They Win, We Lose, and They Lose Too, but Apparently They Don't Care

The "We Win! We Win! republicans are long on telling us they will win, but very short on reasons why they should win.

Mark Kirk has yet to tell us how he's going to protect a woman's right to choose under a Supreme Court chosen by an anti-choice McCain/Palin administration. Planned Parenthood is betting on the potential access they get for supporting incumbents and apparently doesn't ask too many questions because no one is chiming in with the answer. NARAL, the more adamantly pro-choice of the two organizations, is not as trusting as Planned Parenthood and has not put Kirk on its endorsed list. Given Kirk's lack of an answer on how he will protect choice under his choice of McCain/Palin, I don't blame them.

This past weekend, gas prices skyrocketed because of yet another hurricane in the Gulf. On Sunday, the station on 45 just east of 83 was selling gas for $4.40/gal for the cheapest gas. McCain continues to lie that offshore drilling is viable in the Gulf and Palin doesn't believe in global warming although her very own state is melting away. All we hear from McCain, Palin, Kirk and their supporters is that the answer to our energy needs is more Gulf offshore drilling leases to the oil multinationals. republicans seem to enjoy paying a lot for gas, but now we're hearing that high prices might be the least of our worries and that shortages are on their way:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that it could take up to nine days for the refineries to get back online and that Americans should expect possible gas shortages.

"We are looking at another week or eight or nine days before refineries are up and going, so refined gasoline is going to be in a shortage situation because of the power outages and flooding," she said.

Then, as my mom pointed out in her comment on an earlier post, there is the sinking stock market on the tail of the Lehman bankruptcy. No one's talking about bailing out Lehman or touching it with a 10 foot pole. I have a guess as to why. Lehman got itself into the business of selling investments in subprime mortgage pools. On June 16, 2003, a federal jury held Lehman liable for knowingly assisting First Alliance Mortgage Corporation (FAMCO) commit fraud by misrepresenting the true cost of home loans and overcharging borrowers (as much as 24%) in loan origination and other fees.

Assistant Massachusetts Attorney General Pamela Kogut testified before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity on June 23, 2004, and described the verdict in the Lehman Brothers Case:

the jury found that FAMCO systematically defrauded borrowers, and that Lehman Brothers aided and abetted in the fraudulent scheme by continuing to securitize loans even after it became plain that FAMCO was engaging in unscrupulous practices. The jury found that the total damages to consumers nationally was about $51 million. The jury was asked to determine the extent of Lehman Brothers’ responsibility, and concluded that Lehman Brothers was liable for 10% of the consumers’ harm (while finding that FAMCO was 90% liable). Thus, Lehman Brothers was ordered to pay the sum of approximately $5.1 million.

When the case was first filed, Lehman issued a statement to the press claiming the "not my job" defense:

Lehman Brothers is an underwriter and not a regulator.

Liability was affirmed, but the question of the calculation of damages under California consumer fraud laws was remanded back to the lower court on appeal.

How were First Alliance and Lehman able to do what they did for so long? No regulators were watching. FAMCO didn't care because they made money on each loan and then sold the loans and the risk along with them, to investors through Lehman. Lehman didn't care because while they knew about the predatory lending and fraud, they betted they could just play dumb and get away with it, not my job, they said.

Federal regulators did nothing. The industry and related matters had been deregulated. McCain campaign economic advisor Phil Gramm was part of the deregulation push and republicans like Mark Kirk and John McCain went along. Kirk was still defending mortgage deregulation as late as this past summer when he lied about the Illinois anti-predatory lending program. Sarah Palin does not know what the secondary mortgage market is.

Although most banking regulation has been federalized years ago, little of it was left to do the job. The case against Lehman was made by a class of injured FAMCO borrowers**, FAMCOs bankruptcy trustee seeking to spread out the liability to preserve FAMCO assets for its creditors, and the attorneys general of a few states, including Illinois.

**Remembering here that Mark Kirk is for limiting the ability of a group of injured people to obtain class certification to allow them to maintain such a case and supported the Orwellian named the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 which was really all about stopping class actions and let multinational corporations, loyal to no people or country, to get away with whatever.

So, we win we win, what is our prize if we elect McCain/Palin/Kirk? High prices, increasingly worrisome environmental problems, energy shortages, a sinking stock market, corporate fraud, criminalized abortions even in the case of rape or incest, not to mention war and more war. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Kirk has any supporters at all. They lose too, but apparently, don't care.

Check out Dan Seals new ad posted above. Kirk and his supporters are light on the details of a McCain/Palin/Kirk regime, but unlike Kirk, Dan Seals is very willing to talk specifics on Mark Kirk's record. Here's the backup from the Dan campaign for Dan's statements in the ad:

In 2002, Kirk was handpicked by President Bush to draft the Iraq War resolution. "On Thursday, [Kirk] joined a majority of his colleagues in the House in approving a request from President George Bush to use force in Iraq. Kirk is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and was one of nine members of Congress who were asked to work with Bush on the draft resolution." [CQ Member Profile; Daily Herald, 10/11/02]

Kirk voted 16 times to rubber-stamp Bush's failed Iraq Policy.[House Vote 186, HR 1591, 03/23/07; House Vote 265, HR 1591, 04/25/07; House Vote 276, HR 1591, 5/02/07; House Vote 330, HR 2237, 5/10/07; House Vote 333, HR 2206, 5/10/07; House Vote 425, HR 2206, 5/24/07; House Vote 624, HR 2956, 7/12/07; House Vote 796, HR 3159, 8/02/07; House Vote 927, HR 3087, 10/02/07; House Vote 1108, HR 4156, 11/14/07; House Vote 1151, HR 1585, 12/12/07, Passed 370-49; House Vote 1186, HR 2764, 12/19/07, Passed 272-142; House Vote 329, HR 2642, 5/15/08, Passed 227-196; House Vote 359, HR 5658, 5/22/08, Passed 234-183; House Vote 360, HR 5658, 5/22/08, Passed 245-168; House Vote 365, HR 5658, 5/22/08, Passed 384-23]

The U.S. has spent over $550 billion in Iraq and Congress has approved over $650 billion in spending. [National Priorities Project] Kirk Voted for Over $650 billion in Funding for the Iraq war. [Vote 108, HR 1559, 4/3/03; Vote 562, HR 3289, 10/17/03; Vote 161, HR 1268, 5/5/05; Vote 287, HR 2863, 6/20/05; HR 4939, House Vote 257, 6/13/06; House Vote 486, HR 5631, 9/26/06; Vote 425, HR 2206, 5/24/07; House Vote 1186, HR 2764, 12/19/07; Vote 365, HR 5658, 5/22/08]

Kirk has voted for every one of President Bush's big spending budgets that have created record budget deficits. [House Vote 158, H CON RES 376, 5/18/2006; House Vote 149, H Con Res 95, 4/28/05; House Vote 92, H Con Res 393, 3/25/04; House Vote 82, H CON RES 95, 3/21/2003; House Vote 79, H Con Res 353, 3/20/02]