Did Palin really make a Fannie-Freddie "gaffe"?

"Palin Makes Her First Gaffe," the left-leaning Huffington Post reports tonight, arguing that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has made her first big mistake of the campaign, in a comment about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout.

Here's the comment at issue: Over the weekend Palin said Fannie and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

Gotcha, says HuffPost -- the bailout has yet to cost taxpayers anything! It's not expensive -- at least not yet! Palin's wrong! Blogger Sam Stein writes:

Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, which came before the government had spent funds bailing the two entities out, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.

"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

My take: The Palin comment is well within the margin of error on the campaign trail. There is no "gaffe" here. Congress earlier this summer -- in the housing bill that both John McCain and Barack Obama supported but didn't bother to vote on -- gave Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. a blank check* to invest in Fannie or Freddie. It OKd a big bailout. Perhaps in your book a blank check freshly signed by Congress is not "too expensive." Perhaps you trust the government not to spend a blank check. Perhaps pigs have wings. Palin was right: The very existence of a blank check means that Fannie and Freddie are too expensive to taxpayers.

*In a comforting bedtime story that several members of Congress actually believed, Paulson said the blank check was so big and powerful (a bazooka of cash!) he would never have to use it. By the time Palin spoke, it was clear that Paulson's attempt at "verbal intervention" had failed and that real taxpayer money will be spent to prop up Fannie and Freddie.  No one knows how much, but the Treasury has signed contracts to invest up to $100 billion in each company. Oh, and loan them money too. Oh, and buy their mortgage-backed securities. Do you really want to argue that she made a mistake by saying the two companies are "too big and too expensive to the taxpayers"?

Give her time, and a few one-on-one interviews. I'm certain she's as capable of the other three of a real screwup. This is not it.

-- Peter Viles

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to Peter Viles

Photo Credit: Associated Press

Comments

[TakeFive]

sfvrealestate wrote:

"Guys, at one point this woman was interested in having books banned from a library. And then she tried to fire the librarian that wouldn't go along with it."

sfvr - you need to keep up with the shorter news cycles. This has already been debunked. Some of the books on the list were published AFTER she supposedly made this list. The Wash Post or NY Times has already issued a correction.

Try harder next time.

[sfvrealestate]

Not quite, Take Five. The supposed list of books to be banned has been debunked. But her request to ban books occurred.

From CBS: Time reported last week, for example, that Palin asked the Wasilla librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, about the process for banning books. Baker was reportedly "aghast" at the question. Soon after taking office, Palin, according to a New York Times report, fired Baker, and news reports from the time indicate that Palin thought Baker hadn't done enough to give her "full support" to the mayor.

Palin reversed course on Baker's dismissal after a local outcry, and later said the discussions about banning books were "rhetorical."

The CBS story goes on to say: But as long as McCain aides are talking about this issue, maybe they can answer a couple of additional questions, such as, "Why did Palin try to fire the librarian in the first place?" Or how about, "Why did Palin broach the subject of book-banning if she had no intention of trying to ban books?"

And once again, I ask: didn't we already fight one war to stop this? How committed is Palin to the Consitution and the 1st Amendment?

[TakeFive]

sfvrealestate wrote:

"Time reported last week..."

Briefly, from today's Wall Street Journal:

"On Sept. 2, Time magazine repeated the tale, attributing it to John Stein, Palin's predecessor as mayor, whom she defeated in the 1996 election.

As it turns out, not only was the list a fake, but when the Anchorage Daily News investigated the story, it found no evidence that Palin had ever sought to remove books from the library."

Please read the complete story before you continue to pass along this nonsense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098339946615609.html?mod=Best+of+the+
Web+Today

[TakeFive]

Sorry folks, but I just can't let this slide that easily:

Posted by: sfvrealestate at 02:00 PM:

"Guys, at one point this woman was interested in having books banned from a library."

Posted by: sfvrealestate at 04:29 PM

"The supposed list of books to be banned has been debunked. But..."

sfvrealestate - as calmly as I can, I would like to point out that in your line of work due dilligence and honesty paramount. Please do not knowingly traffic in untruths.

[Michael Snyder]

Just to bottom line all of this left vs right infighting : If you're better off now than you were eight years ago vote for the same batch of crooks & incompetents that put you there. If you're not then get your butt to the polls and vote for a different candidate.
The exchange between sfvrealestate & Take Five is exactly the kind of trivia the politicians want us to concentrate on. A good look at any candidate's attendance and voting record is the bottom line. It answers two vital questions; did they show up & did they keep their word. Beyond that it's all speculation. Don't fall for the divide & conquer tactics rife in American politics.
Remember; Laura Richardson was re-elected by a percentage of the voting population that's about half of the percentage of my income I pay in taxes to support her bad example.

[sfvrealestate]

Take Five, "as calmly as I can" I would ask you to source your news from other than the WSJ on-line right-wing sources, and think twice before you accuse others of trafficking in "untruths." Here's the link story from the very own Anchorage Daily News that your own WSJ quotes:http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html. Please read it all. It clearly states that the librarian was asked three times if she would be "alright" with banning books should she be asked to do so.

And Take Five, why are you defending this marginally qualified politician who's rapidly turning out to be as corrupt as those she purports to unseat?

Further, M. Snyder, love ya, but this question about Palin's record, desires, etc. goes to the very heart of about just how well she'd uphold the Constitution.

[Michael Snyder]

sfvrealestate,
Love ya back, but you'll note I did recommend checking the record. Once an action or statement's in the minutes, it's pretty much set in stone. This doesn't negate other sources, it just provides the closest thing to an impartial observer in politics.

[TakeFive]

sfvrealestate - you keep moving the goal posts here.

You've gone from Palin banning to books (didn't happen), to a fired librarian (also didn't happen), to now someone being "asked three times" about banning books.

The link you provided gives a 404 error, but I'll see if I can track it down in the interest of giving you a fair hearing, something you're unwilling to do for Palin.

You also want to be careful with that talk of "marignally qualified". O's resume is less than half a page.

[TakeFive]

Michael Snyder wrote:

“The exchange between sfvrealestate & Take Five is exactly the kind of trivia the politicians want us to concentrate on.”

No Mike, it goes a little deeper than that. It’s about people that knowingly and willingly repeat or manufacture falsehoods in the service of their cause. I don’t care whether it comes from the Left or Right. I have no patience for it.

But the stunning amount of raw hatred directed at Palin and her family has taken this to a new level. We’ve seen the press unable to any longer carry the pretense of objectivity in their attempt to destroy this woman. The Left is afraid, deeply afraid and acting like any frightened animal would.

I am utterly disgusted by the way this woman has been treated and her children humiliated for having the audacity to seek office. That reason alone is enough for me to defend her, not to mention the facts clearly being on her side.

[manraygun]

Well said, sfvrealestate.

[It All Happens on the Margin]

SFVRE:

The WSJ is one of the most respected newspapers in the business.

Before you begin a tirade on the Journal being in the back pocket of big business and the right, I invite you to research their award of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in breaking stories on option backdating, their Pulitzer received for AIDS reporting, and their breaking of the Enron story.

For you to discredit the WSJ is utterly laughable.

[Michael Snyder]

It All Happens on the Margin,
You're correct but for one satiate point. Rupert Murdoch now owns the WSJ and that puts their creditability on a par with Fox News...

[Michael Snyder]

Take Five,
To quote from an earlier post; Anyone so ignorant or delusional as to support the teaching of "Creationism" in public schools or so self righteous as to force their offspring to bear an unwanted child from incest or rape simply lacks a basic grasp of reality. Palin's seventeen year old daughter is the predictable result of such a "head in the sand" position. Now if a parent wants to steep their children in 2nd century superstitions that fly in the face of science and social responsibility, that's their choice. But such choices must call to question their judgment on all other matters. As I've said before; where you're going depends on where you're coming from.
This is the 21st century and to deny the validity of scientific research in favor of religious extremism disqualifies a person from holding the trigger to the largest arsenal on earth. Sorry, but what I'm lookin' for here is a modicum of common sense.

[TakeFive]

Lets bring this discussion back on topic with the title of Peter's post:

Did Palin really make a Fannie-Freddie "gaffe"?

Followed up by sfvrealestate's question:

"Take Five, why are you defending this marginally qualified politician [Palin] who's rapidly turning out to be as corrupt as those she purports to unseat?"

Top recipients of Fannie/Freddie donations:

#1 Chris Dodd
#2 John Kerry
#3 Barack Obama
#4 HIllary Clinton

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/
top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

Funny, neither McCain or Palin appear on this list. Is Obama one of the corrupt ones your refering to?

[TakeFive]

Michael Snyder wrote:

"Rupert Murdoch now owns the WSJ and that puts their creditability on a par with Fox News..."

So this means the alphabet networks are all tellers of truth? If that was the case, Dan Rather would still have a job.

Leftists can't stand an opposing viewpoint. It amazes (and amuses) me how one guy on AM radio can make them wet their pants. [That's Rush Limbaugh for you non inside baseball readers].

[Michael Snyder]

Take Five,
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. There are more than two possible points of view in American politics, yet you've neatly crammed me into the one you don't agree with. What if there was a third possibility? Or a fourth?

[TakeFive]

Michael Snyder wrote:

“Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.”

No, thank you. Your reflexive RupertMurdochWSJFoxNews creditability smear illustrates the Left’s attitude towards anything that challenges its viewpoint. It can’t possibly be true if it’s on Fox or in the Wall Street Journal.

By this logic, everything in the LA Times should be dismissed because they sometimes print items I disagree with.

You’ve pigeonholed yourself pal, not me.

[Michael Snyder]

TakeFive,
Try decaf.

[It All Happens on the Margin]

Snyder:
so owners of media orgs can't have political points of view?

Jeff Zucker is a self described liberal, and he runs NBC. Do we discount NBC, also?

C'mon.

[Michael Snyder]

It all Happens...
I'm not discounting anybodies POV. Even the most astute of observers must report from their own point of view. All I'm recommending is the use of as many sources as practical and a dash of salt.

[sheila]

TakeFive, as long as you are trying to act like McCain is sooooo distant from Fannie and Freddie, how can you explain this:

"Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.

For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."

http://tinyurl.com/6yj8he

not to mention Phil Gramm, the architect of the deregulation that caused this mess, and Bush, the "Executive" who forcibly stopped all 50 states from enacting legislation to stem the obvious corruption and fraud in the mortgage industry, and the 2005 congress, who had hearings about massive appraisal fraud and decided not to enforce existing regs or enact new ones...

goes a little beyond "gaffe," don't it?

[TakeFive]

Sheila -

So Obama is the third highest recipient ($105,849) from the failed Fannie, McCain didn’t make the list, and your rebuttal spans 500 words without showing McCain benefitted.

Okey dokey then. Have fun at your 9/11 Truther meeting tonight.

[Michael Snyder]

Take five,
Once more with feeling: There really are more than two possible political positions to be represented in this country. What keeps Americans stuck in this red vs blue cat fight is the electoral college that actually elects the President. The same system perpetuates voter apathy as once a state has been carried, opposition votes do not count outside the state boarders for electing the President. In the days of horse driven communications this may have been a valid & practical choice. Now it's just another way to rig the election. You can be sure if the popular vote elected the President the candidates would be stumping in California. Instead, seen as a Democratic stronghold this state is on the back burner during one of the most critical elections in our history.
Consider the possibilities if there were three, four or even five viable candidates for this office. Do you think the American people as a whole might find a leader that more closely reflects who we are? Do you really think everybody falls on one side of the aisle or the other?
Tell me then, where would you put a hunter who believes Roe v Wade must be upheld is we're to call ourselves a free & civilized society?

[Leah]

OMG, you said "pigs"....you used a phrase with the word pig....a humorous phrase....call the McCain smear squad, quick....this guy must be sexist. He must apologize immediately!

[go]

hopefully palin will try to get the profiteering executives fired.

just like the alaska republicans.
hopefully more successfully than romney trying to fire big dig executives.

maybe mccain/palin could make romney chief of staff and have him go after profiteering executives.