Search: Web        
powered by
Le Templar: What I Know ~

Archive for the '$700 billion bailout' Tag

Shadegg claims to fight bailout package he voted for today

October 3rd, 2008, 4:50 pm by Le Templar

I was stunned to hear a campaign advertisement from Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., this afternoon taking credit for fighting the $700 billion bailout package and standing up to President Bush on the issue. The ad doesn’t appear on his campaign Web site, but I heard it on KFYI (550AM) just after 2 p.m. today. It’s an obvious reference to Shadegg’s vote Monday against an earlier version of the bailout, which the House did reject. The radio ad’s language invoked an ongoing campaign theme as Shadegg the reformer who challenges the Washington establishment.

The ad was a complete surprise because it aired a couple of hours after Shadegg voted with a House majority to approve the latest version of the bailout and send it on for Bush to sign into law. The second half of the ad did include some thoughts similar to what’s in that news release about reforms such as increasing the federally insured amount for individual banking accounts and easing the rules on “mark-to-market,” or how banks and other lenders must value the physical assets used as collateral on loans. But the overall tone of the ad was the $700 billion bailout was bad for America and Shadegg stood by his constituents when he worked against it.

This would be a ready-made attack ad for Shadegg’s election opponent, Democrat Bob Lord. “He was against it before he was for it.” Only, Lord did the exact same thing, through his public statements, since he couldn’t vote on the measure.

Bob Lord, John Shadegg trade acccusations over bailout package

October 2nd, 2008, 3:15 pm by Le Templar

 
            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.

Bob Lord takes strong stand on bailout, after results were in

September 29th, 2008, 2:09 pm by Le Templar


     BOB LORD

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, sounded pathetic today when he blamed the defeat of President Bush’s $700 billion bailout for Wall Street on a floor speech from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But Democrats like Bob Lord aren’t looking much better when they test where the winds are blowing and then pretend they are taking a strong stand on the hottest issue of the moment.

Lord, the challenger in the Fifth Congressional District, sent out a last-minute news release claiming the bailout has been wrong since it was first proposed a week ago. But Lord’s news release was delivered, at least to my e-mail box, at 10:53 a.m. Monday as the bailout package already was going down to defeat and the stock market plunging in response.

By contrast, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has been objecting for days to the Bush administration proposal and issued his own news release rejecting the new compromise version on Sunday afternoon, more than 12 hours before the vote took place.

Lord isn’t the only Democrat in making a political calculation about whether to support a plan that Wall Street desperately wants but has the public hopping mad. Every single House member from Arizona cast their final vote against the measure today. I can see Reps. Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords making a safe play, as they have serious Republican challengers this year. But I wonder how Reps. Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva will justify voting against their own party’s leaders and with Reps. John Shadegg and Trent Franks?

ADVERTISEMENT