Perhaps a little premature until we know if Ds get 60 in the Senate... of course we also have 1993-1994 experience to fall back on... lots of internal bickering and power struggles among the Ds got them tossed out in just two years...

I just hope they don't return to their old ways. I had plenty to say about Bill when she was in office.

They could start by awarding committee chairmen seats based on competence rather than seniority...

That assumes there is any competence to award them on. Sarah Palin's approval rating is in the 70s after an unprecedented smear campaign, Congress is at 10% and they are mostly the smearers, not the smearees.

Sarah Palin's approval rating

http://news.google.com/news?q=Sarah%20Pali...sa=N&tab=wn

McClatchy: Palin's Approval Ratings Tumble -- In Alaska
Editor & Publisher - Oct 1, 2008
By E&P Staff NEW YORK Since she was picked for the Veep spot, the press has often noted that Sarah Palin has "80%" approval ratings in Alaska. ...
Video: McCain Faults Obama, Allies for Partisanship AssociatedPress
Today on the presidential campaign trail The Miami Herald
all 676 news articles »

The Associated Press Alaskans cringe after month of listening to Palin
The Associated Press - 4 hours ago
Palin's approval rating in Alaska have been astronomical since she took office in December 2006. But three weeks after she joined the GOP ticket, ...
Palin on the issues: It's a brief record Minneapolis Star Tribune
Palin's popularity tumbles among Alaskans The Miami Herald
Sarah Palin Rewrites Alaskan History by Rep. Les Gara Huffington Post
Juneau Empire (subscription)
all 162 news articles »

Washington Post Sarah Palin faces debate test as poll gap widens
Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia - 1 hour ago
SARAH Palin faces her toughest test today when she takes on Democratic rival Joe Biden before at least 50 million US viewers. The Alaskan Governor and ...
US Awaits Palin v Biden Clash Sky News
Today on the presidential campaign trail The Associated Press
Sarah Palin - Attractive, earnest - and clearly out of her league? Scotsman


Polls put chill in air for GOP
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/vie...&position=3

Crissie Dodd and Barney Frank have done a bang up job as Chairman of their respective committees.

If they were Chairman of public companies, they'd be in jail.

Unprecedented?

Dan Quayle got better press.

Barney'd like it. Probably still couldn't be anybody's bitch.

And what would the 'competence' criteria be?

These are elected folks. The ultimate in 'beauty contest' process of being 'eligible' for a position, isn't it.

Expecting committee chairs to be awarded by even a hybrid seniority-'competence' system is a bit far-fetched.

That's just so nice.

What They Said About Fan and Fred Article
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .




Clockwise from top left: Sen. Thomas Carper, Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Charles Schumer.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.

And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.

This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .

Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.

* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.

What we're trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don't know how we do it.

I mean, you've alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It's important, is it not?

Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .

* * *
Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

Sen. Schumer: I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don't undo Fannie and Freddie.

* * *
Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don't overreact.

I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let's not do nothing, and at the same time, let's not overreact. . .

Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK JUNE 14, 2006 Memo to Fannie

A joke in Washington these days goes like this: "What's the difference between Enron and Fannie Mae? Answer: The guys at Enron have been convicted."


If you're a taxpayer on the hook if Fannie Mae goes belly up, you may not think that's funny. But it does mean you should be pleased by two signs yesterday that the Bush Administration is still taking the scandals at the government-created finance titan seriously. The actions are aimed at cleaning up its risky financing, especially the $1.5 trillion portfolio of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) that Fannie and its sibling Freddie Mac have accumulated and which pose a risk to the larger financial system.

Undersecretary Randal Quarles announced that Treasury was reviewing its procedures for approving new Fannie and Freddie debt, much of which goes to buy MBSs. While Mr. Quarles said a review didn't presuppose any outcome, his message was unmistakable. Treasury believes it has the power to limit what Fannie and Freddie can borrow, and if necessary will do so.

Mr. Quarles said the Administration would prefer that Congress act to give a new regulatory body that power instead. But Fannie and Freddie and their political allies -- the homebuilders especially -- have been lobbying furiously to stop such reform legislation. So Treasury is telling the mortgage giants that even if they keep blocking reform, the Administration can achieve the same results administratively.

Also yesterday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said it will begin an audit of the non-mortgage securities that Fannie and Freddie hold in their portfolios. Those securities, such as stocks and some of their debt, would seem to have a tenuous relationship to the companies' legislative charter of supporting affordable housing, and so this review is also well-justified.

Both actions ought to send a message to Congress, which has been acting as if it wants the entire subject to go away. In the Senate, the question is why the Republican leadership has not heeded the very damaging report on Fannie from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to force a vote on Banking Chairman Richard Shelby's strong reform bill. Ofheo revealed that Fannie's top executives enriched themselves over a period of years through dubious accounting. Do Senators support reform of a corrupted and dangerous institution whose finances remain a black box even today, or are they for the status quo?

For their part, Fannie, Freddie and their Beltway friends clearly want to stop any Congressional action before the November election, hoping that Democrats will capture either the House or Senate and then let them off the hook. But yesterday's decisions ought to alert the two companies that the Bush Administration still has two more years to run. Fannie's stock took another nearly 1% hit yesterday, to $47.44, on the Treasury and HUD news, which shows the price that the company's shareholders are paying because its executives continue to block any meaningful reform.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1150251101...icle-outset-box

So you oppose competence in committee chairmen?

Clearly there are folks on those committees who would be more credible chairman than the most senior member and I am not talking ideology. Neither Senator Byrd (WV) or Senator Thurmond (SC) should have been committee chairmen in their dotage...

Supposedly it isn't Fannie or Freddie's fault in the least. No effect. Nada, nothing. It's all greed elsewhere and the evils of capitalism that have melted the economy.

Looks like seniority is working just fine.



No worries, mate.




Nothing at all. Not a problem.

Ok, that's just a stupid response.

I call bullshit on that one.

So what are the odds that some Rs flip to D party this year? Could the Senators from Maine be convinced to switch if Ds let them keep their seniority? Will have to check on Maine party primary rules to see if they have open ballot so that all the Rs that elect them could still vote for them in a D primary...

Zero.

Won't happen.

Don't discount the effect of bribery. Remember Jumping Jim Jeffords.

With seniority from R years the two of them would be pretty high up on the D Senator seniority list...

It's the easy way to win seats, I'll give you that. Nobody really trusts that type, so they'd have to get a good deal to compromise themselves like that.

More court intrigue already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...elections,_1994

Packwood got screwed, but what was the payoff for switching for the others? If folks find the other party more to their liking they should do as they please, but the voters ought to remember.

Republicans have changed since they allowed the more radical factions to take control. Some long term members may rethink the direction the party is taking, especially with the apparent approval of race baiting as a political technique. Some people with consciences will not let that stand.


But now many of the moderates are gone so I doubt it would happen. The consequences could be bad.

Democrats have nothing on repubs when it comes to radicals, but dem radicals are of the anti-American variety. For a smaller, weaker, poorer America.

He was going to be up for re-election and he's from the whitest, liberal elitist state in the country.

I remember something about milk subsidies. A high minded person dealing out of pure integrity I'm sure.

Shelby in AL doing OK...

Senators Snowe and Collins wouldn't really have to change how they vote at all if they switched parties...

Would they be considered conservative Dems, or would they be in a Dem class all of their own? It's getting hard to figure exactly where everyone stands label-wise.

Country Club (well Maine Country Club) Dems....

Oly Snowe - HOT

I'd hit it.

Sue Collins - HOT

Oly Snowe - NOT

Arturo would hit it though.

She's of Greek descent, Pengi must be having a hard time typing... can't get close enough to the keyboard and all...

Got light switches in every room, just in case.

In the dark all cats are gray.

I'm fairly certain Susie drank mercury when she was a child.

These farking idiots, along with Boxer and Landrieu started the Vaginas Demanding Sandra Day O'Connor (VDSDO, pronounced VIDSDO) reverse her decision to retire from the Supreme Tier of the Third Branch of the Legislature.

Sue Collins - HOTTER

She's not that pretty, I have to admit. And she has an annoying New England accent, to boot.

I have a 'thing' about annoying (to me, obviously) accents. An aversion of sorts.

She has that accent, but I don't find it annoying.

4 years in CT as a late-teen, early-twenty-something can't possibly compete with your early childhood in New England, right?

Plus, there's no debating auditory tastes, I suppose.

Oh, I have my quirks as well. I'm not fond of the Fran Drescher style New Yawk accent.

There you go. You know exactly, then, what I was talking about. It's the exact same "gut aversion-reaction". I must admit, the ONLY quality that counteracts that is "kindness/sweetness" (I'll admit if it also comes along with outstanding, by my tastes, beauty the 'annoying accent' becomes even less of an issue).

I find it to be a reliable form of birth control. From a male standpoint.