U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[KarlXII]

Olbermann is the O'Reilly of liberal media.

[Don Corleone]

Are we fifth-column commutards who despise freedom if we talk about Governor Palin's record as mayor?

Not to me. This is exactly the sort of valid criticism and questioning I'd be looking for in any of the candidates, as well as Sasaki's claim about her not actually selling the governor's jet (if it turns out she sold it, but technically not on E-bay, that's a bit lame).

I own Banquo's scorn. I let myself get carried away. We have two good men who care about this country running for president, and I need to take a deep breath, step back from the edge, and remember that. I also need to remember that at the end of the day, if you hit the mute button and focus exclusively on voting records, it's pretty darned tough to tell any of them apart.

I apologize for getting carried away with my retorts. I still think attacking Bristol Palin in the media and in the backroom was in poor taste, but I certainly overreacted.

I would like to know the sources of Obama's funding that enable him to forgo public campaign financing, and in fact require it so that he can avoid disclosure. I would also like to know why he likes hanging out with the founders of the Weather Underground, but I would also like some questions about Palin answered, when they actually pertain to her service, her competency and her views, as Lemur's and Sasaki's do.

I would also like to say, I do think it's possible to be pro-woman and pro-life. I'm pro-choice*, but I can tell you that I do know lots of feminists that don't believe in abortion. And I'd remind people with their knee-jerk pro-life=anti-woman reactions, speaking from unfortunate experience, when your political calculus appears that simple, you've missed a few important parts of the equation.

Anyway, I think it's time to take myself out of this discussion. I'm for the guy who's going to cost me the least amount of money, and that would be McCain. But I believe Obama would do what he thinks is best for the county as a whole should he be elected.

*Edit: Actually, that's not true, but in the sound-byte world, that's as accurate as I can be. Jillian and Allison have altered my views on this subject. I suppose a better way of describing my position is "focusing on means other than the legal system to bring about positive change". I think abortion as it currently exists in the USA is an abomination, and I think it has unfortunately become a form of birth control, and that should be remedied. But I don't think outlawing it is a particularly effective way of improving the current situation.

[KarlXII]

Are we fifth-column commutards who despise freedom if we talk about Governor Palin's record as mayor?

The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.

The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla [...]

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities," Ms. Palin said Wednesday in her acceptance speech at the Republican convention. Litigation resulting from the dispute over Ms. Palin's sports-complex project is still in the courts, with the land's former owner seeking hundreds of thousands of additional dollars from the city.

Based on what I'm reading in that font of evil liberalism called "the free press of the United States," Wasilla was debt-free when Palin became mayor. By the end of her term the town had accrued $19 million in liabilities, or $3000 per resident. But hey, she's a tough fiscal conservative, right? And she makes the base happy.

LEAVE PALIN ALONE YOU COMMIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

''I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ...'' she said in a letter.

[Xiahou]

Not to me. This is exactly the sort of valid criticism and questioning I'd be looking for in any of the candidates, as well as Sasaki's claim about her not actually selling the governor's jet (if it turns out she sold it, but technically not on E-bay, that's a bit lame).

Yeah, that's exactly what happened. It didn't sell on eBay, so they sold it through standard channels.

I would also like to say, I do think it's possible to be pro-woman and pro-life.

Of course it is. Roe, of Roe v Wade fame is now herself pro-life and wants the decision overturned.

----

On a more humorous note, watch Obama as he talks with ABC about his "muslim faith". I can't help but find this funny. After going to such lengths to knockdown rumors, he makes a slip of the tongue like this.

[Gregoshi]

I got a phone call from Sarah today telling me about a rally she and John are holding in nearby Lancaster Pennsylvania and she invited me out. She seemed like a nice enough recording of a lady.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not to me. This is exactly the sort of valid criticism and questioning I'd be looking for in any of the candidates, as well as Sasaki's claim about her not actually selling the governor's jet (if it turns out she sold it, but technically not on E-bay, that's a bit lame).

I saw a clip on cnn of mccain saying she'd sold it on ebay for a profit when she'd sold it off ebay for a loss. It was on a segment where they called them out on some of the dishonest things they'd said. The others mentioned were cutting funding for special needs education by 62% and then saying in her speech that parents of special needs children would have a friend in the white house, and of being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

I would like to know the sources of Obama's funding that enable him to forgo public campaign financing, and in fact require it so that he can avoid disclosure.

He has millions of donors. 2 million individuals was the last number I saw. Certainly his campaign is very smart about getting lots of people to give money.

I would also like to know why he likes hanging out with the founders of the Weather Underground,

Obama was 8 years old at the time of the bombing. They served on non profit committees related to poverty reduction and education (along with republicans).

Michael Kinsley, a longtime critic of Ayers,[30] argued in Time that Obama's relationship with Ayers should not be a campaign issue: "If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others — including Republicans and conservatives — who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues." "Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd."

but I would also like some questions about Palin answered, when they actually pertain to her service, her competency and her views, as Lemur's and Sasaki's do.

There were bunches of these posted back when she was announced. The stuff about her daughter was just a few bloggers and the media going for a scandal.

Anyway, I think it's time to take myself out of this discussion. I'm for the guy who's going to cost me the least amount of money, and that would be McCain. But I believe Obama would do what he thinks is best for the county as a whole should he be elected.

Do you make over 250K? Because otherwise you might want to look into that...

[Lemur]

I'm glad to see that not everyone on the right has lost their minds in a love-swoon over Governor Palin. Cato Institute:

Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes. One rule of thumb is that higher taxes cause less investment. Sure enough, State Tax Notes reported (January 7): “After ACES was passed, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s most active oil exploration company and one of the top three producers, announced it was canceling plans to build a diesel fuel refinery at the Kuparuk oil field. ConocoPhillips blamed the cancellation on passage of ACES [the new tax]. The refinery would have allowed the company to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel onsite for its vehicles and other uses on the North Slope, rather than haul the fuel there from existing refineries.”

There are good reasons for an oil-rich state to tax oil production, but a fiscal conservative would usually use any tax increase to reduce taxes elsewhere. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I see no evidence that Palin offered any major tax cuts. She did propose sending $1.2 billion of state oil revenues to individuals and utility companies in the form of monthly payments to reduce energy bills, but that sounds like welfare to me, not tax cuts.

[Don Corleone]

Do you make over 250K? Because otherwise you might want to look into that...

No, I don't make that much, but I'm pretty sure Obama's so called 'cuts', are predicated on he'll lower taxes after he removes all previous tax cuts. So sure, he'll cut taxes 10%, after he raises them by 30%. That math might work for you, a student, but for me, a laborer in the workplace, not so much.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama is going to harm the overall economy, which will harm everyone. And then he wants to raise taxes significantly on stocks. And then there's the prospect of the greenhouse tax/cap and trade scheme, perhaps worst of all.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, I don't make that much, but I'm pretty sure Obama's so called 'cuts', are predicated on he'll lower taxes after he removes all previous tax cuts. So sure, he'll cut taxes 10%, after he raises them by 30%. That math might work for you, a student, but for me, a laborer in the workplace, not so much.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi....cfm?ID=411693

The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-borrowing for housing-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

edit: btw, I'm a laborer in the workplace too

[Don Corleone]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi....cfm?ID=411693




edit: btw, I'm a laborer in the workplace too

You graduated? Congratulations! How did I miss that? So where are you working?

As for your link, you'll have to forgive me if an editorial from the Brookings Institute telling me Obama's tax plan is better than McCain's without offering any critical analysis of either plan fails to persuade me. Instead of "interpreting" the results of each plan, why wouldn't they state the respective plans in plain language?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You graduated? Congratulations! How did I miss that? So where are you working?

I'm actually in the process of transferring (had a distinct lack of interest in my major) and I'm working for a while to save a bit of money (of course McCain voted against expanding pell grants ).

I work as a canvasser. Fun job, decent wage.

As for your link, you'll have to forgive me if an editorial from the Brookings Institute telling me Obama's tax plan is better than McCain's without offering any critical analysis of either plan fails to persuade me. Instead of "interpreting" the results of each plan, why wouldn't they state the respective plans in plain language?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...ues_matrix.cfm

That's a side by side comparison. And a handy graph, although I'm guessing the washingtonpost isn't your favorite newspaper:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...8061200193.gif

[Don Corleone]

I'm actually in the process of transferring (had a distinct lack of interest in my major) and I'm working for a while to save a bit of money (of course McCain voted against expanding pell grants ).

I work as a canvasser. Fun job, decent wage.



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...ues_matrix.cfm

That's a side by side comparison. And a handy graph, although I'm guessing the Washingtonpost isn't your favorite newspaper:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...8061200193.gif

Actually, I'll generally accept the Washington Post a valid source. According to them, I come out very slightly ahead with McCain. I do have a question about the graph though...

For the bottom two groups, if they're not paying any taxes, how are Obama and McCain saving them money on their taxes?

[CountArach]

Actually, I'll generally accept the Washington Post a valid source. According to them, I come out very slightly ahead with McCain. I do have a question about the graph though...

For the bottom two groups, if they're not paying any taxes, how are Obama and McCain saving them money on their taxes?

I don't understand the US tax system too well, but is it possible that stuff like a Medicare levy comes out of it? According to wiki:

2. Medicare Tax: As of 2007, the employer must withhold 1.45% of an employee's wages and must pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. The combined total for the employee and the employer is equal to 2.9% of gross compensation. Unlike the Social security tax, there is no maximum wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to incur and pay Medicare tax on each additional amount of gross compensation, with no limit on the amount of gross compensation on which the tax is imposed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A "Feminist Defense" of Palin:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/newre...te=1&p=2009979

A Feminist's Argument for McCain's VP
By Tammy Bruce

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.

The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

Tammy Bruce is the author of "The New American Revolution" (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter.

CR

[JR-]

good article, it calls me to recollect my as yet unanswered question:

but how is she anti-woman............?

the only response i got was vague and waffley mumbles that indicated nothing to me expect that people thought she wasn't the right brand of liberal/left woman. she isn't Democrat approved therefore she isn't a genuine woman and unable to represent the rest of womankind..........

[Don Corleone]

To be fair, Furunculu5, this is a pretty common phenomenon in our politics, which are given to bipolar fits of insanity. Apparently, not so much yours.

Examples:

-Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice aren't "Black enough", because they've worked in Republican administrations (some prominent black voices going so far as to label them "Toms", and "house n------s".

-A whole plethora of politiicans on the Left, who are consistently villified as "Not really Christian". Not sure how the pundits on the right, particualarly the religious right, know for a fact that Jesus would not count them as among his followers, but...

Basically, we allow a particular special interest group, Left or Right, to decide who are representative members and who are not. The NRA gets to say who is and who is not toeing the line on the 2nd ammendment, La Rasa gets to say who is and who is not supportive of Latino issues.

If Sarah Palin does nothing else, breaking this modern paradigm of our politics would be a service to her country she could be proud of for the rest of her life. The odds are against her in this regard, however, no matter how she and McCain do in the election.

[Strike For The South]

Palin is no different than obama biden or McCain

[Xiahou]

Here's a piece by Ed Rollins at CNN on the other VP pick- Joe Biden.
Obama wrong to spurn Hillary, pick Biden
And before someone flips out- yes, it's commentary.

On another note, McCain's bounce continues with the latest USA Today/Gallup poll showing a 10pt lead.

[woad&fangs]

Hey, if you want to think McCain is winning by 10% then you can, but Gallup's website is reporting only a 3% lead for McCain.(still very impressive for him)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Ga...ead-48-45.aspx

[Strike For The South]

State by State polls mean so much more

[woad&fangs]

Unfortunately state by state polls are all way out of date unless they are for Ohio or some other swing state.

[Xiahou]

Hey, if you want to think McCain is winning by 10% then you can, but Gallup's website is reporting only a 3% lead for McCain.(still very impressive for him)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Ga...ead-48-45.aspx

You're talking about the daily tracking poll of registered voters. I'm talking about the USAToday/Gallup Poll of Likely voters. (and besides, the current tracking poll of RV shows 5%)

I usually prefer likely voters polls to registered voters. As the name implies, likely voters are more likely to vote- which generally makes for more accurate polling. Registered voters, means only that they are registered to vote- a much broader category. From Gallup's own website:

In general, most poll consumers agree that the likely voter model is most predictive in the final poll before an election

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to declare McCain is incontrovertibly winning by 10%. One poll isn't enough to show that imo- more will have to come in.

[CountArach]

Here's a piece by Ed Rollins at CNN on the other VP pick- Joe Biden.
Obama wrong to spurn Hillary, pick Biden
And before someone flips out- yes, it's commentary.

On another note, McCain's bounce continues with the latest USA Today/Gallup poll showing a 10pt lead.

Gallup overstates short term changes in enthusiasm. The registered voters number is considered far more accurate.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to declare McCain is incontrovertibly winning by 10%. One poll isn't enough to show that imo- more will have to come in.

Most national polls are showing a small McCain lead (Pretty much in line with Gallups RV numbers) and the few state polls we have are showing a tightening race (For example Obama up by only 1 in Michigan). Here is what we have:
Gallup Tracking: McCain +5
Rasmussen Tracking: McCain +1
Diageo Tracking: Tied
CBS News/NYT: McCain +2
ABCPost: McCain +2

Not too many state-by-state, but those that we do have point to a much closer race in the swing states (For example McCain up in Colorado, Virginia and only 1 behind in Michigan - these are all against the trend)

So it is safe to assume McCain would win slightly if the election were held today. I would expect that once his bounce wears off he will still be behind by a couple of points, which is better than the 3 points he was losing by before the convention. It is likely that Palin has energised the Evangelical base and that will help.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'd be lost in this election if it weren't for CA.

[CountArach]

Thanks Louis, I do what I can

[Don Corleone]

Changing the tone of the discussion a bit about who we want to win and why the other side is a bunch of losers for not understanding, I heard a scenario analysis that made my blood run cold today. This was on Imus this morning.

Imagine it's Wednesday, November 5, 2008. After a counting and a recounting, it turns out that we have the perfect storm of American politics.

Barrack Obama has won the popular vote by >500K, in such a way that no contesting the counts can make a significant differernce. But he did what Hillary did during the primaries, he hit his base states hard, getting as much as 70% of places like California, New York and Massachussets. But he just barely squibs Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, again with wide enough margins to render recounts pointless.

Can anybody see this NOT developing into riots?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Given the electoral system in use, state-by-state assessment is crucial to gauging likely results. In almost all locales (ME and NE exceptions), the winner by even 1 vote gets ALL of the electoral votes for that state.

So, a 3 point lead for McCain nationally isn't helpful if he's leading by 97-3 in Arizona and Texas but losing by 0.002% in OH and PA. We all know AZ and T are going to end up in his column anyway. In fact, only about 15 of the states are close enough for them to go one way or another this time (swing states) and the rest are pretty well known results.


However, most of our polls are of limited predictive quality until the last two weeks, which is when a sizeable portion of the uncommitted voters wake up and start making decisions.

We really do have the government we deserve.

[Xiahou]

Here's an anti-Ted Stevens website run by the Alaska Democrat Party. They have an interesting take on the "Bridge to Nowhere" issue.:

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration set aside about $113 million of the appropriation for the Ketchikan bridge. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it. She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.

Another issue that's been in the news is Freddie and Fannie. McCain says the goal should be the eventual dismantling of the organizations, meanwhile, Obama hints at more regulation without mentioning any plans.

If anyone has anything more substantive that Obama has said on the issue, I'd like to read it.

[m52nickerson]

If anyone has anything more substantive that Obama has said on the issue, I'd like to read it.

From his statement it sounds like he is still formulating his plan.

Given the substantial role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in our housing system, I believe that some form of intervention is necessary to prevent a larger and deeper crisis throughout our entire economy. I will be reviewing the details of the Treasury plan and monitoring its impact to determine whether it achieves the key benchmarks I believe are necessary to address this crisis.

First, this plan must not focus on the whims of lobbyists and special interests worried about their bonuses and hourly fees, but instead on strengthening our economy and helping struggling homeowners who are also being hit by lost jobs, stagnant wages and spiraling costs of everything from gas to groceries. Second, the plan must protect taxpayers, not bail out the shareholders and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Third, once we ride out the current crisis, the plan must move toward clarifying the true public and private status of our housing policies. In our market system, investors must not be allowed to believe that they can invest in a “heads they win, tails they don’t lose” situation.