Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Halter comes out swinging - SLAMS (!!) Lincoln for bailout vote (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Too bad TARP was the right thing to do (18+ / 0-)

    Everything else the ad cites is right on - but in the case of TARP, it's a shame to see a Dem Senator campaign on a policy without which we'd be much more screwed than we are.

    I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

    by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 11:48:18 AM PDT

    •  yeah really (6+ / 0-)

      I have no love for Senator Lincoln, but if you're going to attack someone over voting for TARP, you better have an answer for what you would have done instead.

      •  It's a cheap and easy attack (4+ / 0-)

        And frankly, Halter would probably have voted for it if confronted with the same scenario.  

        As I said above, it doesn't mean I don't support Halter in this race, but I still find this attack pretty lame.  

        What tends to happen when DKos backs a netroots candidate is so many refuse to hear criticism of their chosen candidates.  It reminds me when Ned Lamont ran against Lieberman and put Markos in an ad.   I remember criticizing it and saying, "who the hell knows or cares who Markos is?  This ad is a waste of money."

        Man did I get hammered for that. Good to see there are others who feel as I do about this one.

        I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

        by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 11:54:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let's assume you are correct (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink, condorcet

          for the sake of argument (because I disagree with you on the substance.  The banks should have been allowed to live/die by the swords of their own making)...

          But let's say you are right and this is a "cheap" attack bereft of seriousness.

          Thousands of progressives have given Halter money to win his primary campaign.  If the campaign has reason to believe that Lincoln is vulnerable on this vote, should they not attack her for it?

          What I mean is that a lot of people have trusted them with dollars that are pretty hard to come by these days.  They want him to be the Democratic candidate.  Is he supposed to ignore the reality of Arkansas politics and somehow rise above politics?  Even if it means all that donor money will have been lost?

          I don't think that's the way the game is played.  You fight to win.

          StarkReports.com: Unscripted, unvarnished and unedited

          by Mike Stark on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:03:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Win the battle, lose the war? (0+ / 0-)

            Win at all costs - even if you have to reinforce GOP themes to do it?  That's not what I gave him money for (and yes, I gave him money and still want him to win).

            I don't want him to win his election by convincing more people that Obama and most Dems haven't done the right thing by preventing our financial system from collapsing.  

            The word bailout is bullshit to begin with - it's inaccurate in the extreme.  Almost all money has been repaid (in some cases with profit).

            It's teabagger framing, and I don't want to see a Dem reinforce that frame.

            I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

            by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:06:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not true that "almost all" money is repaid (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lgcap

              See ProPublica's summary.

              The AIG money isn't paid back.

              Citi's money isn't paid back.

              Fannie and Freddie aren't paid back.

              And while the bailout might have helped states like Michigan, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, New York, and California, the whole thing DIDN'T help Arkansas.

              And Bill Halter is running for Senate from Arkansas, not any of the other states.

              Remind me where you're from again?  (Not trying to get personal in order to attack, just trying to remember where you're coming from to understand you better.)

              "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

              by Benintn on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:16:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I answered this above (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aexia

                If you think Arkansas would have benefited from a collapsing financial system, that's great.  

                States have nothing to do with it, our system is far too entwined.  

                I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

                by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:21:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  A couple reasons: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lgcap

            I like the video, by the way.

            But...

            1.  We should explain the case clearly why TARP was necessary, instead of playing off frustrations and fears.
            1.  It helps the Democratic Party brand to be able to say, "Government can do big things and intervene in crisis situations, and we can actually make money off of it."

            I think you and I are in agreement that the real problem wasn't so much TARP as it was the Fed's buyouts and secret deals...  Attacking TARP (a loan program) is a little unfair, when the real issue is irresponsible banks.

            What I DO like about the video is that it pulls together the whole narrative - that Blanche Lincoln's support of globalization and deregulation helped create the mess we're in now.  I think that fuels the "anti-incumbent" mood that has already claimed Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd as a victim.

            Blanche Lincoln ALREADY IS unelectable - all you're doing is holding up the mirror so that primary voters can see that fact.

            Bill Halter has the advantage of being outside of Washington and representing the state's values and interests.  That is what a Senator is supposed to do.  And Bill Halter gets to be the "loyal opposition".

            It's an uphill climb but that's the right path to victory.

            Can Bill Halter make clear what was wrong with TARP and what the bailout vote means in context?

            "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

            by Benintn on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:13:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Many great points (0+ / 0-)

              But again - you don't need TARP to hit Lincoln for being pro-Wall Street.  Would have been pretty easy to craft this narrative without it.

              I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

              by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:22:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It was one of the right things to do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton, blueoasis

      but to the extent that it hasn't solved the problem - a problem created by Blanche Lincoln's vote in the first place - it's not particularly popular.

      And it hasn't fixed the jobs problem.  That's the message here - Lincoln supports businesses and banks but doesn't support working Arkansans.  Bill Halter isn't opposed to business, but he wants to make sure that jobs are created (something Lincoln hasn't really addressed except through union-busting and plans that make a living wage impossible).

      The key is Halter's ability to walk the line between being pro-labor and being pro-job creation (which will require buy-in from corporations).  Halter can win the "base" but can he win the general election?

      If we only succeed in destroying Lincoln we will have done the wrong thing.  6 years of a GOP Senator won't help Arkansas and it won't help the Democrats.

      "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

      by Benintn on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 11:54:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the message, but that doesn't excuse (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KiB

        the substance being wrong when it comes to TARP.  Nor does it excuse using the cheap "bailout" frame when almost all the money has been paid back.

        I get what he's trying to do.  And I like Halter.  But I'm allowed to call bullshit when I see it.  

        I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

        by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 11:56:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dansac, Alice Olson, KiB

          This will help move votes into his column, but like all the bailout drumbeating, it comes at a high cost. I can't use this analogy enough: the public is blaming the chemo when it should be blaming the cancer.

        •  Do you think TARP was good for Arkansas? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgcap

          Because as far as I can tell, there were a whole lot of "bottom feeders" who were ready and willing to buy out toxic assets ... but not at full price.  Arkansans felt frustrated that their fiscal discipline and restraint wasn't rewarded, and that New York/California/Florida got bailed out while they paid the bill.

          I'm not saying it's fair.  I'm not saying you're wrong.

          I'm just saying that's what Arkansas voters are thinking.  Especially in rural districts.

          "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

          by Benintn on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:08:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not what TARP did (0+ / 0-)

            First, it wasn't a bailout - as you say it was.  Most of the money has been paid back.  In many cases with a profit.  

            TARP wasn't about removing toxic assets from the banks - that's what PPIP was about (and fair enough to debate that).  TARP was about giving banks enough capital urgently so they didn't collapse, period.  

            So yes, I absolutely think it was good for Arkansas.   I don't see how Arkansas would have benefited from a collapsed financial system.

            TARP is not a bailout for NY/CA/FL - Bank of America was in North Carolina (with branches everywhere).   Why did you not include that?

            To recap - TARP was not about removing toxic assets from the books, and was never meant to be.   Nor was it a bailout.

            I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

            by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:19:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  P.S. I realize the irony (0+ / 0-)

              that TARP is called the Toxic Asset Removal Plan - but in reality it never was.  It was about giving banks capital so they don't collapse - anyone who thought it was anything else was fooling themselves.  That's why other plans like PPIP came-out after TARP to try to deal (with mixed results) with the toxic asset issue

              I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

              by dansac on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:24:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site