...is it irrelevant that Obama befriends radicals and terrorists, and shameful that McCain would make an issue of it? After all, Obama was only 8 years old when Ayers was bombing public buildings.

Even that part is a lie. Obama was 8 years old when Ayers started bombing in 1969, but he was 9 when Ayers first killed with a bomb, 11 when Ayers bombed a restroom at the Pentagon, and 19 when Ayers surrendered to the authorities. The group Ayers founded continued to kill by bomb after that.

And Ayers said in a magazine interview as recently as 2001 that he wishes they'd done more bombings. That's 6 years after the infamous Obama campaign launch in Ayers's home. Guilt by association? No, a window into the character and judgement of Obama. What kind of society are we when the leading candidate for President of the United States can be a friend to a terrorist killer and it is no big deal?

.

I followed your link and as expected, it is bogus. It tries to refute several straw man arguments that no nerious person is making, and it does so even for those with little more than left wing opinion. Some rebuttal.

And on the one point that seems to address the issue, their point number 10, it says the Republican effort

"would have done nothing to stop the rash of subprime lending that preceded the housing bubble. It only provided oversight for Fannie and Freddie—but it said nothing at all about the companies that issued subprime mortgages."

Can't you connect the dots? The lenders made irresponsible loans to questionable borrowers because they were confident that Fannie and Freddie would cover them. Why would they think that? Because the Dems, led by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and the Black Caucus said so, throughout the era of subprime mortgages.

Also, the subprime lending did not precede the housing bubble, it was coincident with it. It very likely exacerbated it. Poor regulation of Fannie and Freddie is what got us where we are today.

.

.

Ironic
SUBMITTED BY TROLL ON TUE, 10/07/2008 - 9:39AM.

Firing Back on the CRA Libel
..."Conservatives are twisting the facts beyond the breaking point to support their revisionist history. But don’t be fooled: the financial crisis was caused by conservative financial follies and bankers run amok and nothing more. Here are the basic myths they're trying to push about the CRA—and the facts that will enable you to fire back.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008094030/firing-back-cra-strikeout...

“They're Turning Into a Lynch Mob”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/92221/5295/879/622560

Who is rooting for "irresponsible economic policies?" What kind of baseless statement is that?

The irony with McCain taking the low road is that it completely conflicts with his previous statements on negative attack campaigns that he apparently was so adamantly against a few months back.

I think the real "question" McCain supporters should be asking is not who is Obama, but rather who is the real John McCain? Clearly, the persona of John McCain changes from week to week. I've never seen such erratic personality shifts in a presidential candidate in all my life.

Matt, the "Bush" economy is in trouble, and largely because of the subprime mortgages of the past decade. The free market approach would call for letting those bad loans take down the irresponsible lenders and borrowers. But Fannie and Freddie were there to semi-guarantee them.

And why did Freddie and Fannie do that? To try to get mortgages for people who wouldn't otherwise qualify for them, due to their low incomes and credit histories. And who championed that? Liberal Dems including Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and the Black Caucus.

And who tried to reign in the excesses? The GOP, including Bush and McCain. It is ironic how you can root for irresponsible economic policies, and then blame the GOP when those policies cause mayhem.

.

Keating Economics: John McCain and a Financial Crisis

http://www.keatingeconomics.com