BPB is All Growns Up

Whoa! I'm away from BPB for a while and look what I missed: a redesign, Conrad wants to punch Ayers in the balls and the Great Crusade Against McClatchy. Sic semper tyrannis!

I'll swallow my pride regarding the McClatchy piece on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I was much too reactionary to claims made that Democrats forcing these agencies to offer affordable housing to low-income buyers was the sole (or at least prime) reason of the financial crisis. A quick search for something to debunk those claims led me to the McClatchy article. I read the first paragraph, saw that David Goldstein wrote it (he was formerly the KC Star's Washington correspondent, so I was familiar with his writing and had invited him on the show I produced in school a few times) and fired it off as another "view." I'm certainly not conceding to Heritage (I'll explain later), but I'll admit that it was a flippant, lame way to counter. And, in all seriousness, I'm embarrassed: I have a hard time digesting this complex topic and it was horribly lazy of me. But that's no excuse. I've done this before and no matter how many times I do it, it never restores any dignity lost. Go figure. Now to several asides:

- Take it or leave it, but I don't see McClatchy as some subversive, longarm-of-the-Left news organization. Columnists like Lewis D. are a different subject: All publications have columnists from all over the political spectrum. And for the Heritage Foundation to cast aspersions on something as a tool of a party is laughable. Come on, the Heritage Foundation would call my grandmother a communist for making sure everyone got a piece of pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving.
(Special secondary Heritage Foundation aside: I was a pizza place not far from my house, eating a late lunch on their patio the other day. The restaurant is right next to Heritage's headquarters, a stone's throw from the Capitol. So I'm sitting there and a pack of young Heritage cronies walk out their front door. It was like a Skull and Bones 5-year reunion: pink shirts a-blazin', the glare off their cufflinks and $500 shoes burning a hole in the ozone, their $100 haircuts slightly tussled by the wind. Seemed like a charming group ... there I go again, judging. I apologize.)

- My point in finding something to counter in the first place was that despite my lack of in-depth knowledge on the intricacies of our financial situation, I think it's ridiculous to blame one party or ideology. I agree the Clintons and Dodds of the Democratic party had a hand. But let's not forget who had both executive and legislative branches for most of Bush's two terms. The Bushes and Phil Gramms of the Repubican party are to blame as well. And just today, Greenspan, SEC chair Chris Cox and former Treasury Sec. Snow, all conservatives, admitted that Fannie and Freddie aren't at all solely to blame. Greenspan even publicly questioned the validity of his own market ideology and failure to properly address regulation. That looks like a fresh pile of guilt lying in the middle of the floor if you ask me. Both parties are to blame in their own ways. While, as I mentioned, I'm embarrassed by my laziness, I want to say that I'm no Dem. party apologist ... again, take it or leave it. But it wreaks when someone pins this on Democrats alone when Republicans had a stranglehold on the federal government for most of this decade.

- Socialism? Really? Ayers? Really? Are you guys really calling Obama a socialist? If you didn't, set me straight. And you're really worried about his association with Ayers as some kind of connection to terrorism? Really? I mean, "palling around with terrorists" is a fear tactic. I know no one explicitly said that here, but you know who did.

If you don't agree with his policies or ideas, fair enough. But can you make these two claims about him with a straight face? I agree that it was blatant opportunism to go along with the liberal status quo in Chicago at a time when he was trying to work his way up in a tough political climate. Ayers was accepted in Chicago, so Obama looked the other way. At least that's how I interpret it. He's a politician. This is what they do. Unfortunately, Obama happened to "look the other way" with someone associated with the ever-hot button issue of terrorism, so it's an easier talking point. I'm not condoning Ayers' actions or Obama's corner cutting. But I don't think it speaks to larger concerns of his character at this point.

- As conservatives, I'm curious as to your respective thoughts on this article from Reason, a Libertarian publication as you probably know. This runs along the same thread as the many conservatives like Will, Noonan, Buckley, Powell etc. that have wavered on McCain/Palin. I'm just wondering what you think of the Obamacon movement, as well as Reason's logic in this instance.

Finally, I sincerely hope nothing I've said or posted has been taken personally. We disagree on things. It's human nature. I look forward to discussing this election with you post-Nov. 4, maybe around Thanksgiving ... I should be around. It's been fun and certainly exciting (i.e. Palin), but I for one am ready for a shift in focus of my favorite sport, politics. But make no mistake, these next 12 days, and maybe more, should be icing on the cake.

Au Revoir. (Too socialist?)