Obama Complicit In Fannie/Freddie Debacle?

[Conan71]

WaPo managed to overlook and even try and cover their tracks on Obama's relationships with the former CEO's of these corrupt institutions.  He's basically been consorting with white collar criminals.  An assertion usually reserved for Republicans from Democrats.

While John McCain was predicting this collapse three years ago and co-sponsoring legislation, Obama was sitting on his thumbs and apparently more interested in building for his Presidential bid:

"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. 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.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

________________________________________________

Either WaPo lied in July or they are lying now about Raines' advisory status with Obama's campaign:

"Franklin Raines, CEO of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1999-2004, is the individual most responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. It was on Mr. Raines' watch that Fannie Mae went bankrupt.

He was accused of manipulating earnings statements so he could be paid bonuses to which he was not entitled.
In July, Mr. Raines was interviewed by Anita Huslin, a business reporter for the Washington Post.

"In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself," Ms. Huslin's story began. "He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health care companies and, more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing matters."

Jim Johnson Is The Former CEO Of Fannie Mae. (David A. Vise, "Fannie Mae Lobbies Hard To Protect Its Tax Break," The Washington Post, 1/16/95)

"Jim Johnson, The Former Chairman Of Fannie Mae Who Was One Of Three Advisors Tapped By Democrat Barack Obama To Vet Vice Presidential Candidates, Resigned Today After Questions Were Raised About Favoritism He May Have Received From Countrywide Financial Corp." (Johanna Neuman, "Barack Obama Advisor Jim Johnson Quits Under Fire," Los Angeles Times, 6/12/08)

Johnson Remains A Bundler For Obama's Presidential Campaign And Has Committed To Raising $100,000 To $200,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 9/19/08)

Johnson Earned Large Bonuses At Fannie Mae Due To An Accounting Manipulation:


In 1998, Fannie Mae's Earnings Were Manipulated, Which Resulted In "Maximum Payouts" To Executives Including CEO Jim Johnson. "As CEO of Fannie Mae, Johnson, a former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale and chairman of the board of the Kennedy Center, was the beneficiary of accounting in which Fannie Mae's earnings were manipulated so that executives could earn larger bonuses. The accounting manipulation for 1998 resulted in the maximum payouts to Fannie Mae's senior executives — $1.9 million in Johnson's case — when the company's performance that year would have otherwise resulted in no bonuses at all, according to reports in 2004 and 2006 by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight." (Jonathan Weisman and David S. Hilzenrath, "Obama's Choice Of Insider Draws Fire," The Washington Post, 6/11/08)

http://flapsblog.com/2008/09/24/the-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-meltdown-who-is-franklin-raines-who-is-jim-johnson/

[waterboy]

Hot air indeed. This reeks of desperation Conan. Halfway down the blog refers to Raines working as a paid campaign official for Obama. A lie. He answered a phone call from Obama once and never worked for him. You know that. Everyone but Fox news knows that.

McCain bloggers and outright liars have very little credibility right now. Especially since people who will put their professional reputations at risk on the news channels paint a vastly different picture.

What screwed us most is that the firms making the risky loans had no responsibility by not owning them. The companies who bought them were mislead by bond raters who overated them at will because they were unethical. They were then insured by AIG who only backed them with reserves of 3 cents on the dollar. Once again, unregulated because of a waiver granted by Federal officials. To blame Fannie and Freddie is to only see the Hindinburg crash and note that it caught fire. It was a Pyramid scheme bound to fail that insiders all new about, profitted from and refused to address.

Who was in charge of the country for the last 8 years and turned their eyes away? Who was a Senator for 20plus years and didn't committ to changing it all? And how long has Obama been in the Senate?

[Conan71]

Lemme ask you Waterboy, if you were running for President, would you directly employ someone who was known to have overseen the manipulation of his company's earnings to increase his own compensation?

You manage to address one or two issues I brought up, yet I don't see you addressing direct actions of the candidates.  A couple being Obama's acceptance of contributions nor the fact that while McCain was standing up in 2005 on legislation, Obama was sitting down, dreaming of being President some day.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Lemme ask you Waterboy, if you were running for President, would you directly employ someone who was known to have overseen the manipulation of his company's earnings to increase his own compensation?

You manage to address one or two issues I brought up, yet I don't see you addressing direct actions of the candidates.  A couple being Obama's acceptance of contributions nor the fact that while McCain was standing up in 2005 on legislation, Obama was sitting down, dreaming of being President some day.

If I were running for president I would be aware that every employee from salesperson to CEO is guilty of some manipulation to affect his own pay. If you aren't clever enough to know how its done you shouldn't be in politics.

I would understand that sometimes contributions are from those wanting to effect good government and sometimes they are from evil people who disguise their intent. They will both come back to bite you. Nonetheless thats how campaigns are funded. You can choose to be cynical and accept them all or do good faith to try and choose wisely.

I scanned your links Conan, saw that they were suspect and came across the Rainey lie. After that I admit they lost value. Can't respond to information I find sketchy. Using the McCain website for responses doesn't carry much credit.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Lemme ask you Waterboy, if you were running for President, would you directly employ someone who was known to have overseen the manipulation of his company's earnings to increase his own compensation?

You manage to address one or two issues I brought up, yet I don't see you addressing direct actions of the candidates.  A couple being Obama's acceptance of contributions nor the fact that while McCain was standing up in 2005 on legislation, Obama was sitting down, dreaming of being President some day.

Well, the Obama campaign got rid of Jim Johnson once some inside deals came to light, and that happened months ago.

Davis is STILL, TODAY, the very top person in the McCain campaign and he was paid millions as a lobbyist only because of the access he had to McCain. Davis hasn't been fired and the McCain campaign got caught in another lie THIS WEEK about when he stopped getting paid by Fannie Mae.

Davis was paid MILLIONS for nothing more than being friends with John McCain and the payments didn't stop until last month.

[USRufnex]

Yeah, it's all about Obama... you argue he isn't experienced, then you blame him for the fannie/freddie problems... I know RM tells me I'm supposed to be nice to you, but you've been the biggest let's-pretend-I'm-openminded while being a total say-anything partisan Republican.... god forbid you post anything about McCain's support for deregulation at all costs being COMPLICIT IN THE FANNIE/FREDDIE DEBACLE...

because that would be closer to the truth...

http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1222127700-+2JKDgSxObvUxPGnMKfOsQ&oref=slogin

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Lemme ask you Waterboy, if you were running for President, would you directly employ someone who was known to have overseen the manipulation of his company's earnings to increase his own compensation?

John McCain's Gramm Gamble
The GOP presidential nominee is relying on the ex-senator who helped bring you the mortgage crisis and Rick Perry.
Patricia Kilday Hart | May 30, 2008

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767

In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call "a stunning departure from normal legislative practice," the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.

There was little debate on the floor. According to the Congressional Record, Gramm promised that the amendment—also known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—along with other landmark legislation he had authored, would usher in a new era for the U.S. financial services industry.

"The work of this Congress will be seen as a watershed where we turned away from an outmoded Depression-era approach to financial regulation and adopted a framework that will position our financial services industry to be world leaders into the new century," Gramm said.

------------------------------------------------

Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed "financial weapons of mass destruction." They have fed the subprime mortgage crisis like an accelerant. While his distracted peers probably finalized their Christmas gift lists, Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the "shadow banking system," an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe.

While the nation's investment bankers are paying a heavy price for their unbridled greed (in billions of dollars of write-offs), Gramm has fared quite nicely. He currently serves as a vice president at UBS AG, a colossal, Swiss-owned investment bank, the post, no doubt, a thank you for assiduously looking out for Wall Street interests during his 23 years in public office. Now, with the aid of his longtime friend Arizona Sen. John McCain, Gramm may be looking at a quantum leap in power and influence.

Gramm serves as co-chair of the McCain 2008 presidential campaign. As one of the candidate's chief economic advisers, he is mentioned as a possible secretary of the treasury in a McCain administration. Their friendship was forged in the Senate as they worked against the Clinton health care proposal, and cemented when McCain served as national chairman of Gramm's own (ill-fated) 1996 presidential bid.

------------------------------------------------

In Gramm, McCain has chosen for a campaign adviser a former senator who espouses free market, conservative principles, but whose actions in public office served wealthy contributors and even himself. Exhibit A: Gramm's cozy Enron Corp. connections. Not only did CEO Ken Lay chair Gramm's 1992 re-election campaign, but Gramm's wife, Wendy, earned $50,000 a year as an Enron director from 1993 to 2001 (not counting perks that included stock options). Meanwhile Gramm pushed the company's aggressive—and ultimately self-defeating—political agenda to escape government scrutiny.

That Gramm is now advising the Republican nominee for president on economic matters "shouldn't give people a lot of comfort," says University of Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a senior official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the late 1990s. "Gramm has been a central player in two major economic crises—the credit crisis and the incredibly high price of energy. ... He's got his fingerprints all over legislative efforts that led to this."

------------------------------------------------

When his new party won control of the Senate, Gramm rose to chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, where he was able to put his anti-regulation views into law. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed laws put in place after the Great Depression setting up protective barriers between commercial banks, investment banking firms, and insurance companies.

Consumer groups strenuously opposed the landmark legislation. "It was strongly deregulatory and ... did not address safety and soundness," says lobbyist Ed Mierzwinski of the public interest group U.S. PIRG.

But more powerful interests were pushing for the law, and they had a deadline. In 1998, Citicorp Inc. purchased Traveler's Insurance Group. Under the old law, the new company had a two-year grace period to divest either its insurance or banking functions. Instead, it went to Washington, D.C., and got the law changed—with Gramm's help.

"Some people jokingly refer to it as the Citigroup Relief Act," says University of North Carolina law professor Lisa Broome. "Normally, they would have had to spin off their insurance activities."

Another beneficiary: Gramm's future employer, UBS, which was able to absorb the brokerage house Paine Webber. (As of March 31, UBS employees and company-related PACs have given the McCain campaign $82,865, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.)

Banks had been chipping away at the barriers through Federal Reserve rules for decades. But Gramm's sweeping deregulation "stripped away restraint," says Broome.

While Gramm denies any link between the current subprime mortgage crisis and his legislative efforts, Mierzwinski, Broome, and even some Wall Street analysts trace a direct connection.

Michael Panzner, a Wall Street veteran and author of Financial Armageddon, says the massive deregulation encouraged "aggressive, swashbuckling, high-risk practices that might have been frowned upon in the banking industry, but which were viewed as typical, say, on Wall Street." Eventually, those practices "became the modus operandi throughout the financial services industry."

Panzner also believes that Gramm-Leach-Bliley "may have even set the stage for both the collapse and the subsequent 'rescue' of Bear Stearns by the Federal Reserve." The deregulated financial services industries were "encouraged to push the envelope in terms of risk-taking, and were not entirely dissuaded from thinking that the public purse would be available if things went horribly wrong."

Still others blame Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Prior to its passage, they say, banks underwrote mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved. Now, through the use of credit default swaps—which in theory insure the banks against bad debts—those risks are passed along to insurance companies and other investors.

Maryland law professor Greenberger believes credit default swaps "were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of federal oversight."

[!]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Lemme ask you Waterboy, if you were running for President, would you directly employ someone who was known to have overseen the manipulation of his company's earnings to increase his own compensation?

You manage to address one or two issues I brought up, yet I don't see you addressing direct actions of the candidates.  A couple being Obama's acceptance of contributions nor the fact that while McCain was standing up in 2005 on legislation, Obama was sitting down, dreaming of being President some day.

If I were running for president I would be aware that every employee from salesperson to CEO is guilty of some manipulation to affect his own pay. If you aren't clever enough to know how its done you shouldn't be in politics.

I would understand that sometimes contributions are from those wanting to effect good government and sometimes they are from evil people who disguise their intent. They will both come back to bite you. Nonetheless thats how campaigns are funded. You can choose to be cynical and accept them all or do good faith to try and choose wisely.

I scanned your links Conan, saw that they were suspect and came across the Rainey lie. After that I admit they lost value. Can't respond to information I find sketchy. Using the McCain website for responses doesn't carry much credit.

So you advocate corruption amongst politicians and their advisors?

The most salient point of the hotair piece is the couple of paragraphs I posted.

McCain, for all his supposed ignorance on the economy, was trying to rein in the mortgage industry three years ago.  He saw what was happening.  What was Obama doing about it?  Simple question.  Care to answer or do you want me to answer it for you?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex



[!]

No commentary of your own?  Sort of like an FOTD post.

What exactly has Chris Dodd (D-FNMA,AIG) done to reverse the "extensive damage" that Phil Gramm wrought as chairman of the Senate banking committee?

He's had two years plus a Senate majority to change things.  Now he's standing around with his thumb up his donkey saying:  "Look at the mess the Republicans got us into".

Two years was plenty, considering our Congress looks like they are going to pull a rabbit out of their donkey in little more than a couple of weeks.

Fact of the matter is, lots of Republicans and Democrats got greased heavily to look the other way while this massive ponzi scheme was happening on Wall St.

I don't know that you have specifically said this is all Bush's fault and all the former GOP Congress' fault.  However, it's being said and it's total revisionist BS.  Dems are looking to emerge from this trainwreck without so much as a scratch while they kick the engineer in the head on their way out of the wreckage.

Go ahead Ruf, I'll still respect you in the morning.

[:X]

[USRufnex]

"Go ahead Ruf, I'll still respect you in the morning."

Actually, I think you'll still be posting and starting new threads in the morning...

I fail to see the difference between FB spam and Conan spam...



Let's see...... where are u at now?.... three dozen posts in the last hour or two...

Geez.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Let's see...... where are u at now?.... three dozen posts in the last hour or two...

Geez.

I have an overactive political bladder.

Not taking a chance on Dodd at the moment, eh?  Haven't found anything worthy of rebuttal on Google?

Sweet dreams Ruf.

[FOTD]

Republican government-bashers line up for federal aid
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/380377_thomasonline26.html

WASHINGTON -- What has happened to those conservative Republican leaders whose mantra was "government is the problem -- not the solution"?

Tell that to the once-bloated financial giants now standing in line for whopping government handouts to the tune of $700 billion. And who can forget those who wanted to "get the government off our backs"? Their silence now is deafening.

In the rush for bailouts for the hard-hit government mortgage finance giants, the U.S. Treasury seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is trying to rescue American International Group, the largest insurer of the world. It allowed 158-year-old Lehman Brothers to collapse, but came to the rescue of the Bear, Stearns, another Wall Street firm.

What about the thousands of suffering homeowners who face mortgage foreclosures? They are at the end of the public trough and almost forgotten in the scramble to protect Wall Street. And what about the failed CEOs who hope to walk out the door with obscene multi-million-dollar golden parachutes and big bonuses?

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have worked out a plan to pass on the price of the bailouts to the American taxpayer. Congress is still scrutinizing the proposal.

The U.S. financial mess has rippled through other economies of the world. The fault rests with Wall Street greed, which brought on good times for the high rollers, who thought it would never end. And it rests with the federal government for its failure to police mortgage lenders.

Republican lawmakers and presidents who abhor government restrictions and oversight because of their anti-government philosophy have put America in a critical financial state.

We should be looking at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt blueprint. People were in despair after the stock market crashed in 1929 and the Great Depression slowly settled in. They lost hope until FDR took office in 1933 and told Americans in his first inaugural address that we had nothing "to fear but fear itself."

Roosevelt, thinking of the poor and desperate, created several New Deal programs to put people back to work. He was viewed as a savior at the time by millions of Americans, but he also had bitter detractors who resented his radical steps.

I remember the suffering during the Depression in my hometown of Detroit and the long lines of forlorn men, standing in the dead of winter outside the auto factories, hoping for jobs. The popular song on the radio was "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime." The best-selling book was John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath."

Roosevelt was innovative. Some programs worked, some didn't. But many remain today to provide some sense of security, like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Labor Relations Act to protect unions and the Social Security system to help the elderly. In the 1930s, 9,000 banks closed down. Today we have to ask: Why didn't the so-called experts see the storm coming in the 21st century?

Ironically, the remaining affluent and the poor are now on the same page with Abraham Lincoln, who said: "Government should do for people what they cannot do for themselves."

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2008 Hearst Newspapers

[pmcalk]

Conan, you keep harping on FreddieMac/FannieMae, as though that were the entire problem.  Even if the democrats or republicans had put in some regulations on those entities, we would still be in this problem.  The failure of Lehman brothers & bailout of AIG signaled the collapse of the market--not because of subprime mortgages, but because of the deregulation of Credit Default Swaps.  When did McCain ("I favor deregulation") ever attempt to tackle that?

I'm not saying that the Democrats (who barely had a majority--not enough to override a veto) shouldn't have done something.  But it was McCain's economic advisor that slipped in a bill that eroded the very protections that were put into place after the great depression.  He allowed gambling on whether the housing bubble would burst (it always amazes me the stupidity of these companies.  How could you not see that the housing bubble would burst?)

I am mad at both sides of the aisle for this stupid mess.  It was created by lobbyist who corrupt democrats and republicans alike.

But who would I like to fix the mess?  Clearly not the guy who is being advised by the guy that created the mess.  Not the guy who thinks lobbyist are good people.  Not the republicans who constantly scream for less regulation--sometimes regulation is a very, very good thing.

[iplaw]

quote:Conan, you keep harping on FreddieMac/FannieMae, as though that were the entire problem.

If you think Fannie and Freddie aren't the locus of this you simply don't understand what's going on.  

Lehman et al. are ONLY in the mess they are in because they created MBSs, seucrities collateralized by illiquid mortgages.  Companies over leveraged themselves, in some cases 30:1 with these worthless mortgages.

Bottom line is, mortgage lending created this crisis via a string of unintended consequences.

Fannie and Freddie in concert with legislation that essentially allowed lenders to provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford them for a variety of reasons caused this debacle. Period.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Lemme ask you Waterboy, if you were running for President, would you directly employ someone who was known to have overseen the manipulation of his company's earnings to increase his own compensation?

You manage to address one or two issues I brought up, yet I don't see you addressing direct actions of the candidates.  A couple being Obama's acceptance of contributions nor the fact that while McCain was standing up in 2005 on legislation, Obama was sitting down, dreaming of being President some day.

If I were running for president I would be aware that every employee from salesperson to CEO is guilty of some manipulation to affect his own pay. If you aren't clever enough to know how its done you shouldn't be in politics.

I would understand that sometimes contributions are from those wanting to effect good government and sometimes they are from evil people who disguise their intent. They will both come back to bite you. Nonetheless thats how campaigns are funded. You can choose to be cynical and accept them all or do good faith to try and choose wisely.

I scanned your links Conan, saw that they were suspect and came across the Rainey lie. After that I admit they lost value. Can't respond to information I find sketchy. Using the McCain website for responses doesn't carry much credit.

So you advocate corruption amongst politicians and their advisors?

The most salient point of the hotair piece is the couple of paragraphs I posted.

McCain, for all his supposed ignorance on the economy, was trying to rein in the mortgage industry three years ago.  He saw what was happening.  What was Obama doing about it?  Simple question.  Care to answer or do you want me to answer it for you?

Answer it for me? No thanks, I've had my experience with legal mood altering drugs and prefer reality.

He was a junior Senator from Illinois who was serving his first year. He hadn't had 24 years futzing around in the Senate like MAC. He didn't have all that great S&L meltdown experience to draw upon, though doubtless he read about Mac's hard earned knowledge. The question might better be phrased as "Why would MaC choose Gramm knowing his leadership in gutting important regulations in place since the Depression? How could he be fooled by moves that even Gramm was quoted as saying would free up the financial markets to operate unfettered? Then you give him credit for trying to "clean up the mess"? He apparently was for dangerous financial deregulation before he was against it. What a maverick.

So, you advocate wild de-regulation that served to melt down our economy for the benefit of Gramm's cronies? McCain did. Otherwise construed as corruption?

In your ultra partisan quest for anti-Biden, anti-Dem, anti-Obama you and your buddies have suspended any semblance of objectivity. Its to be expected in a political year. But there are limits. When you call McCain "noble" for executing obvious cynical politics (suspend his campaign?)....you might need to step back a moment. Your clan is behaving like lemmings. I will admit Obama has some deficits but none that keep him from leading. And we have our own lemmings but the more enlightened know to question whats being fed to them during a political year no matter the source. I can only surmise that you have become so deeply enmeshed in the spinning machine and winning arguments that you've lost any objectivity whatsoever. I hope its not permanent.

McCain lies when the truth is more powerful. He told Letterman that he was travelling to Washington yesterday afternoon because the economy was "cratering" and he couldn't justify doing his show. Lettermen found out that Mac was nearby taping an interview with Couric and wouldn't leave town til the next day.

Judgement: Is it wise to lie to a popular New York comedian who has an audience with American's every night and free reign to editorialize with humor?

Integrity: Little lies add up. Pretty soon its part of your persona. Especially if they're unnecessary. Letterman admires and respects McCain, he would have praised him for his patriotism had he explained that Couric was a more important interview at this critical time. Mac instinctually lied just like he's lying about the real purpose of the suspension.

Its really quite a desperate hail mary. He's unfit for leadership.