JOHN SHADEGG                                           BOB LORD

The candidates for the 3rd Congressional District have been firing back and forth this week over the $700 billion bailout package, in part because of this blog.

The campaign of Republican incumbent John Shadegg began the tussle with a news release Wednesday referring to my post Monday about Lord, the Democratic challenger, sending out a strong statement opposing the bailout package as the House vote already was going against it. Shadegg’s campaign picked up on the fact that Lord spoke out only after the bill already was doomed.

“What courage it must have taken for Bob Lord to decide he was against the bailout bill after the vote was taken,” Shadegg campaign manager Sean Noble said. ”I can see him now:  With C-SPAN on the TV, a press release supporting the bill in one hand, another press release opposing the bill in the other, Bob courageously decided to issue the release opposing the bill after the vote. I can’t imagine the pressure he was feeling.”

Noble’s quote is a somewhat subtle reference to this story from the Associated Press on Monday, which implied Arizona Democrats Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords were prepared to vote either way, depending on whether their votes would help House leaders push the measure to passage (In the end, they both voted no).

Lord shot back today with a news release referring to a comment by him published Sept. 23  in the Phoenix Business Journal raising questions about a lack of oversight in the Bush administration’s original proposal.

“When you vote with President Bush’s House leadership 98 percent of the time, maybe you even pick up Bush’s bad habits, like not reading the newspaper,” said Andrew Eldredge-Martin, Lord’s campaign manager. “The American economy cannot afford more of the same failed Bush economic policies that got us into this financial crisis, and Arizona cannot afford John Shadegg’s blind support of Bush’s economic agenda. Arizona deserves better.”

I hadn’t seen Lord’s original quote, but he didn’t appear to be opposing the $700 billion bailout as a concept. His comment at the time focuses solely on who would be watching how the Treasury secretary uses the money. That’s reinforced by Lord’s new willingness to support the bailout in the latest version approved by the Senate Wednesday night.

“It’s clear we need to take action, I think the plan now before the House has improved and will provide needed economic stimulus,” Lord said in a second news release today. “However, our job is not done yet.  We have to be vigilant with oversight  of the Treasury and serious about accountability on Wall Street. We have to keep people in their homes. Most of all we need to end the disastrous Bush economic policies that got us here in the first place.”

Of course, Shadegg could wind up supporting the package as well, considering how far the stock market droppped Monday when the House rejected the earlier version. Principled public opposition appears to be eroding as people realize what happens on Wall Street affects the pension funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans.

Posted in: Congress • Election issues • Uncategorized • $700 billion bailout • Bob Lord • Gabrielle Giffords • Harry Mitchell • John Shadegg |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.