The Politics of the Bailout.

According to the Washington Post (via the Political Insider) Cong. John Jim Marshall is catching all sorts of heck for his vote earlier this the week in support of the $700 Billion with a “B” bailout package. There’s an opening there for Goddard, but can he capitalize? Goddard said this to a crowd in Hawkinsville:

“I fully recognize the importance to act and act quickly, but asking the American people to bail out Wall Street executives with no transparency or oversight would be reckless and would set a dangerous precedent of government intervention.

“A bi-partisan bill can be crafted using free market principles. The failed bill did not reform the government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and changes are necessary to stop these entities from securitizing unsound mortgages and exposing taxpayers to high-risk loans. Transparency and oversight of participating firms was also absent from this bill.

If I were Goddard (and maybe he’s already doing this), I’d be on this issue night and day. I’d cut an ad immediately repeating what he said in Hawkinsville and pound Marshall over the head for his vote.

On the US Senate front, Jim Martin has been attacking Saxby on the economic issue on TV and on his website. Martin said Monday he opposes the bill, but of course it’s easier to make such statements when you’re not in office and thus subject to whatever arm twisting is going on.

The bill the US Senate will consider tonight has been “sweetened” apparently in an effort to gain more Republican support. However, rumor has it earmarks were added to the bill as well.

Meanwhile Senator Saxby Chambliss has indicated he might support the bailout package. As I posted here, Chambliss listed several things he wants to see in the bill, but given the negative reaction voters have had to the bailout voting in favor is risky for Chambliss. Given that the SEC has eased the “mark to market” rule (see this post on my blog) and the growing support for an insurance based solution rather than a big check to the Treasury Secretary, voting for the bill would be a mistake in my opinion. If Chambliss were to ask me I’d tell him to oppose it.

14 comments

  1. RuralDem says:

    Jim Marshall, not John.

    Also wouldn’t “but of course it’s easier to make such statements when you’re not in office and thus subject to whatever arm twisting is going on” apply to Goddard as well or is that simply limited to Democrats running against incumbent Republicans?

  2. rural independent says:

    It’s easy for Goddard to be on the other side of the fence in opposing this bill because he wnats to get elected, but I admire Congressman Marshall for voting for this plan not knowing how it will play out during the election. I wish there were more comgressmen like Marshall who votes with his heart & not with his head. Something needs to get done up in washington because things are bleak right now. Plus the bill isn’t going to cure all of the ills of the economy, with jobs laying people off, hours being cut back, people not paying for thier bills or not being able to ford a loan ( student, auto, etc ). I am a independent conservative who always liked Jim Marshall & I plan on voting for him again in November. If it cost him his seat because he only wants to help folks who are struggling, then so be it I will vote for him in 2010 when he runs against Johnny Isakson (put your money on it, he’s going to run for the U.S. Senate regardless if he wins re-election or not). It’s time to put partisanship aside & get this thing done before it’s too late. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Jim, along with Sanford Bishop are the only congressmen here in Georgia who has the guts to vote for the bill when they were bombarded with calls saying they shouldn’t. I tip my hat to Marshall & Bishop.

  3. RuralDem,

    Take your partisan blinders off for a second.

    Goddard stated exactly why he wouldn’t vote for the bill. Martin listed a set of thing he wanted in the bill, almost all are in the bill, but he then gives a vague statement that he’s against it. That’s why I think Martin’s arm could easily be twisted.

  4. tb says:

    This dressed up bill is still loaded with BS. And the House is introducing a bill that does not include welfare to CEOs. I hope people flood the senate with phone calls yet again.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid…aptur.defazio.intv.cnn

    Please consider contacting the capitol switchboard and flood them with calls. The Senate is voting on their wonderful $700 billion plan tonight and then going on hiatus…. Contact Your Senator Today and tell them NO TO CEO WELFARE.
    Senator Isakson: 202 224 3643
    > Senator Chambliss 202 224 3521

    Now, perhaps there will be one or 2 senators that will fillibuster and then the house bill will go through the house and we can get something better that will cost us 0 dollars

  5. Bucky Plyler says:

    Taft Republican has hit the nail on the head. It seems that no one is interested in it anymore. If more candidates seeking office would pledge & then uphold the Constitution in their platforms-solutions…more people would vote for them regardless of the party.

  6. bowersville says:

    This bill is loaded up with BS. That’s what Paul Broun said about the house version. He said it was a cow patty dressed up with a marshmallow in the middle.

    Dang, I can’t wait to see how he will describe the Senate version. Maybe he’ll get all bipartisan on us with that franked mail issue and all.

    Some of you Progressive Demowits need to contribute to Bobby Saxon so he can afford to get his message out.

    BTW, how much did that Obama appreciation BBQ Saturday at the BigO HQ in Hartwell bring in for you Bobby?

  7. Bill Simon says:

    Game,

    They don’t need the Constitution. They wipe their rear-ends with $100,000 checks from Wall street lobbyists.

    AND…Hank Paulson dispenses the toilet paper personally.

Comments are closed.