The boo-hoo House Republicans

Barnie Frank had the best response to this nonsense:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/frank-because-somebody-hu_n_130328.html

As to those trying pin the blame on the Democrats, over 60% of them voted for it, about twice the percent of the Republican. And this is after some parts that Democrats liked were pulled out of the bill to appease the Republicans.

Just a few short weeks ago the GOP claimed they always put "Country First!" What happened to those guys?

I agree that these Republicans came off looking petty yesterday.

But what about the Democrats who porked this bill up with among other things a slush fund for *ACORN,* to help ACORN do even more of the racialist mau-mauing that was instrumental in creating the problem that the bailout bill itself is designed to address?

We are truly deep down the White Rabbit's hole at this point.

Rep. Shadegg (R-Az.) was on Laura Ingraham's show this morning and called the characterization of the 12 republicans changing their mind as a fit of pique "incorrect and unhelpful". Boehner thought those members were on board and they weren't, and Cantor was upset about it, so he described their opposition in that fashion.

If you are the members in question, how does their leadership's shame tactics help them vote for this? I know they are supposed to vote for what's right for the country, but consider that they're getting hundreds to thousands of calls against and few for, and now their leadership is trying to shame them into changing their votes. Megan McCardle said this morning that whoever changes to vote this thing will be excoriated for it unless it's an immediate, unqualified success, which no one thinks will happen. A post at NRO mentions a democratic house member from California who got 1900 calls about the bailout and 10 were for it. It would take courage most of us do not possess to go against that tide.

Meanwhile, the Prowler at the Spectator says Pelosi told her whip not to pressure her caucus to vote for it. She wanted to give as much coverage as possible to her team, and the Prowler goes on further to say that Rahm Emanuel has been told that in an Obama administration members with ties to Fannie and Freddie have nothing to fear from an investigation in the messy failure of both. It looks like Pelosi planned it this way; once McCain suspended his campaign he was tied to the bailout and Pelosi could afford not to rein in her caucus and make passage certain; if the bailout was going to pass, weak Republicans would be needed and some refused to be rolled. Unfortunately we're likely to get further damage to the DOW, a larded, liberal bill, and an Obama landslide in the bargain.

At the end of the day, all that matters is that the bill didn't pass. If we allow such a bill to pass, this paves the way for even more large-scale bailouts down the road. Think of the teenager who wrecks his car and his parents buy him a new one.

As for the Democratic response, the best one I have seen so far is that of Congressman Andre Carson from Indianapolis. Speaking of the failed bailout, he faulted what he called the economic malpractice of the Bush Administration and the lack of provisions in the bill to increase the nation's affordable housing stock.

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9094210&nav=menu35_4

I had to provide the link just incase anyone thought I was making up Carson's comments. Carson is out of touch with reality.

Yeah, "it turned out so well for House Repubicans" that they kept the majority for another 12 years until Apre' Dubya le Deluge. They did this despite the media's attempt to intimidate the unshakable Tom Delay, Henry Hyde and others (cast a stone if you like on Abramoff, but do some digging on McCain;s coziness with Abramoff's "gaming" industry rivals) into not impeaching the man who raped Juanita Broderick (don't take my word for it, believe the credentialed Dorothy Rabinowitz of WSJ).

They impeached the excceedingly popular Warren Harding of the "Seinfeld Age" (Jazz Age in our time) by hoisting him on his own petard of cynical Trostkyite corruption of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This they thought would be wielded by the likes of Jamie Mae Gorelick against the next Clarence Thomas instead of "Javert" Starr, who knew what he was up against as a hick himself straight out of Arkadelphia. The man stuck to his guns in a true Profile of Courage. And Clinton committed perjury, for which he deserved to be impeached as this Bailout montrosity deserves to be voted down. Let Judith Martin sort out the rest.

Mr Dreher, I hope for your honor's sake Sam Johnson wasn't one of the "petty" twelve. If he was, I bet you wouldn't say that to his face in a Dallas area VFW hall. If I'm wrong, strike my words or the whole post as you did with the last one I put up on many Evangelical permissiveness on divorce and birth control.

They stood on principle, God Bless 'em. To hell with the spin.

What unbelievaly hypocritical people. Conservative Republicans have made a career of making scathing comments about liberal Democrats, routinely -- reflexively -- calling them unpatriotic, corrupt, dishonest, morally subversive, contemptuous of regular folks, etc., etc.

Apparently, though, for a liberal Democrats to question the efficacy of GOP policy and governance is completely beyond the pale. "Deference" must be shown.

Who are these 12 Congressional Republicans? Do they actually exist? Could someone in journalism do some real journalism here and check the facts of this "story" to see if this nothing more than an emerging "urban legend"?

GOP Rep. Eric Cantor is the one who spoke of the 12. He appeared with other members of the House GOP leadership before cameras this morning, held up a transcript of Pelosi's speech, and said it was responsible for 12 members of the GOP voting against it.

No urban legend. The GOP leadership said it. I saw them saying it on TV this morning.

Jim Geraghty at NRO notes that Karl Rove was on the John Gibson show and said that during the vote he was listening to Chris Van Hollen, (D-Md.), who was on NPR describing how the Democrats were going to use the vote against every vulnerable Republican who voted for it this fall.

I'm going to just pull the whole quote from Rove over from Geraghty, but you can find it http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNmYWE2OWNmYWM5ZGFlOGUwMWM5ZGFmZThkZWNjNjU=(Html is rusty, hope I didn't mess that up):

"Now, then I went and took a look at the vote, and then talked to some members. Now, when you've got a big issue like this, and we've been through a number of them, the pit of the house in a big important vital vote like this is an emotional place, as people contemplate, literally, whether or not they are going to end their political futures by their vote.

And so you've got Republicans there who are being asked to vote for this, and they're hearing Chris Van Hollen, literally, there are 16 vulnerable House Democrat freshman who are allowed to vote no. And they're being told on the floor by Van Hollen and others, 'you can vote against this.' There are five committee chairs who owe their positions to Nancy Pelosi — John Conyers, chairman of judiciary. Colin Peterson, chairman of agriculture, Filner, head of veterans, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, head of homeland security, Gene Green gead of the Ethics Commission - and those five committee chairs are voting no.

You have senior Democrats like Solomon Ortiz, Pete Stark, the number two guy on the Ways and Means Committee, Fazio of Oregon, Clay of Missouri, Costello of Illinois - Jesse - you know, all of whom are close to the speaker, and they're voting no. You have some of her close friends and allies like the Sanchez sisters of California and Lynn Woolsey and Herseth Sandlin from South Dakota and Barbara Lee close friends and allies voting no.

Republicans are sitting on the floor seeing her take a two-by-four to them and then let these people who are her allies and supporters and friends and committee chairs and members of her leadership vote no. I mean, what was the speaker thinking?"

If Pelosi really believes this is a crisis then she had a duty to act differently. But she obviously didn't act like it's a crisis, did she?

We didn't get into this mess in one week; we can't craft a reasonable fix in one week - or in one month - either.

Everyone in the media and on Wall Street and in Washington (especially from the White House), as well as in the newspapers, needs to calm down and declare that there are many, many factors involved - the Fed, the SEC, regulations and oversight, Fannie and Freddy, etc. "Fixing" this is as much a long-term "war" as the war on terrorism. It took us more than a year before we responded militarily to 9/11, if I recall correctly.

It's either fortunate or unfortunate that elections are coming up right now so that lawmakers have to consider the effect of their immediate action or inaction, and feel compelled or constrained either to move quickly or to do nothing, based on how they think that will hit them on November 4.

Maybe $700B now with LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of strings attached is a suitable band-aid until Congress can meet in January and really do something right about this. Maybe it's not. But if it has ACORN monies slipped into it, or it doesn't have LOTS of rules and things that very restrictively target where and to whom and how the money is to be used, then they shouldn't pass the bill. After all, if it's supposed to "bail out" or "shore up" or "prime the pump" for something, then if they know what needs to be done, surely they know WHERE and WHY and HOW it is to be used - don't they? And if they don't, then this whole thing is a fast-track farce.

I understand that once you are on three or four different prescription medications, it's really hard to know or anticipate the potential effects the different medications have on each other. I think this "crisis" is similar. The economy is intricate, not simple, and throwing $700B at something may fix one problem, but only exacerbate another, or may ultimately prove useless because something else will wipe out any short-term benefits.

But the last thing we need is the different parties calling each other names and blaming each other. Puerile behavior by our so-called "leaders" does not enhance their images as leaders or adults.

When public opinion and constituent calls to congress members offices run 10 to 1 against the bailout, why is everyone so hacked off at the members who voted against it?

Just a few short weeks ago the GOP claimed they always put "Country First!" What happened to those guys?

What happened is that "the country" -- or at least their little piece of it -- hammered them with calls and e-mails telling them not to support the bailout.

I think their blaming Pelosi is just understandable partisan posturing. In actual fact most of them were responding to the wishes of their constituents, which is part of their job. Yes, I know, there are times when representatives have to rely on their own judgment and greater knowledge of these issues even if it conflicts with the opinion of their constituents. But not everyone is a profile in political courage, esp. 5 weeks before an election; and, after all, many of them may have decided that their constituents were, in fact, right about this.

I'm also disgusted at the way the media have been playing up yesterday's stock market losses. Yes, the loss was big number, but it was about 7-8% of the value of the Dow. In the crash of 1987 the Dow lost about 21% of its value, and I don't remember bread lines stretching around the corner afterwards.

To interpret Boehner's speech to the House prior to the vote, the Republicans have to eat their "mud sandwich". Years of "Contract with America"-i.e. cut taxes, spend at the same level and deregulate. (Not to mention a preemptive war which costs are off-budget.) (No more "cheap money tricks", which has pulled large purchase transactions to the present from far into the future. New automobile and housing sales are predicted to be in decline for the next several years. Reason: Too many people acted irresponsibly and made the purchase long before their financial readiness.) The Republicans, as a majority party over much of the recent past, have a record of similar irresponsibility. They needed the "housing bubble" to mask the true health of the national economy. Yesterday was their political reckoning day. And in typical fashion, they cowardly avoided it with reckless behavior.

Three times now I've tried, and I can't get the link to the story...

But the Dems deliberately lost...

www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13967

Nobody has any right to sling any mud after that bit of utterly obtuse machination.

Surely, at least SOMEBODY over there has to have a rational thought in their heads. Something besides giving Paulsen and whoever comes after him a trillion dollar sandbox with trillions of securities in it to play with at will, for sure.

There are SO many useful things that can and should be done, why on earth can't those dunderheads in DC latch on to them and run with it? I mean, it would take me all of a few hours to generate a compehensive plan of attack. Funny things, with the exception of partisan comboxers, I doubt anyone would disagree with it fundamentally, and we'd actually accomplish something.

But lest you get the impression I'm bragging or something, the point is that not just me, but half the people I know, including my high school age son, could do it too.

Remind me again how wise and knowledgeable these buffoons are after having gained "experience and knowledge" by serving long in Washington????

Rod,

I was appalled by the House Republicans' behavior yesterday and am infuriated by the failure of the bailout bill. The time to take a stand against government distortion of the marketplace was back when the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, or when lawmakers shot down efforts to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac despite Enron-level accounting scandals. Not now, when the financial system is in extreme danger.

But you are late to this story. Cantor (who, like all the other leaders, supported the bill) made his remarks yesterday shortly after it failed. It was intemperate and foolish. A combination of frustration and CYA.

A day later, however, there is no evidence that ANY Republican actually changed his or her vote because of Pelosi's speech. All of the No voters have hotly denied it.

What does appear to have happened is that

(1) Pelosi gave a free pass to all the Democrats in tough districts to vote No. She also allowed a number of her committee chairman to vote No, including at least one of Barney Frank's banking subcommittee chairmen.

(2) Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said yesterday that the DCCC was looking forward to using Yes votes against endangered Republicans.

(3) Seeing (1) and (2), House Republicans who had substantive (and IMHO wrong) objections to the bailout anyway simply voted against it.

Nancy Pelosi really was out of line. Seriously. Any Repubs who did change their votes (unlikely, IMO) were not right, but it's hard to overstate what a complete, total tool Pelosi was. She is a disgrace to Democrats, to government and is the best argument against women in politics one could imagine.

I predict that the "No" votes -- for whatever reason they were cast (principle, political fear, pettiness or what have you) -- are going to look very unwise as this situation continues to play out. I'm appalled and red-hot peeved with the lot of them. The WSJ editorial this morning hit the nail on the head.

If Cranky's link is correct:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13967

in what it asserts, then the folks in Washington (the Dems, primarily) really are just playing politics, and craftily/nastily, too. Which explains Pelosi's stage performance - i.e., "make the mistake" of angering the Republicans so they would, or would appear to, vote against the bill in retaliation.

Which means (again, if true) that you can't trust what the news and pundits are telling you.

I guess someday 5 years from now someone will write a book about how Americans were hornswoggled into this thing.

Cranky's link is the American Spectator. Not exactly a non-partisan publication. But he is correct in his assertion, there are other options. They need to be explored. The business networks are stating that the market is up today on belief a bailout will be passed later this week. If it does, it has to be bipartisan. Frankly, after yesterday, I don't think it is going to happen. Again, no one wants ownership of the bailout bill. The House Republicans have bolted twice. (And the first I see justification.) Confidence between the delegations has to be at new lows. To pass, it has to be the Administration's bill.

I think you're judging without sufficient facts. Let individuals speak for themselves.
I trust our congressman, who voted against it. He's not petty.

I expect all the hub-ub is over blown. Some sort of bailout package will be passed eventually with significant bi-partisan support, it's just a matter of who wins this game of political chicken. Will the conservative Republicans be able to get their concessions, or will the Democrats keep things basically the same?

We'll see...in the meantime boths sides are engaging in constant finger pointing to keep the heat off of them. I would take the words of both sides with a grain of salt.

"Some sort of bailout package will be passed eventually with significant bi-partisan support, it's just a matter of who wins this game of political chicken."

You're probably right, but shame on them all for playing games on this issue. I understand, of course, that they play games on the great majority of issues. What I expect is that, when the chips are down, they'll set aside such nonsense and actually do what needs to be done. Now is not the time for d*cking around.

Follow the money. This may be a bit trickier in the era of complicated schemes and plans. But follow the money and you will find who is going to benefit from this bailout. The trail will not end on MLK Jr Blvd, or even in any cute, suburban neighborhood with a quaint name. It will end in the Hamptons, Greewich, or somewhere outside Dallas. Ultimately it will end in the Caymans or a Swiss Bnak.

The Bard said it best, "Me thinks thou doest protest too much". Or thems what whines the most ought to be first to be fingerprinted and investigated.

This whole thing stinks like last months manure. "They" have earned "our" distrust - so let's give "'em" what they earned - and start the investigation going. Meanwhile, if they simply forgive the excess (usurous) debt on mortgage holders and keep the loans at the original (reasonable) terms, most of this "crisis" can be averted and the real economy will survive intact. It is the "fictional" funds that will evaporate, along with the "fictional" corporations that manage and transfer them.

"This bill is a disaster and thank God the GOP showed some uncharacteristic courage and defeated it. Talk about throwing good money after bad."

Amen to that. And to think that the courage shown may cost them the election puts it in even starker terms. Come on, Dems! You have the votes -- pass it your own damn selves if it's such a great bill, you bunch of sanctimonious windbag chickens**ts.

Thought so.

"Meanwhile, your shifting of blame to the Democrats for loans that are completely unrelated to this current mess is EPIC FAIL."

What then do you call the Dems' refusal to listen to the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac regulators over the past three years? No, according to Bawney Fwank, "Evwything's just wondewful!" Even some of the Democrats are now saying, "We should have listened."

I'm sort of stunned that this blog is up in arms about phony comments made by Boehner, when multiple GOP congressional members have already eloquently explained their 'no' votes were acts of principled courage and conviction, and had nothing to do with Pelosi's execrable speech.

How about this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

Any comments about how the Democrats willfully ignored the train wreck that GOP members could see clearly years ago and warned about?

Yes, the brilliant Rep. Frank is even in that video talking about how everything is just great! Safety and soundness is a "shibboleth"? Eat your words, Mr. Frank.