Zimmer Doesn't Know ... Symbols

by: huntsu

Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EDT

Dick Zimmer tried to jack up Frank Lautenberg over a 1992 law that changed the rules for public-private hybrid mortgage holder Fannie Mae that Zimmer opposed and Lautenberg backed.

Zimmer stood in front of a foreclosed home in Linden railing against Lautenberg for it, but made one small mistake:

Zimmer selected the house where he held today's press conference from Fannie Mae's web site, and did not know the story of how it came to be in possession of Frannie Mae.

If you're gonna blame your opponent for something, you have to know what that something is. Not knowing why the house was foreclosed on kind of blunts the whole story.

huntsu :: Zimmer Doesn't Know ... Symbols

Tags: Dick Zimmer, Frank Lautenberg, Fannie Mae, mortgage crisis, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Zimmer Doesn't Know ... Symbols | 2 comments

if you would have read the next paragraph.... (0.00 / 0)

looks like Zimmer chose the right house after all:

"Paige Cook, a neighbor who watched the small press conference, said that it belonged to a security guard whose wife had recently passed away. When his mortgage payment jumped $1,000 per month, he couldn't afford it, and moved in with family in North Carolina before the home was foreclosed."

by: maxidoodler @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:54:19 AM UTC

ummmm, that's not the point (4.00 / 1)

The point is that Zimmer didn't know the story, not whether there is a story. He held a press conference slamming Lautenberg for causing this man to lose his house, then couldn't connect the dots. That makes this a grandstanding play with no substance behind it.

Further, the neighbor's story doesn't really tell us anything. The only information we get is that the owner had an adjustable rate mortgage that jumped on him, and after his wife died he could no longer afford it. The over-availability of adjustable rate mortgages is not related at all to the bill in 1992 Zimmer is talking about.

We don't even know why they couldn't afford it. Maybe they had planned for the increased payments based on two incomes and were able to afford them, and but after his wife died the loss of the second income made it unaffordable. That situation has no bearing on the 1992 law, either.

We don't know the situation, and Zimmer knew even less. That's what this post was about -- crappy campaigning.

As an end note that doesn't have any actual bearing on this case, the last supposition makes me want to remind folks to get life insurance if anyone is reliant on your income and support. It sucks to think about but it's really important.

by: huntsu @ Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:17:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]