Palin already making a fool of herself (on Fannie and Freddie) and ABC News takes notice.

[jefferson_dem]

A Confusing Comment on Fannie & Freddie From Gov. Sarah Palin

September 08, 2008 2:56 PM

Yesterday in Colorado Springs, Colo., Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, "The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

"Too expensive to the taxpayers?"

They're private entities.

Though they're private entities ultimately backed up by the taxpayers.

But the only way Fannie and Freddie are "too expensive to the taxpayers" is if you're talking about the bailout announced over the weekend.

Is that what she meant?

So, does "too expensive" mean that Palin opposes the bailout?

Or did she misstate how these entities function?

I asked the McCain-Palin campaign for an explanation.

Its response was to send an e-mail from domestic policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin:

“John McCain supports the steps needed to keep the financial troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from further squeezing American families, and endorses the idea that management and shareholders should not benefit from government backing," Holz-Eakin said. "While details are not yet available, the actions taken today are consistent with those objectives. Fannie and Freddie have been the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability, and remind us of the needed reforms to financial markets in general. We need to create jobs and get the economy going — and get way from the practice of sticking Main Street Americans with these bills. If elected, John McCain will continue his crusade for the right reform of the institutions. Sen. McCain will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.”

Right.

That doesn't really answer my question.

<SNIP>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-confusing-com.html

[TooRaLoo]

1. She's an IDIOT.

I hope she keeps opening her mouth.

[glitch]

2. Ah yes, the lunatic fringe intentionally confusing us with their wiley words.

Confusing is the new term for completely wrong now, is it? I love the editors that soften articles with their "confusing" headlines.

[progressoid]

3. I'd like to think this would be of concern to American voters but alas

most Americans probably don't understand it either.

Besides, a candidate's lack of intelligence didn't preclude millions from voting for Bush/Quayle or Bush/Cheney.

[MindMatter]

4. LIGHTWEIGHT !!

[Alter Ego]

5. This proves she has no grasp on basic economics.

Unfortunately, it will be drowned out in the debate over which candidate can best field dress a fucking moose.

[AzDar]

10. Exactly. She is merely parroting red-meat talking points from Rove & co. :

Tax cuts! eBay! Drill, Baby, Drill!

She has NO CLUE....

[Skidmore]

6. These people want you to lose your home.

Insert picture of McCain and Palin grinning.

Brief statement concerning what her comment means.

They have nothing to lose.

Insert pictures of their homes.

You do.

Vote Obama/Biden!

[Beaverhausen]

7. ABC better watch out or Sarah won't talk to Charlie - where's the deference?

[AspenRose]

8. Eliza Doolittle didn't get that lesson correct, it seems.

[high density]

9. Besides not answering the question...

The idea that McCain, or any Republican ticket, would implement additional regulations is a laughable idea.