Political & Elections

busdriver11 · Guru

RE: Occupy Wall Street versus Tea Party

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

I think the OWS vs TP has out lived the title. For starters, here were no murders, at ANY TP gatherings. There is very little cohesion between the 2 at this point.

busdriver11 · Guru

That is an interesting post. I always wonder how people can see the same things so differently.

winchester · Guru

How can there be two such diametrically opposed views on this issue?

See my long post on the Pledge of Allegiance thread. There really are different "wirings" of the brain, and each sees the world through a filter.

busdriver11 · Guru

"How can there be two such diametrically opposed views on this issue? Are both sides just spouting propaganda? I don't know, and never have known, what to believe. It's sad to think that there is no place to go to find the actual truth."

Yes, probably both sides are constantly spouting propaganda. I guess I just believe what I see with my own eyes, through my own experience. And carefully pick whom I believe. Of course, some things just ring true, and we mostly put on a filter that blocks out anything we disagree with or is distasteful. When it comes to politicians, I think they merely manipulate peoples fears and feelings to increase their own power and agenda.

jazzy · Senior Member

Note that the the quote in bold below is from Tom Coburn, Republican.

From Bloomberg News:

Much of the blame for the 2008 market collapse belongs to banks that earned billions of dollars in profits creating and selling financial products that imploded along with the housing market, according to the report. The Levin-Coburn panel levied its harshest criticism at investment banks, in particular accusing Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank AG (DB) of peddling collateralized debt obligations backed by risky loans that the banks’ own traders believed were likely to lose value.

In a statement, New York-based Goldman Sachs denied that it had misled anyone about its activities. “The testimony we gave was truthful and accurate and this is confirmed by the subcommittee’s own report,” Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag said.

‘Divergent Views’

In a statement, Deutsche Bank spokeswoman Michele Allison said, “As the PSI report correctly states, there were divergent views within the bank about the U.S. housing market. Moreover, the bank’s views were fully communicated to the market through research reports, industry events, trading desk commentary and press coverage. Despite the bearish views held by some, Deutsche Bank was long the housing market and endured significant losses.”

The panel’s report also examined the role of credit-rating firms in the meltdown, lax oversight by Washington regulators and the drop in lending standards that fueled the mortgage bubble and ultimately caused hundreds of bank failures.

The subcommittee’s findings show “without a doubt the lack of ethics in some of our financial institutions who embraced known conflicts of interest to accomplish wealth for themselves, not caring about the outcome for their customers,” said Coburn. “When that happens, no country can survive and neither can their financial institutions.”

Final Assessment

The report is likely Washington’s final official assessment of the turmoil beginning in 2007 that froze credit markets, took down investment banks Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ), sent housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into government conservatorship and caused the worst economic collapse in the U.S. since the Great Depression.

The $700 billion taxpayer bailout that followed in October 2008 upended the relationship between Wall Street and the federal government, turning CEOs like Blankfein and Lehman’s Richard Fuld into political punching bags. Populist anger at high-paid bank leaders helped fuel the passage of last year’s Dodd-Frank law, which set out the biggest changes to financial oversight since the 1930s.

The Senate report comes less than a year after Goldman Sachs paid $550 million to resolve SEC claims that it failed to disclose that hedge fund Paulson & Co was betting against, and influenced the selection of, CDOs the company was packaging and selling.

Goldman Sachs, in its settlement with the SEC, acknowledged that marketing materials for the 2007 CDO deal contained “incomplete information.”

Documents and Footnotes

The Senate subcommittee’s bipartisan report, buttressed by 2,800 footnotes and thousands of pages of internal documents from Goldman Sachs and other firms, may have more impact than previous investigations into the crisis.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-14/goldman-sachs-misled-congress-after-duping-clients-over-cdos-levin-says.html

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Or, for another perspective on the Community Reinvestment Act:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

Article is too long to post in it's entirety:

How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

That’s still too early. Why would changes in the mid-nineties result in a mortgage boom a decade later?

Throughout the nineties banks, as banks lowered their mortgage standards, mortgage rates remained high. The laxity was spreading but the incentives for borrowers to re-finance even under relaxed standards remained low. New buyers often still didn’t know that some of the loosey-goosey mortgages existed. Speculators had an internet bubble, so they weren’t yet attracted to real-estate. Treasury rates were not yet so low that investors seeking yield would pour into mortgage backed securities. Securitization levels were low enough that banks weren’t yet willing to fully embrace the loose standards. The historical data on default and loss rates from the lax lending were not yet available, so they weren’t embraced by banks or the broader market.

But as the years went by, these factors changed. The Fed pushed interest rates down. This made refinancing more attractive, and created an investor demand for yield. Fannie and Freddie popularized low-income securitization. Low defaults and loss rates from lax loans made them seem not as risky as previously expected. A shrinking consumer asset base thanks to the dot com bust created a demand for home-equity loans and high loan-to-value loans, as consumers exchanged high-interest credit card debt for low interest home debt. Speculators seeking higher returns and ordinary home buyers became aware that lax lending standards would allow them to buy bigger homes with little or no money down.

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.

Ah ha! So it wasn’t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!

Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything. The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates#ixzz1dVdid6WQ

Everyone has their hands dirty on this one.

jazzy · Senior Member

Hope: I share your frustration about the news coverage --- way too much spin and lack of objectivity. Media sources one wants to trust --- NYT or WSJ etc. have done a woeful job explaining what led up to the collapse and if they're inadequate, imagine how bad the smaller newspapers and local news shows have done with the job.

I went looking for some bipartisan investigation coverage. The Senate inquiry led by Carl Levin, D, and Tom Coburn, R, gets very good reviews. Yet, it got pretty "skimpy" news coverage. This is just such a difficult, complicated topic and the media prefers simple soundbites and then a seque into stories about royal weddings or McRib sandwiches.

http://www.eyesonwallstreet.com/2011/04/articles/financial-crisis/levincoburn-report-investigates-causes-of-the-financial-crisis/

On April 13, after two years of investigation, Senator Carl Levin and Senator Tom Coburn, Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a final report on their inquiry into the main causes of the financial crisis. The report presents new facts, findings and recommendations, with more than 700 new documents totaling over 5,800 pages.

The report focuses on the ways that financial firms deliberately took advantage of their clients and investors, on deeply flawed credit ratings, and on federal regulators who apparently cast a blind eye on these unsafe and unsound practices.

The report expands on evidence collected at four Subcommittee hearings in April 2010, examining four aspects of the crisis through a series of detailed case studies: 1) high-risk mortgage lending, using the case of Washington Mutual Bank; 2) regulatory inaction, focusing on the Office of Thrift Supervision’s failed oversight of Washington Mutual; 3) inflated credit ratings, examining the actions of Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s; and 4) the role played by investment banks, principally Goldman Sachs.

The report offers 19 recommendations, including a call for strong implementation of the new restrictions on proprietary trading and conflict of interest. The report also urges, in addition to the reform effected by the Dodd-Frank Act, that the SEC to use its regulatory authority to rank credit ratings agencies according to the accuracy of their ratings.

longprime · Guru

Before I say, "Nighty, night",

I think OWS and TP's have more in common than not. confuse

Nighty, Night. evileye

jazzy · Senior Member

Barney Frank is a bit player at best. You don't have to put any trust in Frank at all, though, to simply trace the history yourself. Was Fannie-Freddie to blame for the 2007 meltdown, as Bloomberg absurdly posits for reasons I would describe as self interest, or do the titans of TBTF deserve that mantel.

I only posted half that article, but the top half is trenchant as well.

As the author states:

So here’s my question: If the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 effectively caused the Wall Street meltdown of 2007 by forcing banks to make bad home loans to improvident poor people (and we all know exactly who I mean), how come it took 30 years for the housing bubble to burst?

Next question: If fuzzy-thinking Democratic do-gooders enacted such laws in defiance of common sense and sound economics, why didn’t Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush I or Bush II do something? Was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., secretly running the country?

Exactly how did the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in the United States — the investment bankers and corporate execs who host the $1,000-a-plate fundraisers, scoop up the Cabinet appointments and ambassadorships, and party down at White House galas — end up having less power over the U.S. economy than unskilled day laborers in Newark, N.J., or Oakland, Calif.?

See rest of column or go back to the Reformed Broker's letter to Wall Street: Why they hate you.....for another succinct explanation of how the financial institutions brought about the meltdown.

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle" — George Orwell

catahoula · Guru

Thought this might be an Onion spoof but decided its just too Che Guevara to be anything other than an earnest effort supporting the struggle, jazzy.

hope · Guru

How can there be two such diametrically opposed views on this issue? Are both sides just spouting propaganda? I don't know, and never have known, what to believe. It's sad to think that there is no place to go to find the actual truth.

busdriver11 · Guru

"And no, President George W. Bush, busy promoting what he called “the ownership society,” did nothing to restrain the action. Somebody named Bush discipline Wall Street? Get real. Even if he had, there wouldn’t have been anything a minority congressman like Barney Frank — whose actual views are almost the opposite of how Limbaugh describes them — could have done to stop him."

Putting your trust in Barney Frank as one of the good guys, trying to do the responsible thing? The guy who is so unaware he doesn't know his boyfriend is running a prostitution ring out of his own house? Think he is a financially knowledgeable and upstanding citizen, who could have prevented all this if it had just been left to him?

That's kind of sad, really.

winchester · Guru

They're just a bigger crowd of the same people that gather whenever there's a financial summit somewhere on one of the coasts

Exactly right. It's protest for its own sake.

Any relationship OWS, or Gene Lyons, has with "reality" is like the twice-per-day relationship a stopped clock has with the correct time.

Bloomberg is spot on.

jazzy · Senior Member

The OWS rightly has targeted the real ongoing threat to our economic future --- TBTF financial institutions (listen to Jon Huntsman) ---- while the TP developed a blind eye to that reality and instead demonizes the federal government.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/yes_it_is_wall_streets_fault/

bleh

Money was talking big-time last week. Clearly annoyed by the unkempt ragamuffins of Occupy Wall Street, New York’s dapper billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivered himself of a conspiracy theory so absurd that it had previously been confined to such dark corners of American life as the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity programs and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp … [T]hey were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will … And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.”

Actually, “annoyed” is too mild to describe a sophisticated Wall Street player like Bloomberg resorting to so crude and poisonous a political lie. He can’t possibly believe it. For all its ragtag, hippie-dippie aspects, Occupy Wall Street must have people at Manhattan’s most elegant dinner parties running scared.

Here are some things Bloomberg certainly knows that make nonsense of this blame-the-victim tale:

First, there was no law forcing or even encouraging banks to make shaky loans. The Community Reinvestment Act merely required FDIC-insured institutions to apply the same standards to all borrowers — i.e., no more “redlining.” It worked fine for many years.

Second, the law applied only to retail banks, never to Wall Street investment houses or mortgage companies like Countrywide that led the 2007 meltdown. As the housing bubble fully inflated in 2006, 84 percent of subprime mortgages were written by private, totally unregulated lenders.

Is this the place to mention that Fannie and Freddie, the quasi-governmental mortgage underwriting companies, don’t actually make loans — as Bloomberg also surely knows? Did they buy worthless mortgage-backed securities along with other victimized investors? Yes, but too little and too late to have caused the crisis. Although far from pristine, they were more victims than perps.

Rolling Stone’s financial MVP Matt Taibbi reminds us how the whole scam worked.

“Bank A (let’s say it’s Goldman, Sachs) lends criminal enterprise B (let’s say it’s Countrywide) a billion dollars. Countrywide then … creates a billion dollars of shoddy home loans, committing any and all kinds of fraud along the way in an effort to produce as many loans as quickly as possible, very often putting people who shouldn’t have gotten homes into homes, faking their income levels, their credit scores, etc.
“Goldman then buys back those loans from Countrywide, places them in an offshore trust, and chops them up into securities … They then go out on the open market and sell those securities to various big customers — pension funds, foreign trade unions, hedge funds, and so on.”

And no, President George W. Bush, busy promoting what he called “the ownership society,” did nothing to restrain the action. Somebody named Bush discipline Wall Street? Get real. Even if he had, there wouldn’t have been anything a minority congressman like Barney Frank — whose actual views are almost the opposite of how Limbaugh describes them — could have done to stop him.

Then there are “resident scholars” like AEI’s Peter Wallison. Today, this guy composes tracts indicting government folly. In 2004, though, he wrote chiding federal bureaucrats for lagging behind the exciting new world of subprime lending. “Study after study,” he wrote, “has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”

That’s money. Talking.

catahoula · Guru

After the steady diet of dead bodies in tents, assaulted and scared EMT folks, sidewalk vendor's carts urine and blood bombed, bills for snarky vandalism, police demurely declining to intervene for fear of riots, ....

... I have to say OWS and the Tea Party don't share much other than both being called political movements and there's a large degree of wish fufillment in naming the OWS even that.

They're just a bigger crowd of the same people that gather whenever there's a financial summit somewhere on one of the coasts.

-- Edited by catahoula on Thursday 10th of November 2011 06:49:23 PM

catahoula · Guru

The one thing I've noticed is that the Cain campaign has stopped pointing fingers at where the story originated from.

I'm inclined to think, in spite of all the tantalizing hints at Chicago and Axlerod, it's not the Obama campaign... at least I hope not - if they're burning this sort of wood right now, this early, they've some gas for later, when it counts.

The funny thing is the media arm of the party of Clinton ragging his ass as a predator, though. You'd think they'd at least wait for, oh, the equivalent of a Juanita Brodderick to surface before they went all self-righteous.

soccerguy315 · Guru

jazzy - I do think it is stupidity. People have chosen to not do their own research regarding these things. They vote based on 30 second sound clips. We see it every election. On both sides. All we heard in 2008 was "hope and change"... and there has been none. Because it's much easier to vote for "hope and change" than what Obama was actually articulating if you dug just a little bit deeper.

the famous lady who said she was voting for Obama because he was going to pay her mortgage... stupid? yes.

perhaps ignorance is a better word than stupidity?

“The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.”
- Marcus Aurelius

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.”
- Mark Twain

Poetsheart · Senior Member

"Karen Kraushaar, a 55-year-old former journalist who currently works for the Obama administration, was outed today as one of the three women who had filed sexual harassment complaints against Cain"

What an incredibly prescient human being! She must have foreseen the day when she would work in the administration of the first African American President, and that she could aid him by filing a sexual harassment claim against the Pizza King who hoped to run against him during his bid for re-election 15 years down the road. Amazing!

Did the GOP aid who claimed to have personally witnessed Cain sexually harrass a young woman foresee the day when he, too, could come to the aid of The Obama Administration? How about Sharon Bialek? Boy, that Obama must be working some serious Mojo, like his mama must have when she had the foresight to announce his birth in a Hawaiian newspaper two days after giving birth to him in Kenya---all so that he could qualify to run for President 45 odd years later.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 01:44:40 PM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Politico started the ball rolling.

Yep, they did. Would you expect Fox News, or any other news organization, to sit on a story they received about Obama that centered around the accusation that he sexual harassed two women, and that money was paid to the alleged accusers to make them go away? Really?

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 01:46:18 PM

hope · Guru

An interesting new development:

"Karen Kraushaar, a 55-year-old former journalist who currently works for the Obama administration, was outed today as one of the three women who had filed sexual harassment complaints against Cain"

hope · Guru

I was referring to this statement by jazzy, poetsheart:

"...but for all we know the MSM has been sitting on the story as it is claimed they did on Clinton, and that's why it took a non-mainstream news media to break the story."

I don't hate Obama (and which characterization I don't appreciate, thanks), and never have.I do not respect him as a human being, let alone as a politician or the leader of our country. Just like you guys can't stand Herman, true--except in our case it is due to racism. wink

I don' t know who is behind SB coming forward, but at this point it's irrelevant. Politico started the ball rolling.

Cartera · Guru

I don't like Herman Cain. No, not one little bit. But, I take no pleasure whatsoever in watching him fall in this manner.

Agree. One would think his sheer ignorance about the basics would have been enough to bring him down, but the less he knows, the more he is loved. The way the money is coming in to him, it seems the more women who come forward, the more support he has. As Jimmy Kimmel put is last night, this whole sexual harrassment thing is working out so well for him, you would think the other candidates might start hiring women to come forward about them. Cain agreed that might work.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

The idea that Politico is a "non-mainstream news media" and that the MSM has been "sitting on the story" is laughable. No offense.

Who alleged such a thing, hope? Straw man much?

As for believing in a "liberal media conspiracy theory:" we were told right here by a liberal that Cain "had to be taken down." Why would I think other liberals felt the same way?

Proof positive, that liberals are responsible for the story that was leaked to Politico. wink My guess is that liberals feel that all Tea Party backed conservatives "need to be taken down." But, I doubt most liberals have been feeling very threatened by Herman Cain, especially this far out from the nomination. If they were going to leak a story as juicy as this, it would make infinitely more sense to wait until he had garnered his party's nomination. That way, it would be sure to inflict the most damage.

But, the Cain campaign knows who has the most to gain by knocking him out of the race at this juncture---and it's not Democrats. Sorry.

Did you happen to hear what prominent black liberals had to say about Cain? Their hatred of the man seems to be so deep they couldn't risk letting him get a foothold on the nomination.

Kind of like your hatred for Obama....Yeah, black Democrats pretty much can't stand Hermain Cain. You think they're responsible for Sharon Bialek coming forward? That was a pretty neat trick!

hope · Guru

The idea that Politico is a "non-mainstream news media" and that the MSM has been "sitting on the story" is laughable. No offense.

As for believing in a "liberal media conspiracy theory:" we were told right here by a liberal that Cain "had to be taken down." Why would I think other liberals felt the same way? confuse Did you happen to hear what prominent black liberals had to say about Cain? Their hatred of the man seems to be so deep they couldn't risk letting him get a foothold on the nomination.

"...seeing as Cain's GOP rivals have the most to gain from outing these stories."

Really? You don't think Obama and his liberal supporters have anything to gain? TWO black men competing for the presidency--playing havoc with the wall of black support for Obama??

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 08:10:02 AM

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 08:11:08 AM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Heaven knows there are lots of racists out there who can’t stand the thought of a black man in the White House.

Yes, and most of them are conservatives, apparently, seeing as Cain's GOP rivals have the most to gain from outing these stories about his past sexual harassment charges, and his most damaging accuser is a registered Repub and Tea Party supporter. It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read the above quote, otherwise, I would have sprayed all over my monitor and keyboard as I laughed at the sheer irony. Is this what you said when Democrats leveled the exact same charge during Barack Obama's Presidential bid, or did you deny, deny, deny, that racism played any part in the GOP's "he's not one of us" smear campaign?...Oh god, that was a good one. Thanks Winchester, for the best laugh I've had in weeks.

You're really adept at revisionist history, too. The stories of Clinton's sexual harassment allegations were covered round the clock on all the major networks for weeks after they broke. Talking heads couldn't shut up about it. And certainly, the Lewinsky scandal dominated ad nauseum. Who could forget "the cigar", the blue dress, DNA testing of the semen stain, Linda Trip, Kenneth Star's Independent Counsel, the Impeachment trial, on and on. Tongues were wagging from the newsroom to the bedroom to the boardroom, with speculation as to their legal implications, and fallout to his Presidential legacy. Just because you didn't like the outcome after the smoke settled, doesn't mean Clinton "got a pass from the media", Winchester, because he most certainly did not. The problem is, the voters didn't care enough about the allegations against Clinton to keep them from pressing the lever for him. Too bad they didn't have you to do their thinking for them.

Edwards got similar media treatment when he ran for the Democrats' presidential nomination in 2008. The same fawning press that portrayed him as a crusader for the poor and an upstanding family man ignored an affair with a campaign worker that resulted in Edwards being indicted on criminal charges for using campaign funds to cover up his moral failing.

Are you kidding? Once there was strong evidence that the Equirer's allegations of a sexual relationship with Rielle Hunter were true, the mainstream media was all over it. And Democrats deserted him like rats from a sinking ship. Reports from a tabloid, especially if it's the only news entity reporting the story, aren't treated with much credibility. The question is: why wasn't Edwards forgiven by the public for his infidelity and love child, while it pardoned Clinton again and again for far more outrageous alleged offenses?

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 08:06:49 AM

jazzy · Senior Member

Whoever breaks the story tends to drive it and keep it going --- same with National Enquirer driving the Edwards story. It's their scoop and they push every detail and aspect and get as much publicity as they can for their franchise while doing it. It's a business too.

If you want to believe in the liberal media conspiracy theory --- go ahead. But it doesn't make a lot of sense if the goal is to help Democrats win elections. The "conspirators" in the media blundered badly by bringing Cain down NOW instead of journolisting to keep it quiet until he had either the presidential or vp nomination and then springing the story.

We don't really know the source of the stories about Cain, but for all we know the MSM has been sitting on the story as it is claimed they did on Clinton, and that's why it took a non-mainstream news media to break the story.

hope · Guru

Politico drove this story. There is no way around this:

"Separately, Politico, which broke the Cain story posted 76 items related to the controversy between Saturday and 4:00 p.m. ET this afternoon."

He "had to be taken down" we were told here. It was apparently too dangerous to let the system play out, in case the "mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Republicans" might actually vote for him.

MSNBC must have had dozens of Politico reporters on explaining their story the first days, and CNN hyped it like mad (I heard John King refer to it as a "lurid story" when all we knew about the charge was that a woman claimed Cain made a "gesture").

The Weiner story took a couple of weeks to unfold. It looked for a long time like he was going to get by it. There is no comparison to how his story was handled to how Politico broke and pushed the Cain story.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 07:33:54 AM

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 07:35:17 AM

jazzy · Senior Member

Anthony Weiner got hounded out of office for not even coming in physical contact with a woman and wasn't running for the nomination to the highest office in the land --- why?

Because sexual misconduct is blood in the water for the media, whether you're a black politician or a white politician, Democrat or Republican.

Could someone possibly think of why there is so much more media coverage of this type of story today (Cain) compared to the 1990s (Clinton)? What is different about media in the last 15 years? Think really hard.

winchester · Guru

The only reason Cain is getting so much attention over this is because he’s black, and he's up in the polls. Heaven knows there are lots of racists out there who can’t stand the thought of a black man in the White House.

Clinton did far worse and he got a pass, comparatively speaking because he’s white.

Media Research Center looked at morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC in the first three days since the Cain allegations from anonymous women and sources broke.

For Cain, there were a total of 50 stories.

Compare that to one story in the first three days after the Paula Jones scandal broke in 1994; t three stories following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the president; and three stories after Juanita Broaddrick came forward in February 1999 to say Mr. Clinton raped her.

Separately, Politico, which broke the Cain story posted 76 items related to the controversy between Saturday and 4:00 p.m. ET this afternoon.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2011/11/03/grapevine-cain-vs-clinton-media-attention#ixzz1d7bEbsIo

Or, maybe there’s another reason?

Even if something had happened, we wonder why the media are making such a big deal of this. Didn't the double election of Clinton eliminate sexual impropriety as an issue in politics? If it didn't, then the media's John Edwards cover-up should have.

Clinton's 1992 campaign could have been crushed when Gennifer Flowers said she had had a 12-year sexual relationship with him that began shortly after the two met in 1977. But Clinton was a media darling, and the Flowers scandal as well as additional charges from, and rumors about, other women during the race didn't matter to the press.

As Newsweek's Eleanor Clift said after the Flowers accusation: "Truth is, the press is willing to cut Clinton some slack because they like him and what he has to say." Nor did it matter to the voters. Swayed by the media's glowing coverage of Clinton, they elected him president in 1992.

But Clinton's problems didn't end with that election. Kathleen Willey said he groped her in the White House in November 1993. In May 1994, Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton, claiming he propositioned her three years earlier.

Despite the charges, voters re-elected Clinton in 1996. Unsurprisingly, that term was filled with still more charges of sexual deviancy. Among the accusers was Juanita Broaddrick, who said Clinton raped her in 1978, bit her lip in the process, and casually suggested she put some ice on it as he left.
And who can forget the Monica Lewinsky affair?

None of these charges, of course, carried any weight. The media still celebrate Clinton as a man of great virtue, a must-be-admired political giant of his time.

Edwards got similar media treatment when he ran for the Democrats' presidential nomination in 2008. The same fawning press that portrayed him as a crusader for the poor and an upstanding family man ignored an affair with a campaign worker that resulted in Edwards being indicted on criminal charges for using campaign funds to cover up his moral failing.

If randy sexual behavior is OK for Democrats, why is the accusation against Cain a legitimate news item? Oh, that's right — he's a Republican who's gaining popularity and poses an election threat to the media's current darling. Suddenly sexual aberrance is wrong again.

http://news.investors.com/Article/589964/201110311848/Cains-No-Clinton.htm

jazzy · Senior Member

soccerguy:

First, I don't think it's stupidity in the case of Cain supporters who mistakenly think his tax plan would help them --- I blame lack of reporting, misinformation and outright propaganda from their news sources (cough Fox cough.)

Second, what you posted isn't news. It's been noted from page one of this thread that Obama and Democrats are just as deep in Wall Street money as Romney and many Republicans in Congress. Parties on both sides have become too dependent on Big Money donors to fund their campaigns and as a result, they have comprised their representation of the vast majority of average Americans in favor of those interests. Frustration with this fact of life in America has reached the tipping point, the spilling out into the streets point, and because of that effort, it is getting airtime and print space.

Do Obama supporters skip over this because of "voter stupidity" as you put it?

One reason PO cannot assume support from the OWS crowds is that many are very angry and disillusioned with his presidency. They may not show up to vote, or they may rally behind a third party candidate. If you read Firedoglake blogs, you'll see that Obama takes a lot of heat for moving to the center and showing willingness to compromise with Republicans in Congress.

I remain an Obama supporter not because I don't know about the money he has accepted for his campaign from Wall Street but because since I know that both Republican and Democratic candidates have to take money from big donors in order to run a national presidential campaign, I'm going to go with the candidate whose policies tend to more closely agree with my views on what best serves society.

ion

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Gawd, I feel like I need a shower, just from watching the events of this story unfold. As soon as I saw Gloria Allred, I wanted to up-chuck. Could there be a greasier bottom feeder? She did nothing, in my mind to enhance the credibility of this latest accuser, who may well be telling the truth. I guess the fact that she is both, a registered Rupublican, and an avowed Tea Partier, closes the case for many conservatives, who were first convinced this was a vast left wing conspiracy.

Funny how apparently, Herman Cain initially began his campaign for President as a way to promote his book, never imagining that he would find himself leading the pack. And funny how the law of unintended consequences works. I'll bet he rues the day he pulled this publicity stunt. Had he just done a book tour, and perhaps made a Book TV appearance, all these allegations of sexual harassment would probably still be buried. I don't like Herman Cain. No, not one little bit. But, I take no pleasure whatsoever in watching him fall in this manner.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 05:12:23 AM

Cartera · Guru

Cain is on Jimmy Kimmel now - says there is not an ounce of truth in what this woman is saying. Says there will be a press conference tomorrow.

soccerguy315 · Guru

jazzy - Cain would not be the first candidate to benefit from voter stupidity.

after all, Obama is taking it to Wall St. and standing up for the little guy... but Obama has more Wall St donations than all of the GOP candidates combined, has taken more Wall St. money than ANY other politician over the last 20 years (and Obama was only on the scene for the last 6 years or so), and the big banks have made more money in the last 2.5 years under Obama than the entire 8 years under Bush II.

*source for bank profits: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wall-streets-resurgent-prosperity-frustrates-its-claims-and-obamas/2011/10/25/gIQAKPIosM_story.html?hpid=z1

hope · Guru

Apparently she was staying in New Jersey at the time, and took the train down to D.C.

I don't think it's that suspect. She obviously thought she'd get by on her "charm;" not have to actually grant any "favors." She didn't seem too surprised that HC took it another way, which was probably why she didn't make a federal case out of it at the time. I can understand, though, under the present circumstances, why she now might want to "speak out" (hate that phrase!).

She doesn't seem like the type though (based on what I've read about her personal life) to be above hoping this furthers her career (whatever that may be). I read she is scheduled for at least two radio shows tomorrow.

-- Edited by hope on Monday 7th of November 2011 07:42:25 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

I agree, things are looking pretty negative for Mr. Cain. If he did these things, especially while married, he is a complete scumbag. But if he has been constantly making attempts to hit upon women, if that is really true, I guarantee you there are some who said yes. With evidence of a relationship, illegitimate kid, something to prove it. It is very unlikely a successful, powerful man is only going to get constantly turned down by women. If this is actually true and not just exaggeration or slander, there will be a trail of women with the evidence to back it.

This last lady, the story sounds a bit odd to me. Who takes a flight to another state just to meet with a man, lets him know the hotel she is at, and goes to drinks and dinner with him to ask for a job? Maybe I don't know how the job market goes in the business world, but this sounds strange. I've called friends for job leads and given many myself, but that sounds out of place. I can't imagine doing that just to meet with one person for dinner, not for an official interview or just to get a recommendation. Is that normal, business as usual?

hope · Guru

Well things are looking pretty bad for Herman.

If the fourth accuser is to be believed, Herman committed not just harassment, but assault.

She had grounds to go the police at the time.

She sounds pretty credible to me.

john doe · Guru

Fortunately for politicians, the herd is easily lead and manipulated.

jazzy · Senior Member

The story the media fails to adequately report about Herman Cain is this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/11/04/poll_people_who_d_pay_higher_taxes_under_9_9_9_think_they_d_pay_lower_taxes.html

And explains how his poll numbers could be where they are.

Poll: People Who'd Pay Higher Taxes Under 9-9-9 Think They'd Pay Lower Taxes

Jason Clayworth blogs some data from the Des Moines Register Poll that manages to be distressing and totally unsurprising at the same time.

Among the 400 likely Republican caucusgoers polled, 29 percent think they would be better off under Cain’s [9-9-9 tax] plan, and 31 percent think things would be the same, for a combined 60 percent. Eighteen percent think they would be worse off, and 22 percent aren’t sure.

But among those making less than $50,000 a year, the percentages rise to 34 percent who think they would be better off and 33 percent who think things would be the same, or 67 percent combined. Fourteen percent say they would fare worse, and 19 percent aren’t sure.

As Cain would say: The problem with their analysis is that it's not correct. Forty-seven percent of people currently get exemptions that spare them from federal income taxes, or lack jobs that would have them paying FICA. Under 9-9-9, poor people pay higher taxes. Families making between $20,000 and $50,000 would see their annual tax bills go up by more than $3000. Families making more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging out at $581,000.

Didn't Cain lay out a loophole to prevent this? Sort of. Two weeks ago he declared that, under 9-9-9, some blighted areas would be viewed as "empowerment zones," which some exemptions from 9-9-9. The key words are "blighted areas." Nowhere in Iowa is going to qualify as an empowerment zone. But eight weeks before they vote, they remain convinced that Cain's tax simplification plan is going to do wonders for them. A week just went by with lots of attacks on Cain, but no attacks on this factual issue.

longprime · Guru

Non Sequitur Comics, Nov 5, 2011

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur#mutable_708335

Non Sequitur

longprime · Guru

of course I do, Poet.

However, the .01% that is Schuler is much closer to "OWS vs Teaparty" than HC to same. We know how threads run, and this thread is the flavor of the last couple of days.

Since we are speaking of HC; the confidentially/settlement agreement that the Restuarant Assoc has with the accusers is probably pretty much ironclad, unless someone would want to indemnify these women for the return of settlement payment, legal fees, endless questioning and family notoriety and finally being the one to destroy a potentially "good" Republican candidate/President. evileye

Men, since Eve, have long ago discovered, that if you don't ask of women, you won't get it. biggrin

Poetsheart · Senior Member

As far as Politico is concerned, they reported the bare facts as they knew them, which is that Herman Cain had been accused by two unnamed women of sexual harassment in the 1990s, and that they had been paid a five figure sum to drop the charges and go away. Politico did not make claims as to the varacity of the allegations. Nothing they reported was untrue, nor has it been refuted by the Cain campaign. This is just textbook political reporting. If a politician can be proven to have been accused of sexual misconduct, the news media will report it. And it goes for any politician. I'll bet all my James Taylor CDs that if a similarly sketchy story surfaced about Obama, it would be front page headlines, and occupy talking heads of every political stripe for weeks.

But, I'm pretty tired of hearing about it, to tell the truth. The women involved have declined to come foreward with specifics, and the candidate has denied any wrong-doing. It's all become rather tedious, and I think it's time to move on.

It is funny, though, that conservatives don't seem to know who to blame for this story from one day to the next. First, it was a smear job by liberals, then it was a smear job by Cain's Republican rivals, and now, once again, it's apparently a liberal hatchet job. Whatever. I think it's a reflection of the nature of politics. Once there's thought to be blood in the water, predators will pounce from all sides. It's why many of us are disgusted by politics and politicians more often than not.

Aside from this issue, I'm somewhat more amused by Herman Cain himself than alarmed at the prospect of him becoming President. There's no way he's a viable candidate for the Presidency, and he'll probably self destruct sooner rather than later. I actually laughed out loud when I read the quote about the Chinese govenerment's quest for nuclear capability. It's so amuses me when many members of the conservative base show themselves perfectly comfortable with candidates who are obviously ignorant of the most basic facts of history, economics and foreign policy. Good thing the general electorate usually holds to a higher standard.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Friday 4th of November 2011 05:51:12 PM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Longprime, you do realize this thread has nothing to do with Robert Schuler, don't you?

longprime · Guru

99.99er's upset with the .01%

longprime · Guru

RE: Occupy Wall Street versus Tea Party

hope · Guru

Yep I grant you I have opinions on the subject.

Politico has yet to release any details of these allegations other than the ones I referenced. If I have missed any, please fill me in. Based on what has been released, I have an opinion that they seem frivolous.

If your side wants me (and apparently other conservatives) to believe otherewise, it's time to back up the claims with more details. Depending on what we find out, I will then be more than willing to change my mind. I am not and never was a Cain supporter. I don't want a TP favorite to have the nomination. That person will lose to Obama.

Since I voted for Clinton twice, I think I can fairly say my opinion has nothing to do with the political party of the accused.

Cartera · Guru

I have not made any judgment about Herman Cain with regard to these allegations. You, on the other hand, attacked the women as whiney feminists. I'm not equating anything. I just wondered when women who claim sexual harrassment cross the line from being a whiney feminist to being taken seriously. You seem to know or maybe it has more to do with the political party of the person accused.

hope · Guru

"..knowing absolutely nothing about them or what happened."

Thanks for making my point.

So far we know only what I referenced: a supposed gesture, a supposed invitation to Cain's room, and that one of the women was thirty back in the late nineties.

If people want to attempt to "take down" Cain based on his qualifications/ability, that is what our process is all about. This, however, is another entirely putrid kettle of fish.

The idea that you would equate what happened to Paula Jones with these allegations is ludicrous.

Cartera · Guru

He needs to be taken down because he is a fool to the point of being dangerous. Every day, he shows his lack of knowledge on very basic things that even a local politician should know. For him to be considered a serious candidate reflects poorly on the intelligence of those who support him. I have no idea whether he sexually harrassed women or not and I don't care whether I ever hear another word about it. There are much bigger problems with Herman Cain.

Hope, if your only point was to point out how badly Cain is being treated, then you missed your mark. Instead, you attacked the women who brought complaints against him, knowing absolutely nothing about them or what happened. The accusations occurred in the 90s. Do you even know how old these women were? What basis do you have to claim that feminism screwed these women up or are all young women who make sexual harrassement claims screwed up? Do you believe Paula Jones was a screwed up young feminist?

busdriver11 · Guru

Hope is right on this one, "Cain may be a fool--but I think the glee people are taking in his fall is reprehensible, which was my point.

"He needs to be taken down." Right, don't risk our system playing itself out."

Gotta take down the conservative black man, because he can't be allowed to be successful? Over something whereas details are unknown to the public yet, or just not arranging enough political cover to do the spin on the story ahead of time?

What ever happened to the liberals mindset of, "We don't care about his personal life, we care about his policies?" Except when it's a conservative, every little detail of his personal life is of utmost importance. I can see being annoyed or distasteful about Cain because of his policies and fear of an ultra-conservative agenda, and discomfort with how he's handled this drama and the potential that he was a womanizer. But wanting to take him down because of this drama? That doesn't make sense. It's more like this is an opportunity to take him down.