Where would we be today if Congress had listened to John McCain?

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

It’s from a May 25, 2006 statement McCain made in support of the FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005.

If you haven’t looked around lately, he was right.

The bill was introduced in January 2005 but never made it through the gates of Congress.


  1. Right. He has learned from experience and we value experience. We don’t always recognize the ‘right’ experience, but none the less we’re good republicans and we value experience! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

  2. I think the Wikipedia link through it into the spam filter.

    When I read that link it showed that McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing. To the advantage of both candidates, “poor judgment” isn’t illegal yet.

  3. Okay good counter point. (thanks for erasing my stuttering).

  4. Cindy, one speech on the floor of the Senate can’t undo the decades McCain has spent fighting to deregulate banking and commerce.

  5. Repubabubba says:

    Yes, I too am confused why many republicans are embarrassed by John S. McCain’s voting record, liek in the other thread when Randy was very insistant that he did not support banking regulation, when in fact he not only voted for it, but his close economic advisor Phil Gramm sponsored it. We should be proud of his accomplishments! After all, how else could we have afforded to lend 1 $trillion dollars to just a handful of people who know just how to fix our economy if it hadn’t been for removing those terrible bureaucratic controls?
    How dare that “other” interloper with no experience claim this was a negative!

  6. I am still stuck trying to be concerned about deregulation. This is a talking point that does not hit home with many people.

  7. Hey you guys! You talk a lot but prove very little. Offer some evidence if you want your points seriously considered.

  8. Repubabubba says:

    OK, great idea, Cindy:
    Here is that traitorous Cox who the OLD (pre RNC 2008, aka the Palin cleansing) Republicans put in place to socialize the normal free market:

    As a side note: The financial instruments discussed in this article by that same COX who now wants more socialization are the very instruments by which the missus was able to afford a new church and a jet for your truly so that all of us Republicans can spread the word to Washington and vote for Jesus in the White House!

  9. Repubabubba says:

    And here is an explanation of the bill highlighting Gramm and McCain’s envolvment to a limited extent.

  10. Ok, so Cox told someone the rejoining of banking was a bust the day it all went to heck in a handbasket. What’s your point?

    It’s really hard to get past your BS Repubabubba to see if there’s anything of importance in your babble.

  11. Repubabubba says:

    My point is that McCain was right to vote for GLBA, that he has nothing to apologize for. The down side is, of course what McCain noted above in your post. But the socializing of Wall Street is not necessary. The fundamentals are good, the market will correct. After all, how could we afford a proposal for a trillion dollar bailout if we were not doing well, as you me and other posters clearly believe?

  12. As usual, I can’t tell what you are saying. If I take you for your word, you’ll slam me. If I rebut your work as sarcasm, you’ll slam me.

    You’ve kind of lost credibility. No one knows if you mean what you write.

  13. Repubabubba says:

    Derugulation= Good, made bankers and business rich, and allowed many in this sector to acquire the American Dream, as desired.
    Loose lunch over the consequences (collateral damage, making market adjustment etc)= silly. Remember those lazies who wanted the American Dream for free?

    That said, the bailout is inevitable, and I hope John S. McCain rushes to Washington to make sure the money is at least sent directly to his trusted friends in the banking industry, who were blindsided by all those minorities suddenly demanding houses and cars, then not paying.

  14. Randy in Richmond says:

    You can debate my opinions but not facts. Your argument above is based on McCain voting for the Gramm Leach Bliley Act. As I stated on the other thread Sen. McCain did “not” vote for the final approved version of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act that was passed into law after a Senate/House conference. Sen. Joe Biden, however, did vote for the bill.


  15. Repubabubba says:

    I am here again. You are purposefully committing an error of omission. McCain is listed on the day the conference committee alterations were submitted as “necessarily absent” with no vote on the minor changes.
    I (perhaps generously) take this to mean he had other pressing engagements and was not sitting there and abstaining, nor did he wish to record an objection badly enough to override his other pressing engagements. The Bill was “veto proofed in conference” by a compromise which included a bunch of bipartisan concessions and riders to make almost everybody happy including more rigorous wording on the lend to minorities theme, garnering enough support to make a veto by President Clinton meaningless.
    Again, I’m mystified why you so desperately want to distance John S, McCain from his recorded support and affirmative roll call vote for the exact unmodified provisions of the Gramm et al act that de-regulated the banking industry, just like his Campaign Co-chair Phil Gramm intended.
    McCain got it done. We should be proud!