Crybaby Republicans
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 9/29/08 @ 10:09 pm - Filed Under Featured, National Politics
I have never seen such a laughable argument as the one being made by the Republican House leadership - specifically John Boehner. If you don’t know what I’m referring to then you can read Mike Sylvester’s post or I’ll summarize it for you:
The bailout bill failed the house vote today because Nancy Pelosi was too mean to the Republicans. Sounds like the whiny response of a local newspaper editor I know.
I’m not making this up. Republicans claim that 12 of their own switched their vote, conveniently the exact number needed to pass the bill, because Speaker Pelosi’s floor speech was mean. Is that really the narrative they want to use here - that they’re a bunch of crybabies?
You don’t base your decision for the most serious vote since the Iraq war on whether or not somebody said something mean to you. That’s not what somebody with conviction does - that’s what a political coward does. This is serious business and the American people deserve congressional representation that is willing to make the hard decisions and vote their conscience.
I guarantee you that the leadership won’t release the names of the “Crybaby 12″ because they don’t exist.
Here’s the truth. Boehner is completely ineffective and couldn’t deliver the necessary Republican support to pass the bill. Instead of admitting that perhaps the bill had issues that he simply couldn’t reconcile with the conservative caucus he chose the cowards play - blame it on Pelosi.
I doubt there’s a single person on this planet that honestly believes this bill didn’t pass because of Pelosi was a meany. If they do then they also have to admit that those Republicans are conviction-less sissies that aren’t fit to serve the people they purport to represent. Below the fold I’ve linked to video of Democrat Barney Frank’s response to this ridiculous talking point.
One more issue that must be addressed. In a separate post Sylvester suggested that Pelosi was looking for “political cover” to pass the bill. The truth is she didn’t have the votes and she knew it. Furthermore any solution must be bipartisan to inject the necessary confidence into the markets that the bill attempts to achieve (whether or not it’s a good idea is certainly a different argument).
I think the result of today’s vote unambiguously shows the “political cover” argument to be wildly off the mark.
Comments
18 Responses to “Crybaby Republicans”
Leave a Reply
Jeff - Did you really listen to the speaker’s 15 minute tirade? Did she want to get this bill passed, or was she campaigning for election of the democratic nominee for president with her statements? I heard her uncalled-for comments as purely political. It was like a bride who, just before the wedding vows, publicly calls her mother-in-law-to-be a whore and then expects her husband-to-be to say “I do”.
John,
I listened to it and I say so what? Maybe it was over-the-top but there’s a strong possibility that she’s giving voice to the voters of her district with that speech. Either way, it’s ridiculous to think one would change their vote because of it.
To quote Republicans:
“If you can’t stand up to a Nancy Pelosi speech how can you stand up to the terrorists?”
Actually quite the opposite, I’m thrilled by what she did because I didn’t want this plan to pass, but she showed poor leadership if she wanted this bill to pass.
I’m not crying, but if she was in favor of that legislation - why make a tirading speech like that?
I think she knew it wasn’t going to pass. Having said that, it certainly won’t help with negotiations moving forward…
I was just in awe, I expected this inspiring…lets come together stuff…at least she spoke her mind. I can’t fault her for that - but man…what a bonehead move.
Neil —– It is spelled O B A M A… The guy who on Sunday had his talking heads telling the media he may not even vote on the bill. He would, if his vote “WAS NEEDED!” Of course he knew that in the Senate the votes where there to pass the bill. One more time he could set on the sidelines.
Then today he calls on the members of Congress to get a deal done after the current version died. However he offered nothing on what was needed to get the job done. Once again he “ducked,” so as he could not be held accountable. That is real leadership!!!!
He lived that “ducking” life in the Illinois Senate by voting “present” over 100 times. He even double crossed his own party on many votes in Illinois by voting “present” when he told fellow Democrats he would vote for or against a given bill.
If I was a member of NATO, or a resident of any of those countries, this would scare the crap out of me. The Russians may decide to visit their country and Obama decides he will “get back with them!” Then he would jet off to a big party in LA.
Even Obama admitts this is the greatest financial crisis to happen in the United States since the depression of the 1930’s. This effects more of the the “middle class” then any event since the depression. Yet he is “phoning in!”
He claims his strenght is in domestic policy and can reach across the isle to the other side. I would like to know of just one GOP member he reached across the isle to! What GOP member did he talk into voting for the bill? I would wait for an answer but I do not beleive I have that many years left in my life!!!
Here is a guy who is worried about the “middle class” being able to obtain student loans for their children. Yet is fully prepared to add to the national debt in providing convicts with a FREE education/training after they serve their time.
I am now conviced that Pelosi did not accidently blow up the vote, but did so on purpose!
I should thank Pelosi, as I opposed this bailout, but somehow I just can not bring myself to do that.
JQ:
You do know the reasoning behind voting “present” in Illinois right?
Obama is ducking his House of Representative responsibilities?
What in the world are you talking about?
Jeff, Obama is from the other side of congress…. However being a presidential canidate and maybe having to live with the decission of congress with regards to this bill he has a vested interest. Yes, I call it setting on the sidelines and trying to cover all basis regardless to what happens.
Obama is the one who said he planned on reaching out to the other side of the isle, meaning GOP members. If he can not reach out on this issue then what issue will have enough interest in to reach out to the other side.
Neil, I know what it means in the screwed up state of Illinois. But when you cut the crap and get to the fact it is a way of ducking a yes or no vote. It allowed him to talk the talk but not doing the walk when he so desired. True leadership is taking a stand (voting) and being prepared to defend your position.
This is the same guy who started out signing up people to vote in Chicago. Then when he was running for the state senate he used the fine line of the law to knock some of the same people’s signatures off petitions to get other Democrats in the same Prim. race. He found it easy to have their vote/signature tossed because they printed their name where it was suppose to be signed and signed where it was supposed to be printed.
The fact of the matter is her poor choice of words at this time is just another example of her poor leadership of this Congress…please Democrats, find us another leader who is willing to take this country to the next level.
Honestly, I’m not sure on who it would be, but I’d love to hear ideas thrown around.
I don’t feel Pelosi is the kind of person we need leading our Congress.
Suffice to say, Ol’ Nance is waaaay more concerned with her party and her position than anything else. She (like 99% of congress) is so insulated from the everyday person that she has no idea she is playing chess with peoples very lives. Boehner is no different, just a tad more diplomatic.
TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeff,
If the so-called leader could have kept her own caucus together, the bill would have passed. Over 90 Democrats did not vote for the bill, including 12 Democrats from Barney Frank’s own Banking Committee. Congress lives up to it’s single digit approval ratings.
The leader didn’t lead.
Jeff,
First of all Nancy Pelosi thought this bill would pass or she would NEVER have brought it up for a vote. There is no way that she would have brought this up for a vote without feeling it would pass. 95 Democrats from her Party; over 40% of the Democrats voting, voted against this bill.
I personally do think that some Republicans switched their votes because of Pelosi’s inappropriate and inaccurate remarks right before the vote. I do not know if 12 Republicans switched their votes; however, I imagine several did.
The vote was so close I imagine several Democrats and Republicans in tough re-election battles also switched their votes as well. A majority of Congress did not want to have this vote hanging over their heads even though all of their leaders were pushing it.
I 100% agree with you that any member of the House who changed their vote due to Pelosi’s five minute speech is “small” minded and not a good representative of their constituents.
As far as your political cover comment; I think you are 100% wrong. She publicly said several times that she would not pass the bill without 80 - 100 Republican votes; meaning about half of the Repubicans. I feel that this is due to a desire to have “political cover”.
And last of all I am very glad that the “socialist” bailout bill failed. It was a bad piece of legislation that did NOTHING to fix the problem. Instead it just bailed out Wall Street and pushed the problem down the road.
Mike Sylvester
Fox News, I know the libs hate them, is reporting that 13 Deomocratic members of Barney Frank’s Banking Comm. voted “No” on the bill. No less then three Comm. Chairs, who are appointed by Nancy, also voted “No!”
I am more then convinced now that there was not going to be a “yes” vote on this no matter what the GOP did. The Democrats held back enough votes to make sure it would fail even if more GOP members had voted yes. As they say in football, “Go to the video!” and watch the vote.
The republicans embarassed themselves yesterday with their, “Nancy is a meanie”, tirade.
Nancy has always been a weak leader to me. Why anyone is surprised by her off-topic speech - well….why? She tends to be off-topic more than on-topic. Kind of a bait and switch tactic that she has refined over time.
‘It’s difficult to remember, when you’re up to your ass in alligators, that your objective was to drain the swamp!’
Both sides need to get off this “he said, she said” crap and get some real work done!
Both the Republicians AND the Democrats are fiddeling while Rome burns!
I’d like to add something that I’m surprised - Jeff - Mike - that neither of you have covered here. The media (in my opinion) is overhyping the gloom and doom and all of the drama associated with this situation. It’s irritating.
Call me naive (and I won’t take it personally), but I was shocked by ABC World News Tonight - Charles Gibson’s - very personal point of view - seeming to come across in the reporting of yesterday’s vote. So he apparently was for it. How nice.
ANYWAY - not meaning to pick on him because his segment was pretty tame compared to the crap I was seeing/hearing through other media outlets.
Jeff:
Your Democrats want the financial crisis to last until November 4. Pelosi and Frank made no effort to reign in their comrades. None of Barney Frank’s Democratic cohorts on his Financial Services Committee voted for the bailout and he didn’t care. He came out today blaming McCain. Pelosi’s insistence that the House Republicans had to “buy in” has an odor about it. With the Dem Majority in the House, who needs the GOP?