The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Fannie, Freddy, Newt, Sitting In A Tree: But Do Not Say ‘Newt Lob-A-Bee’

Posted on | November 18, 2011 | 42 Comments

by Smitty

A Fox clip with Napolitano and crew, discussing Newt’s fishy assertion he did no lobbying, and moving into the mortgage question in general.

As far as doing anything with the housing crisis, the answer is the States. The houses in question all exist in States. That the Federal government is involved at all is a 10th Amendment violation, straight up. Start with honesty about what level of government should undertake which tasks.

Let States, following North Dakota’s lead, stand up their own banks, and then take whatever crap exists within them onto their books. Then let the States figure out what to do. Also, let the States default, if necessary, in order to get better. Let the Federal government assume an oversight role.

The only challenges I see are:

  • Forcing governments to face problems means confronting difficulties right now. People enter accept government positions as a means of avoiding reality.
  • Moving the problems closer to the people who own them lowers the opportunity for graft.

Expecting the Federal government to do anything useful about housing, recalls Stacy’s days as a smoke-free pharmacist, when Mickey Kaus set Stacy up with McCain’s first electronic device. Not sure who the person in the gold dress is. Or maybe I am, but spilling those beans would be really bad. UPDATE: The point here is that Stacy isn’t in pharmaceuticals anymore, and the country would also benefit from getting the government rooster out of the henhouse.
Because if you have a financial pain, and you use the Federal Reserve like a drug, the cause of that pain will still be there. The citizens of these United States must be more than Andy Kaufman, looking at DC and saying “I trusted you.”


42 Responses to “Fannie, Freddy, Newt, Sitting In A Tree: But Do Not Say ‘Newt Lob-A-Bee’”

  1. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 9:35 am

    Well that clip could be one the most pointless discussions I’ve ever witnessed.

  2. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 9:46 am
  3. Joe
    November 18th, 2011 @ 9:54 am

    Still, Newt is dead to me. 

  4. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 10:08 am

    Smitty, as we’ve discussed before, I question the emphasis on federalism and/or strict constructionism, especially on a strategic basis.

    It’s not that I disagree, per se, but these arguments have rarely gained much traction. Besides, the State and local governments are not necessarily any more capable of “fixing” socioeconomic problems (e.g., housing) via government policies than is the federal government; moreover, these subnational units have their own histories of being overly interventionary and coercive, meddling in people’s private affairs, corrupting market dynamics, etc.

  5. richard mcenroe
    November 18th, 2011 @ 10:20 am

    If nothing else, they eliminate many levels of potential waste by taking the Federal bureaucracy out of the equation.  There’s no way you can save money by having to deal with a whole different set of bureaucrats hundreds if not thousands of miles away.

  6. richard mcenroe
    November 18th, 2011 @ 10:21 am

    Of course Newt didn’t lobby for that money; Fannie and Freddie had so much lying around that a bunch of it just blew out a window and landed in his pants by accident.

  7. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 10:32 am

    That’s a good point concerning the immediate fiscal problems, but I’m not sure how much we benefit, in the long run, from “progressive” corporatism (i.e., progressive Social Democracy) operating more efficiently.

  8. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 11:44 am

    Newt must not be allowed to co-opt the Tea Party after throwing it under the bus.

  9. Adjoran
    November 18th, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

    Newt who?

  10. Adjoran
    November 18th, 2011 @ 1:02 pm

    Jay Tea over at Wizbang! was arguing since Newt wasn’t a registered lobbyist, he wasn’t being paid to lobby.

    It’s just like Clinton – he didn’t “have sex with that woman” – it was just oral um . . . “advice on history” I guess.

    Maybe it depends on what “is” is?

    Up to $1.8 million for having Porky lecture you about historical trends?  Riiiiight.

  11. Adjoran
    November 18th, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

    Expecting the federal government to “do something” about the housing crisis is like expecting Jack the Ripper to “do something” about violent crime in Whitechapel.

  12. Pathfinder
    November 18th, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

    Hi, first time poster here.

    Sigh, what now?  I have been all over the place as to “who is the one to beat Obama”, and I am losing hope.  None of these people are worth a XXXX — ok, I find myself thinking Santorum wouldn’t be bad (but he probably doesn’t stand a chance in Hades of getting the nomination), and intrigued by Paul (again, probably doesn’t stand a chance, and like Santorum there are aspects to his platform that I question strongly), and at one time I played footsie with the idea of supporting Bachman (Sarah Palin fill in I guess),  Cain (his likeability factor is high) and Gingrich (at least he’s smart) — hahahahah; that’s pretty indicative of my mindset going into the election year, and it isn’t pretty.

    There appears to be no one, not one person who can 1) stand for the values I cherish; 2) win the election — and the majority don’t even come close (if they did, I could warrant holding my nose).  Romney or Perry? I consider them both insults to my intelligence and character.

    So what now?  A second term for you know who is unthinkable, but really, who is there who could beat him that would be appreciably better?  This is not a rhetorical question on my part; I’m honestly asking (and am probably very representative of the average voter in this sentiment).

  13. Joe
    November 18th, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

    With Newt we’ve got nothing in common
    No common ground to start from and we’re falling apart
    Perry and Cain are imploding

    Mitt says he likes RomneycareAnd Newt said, “What about breakfast at Tiffany’s?”

    Conservatives said, “I remember Doug Hoffman.”
    And conservatives recall, we all really hated you,
    And Newt said, “Well, that’s the one thing you’ve got”
    I see Newt again selling out conservatives
    And now I see I wasn’t  wrong
    So  it’s plain to see we’re over
    And while I hate when things are over, with Newt are am okay with being done

    And Newt said, “What about breakfast at Tiffany’s?

    Newt said, “I think I have an account.”
    And Newt recalled, “Hey Feddie funded it.” 
    And Newt said, “I am a hell of a lobbist.” 

  14. ThePaganTemple
    November 18th, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

    And he did. People started watching their asses, didn’t they? So who knows how many lives Jack saved on balance.

  15. smitty
    November 18th, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

    Very well played. But I wonder if that picture was taken on the east side of Bagram, at Sabalu-Harrison.

  16. smitty
    November 18th, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

    I don’t think the overall level of waste will be diminished; merely that the responsible throat will be closer to the hand desirous of some instructional choking.

  17. smitty
    November 18th, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

    Newt hase some extensive groveling to do, as does Mitt, should either of them manage to do well in the primaries.

  18. smitty
    November 18th, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

    My point, concisely made, thanks. Although I think the “take a pill” guy is funnier.

  19. smitty
    November 18th, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

    The one person is you. We are in the era of being our own President, and melding that political will through the one bloke who occupies the Resolute Desk.

  20. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

    While it’s most true of Romney, who ever gets elected we’ll have hammer him daily and virulently. I’m coming to the realization that who ever takes the WH, conservatives will be in the opposition.

  21. Adjoran
    November 18th, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

    Who would be appreciably better?

    You listen to too much of the “RINO” blather, which has become a label lazy conservatives use to dismiss anyone who they disagree with on at least one issue or just don’t like.  Seriously, if people like Mitch McConnell with a 90 lifetime ACU rating and a 96 in this Congress so far is a “RINO,” then conservatives are living on a lunatic fringe and will never do anything but fall off the branch eventually. 

    Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, and dozens of radical leftist lower court judges appointed for life.  These people will be screwing America for thirty years or more.  The next President will appoint at least one more Justice and 200-300 lower court judges. 

    To believe any of the Republican candidates would not appoint far better judges is just insane.

  22. steve benton
    November 18th, 2011 @ 5:24 pm

    Did you hear his answer on Iran? He’d take out their scientists? He’s the best since Reagan when he is pretending to be conservative.

  23. Joe
    November 18th, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

    Newt tries to out flip flop Romney and may actually succeed doing so.

  24. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

    This is true. Newt might be an upgrade from Obama, but I’d rather he be like Mitt and essentially admit he is not a Tea Party guy.

    Nothing is more infuriating, even if you don’t hate that person, than for them not only join the bandwagon, but claim to be a leader of a movement they had no problem suppressing mere months earlier.

  25. Jack Okie
    November 18th, 2011 @ 5:47 pm

    Still working through this thought, but I’ll throw it out:

    A great deal of the heartache Newt has caused us seems to be due to a kind of undifferentiated opportunism.  He’s obviously got the chops to be President – the question is “will he stick to the path we want?”.  If we elect enough conservatives to Congress, will that be enough to keep Newt on the reservation?

  26. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

    Essentially, Newt is a slightly worse version of Romney.

    The election of Romney, Newt, or Huntsman would be the end of the Tea Party and likely a few decades in the wilderness for the GOP.

  27. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

    Newt a damn lobbyist, and a damn lying lobbyist at that.  I hate him; he’s just another Washington insider.  So forget about Newt, says I. 

    Time for a fresh look at Cain. 

    Cain certainly has the experience in government & the policy chops to be President.  And he answered those questions on possibly freeing Al Qaeda members at Gitmo, our proper policy in Libya, and collective bargaining in government unions with a kind of subtle brilliance that is simply unmatched in our time.

  28. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 6:14 pm


  29. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

    Huntsman has always and only been the SD’s short position on Obama’s reelection, Newt is more nominatable and electable than Romney. Romney getting the nomination will not destroy the Tea Party but rather the GOP whether he wins election or not.

  30. ThePaganTemple
    November 18th, 2011 @ 6:49 pm

    Actually, I have to disagree with you there. I think they might make the Tea Party even stronger, and draw more support, once people catch on they are as likely to oppose Republicans as Democrats.

  31. ThePaganTemple
    November 18th, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

    The next president will more than likely appoint two, maybe three, possibly even four Supreme Court Justices. Five of them are getting pretty damn old. For sure Ginsburg is going to go, and I wouldn’t be a damn bit surprised if the old bitch don’t retire early next year just to make damn sure Obama appoints her successor.

  32. Bob Belvedere
    November 18th, 2011 @ 7:18 pm

    Can’t comment just now…too busy gearing up for OPERATION: WHIG.

  33. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

    Even Obama nominates Solomon, filibuster.

  34. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

    Subtle brilliance, yeah that’s it.

  35. Anonymous
    November 18th, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

    Can the Tea Party really survive 5 more years?

    If Romney, Newt (unlikely), or Huntsman (unlikely) become the GOP nominee, Conservative turnout is not going to be strong (it won’t be weak…but not as strong as the Obama base) which will be devastating throughout the political system.

  36. smitty
    November 18th, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

    As a completely biased American, I dare say America==Tea Party.
    IOW, if the Tea Party ain’t here in 5, then neither is the country.

  37. ThePaganTemple
    November 18th, 2011 @ 11:11 pm

    Now why would you want to get me started on that idiot?

  38. ThePaganTemple
    November 18th, 2011 @ 11:15 pm

    You’re seeing everything through the prism of the presidential election. The Tea Party will come out in force for the House and Senate elections, and also the many various state races, regardless of who the presidential nominee is.

  39. ThePaganTemple
    November 18th, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

    That’s the way I look at it. In an earlier time they were called different things, from “Silent Majority” to “Sleeping Giant”. The only problem is when there is no longer a major disaster or national emergency they grow complacent and go back into hibernation. We’re a long way off from the time when we can get back to that level of complacency once more. Hopefully, we never will again. When we drop our vigilance, that’s an open invitation to just another set of problems that could have been avoided.

  40. ThePaganTemple
    November 18th, 2011 @ 11:42 pm

    Smitty, are you absolutely sure you want to disrupt Newt? Do you actually hate him so much you are willing to pass up the chance to see Mitt get his ass handed to him in New Hampshire? Think about that. Up until today, nobody ever thought that was remotely possible. Mitt always maintained what was considered an insurmountable lead in the polls for New Hampshire, until today. Now, its a statistical tie between Mitt and Newt, with Mitt a mere two points ahead of Newt. TWO POINTS. Far, far down in third place is Ron Paul, with Cain a distant fourth. I think we can take that cooking thermometer out of his ass now.

    I know Stacy isn’t going to relent because he just can’t bring himself to get out from under the Cain Train. Not just yet. But damn. A statistical dead heat in New Hampshire.

    So who else? Since Cain is not ready for prime time, clearly, and nobody wants to take my suggestion to give Bachmann a second look, and Santorum is clearly determined to beat the living shit out of Huntsman for the honor of dead last, what does that leave you?

    Just in case you didn’t notice, Rick Perry just TONIGHT shit away what very little chance he might have had to save his dying campaign on The O’Reilly Factor. It takes a pretty intense level of tone deafness to talk in support of the #OWS. But Rick Perry did just that.

    So who does that leave you? Ron Paul?

  41. Anonymous
    November 19th, 2011 @ 2:36 am

    A or B.  Not A.  Thus, B.  That is – given then Cain has effectively taken himself out the running – take out Gingrich and you get Romney.

    RSM has already stated the he prefers Romney to Gingrich.  Smitty has not to my knowledge said anything like that.  But that’s the natural consequence of his attempt to torpedo Gingrich.  So the result is that this site has joined Jennifer Ruben’s corner of the Internet as one more taco stand at Romney central.

  42. Pathfinder
    November 19th, 2011 @ 6:38 pm

    While I appreciate your optimism,  I’m trying to figure out just who the heck I should cast my vote for  — I don’t really think being my own President is even allowed anymore, have you seen how many rules the average citizen has to live under?

    I’m beginning to lose some hope that a change from the usual SNAFU is once again going to take place (to steal from a certain political slogan).  I’m beginning to get really disgusted with politicians from both sides who seem to treat the Constitution with less respect than a dishrag and the American people as less than cattle.