The Phony "Dodd Wrote the AIG Bonus" Story

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I'm going to bed now before I REALLY lose my temper.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:16:00 PM CDT

thanks, all (0.00 / 0)

Thanks Cap'n, Jane, Glenn and Arianna.  Appreciate the quick followup on the story.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:18:41 PM CDT

Thanks CaptCT (0.00 / 0)

Well done. Glenn, Jane, Media Matters, and Huffington have all done great work beating back a nasty attack on Dodd that comes in the form of a right wing push with help from Treasury and even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. It's disgraceful.

For what it's worth, I wanted to post the statement from Senator Dodd tonight, which again clarifies that he did not create the AIG bonus loophole and that it was Treasury which was its source:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DODD ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AMENDMENT

Washington, DC - Senator Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, today issued the following statement on his executive compensation amendment:

"I'm the one who has led the fight against excessive executive compensation, often over the objections of many.  I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of Administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG.  Let me be clear - I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.

"Reports that I changed my position on this issue are simply untrue.  I answered a question by CNN last night regarding whether or not a specific date was aimed at protecting AIG.  When I saw that my comments had been misconstrued, I felt it was important to set the record straight - that this had nothing to do with AIG.

"Fortunately, we wrote this amendment in a way that allows the Treasury Department to go back and review these bonus contracts and seek to recover the money for taxpayers.  Again, I have led the fight to curb excessive executive compensation, and will continue to do so."

http://holdfastblog.com

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:23:44 PM CDT

And just a few weeks ago... (0.00 / 0)

many on this site were out to get his scalp. Lets not let perfect be the enemy of the good and help the Republicans.

---

by: KillingworthDem @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 17:57:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

If only the MSM would do a little research before kicking a guy when he is down. Glad someone pulled all this together.  

---

by: SpencerOwen @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:25:33 PM CDT

Remeber this article? (0.00 / 0)

The New York Times
February 10, 2009

Geithner Said to Have Prevailed on the Bailout
By STEPHEN LABATON and EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON-- The Obama administration's new plan to bail out the nation's banks was fashioned after a spirited internal debate that pitted the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, against some of the president's top political hands.

In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

Mr. Geithner, who will announce the broad outlines of the plan on Tuesday, successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid.

He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid.

Looks like there was a skirmish within the Obama Admin about the bonuses and bailouts.  Geithner was given credit by his opposition within the Admin for the bailout plan.  His opposition realized the political time bomb that the bonuses would be and looks like they were correct.

Geithner and Larry Summers should be fired along with the rest of The Hamilton Group.

---

by: Larkspur @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:51:28 PM CDT

Shaking my head... (3.00 / 3)

With so much dirty laundry, (these provisions, and all those AIG campaign contributions), what made Dodd think he could make political hay out of leading the charge to get back that AIG bonus money?

Now he's making headlines alright, and sure the storyline could be bogus and completely unfair, but that's just politics. The right-wing noise machine is still alive.

Someone on the Senator's team fucked up the math big time. Dodd should have let Jack Reed or Tim Johnson lead the AIG fight, and should have tried to make bigger headlines by taking on the credit card companies and not just their accounting abuses, but also the damn usurious rates they are charging. (20-30% interest in a zero inflation environment is bloody un-American.)

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:24:35 PM CDT

You're right abot the credit card bill (4.00 / 1)

Dodd needs a quick win right now. That credit card bill would be a quick win. He should be on that day and night until it's passed. I wonder why he isn't.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 13:40:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yo Keith, What's with the troll rating? (0.00 / 0)

I stand by my verdict that Team Dodd fucked up big time on this one. (gosh, isn't it clear.)

I don't know how they thought Dodd could lead the fight against the appalling AIG bonuses, when he is the #1 recipient of AIG campaign contributions.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 15:04:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Surrendering to the right wing noise machine (0.00 / 0)

and promoting the idea that "perception is reality" and helping create the perception there is no need or duty to fight the lies isn't  acceptable.

Dodd did everything right in this situation until he trusted Team Obama in the form of Geitner and Summers.

PS- I gave your Comment a 1 rating because "unproductive"  explains it perfectly.A troll rating is a zero.

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 16:38:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dodd did everything right? (0.00 / 0)

Good grief.

We all knew there was no accountability built into the orignial Bush bailout packages, (which the Senate Banking Committee participated in crafting). That some of the beneficiaries of the governmental largesse would plunder the tens of billions in bailout/slush -- it was no surprise at the time, nor is it surprising now.

In terms of surrendering to the right-wing noise machine, that's not me. But I invite you to look at this week's headlines. If you think MLN can put that genie back in the bottle, or put an end to the media frenzy, (which I'm listening to now from CTBlogger's post above), ....

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 19:20:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Congress is a co-equal branch (3.20 / 5)

I have zero sympathy for Chris Dodd. The last administration made him vote for the Iraq War with bogus intelligence. This one made him write bad legislation. Congress is a co-equal branch. Dodd should either embrace that fact or get out and let somebody else give it a shot, somebody who is going to stand up for their own beliefs and not blame other people for their own lack of resolve.  

If somebody in the Obama administration asked that this legislation be pulled, Dodd should name that person. I've read all these stories and everything is anonymously sourced. It wasn't just the Dodd's provision that was altered, the Wyden-Snowe amendment that would have taxed bonuses was stripped as well. The Obama administration is stepping all over itself here, giving mixed messages, and it needs to be cleared up. Dodd saying "Not it!" in a game of CYA doesn't help.  

Sen. Wyden named names with his issue.

 

Fox: "Though lawmakers are now trying to recoup some of the $165 million in bonuses through taxation, Wyden and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, had included a provision to tax executive bonuses at 35 percent in the stimulus -- it was later stripped.   Asked to whom he spoke with back in February when he was fighting to keep the item, Wyden said, "Secretary Geithner, Larry Summers, and I'll leave it at that."

 

That's how it's done. Wyden is willing to take the heat for genuine criticism. Dodd is playing CYA and doing nothing to advance the debate.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:34:24 AM CDT

What's sufficient about a 35% tax? (0.00 / 0)

I guess I don't understand how that would be different from how these guys would be taxed anyhow (unless they have figured out how to not be taxed on million dollar incomes).

When I look at the IRS tax tables for 2008, I see that if you make  taxable income of $357,700 or higher, your income is already taxed at 35%.  A million dollar bonus would seem to fit under that category, wouldn't it?

http://www.moneychimp.com/feat...

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 06:10:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Wyden-Snowe (0.00 / 0)

I'm just saying it was also stripped. I haven't read the Wyden-Snowe provision so I'm not sure if the tax is against the individual or against the company paying the bonus.

There are real legal issues involved with retroactively voiding contracts but that's not what Dodd is out there hemming and hawing about. He's playing political CYA. Wyden is out there trying to solve the banking problems by laying this in Geithner and Summers lap where it belongs. If somebody asks you to do dirty work (let's say Summers tells Dodd to pull the provision) you either do the dirty work and get dirty hands or you don't do the dirty work. You don't do the dirty work and then get to claim clean hands after the fact.

Obama has zero ability to strip provisions in Congress. He can only ask and then sign or veto the bill. If Dodd wants to invent some kind of line-item veto out of politics, then he's also responsible for the political blowback.

Wyden's stance is courageous, Dodd's is CYA.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 06:24:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

An important distinction and a decision about where to put our energy (4.00 / 1)

Canning a meaningless taxation provision and canning a true effort to rein something in are two different things, so I think it is important for us to do the research to see if Wyden-Snowe was a meaningful provision that was axed to favor banks, whether it was axed to get SOMETHING passed (the bonuses piss people off but compared to having the economy blow up, it isn't much money in the grand scheme of things) or what.

If a provision taxing the recipient would turn out to be posturing, then that would be important to understand.

Taxing something at 35% that should not be allowed in the first place is like heading toward a cliff at 90 mpn and making a law you can only go 60.

There is a lot of unrest and what appears to me to be happening is that the Dems are going to be strung up one by one and cartoon characterizations of them are going to be made:  Dodd, the one who didn't want bonuses stripped, DeLauro, the one with the Monsanto working husband who wants to kill organic, and on and on.  I have my issues with Dodd, but I don't want to be part of the lynchmob.  I will take issue on my own time and in my own way.  

The bonuses are popular to hate, but they are NOT important in the grand scheme of financial recovery -- they are primarily important politically because they perch upon the third rail.

Meanwhile, do you know that the American public by 40% or so has no opinion on how e.g. Boehner and McConnell are?  Why might that be?  Maybe because the Dems are focused on playing nice with the GOP, and the GOP and Joe L are focused on taking the Dems apart one by one?

It's great for them to be anonymous at a time of populist backlash.  Time to call them out instead of taking Dodd apart?  Dodd's not perfect but he is far more useful than many,  many alternatives.  

Robert Reich focuses on the structural issues with the bailout right now.  He along with others say that the process is not transparent, and it looks at present like AIG is answerable to no one for the bailout money.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/  See his current post and the one several before on the real problem with AIG.

THAT lack of control is a far more long term, frightening situation.  

There's plenty to criticize - I conclude it is productive to stay focused on the structural problems and where we are in resolving them.

We can  debate Dodd's actions or we can ask where the teeth are to hold AIG accountable.  I think the latter has more longterm importance.

The roving finger of calling out Schmuck will mean nothing in a year or 10, so perfecting the skill has its limitations in usefulness.  In this mess, there will be plenty to go around.  Our own future and that of our grandchildren  depends on our ability to stay focused on the true issues and help educate people so they too can stay focused.

The public can't understand the details of how this will all work, the need for far more intensive education to the public is not perceived and the easy issues to go after are the cheap shots.

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:25:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's more on Wyden-Snowe (0.00 / 0)

S.AMDT.468 amends HR 1, S.AMDT 98, agreed to by voice vote on 2/6/09.

"AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To require financial institutions receiving TARP assistance to redeem from the United States preferred stock in an amount equal to excess bonuses for 2008 or to pay a 35 percent tax on such amount."

via THOMAS.

I believe from other reporting that "excess bonuses" were defined as greater than $100,000.

Here's a story (link below) from 2/13/09 in something called The Deal (a financial newsletter?) that suggests Dodd did in fact strip out provisions from both Wyden and Claire McCaskill that were more stringent. Whether he did so because he thought his own version was better, whether he was acting on behalf of Geithner and Summers, or whatever his motivation I don't know. I don't know how things went down in conference and all of the people in a position to speak the truth have a big interest in shading things their own way.

http://www.thedeal.com/dealsca...

I don't care how it happened. Just fix it. The bonuses were written in March of last year. I think people will forgive the issuing of the bonuses if the problem is addressed now, as the House seems prepared to do with their 90% tax on bonuses.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:54:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you have it backwards (0.00 / 0)

1. Dodd wrote the legislation to DENY the bonuses.
2. Dodd promoted this legislation on TV and in the media and built popular support for it.

At that point, the Obama administration's role was to step in and say, "Chris Dodd is right, we need to make sure these bonuses aren't given to people who don't deserve them" and then urge Congress to support the provision.

That didn't happen. In fact, Obama's Treasury Dept. did the exact OPPOSITE. They publicly rebuked Dodd, and made a case publicly for removing those bonus restrictions.

Chris Dodd didn't say anything about this until an unidentified Obama administration flack -- who it was we don't know; it might have actually been a GOPer or a banking industry lobbyist -- said it was Dodd's fault.

And only then did Dodd respond. If anyone is covering their ass, it's the Treasury Dept.

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:51:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What did Dodd do in conference and why? (0.00 / 0)

Dodd was in the conference committee where the Wyden amendment was stripped and a McCaskill amendment was stripped. In addition to the revisions of Dodd's own amendment, amendments were stripped.

It's not as simple as Dodd vs. Obama administration. Who suggested that the Wyden and McCaskill amendments be stripped and who enabled it in conference? Is there a Dodd vs. Wyden or Dodd vs. McCaskill story here that is obscured because it's boring sausage making?

This is how Dodd's role was written up in The Deal on 2/19:

"Evidently, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., stripped out a plan by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., to cap bailed-out bank salaries at $400,000 and replaced it with his own amendment that wasn't as strict.

Additionally, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Olympia Snowe R-Maine, lost their push to claw back bonuses paid to banks receiving government bailouts. The Wyden-Snowe amendment would have penalized companies that paid bonuses greater than $100,000 to executives after receiving government rescue funds last year. The companies would have had to repay within four months any portion of the bonus above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35% on the portion of the bonus above $100,000.

http://www.thedeal.com/dealsca...

Here's the info on Dodd's amendment via THOMAS.
S.AMDT.354
Amends: H.R.1 , S.AMDT.98
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (submitted 2/4/2009) (proposed 2/4/2009)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To impose executive compensation limitations with respect to entities assisted under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S1609-1610

...and McCaskill's amendment.
S.AMDT.125
Amends: H.R.1 , S.AMDT.98
Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (submitted 2/3/2009) (proposed 2/4/2009)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To limit compensation to officers and directors of entities receiving emergency economic assistance from the Government.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 08:29:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who killed Dodd's amendment in Conference? (4.00 / 1)

You're implying that Dodd killed Wyden's amendment in conference, but with no proof.

I've been wondering the same thing -- who  threatened to kill Dodd's Amendment in conference? Here are the people in the conference commmittee on Dodd's amendment:

   Senate:
   Harry Reid D
   Max Baucus D
   Daniel Inouye D
   Charles Grassley R
   Thad Cochran R

   House:
   Dave Obey Wisconsin D
   Charles Rangel NY D
   Henry Waxman Calif D
   Jerry Lewis Calif R
   Dave Camp Michigan R

As Chris Bowers points out, 3 of the 4 Republicans, along with Charles Rangel, publicly opposed Dodd's bonus restriction (including Charles Grassly, the guy who recommended hari kari for the AIG bonus babies).

One other Dem and the 4th Republican would kill the amendment. Who did it?

Right now, the GOP is laughing as Democrats form a circular firing squad and blast away at each other over this highly emotional issue, when it was their own members primarily -- along with the Treasury Dept. -- who fought these measures.

Maybe McCaskill's amendment was tougher (I didn't see a link) but Wyden's was weaker. The point is Dodd had an amendment to deny bonuses, and the right wing smear machine is claiming the opposite, and the Treasury Dept ain't helping.

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:05:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know what happened in conference (0.00 / 0)

All of the reports from WSJ to Greenwald to FDL have a "you are there!" quality which is based entirely on second hand reports. Only a handful of people know what went on and they are all interested parties with an incentive to spin. I didn't mean to imply that Dodd stripped Wyden, I quoted a contemporary report that said he stripped McCaskill ("evidently") AND that Wyden-Snowe was stripped. Greenwald reports that Dodd fought for Wyden-Snowe against Treasury but didn't link to any source for that information.

Nobody is reporting about A) whether Treasury's legal concern over the legality of retroactive denial of bonuses was legit or B) what happened to Wyden-Snowe and McCaskill in conference.

Dodd himself just admitted he was in discussions for what happened in conference so I'm not sure the conference process is as formal that list implies.

I wouldn't think WH Press Secretary Gibbs would just randomly pick Dodd to dump on unless there was some related backstory, like Dodd working to get his own amendment inserted instead of McCaskill's. But that is pure speculation on my part.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 10:13:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point (4.00 / 1)

I don't know why Gibbs would throw Dodd under the bus.

Right now, it's hard to say who is undermining whom. Dodd doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt -- he hasn't accomplished anything yet to earn anyone's trust, at least when it comes to banking issues. For instance, other than that Friday press conference, I don't see him out there campaigning for his Credit Card bill.

Back in February, Geithner and the Obama administration imposed a $500,000 cap on executive compensation for any big company like AIG that needed to be bailed out. So, it's not like they weren't concerned about compensation issues.  

Ultimately, Dodd and Obama will both be judged on banking and health care reform and turning around the economy. I think Obama understands that, but often I think Dodd doesn't give a crap. Dodd needs to change that perception, and he can only do it with results.

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 13:25:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great job, Capt (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the concise explanation. Let's just see if the lazy and agenda-driven MSM will accurately report it now.  

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:43:20 AM CDT

MSM not the only lazy, agenda driven media at present n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 06:10:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Crossposted the article, with my observations (3.50 / 2)

I said similar things on my blog.

The thing that really bugs me about Dodd is his seeming inability to recognize that by being the "genteel senator" in this economic climate will bury him.  He needs to step up, holler loudly that Treasury screwed up his proposal, name names and affix blame.  

But I don't think the guy has it in him.  He's doomed if this keeps up.

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:28:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your blog's comment and you're right (0.00 / 0)

Dodd just doesn't understand the firestorm of anger in America today about financial corruption.  He thinks these are normal times and largely-Democratic Connecticut will of course cut him slack at election time.

People are really angry and he needs to be very pro-active.  If he survives (and I wish he would step aside for Ned Lamont), he needs to get really aggressive with the press and call them on their deceptive reporting.  Otherwise the drip-drip will turn into a torrent of anti-Dodd voting.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 10:12:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

And because he's not out there screaming for banking reform -- and leading the effort -- he looks suspicious, at least to me he does.

I don't know if he's for banking reform or against. Nothing he's done -- in terms of getting actual laws changed -- has improved banking regulations, as far as I can tell. Is he being purposely ineffectual?

If he doesn't start really and truly reforming banking, he is doomed.

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 13:35:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dodd, Wyden, Snowe (4.00 / 1)

Look Dodd, Wyden, and Snow where the only three Senator's insisting on some form of Executive bonus limitations at all. They were met with resistance from the left, right, and obama administration. To suggest that Dodd is somehow responsible for AIG giving out bonuses is disingenuous at best and downright slander at worst. In order to save any limitations, a small change was made at the urging of Obama and Geithner, that probably seemed like an insignificant detail at the time. Both Treasury and Dodd said these negotiations happened at the staff level in the rush to get the thing out the door. I'm sure Dodd went on air tuesday night before the responsible banking committee staffer came forward, hence the confusion. Sounds like another instance of Dodd being screwed by poor staff work.  

---

by: SpencerOwen @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:16:08 AM CDT

The only thing I'll disaree with in this comment (0.00 / 0)

is that it wasn't a staffers decision to make the change.That came from Geirner or Summers or Both because of pressure exerted fromm WALL ST.

The entire CNBC and Fox Business station and Fox news were spinning any limit of bonuseson Wall St as the end of Capitalism the entire time this bill was being negotiated,

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:23:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where (0.00 / 0)

... did they meet with resistance from the left?

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 07:52:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Left=The Center (0.00 / 0)

Far Left=The "Lunatic Fringe"

..which is to say there are more than a few Lunatics at this blog I suspect. The real left has almost an invisible presence in the mainstream media in the United States.

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 08:17:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Check out the lies in Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate about this (0.00 / 0)

Check out the lies at Stamford Advocate "Dodd admits inserting loophole in stimulus for bonuses" and Greenwich Time "Dodd efforts helped allow AIG bonuses", and you can understand why no one would want to read those filthy rags.  Both of those publications are under the publisher Michelle McAbee and editor Bruce Hunter.  The articles are as filthy and dishonest as they come.  

But of course, when did either of those publications care about the truth or journalistic ethics?  If you want the facts, MLN gets them for you, not Hearst Newspapers.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:45:41 AM CDT

Did you post this at Daily Kos? If not, please do!! It deserves wider exposure! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 10:13:46 AM CDT

DailyKos already had it... (0.00 / 0)

 ... by way of Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald and Media Matters.

But this kind of story won't go away until Dodd actually passes legislation to reform banking. He better get busy.

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 13:38:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrote a detailed letter to Bruce Hunter today about this outrage, requesting a correction. (0.00 / 0)

Will keep you posted as to GT's response... once again, as in the Frantz estate tax stinker, the paper seems to have bought into the right-wing meme (Dodd to blame), hook, line and sinker...(with an assist from the folks at Treasury)

---

by: billg @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 11:40:42 AM CDT

GT Editor Hunter Responds: Time for Letter Campaign, Guys! (0.00 / 0)

In response to my letter today outlining the inaccuracies in GT's piece, Hunter just wrote back:

"Mr. Gaston:

Thank you for your note.

I am quite comfortable with the accuracy and content in today's story and headline about Senator Dodd and I do not feel a correction is called for.

Senator Dodd represents Connecticut and is in the middle of the firestorm concerning AIG so naturally our story focused on him as opposed to, as you say, singling him out as the fall guy. The issues of the AIG bonuses and the AIG campaign contributions are both issues involving AIG's Wilton office and the senator is facing questions about both of those issues - how could we not include both of them in the story? The story also made it quite clear through the senator's own comments that the amendment was changed at the request of the Obama administration.

I appreciate your comments and your interest in Greenwich Time, and I invite you to send us a letter to the editor taking issue with our account should you so desire."

Thank you

Bruce Hunter

[Looks like GT is going to keep that bullseye on Dodd's back, no matter what the facts!]

---

by: billg @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 12:28:25 PM CDT

Write him back (0.00 / 0)

Ask him how he justifies his  headlines (in both GT and Advocate, both of which he edits) suggesting that Dodd put legislation, or "inserted the loophole" and "helped  allow AIG bonuses", when the article shows that it was Dodd who had fought to put in the legislation that was precisely designed to prevent those bonuses being paid.  Dodd was the one trying to prevent payment, while the Obama administration (and the Republicans) were trying to take it out.  Yet Hunter's publications dishonestly point the finger at Dodd.

Point that out to him and see how he justifies those dishonest headlines.  Of course, in typical take-no-responsibility fashion, he just wants you to write a ltte, while he shirks responsibility for correcting his sleezy articles!

Good luck

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 13:56:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Will the CT Post print a retraction (0.00 / 0)

to their Dodd under Fire front page, huge font headlines????
Probably not.

Look what I found today frontpaged on the Huffington Post:

GEITHNER ADMITS TREASURY
PUSHED FOR BONUS LOOPHOLE

(CNN) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNN Thursday his department asked Sen. Chris Dodd to include a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses.

In an interview with CNN's Ali Velshi, Geithner said the Treasury Department was particularly concerned the government would face lawsuits if bonus contracts were breached

.

They have some mud on their face today. They might ponder why the newspaper is losing ground, credibility and audience.  

---

by: Sue @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 15:30:10 PM CDT

Dodd has been oddly silent today (0.00 / 0)

I was expecting to hear from the horse's mouth, there's a shitstorm brewing.

if its not true, if he misspoke or was misquoted he needs to get out there and work it

I tend to think where there's smoke there's fire.

he shouldn't be hiding behind Jane Hamsher,  Glenn Greenwald or Arianna Huffington. He needs to get out there and engage his pie hole

and what's up with the DoddMania/Delaurocrats here? it's not okay to question your democratic overlords? When there's one party that holds Congress, the Senate and the White House it's ESPECIALLY important to keep an eye out and be critical. Not to do so is really dangerous.

if those two were Republicans mud would be flung here

instead, I hear excuses and attacks against anyone dares to question.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 15:38:59 PM CDT

It's perfectly OK and even expected to (4.00 / 1)

of us to "question your Democratic overlords" but it's also expected that you be smart enough to see when your being sold a load of shit.

He's also NOT hiding behind Jane Hamshire,Glenn Greenwald and Aruianna Huffington,Who according to you aren't reputable sources because they are also KOSSACKS,because he doesn't haver to.He's got the truth on his side.

I've been as critical as anyone of Sen. Dodd because he hasn't moved the Credit card  legislation as fast as I would have liked and because I think his legislation should be stronger in favor of the consumer(like Sen. Bernie Sanders) but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone come here and spread right wing lies about our Senior Senator.

Dodd did everything right in regards to the compensation issue and Geitner is now admitting he made a request that these provisions be changed.

Being angry is fine.Allowing your anger to be used to progress an agenda that promotes everthing you supposedly abhor is assinine.

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 16:59:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah. (0.00 / 0)

One wants to see some sharply honed critical thinking abilities rather than a wholesale "swing me up onto your sack of shit band wagon" coming across.  

nolopro said it is smart to:

1. keep an eye out and
2). be critical.

Yes, "eye out" and seeking facts - not "eyes closed", I agree.

I am always troubled when I see "critical" missing the rest of the operative term, "thinking" .  Being critical with eyes closed - not such a contribution.

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 19:25:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]