Your point is lost on me only because your initial message says IF Rupert prints it and then links a WSJ article. So is Rupert now going to pull that story back and not talk about lobbyists' role in the bailout? Or that there might be foreign lobbyists? Genie's out of the bottle, so if that article wasn't supposed to be published it's way late now. BTW, you link to an article that requires a subscription. Unless you care to share yours, I'm seeing only the top 3 paragraphs of the Journal story.Larry Andrews wrote:Bob - it should be patently obvious that Rupert's minions excercise editorial control over the content in their publications to ensure that all is 'on message'. That article is decidedly 'off message' WRT to 'the economy is fundamentally sound' talking point. Now...
I'm guessing that this is acceptable to everyone?The New York Times reports this evening that "foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the [Wall Street bailout] plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks."
The Times further reports that two of the biggest foreign banks in need of such relief are Barclays and UBS. In fact, my understanding is that UBS is more on the line here than any other foreign bank.
John McCain's top economics advisor, who is widely believed to be his choice for Treasury Secretary, should he win in November, is former Sen. Phil Gramm.
Gramm is both vice chairman of UBS's US division and a lobbyist for UBS.
If UBS successfully lobbied over the weekend to get in on the bailout, what was Gramm's role in the lobbying?
If anyone believed McCain's statement last week that the economy is "fundamentally sound," I feel very sorry for them. That doesn't jibe with remarks made by the current administration Friday, nor reality. Now that's a real switch; reality and the White House "reality" are aligned for the first time in, well, ever.
