The Real Plan
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 09-30-2008 - 1:25pm |
The real plan was for the Republicans to allow the bill to pass and then, immediately, hammer Obama. I have included link to the actual Republican advertisement at the bottom:
September 30, 2008
Categories: Republicans
RNC ad, was cut, sent out before package failed
The Republican National Committee's new advertisement critical of the the Wall Street "bailout" was produced and sent to television stations in key states before the package failed, officials at two stations said.
"Wall Street Squanders our money. And Washington is forced to bail them out with -- you guessed it -- our money. Can it get any worse?" asks the ad's narrator, as the words "BAILOUT WITH OUR MONEY" cross the screen. (The answer: Obama's plans would make it worse.)
The ad, however, seems to assume that it can safely attack a successful plan. And the reason may be the timing: Though it started airing this morning, the spot was released to stations yesterday morning, ad executives at stations in Michigan and Pennsylvania said.
Kae Buck of WLNS in Lansing said her station received the at at 7:55 a.m. Monday. Luanne Russell of Pittsburgh's WTAE said her station received it at 10:49 Monday morning.
The ad taps into deep resentment of the plan, but it comes at a time when the candidate it supports, John McCain, is urging its package, and asking that it not be referred to as a "bailout," but a "rescue."
Asked about the ad's relationship to the congressional legislation, the consultant heading up the RNC's expenditure, Brad Todd, responded in an email that Obama is its focus.
"This ad is about Barack Obama’s spending plan," he said. "Last Friday in the debate he struggled to name even one spending proposal he would responsibly trim in light of the economic crisis and any potential bailout plan. Senator Obama clings to his big spending approach even today and our ad campaign will focus attention on that irresponsible position.">>>
The advertisement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9j_epTmr2c
It would have been brilliant politics, except the vote didn't pan out.

Pages
That's because those republicans are conservatives.
Ahh, I see. And that makes Bush, who pushed this bill...liberal? socialist? communist?
Although, McCain wanted to reel in Freddie Mac 3 years ago, but the democrats didn't want their little playground tampered with.
3 years ago would be when Republicans had complete control of both the executive and the legislative branches of government, no?
Other republicans also warned of a crisis that could occur (and did), but the democrats were outraged and called the investigation of Frank Raines a "political lynching". Of course, they were wrong.
And all of this is a really nice dodge of the question-why did House Republicans vote against not only their president but also their candidate for president?
Ohh that's right-they're "conservative". Which makes Bush and McCain...what exactly? Besides hung out to dry by their own party?
Here's a disgraceful video of the democrats saying nothing is wrong with Fannie & Freddie, specifically Maxine Waters showing how absolutely clueless she is.
Sorry, I'm on dial up. And I've seen enough right wing duck, weave and
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
Hey Dab
The Dems could have passed the bailout bill, without the Republicans.
The Dems could have passed the bailout bill, without the Republicans.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
Ah, I see. You're sticking your head in the sand on this one. Don't worry about it.
You know, dude, from what I've seen of your posts it absolutelty does not surprise me to see an attempt to change the subject labeled as sticking one's head in the sand.
Do I really have to explain that you can still be a republican if you are less conservative that other republicans?
Well riddle me this. Is hanging both of your party leaders out to dry a family value or a traditional value that made this country great?
I already addressed this in an earlier post.
Check. Attempted to change the subject.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
Before I read further, I just want to commend you sopal, for pointing out the obvious.
Two thumbs up. :)
>>McCain wanted to reel in Freddie Mac 3 years ago<<
This whole McCain was in favor of regulation thing, is starting to irk me. McCain signed onto legislation that was proposed by such "esteemed" Senators as Sununu-NH and E-Dole, a year after it was proposed. But it was a FAILED attempt anyway.
The fact that McCain agreed to put his name on a failed bill a year after it was introduced, is hardly praise worthy and hardly a statement that he understood the situation. Any attempt to use this so called "fact" convinces me further that the whole Republican campaign is built on smoke and mirrors.
Although I respected McCain early in the game, this type of nonsense is diminishing it rapidly.
The over all point is that he was in favor of tightening up the regulations on a very loosely regulated Freddie & Fannie. He's no genius for figuring out that this could lead to big trouble.
On the other hand, the democrats fought tooth and nail to keep the regs the way they were. It was called a "political lynching" by the democrats when the investigation
That's the part I'm not buying. McCain is opposed to regulation.
Sure he allowed his name to be put on a regulation bill, one time, in 2005 or 2006. But frankly, so what? If that's all he's got to put out there, it hardly shows any more insight than any other senator.
Hypothetically, let's assume Rush Limbaugh is...ah..., never mind,
In your opinion, what was the driving force behind the Democrats wanting Fannie and Freddie "unregulated"? What liberal principle explains it? Generally speaking, Democrats are in favor of regulation. Why do you think they singled out Fannie and Freddie to be unregulated?
Pages