The AIG bonuses flap has become an issue, not just for President Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd, but for Democrat Scott Murphy, who is currently running a tight race against Republican Jim Tedisco in the March 31 special election to fill newly appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's (D) old House seat in upstate New York. Tedisco and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) have hammered Murphy--a venture capitalist by trade--for approving bonuses for his own employees and, policywise, for supporting the stimulus bill, whose provision on executive bonuses exempted previously contracted payments (and thus, AIG's bonuses) from its restriction.
This has been the strategy for the NRCC across the board: tie Democrats to the stimulus and its bonuses provision and suggest that, in backing it, they also backed the AIG bonuses. Murphy, who supported the stimulus, has said the bonuses are disgraceful and now backs a House plan to tax them. He is facing the brunt of the GOP's stimulus/bonuses/AIG mode of attack right now.
Other Democratic House candidates don't have to deal with stimulus/AIG attacks too directly yet; their elections are a ways off. But Murphy's strategy can give us a window into how Democrats will respond to the GOP's AIG criticism.
Murphy's response: talk about jobs and criticize the financial bailout. When asked if the stimulus was a good bill despite its bonus provision, Murphy recently said "absolutely"--a quote circulated today by the NRCC. An official with the Murphy campaign told me today that "absolutely we supported the stimulus, and it has been the defining issue in this race...people are more concerned about shovel ready jobs that need to put people back to work." So that, it seems, is step one in Murphy's response strategy: when blasted for the AIG bailouts, remind people about the need to create jobs.
He also opposes the $700 billion financial bailout Congress passed in the fall--the "Bush bailout" as the Murphy official called it--and thus seeks to distance himself from the notion of giving money to financial firms. Those two pieces of his messaging strategy complement the overarching Democratic "party of no" criticism, which he leveled at Tedisco in a recent ad, and a hope that Tedisco's AIG-based criticism self-destructs (see this criticism from an upstate paper, circulated today by Murphy's campaign).
This doesn't apply to current members of Congress but isn't it a little silly to try to pin the bonus loophole on Murphy just because he said he supported the stimulus package? As a non-member, Murphy didn't have the opportunity to oppose the changes to the amendment that created the loophole. As a non-member he wasn't even on the hook for reading the whole thing - because he didn't have to vote on it. Plus, how long did it take for Tedisco to decide that he was against the stimulus package? But Murphy's on the hook for this one amendment that he wasn't there to oppose and wasn't there to vote for or against?
Again, this doesn't apply to races current members of Congress will find themselves in when 2010 comes around but trying to hang the bonus loophole around Murphy's neck is silly.
You are absolutely right.
By the way, I worked for Scott 12 years ago. I know his thinking. I believe in him.
Well, we know the fact that Scott Murphy is a wall street millionaire. But, this event is not all about resources neither career. This is much more of Public Service, Community Accomplishment, Leadership, and Good Conduct. Jim Tedisco is know from the start as a devoted public servant. Community always count on him for a long time. Never committed a crime during his tenure. It is obvious that he's opponent has no, even a bit background in public service. Anyway, this is not about whose party's gonna win but a leader that would serve his people with all the quality of being a good leader.
Scott Murphy has a millions unpaid taxes including penalties, Murphy's company failed to pay insurance at almost a million, Murphy signed the stimulus bill with out reading the content. He was ask about stimulus bill during his interview at the white house, and the respondents was felt empty with him because of his unacceptable ideology about the bill. Besides, Murphy has a lot of misconduct during his college including sexually addict. Paying those, shall I say "Birds" just to have an hour happiness. Wow, this is not the congressman we are looking for as a candidate.
Let's see if the times union does it's job and asks Murphy about this.
I'm voting Jim Tedisco.
http://www.jimtedisco.com/