>My point is that “crony capitalism” festered at times under Bush, and TARP was a whopper in that department.
So in our haste to replace Obama, we need to make sure we won’t install someone who is hunky-dory with an albatross like TARP as well. Otherwise, our gains are minimized as opposed to getting someone who will fight that kind of rot in DC that is prevanlent on both parties. Palin did that on a statewide level. She has the bona fides to raise the subject.<
In fighting amongst ourselves, we face a very real risk of getting another dose of Barry Soetero in 2013. I understand that TARP was enacted under Bush. “Crony capitalism” infers the enrichment of the politician from the corporations involved. Did Bush actually derive benefit from TARP? Did he make an error in pushing TARP? Looking back of course, but did he personally benefit?
Crony capitalism also implies looking after the power structure that donates to politicians when the power structure is in trouble. TARP was just that. There was not a quid pro quo to Bush that I can see. Instead, the entire process stunk - up to and including Bush hiring the Democrat Paulson from Goldman Sachs to be Secretary of the Treasury, who later pushed for TARP - and then twisted the very nature of the program after it was passed.
THAT is what we need to fight. Palin has fought it. She is in a position to comment on it as one who has stood up to it - and beaten it at its own game.
But all I see are Perry supporters bashing her high and low for stating an obvious truth, because they don't like the truth being spoken here.