You can`t be serious you call Lopez's column which consisted entirely and solely of Bush`statement delivered by Dana Perino who had never heard of the Cuban Missle crisis, maybe she never heard of the Depression either- as a fisking of the mortgage and credit crisis.

Pravada shilling for the Kremlin could have put more effort than the National Review or you did for Bush`s talking points.

Steve
Lopez' column was not linked.

I don't care if if it was an official Bush Press Release or Lopez' opinion. It was accurate.

Your jibberish about the Cuban missile crisis, the Depression, Pravda schilling for the Kremlin and....what was your point?

The New York Times piece about Bush`s or the Executive's large role in the Wall Street debacle..Sure they were light on the Congresses part, but that wasn`t the focus of the article..Bush purposely told SEC chairman Cox to back off regulatory enforcement and his new Treasury Secretary Paulson, a former chairman of the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, only accepted the position from Bush after he been given unusual powers to free up the markets even more.

I don`t consider a column, that you did link to-- Kathryn Jean Lopez has a proper fisking of the fiction here--- lifted entirely of Bush pleading his case to be disinterested analysis of the situation.

Why don`t we just have the official 'Welcome to the White house" with Bush's statement on this site..I have just saved you the trouble and unlike Lopez who probably makes a good living with her columns, my one minute effort is free.

I'm convinced now that Liberalogy and fanatics like Steve Crickmore as well as the NYT have no grasp of reality. Our country is doomed to the dustbin of history.

Sure they were light on the Congresses part, but that wasn`t the focus of the article....there's a reason for that, which I made in my post. The NYT is not a reliable source. The NYT is not a credible newspaper when they pretend to cover Reublican politicians.

Bush purposely told SEC chairman Cox to back off regulatory enforcement and his new Treasury Secretary Paulson, a former chairman of the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, only accepted the position from Bush after he been given unusual powers to free up the markets even more.

Link that,Steve.

And while you're at it, link the contributions from hedge funds to the Democrat Party during the same period. Also, link for us the record that Rep Frank defended FNMA's lowered credit standards....and who was running FNMA at the time.

I don`t consider a column, that you did link to-- Kathryn Jean Lopez has a proper fisking of the fiction here--- lifted entirely of Bush pleading his case to be disinterested analysis of the situation.

I'm not offering a disintersted analysis.The term disintersted analysis is a journalistic oxymoron. I think Democrats are as much to blame on the mortgage debacle as Republicans, probably even more so.
BTW,you still haven't rebutted Lopez/Perinos' comments.

Halberstam was great. His "Best and the Brightest" should be required reading in high school. The first 2 chapters are a cure for stunted growth due to hyper-partisanship, ie the political parties are as phony as the proverbial 3 dollar bill. Part beard, part chaperone, and part political minder.

As for the NYT: widely cited on the right during the run-up to war. Now there's been a falling out. Love's labors lost. I wish it was my local paper. They don't chintz on content. And who reads to agree anyway?

And I'm not normally a snob, but K-Lo makes Jonah Goldberg look like Francis Bacon instead of the guy who posits Hitler was ever a creature of the liberal-left in Bavaria or on the moon. I saw her on C-Span botching a "talk" to a roomful of YAFers while sweating like a horse. She was like Albert Brooks in Broadcast News, only without the eye contact. Petrified. Anyway, from the heights of Burnham to the low, low, low of Lopez at NR. Back to the primordial soup.

And we are supposed to be surprised that the Times did something slimy?

I guess the lib's missed the part about congressional oversight; perhaps because the committee chairman were part of the fraud. See no evil, hear no evil, fork over the campaign contribution and don't forget the side perks.

Dodd did not get his sweetheart loans because he is such a nice guy.....

The Times article on the White house role in the financial series is the latest of up to now a 12 part series.The reckoning
If you were worried about Congress and the Dem part in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac The Reckoning Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point or the role of Charles Schumer these articles point blame, but when one in the series talks about the chief culprit, the self-advertised 'decider,` every conservative on this site runs for cover. typical and starts shouting plagarism. ...typical.

Interesting point bryanD. The "Best and the Brightest" has not quite made it to the required list yet but it is on the summer reading list for my old high school.

And who reads to agree anyway?

Liberals.

The NYT is the mouthpiece of the liberal dems. It's just that simple. Nothing wrong with that really. Their greatest sin is that they pretend to be objective. It's a disgraceful deception.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/

Jason

I'll give you this. You have balls. Do you seriously believe you are objective, much less that you pretend to be objective? Hint: Read your own blog sometime.

Geez, you righties can be awful goofy much of the time.

So basically, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you have individual mortgage defaults totaling $200 billion or so. On the other side, you have the collapse of a $60 trillion speculative market in which individual mortgages were wagered on, traded, leveraged, insured, and counter-insured at up to hundreds of times their face value.

Are you're seriously going to sit there and try to equate these two things? Because if so, I'd be very interested to see the math on that.