Ah, the magic of video editing. Last week, YouTube user "ILwatcher08" uploaded a video highlighting 10th District candidate Dan Seals' statements on the congressional bailout bill during his October 2 appearance before the Tribune editorial board. The video, which splices brief clips from Seals' answer, has been picked up by numerous local blogs. Capitol Fax prefaced it this way: "Watch Seals flip and flop all over the place on the rescue/bailout bill." Meanwhile, the conservative TeamAmerica blog wrote: "Seals flips and flops so fast in this video from his interview with the Tribune editorial board that I got dizzy."
Below are both the edited YouTube clip and a video we put together of Seals' full answers. Judge for yourself if the former is a fair representation of the latter.
Let's go over Seals' full answer again. He said he agreed with the need for a bailout, but that he would have voted against the initial bailout bill (which the House had voted down the day before the editorial board meeting). Seals said the bill wasn't strong enough, and that if he were in office and faced with revising it, he would push for an ironclad provision to secure taxpayer assets, as well as resources for those struggling economically on "Main Street." When asked if his hypothetical support for a revised bill was contingent on those types of provisions being included, Seals said: "We've got to get something done, so I won't sit there and say, 'If this isn't there, then absolutely no bill.' But this is the direction that I would push. And I think keeping taxpayers whole is something we should be fighting for." He later reiterated that he believed a bailout was needed, adding "I think there is a better bailout than what we saw [in the initial bill]."
One could argue that Seals' answer was too nuanced. One could argue that he should have been more committal. But there's no flip-flop there.
Elllen Beth (not verified) on Sun, 10/12/2008 - 18:06
Seals response correctly shows that the simple answer Kirk tries to give is completely inadequate. This is a complex problem with many facets, the mortgage lending piece, the securitization piece and the pure investment piece for starters. Seals was correct that the initial bill did not go far enough to protect and yes, ultimately hopefully enrich the taxpayer for our investment, and he is also correct that something needed to get done quickly, but that more has to be done. If folks buy the republican line that its one thing or the other and nothing in between or extra, they are wrong and if that is the way this is handled, it will fail. Seals approach is the correct approact and we Americans have to wise up to the fact that every fix to every problem is not a 30 second soundbyte. The folks trying to sell that line are nothing more than con men.
Post new comment