I've read and read and read and ended up with no opinion about whether the bailout plan (this or any alternative) was necessary or a good idea. And I take no issue with any of the House members who voted either way on the bill EXCEPT with anyone who a) thought the bill was necessary AND b) voted against it anyway because they didn't like Pelosi's floor speech. I found her speech to be unnecessarily and obnoxiously partisan. Still, that's no reason to tank the bill if you otherwise would have voted for it.
Anyone else have any opinion on the bill as voted on?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
You might tank it if Boehner twisted your arm bc he had made a deal with Pelosi and then she dumps on you president and your party, thereby reneging on the deal in your mind.
But if you think it's right for the country, you just have no business voting against it to make Nancy look bad. That's not patriotic. That's petty.
I've been watching all the fall-out via CNN and to be fair, Fox News. It's very difficult for me to believe that the 12 or so (R) that voted against it did so not because they disliked the bill, but because the Speaker hurt their feelings.
The other thing that is cracking me up is the McCain campaign spinning this defeat as proof that Obama has no leadership skills. It's laughable. McCain is the one who "suspended" his campaign to go back to D.C. to deliver the bill, to convince the on-the-fence (R) to vote for it. Since the (R) are the ones who killed it, he didn't deliver. The (D) leadership, whomever that was, delivered the votes. The (R) leadership, if there is any, didn't. That is certainly not on Obama and wouldn't have been on McCain, until John made it on himself.
Dem leadership hardly delivered, they lost 90, and needed only what, 15 to get it to pass and couldn't. They could have passed it without a single Rethug but didn't.
Think the deal called for both sides to bring 50% of their party, didn't it?
First, I too have no idea what the correct vote should have been. Second, I didn't really address your question in my hypothetical, in that my guy didn't really believe in the bill. Third, I doubt that anyone who really believed in the bill voted no based on Pelosi's speech, despite what Boehner said. Fourth, neither candidate has looked especially wonderful during any of this.
I don't suppose the Senate will vote on Wed now. I mean, it COULD happen the Senate would vote in favor Wed and then the House could try again, but I assume the Senate is protecting both candidates from having to vote on a bill that may be dead in the water, so there'll be no Senate vote until the House passes something, right?
Just my opinion: The negotiations over the weekend and today were more about who would/wouldn't vote for this than tweaking the bill. No one wanted the bill, but it had to (supposedly) pass, so the leadership on both sides looked at who was up for relection, who was retiring, who was/wasn't in a safe district, etc. And they came up with a number that both sides had to deliver in order to pass it. That way, no one gets the blame and no one gets the credit. And in the end, for whatever reason, the (R)'s didn't deliver.
Sure the (D)'s could have passed this without the (R), but I don't think they were willing to take the risk in case it didn't work. Because if that happened, they would have been HAMMERED. They looked at the risk vs reward and it just wasn't worth it.
Sadly, this would have passed after election day. It goes to what I've been saying forever - EVERYTHING IS POLITICS. EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. AND WHEN POLITICIANS SAY IT ISN'T, IT MEANS IT TRULY TRULY IS>
I think your analysis of how the politics worked is exactly right.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNmYWE2OWNmYWM5ZGFlOGUwMWM5ZGFmZThkZWNjNjU=
Post a Comment