Was Dodd the fall guy on the AIG bonuses?

[mmonk]

Post your thoughts and opinions on the matter now that he is going to leave.

[NJmaverick]

1. Dodd was a liability at this point, and it was probably best he leave

too many questionable ethical issues.

[mmonk]

2. While that may or may not be so, it wasn't the question.

[NJmaverick]

8. I don't think he is the fall guy for anything

his questionable dealings have caught up to him. I debate moderates and conservatives on other boards and the charges they hurled at Dodd were hard to defend. Plus the polls have been looking very grim for him.

[mmonk]

10. Yes, he won't be able to win. But I'm just trying to find out

if he was set up like a bowling pin. Dodd lost me on receiving preferential treatment on a mortgage. But he did quite a lot to defend our civil liberties. Overall, he has done a lot of good in the past.

[NJmaverick]

11. If he can't win, everything else is a moot point

better for him to step aside and let another Dem make a run at it, then give the seat to a Republican (for the next 6 years). This is especially true in a blue state like CT.

[mmonk]

16. True, but I just wanted to know.

[undeterred]

3. Thom Hartmann just said he was.

He did what the Obama administration asked him to do.

[laughingliberal]

23. Didn't hear Thom but I thought that way back when it came out

Just like I think Lieberman tanked the public option at the request of the White House.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Indeed.

He did the right thing by opting out.

[taught_me_patience]

5. Hartmann this morning suggested he was

but I don't know where he was getting his information.

[mmonk]

6. Here is another opinion on the matter.

http://www.observer.com/2622/obama-sells-out-friend-connecticut

It runs along the same lines as Hartmann.

[taught_me_patience]

9. Thanks for the link

I had no doubt Hartmann was telling the truth and just wanted to see in print. This administration keeps on disappointing....

[mmonk]

13. In fact, it was his radio program that sparked the interest

and my question to visit the issue. I was trying to find out more opinion on it.

[monmouth]

14. Why would that be disappointing? Dodd knew he wasn't going to

win and I'm sure he'd rather go out this way than lose to a repug. I doubt the admin. told him to do anything but I would bet there was a conversation about the matter, and rightfully so. I think a lot more of Dodd now..

[taught_me_patience]

24. I have no doubt in my mind that Timmy was behind the AIG bonuses

given his modus operandi over the last year. We'll find out the truth after Dodd retires, I'm sure!

[mmonk]

25. I'll bet you he was indeed a big part of it.

[eleny]

7. Thom Hartmann posed that today on his radio program

He said it was at the request of the Obama Administration per the Huffington Post article on the subject.

[gateley]

19. Hey! I just posted the same thing before I saw your post!

What is your sense of it? I know that Joe thinks very highly of him -- told Dodd's mother that if he (Joe) didn't make it in the primaries, he'd back Dodd.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Theories espoused without a shred of evidence

leads to posters here calling themselves disappointed.

How cute is that?

[tabatha]

15. People believe Huffington Post?

Thom, you can do better than that.

[mmonk]

17. I asked because I heard it on Thom Hartmann's program.

He said that Dodd said he was pressured to water down the Bill on bonuses at the request of the White House. Kill the messenger if you want to. I was trying to substantiate whether it was true. On overall issues, it is small.

[gateley]

21. HuffPo isn't the only source to indicate that the administration wanted to

go this route, I don't think (but don't ask me to back that up, I've just read it elsewhere). In all fairness, I heard that the fat cats would have gotten their obscene bonuses no matter what as it was in their contracts, so maybe it was just an acquiescence in the interest of time. :shrug:

[gateley]

18. Thom Hartmann kind of thinks so (if I interpreted his comments correctly).

He stressed that Dodd did this at the behest of the Obama Administration -- that for years Dodd has been a true progressive, but implemented Obama's wishes (whom Hartmann views as a corporatist).

[mmonk]

20. Yes, I heard it. I was wondering if anyone had more information

or an opinion one way or another on it. I found another opinion on it (but it was the same as Hartmann's). I'll keep looking but wanted any DU imput on it that someone might have.

[gateley]

22. Oh - Thom has gotten a lot of us thinking today!

When that one caller called in with a defense (they'd have gotten the bonuses no matter what), Hartmann wasn't having any of it.

Hopefully we'll learn more, because I'm not sure what I think about it, either.

[global1]

26. If His Poll Numbers Are Down Because Of His Dealings With AIG.........

and the people are upset with that - then maybe the system just does work. The people have spoken. He has gotten the message and now we need to elect someone in his place that will work for the best interests of the people.

However, if the candidate that will run is hand picked by Rahm - then maybe we don't get anywhere - anyway. And we get more of the same.

[mmonk]

27. And what if it all went down like this?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html

Jane Hamsher has written the definitive post narrating and indisputably documenting what actually took place. The attempt to blame Dodd is based on a patently false claim that was first fed to The New York Times on Saturday by an "administration official" granted anonymity by Times reporters Edmund Andrew and Peter Baker (in violation, as usual, of the NYT anonymity policy, since all the official was doing was disseminating pro-administration spin). The accusation against Dodd is that there is nothing the Obama administration can do about the AIG bonus payments because Dodd inserted a clause into the stimulus bill which exempted executive compensation agreements entered into before February, 2009 from the compensation limits imposed on firms receiving bailout funds. Thus, this accusation asserts, it was Dodd's amendment which explicitly allowed firms like AIG to make bonus payments that were promised before the stimulus bill was enacted.

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.