Republicans Oppose Banking Regulations and Frank Luntz Talking Points

Republican leaders are, well, just flat out lying again. They are opposing Democractics reforming the banking regulations to avoid future financial meltdowns as Frank Luntz puts it, "perpetuate bank bailouts" when in fact, the regulations proposed do exactly the oppposite. How many people in this country are for NOT reforming the banking system?

First we have Mitch McConnell (R).....

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100418_Editorial__Greed_is_not_good.html

Editorial: Greed is not good
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell exposed a tad too much of his party's "just say no" tactics when he came out against the Democratic bill to reform Wall Street.
McConnell, of Kentucky, claimed the legislation would "allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks." He said banks should be allowed to fail, no matter how big.
His objections are driven more by politics than policy. Republican lawmakers are parroting the advice of strategist and pollster Frank Luntz, who advised them in a memo that the best way to kill any bill is "to link it to the Big Bank Bailout." (That would be the one started by a Republican president, George W. Bush.)
Defeating any initiative of President Obama's is the GOP's preferred course these days. And so Republican senators are decrying more bailouts for big, bad banks while meeting behind closed doors with Wall Street executives and pocketing all the campaign contributions they can grab from banks.

And then there is....

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/40994

When Republican Senator Mitch McConnell said yesterday that the Democrat’s proposed financial reform bill would perpetuate bank bailouts and make them more likely, he was following carefully polled talking points from strategist Frank Luntz. From the New York Times:
“We cannot allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts,” Mr. McConnell said on Tuesday. “That’s why we must not pass the financial reform bill that’s about to hit the floor. The fact is, this bill wouldn’t solve the problems that led to the financial crisis. It would make them worse.”
The Republicans know that the best way to kill, weaken or discredit Democratic financial reform bills is to falsely equate efforts to limit and regulate too-big-to-fail(TBTF) banks with the unpopular financial bailouts that began and exploded under President Bush but which are now associated with the economic team retained by President Obama.

 

I am not sure the Democrats stategy of throwing up their hands and crying 'The Republicans won;t let us!" is going to play as well int eh elections as they hope.

1. I think A lot of people are more comfortable when one of the parties cannot just push thorugh whatever they want because of sheer numbers.

2. I think a lot of people have a hard time believing that the Democrats can't put out a bill on anything that can't peel away even 1 Republican vote - which is all they need.

 

I have never heard that throwing up their hands and crying the Republicans won't let us was the Democrats strategy. I think that they put a bill out there with or without Republican input and let the Republicans do their best to block it. If the Republicans succeed, then they can run on that success next November if you can spin it as a success. If they lose, they can decry the evils of regulating the industry that brought this country to the brink of financial disaster.

I think people are more comfortable when they have two parties willing to work together for the good of the country. When one party has the sole purpose of making the other party look illegitimate because they lost power after 8 year of policy disaster after policy disaster, people begin to see them as self-serving bung-holes that don't deserve another term in power.

I don't believe that the onus is on the Democrats to "peel away" one Republican vote. I believe the onus is on the Republicans to halt their lock-step partisan attempts to demonize Democrats for the sake of the GOP and get back to doing what they were elected to do. I didn't notice one Republican running on the platform that they would oppose every single thing the Democrats propose even if they themselves were for it in the past but that is what they are doing anyway.

 

That is what the constant Party Of No thing is the way I see it. Right after the Senate turning electon, the talking point was 'We can't pass healthcare now because the Republicans got that seat". That has been their mantra as much as actually saying no has been the Republican's mantra.

And there are 2 ways of looking at the whole working together stuation. One way is that the Republicans will say no to anything and the other is that the Democrats won't compromise enough. Same with the peel away the vote vs halting partisan attempts. It is very hard for me to believe that they can't bribe, beg or steal away a single Republican (Snowe is typically in play) with enough bipartisianship to get a bill passed. Maybe they can't or maybe they aren;t willing to do what it takes. I am not 100% sure fo the answer but I do think the Dems are playing a risky game as much as the Republicans are. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

As unpopular as Congress is, it remains to be seen in November whether it is the majority attempts to pass or the minority attempts to block that is what is causing the most ire in the (up for grabs portion of the) electorate. The partisian voters will vote their way no matter what, but it is the rest that will be interesting to see where they side. There are definitely 2 different strategies at play and the two issues will be a factor.

 

You must have been asleep over the past several months...that has been THE dem strategy/talking point.

 

Or its just calling the Republican bevaior what it is.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself, which is it?

Is it not happening as you claim in your first post or is it "calling the Republican bevaior (sic) what it is" which indicates it is happening?

 

Say no to everything. Obstruct. Rail against anything democratic. There's certainly a very complex and complicated strategy for ya. Simple instruction for the simple minded base I suppose.

 

It is called a balance of power and it is why our system was set up how it is. When a party does not have the required strength in the legislature, they are supposed compromise with the opposition to the extent needed in order to pass legislation. It goes both ways.

You can say the Republicans "just say no" or you can say the Democrats are not willing to compromise. I personally think both are valid at this point. I already know you will believe the former (of course) but using reconciliation (a modern trick that subverts how the system was set up) to pass the healthcare bill is also a clear indication of the latter to me.

 

In the face of obstructionism and filibustering, the majority has no choice but to go with reconciliation or let the minority dictate th terms of the legislation. I have never once seen the Republicans bend over backwards to accommodate the Democrats when they had even slight majorities. They jumped on the reconciliation bandwagon instantly. Now they are crying foul because the "trick" (its actually a legislative procedure) of reconciliation is being used by the Democrats. Well, Booo Hoo! If you have noticed the pattern of "compromise" employed by the Republicans as of late it goes like this: Oppose everything the Democrats propose, even if your party suggested it or were previously for it. Complain and whine the whole time the legistation is being crafted. Lie about the process from end to end. Then when the bill comes to a vote, go out and say that "We should start over". Compromise is a two-way street the Republicans don't live on and Democrats shouldn't have to live on. The Democrats have reached out several times only to have their hands slapped away. That gets old fast. Republicans can't even manage their own party. How are they going to manage this country?

 

I agree compromise is a two way street. But, I think this statement exactly shows our differences on how we view that street...and probably a lot of things in our government. I think neither are living on that street and both should when the government is split and legislation cannot be passed without the minority party.

And my point has been that I think it is not a lock that one party will obviously pay for it come election time and the other won't.

 

Well that certainly woulda put a big dent in the railroaded Bush agenda of the past decade...wouldn't it have?

 

Well in reality if they cant work together the only ones who suffer are the American People, at the moment it seems to be akin to watching children in a play ground with He said this and He said that mentality!

 

And that woulda been a bad thing?

 

Can't disagree with you on that view. The new world order seems to be in full swing and the dumbed down public is ripe for picking with all the elitists fighting over the control of the new financial system like children. Check out the new hundreds??
The suffering of the non elitist American people is just beginning.

 

It was fine for near a decade..why change it now? May as well give the left their chance at rape too.