Skip to content

Debating points

Speaking of Tuesday’s Congressional debate (see previous post): I know that the only way Republicans can win is by insulting the intelligence of the voters. It often works, and given their policies, they have no alternative. But isn’t there a limit? On more than one occasion during Tuesday’s debate, Sullivan lambasted Joe because, despite the fact that Joe favored something during the 2006 election (e.g., ending the war) the problem still persisted. Is there anyone out there really stupid enough to believe that one freshman Congressman can be held responsible for the fact that his entire agenda has not been accomplished in two years? Of course, for those of us who follow these things the charge is particularly infuriating coming from a Republican, since it has been Republican intransigence and obstructionism that has made it nearly impossible for the Democrats to achieve much in this Congress.

Sullivan is not going to Congress, so it’s an academic question. But I would still like someone to ask him at the next debate: If you are elected will you pledge to serve only one term if Congress has not adopted each and every one of your policy positions in the next two years?

Beware the “L” word

There is a reason any politician should be a little gun shy about calling his opponent a liar. It’s almost an unwritten rule that you stay away from the “L” word (not “liberal”, this time). It’s a charge that’s awful hard to walk back, and if you can’t back it up you can make yourself look awful bad. That’s why even the most hardened stick to euphemisms. Presumably Sean Sullivan has now learned that lesson the hard way:

Sean Sullivan, the Republican nominee in the 2nd District, charged in Tuesday’s debate that Courtney had never visited the Waterford power plant – prompting Courtney to reply “That’s not true” – and followed that claim up Wednesday morning with a press release saying the Democratic incumbent had been “caught lying” on the subject.

Dan Weekley, the managing director for northeast government affairs at Millstone, said he thought Courtney had visited shortly after winning the election in 2006. Asked if that included visits to the plant itself, Weekley said, “I absolutely remember that.”

”Both Sean Sullivan and Joe Courtney have been here, and Joe Courtney has truly reached out to us on a number of occasions on items that matter to us,” said Pete Hyde, a spokesman for the power station. Such visits by politicians to one of the region’s major business concerns are routine, he said.

Tony Sheridan, president of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, said he had arranged a visit by Courtney when he worked at Millstone around 2002, the year of Courtney’s first, unsuccessful run for the 2nd District seat in Congress.

”I set up the appointment for him and toured with him personally when I was working there,” Sheridan said.

Faced with fairly massive evidence, Sullivan opted to stick to his guns, which only makes the situation worse, especially because he insisted on relying on an unnamed source:

In a phone interview, Sullivan stood by his remarks, saying he had been told during his own tour of the grounds that Courtney had never visited. Neither Sullivan nor a campaign spokesman would say who told them Courtney had not been to the plant.

(The Sullivan campaign repeated the assertion in a press release Wednesday evening, citing unnamed “sources at Dominion.”)

If Sullivan were actually in a race he had a chance of winning this could have really hurt him. The subject will probably be dropped only because, as his campaign spokesman has said, the race is a “lost cause”.

If you assert something that is not true, but believe it to be true, you are not lying. But if you continue to assert it in the face of massive evidence that it is untrue, that’s another thing. I won’t say what it is. I’ll leave that to the reader to decide.

Joe Courtney visits Groton

Joe Courtney dropped by Groton headquarters to visit the troops a short while ago. Joe is that rare person-a politician who is also a genuinely nice guy.

McCain’s mortgage plan

Last night, John McCain pulled something that has now become a bit of a debate trademark with him: announce in vague terms a solution to a major problem. Last time it was a spending freeze, announced and forgotten until last night when he repeated it again. But he added something last night, a proposal that the government buy up mortgages as a way of aiding homeowners. Of course, there was no way for Obama to respond; he had no idea what McCain was talking about. I was watching at headquarters and I remember blurting out that he had never said that before.

Per usual, the devil is in the details, and the details, which a McCain lackey dribbled out this morning, aren’t pretty. What might make sense is to have some sort of program to allow the homeowners to reduce the principal of their loan to market value. What doesn’t make sense is to have the government buy up the mortgages, thereby giving the banks who got us into this mess a bonanza. Of the two foregoing possibilities, guess which one McCain chose? Brad Delong explains:

The McCain plan is:

Take $300 billion.
Pay double current market value to banks that have troubled mortgages on their books, thus:
Give a present of $100 billion to the bankers who made the loans.

Acquire and regularize the mortgages of only two-thirds as many homeowners as could have been accomplished if the $300 billion were invested wisely.

There’s a big difference here: Democrats want to prevent depression and support the financial markets by investing taxpayer money in banks with troubled assets. Republicans want to give taxpayers money away to the shareholders and managers of banks with troubled assets.

Another minor point that I noticed last night. McCain said we have to keep housing prices up. Housing prices are artificially high. It makes no sense to try to sustain an artificial situation.

Who could have known that the SEC would roll over for Wall Street

Just finished watching Joe Courtney and waiting for Obama.

Just time to note this article (Impartiality of S.E.C. Is Questioned). The article relates the story of an SEC investigator who was fired for being too aggressive in an investigation he was conducting. The inspector general has concluded, per usual, that there was misconduct involved in his firing. What struck me was this:

In a statement Monday, the chairman of the Senate finance committee at the time, Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who held hearings on the matter, said: “Gary Aguirre told it like it was and lost his job. Today we’re all paying the price for an S.E.C. culture of deference to Wall Street.”

When Bush nominated Chris Cox to head the SEC there was no secret about where Cox would take the agency. The Senate voted to put him there. How surprising can it be that there is a culture of deference to Wall Street. What did they expect?

The Keating Story

Obama is doing what Kerry and Gore never did. Hitting back. He was ready for the attacks and now that McCain has started spreading lies, Obama is spreading truth. What’s great about this is that it resonate so well with what’s going on right now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY[/youtube]

In yet another sign of his total psychological meltdown (not to mention the disappearance of the last shred of honor, if he ever had any) McCain is now claiming that the Keating Five scandal was a partisan witch hunt, despite the fact that the other four were Democrats and he himself has said over and over again that did, in fact, acknowledge making mistakes on Keating. It’s obvious Obama has had this tape in the can for a while, holding it back for when the smears came. In the wink of any eye they had a whole website up about the scandal.

Brush up your Shakespeare

Great bit on Colbert:

Stephen knows his Shakespeare.

Breathtaking

According to the New York Times (Lehman Managers Portrayed as Irresponsible) Lehman executives were looting the company just days before it went belly up:

One Lehman document among thousands reviewed by the House committee showed that four days before the bank filed for bankruptcy protection, Lehman’s compensation committee was asked to grant $20 million in “special payments” for three executives who were leaving, Mr. Waxman said. An e-mail exchange recommending a delay in bonus payments was apparently brushed aside.

Another document showed that executives were warned in a January 2008 meeting that the company was facing liquidity problems. Yet the firm moved forward with capital outlays, including $5 billion in bonuses, $4 billion in shares and $750,000 in dividend payments between 2007 and the firm’s bankruptcy filing on Sept. 15.

I am just a country lawyer, and I stopped doing bankruptcies when the law was “reformed”, but I think I know a preference (and an insider preference at that) when I see one. It is to be hoped that the trustee, whoever he or she may be, will be contacting these folks post-haste to ask for that money back.

Shocking news

We’re going to miss the big fella.

A bit more on the debate

Thanks to a reader, who pointed me to this from Rachel Maddow:

And, for anyone who hasn’t seen it, check out the SNL sketch from last night. You can view it here. For reasons I can’t fathom, the embed code doesn’t seem to work on my site.