9/30/2008

Why Pelosi gave the speech that she did

Pelosi wanted this all to fail. Democrats didn't push for their people to vote "yes" for the bailout bill. Here is Karl Rove's view on all this.

Powerline blog has this:

Everyone has heard about the weirdly partisan and inaccurate rant which Pelosi contributed to the debate on the bailout bill. But that speech did not take place in a vacuum. Public opinion is running strongly against the bill, and it required political courage to vote for it. If you look at the list of those who voted "No" in both parties, it is mostly members who are engaged in tough re-election campaigns. This is true on both sides of the aisle.

That being the case, and given the fact that the legislation was in fact a negotiated, bipartisan compromise, the first duty of the majority party is to line up its members to support the majority's bill. But evidence is growing that the Democrats did no such thing.

As of yesterday, the Democrats' House whip, Jim Clyburn said that he hadn't even begun "whipping" Democratic representatives, and wouldn't do so unless and until he got orders from Nancy Pelosi. Today, Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio told NPR that he never was "whipped" on the bill. So Pelosi evidently left Democrats to vote their consciences--which is to say, vote against the bill if they thought it was politically necessary--while counting on Republicans to put the bill over the top.

This is a classic Charlie Brown and the football maneuver. Pelosi gives a speech that frames the issue, falsely, as the result of bad Republican policies, then allows her own threatened representatives to do the popular thing while expecting Republicans to take one for the team by casting an unpopular vote. Which, of course, their Democratic opponents would use against them, thereby increasing the Democratic majority in the House.


UPDATE: Of course, it shouldn't be too surprising that "Poll: GOP blamed for failed bailout."

Labels:

3 Comments:

Anonymous bornskeptic said...

Seems to me there's plenty of blame to go around; the house did not get it done, and look at what resulted, not only in the equity market but check out Libor and the TED spread. There are real negative consequences of the money markets not working, yet so few are in a position to understand this. Where's Ross Perot and his charts when we need 'em?

9/30/2008 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Brent Crude said...

John,
What do you see as the likely outcome of all this in your crystal ball?

I have heard some talking about printing sufficient paper money to dilute the global economy down to its true value (which isn't very much).

What are your thoughts?

Brent

9/30/2008 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Clark said...

Frankly, I'm glad this rushed "emergency" bill that puts even more power in the executive branch failed.

But I'm really having trouble with your take on this, Lott. You seem to be suggesting that Pelosi somehow forced Republicans to vote "no" on an unpopular bill that they wanted to vote "no" on and on which their constituants wanted them to vote "no."

So Pelosi is manipulating the Republicans to do exactly what now?

10/01/2008 12:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home