Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > September > 29
Monday, September 29, 2008
‘Oh, my God.’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
One of the more dramatic moments of a stunning Monday in Washington occurred over the radio.
U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Macon) had just cast his vote in favor of the $700 billion Bush administration proposal to rescue Washington.
Marshall is in a Republican-leaning district, with well-funded opposition. President Bush has weighed in against him.
The day before, Sunday, at a caucus of Georgia Democrats, Marshall was adamant that he and other Democrats should support the measure. “I am willing to give up my seat over this,” he told his colleagues. It was that important, he thought, to the national economy and national security.
The quote leaked, and Marshall was a sought-after property in the hours before the House vote. The Insider talked to him at 1 p.m. Closer to 2 p.m., Marshall was on the phone with National Public Radio.
“That’s an accurate quote. I was trying to persuade my colleagues to support this bill,” Marshall told his radio interviewer.
“I don’t want to help out one whit the irresponsible people who have dragged us into this,” the congressman said. Still, Marshall called this the most important vote of his career.
“That’s truly what’s at stake here,” Marshall said.
At that point, his interview gave him the news: “This bill has just gone down to defeat in the House, and the Dow has gone down 700 points,” she said.
“Oh, my God,” Marshall said. And there was a long, long pause.
“Well,” he continued. “We voted to adjourn, subject to the chair, and I trust the speaker will be calling us back in session to see how this can be salvaged.
“I just hope that the damage that was predicted to be done if we weren’t able to pass something, does not occur. That the experts were wrong, and that we don’t see the kind of terrible problems the expert said we would see if we couldn’t pass something.”
Thus the interview ended.
Photo credit: Rick McKay/Cox Washington Bureau
• Full election coverage: News, photos and more
Permalink | Comments (28) | Post your comment |
Break out the salt shaker: Dems say Martin is within 3 points of Chambliss
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
While the rest of the world was fixed on the bailout — er, rescue — vote, the campaign of Jim Martin released a poll that showed the Democrat within three points of Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss.
The official tally was Chambliss at 37 percent, Martin at 34 percent. Libertarian Allen Buckley was at 3 percent.
The survey was conducted by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Sept. 24-28. Margin of error is 4 percent. The DSCC is a prime source of funding for Martin — or at least he hopes it is — so caveat emptor.
Even so, this is the poll that Martin is putting under the noses of prospective contributors. And there may be some truth in it, simply because it doesn’t necessarily put Martin in the best of lights.
In August, right after the run-off, a DSCC poll put the race at Chambliss, 42 percent; Martin, 36 percent; and Buckley, 3 percent.
In other words, the Martin campaign is confessing that, nearly two months later, their fellow has dropped slightly — but not as much as Chambliss. And a tight race is a tight race, especially in a period of economic turmoil.
The Wall Street issue is likely to dominate the final five weeks of the campaign. Chambliss has a press conference and PDK airport tomorrow morning. The topic is all but assured.
The other two candidates attended a forum in John’s Creek, sponsored by State Farm Insurance.
Martin led off the discussion by taking a shot at Chambliss, after noting the two were fraternity brothers at the University of Georgia in the 1960s, according to my AJC colleague Jim Tharpe, who was there.
“This isn’t personal,” Martin told the audience of 200. But Chambliss has been wrong for “blindly supporting” President Bush’s economic policies, he said.
“I’m disgusted with the Bush administration’s handling of our economy over the last eight years and the crisis this mismanagement has caused,” Martin said. He said he opposes the current bailout plan unless it proves more regulation for financial institutions and safeguards against predatory lending.
Buckley, a CPA and a lawyer, agreed with Martin on Chambliss’s performance, but said the Democrats are no better when it comes to dealing with the nation’s spiraling debt burden and looming financial problems. He said those problems will only multiply as Baby Boomers age and take advantage of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.
“If there was ever a time in history you should consider a third party, it is now,” Buckley said. He added: “Jim (Martin) is a great guy, but he would just be another one of those Democrats in Congress.”
Buckley wants to close most overseas military bases, limit entitlements and get rid of the U.S. Department of Education.
• Full election coverage: News, photos and more
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment |
Eleven of 13 Georgia congressmen vote against Wall Street rescue
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Despite last-minute cover offered by former U.S House speaker Newt Gingrich, Georgia’s congressional delegation — both right and left — voted solidly against the $700 billion plan to rescue Wall Street.
Democrats Jim Marshall of Macon and Sanford Bishop of southwest Georgia voted in favor of the plan, which fell 205-228. Here’s the roll call.
Phil Gingrey, a Marietta Republican, told my Washington colleague Julia Malone that the House Republican leadership had called him minutes before the vote, pleading for his support.
“Our leadership weren’t elected by the people of our districts,” Gingrey said. He and other Georgia lawmakers have received a torrent of e-mails and phone calls from angry voters urging them to oppose what many considered a taxpayer bailout for firms that were guilty of greed or worse.
“This is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle and I’m not going to eat that cow patty,” declared Paul Broun, the Athens Republican, as quoted in the New York Daily News.
Below are quick explanations on the vote, first from Democrats.
Said Hank Johnson of Decatur:
“Frankly, the president carries no credibility with me and that is one of the many reasons I opposed this reckless bailout proposal….The president has displayed an unnerving habit of making the wrong judgement, at the wrong time, so often that it is hard for me to believe him when he asks me to bail out his Wall Street allies to the tune of $700 billion, or more, all paid for by the American taxpayer.”
Said John Barrow of Savannah:
“There’s no doubt we need a solution to the economic crisis we are facing, but the plan that was before us today wasn’t good enough. It didn’t go far enough to prevent the taxpayers from having to foot the $700 billion bill. It didn’t go far enough to make sure that taxpayer dollars don’t end up in the pockets of Wall Street executives who ran their companies into the ground. And it didn’t go far enough to prevent foreign investors from making off with our money.”
Said David Scott of Atlanta:
“Bailing out Wall Street with $700 billion dollars of taxpayer money without a dime to help struggling homeowners is wrong,” stated Rep. Scott. “This is not just a Wall Street problem, this is a problem at the kitchen table of every family in America and this bill simply does not do enough to assist homeowners and keep their families in their homes.”
In Georgia, Jim Marshall is probably the one most exposed by Monday’s vote. His 8th District covers middle and south Georgia. It leans Republican, and he faces a decently funded candidate in Republican Rick Goddard.
At a Sunday caucus meeting of Georgia Democrats, Marshall attempted to persuade his colleagues to support the rescue plan, saying he was willing to gamble his seat on the issue.
Just before the House vote, he telephoned the Insider, and said this:
“Some members of Congress simply don’t understand the exposure and the threat. Some members of Congress don’t believe it. I’m afraid many of my colleagues understand it, but….I think it’s very unfortunate that as soon as the Bush administration presented their plan, all kinds of commentators for political gain hopped on it and characterized it as a bailout. And the public mind is sort of set….
“There is no way in hell I would bail out the jerks on either side of this. The irresponsible borrowers, the irresponsible lenders and investors. No way in hell would I do that.
“To the extend that this ends up helping them a little bit is incidental to the fact that this is needed, in my view, as an attempt to help all those bystanders, families, small businesses, individuals, retires, etc., who are just caught up in this — caught up in the mess these jerks have created.
“I’m not happy that I’m in these circumstances, but less happy that the country’s in these circumstances. And I’m just going to do what the right thing to do is, and I hope people will understand. I’ll do my best to explain it.
“Damned if I’m going to rescue these jerks. But I am absolutely willing to try to avoid almost every single economist has said — and that is an imminent crash of the credit markets. Which all economists agree means that we head almost certainly into a depression.”
Among Republicans, Lynn Westmoreland was the first to explain himself:
“I do believe that our nation faces great financial challenges right now, and I believe that Congress should act. But the House should not appropriate up to $700 billion for a bill that didn’t exist until a few days ago and that never went through one committee hearing. This legislation costs way too much to pass through Congress with so little scrutiny. If the process is broken, the product is flawed. Combined with war costs, other bailouts and the stimulus packages, we can’t afford to be wrong with a price tag this high.”
On the Senate side, neither Saxby Chambliss nor Johnny Isakson, both Republicans, seemed pleased by the measure’s failure.
Said Isakson:
“This is the most important issue we’ve faced in a half-century. Our country is struggling. Doing nothing is unacceptable. I hope cooler heads will come to the table so we can move forward with a proposal that is in the best interests of the American people, their savings and their future.”
Chambliss was slightly less critical:
“Obviously the House vote today puts everything in a state of uncertainty and complicates the issue of whether or not the Senate will vote on a financial rescue plan, and I am certainly concerned about the way the markets have responded to today’s vote. I believe failure by Congress to take action on the current financial crisis in the right way will have serious repercussions on Main Street. Something must be done, but any proposed legislation must protect our citizens and taxpayers and their economic well being first and foremost.”
• Full election coverage: News, photos and more
Permalink | Comments (179) | Post your comment |
Newt Gingrich: ‘I would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The following statement was just released by former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich, who originally raised many of the doubts about the proposed Bush administration effort to rescue Wall Street — and who on Saturday called for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s resignation:
“I have sadly come to two painful conclusions.
“First, the crisis of the credit markets is real and could have horrendous consequences dislocating the world market, causing enormous economic pain, and discrediting free market capitalism for a generation.
“Second, as long as Secretary Paulson is in charge, it is impossible to get a creative or significantly better solution. The House Republicans, reinforced by John McCain, have improved this bill significantly so it is less bad than the original Paulson proposal. However, they cannot improve it more because of Paulson’s intransigence, which is an even greater obstacle to a good bill than the liberal Democrats who run the House and Senate.
“Therefore, while I am discouraged at the final collapse of the Bush Administration, and frustrated by the Democrats’ passion for the taxpayer’s money, I would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout were I still in office.
“I understand and sympathize with any member who votes no.
“The bill is not the best proposal for solving the crisis. It is not even a good proposal for solving the crisis.
“However it is the only proposal Secretary Paulson would support and his support was essential in this setting.”
Permalink | Comments (31) | Post your comment |
Creative Loafing parent company goes Chapter 11
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Creative Loafing Inc., the owner of Atlanta’s largest alternative newspaper, announced this morning that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The following is from Washington City Paper, another of its properties:
In a conference call with top company officials, Ben Eason, the company’s CEO, said that the step would allow the six papers in the Creative Loafing portfolio to establish a greater online presence while the company reorganizes its operations.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
House GOP members from Georgia likely to vote against bailout
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
My colleague Julia Malone in Washington reports that House Republicans from Georgia met Sunday evening in the offices of U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Marietta.
Aides say all seven were all leaning heavily against the bailout. Lynn Westmoreland of Grantville took the House floor Monday morning to denounce the bill as too rushed. “You cannot do this type of buyout — bailout of $700 billion without adequate hearings, without hearing other alternatives,” Westmoreland said.
Reports circulating out there say there will still be enough votes of approval among Republicans to give House Democrats comfort.
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment |
U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall on bailout: ‘I am willing to give up my seat over this’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The vote to bailout Wall Street has become the $700 billion October surprise nobody wanted to see.
In Georgia, Republican members in the U.S. House have yet to tip their hands, but this morning’s New York Times has this — which could affect a mid-state congressional race:
Throughout Sunday, small groups of lawmakers could be found around the Capitol exchanging their views on the plan. Some said they were willing to take a political risk and back it.
One, Representative Jim Marshall, a Georgia Democrat facing a re-election contest, told colleagues in a private meeting that he would vote for the measure to bolster the economy. “I am willing to give up my seat over this,” Mr. Marshall said, according to another person who was there.
The architects of the plan said they realized they were calling on Congress to cast a tough vote since lawmakers might not get credit for averting a financial crisis since some constituents will not believe one was looming.
(Thanks to Sid Cottingham for catching the mention.)
In this morning’s Savannah Morning News, Walter Jones assesses the positions of candidates in Georgia’s U.S. Senate race:
— Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss wants a cap on executive compensation, and a panel to supervise the Treasury Department’s administration of the $700 billion. Both elements are in the current version. Chambliss also “insists that any money received from banks or investment companies getting bailed out would go entirely toward repaying taxpayers and not toward other financial mechanisms.”
— Democrat Jim Martin wants payments to mortgage borrowers rather than investment companies, which is not in the current package and isn’t likely to be. Martin also wants consumer protections against predatory lending and aggressive credit card tactics, which he says “triggered much of the crisis.” And he doesn’t think commercial and investment banks should be permitted to merge.
— Libertarian Allen Buckley agrees that some kind of action is necessary, which — given his party — needs to be noted. Buckley wants regulation of the Federal Reserve, which he said caused the borrowing spree by “dropping interest rates too low in 2001-02.” The Libertarian also says that “any person or company receiving funds from a bailout would be taxed an extra 15 percent above what they already owe until full repayment.
Finally, late Sunday afternoon, Sadie Fields, leader of the Georgia Christian Alliance, passed on some bailout demands important to social conservatives:
The current proposal is entirely unacceptable because it requires huge amounts to be skimmed off and funneled to ACORN, LaRaza, the Urban League and other leftist organizations before American taxpayers see a dime of it in the U.S. Treasury.
Obama was a “leadership trainer” with ACORN, which is the largest radical group in America and may be more radical than MoveOn.org and Code Pink. ACORN is currently under investigation for voter fraud.
Tell the following to our congressional delegation …
Delete these and similar provisions from the bail-out bill:
— Deposits. Not less than 20% of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
— Use of Deposits. 65% shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act…; and 35% shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund…
— Remainder Deposited in the Treasury. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
• Full election coverage: News, photos and more
Services »
