Keeping victory in perspective. Gerard Henderson rather bravely took we journalists of a liberal persuasion to task in his last column before the US Presidential election for waxing so eloquently about the candidate Barack Obama. To his mind many in the Australian media (he especially singled out the ABC) were acting as some kind of cheer leaders rather than any kind of objective analysts. While himself a man who tries to avoid making predictions about such matters as election results he did acknowledge that Obama was comfortably ahead in the polls while drawing attention to some polls putting him only a modest five percentage points ahead. What’s missing in much of the reporting, Gerard Henderson wrote, is an examination of why the Democratic ticket is not further ahead and what an Obama administration would mean for the US and the rest of the world.
At the time of reading this column I was surprised at the use of the word modest about a five point lead especially when the Real Clear Politics final summary of all the major polls showed the lead to be 7.6 points. Now that the race has been run and won I have gone back and looked at the presidential results since 1948 and found indeed that the lead was modest enough and this probably is of significance to those of us in the rest of the world.
Of 16 elections since the end of World War II the margin of the winner has ranged from George W.Bush’s minus 0.2% to Richard Nixon’s plus 23.6%. Only six of the 18 winners had a margin lower than Barack Obama’s.
It does not look to me like the foundation for some amazing Democratic Party dynasty. These, afterall, are difficult economic times so finishing 6.5 points ahead is not so very grand. Guiding the United States and the rest of the world out of economic recession while remaining popular will be no easy feat.
The real reason revealed. Having a giggle on a Sunday morning is good for you and Piers Akerman can be relied to provide one even when he’s not appearing on The Insiders. Take this piece from the Sunday Telegraph yesterday which names the real villains responsible for the world’s economic turmoil. According to Piers:
No matter what the economically illiterate Kevin Rudd might say, the global financial crisis was not triggered by “extreme capitalism”.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
It was set in play by the creeping socialist tendencies of Obama’s Democratic colleagues, who encouraged US mortgage funds to issue loans to individuals who clearly did not have the means to service their debts.
Some of these mortgages became known as NINJA loans — No Income, No Job, No Assets — which is a clear assessment of the recipients’ credit-worthiness.
They were issued to people who could not afford them under the doctrine of fairness that Obama is committed to continue.
There you are. Now you know. Put those Democrats in jail is what I say.
oh dear
“Walter E. Williams, Ph. D. an American economist and college professor at George Mason University. He is also a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian and sometimes conservative views. He is an occasional guest host of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program and Lawrence Kudlow’s Kudlow & Company TV program.”
James in the words of Mandy rice Davies he would say that.
Mark you heard it dit doesn’t make it accurate
now tell me where it is said those terrble democrats forced banks to package the loans into investments and ratings agencies to rate them as a prospect.
Walter E. Williams, Professor of economics at George Mason University, in the Washington Times, in October:
“Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called subprime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses. The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster but there was a congressional chorus of denial.
Five years ago, Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, vouched for the “soundness” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said, “I do not see any possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury.” In 2004 congressional hearings, where the Bush administration sought greater oversight over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, said, “We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae,” adding that “the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals.” Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat, said, “There’s nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
In these hearings, Barney Frank said he doesn’t see “anything in the reports that raises safety and soundness problems.” Earlier this year, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for “riding to the rescue” to help people get home mortgage loans, adding they “need to do more” to help high-risk borrowers get better loans.
The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans. They were forced to by the heavy hand of government.”
Apparently Piers did not just make it up…..
Spot on, JamesK. This wasn’t exactly an obscure fact, either, as I’d already heard it from several sources recently.
That “we journalists of a liberal persuasion” currently describes just about all Crikey staff and contributors is not a healthy situation.
Freddie and Fannie spent a huge amount of money lobbying congress to prevent increased oversight by Congress. These organisations weren’t officially government backed, they were separate and generally privately owned entities, and were only nationalised by the US government after the crisis hit, very recently. Their boards, who authorised the repurchase of mortgages, were not acting at the direct behest of the US government, or of Democrat members of the administration. Both Democrats and Republicans supported Fannie and Freddie’s actions, and in fact, Republicans were probably keener to keep the barrel rolling, and to avoid oversight by the government, for ideological reasons. The mortgages they purchased were created by a miriad of private companies, who were the ones who actually arranged the mortgages with people who had little hope of repaying them (unless the property boom continued indefinitely, and capital gains kept growing strongly). The US government and congress deserve some blame for the disaster that unfolded, but only a small amount relative to the other players involved. By the way, who ran the US government for the last 8 years – oh yes, it was the Republican Party, wasnt it!
Alexander Downer runs this line all the time. And I just love these simple one line explanations to such complicated, and so very large, problems.