Pointing Fingers

Umm...by my account she was right. I know this had its starts under the Clinton Administration, but hasn't it been the Republicans pushing the deregulation, that we now know was a very bad idea?

Bush himself bragged about the level of home ownership and his administration pressed for elimination of down payments for mortgage loans. Its true the sub-prime loans started under Clinton- but it was a good program that was poorly managed in later years- since we had no problems with it during the 90's.

I just listened to the entire speech. Are the republicans such babies, is their self esteem so delicate, they can no longer do their jobs after hearing Pelosi accurately describe the state of affairs? What did she say that wasn't true? So they don't like getting lectured and decide to vote against the package because their egos are a little bruised? Jesus criminy. This is just pathetic. I know lots of people out in the real world who buck up and do their jobs in the face of much much more adversity than a little lecture by Nancy Pelosi. What a bunch of whining, spineless ninnies. No wonder this country is flailing around like a chicken with it's head cut off. People can't even stand to hear the truth without having it either watered down or laced with a lot of pandering BS. Disgusting.

It doesn't matter *what* Pelosi or anyone else said. She could have let loose a real fire and brimstone speech, claimed every single Republican was a pedophile and axe-murderer, howled at the moon, whatever.

*ANY* house member, Republican or Democrat, who would be swayed to vote one way or another based on that single speech INSTEAD OF the merits of the bill, does not deserve to be in office. Period.

Pelosi may be castigated for her lack of leadership (I personally view her as borderline incompetent myself), but say she deserves some of the blame for the failed vote because of whatever she may have said right before the vote is misplaced blame.

Then again, one should never underestimate the pettiness of any House politician, who by nature are a superstitious and cowardly lot. Not surprised, just disappointed.

Ludicrous. No speech on the House is non-partisan. None.

What she said is no different than what dozens of Democrats have been saying all along. And if the GOP were in charge they'd give an equally partisan speech. That's what Congressmen do.

There are only two possibilities at work here:

A. John Boehner is lying and the votes for passage were NEVER there. The Pelosi speech was used as cover for Boehner's failure to gather up votes.

or

B. A dozen Republican Congressmen need to find a new line of work fast as their thin skin stood in the way of saving the economy.

My guess is it's A. Republicans are not a bunch of delicate flowers. This whole thing is a ruse because Boehner doesn't want to take the blame for the Dow dropping 777 points.

By the way, even Fox News mocked this whole notion of Pelosi causing Republicans to abandon the plan. Mort Kondracke said he spoke with Boehner long before Pelosi's speech and Boehner said he didn't think he could even get to 70 votes. There were 66 yay votes from the GOP, far short of the number needed for passage.

Pelosi was an idiot.

95 Dems voted to reject the bill in addition to the Republicans who rejected it.

Let the two parties craft their own bills. If the Dems really want to bail out deadbeat borrowers to win E-Z votes (Subsidized Squatters[tm] who, too, can be on a vast public dole and vote loyally and robotically Democratic in exchange), and pass a bill with this in it over the GOP, let them also try to override a well-deserved presidential veto (while the Dems and their media decry such a "heartless" and "hypocritical" veto, et cetera, ad nauseum).

What's really, _really_ stupid is the shocked, surprised, bewildered, horrified reaction in Washington and in New York City. It's the same stupidity we saw after the 1994 elections. Why don't these members of the Perpetual Parasitism Club of Elite Rome, USA get out of their stupid little world and see how the public views a big bailout and the associated moral hazard and outrage?

"even Fox News mocked this whole notion of Pelosi causing Republicans to abandon the plan"

She was an idiot, but the real issue is that this is a bailout bill, and such a bailout is wrong. (Dems who said No probably were upset it wasn't radical and didn't reward bad behavior by borrowers enough, didn't include federal conveyence of property to current home occupants without charge, et cetera.) The GOP remains somewhat dysfunctional; capital gains tax reductions make a good ideal in and of itself, but obviously the House GOP was weird to try to introduce this as part of negotiating a bailout bill.

Why doesn't each party retreat, retrench, and devise their own model bill at this time? (Ignore the Bush administration for now.)

By the way, it's pretty obvious listening to Pelosi' speech that she is trying to corral support among liberal Democrats for the bill. 95 Democrats opposed the bill, many of them on the left. The speech was obviously geared toward appeasing her liberal constituents and convincing liberal House members that it's OK to support the bill.

That a Republican wouldn't see that is absurd. Republicans get up there all the time and make speeches to rally GOP support for bills that Democrats already back. They have to do it on their own terms.

The deal all along was clear: Pelosi rallies Democrats and Boehner rallies Republicans. 140 Democrats voted for the bill, or 60%. Only 66% of Republicans supported it, or 33% of their members.

DLS,
We get that you hate the bailout and you hate any more populist provision. So what do you think Congress should do instead? Let the market work itself out on its own?

Look how partisan and insulting Bush has been to the Democrats since '06- blaming them for everything from coddling terrorists to taking their breaks without passing some piece of legislation that he wanted. When Pelosi when on a bipartisan trip to Syria he skewered her and tried to make her look unamerican.

Yet he still expected them to work with him on this and his immigration bill and they obliged. They didn't sit out the session and whine about Bush's excessive partisanship!

What Pelosi did was politically stupid.

I disagree with Elrod's view that this is SOP: that the Republicans speak to Republicans, and criticize Democrats . . . and Democrats speak to Democrats etc.

If it were, surely there would be YouTubes up of Boehner being partisan by, for example, denouncing Clinton appointees at Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac.

As Elrod said, everyone knew this was going to be a close vote among the Republicans.

So, a smart politician -- a her defenders claim she is -- displays her intelligence by slagging the opposition, whose votes she supposedly needs, right before a close vote?

Pelosi actions are unprecedented.

Point me to another instance in a parliamentary or representative democracy when a leader . . . during a close vote, needing the votes of the opposition . . . criticizes and insults the opposition.

I cannot think of one. I know the British model best . . . and when British leaders have needed opposition votes . . . they are charming.

Tony Blair needed the conservatives to support him, during one rebellion of his looney left a few years back. Blair doled out contrition and charm in equal portions . . . and he won the support of the House.

Churchill could be a vicious and scathing partisan. But if he needed the votes, he held his tongue.

Pelosi obviously didn't hold hers. Why try making a virtue out of an act of stupidity? Would Tip O'Neill have done the same? Or Sam Rayburn? I don't think so.

Kritt . . . I think the difference is one of context.

There is always partisanship. Bush has been the subject of as much, or more, partisan attacks than he has doled out.

But in the midst of a single issue debate . . . a contentious and complex one . . . which is very close, you don't start doling out insults.

When Kennedy and Bush combined on "No Child Left Behind" that could have gone down in flames . . .given their antithetical views on almost everything else. Instead, both held their tongues, and got it passed.

Maybe there weren't the GOP votes there to begin with? Maybe Pelosi deliberately wanted to toast the bill in order to bring forward an All-Democrat solution?

But partisan insults . . . IMMEDIATELY before . . . a very close vote, is politically foolish at best.

Anger at Pelosi, and indeed, the representatives who voted against this bill is sorely misplaced. It is like blaming the German soldiers who abandoned their posts in Berlin in April 1945 for losing the war. Ask yourself: what has this abomination of an administration been doing for the past 18 months as this situation developed; for the past seven years? Just look at one thing: that obscene, unconscionable, unconstitutional two and a half piece of toilet paper that Secretary Paulson, a master of the universe, tried to foist off as a plan? In heavens name, I have submitted grant proposals for $500 three times as long and vastly more substantive than that thing. That alone was the pinnacle of betrayal.

two and a half PAGE piece of toilet paper

Marlowecan: "Point me to another instance in a parliamentary or representative democracy when a leader . . . during a close vote, needing the votes of the opposition . . . criticizes and insults the opposition."

Uh... this was the Republican's bill and so it was the Republicans responsibility to sell it. If the Republicans weren't behind it (and only 1/3 of the House GOP was) then why does everyone expect the Dems to do the selling? The GOP should be selling the plan to the Dems.

The Republicans are taking the same lack-of-responsibility-but-want-to-have-the-benefits attitude toward this bill as they take towards the deregulation and bailout (which didn't happen but they pressed extremely hard for it). What I mean is the GOP wanted deregulation and then wanted someone to bail them out. They would profit (financially) from good decisions and from bad decisions. (I also understand that there are Dems who made money onWall St. but this is basically a GOP show.)

Likewise with this legislation. The GOP expected the Dems to come through for them and pass the plan. If the plan worked, then the GOP could take credit for having proposed it, but if the plan came up short and the country slid deeper into a recession then the GOP could say that they didn't vote for the bill. The GOP would also say that the bill was passed by the liberal tax and spend Democratic Congress.

Everyone knows this bill doesn't solve all the problems and the GOP wanted their cake, but also wanted to be able to run away from it if it didn't work.

But ultimately it was the GOP pushing for the bill and the GOP should be grateful that the Dems mostly set aside partisan politics (to the extent possible- after all the bill wasn't held up in committee, the Dems worked hard with the few Republicans who didn't stage a walkout or do some other dramatic event and the Dems compromised on what they wanted in the bill in order to get it passed). If Pelosi wants to state the reason why the country is in this mess, that's fine and the GOP should take their lumps (they've doled out enough to the Dems over the years). After all it was Pelosi's party which was asked to step up to the plate to get this done and the Dems got 2/3rds of their party to vote for the bill whereas only 1/3 of the House GOP did.

It's not as though the Republican leadership didn't play dramatic politics with this... For starters think of McCain "suspending" his campaign and demanding that Obama do the same.... That really set a good tone for a smooth bipartisan approach.... Way to go McCain!

Marlowe- Bush as the president sets the tone in Washington. He has been the most partisan president of any in the last 50 years even in times when he should have been working to unite the country. I'm not saying that what Pelosi did was smart--- but its understandable. It is Bush who needs the Democrats more than they need him because he has little or no influence with his own party.

And Pelosi is just voicing what a lot on the left feel--this is a bitter pill to swallow because it is the result of many years of deregulation of our financial institutions. Any who suggested regulations was accused directly or indirectly by conservatives of socialism. Its another big mess that has gotten out of hand because of a failure of governance. She doesn't want a bill like this any more than Boehner does. Why would she want to hand over unprecedented power to an administration that she feels so strongly has initiated the failed policies that created the crisis in the first place??

I completely disagree with the premise that this speech was inappropriate. Even as we debate this passionately right here, some commenters are suggesting Pelosi should not have spoken her mind as she did. This, folks, was the official 3 hour debate on one of the most historic issues of our time. I want every one of our representatives to speak out. They have every right to speak on the official record and on the day of this historic vote, and I for one, as one of the represented, want to hear it.

I happen to agree with most of what Rep. Pelosi said, but even if I didn't agree with what she said, "I would defend to the death her right to say it."

What's amazing to me is the way the excuses are built in for Republicans.

It's all Nancy Pelosi's fault!

Limbaugh, Hannity and the whole alternative right-wing media have made Pelosi a boogeyman. She's "far left". She's a "San Francisco-style politican". Worse, she's a "liberal". And worse that that, she's a "Democrat".

If there have been serious, substantive policy disputes, I have missed them. Instead, it's all about personalities.

It's true that Pelosi's speach is partisan, but only mildly so.

House Republicans dislike this bill for their own partisan reasons, even though both George Bush and John McCain support it. Democrats like Pelosi are reaching across the aisle.

House Republicans are being obstructionist to create a political issue they can take advantage of.

Naturally, Democrats are frustrated by the lack of Republican leadership.

And even a Republican like Dennis Sanders--who thinks this bill should have passed--is perfectly willing to blame it on the boogeyman.

Pelosi could have passed this bill with one of two approaches:

(1) Shore up support within your own party - you are the majority after all - and pass it with minimal Republican support. A competent speaker should be able to do this for a critical bill, especially as they had the bonus of 65 Republican votes.

(2) Take a bipartisan approach, accepting there will be about 100 dissenters each in both parties. For this to work, you need the maturity of Tip O'Neill to know when to be respectful of the other party and work with them sincerely.

Apparently, prior to vote, Pelosi was going with approach #2, but then in her floor speech switched to approach #1, foolishly alienating her Republican collaborators. If anyone really switched their vote over that speech, it must have been a fragile alliance to begin with. She really ought to have leant more on her own party from the beginning, but she completely botched this by her immature lashing out against her Republican colleagues, whom she needed thanks to her inability to control her own party.

Partisanship in the House never. What is interesting is to see how "fiscal conservatives" voted on this bill in comparison to the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act vote. I see that Flake, Paul, Jones(NC) and Pence voted on principle, and not in a partisan manner.
Drug bill - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml
Bailout - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

The Bailout vote text is about another issue, but this must be a mistake.

BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

The only Liberal I noticed as a "noes" vote was Kucinich, I'm guessing more Blue Dogs voted no than Liberals. Blue Dog's Schuler, Taylor, Salazar and Sanchez voted against the bill.

Still sounds like most here are buying into the idea that debate in the House (and presumably the Senate) should not be forceful or honest, because that would be "partisan" and "alienate Republicans". What a wimpy excuse for a republic this has become.

The history of democracy is filled with dynamic, dramatic and passionate debate. Take a look back at the powerful speeches and writings of past legislatures, of the founding fathers, of England and Rome and Greece. This is important stuff and our legislators are there to represent us. You, all of you here, are here because you love a forceful debate. Stop being babies. It's healthy to disagree and do so with all the power and persuasion you can. We all do that here.

But in Congress, everyone is supposed to be nice and bite their tongues to keep from offending the pitiful egos of lawmakers on the other side? To hell with that ! History is being written, in the House and Senate records. The speeches and writing of both sides will become part and parcel of how future generations view this momentous time. It is the official record of the government of the United States.

As one who has read the records of lots of such debates, I am dumbfounded that you partisan sparring mates here think these powerful, connected and mostly wealthy leaders need to be coddled. Come on ! Most of them are lawyers. They do this in court. They present and are presented with the most forceful points that can be made. They wouldn't abandon their clients because opposing counsel wasn't nice enough and tried to make points against them. How preposterous.

I do not buy at all that they are so hurt that they changed their votes because someone offended them by speaking frankly. Get a grip.

"There is none so dumb as he who will not speak."

The most important point in all of this is that Republicans who did not have the courage to vote against their constituents and for the bailout are now hiding behind the skirts of Ms. Pelosi. She has shown that she has the strength of character to speak her mind and play hardball, just as Newt did just as Hastert and DeLay did.

I didn't see any of the conservatives on this board condemning the partisan comments of Boehner or Bush in the past-- when the issues we faced were just as dire. Bush made the tremendous error of politicizing 9/11 and the GWOT-- when did all of you ask that he put partisanship aside? His administration politicized everything from firing the US attorneys to the Honors internships at the DOJ. No realm of government was safe. So, to suggest now that a Democratic leader needs to put partisanship aside is breathtakingly naive.