Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
It's sad watching Brock operatives on DU continue to work as smear merchants peddling a debunked lie
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Autumn (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).
Rather than holding your candidate to account for launching a shameless and false fear & smear attack immediately before a major primary, you've decided to adopt the Goebbels "Big Lie" strategy. But hey, whatever it takes to win, right? Principle be damned. It's especially disgusting that not only is Clinton's claim a lie, but obscures her own record on the issue. Namely, she is smearing Sanders to deflect from the fact that she only voted in 2009 to save her big donors, not because of auto workers.
At FactCheck:
It’s true as Clinton said that she voted to release the money, and Sanders voted to block it. And ultimately, the Obama administration disbursed nearly $80 billion to General Motors, Chrysler Corp. and others in the auto industry (all but $9.3 billion of which was eventually paid back).
But at the time of the vote, it was by no means clear that Obama would use more than one-fifth of the $350 billion for an auto bailout. And most of the money still went for the bank bailouts that Sanders opposed.
So Clinton’s claim that her Jan. 15, 2009, vote was “to save the auto industry” is — to be charitable — quite a stretch.
But at the time of the vote, it was by no means clear that Obama would use more than one-fifth of the $350 billion for an auto bailout. And most of the money still went for the bank bailouts that Sanders opposed.
So Clinton’s claim that her Jan. 15, 2009, vote was “to save the auto industry” is — to be charitable — quite a stretch.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/factchecking-the-seventh-democratic-debate/
At Forbes:
With the Michigan primary coming up Tuesday, Democratic party front-runner Hillary Clinton is trying to paint her challenger, Bernie Sanders, as having been against the auto bailout in 2009. Chalk it up to election year nonsense. The truth is both candidates were in favor of the auto bailout.
During the debate in Flint, Michigan, a visibly tired Sanders did a poor job of explaining the confusion. I am not a Sanders supporter, but the truth is always important.
Secretary Clinton is chastising Sanders in the Motor State for not voting for the bill that created the funding for an auto bailout. Except, it wasn’t known that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bill, designed to bail out Wall Street banks from their subprime mortgage loan debacle that was crashing the economy, would be used to rescue the auto industry at the time Senators Sanders and Clinton voted on it. Clinton voted yay. Sanders voted nay. It was President Bush who signed the bill into law.
Later, in December 2008, the Senate took up a separate bill that would have provided rescue funds specifically for the auto industry. That bill failed to get the 60-vote filibuster-proof minimum when Republicans balked at saving General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, in large part because they wanted to use the occasion to try and destroy the United Auto Workers union, which stood to benefit from a bailout by having their healthcare fund and pensions protected, and its interests prioritized over bond holders. Both Clinton and Sanders voted for this bill.
Secretary Clinton is chastising Sanders in the Motor State for not voting for the bill that created the funding for an auto bailout. Except, it wasn’t known that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bill, designed to bail out Wall Street banks from their subprime mortgage loan debacle that was crashing the economy, would be used to rescue the auto industry at the time Senators Sanders and Clinton voted on it. Clinton voted yay. Sanders voted nay. It was President Bush who signed the bill into law.
Later, in December 2008, the Senate took up a separate bill that would have provided rescue funds specifically for the auto industry. That bill failed to get the 60-vote filibuster-proof minimum when Republicans balked at saving General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, in large part because they wanted to use the occasion to try and destroy the United Auto Workers union, which stood to benefit from a bailout by having their healthcare fund and pensions protected, and its interests prioritized over bond holders. Both Clinton and Sanders voted for this bill.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiley5/2016/03/07/clintons-charges-that-sanders-did-not-support-auto-rescue-is-wrong/#3d43f7c6582b
At the Washington Post:
In Sunday's Democratic debate in Flint, Mich., Clinton underscored her support for that bailout and -- somewhat disingenuously -- suggested that Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) didn't support it.
"I voted to save the auto industry," she said. "He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference."
What Clinton said is technically true, but it glosses over a lot of important nuance, including the fact that Sanders is actually on the record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.
Clinton clearly figures the auto bailout may prove to a big factor going into Tuesday's primary in Michigan and the one next week in Ohio, where both candidates are hoping to do well and where the auto industry is big. So it seems like she's willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday -- but that voters won't.
"I voted to save the auto industry," she said. "He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference."
What Clinton said is technically true, but it glosses over a lot of important nuance, including the fact that Sanders is actually on the record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.
Clinton clearly figures the auto bailout may prove to a big factor going into Tuesday's primary in Michigan and the one next week in Ohio, where both candidates are hoping to do well and where the auto industry is big. So it seems like she's willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday -- but that voters won't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/the-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debate-over-the-auto-bailout-explained/
In fact, here's Clinton talking about the bailout in 2008. Not one word about the auto industry.
Here is Clinton's actual statement about the bailout in 2008. Not one word about the auto industry.
When the American people, facing a foreclosure crisis and struggling economy, turned to this administration for help, the answer was no. Now, the administration is turning to the American people for help, to rescue the credit markets and take on hundreds of billions in debt and financial obligations as a consequence of that same foreclosure crisis. The truth is, Main Street came to Washington and got little. Now Washington is coming to Main Street and asking for a lot. The American people deserve to know that this isn't a blank check. While the need to address the current crisis is clear, I will only support steps that will prevent a widening crisis, tackle the worst kinds of abuse tolerated for too long by the Bush administration, and address the root problems at work.
The proposed intervention outlined today by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would be a watershed moment for our economy. I believe that such an intervention demands that we fundamentally alter the priorities and policies of our nation under the Bush administration that allowed this crisis to take place and escalate. Corporations that will benefit must be held accountable not only to large shareholders but also to the American people. And American taxpayers deserve to know that their money will not allow for a continuation of the status quo: short-term profit at the expense of long-term viability; obscene bonuses and golden parachutes regardless of performance; reckless risk taking that have placed the markets in so much jeopardy; rewards for those who foreclose on middle-class families and sell mortgages designed to fail to turn a profit; and outsourcing of good jobs to serve short-term stock prices instead of America's long-term economic health. The prevailing dynamic of corporate America, where the sole priority was the dividend, the inflated bonus and the quarterly earnings report, must give way to a new respect for the long-term prosperity of the American worker and the well-being of the middle class.
After eight years of failed policies — and two years of an absentee administration — our only option left may be an unprecedented government intervention into the private markets. The markets must be stabilized to stave off wider turmoil. Nevertheless, the urgency of this crisis does not mean that we should offer a blank check to financial institutions or the privileged few. Nor can we simply allow the administration to use the taxpayers like a "reset button." We cannot allow Wall Street to act without oversight by a vigilant SEC and administration — and without regard for the American people, who will now have paid twice: in falling prey to a widening credit crisis, and in paying the bill to hopefully bring it to an end.
I will be examining the administration's proposal very closely to ensure that we do not approve a policy that may stabilize the markets in the short term without addressing the root problems facing middle-class families or the kinds of reckless gambling that was permitted for far too long by the administration. The Bush administration may have changed its tune once the crisis facing Main Street hit Wall Street. But we need to be sure that the American taxpayers — asked to shoulder yet more risk and responsibility — have a voice.
The proposed intervention outlined today by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would be a watershed moment for our economy. I believe that such an intervention demands that we fundamentally alter the priorities and policies of our nation under the Bush administration that allowed this crisis to take place and escalate. Corporations that will benefit must be held accountable not only to large shareholders but also to the American people. And American taxpayers deserve to know that their money will not allow for a continuation of the status quo: short-term profit at the expense of long-term viability; obscene bonuses and golden parachutes regardless of performance; reckless risk taking that have placed the markets in so much jeopardy; rewards for those who foreclose on middle-class families and sell mortgages designed to fail to turn a profit; and outsourcing of good jobs to serve short-term stock prices instead of America's long-term economic health. The prevailing dynamic of corporate America, where the sole priority was the dividend, the inflated bonus and the quarterly earnings report, must give way to a new respect for the long-term prosperity of the American worker and the well-being of the middle class.
After eight years of failed policies — and two years of an absentee administration — our only option left may be an unprecedented government intervention into the private markets. The markets must be stabilized to stave off wider turmoil. Nevertheless, the urgency of this crisis does not mean that we should offer a blank check to financial institutions or the privileged few. Nor can we simply allow the administration to use the taxpayers like a "reset button." We cannot allow Wall Street to act without oversight by a vigilant SEC and administration — and without regard for the American people, who will now have paid twice: in falling prey to a widening credit crisis, and in paying the bill to hopefully bring it to an end.
I will be examining the administration's proposal very closely to ensure that we do not approve a policy that may stabilize the markets in the short term without addressing the root problems facing middle-class families or the kinds of reckless gambling that was permitted for far too long by the administration. The Bush administration may have changed its tune once the crisis facing Main Street hit Wall Street. But we need to be sure that the American taxpayers — asked to shoulder yet more risk and responsibility — have a voice.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/09/clintons-bailout-statement-012058
In other words:
1) Clinton voted for the bailout as a bailout of Wall St., without any guarantee from the President that the money would be used for the auto industry. She didn't vote for it as an auto bailout. She voted for it as a Wall St. bailout, and is now trying to reframe her vote to save her biggest donors as her caring about auto workers.
2) Clinton is intentionally distorting the record in hopes that MI voters won't find out in time (or ever) that she lied. In fact, after being corrected by multiple outlets in the MSM, her campaign continued to peddle this lie on its Twitter account last night.
3) Some users here, rather than owning up to this falsehood, are continuing to push it, because they apparently lack any sense of shame or decency.
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
is winning the popular vote then? 
"Brock operatives" "smear merchants" "debunked lie" 
The National Enquirer may have an opening for you. 
Tweet link to this post.
