That first round was a bit out there. Let’s see how they do this round.

Issue #2 - Economy and Housing Crisis.

Jeffrey Hall

Claim: Obama supports modernizing the financial regulatory system via oversight over lenders.

TRUE - According to barackobama.com, they plan to create a 5-star credit card rating system so the consumer understands the risk involved. Additionally, they intend to create new criminal penalties for lenders who are found guilty of fraud, requiring the industry to report suspicious activity and create a loan disclosure scoring system designed to inform the borrower of all aspects of the loan.

Claim: Obama plans to help homeowners by setting up programs which can monitor lenders for what they can and cannot lend to buyers.

UNVERIFIED - Most of Obama’s policies seem geared towards borrower protection, so maybe this is just an issue of wording (I couldn’t find any information on this, though I found loosely-related statements through press releases and news articles. If anyone has information, let me know and I’ll post it).

Claim: McCain flipped on bailout issue by first saying he wouldn’t help borrowers who took risky loans, saying it was their fault. Now supports bailout.

TRUE - On March 26th, McCain indeed said it wasn’t the government’s job to help borrowers. According the the International Herald Review:

Drawing a sharp distinction between himself and the two Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona warned Tuesday against vigorous government action to solve the deepening mortgage crisis and the market turmoil it has caused, saying 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.”

McCain has since expressed support for such a bailout (via abcnews.com):

Its response was to send an e-mail from domestic policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin:

“John McCain supports the steps needed to keep the financial troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from further squeezing American families, and endorses the idea that management and shareholders should not benefit from government backing,” Holz-Eakin said. “While details are not yet available, the actions taken today are consistent with those objectives. Fannie and Freddie have been the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability, and remind us of the needed reforms to financial markets in general. We need to create jobs and get the economy going — and get way from the practice of sticking Main Street Americans with these bills. If elected, John McCain will continue his crusade for the right reform of the institutions. Sen. McCain will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.”

Lee Newcom

Claim: The problem with Fannie Mae began with the community reinvestment act and began in the Clinton Administration when Janet Reno was threatening banks with legal action if they did not make more loans to poor people.

PARTIALLY TRUE - While it’s true that Janet Reno sought initiatives to reduce discriminatory loans in urban areas, there is a dispute over whether the Community Reinvestment Act contributes to the problem by encouraging lenders to make irresponsible loans.

Specifically, the claim is referring to a speech by Janet Reno in 1998 in which she talks about government cases against banks and requiring lenders to invest in their communities.

I give this a “partial” because of the assertion this was the origin of the crisis. There are many factors which contribute to the problem, including high amounts of real estate speculation, the housing market bubble and mortgage fraud, among a other reasons, a number of which pre-date the Clinton administration. There has not been consensus on the cause of this issue yet as it is too early to determine.

Claim: McCain’s most recent position is that the government must help buy up those loans and renegotiate the amounts owed.

TRUE - McCain recently announced at the second presidential debate a plan to spend 300 billion dollars to purchase loans and grant courts the authority to renegotiate mortgages based on the home’s current value.

Claim: Though we are in a crisis, less than 5% of loans are affected.

UNVERIFIED - (I found no direct data to corroborate or contradict this claim. If anyone wants to provide information from a neutral source, I will add it to this entry)

Claim: Bush administration tried 13 times to push regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which each time was blocked by Democratic leaders in the last two years.

FALSE - From factcheck.org:

It’s true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was “overblown.” Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities “ill-advised.”

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill “while Mr. Obama was notably silent” oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.

By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor’s Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.

Additionally, this distorts the truth by omitting facts, primarily that Democrats proposed a number of reform bills while the Republicans held the majority:

• H.R. 2117
• H.R. 3507
• S. 1656

After the Democrats gained the majority in 2007, Barney Frank proposed the following legislation: H.R. 1427

As for the “13 times” claim, even judging by what the White House website has to say about it, one would be hard-pressed to find 13 times the Bush administration pushed for reform that was blocked by Democrats since the beginning of 2007.

Claim: John McCain was one of the most adamant seekers of regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Barack Obama did not want that regulation.

PARTIALLY TRUE - John McCain was a co-sponsor of a bill called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This bill never made it out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which Senator Obama was never a member of. Neither candidate voted on the bill.

Analysis below…

——-

(more…)

This blog is not known for virtually any kind of citizen journalism. This week I’ll be going over the Journal Star YouTube debates and fact-checking each side.

I’ll do my best to keep it clean, but will provide my own typical style of analysis below the fold. Since my own performance was an epic failure, I figured I ought to contribute to the project in some meaningful way. Just pretend you’re reading the Peoria Pundit, but with fewer typos.

Issue #1: Abortion Part 1.

Lee Newcom

Claim: Senator McCain has taken a reasonable position by saying he personally opposes abortion but supports the law in the way it’s working today.

FALSE - From John McCain’s website:

” Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”"

Claim: Senator Obama used his political influence to block a bill that would seek to give medical care to unwanted babies who were born alive.

QUESTIONABLE - The committee he’s referring to in the clip is the Health and Human Services Committee, of which he became chairman in 2003. The tone is pejorative and seems to suggest that power was improperly used to block a bill. There is no evidence suggesting Obama used his position to deny people the chance to give testimony, though the bill did not make it to the floor under the committee.

Jeffrey Hall

Claim: Obama’s goal with abortion is to keep it the way it is.

TRUE - From barackobama.com:

“Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.”

There is no language to suggest otherwise. His voting record in the U.S. Senate seems to corroborate this, as well as his claim that he seeks to reduce the number of abortions through legislation.

Claim: McCain flipped on the issue of abortion, first supporting, now supporting an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

TRUE - McCain has been consistently opposed to partial birth abortions, as indicated by his voting record. While he has chosen not to vote on a bill expressing Congressional support of Roe v. Wade, there’s no indication he supported overturning it prior to his 2008 campaign. This does not technically constitute a flip.

However, McCain said in 2000 that he thinks abortion should be allowed in special cases, then reaffirmed his position in 2007. Now, however, he is siding with his party’s policy and seeking a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. My friends, that is a flipflop.

Issue #1: Abortion Part 2.

Lee Newcom

Claim: People maintain the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy.

TRUE - In most cases, an abortion can be performed at any time during the pregnancy. What is not mentioned is that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits partial-birth abortions.

Claim: Mr. Hall disagrees with Barack Obama by saying if an abortion fails and there’s a chance for survival, the baby deserves medical care.

FALSE - According to Jill Stanek, which Newcom cites for support, Barack Obama has supported the federal version of BAIPA since at least 2005. The problem according to Senator Obama was not with providing care to those who survive an attempted abortion, but with the protection of abortion rights in Illinois, as outlined on his website (scroll to the bottom to see the chart). Mr. Hall and Senator Obama are in perfect agreement.

Claim: The language in both state born alive acts and federal born alive acts is identical, so there’s no reasonable explanation for opposing it.

FALSE - According to factcheck.org:

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term “born-alive infant” as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

The bill which passed in 2005 includes the following language:

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect
existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter
generally accepted medical standards.

Claim: Barack Obama supports killing babies who a born alive as a result of a failed abortion procedure.

FALSE - This is part of a smear commonly known as the infanticide claim. The facts: there were already laws on the books granting the protections described by the bill in question which, if violated (if what Mr. Newcom describes is true), would be punishable as a Class 3 felony. (source: factcheck.org) The bill was eventually passed (after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate) which contained the language claims he was looking for.

In Obama’s own words:

“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

Claim: Jill Stanek held babies in laundry room until they died.

FALSE - This claim is often repeated in response to Senator Obama’s record on abortion in the Illinois legislature. However, this is an unsupported claim that has only one source, that being Jill Stanek. In response to her claims, the Office of the Attorney General sent a letter in response which stated:

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[…]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

Jeffrey Hall

Jeff didn’t really make any claims in this section. Most of it was defending against or expressing incredulity at what Mr. Newcom was saying.

Analysis below the fold.

(more…)

This week has been ridiculously busy. I had two midterms with minimal time to study. I’m pretty sure I aced the one in my art class. The philosophy one I think I got an A in, a B at the very least. Good thing I have perfect attendance and A’s on my papers so far. Also, I had a philosophy paper due and an art project which has convinced me I am unhappy with anything but complexity. I should be pulling an A on both of those, but we’ll see. Tomorrow I’m pretty sure I have a test, so I’m studying just in case.

——-

The debates: Judging by what I watched and what I saw over at factcheck.org, Obama won by a mile in both points raised and public perception. McCain, once again, was condescending.

——-

Other than that, I was asked to participate in a project over at the Journal Star, in which I gave my take on a number of campaign issues in writing, then sat down tonight for a videotaped debate session which ought to be available on their website sometime this week (I think they’re starting on Sunday or Monday).

I won’t give away many details, but suffice it to say I was more content with my written submission than my performance in front of the camera, where I was debating someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum. I feel I held my own to a degree on two of the three sessions, but utterly bombed the other. I really couldn’t think of anything to add to the discussion since the policies on it are so similar.

I think at one point I actually paused and said,”I’m drawing a blank here” or maybe an “I’ve got nothin’.” That ought to sum it up, really. It’s difficult to argue against something you basically agree with.

Anyway, the discussion was civil. To be fair, the person I was debating had brought notes, whereas I was relying on my tired, shat upon brain for responses. Add to that a dry throat (I had coffee at one point but must have misplaced it), and a shared sense of nervousness and you get the utter failure that was my performance.

Alright, alright, at this point I’m just making up excuses. The experience was enjoyable overall and is something I would consider doing again, hopefully with more preparation. No really, as soon as I saw the other person had notes I immediately thought,”dammit, this is not going to go well.” I started to write some earlier this week, but judging by the format I didn’t think they’d be allowed.

Oh well, it’s my first experience with this kind of project and I am no professional.

I did learn something tonight: I’m much better at writing than speaking. Oddly enough, this feels like an incentive to power on my podcast microphone to get some practice like I said I’d do before life got so busy. Looks like I’ll be taking tapeworm’s suggestion after all.