Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Jared, come on. Take your Barney Frank talking points and mail them right back to that crooked bastard.Jared wrote:
(Guys, is that <b>really</b> the narrative you want to be going with?)
Jared is pushing me further and further right!RobVarak wrote:Jared, come on. Take your Barney Frank talking points and mail them right back to that crooked bastard.Jared wrote:
(Guys, is that <b>really</b> the narrative you want to be going with?)
That's not the narrative that I'm suggesting. I haven't even gotten into that inane speech before the vote. She Couldn't Deliver Her Own Party's Votes!!! 40% of her own party rejected her bill.
And then she went out afterward and blamed partisanship? Terrible, terrible leadership.
To quote Bruce Willis from Die Hard. " Welcome to the party pal!"pk500 wrote:Damn, Nancy Pelosi really puts the jackass into the Democratic Party. What a grandstanding fool.
And to think she had the ovaries to claim the Democrats had a "true spirit of bipartisanship" after making that speech on the floor ... What an idiot.
Take care,
PK
1) I agree, both Pelosi and Boehner are to blame for not bringing the votes. On something this big, you don't bring it up when it's this tenuous, and you hold on to your votes when you have them. Assuming members of both parties broke, both parties are to blame for this not passing. (If it was all Republicans or all Democrats, then it's a different story.)RobVarak wrote:Jared, come on. Take your Barney Frank talking points and mail them right back to that crooked bastard.Jared wrote:
(Guys, is that <b>really</b> the narrative you want to be going with?)
That's not the narrative that I'm suggesting. I haven't even gotten into that inane speech before the vote. She Couldn't Deliver Her Own Party's Votes!!! 40% of her own party rejected her bill.
And then she went out afterward and blamed partisanship? Terrible, terrible leadership.
I don't blame the 'nays'...I applaud them. This was a disastrous bill. To 'blame' dems isn't really fair, to be sure-I mean 94 of them voted against the bill, so I give them credit (although how much of that was based on politics vs. principle is anyone's guess). It's the democrat leadership (which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one with this bunch) that are to blame.sportdan30 wrote:"The bill failed by a vote of 205 to 228, with 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voting in favor and 95 Democrats joining 133 Republicans against."
Why is the blame being solely put on the dems again? I'm confused.
I know man. You have too know I was fu*king with you. How many years has it been??Jared wrote:
1) I agree, both Pelosi and Boehner are to blame for not bringing the votes. On something this big, you don't bring it up when it's this tenuous, and you hold on to your votes when you have them. Assuming members of both parties broke, both parties are to blame for this not passing. (If it was all Republicans or all Democrats, then it's a different story.)
2) Oh, I came up with that talking point before Frank said it...right after I wrote that post, I saw that on CNN. Though JackDog, I'm not pushing that story...it's the current Republican spin, which is absolutely crazy to me. Do Republicans on TV (and by you guys, I didn't mean you personally Rob) want to have "Dems hurt our feelings, so we wrecked the market" as their spin of choice? That's the spin being pushed.
3) This may not be the worst thing, as it allows for the possibility of what might be a better plan: Temporary nationalization. (Just had to throw this out there...)
This is all a huge joke. Playing politics at a time like this makes me sick. They are all at fault.I agree that Pelosi failed to get enough Democratic support lined up.sportdan30 wrote:"The bill failed by a vote of 205 to 228, with 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voting in favor and 95 Democrats joining 133 Republicans against."
Why is the blame being solely put on the dems again? I'm confused.
IOW, the GOP leaders of Congress are blaming Pelosi for making a speech rather than owning up to their failure to get their caucus in line."We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
I agree man. It's idiotic. But again majority rules. Pelosi failed to reel in her own. The Dems have got to have a better option than her.wco81 wrote:I agree that Pelosi failed to get enough Democratic support lined up.sportdan30 wrote:"The bill failed by a vote of 205 to 228, with 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voting in favor and 95 Democrats joining 133 Republicans against."
Why is the blame being solely put on the dems again? I'm confused.
However, look at who's criticizing Pelosi and what they're criticizing her for:
IOW, the GOP leaders of Congress are blaming Pelosi for making a speech rather than owning up to their failure to get their caucus in line."We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
As if some of those GOP votes against the bailout switched from for the bailout at the last minute because of her.
It's a sorry copout.
It's almost 2009 man. It's Uncle Mackinley now! http://www.thinkbabynames.com/search/1/white/2Teal wrote:Uncle Tom...JackDog wrote:Many would say no because of the way I am going to vote in this election.bdunn13 wrote:
You're black?
I want to know how Pelosi can blame just the Republicans when 40% of her own party voted against it.sportdan30 wrote:"The bill failed by a vote of 205 to 228, with 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voting in favor and 95 Democrats joining 133 Republicans against."
Why is the blame being solely put on the dems again? I'm confused.
Pardon my political incorrectness...I yield to your superior intellect...JackDog wrote:It's almost 2009 man. It's Uncle Mackinley now! http://www.thinkbabynames.com/search/1/white/2Teal wrote:Uncle Tom...JackDog wrote: Many would say no because of the way I am going to vote in this election.
Pelosi's Speech: Speaker Pelosi's speech before the House today was remarkable, but not in a good way. She was trying to round up votes for a bailout package that shes claims to believe is essential for the stability of the American economy. She can't, and doesn't want to, pass the bill without a substantial number of Republican votes. So what does she do? You would think she would say, "let's pass this emergency measure now, in the best interests of the country, and talk about who is to blame later." Instead, Pelosi began her speech with a highly partisan tirade against "Bush" and "Republican" economic policies, which were allegedly to blame for this situation.
She focused on an attack on the growth of federal deficits, which clearly are at best tangential to the current crisis. That, to me, is the sort of irresponsible thing you do when (a) you're not claiming there is a vast emergency; and (b) you are in the minority, and not claiming to exercise leadership. [Commenters point out that Republican Housemember were acting equally irresponsibly to the extent they rose to Pelosi's bait and voted against the bailout out of pique at Pelosi. True. But the Speaker of the House is a leader, not just a random member of the House, and her actions inevitably and justifiably get more scrutiny than those of her colleagues.
UPDATE: As I wrote in the comments, I have no idea why any particular member, or group of members, of the House, voted for or against the bill. All I'm saying is that if you are trying to rally the House to pass an emergency bill, you make it seem like there is AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY, which more or less precludes partisan attacks. To the extent any Republican voted against the bill because of Pelosi's speech, it may not be a question of them being offended by her partisanship, but the perspective that if Pelosi thinks that the situation calls for partisanship, it must not be a serious emergency, because leaders simply don't engage in such antics when a true emergency is at hand. For that matter, if I were a Democrat skeptical of the bill, Pelosi's speech may have discouraged me from voting for it for the same reason.
The more I think about it the more I think she got just what she wanted.That little speech was just enough to blow up whatever votes McCain drummed up from his party. She can now play the blame game and deflect the fact her own party didn't anty up.RobVarak wrote:I think it's silly to blame her pre-vote speech, and if her speech influenced votes I think it's obvious that those votes weren't solid to begin with.
That said, how smart is she to deliver that speech with that content? You've just spent a week hammering out a bill which is very tenuously suported and enormously unpopular with the electorate. What a great time to go out and deliver a partisan jermiad!!
It's tone deaf at the very least and totally irresponsible.
Well, something like 65% of Republicans voted against it, so if you're using percentage of people voting against it as the metric, you can blame the Republicans more...matthewk wrote:I want to know how Pelosi can blame just the Republicans when 40% of her own party voted against it.sportdan30 wrote:"The bill failed by a vote of 205 to 228, with 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voting in favor and 95 Democrats joining 133 Republicans against."
Why is the blame being solely put on the dems again? I'm confused.
That makes no sense. We should blame it on the people who almost got on board but didn't, yet exonerate those who were never even open to the idea of the bill? I'm more inclined to blame those who stood on principle out of the gate despite the panoply of economists and other experts who were calling for assistance.Jared wrote:
I think it depends on which votes flipped. They had the votes before it went up to vote. So if the Republicans flipped last minute, you can fairly blame it on them; if the Democrats did, you can blame it on them; if both, then everyone gets blame.
Like I said in the politics thread, it's hilariously predictable that you blame Republicans for not fixing FM/FM in the face of stiff Democratic opposition (which, you may remember, I agreed with), yet you blame Republicans for torpedoing the bailout bill when they put up much less resistance than the Dems did to more FM/FM oversight.Jared wrote:Well, something like 65% of Republicans voted against it, so if you're using percentage of people voting against it as the metric, you can blame the Republicans more...matthewk wrote:I want to know how Pelosi can blame just the Republicans when 40% of her own party voted against it.sportdan30 wrote:"The bill failed by a vote of 205 to 228, with 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voting in favor and 95 Democrats joining 133 Republicans against."
Why is the blame being solely put on the dems again? I'm confused.
I think it depends on which votes flipped. They had the votes before it went up to vote. So if the Republicans flipped last minute, you can fairly blame it on them; if the Democrats did, you can blame it on them; if both, then everyone gets blame.
Jared wrote:Well, something like 65% of Republicans voted against it, so if you're using percentage of people voting against it as the metric, you can blame the Republicans more...matthewk wrote:I want to know how Pelosi can blame just the Republicans when 40% of her own party voted against it.
