Monday, September 29, 2008

Craven puppies 
I can't wait to find out who those 12 or so Republican scrote-lickers were who switched their votes solely on the basis of Pelosi's speech...scuttling the bill.

A principled vote or a vote on a good-faith but stupid analysis is one thing. But to commit to voting one way on the merits and then letting Madame Pelosi lead them around by their penises with one measly little speech is quite another.

Those spineless, craven, nutless wonders need their walking papers pronto.

Splash, out


Labels: , , ,

Jason - I'm not going to defend the GOP, because God knows it's been complicit in the whole shell game brought on by the Community Reinvestment Act and the never-ending race to see who could take credit for adding more people to the rolls of homeowners--who were NOT CAPABLE of paying for their mortgages in the first place. I just think you should consider that there are political games being played on all sides here, it seems.

First, I don't think everyone sees this as quite the looming crisis that, say, you and I do. It's been used as more of an opportunity to provide giveaways to favored groups, the discussions were flipped and flopped for political gain as the first "debate" approached, and now that the vote failed, Congress is taking a break.

Pelosi, though abysmal as a leader, does know how to count votes. She had to know, or at least have a very good idea, that this vote was going to fail. With that in mind, my guess is she started trying to set the stage politically for the Republicans to take the fall. How else to explain the hyper partisan speech she gave before a vote in which she needed Republican cover. Again, just guessing here, but I doubt it was her speech that turned some votes away. Rather, it quite likely could have been some Congressmen, already wavering and in turn realizing where this was heading politically, who decided to vote with their constituents (loudly telling them to shoot it down) what with an election coming up and all. Craven, to some extent yes. But I'm convinced that Madam Speaker (more than just in giving a stupid, ill-timed speech) and her allies are quite culpable, too.
Think of it this way: they were agreeing to do something which violated their principles & their own understanding of their constituents' opinions. Then they were told by the individuals on the other side who were soliciting this marginal betrayal of their principles and their constituents "oh, yes, and by the way? we're going to use your aid as a club to beat you over the head with in the press."

Pelosi basically stood up & told the Republican waverers that there was *no* cover for them in voting for the bill. It was a violation of their principles, against the reported will of their constituents, and on top of that, the Democratic leadership was promising to use their aye votes against them in the coming campaign.

Pelosi changed the equation from '(claimed national interest + bipartisan cover) - (principles + constituent opinion) = 0' to 'claimed national interest - (principles + constituent opinion + partisan PR shitstorm)= LOSE' with that speech.

Hell, now that I've laid it out myself, I would have changed my vote, too. I wager the only reason *my* congressman voted 'aye' was that he's retiring, and he doesn't need to give a shit. The equation works out for him - his expected successor is running around yelling his opposition to the bailout as loud as his lungs will allow.
And I've heard plenty today of DEM LEADERSHIP in vulnerable districts voting "No". The Dems could have passed this on their own, but they wanted Republican votes for cover if it passed to say to pi$$ed off voters "Republicans voted for it, too". If it was so G-D important to get it passed, Pelosi would have cracked that whip to get her party to fall in line.
12 less Republicans. THAT'LL fix things! Not.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!