-
This is the way the world ends. Not with a whimper but a bang. And Tom Hanks.
February 18, 2009 | 7 comments
-
Everything’s Amazing, Nobody’s Happy.
February 12, 2009 | 5 comments
-
Never Trust a Babysitter Who Wears a Bob Barr Button
February 11, 2009 | 29 comments
-
Reason and Reproduction
February 9, 2009 | 1 comment
-
Why’d You Have To Go And Make Things So Complicated?
February 8, 2009 | 10 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Rush Limbaugh is often credited with the dubious honor of inventing conservative talk radio. And it is certainly true that Rush paved the way for Hannity, O’Reilly, and other pundits by perfecting the three-hour blatherfest.
But the true pioneer
and undisputed king of conservative radio until his death
yesterday at age 90 was Paul Harvey, a man who never
required three hours and 36 commercial breaks to get his message
across.
Since 1951, when he joined ABC News, the “largest one-man network in the world” quietly dominated radio. His show is carried on 1,200 radio stations and 400 Armed Forces Network stations around the world, and his column appeared in 300 newspapers nationwide. (His broadcasts and newspaper columns have been reprinted in the Congressional Record more than those of any other commentator.)
Despite his dominance, Harvey was often overlooked as a influence on conservatism even though he had millions more listeners than any other conservative on the radio (including Rush). His “Paul Harvey News and Comment” aired for 5 minutes in the morning and for 15 minutes before noon. Yet Harvey managed to say more in those 20 minutes than other hosts say in 180.
While other pundits preached to the choir, Harvey was an evangelist for the conservative perspective. His disarming folksy charm made his conservative views appear to be nothing more than good old common sense. Indeed, Harvey probably did more to promote non-ideological conservatism than any other figure in modern America. It would be hard to imagine the revolution of the Reagan era if he hadn’t converted so many Democrats to the cause.
As a communicator for conservative values he was without peer. And sadly, we are unlikely to see his equal for a long time to come. He will be missed. May he rest in peace.
Admr. S. B.O. Buniontow| 3.1.09 @ 5:40PM
I knew Paul personally for over 30 years. He had deep admiration for Rush.
MattSwartz | 3.1.09 @ 6:13PM
Harvey was head and shoulders above any of the conservative talkshow hosts, I think. Growing up in the 80's and early 90's without a television, I heard plenty of Limbaugh and plenty of Harvey. I look back at one with a smile and the other with a scowl.
Harvey wasn't an ideologue; his conservativism was more Burkean than that. He just told stories about individuals being rational and inventive and government plans that were the exact opposite. His sense of humor was understated and delicious, his clarity unmatched, and his voice unparalleled.
Kent Ramsay| 3.1.09 @ 6:31PM
A classy obituary would be done without trashing other people to make Paul Harvey look good by comparison. I think this could have been written without the repeated attacks on Rush. Joe Carter will deserve a much briefer and less kind eulogy.
ruth| 3.1.09 @ 7:15PM
This 'tribute' to Harvey is a coward's attempt to trash Rush. If you don't like Limbaugh, Carter, make your case and tell us why, instead of using Harvey's death to take your cheap-shots at Rush. A pox on your house, sir.
ConservativeWanderer | 3.1.09 @ 8:25PM
We can look forward to 20+ years of LeftyDem control if Conservatives don't quit aiming our guns at other conservatives. Let's concentrate our fire on the opposition (lefties in both parties), not each other.
Also, as has been said before, a putative obit for a great man is hardly the appropriate forum for bashing anyone else, great or small.
I am quickly losing my heretofore strong belief that AmSpec is a conservative institution... you seem to be going the wishy-washy me-too big-government Democrat-lite way that the Weekly Standard has been going.
Frosty| 3.1.09 @ 9:09PM
Rush is smart enough to know you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. I wish more Conservatives understood this fact of life. Prissy lot, no wonder scummy, street fighter liberals are cleaning our clocks.
Joe Carter | 3.1.09 @ 9:36PM
Kent A classy obituary would be done without trashing other people to make Paul Harvey look good by comparison. I think this could have been written without the repeated attacks on Rush.
I didn’t trash anyone in this post nor did I attack Rush. Pointing out that Rush is not on the same level as Harvey is not a putdown. If Rush is honest, he’ll admit that fact for himself.
ruth This 'tribute' to Harvey is a coward's attempt to trash Rush. If you don't like Limbaugh, Carter, make your case and tell us why, instead of using Harvey's death to take your cheap-shots at Rush. A pox on your house, sir.
A coward’s attempt to trash Rush? Please. I don’t need to make my case against Rush because I honestly don’t give him that much thought. He’s a good at what he does: he’s an entertainer. The problem is with the people who take him seriously.
ConservativeWanderer I am quickly losing my heretofore strong belief that AmSpec is a conservative institution... you seem to be going the wishy-washy me-too big-government Democrat-lite way that the Weekly Standard has been going.
So pointing out that Harvey had more listeners than Rush is a sign that AmSpec is no longer conservative? What? The problem isn’t Rush; it’s his mindless Dittoheads who think that the man is beyond criticism.
I’m sorry that I don’t worship the man as some of you do. I’m sorry I don’t think he should be the “spokesperson for conservatism.” And I’m sorry that I don’t think the man walks on water and to say anything against him (however mild) is akin to blasphemy. If this makes you think that I am insufficiently “conservative” then that says more about you than about me.
ConservativeWanderer | 3.1.09 @ 9:43PM
Excuse me, Mr. Carter, methinks thou dost protest too much.
Where, specifically, did I state that I am a dittohead? Where, specifically, did I say I worshipped Rush? Where, specifically, did I say he should be the "spokesperson for conservatism"?
In point of fact, I haven't listened to Rush since long before his drug problem became public, for a variety of reasons, including his availability on stations that I am able to receive during the daytime.
Of course, if you are going to be so ultra-defensive that any criticism of your article makes one a "dittohead," then you're acting just as badly as you accused me--falsely, by the way--of acting.
Take a good, long, hard look in the mirror, Mr. Carter.
Basil Plumley| 3.1.09 @ 9:44PM
I have to agree with many of the other posters on this topic. The comparison of Harvey and Limbaugh in such a negative light is really beyond the pale; especially in light of Harvey's death.
By doing this, you dishonor the work of Paul Harvey. Harvey and Limbaugh were not rivals and from many accounts greatly respected each other.
We should mourn for what was a great man and hope for a brighter future no matter who leads the parade.
Joe Carter | 3.1.09 @ 9:55PM
ConservativeWanderer Of course, if you are going to be so ultra-defensive that any criticism of your article makes one a "dittohead," then you're acting just as badly as you accused me--falsely, by the way--of acting.
My apologies. I assumed you were making the same point as the other commenters.
If it wasn’t about Rush, though, then I have to say that I have no idea what your criticism was about.
Basil Plumley The comparison of Harvey and Limbaugh in such a negative light is really beyond the pale; especially in light of Harvey's death.
This is taking a turn for the bizarre. Comparing them in “such a negative light?” I said that Harvey had more listeners than Rush. Why is that such a damnable claim?
Interloper| 3.1.09 @ 9:58PM
Joe, the far Right has gotten spoiled when it comes to any criticism of Rush Limbaugh, whether one questions his profligate personal behavior or his divisive work product. There's a pattern. Some other conservative passingly says that Rush Limbaugh is not the personification of Man As He Should Be. Dittoheads descend upon that person and verbally abuse him until he cries 'Uncle.' The apostate then declares he is not any such thing, but actually loves Limbaugh more than even his greatest fans. That is what you are expected to do.
Here is U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey's apology after briefly questioning some of Limbaugh's behavior in case you decide a template is needed:
http://tinyurl.com/cwpbc8
ruth| 3.1.09 @ 10:20PM
Carter, Who are You? A nobody saying nothing; your numbers are legion.
Frosty| 3.1.09 @ 10:36PM
"I don't need to make my case against Rush because I honestly don't give him that much thought." Then why do you repeatedly mention Rush's name in your 'tribute' to Harvey? Why bring Rush up at all unless it was just your chance to take a cheap-shot at 'mindless' Ditto-heads? You're some piece of work, jerk.
Bridey| 3.1.09 @ 10:58PM
I'm not a particular Limbaugh or Hannity fan, or a basher of them, either.
But I rather agree that a tribute to Paul Harvey on his own merits would perhaps have been more becoming. As is rightly noted, he dated back decades before any of them, and "Look how he shines" seems like it would have been better than "Look how he shines by contrast." If Harvey was great -- and he was -- he was so, and would have been so, even if the current generation of conservative talkers.
I work on the edges of the radio business, and people in the industry adore Paul Harvey. Here are some of their
BD57| 3.1.09 @ 11:01PM
Paul Harvey was a great man. While I can't say I listened to him religiously, I heard him broadcast enough to respect him as a man who would not sell out an argument just to be polite, even as he disagreed without being disagreeable. I'd say he was conservatism's St. Paul - willing to be all things to all men that he might win some.
At the same time, the Lord had a place at His table for the Sons of Thunder (James & John).
That may stretch the metaphor too far - Harvey's style was far different from Limbaugh and, say, Hannity (who are, first & foremost, entertainers) and I don't know of anyone who's examined Paul, James and John for "entertainment value" - but the point holds: ideas are advanced by a variety of methods and arguments.
Loper| 3.1.09 @ 11:11PM
I agree, BD; your words are just common sense to me. I just wonder when we are going to stop (gratuitously) eating our own.
Joe Carter | 3.1.09 @ 11:29PM
Bridey As is rightly noted, he dated back decades before any of them, and "Look how he shines" seems like it would have been better than "Look how he shines by contrast."
The reason I thought it was worth contrasting Harvey with the current crop of talk-show entertainers is because many (perhaps most) young conservatives have never heard of the great man, much less recognize how influential he was for the movement.
Hannity, Rush, and the rest are paid to be entertainers and they do that well. Their job is to "preach to the choir" in order to drive up rating and thus make more money. And, God bless 'em, they do a great job at that task.
The problem is that these men are now treated as if they should be leaders of the conservative movement. The same people who mock the Left's treatment of Sean Penn and Jon Stewart as political thinkers fail to see the irony in treating Rush, Hannity, et al., the same way. (Again, this isn't so much a problem with Rush or Sean as with their listeners who take them a bit too seriously.)
Imagine, though, if instead of having a bunch of Rush-wannabes (and seriously, doesn't Sean Hannity do a better Rush than Rush does now?) we have radio hosts who aspired to be more like Paul Harvey.
Harvey won converts and convinced people of the appeal of conservatism. He was truly influential in a way that today's radio hosts are not. I simply could not honestly write a post about his passing without lamenting what could have been if more people would imitate his method.
I'm sorry if that ticks people off, but that's the way I feel. I'm a "conservative", not an "anti-liberal." I have no interest in encouraging conservative victimhood or the perpetual "we don't need to do anything other than bash the libs" attitude that pervades much of talk radio. It's good for ratings, but its not good for conservatism -- or America.
ruth| 3.1.09 @ 11:37PM
Why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of trying to sneak it into your 'tribute' to a great man? Your 'mindless dittohead' crack was cheap, too, and unnecessary. You can dish it--but you sure can't take it. Good luck with that on this forum.
Frosty| 3.1.09 @ 11:45PM
You're not winning many converts here yourself, Mr. Carter. Pretty much only that liberal skunk, Interloper, applauded your hit piece. Good job.
Joe Carter | 3.1.09 @ 11:48PM
Ruth Your 'mindless dittohead' crack was cheap, too, and unnecessary.
Do you think Rush is beyond criticism? If not, they I was not referring to you. But can you really deny that there are, in fact, "mindless dittoheads" who think any criticism of is "unconservative?"
Joe Carter | 3.1.09 @ 11:51PM
Frosty You're not winning many converts here yourself, Mr. Carter. Pretty much only that liberal skunk, Interloper, applauded your hit piece. Good job.
The fact that you refer to my post as a "hit piece" shows that you weren't really the audience I was aiming for. I was hoping that it would be read by people who are thoughtful enough to think for themselves and don't do their thinking based on what labels can be applied to people (Interloper = liberal skunk = I must hate anything he likes.)
Basil Plumley| 3.1.09 @ 11:57PM
Mr Carter
A redux-I should have said that your snarkiness in comparing the two gentlemen was beyond the pale.
Perhaps, you could have paraphrased Marc Antony and said; I come to bury Limbaugh, not praise him.
You could have easily praised Paul Harvey without invoking anyone else in Talk Radio. I guess I thought it to be quite bizarre.
It reminds me of the time the Boston Red Sox had Jim Rice Day. Jim Rice had to share the stage with Bob Stanley. That was insulting.
At least you accomplished one thing; you got Professor Interloopy to agree with someone at AmSpec.
ruth| 3.1.09 @ 11:58PM
You claimed to be writing a glowing piece about Paul Harvey, right? What did this good gentleman's death have to do with Rush, and why do you call me moron because I asked you this question? You are thin skinned.
Joe Carter | 3.2.09 @ 12:03AM
Ruth What did this good gentleman's death have to do with Rush, and why do you call me moron because I asked you this question? You are thin skinned.
Everytime I read one of your comments I have to go back and read everything that has been written before to try to understand what in the world you are talking about.
First, where did I ever call you a moron? Second, what gives you the impression that I'm "thin skinned?" (Even after you called me a coward, said I was a "nobody saying nothing", and wished a pox on my house, I never said anything that was remotely insulting back to you.)
Also, what did I say about Rush that offended you so?
ruth| 3.2.09 @ 12:06AM
Well, Mr. Carter, next time you decide to favor us mindless morons with one of your thoughtful and eloquent pieces of work, one of your brilliant essays, I suggest you first state your requirements for those allowed to read it.
ruth| 3.2.09 @ 12:19AM
There's more at stake here than some petty hurt feelings. Frankly, sir, I don't give a flying fig what you think of me. My concern is for my country and for Conservatism, and it breaks my heart that we are attacking one another, and in the meantime, pissing our freedoms away. I am not stupid and I don't march in lock step with anybody. Rush is bawdy, imperfect and sometimes over the top, but he articulates a love of freedom that I don't hear anywhere else. Certainly not here at AmSpec!! You tell me, who in the Conservative movement is worthy of my admiration? Can you give me one person? And that is the tragedy of it, Mr. Carter, there is no one. Hurl 'mindless' at me, Mr. Carter, and you've got yourself a fight.
Joe Carter | 3.2.09 @ 12:19AM
Ruth Well, Mr. Carter, next time you decide to favor us mindless morons with one of your thoughtful and eloquent pieces of work, one of your brilliant essays, I suggest you first state your requirements for those allowed to read it.
Again, I'm at a loss for what you are getting at.
Are you going to avoid my questions or is this your way of saying that you indeed to think that Limbaugh is not to be questioned.
ruth| 3.2.09 @ 12:25AM
Dude, I'm not the only commenter here who disagrees with you. Don't you understand why we're a little upset? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone right now. Look, over there, it's Rod Serling.
Joe Carter | 3.2.09 @ 12:26AM
Ruth Don't you understand why we're a little upset?
No, actually, I don't. So let me ask once again: "What did I say about Rush that offended you so?"
ruth| 3.2.09 @ 12:28AM
Read my 12:19 post.
Kent Ramsay| 3.2.09 @ 12:29AM
This is interesting. Joe Carter uses the occasion of Paul Harvey's death to take swipes at Rush Limbaugh, without giving any particular reason. Joe is an example of the blogosphere being so in need of content that any piece of opinion can be given the spotlight. It is too bad that American Spectator, once the location of excellent conservative thought and debate, now hosts such vacuous and venomous pieces aimed not at the Liberal sources of our enormous problems, but instead at a very real and accomplished champion of conservative values. I think Joe must be an agent for the Huffington Post.
ruth| 3.2.09 @ 12:33AM
Perhaps Jeremiah, Interloper, Obama Rules and JHarpy now write for TAS. Sounds like them.
Joe Carter | 3.2.09 @ 12:36AM
Ruth Read my 12:19 post.
Sorry, I missed that one before. Honestly, I don't have anything else I can say about all this. After reading Kent's comment, though, I have to agree with you about feeling like we've entered The Twilight Zone. This "cult of Rush" is as creepy as the "cult of Obama."
Frosty| 3.2.09 @ 12:40AM
Only a flaming A-Hole would compare Rush Limbaugh to Sean Penn.
JTS| 3.2.09 @ 1:38AM
Uh hum! Excuse me. Back to Paul Harvey. It was about 1974 and my eldest sister was taking us - my other sister and me – through the East from Michigan up to Maine. My eldest was a “dang hippy” and probably still is to this day – a Liberal for sure. Anyway, we were driving through NYC at about noon and this guy came on the radio. Suddenly my sister said “Oh,oh, it’s Paul Harvey – turn him up” That’s how I got to know Mr. Harvey and I have always turned him up whenever and wherever I heard him. My sister called to tell me he died today – well, Sunday. She was pretty sad – another gem out of her life, she said (her husband died some time back). It’s pretty amazing, if you think about it. My sister the Liberal, the hippy who went to Woodstock, who went to school in Ann Arbor, loved Paul Harvey to this day. He had that kind of attraction. It’s funny, because I would hear her agree with him a lot – both her and her late husband. Maybe she isn’t so liberal after all, but I think it was the way Harvey said things. And she’s right – we have lost another gem.
ConservativeWanderer | 3.2.09 @ 8:33AM
Mr. Carter:
If you truly cannot understand why so many of us in the true conservative grassroots took exception to your gratuitous and unnecessary swipes at Mr. Limbaugh, perhaps you need to spend more time among people like us--and spending time listening, not preaching to us about how we're all involved in a cult of personality around Rush (whom, I remind you, I have not listened to for years).
It should also be cause for some deep and thorough self-reflection that, by my count, most if not all of the conservatives here are disagreeing with you; while most if not all of the lefties here are agreeing with you.
Gene| 3.2.09 @ 9:07AM
Mr. Carter,
I do not believe that a competent writer given the job of writing an obituary for one individual, especially an individual of Mr. Harvey’s stature and long list of accomplishments, would need to use so much of his ink space to take shots at another individual to fill that space. There is more than enough material available that could have been, and should have been, covered in the obituary that a competent journalist biggest task would have been selecting what information about Mr. Harvey would make the cut and what information would not. That said, I would not have been surprised to have read the obituary you wrote in one of the left wing partisan rags such as the NYT or on the NPR web site where journalistic competency seems to not be on the list of required job qualifications. From my reading of articles from those sources it seems that the only job qualification they have is the ability to find, on all occasions, an opportunity to take a shot at any and all conservatives and the values that they have. Your obituary would have seemed right at home on any one of those sights. Perhaps you would also be more at home writing for one of them where your lack of ability to write informative articles on the subject at hand but your willingness to use any opportunity to take shots at conservatives would be both appreciated and applauded.
foureightyfive| 3.2.09 @ 9:52AM
It really is sad to see Mr Harvey go. Now , all we're left with is Limbaugh's Operation Chaos 2 ( hope for a failed Obama administration), Hannity's "radical associations of the Annointed One" crap and Glenn Beck's rallying the troops for Armageddon. This is embarassing!
Basil Plumley| 3.2.09 @ 9:52AM
Perhaps Mr. Carter is also a writer for the Tom Daschle Show.
When I hear the folks use the epithet "entertainer" for Limbaugh, I think of the playbook the Left uses to marginalize folks. The first person I recall who used the term "entertainer" to describe Limbaugh was Daschle.
Limbaugh has taken alot of arrows for the Conservative cause. It is a shame when the arrows come from our side. Conservatism is very imperfect but it is still light years ahead of the alternative Left.
I doubt the Left sit around chatrooms writing, "Gee, if only we didn't have the Blacks, we could have a real movement" or "Man, why did we ever let those Hispanics join the Cause" or "Dude, those Neo-Greenies are an embarrassment; they need to disappear".
The petulance from our side is quite disturbing. Oddly, the usual suspects wallow and feast on our petulance; right Interloopy?
Seymour Kleerly| 3.2.09 @ 10:15AM
Paul Harvey was so effective that I didn't even know he was preaching Conservativism. His ideas and logic did not need to be intertwined with the current "Hate the Liberals " message. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O Rielly, Savage, Levin, etc. do not have the ability or maybe the material now to do this.
kent| 3.2.09 @ 11:01AM
Some of the painful posts here from people who harbor ill will toward Rush but love Paul Harvey and his easy genial style a couple of important things. First, Paul Harvey started his career when the majority of the population had shared values about our country, the value of the Constitution, and freedom. So he could use gentle humor to appeal to people. Well, the world is very different now and we have full bore communists running the Democrat Party and conducting an assault on our system of government. Paul Harvey would not and could not have had any effect whatsoever on the current attacks on our freedom. Rush and Mark Levin, each with different styles, work daily to try to overcome the deficiencies of our education system and teach the founding principles and why they are vital to our success. Paul Harvey never sought to do anything so bold. He was a storyteller - a very effective and good one. But he was not a political philosopher. Secondly, Paul Harvey has no effcct in turning the tide, so as nice as he was, the country lurched to the Left during his career. He would agree with this. Finally, for the Rush bashers, please think about how Rush has introduced people like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell to the general population, where they could explain economics in simple terms.
I guess the successful always come under assault - a lot of it from people who have very little to show in the way of accomplishment. I have not accomplished nearly what Rush has, and I am very grateful for what he has done for the cause of freedom. I remember when people used to attack Newt as being "divisive". Bob Michel was genial and he did not mind being in the minority. I will take Newt over Bob and I will take Rush over any number of others, like Christopher Buckley (now suffering buyers remorse after endorsing Obama), Peggy Noonan, David Frum, David Brooks.
A Happy Dittoheady,
Kent from Aurora
heritage?| 3.2.09 @ 11:51AM
WOW! So a happy dittohead is someone who thinks our economic crisis is best described in simple terms and that the Democrat party is run by communists. AM radio really is an effective propoganda tool.
Kent| 3.2.09 @ 12:14PM
Heritage:
You summed it up pretty well. Our economic situation - politicians of both parties have spent more than we have. Our current President and his party say the solution is to take everything from the productive and give it to bureaucrats, because they know best. Conservatives say let the free market work (without brainstorms like the Community Reinvestment Act) and private enterprise will bring us out of this. Of the two ideas, one is proven to work the other proven to fail. That is all pretty basic. And as for the Democrat party being led by Communists, name their favorite world leader (hint - within 90 miles of the US)\
Respectfully yours
Kent
heritage| 3.2.09 @ 12:53PM
Kent,
Let's stick to the facts, because if ever there was a time to mount an honest and constructive opposition to the Democrat party it's now. Do you know that the CRA guidelines apply to less than 25% of all sub prime loans issued and that they have average default rates? This is the kind of AM radio urban legend that sounds good, but doesn't make for a good argument. Let's face it, banks were all too happy to loan people $450,000 at a pop so they could flip house after house and max out their HELOCs in a race to the top of the housing market bubble. That was just pure greed of some borrowers and total recklessness on the part of an under regulated banking industry.
ruth| 3.2.09 @ 3:20PM
Supposedly Rush is an avid AmSpec reader. I wonder if he enjoyed Carter's hit piece on him.
kent| 3.2.09 @ 4:32PM
Heritage
Let's stick to the facts. The CRA required banks to make bad loans under the threat of government intervention in their operations. This is not urban legend it is fact. And it was opposed by Republicans five years ago with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the Democrat Party. Fact. And the subprime meltdown consisted of lots of these CRA loans. Once the CRA created the structure of the banks selling mortgages bundled to supposedly spread the risk, the environment was created where others could take part. But, of course, there is no moral or good argument for the government forcing banks to make bad loans to unqualified buyers . But that is exactly what they did. You seem to like this idea. Why don't you hang out at the HuffPo with your counterparts? As for your comment about the "unregulated banking industry" you show your total ignorance. There has never been more regulation of banking. Now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not regulated, being part of the government. And they were characterized by corruption. As you would expect of a government program.
Interloper| 3.2.09 @ 5:21PM
Elegy for One Called "A Flaming A-Hole"
Well, Joe,
I told you so.
I knew they would go
Very, very low!
____________________________
One can only wait and see what the dittoheads will do to Michael Steele. Methinks he copies the apology template I posted above by tomorrow.
Mutty| 3.2.09 @ 5:36PM
Gee, looper, I'll be waiting with baited breath to see if Steele follows your template. What would we on the Right do without your wise counsel and ministrations? You are a bigger flaming A-Hole than Carter could ever be, toad.
heritage| 3.2.09 @ 5:52PM
Kent you say, "The CRA required banks to make bad loans under the threat of government intervention in their operations." That is just plain wrong. The CRA only requires that traditional banks operating in low income areas provide mortgage services to their customers. Any potential borrower is then held to the same requirements that all banks were using at the time.
Remember, only 25% of all sub prime loans are even under CRA guidelines. They are a different from the predatory sub prime loans which hit a fevered pitch about 3 years ago, the same ones that are resetting and defaulting like crazy right now. Most of those weren't even issued by traditional banks!
CH| 3.2.09 @ 8:44PM
Heritage, you are a liar. ACORN protested in front of banks blackmailing them into making bad loans to the poor. Liberals like Frank and Dodd refused to allow banks to merge until they made bad loans to the poor. This economic melt-down is the fault of you loser liberals and your marxist social engineering. We already know the truth, and have seen the congressional videos to prove it. Liar, don't even try your BS here.