RNC Vid On AIG Flap, Cameos By Gibbs, Dodd, Obama

Check out this planned Web video from the RNC on the whole AIG fiasco, via MSNBC. I can't believe Gibbs gets paid to speak in public.

Rough Day For Dodd

Chris Dodd has had a few days he'd rather forget over the last few months, but I don't know that any have been as bad as today. It cannot be comfortable when virtually everyone, on both sides, is pointing the finger at you for something as unpopular as the Dodd Amendment has quickly become.

When it comes to Dodd, I am much more bothered by the fact that he lied about his role in the whole thing than what the amendment said or who wrote it. There is no longer any reason to believe anything he says, from his claim he didn't know he was getting a VIP loan from his buddy, to his questionable real estate dealings with a convicted felon he got a pardon for, to the real story behind the drafting of the legislative in question now.

Anyway, here is some of what Dodd was reading today:

US Conservative Politics:

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd's made some highly suspicious decisions. He's a walking ethics nightmare. I'm guessing that if he thought about it at all, he never imagined his behind-the-back maneuver (the one where he slipped the bonus loophole into the stimulus package) would come back to haunt him, but with all the attention being paid to these gigantic corporations, how could he not? Dodd is that rare breed of politician who is either too greedy to serve the people or too dumb to swindle them. Either way, he shouldn't be in office.

Washington Post:

It seems that there's one Democrat who really should be afraid. If you listened closely yesterday in the Capitol, it's possible you heard the sound of Chris Dodd's career coming to an end. Too harsh an assessment? Perhaps, but it's hard to overstate how badly the Connecticut senator stepped in it when he admitted that he had put language in the stimulus bill ensuring that contractual bonuses were paid out at companies receiving bailout money, a day after saying he didn't know how the language got it.

Rob Simmons in the Hartford Courant:

I can't believe the chairman of a committee can take a bill to the floor and speak in favor of it and vote on it without knowing what's in it. The issue of executive compensation is obviously an important issue...you would think someone's reading the language of the bill.

Gawker:

Dodd's apparent strategy is contrition: He apologized to Blitzer over any "confusion" he may have caused with his lie. And he also announced his intention to return all donations from AIG executives. It may work, but because of his own mendacity, this episode has strengthened a growing reputation as a well-rewarded shill for the banks and mortgage lenders that ruined the country. He was regarded as a "special customer" of Countrywide Financial by CEO Angelo Mozilo, and received a sweetheart interest rate on his home mortgage. Dodd says he was unaware that he got special treatment, but how do you know whether to believe him?

The Nation:

"We are outraged to learn that Sen. Dodd, at the behest of the Obama administration, inserted a last-minute loophole into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that allowed AIG employees to receive exorbitant bonuses at the American taxpayers' expense, and the vast majority of elected officials, not to mention the American public, missed the amendment because they only had 13 hours to read the bill!" the Sunlight Foundation commented today.

Associated Content:

Senator Chris Dodd revealed yesterday he was the one who removed the language preventing things like the AIG bonuses from happening, and he should resign. These are the kind of politicians we don't need representing us. Dodd heads the Senate Banking Committee, a position too important for this career politician. While I may enjoy his comments and personality, this is about principle. President Obama talked about changing the way Washington works, and what Dodd did is exactly what's wrong with Congress. To be in Washington for 34 years and to make this blunder is unforgivable. I've had it with the incompetence. Dodd will be lucky to win re-election in Connecticut in 2010.

Real Clear Politics:

Stepping back for a second, Chris Dodd is already in a bit of trouble in his reelection bid, based on recent polling. Obviously, this further complicates matters. Dodd is now directly associated with two of the most distasteful aspects of the current financial meltdown: getting a sweetheart mortgage from the CEO of a company that was a major player in the subprime mess, and now authoring the loophole that allowed AIG to pay $165 million in bonuses after already taking scores of billions of bailout dollars, all at taxpayers expense.

Even Stan Simpson and Helen Ubinas at the Courant think Dodd is done!

Not a good day.

Dodd's Most Recent Kick To The Groin: AIG

Just when you find yourself wondering if things could get any worse for Chris Dodd, insurance giant AIG, which he recently helped bail out, gives away $160 million of taxpayer money in bonuses to their executives. He must be sitting on his couch right now, rubbing his temples, and just wondering when it is going to let up.

In the New York Times we find an anonymous source from Obama's Treasury Department throwing Dodd under the bus for enabling AIG to get away with this:

The second group of bonuses covers some 208 retention payments from contracts entered into before government involvement in A.I.G. Indeed, in his letter to Mr. Geithner, Mr. Liddy wrote that he had shown the details of the $450 million bonus pool to outside lawyers and been told that A.I.G. had no choice but to follow through with the payment schedule.

The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place. [emphasis added]

The administration blames this all on what they are calling the "Dodd Amendment," the executive compensation amendment to the stimulus bill that included the loophole allowing bonus payments that had already been agreed to prior to February 11. Dodd denies he was the author of that aspect of the provision , but he won't pin it on anyone else, either.

Dodd's original amendment did not include that exemption, and the Connecticut Senator denied inserting the provision.

"I can't point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in," Dodd told Fox. "I can tell you this much, when my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did."

This post from FDL does a decent job of demonstrating the blame lies squarely on Obama and Treasury rather than Dodd. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter who is to blame for that particular clause. It is all the rage these days to be outraged about how the bailed-out companies are spending taxpayer money. From the Senator's press release:

This is another outrageous example of executives - including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG's collapse - enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers. A car mechanic or teacher in Connecticut shouldn’t have to subsidize the bad decisions of these executives.

Seriously, how hypocritical can our politicians be? We are talking about $160 million here. I know that used to be a lot of money, but our new President has spent like 10,000 times that much in the past two months. Literally. These bonuses are only a few years of playing third base for the Yankees. As John at Powerline pointed out, the earmarks in the recent stimulus bill accounted for $8 billion, and to run our government costs about $11 billion A DAY.

So I agree with the Senator that the taxpayers should have nothing to do with this. What's Dodd's plan to rectify this injustice? Raise taxes.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.

This is a classic. Let's spend almost a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, give it to failing companies, then take as much of it as we can back in taxes when they pay it to their employees. Of course, once the government does get it back, it is not as if they are going to send it back to you and me. They'll spend it on saving mice or buying prophylactics to limit the number of consumers draining our economy.

If only our legal system had developed a way for companies that were in financial trouble to restructure themselves and get out of contracts that require payments of millions of dollars of bonuses to the people who crashed the company without raping the American taxpayer. Like this.

As all of this mess were not bad enough for Dodd, the world has yet another reason to be reminded that he was the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG, closely followed by President Obama.

Looking back at the past year, it is difficult to comprehend how Chris Dodd has managed to survive in politics over the past three decades. It is time for him to go.

UPDATE: I swear to you I am not making this up... Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has demanded that AIG pay back the $160 million in bonuses with taxpayer money that the government will give them in the near future. Unreal.

Chris Dodd And What's For Dinner

I wrote about Chris Dodd's short-sighted, politically motivated last-minute inclusion of executive compensation limitations into the TARP bill here last month, but check out American Thinker for a post on yesterdays article in Fortune magazine. An excerpt:

Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, beneficiary of nepotism (his father was a beloved Senator from Connecticut), sweetheart mortgage deals, and the number one beneficiary of Wall Street donations - at least until Barack Obama came along - turnds around and bites the hands that have fed him so well over the years.

All for political gain. Yet his moves to punish, and treat in a child-like way, higih quality performers in the financial world will backfire and cause untild losses to our economy.

And another, quoting from the Fortune article:

Senator Dodd's attempt to turn masters of the universe into bureaucrats even extends to where they dine. Instead of using the Zagat guide, TARP recipients may be expected to work from a list of restaurants "identified by the Secretary" of the Treasury, since by law he must now specify which entertainment expenditures are "excessive." Thus, a Washington civil servant could end up judging whether a Manhattan banker can take good customers to dinner at Per Se, or whether TGIF might be elegant enough to close a deal. Your tax dollars at work.

Good stuff. Read the whole thing.

Off The Wire: More Reasons To Vote Dodd Out

I've been pretty sick with the flu (guess that flu shot wasn't all it's cracked up to be) since Wednesday, but I am trying to keep on top of things. Who would have known when I started this blog the day after the election that Dodd would provide so much material?

Anyway, a few items that caught my interest in the few minutes I was conscious over the past two days:

- Schiff's money-bomb is off and running today. As of 2:55 EST, they stand at $9,348, rapidly approaching their goal of $10k. The Courant has an article about Schiff today, and he answers a question some have asked, namely whether Schiff would run as a Republican, Libertarian or Independent.

If he were to run for Senate, Schiff said he would run as a Republican. "If I wanted to and put int the effort, I could probably get the Republican nomination, but I don't know if I want to," he said.

But what would be the point? "I don't need the power, the fame ... or the money," Schiff said. "I don't need those things. If I really thought I could make a difference, might I be willing to change careers? I might ... but there needs to be a bigger movement, there needs to be more candidates."

Seems a little presumptuous to just assume he would win the Republican nomination, especially if Simmons is in. We'll see.

- The Wall Street Journal takes a few shots at AG Blumenthal for his slobbering support of Dodd and statement that Dodd has done nothing wrong. As the piece points out:

It's interesting that the state's top lawyer can pronounce that there's no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Dodd, especially since Mr. Blumenthal told us this week that he has never investigated Dodd's Countrywide deals.

[snip]

Mr. Blumenthal's decision to stay out of the way of federal law enforcers contrasts with his approach when Republican Governor John Rowland and others were successfully prosecuted on federal corruption charges. In that case, Mr. Blumenthal was so zealous that in 2004 a state court judge temporarily blocked his civil suit after federal prosecutors claimed he was making it more difficult to prosecute the federal case.

It's not exactly comparing apples to apples, but the contrast is striking. Of course, Blumenthal had nothing to gain from backing Rowland, while he would need Dodd's support in 2012 were he to challenge Lieberman for his seat. The Everyday Republican's take can be found here.

- Chris Dodd has gotten to someone at the Kansas City Tribune (where's this level of outrage in the CT media?) with his accepting huge campaign contributions from the banking industry and then giving them a 258,000% return on their donations. A taste:

In my weeks of research into understanding how America went from economic lynchpin to a wayward ship drifting on a sea of economic trouble, I find myself baffled and appalled by statements from Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

His anger seems real enough. But the stench of hypocrisy reeks up the room every time he forgets to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars he received in 2008 as campaign donations from these same banks, their management and employees - currently not under receivership of the U.S. taxpayer.

Read the whole thing.

- Finally, I never posted on Time's list of the 25 people to blame for the financial crisis (and I won't link to it, since it is a joke for not including Dodd and Frank; find it yourself). But Jack Dunphy, a frequent guest-contributer at Patterico's Pontifications, has. Read that post, and while you are there, bookmark the site. Good stuff on a regular basis.

The Nauseating Impudence Of Chris Dodd

I am praying that this is some sort of sick joke. It has to be.

Crown senior editor Sean Desmond has acquired a history of the congressional bailout of the financial markets by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd with Lary Bloom. Titled Thirteen Days: How the Financial Crisis Changed the Politics of Washington, the book will provide an intimate look at how, over the course of 13 days last September, a financial crisis led to panic and meltdown. Dodd, the chair of the Senate banking committee, will also describe how he and others acted swiftly to try to save the American economy.

If Ashton Kutcher is not behind this waiting to jump out and tell the American public they have been "punked," then I severely underestimated Chris Dodd's impudence and narcissism that must be approaching pathological levels. This is no better than Bernie Madoff writing a book praising himself for bringing about changes at the SEC.

Chris Dodd knows the entire premise of his fairy tale is garbage, but has made a tactical decision to pul this stunt as a way of rehabilitating his damaged image. He is banking (bad pun, I know) on the fact that his constitutents are completely intellectually bankrupt and will swallow his revisionist history hook, line and sinker. Every dollar he "earns" should be donated to the people his policies have screwed.

Voters of Connecticut, Chris Dodd thinks you are idiots. Don't prove him right in 2010.
He needs to go.

H/T The American Pundit

UPDATE: Wonkette has a good post up. It includes a four letter word that starts with "F," so depending on where you work, you may want to wait until you get home.

Off The Wire

Via Instapundit, here is a video clip of Peter Schiff, potential Dodd challenger, on the Democrats plan to destroy our economy for decades to come.

Also, the Washington Post has an article looking at the cash on hand for incumbent senators up for re-election in 2010. Chris Dodd is listed under the category of "the worst" of the recent reporting period:

National Republicans believe they have a chance at pulling an upset in Connecticut against Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D), and the five-term incumbent didn't do much to scare away former congressman Rob Simmons, who is weighing the race, over the past few months. Dodd raised a respectable $279,000 between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31 but closed the period with just $671,000 on hand -- not much for an incumbent senator.

Looks like he may need a government bailout before too long.

Jim Vicevich looks at a Washington Times commentary linking Dodd to the Democrats culture of corruption.

The New York Times voices slight discomfort, but no more, with Dodd's disclosure debacle last week, and Ed Morrissey takes them to task for it at Hot Air.

Dodd and Dems Cannot Even Convince Their Own On "Bad Bank"

One of Chris Dodd's more recent bright ideas is to set up a government bank to buy up all the toxic mortgages that he helped create with his "home-ownership is a God-given right" schtick. Apparently, not everyone thinks that is a good idea. Not even lefty investor George Soros:

That leaves the second issue: what to do with the toxic assets currently held by financial institutions. The idea d'jour that has been floated around is the creation of a "bad bank" that would own all of the bad mortgages and securities. But that's not necessary. There have always been mechanisms within easy reach, via either the temporary suspension of certain regulations or very simple Congressional legislation, which could take care of both the existing bad assets and the recapitalization of banks -- relying not on the federal government, but on the private sector. From Soros:

For these reasons it would be a mistake to take the "bad bank" route, especially when there is a way to adequately recapitalize the banks with currently available resources. The trick is not to remove the toxic assets from the banks' balance sheets but instead put them into a "side pocket," as hedge funds are doing with their illiquid assets. The appropriate amount of capital -- equity and unsecured debentures -- would be sequestered in the side pocket.

This would cleanse bank balance sheets and transform them into good banks but leave them undercapitalized. The same $1 trillion that is now destined to fund the bad bank could then be used to infuse capital into the good banks.

Although the amount needed to recapitalize the banks would be more than $1 trillion, it would be possible to mobilize a significant portion of the required total amount from the private sector. In the current environment, a good bank would enjoy exceptionally good margins. Margins would narrow as a result of competition, but by then the banking system would be revitalized and nationalization avoided.

This seems to be an intelligent way to solve the fundamental problems currently freezing the credit and housing markets. It is also comprised of programs that the Democrats have not promoted or included in their 'stimulus' bill, which places Soros in opposition to the Democrats - an odd place for him to be.

Instead, Democrats like Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank - with assistance from Obama Administration members Timothy Geitner at Treasury and Sheila Bair at FDIC - seem intent an nationalizing both the housing sector and the banking system.

Let's hope that Soros and the Republicans can convince them otherwise.

How do people like Chris Dodd end up running our economy?

Via American Thinker.

Even Socialists Think The Bailouts Are Insane

Would you have ever imagined that you would read about the Russian Prime Minister lecturing the United States on the dangers of socialism? Courtesy of The Times:

Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, launched a swingeing attack on Western financial rescue packages yesterday, calling for a new world order to reverse the financial crisis.

On his first visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr Putin called the crisis a “perfect storm” that had arisen from a world dominated by the US. He said that only a rebalancing of global power could cure the problem and that financial stimulus packages of the kind agreed by Washington and London could lead them down a path well-worn by Moscow while doing little to aid recovery.

“Interference of the State, the belief in the omnipotence of the State: that is a reaction to market failures,” Mr Putin said in his keynote address at the opening of the four-day meeting. “There is a temptation to expand direct interference of state in economy. In the Soviet Union that became an absolute. We paid a very dear price for that.”

When your senior senator and his buddies need lessons on the free market from Vladimir Putin, it is time for a change.

The Irony That Is Chris Dodd

The DC Examiner had an editorial the other day regarding the hypocrisy of Congressional Democrats in their recent demands for TARP-accountability:

Oh, the sheer irony of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi complaining that the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) lacks transparency. These three Democratic congressional leaders were among the most vocal in seconding President Bush's warning last fall that economic catastrophe was right around the corner if the administration's $700 billion TARP proposal wasn't adopted as soon as possible. And Frank, Dodd and Pelosi were among those cheering loudest when Congress approved TARP over conservative objections that the bill handed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson $700 billion to spend as he pleased, with barely a whiff of transparency or accountability in the bargain.

They go on to point out the added hypocrisy of this kind of talk coming from the likes of Chris Dodd, who won't even support legislation to require the transparency he says he wants:

It is particularly galling to hear Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, complain that "President Bush failed to be transparent with Americans about how their hard-earned dollars were being spent." This is the same Dodd who promised last July- last July - to make public all documents relating to a series of sweetheart loans he received from the Countrywide Financial, one of the biggest miscreants in the subprime mortgage debacle. Yet, 216 days later, Dodd still has released no papers.

It is always refreshing to read someone pointing out the obvious.

H/T but, that's just my opinion

Schiff v. Dodd On Fannie And Freddie

Via Market Speculator, here is a video put together by Schiff for Senate juxtaposing years of Dodd ignoring the problems of his campaign donors with Schiff predicting what has come to pass.



Wouldn't it be something to have a senator who had a clue?

Chris Dodd Would Give Michael Jackson An Orphanage If He Promised In Writing To Behave

Chris Dodd is still going with the whole Hope and Trust theory of fiscal governance, and even the Obama lemmings are pointing out the obvious.

From the Daily Kos:

Senate Dems, led by Chris Dodd, are refusing to add accountability provisions to the TARP money. Can't have the taxpayers be protected from more stealing of taxpayer money.

And from OpenLeft:

Dodd's willingness to just trust the administration is, as Elena Schor noted earlier this week, similar to the trust many Senate Democrats placed in the Bush administration when granting them authority to sue military force in Iraq. Keep in mind that Dodd was one of the Democratic Senators who gave that authority to the Bush administration. While it can safely be said that there are good reasons to trust the Obama administration more than the Bush administration, HOPE and trust were abandoned as systems of government a long time ago. A far greater level of assurance than a letter to Congress would have been President Obama signing a Senate-approved version of HR 384 into law. It is a willingness to sign such laws, beyond HOPE, that was the reason so many Americans voted for Obama back in November. Letter of assurance are no substitute for actual laws.

TARP money will be released, without any new conditions, oversight or transparency attached to it. At this point HOPE has moved from a campaign slogan to a system of governance.

The question is, will they still vote for this guy in 2010.

Dodd: If Obama Pinky-Swears He'll Be Responsible, Let's Give Him $350 Billion

So, Chris Dodd thinks the first installment of TARP funds has been "terribly mismanaged" by President Bush and his administration (forget for the moment that he was one of the lead negotiators and voted for the plan as is). As the leader of the Senate Banking Committee, he wants us to know that he is committed to making sure this terrible mismanagement doesn't continue if the Obama administration gets the rest of the $700 billion tax dollars. And this, apparently, is how he is going to go about it (from Politico, H/T TPM, emphasis mine):

Dodd said he’s prepared to draft legislation, mirroring a bill proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) last week, to call for a broadening of the TARP program and for more oversight, but he said that a letter from Obama’s team – instead of additional legislation – could be sufficient to alleviate concerns in Congress.

Got that? The new plan is to make Obama promise to be more responsible than GWB, cross his heart and hope to die, stick a needle in his eye. Even HuffPo doesn't buy it.

I understand that an awful lot of people across the country drank the Obama Kool-Aid and believe that he is going to save the country from whatever George Bush did to it. But it is a little frightening to think that our senior senator has apparently done the same thing, to the point that he thinks he can just take O's word for it.

New Poll Shows Dodd's Vulnerability in 2010

If Chris Dodd could tear himself away from the seemingly endless job of ruining our economy and socializing our country, perhaps he would find himself worrying about the Quinnipiac poll numbers released today. Other coverage of the poll can be found at The Everyday Republican, Connecticut Local Politics, The Hill, NBC New York, Hartford Courant.

Let's look at what the Dodd-related numbers indicate.

Question #3: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Chris Dodd is handling his job as United States Senator?"

His overall approve/disapprove was 47/41, with 22% of Dems and 44% of Independents disapproving. Only Democrats and women had higher approval than disapproval numbers. The trend shows Dodd at his lowest point ever, down 4% since July and 24% since his high in April, 2001.

Question #8: "How likely are you to vote to re-elect Chris Dodd for United States Senator in 2010? Do you think you will definitely vote for him, probably vote for him, probably not vote for him, or definitely not vote for him?"

Overall, Dodd got 13/31/20/27. That means there are 3% fewer voters who are likely to vote for him than against him. Independents are only 37% def/prob to 48% prob not/def not. The overall trend shows a 7% drop in def/prob and a corresponding 8% increase in def not since July.

The bad numbers for Dodd may be attributable to voters linking him with the economic downturn. The economy in general as "the most important problem facing Connecticut today" jumped from 22% eighteen months ago to 59% today (Question #9). No other problem was even close, with taxes coming in second at 14%.

Voters don't appear to be blaming the economic situation on Governor Rell, though. 54% of respondents indicated they would definitely or probably voter for her again in 2010, versus just 31% who would either probably or definitely not vote for her (Question #7). Since July, Rell actually gained 1% in the definitely voting for her category and lost 2% in the probably not voting for her category.

74% of those responding indicated that they voted for the senate seat in 2006 (Question #34). Interestingly, 16% of Dems (to only 11% of Repubs) chose not to vote. 2006 was an off year election, like 2010 will be, but remember that the Democrats were all fired up that year with Ned and Joe battling it out. No such drama yet for 2010, which may move the Dem "not voting" number up, while two years of socialism may be enough to light the fire under the conservatives in Connecticut.

I think these numbers show that many Connecticut voters are catching on to the damage Dodd and his buddies have done and are still threatening to do to our economy. If Obama, Dodd and the Democrats do the kinds of things they have said they would (no sure bet, if their past record of trustworthiness is any indicator) with their complete control in Washington, the economy won't be much better come campaign time. There is no reason to think that this seat is not in play.

If Rell ran against him now, she could win. She might even be favored. Of course, that would likely mean Gov. Blumenthal, which makes me want to vomit, but that is for another post, I imagine. I would prefer someone else run for Senate and leave Rell in Hartford, if only to keep Blumenthal out of there.

But that someone will have a harder time than Rell. He or she needs to be someone with pre-developed name recognition, and they need to come out early and swinging. Dodd has repeatedly opened these doors, and someone needs to take advantage and barge through. Someone needs to lay out the facts of Dodd's substantial role and responsibility in the collapse of the mortgage markets with the CRA and Fannie and Freddie, and remind everyone of the campaign contributions he was taking from the very lenders he was allegedly overseeing on the Banking Committee.

If he hasn't run out of excuses for not turning over his Countrywide records, he needs to get hammered on that as well. Despite all the Democratic scandals going around, there is still room for another one. Blagojevich, Rangel, Jefferson, Dodd. Link them all together. Getting sweetheart mortgage deals from those you are supposed to be regulating while allowing them to run rampant, then sending them hundreds of billions of dollars to get them out of the hole you dug is not that far removed from auctioning off a Senate seat when it comes to abusing the public trust.

Depending on how the automaker bailouts go, he needs to get hit there too. Americans don't support it, and for good reason. Chris Dodd has been doing everything in his power to give away billions of taxpayer dollars to companies not that are failing, but that have already failed. The companies need to be restructured, and a few billions dollars now is like putting a Dora the Explorer band-aid on a severed limb. It might look pretty for a few seconds and it might make you feel like you are doing something to help, but what it needs is a tourniquet, serious surgery and painful rehab to recover. Otherwise known as bankruptcy.

So, who's it going to be? Maybe Rob Simmons. Rell isn't too fond of him apparently so he could be out of a job with additional budget cuts, and he has the name recognition and Congressional experience. Or how about Associate Attorney General Kevin O'Connor. He is a young guy, well-known in Connecticut, has a fancy resume, he's got some money and has campaigned before, and he will likely be looking for work sometime in early 2009 after Obama brings in Holder.

If you skipped the whole post and are only reading the last paragraph, Dodd in 2010 will be as vulnerable as he'll ever be. Republicans need an early challenger to strike while the iron's hot, and we need to support the best option that comes forward, even if he or she is not your dream candidate. Remember that the alternative is six more years of Chris Dodd. You need to work to rebuild the Republican party in Connecticut, get out the vote, volunteer with the CTGOP, and write letters to your newspapers (at least until they go under) making the case against Chris Dodd.

November 2, 2010, is not that far away. And after two years of Obama appointing federal judges, another Republican Senator will be no small matter.

Bad PR Day for Chris Dodd

This was not a good weekend for publicity for Chris Dodd. After failing (thankfully) to stuff his next bailout down the throats of Americans who don't want it (despite having the Republican votes to pass it, by the way), Kevin Rennie had an editorial in the Hartford Courant.

If the auto companies needed only three months to figure out how to make cars consumers want to buy, my guess is they would have dazzled us with it by now. Especially interesting for consumers would be the section on how to reach the resale values of comparably priced Hondas and Toyotas. The bailout collapsed on Thursday night when the UAW refused to reach wage parity with foreign automakers' U.S. workers before 2011. Twelve senators didn't show up to vote, so maybe this isn't an emergency.

There was also an article in The Day and a letter to the editor in the Stamford Advocate. These articles made it to the big leagues of the blogosphere at Instapundit here and here. Glenn Reynolds also linked to an open letter to the Senator, which included this:

Speaking of expensive clothes, I'm noticed that you were in such a hurry to give $700 billion to the Wall Street guys that you didn't ask any of them to step down.

But really, no one would expect you to make that demand of your friends. I mean, you are a "Friend of Angelo," which means you got low-interest, no-points loans for a $500,000 refinancing on your Washington, D.C., townhouse and a $250,000 refinancing on your Connecticut home.

The cheap loans came from Countrywide, and some sticklers think that was a violation of federal law. But you said you got the good deals because you were a good client and not because you are chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

And this:

In all fairness, though, I think you might want to hold yourself to the same standard that you apply to Wagoner. Seeing as how the federal deficit is at an all-time high and that has happened on your watch.

After all, you are the longest-serving Connecticut senator in history. I realize that's kind of like being the winningest Detroit Lions football coach, but still, it's something to hang your hat on. (Although I don't know why you would wear a hat and cover up that great haircut.)

Back to my point. It seems to me that our income taxes are really a form of loan so that the government can continue to spend more money than it takes in. If Wagoner has to step down before you will loan money to the American auto industry, shouldn't you step down before Americans have to give the federal government another loan that will never be paid back?

The letter is a little petty in places, and I don't really care who Senator Dodd dated. But it is interesting to note that Dodd gave away $700 billion to his friends, the bosses at the mortgage companies, without requiring any heads to roll. Now he wants to give away a fraction of that, and he is going to decide who stays and goes.

Chris Dodd, HR Specialist?

So after leading the utter failure in regulation of the now-decimated banking industry as the head Dem on the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd has decided that it is a good idea for the US government to invest in companies that are on the brink of bankruptcy or worse.

As if that weren't backwards enough, he goes further by asserting that not only should there be changes in the management teams of these failing companies (which may very well be true), but that he should be the one to decide who goes and who stays. If only he would look back at the damage his "oversight" has done to our economy, even he could not think that taking his own advice would be a good idea for anyone. The hypocrisy is staggering.

What on earth qualifies him to make this kind of decision? Being an old lawyer? Wagoner, the CEO of GM that Dodd has decided needs to go, has been working for GM since the 1970's, which was before Dodd's reign of terror began. Even if Wagoner caused all of GM's problems, which he didn't, he is infinitely more qualified to work on solving those problems than Dodd and his meddling buddies are. Don't misunderstand: Wagoner may need to go, but let the stakeholders figure that out, not some politician in DC who has overstayed his welcome and refuses to take responsiblity for his own role in this disaster while happily accepting VIP treatment and hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the industry he is supposed to be regulating. For fixing this problem, I'd trust the judgment of an expert who has made some mistakes before Dodd, who knows nothing, any day.

Have we really come to a point as a country where people think it is a better idea to have government officials with no relevant experience making these kinds of decisions? Wait... what's that? We just elected a former state legislator with two years of US Senate experience and zero other qualifications to be President? Never mind.

Ironman's Blog at The Next Right beat me to this, and you can get other coverage of Dodd's epiphany from the AP, Reuters, Wizbang, Bloomberg, Detroit Free Press, Truthdig, and The Hill.

"Five Percenters" and Leaders

Our Congress contains a small number of great leaders, and a much larger number of "five percenters." A five percenter is someone who knows about five percent more than the average person on any given subject. They often have an inordinate amount of sway with average people, who see the extra five percent and assume the five percenter is a subject matter expert. But they're not.They hardly know more than their audience.

This can be overcome, so long as the five percenter understands that they are not an expert simply because they know a little more than the average guy. After all, no one can be an expert in everything. A good Congressman, or any leader for that matter, knows enough to get real experts to support them, delegates work appropriately, makes decisions based on the work and recommendations of their staff, then takes personal responsibility for their decisions.

Read this post from The Auto Prophet on the coming auto bailout:

The whole mass has been a fascinating, and depressing political show. I listened to a few hours of the hearings over the last few days, and [the] pompous arrogance of some of the members of Congress was infuriating. Even the sympathetic members, such as Chris Dodd (D-CT) offered ridiculous and unhelpful advice, such as suggesting with a straight face that maybe the Detroit 3 could retool their plants to build mass transit products such as busses and rail cars. "The truck and SUV plants you are closing... these have pretty long wheel bases, don't they?" said Dodd, who apparently acquired a manufacturing engineering degree somewhere, secretly.

Then came the spectacle of Maxine Waters (D-CA) complaining that dealers, specifically small dealers, specifically, minority dealers, were being hurt by all the cuts, and inquiring what the Detroit 3 were planning to do to protect the dealers. This at a time when many commentators, and many other members of Congress correctly realize that having too many dealers their hurts profitability, and reduces the efficiency of the service and distribution divisions.

Time and again I am reminded that some of our Congressional representatives are not good leaders; in fact, many are not even five percenters. That would be giving them too much credit, as their public statements often demonstrate that they do not know even as much as an average citizen.

And even fewer take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

Russian Roulette?

The following quote is from this AP article:

But Dodd also said that doing nothing "plays Russian Roulette with the entire economy of the United States."

I think this is a bad analogy. I understand it makes good theater for a Congressional hearing, but I think it is overstated. There will certainly be negative effects, and it will hurt, but we aren't going to die. The banks were not in as bad a shape as the auto makers, but if they had been, that would have been closer to Russian roulette. If all those banks collapsed, there would have been deadly effects felt everywhere.

But with the auto makers, a better comparison is Russian roulette with the gun pointing at your leg. We will definitely feel some pain, but some parts of the economy will feel it more than others. We might lose the leg, or a part of it, but the entire economy isn't going to collapse. Some of those who made bad decisions, whether they were management decisions, marketing decisions, or bad contracts with workers, will cease to exist, and the auto manufacturing landscape may be disfigured, but the country as a whole will recover.

TARP Coverage

Certainly the auto industry bailout is getting the attention, but here are a few reports about the first mess Dodd and Co. created and now our government is trying to solve.

BloggingStocks
MortgageMeltdownBlog: This one is good
WSJ

Post-Hearing Coverage

I apologize for being so late with this. I was out of town for work last night, and the hotel did not have wireless internet. I thought for sure every reasonably nice place did, but I was wrong. Oh well, better late than never.

Wall Street Journal
AP
CNN and another here
Washington Independent
FoxNews via Investor's Iraq, which has links to the statements of the CEOs and Gettelfinger
Hartford Courant (if you're not boycotting it for being a joke)
Reuters
Sydney Morning Herald (dated 12/6, since it is already tomorrow there)

Here are a couple talking about The Chosen One and his role:

ABC
AP via Desert Conservative

And then there is this story from the Washington Post focusing on the most ridiculous part of this whole fiasco: how the CEOs are getting to and from Washington. Folks, we are talking $35 Billion just to start, probably ending up in the $125 Billion range over two years if Congress commits to keeping these guys afloat. Putting the CEOs jet in a hangar (or putting it up on e-bay, a la Gov. Palin) probably won't save as much in a year as if each UAW member donated the cost of a morning cup of coffee to the cause. It's not a bad idea, but it shouldn't be taking up time in Congressional hearings when they have as much work to do as they have. Some seem willing to bail them all out, if they'll just drive around instead of flying. Ridiculous.