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
Exactly why I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 - and would have done so even had I lived in a state where it would ultimately have mattered, like Ohio or Florida: because, on too many issues like this one (sort of boring and hard-to-understand, meaning they get almost NO coverage in the media, who prefer things like Terry Schiavo), there really WASN'T a lot of difference between the deregulation-crazed corporate shills in the Republican party and the "please don't hurt us, just give us a little of that sweet, sweet gravy and we'll do what you want" Democrats.
I see the usual (commendable) suspects in the "NO" category on the Democratic side: Boxer, Wellstone, Mikulski, Feingold, Harkin...a few others. These are the true progressives, people - the ones who GENUINELY have the people's interests at heart, and who could see the train-wreck coming a mile away, and were not either deceived by the bullcrap nor bought by the promises of lucre for themselves or their campaigns or their districts. They are the ones to emulate, and to vote more of into office.
And, thanks in large part to Ralph Nader's 90,000 votes in Florida in 2000 (most of which would assuredly have gone to Gore, had Nader either not run or thrown his support that way), we've had eight years of Bush. You might be tempted to say "thanks a lot, what a disaster" to Nader and people like me who voted for him....but before you do it, think about how much more invigorated the Democratic party is NOW, after having to face the atrocity of the Bush Presidency and all its frauds and felonies and bully-boy tactics. Think about how many OTHER names might be up there alongside Boxer and Feingold and Wellstone in the "nay" category this time around. Think about that for a minute before you consign Ralph Nader to the dustbin of "selfish spoilers."
(note: don't mean "you" personally, I meant in general, LOL)
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?
I would say the most important was votes. They wanted to be able to tell their voters that they were responsible for getting them mortgages, as unqualified as they were. That they made it possible for them to own a home. Of course, they would never say that now.
It was also a nice, cozzie place for Clintonistas to get an appointment to, and make millions of dollars.
Also, lots of contributions to democrats, namely Dodd and Obama.
As far as regulation, I think the democrats had it regulated they way they wanted it regulated and didn't want
This is what I think. The Democrats who generally are in favor of regulation didn't want it "unregulated", they wanted it regulated just like everything else. There was nothing about Fannie or Freddie Mac that singled them out to be any different. So the Dems problem was the the GoOPers wanted them to remain unregulated and that no compromise was ever reached. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think it's fair to say the two parties remained true to their colors.
As for the failed legislation, it's seems obvious that the Sununu/McCain bill didn't have enough regulation in it to satisfy the Dems. It doesn't say anything about McCain's ability to foresee the current situation better than anyone else.
As always, nice putting things into perspective.
The "usual suspects" certainly weren't many.
Pages