NRCC rolls out ad against Marshall

They’re hitting him his support of TARP, which he said was willing to lose his seat over. In last night’s debate with Austin Scott, Marshall said TARP avoided a second Great Depression.

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released figures for September showing unemployment at 9.6% (the broader measure jumped to 17.1%). September was 14th straight month that the unemployment rate has been over 9.5%. That’s the longest consecutive streak since…the Great Depression.

Here is the ad:

24 comments

  1. Maybe you Republicans should decide whether you want to be the party of big business or not. I thought last week Marshall was an anti business Pelosi loyalist. This week it’s that he’s too in bed with business – the same folks that hate Pelosi.

    I’m confused.

    • Steve says:

      No kidding. The Chamber of Commerce started running ads on Marshall’s behalf, and the rhetoric against him turned on a dime. This is purely “what letter is beside his name?” kind of stuff.

      I’m not *happy* about TARP, but it probably was necessary to prevent a greater harm… and despite all the sound and fury, the costs have been widely overblown. Taxpayers wound up recovering over 90% of the funds that went into it. Moreover, TARP was ironically the most bipartisan thing we’ve done since 9/11. To me it is the height of “WTF?!?” to take a bill proposed by the Bush administration, and supported by the GOP Presidential nominee, and two years later pretend that it was a Democrat thing.

      As for this post… I would expect this sort of zinger from “lukethedrifter”, or some other one-note vuvuzela like that. But Pye is a pretty serious researcher and policy guy. I’m sure he understands the difference between GDP and the underemployment rate, how they relate to defining recessions, and which one is a trailing indicator for the other.

      • Not to minimize the pain that a lot of people are feeling right now during this downturn, I’m pretty sure the Great Depression was nothing like this. This may be the 14th straight month the unemployment rate is above 9.5% but if you add 0.5% to that it’s not the 14th straight month it’s been over 10%. And if you look at the timeline of the great depression you have 10 straight years where the unemployment rate was above 14% the entire time.

        This is certainly a “great” depression for people that were previously employed in the housing and construction industry and I can see how someone in that class would think that a program like TARP didn’t benefit them and compared to something like a national public works project building roads or retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency they are correct…which leads you to the next question – which party is more likely ultimately to propose that and which party is more likely to “fix” the economy by passing huge tax cuts for the same bankers that were bailed out by TARP?

        • Let’s be clear. The party most likely to “target” tax cuts is the Democrat Party. The party with a history of broad tax cuts is the Republican Party. As Thurber says, “You could look it up.”

          Saving the economy by having the federal government spend more money while it’s this far in debt is like saving a drowning man by pouring water down his throat.

  2. Junius says:

    This kind of inanity is what I find most depressing about the current GOP. Yes, I understand this is “politics as usual” but come on! TARP was the maddingly necessary construct of a Republican administration and was supported by every serious national leader. Do I reallly want to vote for a guy who would have supported the failure of the national commercial banking system? I have no doubt this stuff will work in the midterms but it doesn’t instill much confidence going forward.

  3. polisavvy says:

    I am glad that some of you actually posted about the U.S. Chamber’s ad on behalf of Marshall. I am amazed at the hypocrisy of Obama. He yammers on and on against the U.S. Chamber running ads on behalf of Republicans. Is he unaware that the U.S. Chamber is running ads on behalf of Marshall? Perhaps someone should enlighten him. He can’t have it both ways. It can’t be okay for the Democrats and not okay for the Republicans. Just my two cents worth.

    • Steve says:

      Oh please. If the Log Cabin Republicans were to endorse some GOP congressman in New England, does that mean that a Republican President would be “having it both ways” by opposing gay marriage?

      Marshall is distancing himself from the President and national party leadership. In a year of Tea Party Republicans running “against” the GOP establishment, I’m confused as to how anyone could sincerely be confused by such a thing.

      • polisavvy says:

        Marshall can distance himself all he wants; however, it doesn’t seem to be resonating with your average voter in the 8th. And, you completely missed my point. Obama is criticizing the Chamber for running GOP ads because “we don’t know if foreign money is behind it”; but, on the flip side, it’s okay that the Chamber is running for Democrats. You don’t see even the slightest bit of hypocrisy? Is the Chamber only using the “foreign money” (which there is no proof) for Republican ads, but U.S. money for Democrat ads? That was my point.

        • Steve says:

          it doesn’t seem to be resonating with your average voter in the 8th

          No comment.

          And, you completely missed my point. Obama is criticizing the Chamber for running GOP ads because “we don’t know if foreign money is behind it”; but, on the flip side, it’s okay that the Chamber is running for Democrats.

          I understood your point, and the Log Cabin analogy was a direct response to your point.

          My point is that you (and Doug below) start with a flawed premise… that all members of a political party you don’t like must march in hive-mind unison, by virtue of the fact that they are members of a political party you don’t like.

          Tea party activists don’t sing from the same hymnal as the GOP establishment… and that’s perfectly understandable. Yet the President and a Congressman being at odds on the Chamber of Commerce is not? I know it’s shocking to consider, but people outside your own party are not strawmen… and actually do have the same kind of difference among their ranks that you and yours have.

          • polisavvy says:

            Regarding your “no comment” — have you been keeping up with the various polls that have come out lately? They are showing that the voters are paying attention and that they are not pleased with Obama, particularly in a district as conservative as the 8th. This election is more a referendum on Obama than Marshall; however, Marshall’s name is on the ballot.

            I don’t believe in a “march in hive-mind unison” so don’t even go there with me. I don’t have a problem with Democrats. As a matter of fact, I voted for one just two weeks ago (for Lt. Gov.). I vote for the person, not the party. Yes, I’ll probably have to turn in my GOP membership, but that’s just the way I roll. As far as the whole tea party thing, well this is where I’ll simply say, “no comment.”

            FYI, you still missed the point. I don’t have a problem with the President being “ad odds” with the Chamber. I do have a problem with him saying they are lower than whale poop since they are putting out ads in support of Republicans, but acting like it’s cool that they are putting out ads in support of Democrats. That’s total hypocrisy. That’s my point. Why can’t you understand this simple thing?

            • Steve says:

              The precise point of disagreement seems to be the “acting like it’s cool that they are putting out ads in support of Democrats”. Can you explain what exactly you mean by that?

              As far as I know, there have been no statements from Obama, Biden, etc voicing approval of the Marshall ads. Yeah, that would be pretty hypocritical it it were the case. But it isn’t.

              Does “acting like its cool” mean that you seriously expect the President to go on national television and condemn Marshall by name? That would be a pretty disingenuous expectation, for about a dozen reasons. Unless you have something stronger than the “silence equals glowing approval” theory, then I don’t see how you logically get from A to B with a strong partisan push.

              • polisavvy says:

                I absolutely did not mean that I expected Obama to call Marshall out by name. He can’t afford to call any democrats out by name not with this particular political climate. I simply meant that it is hypocritical for him to condemn the Chamber for supporting republicans when they are also supporting democrats (Marshall is not the only one in the country they are running ads for). He has to know or should be informed that some democrats are receiving the same assistance from the Chamber. It is also hypocritical for him to say they are receiving foreign money when, as late as last night, there had been no proof supporting the allegation. Kind of like alleging Rove’s group is obtaining illegal funds — no proof for that either. Or, jumping before looking like the whole Cambridge police mess and the great ‘Beer Summit.’ I’m merely pointing out that hypocrisy seems to be acceptable. I just happen to disagree.

                I guess since you and I obviously see things differently that perhaps we should agree to disagree. You have your opinion and I have mine. I have to admit that you are much nicer than some who happen to disagree with me and I appreciate that.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Steve,

        Having it both ways would not be opposing gay marriage but opposing the Log Cabin Republicans. The hypocrisy deals with dealing with an organization, not an issue.

        It’s about the US Chamber of Commerce, and V.P. Biden and the President alleging that they have taken foreign money to give to candidates. They can’t say US COC bad when giving money to GOP candidates and say US COC good when giving to Dems.

        • Junius says:

          Maybe I missed something but where did Biden and Obama say “US COC good when giving to Dems”? The US COS, which I fully support, is no friend of the administration. On occasion, Marshall has been no friend of the the administration either. I fail to see hypocrisy there.

        • Steve says:

          That might hold water if you had either the President or the VP actually saying “US COC good when giving to Dems”.

          I’ll hold my breath while you go find a link.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            I admit when I am called on something. Technically they haven’t said US COC good, but they are silent on the issue of supporting Marshal. To have credibility, they should say “….and we don’t like it even when the US COC supports our guys.”

            • Steve says:

              Fair enough, Doug… I think we’re both hearing what the other is saying. However, I still think this is largely hyperbole and spin. What it is you’re calling for is not something a Republican President would do in the last month of a campaign either.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I could see President Bush condemning the SEIU and giving that disclaimer if the SEIU were backing a GOP Congressman. However, that’s conjecture and we are dealing with reality with the COC.

            • polisavvy says:

              Agreed. I stand corrected, too; however, your simple statement that should be said could make things more palatable and could put Obama in a position to receive less criticism for condemning the Chamber.

Comments are closed.