through regional wars as the world starves.

    I don’t think this was unintentional on Obama’s part. What Obama has perfected is the ability to say what his audience wants to hear.

    On May 18 in Oregon to a partisan crowd he said this:

    “I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”

    In June at an AIPAC meeting he said this:

    Obama, June 4: The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

    This was not a lie, merely Obama being cunning.

  • suek

    >>”The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”>>

    Good luck with that…!

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/01/iranian-scientist-claims-earthquake-is-second-iranian-nuke-test/

  • Ozzie

    OK, so he started lying in 2000, since that’s when you decided you no longer admired him? Can we agree then, that prior to 2000 he was a man you admired and that as politicians go, he was an honorable man? If we can agree on that, then we can concentrate on his record since then.- Brian

    I dont know when he started lying, but I imagine it was well before 2000. I think to get elected to high office, most politicians have to have a loose relationship with the truth.

    In 2000, however, John McCain supported policies and held a philosphy I could agree with. And as far as politicians go, he seemed better than most. I didnt realize at the time, that he was suported by the neocons (and admittedly, did not even know what a neocon was).

    John McCain 2008 is not someone I could vote for for two reasons: He’s surrounded and supported by neocons whose philosphies have turned out to be both dangerous and wrong and he chose a Vice President whose main purpose is to appeal to the Religious Right.

    I realize it must be frustrating that few people seem to care about William Ayers or the LA Times tape or claims of Socialism, Communism, etc. but to me, the Religious Right and the neocons have already proven how dangerous they are.

    At this point, the only thing that might change my mind is if we discovered Obama is a vampire with a taste for small children.

    And even then, (because I believe that a President Palin would be an even bigger disaster than President George W. Bush) I would not vote for McCain/Palin.

    I’d do what a lot of Republicans I know have decided to do: I’d sit this election out.

  • Deana

    Ozzie –

    I don’t know where you live but I don’t know a single Republican who is sitting this out. Nor do I know a Republican who knows a Republican who is sitting this out.

    It could be a location thing, I don’t know. But that is not what I’m seeing.

    Deana

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    In Marin, “out” Republicans are tremendously engaged in this election and, more significantly, “closeted” Republicans are slowly coming out.