That’s kinda what I meant, yes.

And I’ve got one in Ketchican I can sell you.

God, stay down already. You guys are flailing.

And how exactly has “coordination” between the two been established? Oh right, it hasn’t. Not by a long shot.

There’s just this “pretty clear link” which is based on speculation, that maybe possibly the same voiceover person in the Palin online ad has also worked with Axelrod’s company for other poitical ads. Imagine that. A professional voiceover person working on two different ads.

Of course, what makes the Jawa Report thing it’s the same woman? Do they know her name? Have they contacted her? No. They just think the voices sound really similar.

Strong stuff, Jay. Certainly strong enough for a champion of reason, such as yourself, to start spreading around as if it were true.

You mean that one that establishes a pretty clear link between David Axelrod and a PR firm he has worked with in the past who just happened to create videos smearing Sarah Palin? Any contact between the two would be a violation of federal election laws, but we all KNOW Hope/Changorama is above all that kind of nonsense isn’t he? Of course, said videos just HAPPENED to be removed and the accounts behind them just HAPPENED to get deleted at the same time. I’m sure it was all a coincidence.

That’s the best explanation. I got a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell if you believe that.

That’s interesting, Jay. Which bill are you and Hasstert talking about? Because Hastert links to an AEI article as if the AEI was backing the legislation that Hastert says the Dems blocked. Of course, Haster doesn’t ID the bill or discuss its details. He only wrote:

For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Then he argues that Dems on the committee scuttled it. But the AEI article from 2005 that Hastert links to, includes this graph, not noted by Hastert:

Shortly after Chairman Greenspan’s House testimony in February 2005–in which he reiterated the view that the portfolios of the GSEs should be limited to reduce the risks they create–key lawmakers in both the Senate and House pledged that they would consider his idea seriously. However, the only legislation on this question thus far introduced in either house is seriously deficient. That bill, introduced by Congressman Baker and House Financial Services Committee chairman Michael Oxley early in April 2005,authorizes the GSEs’ regulator “to dispose of or acquire any asset or obligation, if the Director determines that such action is consistent with the safe and sound operation of the enterprise or with the purposes of this Act.”[11]

This language leaves the regulator with no useful standard, and arguably does not increase at all the authority, currently held by OFHEO, to force the GSEs to divest assets that threaten their safety or soundness. If this language were to be included in the final law, it would fail completely to provide a legal basis for the regulator to act unless he or she could show that the portfolios of the GSEs were a threat to their financial condition. Whatever its purpose, this initial draft was clearly not intended to implement the Greenspan recommendation.
…
A general statement such as that advanced in the Oxley-Baker bill will not provide this direction, and will leave the regulator essentially powerless to act in the face of massive political opposition.

Now one of the criticisms that the Dems had of the legislation proposed by the committee was that it provided no real oversight while moving the Fannie and Freddie regulators from HUD to the Fed, which they thought would jeopardize the institutions core mission of making home ownership affordable to more people.

I don’t know, Jay. You want to clarify what bill, exactly, Hastert is talking about? Do you have any details on whether the Oxley-Baker bill ended up including the kind of language that the AEI recommended?

Hastert doesn’t say anything about it even as he links to an article criticizing the bill, as written, for being completely inadequate and ineffective. That actually fits the Dems criticism of the bill at the time.

Why do you think Hastert didn’t go into the specifics of the Baker-Oxley bill and failed to address the AEI’s criticism of it?

Still…

Yawn.

You think people should be concerned about Obama and Biden’s past associations, so why not Davis and McCain’s?

No, Jay, I’m concerned with the CURRENT make up of McCain’s campaign. I don’t know why you’re not.

Did I hear right that the former head of Merril-Lynch is gonna pinch hit for Carly Fiorina now? That’s some Maverick-ness right there.

Kevin Hassett from Bloomberg is saying his email and answering machine are both ‘filled up with howls of indignation and death threats’ as a result of that article, per NRO.

That article barely registers a 2 on a 10 scale of stuff written about Bush and Republicans every single day.

We couldn’t possibly think less about Jay.

McCain’s hypocrisy is a distraction?

“A distraction from having to deal with the fact…”

Fact? No, this is an opinion. A poorly formed opinion, given the fact that McCain considers himself a master deregulator.