« Key to economic stability bill's defeat was Pelosi's refusal to make this a "party loyalty" vote on the Democratic Party's bill | Main | Is Veep debate moderator Gwen Ifill biased? »

Monday, September 29, 2008

In game of "Pelosi may I [vote no]?" the Speaker's answer to Dems was "Yes, you may!"

It's a long title, but it sums up my latest guest-post at HughHewitt.com pretty well, I think.


[Copied here for archival purposes on November 5, 2008, from the post linked above at HughHewitt.com.]

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

I thought it was bad enough that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made a deliberate decision not to make today's vote on the Democrat's economic stabilization bill a "party loyalty" vote in which the House Democratic leadership made absolutely clear that it expected loyal Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. Ignoring all of the immense power to persuade that inheres in the position of Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi wouldn't even offer (or threaten to withhold) so much as a choice Capitol parking spot to make up the 12-vote margin between victory and defeat of H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Speaking on John Gibson's radio show later in the day, however, Karl Rove ran through, by name and often by committee or subcommittee chairmanship, the many, many Democratic members of the House whom Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership expressly authorized to vote against the economic stabilization bill. Glenn Reynolds boils this down to a succinct sentence which is almost exactly right: Pelosi gave key Democrats a pass on the bailout vote. The only quibble I have is that she didn't just give key Democrats a pass. She gave them all a blanket pass, and then some members particular and specific encouragement to take it. It is inconceivable that she didn't know exactly what the result would be.

— Beldar

Posted by Beldar at 11:40 PM in Congress, Current Affairs, Politics (2008) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to In game of "Pelosi may I [vote no]?" the Speaker's answer to Dems was "Yes, you may!" and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) Dale MacInnis made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 1:08:34 AM | Permalink


"It is inconceivable that she didn't know exactly what the result would be."

So... this means she wanted it to fail?

(2) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 1:28:04 AM | Permalink

I hate to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but neither can I rule malice out.

She knew it would fail before it failed. She easily could have held the vote open and delivered threats/promises calibrated to swing 12 votes, but it's also true that would have cost her some amount of political capital. I think it would have cost a trivial amount in comparison to the stakes.

I'm comfortable in saying that she knew it was coming, knew she could have prevented it, and failed to act to prevent the bill's failure. The responsibility for its failure is entirely hers; she was the proximate cause of its failure, the direct and immediate cause with an entirely foreseeable result, although there were other contributing causes-in-fact (the GOP votes against).

But as to precisely why she did what she did and didn't do what she didn't, I'm not sure which of several explanations (some of which are not mutually incompatible) makes the most sense. I'm not quite prepared to argue yet, for example, that she wants another Great Depression, even though she might possibly think that would be good for Democratic Party power and her own.

(3) Neo made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 7:52:53 AM | Permalink

Rove mention that Jesse Jackson Jr. voted NO.

Isn't JJ Jr. part of the Obama "inner circle" ?

(4) MartyH made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 9:34:16 AM | Permalink

Deploy Sarah Palin on the bailout. It's her natural consituency who objects. She needs to make the case to them why the bailout is important. Tell them to support their Congresspeople. Get a revote scheduled for Friday and get it done.

(5) Dai Alanye made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 10:41:27 AM | Permalink

Here's my semi-serious opinion as expressed in a column in a local newspaper.

Strolling The Street 28 Sept 2008

Let’s discuss Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury and the man responsible for saving America from the end of civilization or worse.

Mr Paulson was formerly head of great big investment bank Goldman-Sachs. He is a Democrat, and you lately see him on TV in the company of folks like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Franks, Harry Reid---also Democrats, and all heavily involved in saving us from this financial horror which is entirely the fault of Republicans like Chimpy Dubya Bushitler and that despicable liar John McCain.

From my last column you might recall I explained that the crisis was, in fact, caused by government policies that encouraged and required banks to lend to people who couldn’t afford to repay the loans, all in the worthy guise of assisting the poor to obtain housing. Oh---and because people at Fannie Mae made huge bonuses when they loaned lots of money.

Mr Paulson, formerly of Goldman-Sachs, asked us to hand him $700 billion---no questions asked---to dole out to whomever he, in his superlative judgment, thought deserving of a subsidy. The Democrats in Congress saw this could be improved, so out of the $700 billion they provided $100 million plus 20% of the ultimate profits---if any---to ACORN, an outfit of community organizers heavily involved in voter fraud and bad housing schemes.

Some of the Senate Republicans and many of those in the House objected to the entire package, thereby holding up the deal. So John McCain came back to Washington and said, “If you have any brains you’ll listen to the Republicans.” The Democrats listened somewhat, and the rest is history.

But let’s follow the trail of Goldman-Sachs. While all this was going on, Warren Buffett, a Democrat and financial adviser to Obama, offered to buy $5 billion worth---or maybe $10 billion if it strikes his mood---of Goldman-Sachs.

Meantime one Jim Johnson, former head of the corrupt Fannie Mae, a Democrat and financial adviser to Obama, and in charge of selecting his vice-president, has got himself a new job… on the board of Goldman-Sachs.

Further, AIG, the insurance company recently bailed out at a cost of $85 billion, is owned in part by… Goldman-Sachs.

Now I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with all of this, but if human genetics were involved, I’m pretty sure we would be muttering about incest. And remember, folks, these are all Democrats who want to give a tax cut to 95% of us, while simultaneously demanding we give them $700 billion plus to hand out as they see fit.

It’s all so confusing. But fortunately there has been a call for the resignation of Mister Paulson, so perhaps he can go back to Goldman-Sachs and straighten it all out.

Alanye’s website is http://alanye.com/ He’s not holding his breath while waiting for that 95% cut.

This was a bad bill, albeit not as bad as the one first proposed by the Dems. As I see it, we're lucky it failed. Now the Republicans should get behind the sort of thing recommended by Newt Gingrich or Mike Pence--in brief, insurance plus a suspension of mark-to-market.

With the erratic behavior of Pelosi and the other Dems, God alone knows if a rational measure could pass, but it's worth a try if only for political reasons.

(6) Carol Herman made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 12:58:40 PM | Permalink

Well, if you need a score card, let me help you out.

Boehner isn't Tom DeLay. Except in the sense that he, too, will soon be gone.

Right now, EXCEPT IN NAME ONLY, the true leader of the House Republicans is PENCE.

Eric Cantor blew it. He voted for this bone-headed bailout.

As to "advice?" Right now the 11/4 date gets closer. And, off to the side? After Thursday's debate? Perhaps, Biden steps down? Claims he's got chest pains. And, Hillary steps into the ring.

True. You couldn't do this in boxing.

True. You couldn't do this if the MSM wasn't in the tank, full tilt for Obama.

On the other hand, we are here, today, because the Internet WORKS! And,lots of Americans are using it. Just as they used their telephones, to call into Congress they were 1000 to 1 AGAINST the bailout. (How come these reports never saw the light of day?)

Me? I read Pelosi like an open book. She knew she didn't have the votes! And, all that was left for her to do was put blame on the republicans because the MSM runs these stories. Again, full tilt.

The stakes are still high.

The MSM can't conceive of losing anymore. That's how desperate they are. Doesn't seem that "MORE THAN HALF" of American voters will choose Obama.

So, when you do the math? You need to have MORE THAN HALF of American voters choosing YOU.

Where's McCain? Seems he's staying away from the pulpit. And, it seems to me he knows what's TOXIC (BUSH!) And, what's not.

Plus, the Feds picked up $630 BILLION ... to help prime the pump.

Do the banks hold back?

Well, there's still the "promise" that the taxpayers will pay more for the TOXIC waste than just about anyone else.

Stay tuned. Thursday's news will bring more rain.

But Bush hasn't nothing left. He leaves with a reputation he DESTROYED all by himself. No sympathy from me, either.

If the PUBLIC is a JURY. I can tell ya, since I'm a member of this jury ... that McCain has to stop looking like he'd just "replace Bush." He has to define himself, better ... or else? (Sure. It pays to realize Palin was a brilliant pick.) And, Gotcha journalists have a built in down side to all their tricks, since Dan Rather.

So, you wanna be surprised about Katie Couric? She doesn't even garner the audience that C-BS once held.

And, in spite of the belief that people can't remember sh*t, I'd beg to differ. People remember plenty when they get good and mad.

Hey! I remember "HEY, HEY, HEY ... and that one gave LBJ such a swift kick in his rear, he disappeared into Texas. Well, ya know what? Expect another DC flunky to soon be returning "home."

(7) Carol Herman made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 10:14:35 PM | Permalink

This is so much worse than malice!

BOTTOM LINE: The senators are now being bribed to vote on a DODD AMENDMENT, tomorrow. Where they are substituting a "Paul Wellstone Mental Health bill", with the BAIL OUT!

In other words? They'll cover up that the taxpayers are going to be paying the most money for TOXIC DEBT! Oh, and we'll be told to "thank them" too.

What if McCain is the Manchurian Candidate? Wouldn't just about any other candidate be concerned of his dropping chances to win?

How can a man as unpopular as President Bush find McCain willing to be as "bipartisan" as he is? Rush Limbaugh is right! IT takes courage to stand for your position!

Not only that, if Palin doesn't flunk on Thursday; after all the MSM efforts ... I've heard rumors that Biden would pull out (claiming health issues) ... And, Hillary will step into being the veep for Obama.

Mind you, Congress learned that the Americans were calling in with 1000 to 1 negativity to Pelosi's shinanigans! AND SHE KNEW IT! That's why she made her speech prior to the vote. Giving Barney Frank (of all people), the right to chastize republicans for being "so sensitive." So, he promised he'd play nicer with them on this playground.

Just remember. It's the TOXIC MORTGAGES PAID FOR WITH TAX PAYER DOLLARS ... that will make the bankers RICH!

It is so sad to watch America being ripped apart like this. Oh, if Obama wins? Look for states to turn their backs on the "Federalist" part. Brought to you by Bush. The president who has done the most harm, with the least popularity. He ain't afraid.

(8) Carol Herman made the following comment | Sep 30, 2008 11:11:14 PM | Permalink


I just found this comment up on the Net. If it's true, we're gonna need a good lawyer who can explain Constitutional stuff ... not just to me. But to members of Congress.

What do you think of this?

Of course, the Senate cannot originate a spending bill, only amend one that comes from the House.

Voting to amend a defeated bill does not cause it to come back up for a vote in the House - it remains a defeated bill.

(9) Donna B. made the following comment | Oct 1, 2008 3:07:29 AM | Permalink

My first gut feeling was that Pelosi wanted the bailout (or whatever the politically correct term is today) to fail because since the financial crisis has hit, Obama has been rising in the polls.

(10) DanC made the following comment | Oct 1, 2008 10:34:09 AM | Permalink

McCain needs to designate his Secretary of the Treasury, stand with, introduce, and then have him/her describe the current situation in understandable terms and what he will do to fix it. I propose the guy to br Romney, others also to be considered.

The comments to this entry are closed.