Comments on: And The Biggest Pile of Chutzpah Award goes to…

By: Ed Graham

Ed Graham — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:52:07 +0000

Mark: Pelosi was protecting vulnerable Dems by permitting them to vote no even as Dems promised to use yes votes against the Republicans this fall:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNmYWE2OWNmYWM5ZGFlOGUwMWM5ZGFmZThkZWNjNjU=

That’s not “sharing risk”; that’s irresponsible. If she had any shame she would step down. She’s worse than useless.

By: Fireduck

Fireduck — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:40:06 +0000

VM –
EVERYONE voting for it was going to take some heat. Look at the fact that even 40% of Dems bailed on the bill. There was absolutely NOTHING that Pelosi or anyone else was going to be able to do to ‘crack the whip’ to get this passed. Given public sentiment right now and blowback from the electorate, there is no way that she was going to get enough democrats on board to get this passed in the face of republican dissent.
The reality is that the ‘cover’ argument doesn’t make sense. If the only reason that they were courting Republicans was for ‘cover,’ then you would have seen a lot more dems voting for the bill. No, every single vote in favor, regardless of party, was absolutely necessary because at the end of the day the electorate is pissed and didn’t want it.
If the republicans were going to be so testy about something so contentious, and didn’t think that the bill should pass regardless of ‘cover’ because it was just crap in the first place, they should never have bothered to announce a deal in the first place.
I’m not defending Pelosi – she’s terrible and has ideas that make the hair stand up on the back of my neck. And, yes, there was no need for her speech. But if the republicans are going to whine that they bailed because of partisan politics from something that is “absolutely necessary” to protect the voters, then they are either: 1) lying about their assessment of the seriousness of the problem; 2) don’t care about throwing the voters under the bus; or 3) are just as willing to give up principles over partisan politics as they have been crying the democrats are for years. Possibly all three.

By: THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER

THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:31:34 +0000

Barney’s shame…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi I have always had a hard time liking. But Barney Frank, once upon a time, was different. Maybe it’s the amusing way he talks, like he’s chewing his cud at the same time. Or his basic dishevelment,……

By: Victor Morton

Victor Morton — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:26:21 +0000

thereâ€™s no doubt that politics were involved on both sides of this vote.

But political cover also had to be involved too.

Pelosi’s speech made it kry-STALL **from the highest level** (i.e., we’re not talking about Maxine Waters) that the Dems were gonna play politics with the votes on the bill and blame the Repubs, despite the statistical fact that even if Pelosi flipped 20 votes against her, most of the support for the now-OK’d bill still would have been Democratic.

I don’t blame the Republicans for refusing to play along with that script, refusing to be cast by the Dems in the role of the Washington Generals.

Bottom line … if you’re relying on a bipartisan MAD pact, you’d better come through on the political **cover** too, and Pelosi’s speech made it clear that Dems would not do that.

On those terms, why should there be a bipartisan deal?

And keep in mind that if Pelosi actually WANTED a bill and didn’t care about the “bipartisan cover” part on their part, then all she, Hoyer and Clyburn had to do was simply crack the whip.

Republican support was only ever a factor under the stipulation that, as Pelosi herself said Sunday, this bill has to be bipartisan. But listening to Pelosi’s speech, Republicans rightly heard the sound of a rug being pulled out from under them.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:55:22 +0000

“There was no sharing of political risk in the name of an unpopular but necessary action.”

Given that 60% Democrats voted for the bill and 2/3 of Republicans opposed it, there most definitely was sharing of political risk, Pelosi’s words nothwithstanding.

I don’t deny that Pelosi was playing petty politics here, and as I said on the other thread, it’s possible that it was an intentional effort to torpedo the bill.

Look, there’s no doubt that politics were involved on both sides of this vote. Anyone who voted for or against the bill based on Nancy Pelosi’s comments or anything else political should be ashamed. Members of Congress should’ve voted up or down based solely on whether they though it was the appropriate solution to the problem.

By: Tito Edwards

Tito Edwards — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:40:42 +0000

Barney Frank is one of the biggest political tools I’ve ever heard or seen since Nancy Pelosi or dare I say Frank Church?

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:07:11 +0000

I am very concerned about how bad things are going. Not about McCain or Obama winning (or not) that is irrelevant. It is how in the bag the MSM is for Obama and how willing many are to derail the economy (both pro Obama folks and those WTO conservative anarchists who want to see a melt down to bring on a mythical conservative age).

McCain has been holding back hoping to make a deal (we could all unleash on Dodd, Frank and Obama). But we are beyond that.

I do not like this government intervention either, but if we are going to Ron Paul route we need to be honest about what that means. The tough love route might work in the long term, but it only works if you are consistent. A hybrid Ron Paul hands off approach with a massive Democratic entitlement expansion is a recipe to Argentina style economics. This is a very big deal and people better start wrapping their heads around that.

By: victor morton

victor morton — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:58:36 +0000

should read “why SHOULDN’T Republicans assume”

By: victor morton

victor morton — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:56:04 +0000

I understood Franks point fine. But like I said on the other thread, MAD politics was a huge part of how this deal was put together, and Pelosi’s comments made it clear that MUTUAL assured destruction didn’t apply in her mind. There was no sharing of political risk in the name of an unpopular but necessary action. On those terms, why should Republicans act as if they were being set up?

By: riggword

riggword — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:55:57 +0000

But Mark,

The point is that if the Dems really wanted to pass the bill they didn’t need the Republicans at all.

The Democrats are in the Majority. If Pelosi and Frank really wanted it passed they should have used their “Talents” and “Skills” to encourage their Dem. pals to help our country out of this mess. The reality is their goal is to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything and make them looked bad. Then if they get Obama elected they can recreate this country in their own image.

Pelosi’s words and Frank’s diatribe are just their attempt at distraction from their mistakes.

Speaking of petty politics.