In reporting on McCain's stated opposition to government "bail out" of "big banks," Wash. Post, NY Times failed to note his approval of Bear Stearns aid
SUMMARY: The Washington Post and The New York Times reported that Sen. John McCain, in the words of Times reporters Michael Powell and Jeff Zeleny, "argued this week against a vigorous federal intervention to address the [housing] crisis, saying Washington should not bail out banks and homeowners who in his view had knowingly taken on risky mortgages." However, neither article noted that McCain reportedly expressed support for the Federal Reserve's decision to extend a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.
In a March 27 Washington Post article, staff writers Perry Bacon Jr. and Dan Balz reported that in his March 25 speech on the housing crisis, Sen. John McCain "declined to embrace the kind of government intervention for individuals and institutions favored by Clinton and Obama, arguing that 'it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.' " Bacon and Balz also reported that in a March 26 press release, McCain "reiterated his opposition to big bailouts for undeserving speculators or financial institutions." Similarly, in a March 27 New York Times article, writers Michael Powell and Jeff Zeleny reported that Sen. John McCain "argued this week against a vigorous federal intervention to address the crisis, saying Washington should not bail out banks and homeowners who in his view had knowingly taken on risky mortgages." However, neither article noted that McCain supports the Federal Reserve's decision to extend a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase. Asked if the Federal Reserve had acted improperly in doing so, McCain reportedly asserted, "It's a close call, but I don't think so."
From the March 27 Times article, headlined "Obama Casts Wide Blame for Financial Crisis and Proposes Homeowner Aid":
Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, proposed to rebuild a regulatory structure without clamping too tight a hand on economic innovation. But he was unsparing in his view that industry lobbyists and weak legislators had failed to deal with the risks of a more complex financial system.
''Instead of establishing a 21st-century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one,'' he said, ''aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight.''
Mr. Obama also took shots at Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Mr. McCain argued this week against a vigorous federal intervention to address the crisis, saying Washington should not bail out banks and homeowners who in his view had knowingly taken on risky mortgages.
Mr. Obama argued that such a response offered too little. ''While this is consistent with Mr. McCain's determination to run for George Bush's third term,'' he said, ''it won't help families who are suffering.''
From the March 27 Post article, headlined "Democrats Knock McCain's Economic Views":
Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday sharply criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain's views on the housing crisis, illustrating a wide gap between the two parties on how to fix the ailing economy.
Sen. McCain and the Democrats long have sparred over U.S. policy toward Iraq, but the collapse of the subprime lending market and subsequent softening in other sectors of the economy have opened a second front in the competition among the presidential rivals.
In an economic speech on Tuesday, McCain (Ariz.) said he supports government assistance for Americans facing home foreclosure because of the turmoil in financial markets. But he declined to embrace the kind of government intervention for individuals and institutions favored by Clinton and Obama, arguing that "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
[...]
In a statement aimed at blunting the Democrats' attacks, McCain said, "We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners." But he reiterated his opposition to big bailouts for undeserving speculators or financial institutions. "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face," he said.














"There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face,"
Do you think McAint knows this be cause he IS a liberal?
"We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners."
And just who, O your Lordship McCain, gets to decide who are "deserving" homeowners?
Wow..... this is the third thread today on the ignoring of McCain's stance on the Bear Sterns bailout......
If this were Obama or Clinton the media would be on this like a bear on honey!
Since the Bush regime is more than happy to bail out the oil/energy, mining, pharmaceutical, and basically any other group that knows when it screws the public at large and give a legal bribe (read: political contribution) to said scabs....... and lets not forget the reworking of the bankruptcy laws that makes it near impossible for me to declare but a piece of cake for a billion dollar corporation too!
George W is my hero! (read: sarcasm)
Moonbat - popularity does not make something right or wrong. Find something you believe in and let that be your guide. Those beliefs will become your core and you will become a leader - not a follower.
It can get frustrating when political things don't go the way I'd like them to. But there are so many more important things in life to dwell on it.
Good luck - I hope you find you way soon.
Leave it to a "conservative" to completely miss the point and give a patronizing and condescending lecture instead.
Thanks for your faux concern but I'm quite happy in my convictions and belief systems.
So you can't defend the "conservative" practice of labelling all policies and practices that don't work as "not conservative" or "liberal" so that conservatism can maintain its mythical perfection. Kind of what I thought.
McCain is NOT a liberal. The McCain who ran for President in 2000 was a moderate centrist on the right side of the aisle. He understood that in government compromise is a necessity if one wants to accomplish anything. Who knows what exactly McCain 2008 is since he'll pander to pretty much anyone who asks him to?
The same people who are now insisting that McCain is a liberal and that Bush never really was a conservative but a liberal in disguise are the ones who prophesied a glorious Golden Age for America with conservative Republican dominance over all three branches of government and all gave the conservative seal of approval to Bush in the first place. Pardon me if I think that their opinion isn't worth a thing.
OMG! WELL SAID!!! That's perfect!!!
I've been screaming (on the inside!) at the TV lately as these no talent @$$-clowns keep trying to prop up McCain like he's still the man he was in 2000 instead of the spineless pandering vote-whore he's become!
It's absurd. He IS a republican. He (and they) ARE conservatives. And conservative thinking and philosphy in general is victory of willfull ignorance over common sense; a victory or comfortable myth over inconvenient truth; a victory of short term gains verus long term stability. And it's dying. I can only hope that years from now some new guy will try it and we'll all say "No thanks. Tried it once, doesn't work." I know: not likely. But I can dream can't I?
Moony and Eddie - I the words of the great Winston Curchill -
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
I'm going to be kind and assume the former - though your above posts certianly reflect the latter.
...like us trust-funders, CEO's, junk-bond shills, lobbyists, government hacks, and family fortune inheritors did? What's the fun of being rich if we don't have poor people?
Are you implying that nobody who is rich has worked hard to get that way?
Ouch ! You told me. Don't take it too personally, every so often a poster shows up here in a piñata costume, and the results shouldn't be surprising.
If I've posted anything that was an unwarranted insult, point it out, and, upon review, I'll apologize. In the meantime, you may want to get a thicker skin, or some better material.
Mr. Obama argued that such a response offered too little. ''While this is consistent with Mr. McCain's determination to run for George Bush's third term,'' he said, ''it won't help families who are suffering.''"
What's even worse about this is that Obama was referring to McCain's disdain for helping the little guy, not the banks. The "too little" was not about helping the banks!
I love it-- the Repubs are worried about the little guy, and the Dems want to help the banks! And they get away with these lies!