Congressional wannabe John Callahan has slammed incumbent Charlie Dent for his vote to support the $850 million Wall Street bailout. In a news release published at PolitcsPa on May 20, Callahan huffs that "[t]his banking bailout bill had so little oversight that failed AIG CEOs were able to use taxpayer money for multimillion-dollar bonuses. In fact, when given the opportunity to vote to prevent future taxpayer funded bonuses, Charlie Dent again voted for Wall Street CEOs." Guess what? Callahan now admits he would have voted for it himself.You can read more about this at pa2010.
The Evil Shawn Millan, Dent's campaign manager, gets in this little zinger: “This is an example of phony outrage from a phony candidate. Callahan’s hypocritical stances make it clear he is only interested in partisan pandering, not serious policy discussion.”
In the meantime, Callahan has started an online petition to hold Charlie accountable, damn it! After you provide your vitals, it hits you up for money.
19 comments:
Charlie voted for the Wall Street bailout. One could swaption the entirety of Bethlehem's worth and multiply it by a thousand and Callahan won't have blown as much money as Charlie helped to with just one devastating vote.
If Callahan can really do that with his tongue, he's got my vote!
understand that bethlehem under the boy mayor could use a bailout itself. bills not being paid, smoke and mirror financial transactions and where is the boy? not in city hall
but let him have his 15 minutes. he will still just be nothing but the lame duck mayor of a broken city
Dent voted for discrimination by refusing to repeal don't ask, don't tell. How you can support a man who supports discrimination is stunning.
Here we go. Switch the subject to avoid scrutiny on the point being made, i.e. Callahan would have supported the bill he slams Dent for supporting.
But let's linger there a moment. Dent is certainly more socially moderate than most. Does he support gay discrimination?
No. As it turn out, Dent stated he wanted a military review to be completed first. Here's what he told Scott Kraus: "Both Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense agreed [don't ask don't tell] should be repealed and I trust their expertise on issues like this. I would have voted in favor of the Murphy Amendment. The men and women in our military risk their lives to defend our freedom and they have earned our support – all of them.”
Dent wanted more input from our military leaders, not nancy Pelosi. That stikes me as reasonable.
"Both Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense agreed [don't ask don't tell] should be repealed and I trust their expertise on issues like this."
"Dent stated he wanted a military review to be completed first."
Gates and Mullen reviewed the policy, they agreed it needed to be changed. Apparently Dent didn't trust Mullen and Gates enough to actually vote for the repeal when the opportunity came. He voted against it. Period. That is his record. He can try and explain it away, but Dent is on record for supporting Wall Street at all costs (for the bail out and against the reform package) and for supporting the radical right agenda on discrimination.
Once again, you are being dishonest. Gates and Mullen support a change, but to what? Their recommendation would be made in December. Dent wanted to wait until then, which stikes me as reasonable. Igoring the military in a decision about their own troops, strikes me as unreasonable.
And now you veer back into the same territory from which you tried to divert attention, to bash Dent for supporting legislation that Callahn himself would have endorsed.
"I would have voted in favor of the Murphy Amendment"
His words. The Murphy Amendment repeals don't ask don't tell. What's right today is right in December. Mullen and Gates have supported the repeal but Dent couldn't vote for it b/c don't so would have required him to stray from the radical right. So he made up another one of his excuses to do the morally wrong thing. Typical Washington insider.
"Dent for supporting legislation that Callahn himself would have endorsed."
Where they differ is that Callahan would have voted to reform Wall Street. Dent, however, was happy to give Wall Street the bailout and then to give them free-reign to destroy our economy again. Dent has yet to do one thing that would actually hold Wall Street accountable.
I'll repeat: supporting Wall Street at all costs and supporting the Radical Right's campaign to discriminate. That's what Charlie Dent has become.
Dent voted for the same bill that Barack Obama voted for . . .
That Joe Biden voted for . . . remember him, the guy Calladope said talked him into running . . .
The same bill that Arlen Specter voted for -- who Callahan endorsed for Senate . . .
Callahan is a lying dope.
"Callahan is a lying dope."
Name calling... the last resort of those with no ideas of their own.
"Dent wanted more input from our military leaders, not nancy Pelosi"
bullshit. what's right is right. many in the military (including the esteemed omar bradley) opposed desegregation, but that didn't stop truman.
Barack Obama is a schill for the Bush bailout . . .
Joe Biden was bought and paid for with Wall Street blood money.
John Callahan should condemn those two first.
"bullshit. what's right is right. many in the military (including the esteemed omar bradley) opposed desegregation, but that didn't stop truman."
What right is right, but Dent is no Harry Truman. He seeks cover from anybody willing to give it to him.
"bullshit. what's right is right. many in the military (including the esteemed omar bradley) opposed desegregation, but that didn't stop truman."
Oh here we go with the "all republicans are racist argument." Do liberals like you have ANYTHING other than, "Republicans are racist" or "Its all Bush's fault"? You demean your own arguments and credibility. Make a policy/fact based argument on the merits of the discussion. The problem is, the position you are defending is unreasonable, and so you are forced to make unreasonable arguments.
Charlie voted for a wasteful bailout. Facts are pesky. Callahan must answer for his record in Bethlehem. Dent must answer for his record in DC. Charlie voted for the bailout; one of the most wasteful fiscal decisions ever undertaken by Congress.
A defense of "they all did it, too," or "he probably would have done it, too," ring particularly weak. Charlie should be proud of his record. He should boast about the bailout and let the votes fall where they may.
He and his defenders doth protest too much. They're acting as if they're embarrassed. What gives?
Anon 4:10. Facts are pesky, and you clearly are void of them. TARP itself (as it was original intended) has been a success (as most economists now will agree). A healthy portion of the funds paid directly to the banks has been repaid...with interest.
The problems arose on three main fronts: 1) Congressional Democrats have raided the program for funds for other programs outside TARP's original scope (auto bailout and mortgage bailout); 2) The liberals in Congress spend the repaid TARP funds as fast as they are repaid; and 3) the biggest problem was that Obama clearly used TARP funding levels as a baseline for the 'Stimulus' bill (THE most wasteful fiscal decision ever undertaken by Congress).
So try to gather some of those "facts" which you find pesky before you make political motivated false statements.
Charlie Dent voted for the most wasteful bailout in American history and is now running from his mistake by blaming those other rascals for messing up his great plan. The more sensible knew it would end exactly this way and Charlie should have known better as well. In one paragraph, his defender says it was a success, before going on to explain why rascally Democrats have turned it into the worst financial decision in American history.
So what's it going to be? Is Charlie proud of his bailout vote or not? Talk about forked tongue! Just a simple yes or no. And some balls, too, please. He did what he did and should answer proudly for his "record."
Yes or no. Is Charlie proud of his bailout vote and would he cast it again today? This is not difficult.
""bullshit. what's right is right. many in the military (including the esteemed omar bradley) opposed desegregation, but that didn't stop truman."
Oh here we go with the "all republicans are racist argument." Do liberals like you have ANYTHING other than, "Republicans are racist" or "Its all Bush's fault"? You demean your own arguments and credibility. Make a policy/fact based argument on the merits of the discussion. The problem is, the position you are defending is unreasonable, and so you are forced to make unreasonable arguments."
actually, this is a perfectly valid historical analogy. your inability to grasp its relevance is not my issue. it is you who is trying to cloud the issue with talking points from sean and rush.
Callahan is inept and has not taken a solid position on anything and the deal he made with Karoly in the Hirko case will eventually bamkrupt the city long after he is gone but keep drinking the Callahan kool-aid.
Post a Comment