Posted on 05/07/2009 12:27:58 PM PDT by jla
"Cantor angered conservatives recently by voting "present" on legislation related to limiting executive bonuses. He claimed that he did so not because he didn't want to vote against the bill, but because his wife is an executive of a bank that received TARP bailout money."
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Cantor's "present" vote is confusing, at least to me. Was he being cautious, and attempting to do the right thing? Or, was he taking the more easy way out of a potentially embarrassing situation?
Proper legislative ethics. He had a conflict of interest, so he voted present.
Two faced fork tongued double jive talking politicians.
What’s so surprising.
It seems that it was what everyone should do to avoid even a suspicion of conflict of interest.
Not sure.
I mean the populist sentiment is “for” limiting pay.
That said, it’s a private contract between private people. It’s none of our damn business. (The conservative approach.)
And he was in a conflict situation with the wife.
Reasonably politcally astute dodge, in some ways.
Ah, the ole Scottish Law precedent.
His action was a close to a Judge recusing himself from a case in which he might have an interest that a Congressman can. In the absense of a one vote margin, this was the ethical thing to do.
His votes and public comments have been nothing but confusing and disturbing lately.
His votes for the bailouts, to tax the AIG bonuses, etc., etc. just baffle me.
I have written to him a couple of times - most recently about taxing the AIG bonuses. Basically, his letter said the bailouts were wrong, the bonuses were wrong so we’ll do another wrong in taxing the bonuses to make everything right.”
He has made a number of statements lately that he ‘wants to work with the Obama administration’. Either he’s completely lost his mind, his principles and his honor or the press is misquoting him. Since I haven’t heard anything from him saying ‘no, that’s not what i said’, I have to assume he has lost his mind and his principles.
I am profoundly disappointed in him. I probably will not be voting for him next time.
‘Proper legislative ethics.’
I though this too. His vote could cost his wife her job.
What if we learn that Diana Cantor, the wife, rec’d a ‘bonus’?
Didn’t anger me. :::shrug:::
maybe he is just following the Obama plan to run for president
You’re right. It’s to the point that so many companies are accepting government money there will always be conflicts of interests. Speaking of which, whatever happened to Diane Feinstein’s little conflict of interest? Suddenly all went away, didn’t it?
I'm sure she did, she's got a good position. He's been criticized by the dems for having a wife working for a TARP recipient.
Not little, but she doesn’t know, she doesn’t talk to her husband. Doesn’t even know the name of his company when she’s legislating multi billion dollar contracts.
agree with your assessment
If he voted to limit bonuses, it would cost his wife her job. If he voted not to limit bonuses, it could cost him his own.
Is ANYONE investigating this?
I’m talking about Feinstein, not Cantor.
Not that I’ve heard of, no one is even reporting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.