Umm.... actually I think he's a decent guy who is well over his head, not a dirtbag at all. However, I believe he didn't read the bill that he cosponsored (as most Senators don't). That's why I posted it above. It appears to advance deregulation which is something that he's advocated repeatedly over the years, and just said yesterday that he feels that deregulation helped "grow" the economy. Now, naturally, he's for more government intervention. I would say it's because deregulation didn't work, but even if you disagree, his philosophy is whatever it needs to be at the moment. He's for less government intervention, then is for writing $700 billion dollar checks. He's for more deregulation, then wants to create a new government department to regulate. He's for more regulation and supervision, and the bill you wrote about gets rid of two supervisory departments. Actually Raines has never been involved in the Obama campaign and has stated this himself. It's easy to lead people by the nose if they don't bother to research.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Defend your incompetent hero, Bush, at any cost, you Kool Aid Gulper!!!!!!!!!!! You are a MORON!
From Politico, back in July before Raines joined Rev. Wright, Obama's grandmother, Hillary clinton and others under the bus: July 16, 2008 Categories: Barack Obama Advice from Raines An ill-timed -- for Obama -- profile of former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, forced out in an accounting mess a few years ago. The Style Section piece reports that he's recently been taking "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." Hard to find anybody in the mortgage industry who's looking real great right now, but Fannie Mae's critics, in particular, seem to have been vindicated. By Ben Smith 11:42 AM ******************* The quote came from a Washington Post article. Now the Post is trying desperately to untangle itself from its own story. If Raines wants to come out and said he was also lying to the Post reporter, as well as to regulators, shareholders and the financial press, and she naively reported it as fact without checking it, OK, I'll accept it. I find it more believable however that he is part of Obama's circle of wealthy black political, entertainment industry and legal advisors, not all of whom are palatable to the public.
The Style section? You really wrote that? Here's the Washinton Posts' correction: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." -- Raines
"McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." It was a business reporter, not a Style reporter, not that it should make any difference to such an arrogant and sanctimonious liberal paper as the Post. I don't see the Post issuing a "correction", as you claim. Instead, they criticize McCain for believing an article in the Post. They accuse HIM of stretching the truth when he was quoting the exact words of the Post article. So bsically, we are left to conclude that the Post is saying McCain should have known (a) that Raines was a bald-faced liar or (b) the Post cannot be trusted to report quotations from ex-government officials accurately. Either way, McCain was in the wrong. This dissembling actually came from the Post's "Factchecker" blog. Factspinner would be more accurate.
You'd agree, of course, that the number of repetitions has zero to do with proving something is true. Well McCain did claim that he was an advisor, something that the original article did not, although it's a subtle difference. Either way, this is all discredited, so I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about it. McCain may have made an honest mistake in not verifying his ad's information (I believe that was probably the case given that he's a hands off leader like Bush) rather than just lying about it. But either way, that's the kind of leadership we can expect.
What it looks like to me is that Obama and his campaign went for literally months without correcting the Raines/Washington Post comments, eh? Maybe they don't read the Washington Post. LOL. Either way, why don't you address the Jim Johnson situation. Ex-CEO of Fannie Mae for 7 years. As an aside, he was also with Lehman Bros. Gets around doesn't he. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million. On May 22, 2008, Democratic Party officials confidentially divulged that Obama had asked Johnson "to lead the process" for selecting Obama's running mate. On June 4, 2008, Obama announced the formation of a three person committee to vet vice presidential candidates, including Johnson. Oh, he also was implicated in the Angelo Mozzillo, Countrywide scheme, where he got a loan from Mozzillo on let's just say on favorable terms. Maybe you guys could address why Obama keeps coming up with these relationships with guys who are ex-FNM CEOs. OldTrader
Sorry, no, there is no such thing as "proof by duration." The Obama campaign has stated that this is false. The guy involved has stated that this is false. The original paper stated that this is false, with the explanation which I've posted. Not sure how this case can get any more closed than that. He wasn't a financial advisor either. He was hired to vet VP candidates. Yes. Thus I find it interesting that McCain cosponsored a bill specifically to eliminate the OFHEO. Well I'd suspect it's because he has a lot of relationships with CEO's. Also, based on McCain's employee receiving two million dollars to lobby for him, I'd say it's because these guys want to ingratiate themselves with politicians.
Perhaps closed for you....but not for some of us. Here's some other information: Last Friday, the Washington Post "factchecked" the McCain ad and concluded that the campaign had been "clearly exaggerating wildly" in order to link Obama to Raines and that the "latest McCain attack is particularly dubious." Factchecker Michael Dobbs wrote that McCain's evidence that Raines had advised Obama was "pretty flimsy"--not a description that probably endeared him to Anita Huslin, the reporter who wrote the story this summer. But Dobbs did talk to Huslin. Here is his account of their conversation: Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')" By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. Got that? Huslin stands by her reporting--that Raines had given advice to the Obama campaign about mortgage and housing policy matters--and yet the McCain campaign is faulted by the Washington Post for relying on information that comes from the Washington Post. More amusing, though, is that in the rush to accuse the McCain campaign of lying, Dobbs glosses over a major discrepancy between the story that appeared in his paper and that of the Obama campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton claims that the campaign "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter." It is possible, of course, that Raines simply made up the conversations he described to the Post reporter. But it seems more likely, given the toxicity of Raines, that the Obama campaign would simply prefer that those conversations had never taken place. Dobbs concludes: "I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply." That's reassuring, since Dobbs has already decided that the McCain campaign has been dishonest. Two things are clear with six weeks left in the presidential race. Barack Obama will practice the old-style politics that he lamented throughout the Democratic primary. And the media will give him a pass.
That's not new information, that's the same information that I just posted as part of the article. He is not an advisor to the campaign and he is not an advisor to Obama. Simple as that. Just because he says he talked to someone on the phone once about the economy, does not make him an advisor. I'll repeat this, since you're having trouble with this -- a lot of trouble -- he is not advising Obama, and is not advising the campaign. He even says he isn't. The campaign says he isn't. The Washington Post says he isn't. Here's what McCain's ad said: "Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy." He has not. In fact, you have zero evidence that he has been -- even the original article didn't say he's been "advising Senator Obama on housing policy" as McCain's ad claimed. Why should the press nail him to the wall for something that is so clearly false?