They watched all those Democrat leadership people voting no, and the Franks committee members voting no, and realized the fix was in. Pretty clever of Nancy as long as you don't care about the country.

hate to feed trolls, but for the edification of anyone lurking. . .

what fix? Pelosi, for all her faults, not only brought the number she promised, she exceeded it. more Dems votes yes than promised. how is that a "fix"? (and recall that Dems already had agreed to do more than their share - numerically and proportionally - than Republicans to back a Republican administration bill).

nice try, but it helps if your arguments are remotely supported by reality.

Apparently the idea was that the democrats would pass the bill without them, because they had already made attack ads on the democrats for passing the bailout with taxpayers money. They had been playing games in a time of crisis, they had been trying to set up Nancy Pelosi. The article is on Daily Kos.

Mike K - 3:57 - true to the party line, blame a Democrat.

Shorter Mike K: The Democrats didn't fall for the Republican plan to leave them holding the bag.

Mike K, you blockhead, facts are facts. Pelosi made it quite clear that the bailout would not pass without enough Republican votes. Pelosi delivered all the votes she promised and more. Whether by incompetence or bad faith, Boehner didn't. This new excuse for the Republicans is even more pathetic than "Pelosi said something mean about Bush in a speech!"

I was going to speculate that Boehner not so much couldn't provide the votes as wouldn't, in an attempt to double-cross Pelosi. Mike K's unhinged commentary lends support to that prospect.

Jackass.

Pretty clever of Nancy as long as you don't care about the country. -Mike K

Please don't conflate Wealthcare with caring about the country.

We can survive a few bank collapses and the tightening of the credit market. Catapulting the propaganda is best left to Bush.

What about the Gingrich angle?

Credible claim? Or, not yet?

Mike K - I can't count you as an American so much as I can count you as a political hack who can't navigate through the real issues facing our nation! -Kevo

You guys are a riot. Do you know why she is Speaker ? They call it a majority. She thought she had them over a barrel and didn't whip the Democrat vote. There are Democrats out today saying they felt no pressure to vote yes. It was a setup. I know they don't teach Civics anymore in school but even you should know that much.

"Moving forward, then, why even put Boehner at the negotiating table? Either he speaks for his caucus or he doesn't, and as of yesterday, he doesn't. Doesn't that necessarily suggest House Republicans should send someone else to speak on their behalf? And that this person, not Boehner, should be the party leader?"

Can't the same thing be said about Nancy, who had 40% of her members tell her to fuck off. And Barney Franks who watch as half of the Democratic Members of the Banking Committee vote against his bill. Not to speak of the One, who once again, when faced with a tough vote voted "present".

Face it Steve, if you believe that the bailout bill was necessary to avoid an economic disaster, which apparently you do, the only people you can blame for its failure to pass is the Democratic "Leadership" of the House.

Doesn't that necessarily suggest House Republicans should send someone else to speak on their behalf?

And who might you be recommending? Issa? Cantor? Bachman, perhaps? Did you prefer the good old days of Tom "the hammer" Delay? Yesterday's vote was a total blunder, but herding rats off the ship is not a virtuous endeavor. Let 'em drown separately or together. What difference does it make?

Hmmm ...

It may just be that he can't lead on this particular issue, but I don't think that means he is no longer their leader.

This is admittedly a very important issue, but I dunno ... the importance of it almost guarantees that people are going to fall back to their most important concern ... the immediate fall elections ... and not to what a leader is going to tell them.

I saw this on Rachel Maddow last night. It is a very good question. She suggested it might be Cantor. I dont know enough about GOP internals to speculate but it is not McCain, Bush or Boehner. I suspect that whoever is the leader is probably someone they might have a difficult time working with. The hardliners are in charge of the party now.

When republican policies fail, the blame game goes like this:

- First, blame the poor, the people with nothing including political influence are somehow at fault for all that ails us.
- Next, blame minorities, same as above
- Last, blame liberals in this order, B Clinton, H Clinton, Carter, and the one I love the best, FDR.

Obama will soon take the Big Dog's spot as the first liberal to blame.

There is not a domestic republican policy fiasco in the past 20 years that has not used one of the above to blame what is glaringly obvious, republicans suck as governing.

Mike K - go away! "I know they don't teach Civics anymore in school . . . " What planet do you live on? And, by the way, the use of a pronoun without its antecedent is an expression of ignorance. Mike K, who are "they" in your above observation? State authorities? Local school boards? The community at large? The sponsors (Bush Administration) of NCLB legislation?

You, Mike K, are the problem we face here in America - a droid spewling propagandistic fecal matter you gleamed off the hate radio band or FAUXNEWS. Your shallowness could paralyze a diving swan! -Kevo

Mike K.

The bill was a BIPARTISAN compromise of a Republican initiative that Pelosi had no intention of having the Democrats take ownership of - so she let Dem opponents vote No if they wished. She counted her "yes" votes and promised 140 Democrats would support the bill.

Boehner promised (and the bill would never have gotten to the floor without this promise) to deliver 85 votes and delivered only 65 and that's why the bill failed.

Any questions?

What a tool you are.

She thought she had them over a barrel and didn't whip the Democrat vote.

Shorter Mike K, again: The Democrats didn't fall for the Republican plan to leave them holding the bag.

Are you too drunk to read, Mike K? Yes, she did whip the Democratic vote -- she provided the Democratic vote she promised and more. What she did not do -- as also promised in advance -- was provide enough Democratic votes to pass it anyway in the event of a Republican double-cross.

Boehner knew, in advance, that a condition of passage was his summoning his votes. He knew the bailout would have to be passed on a bipartisan basis or not at all. Whether by incompetence or bad faith, he failed to summon his votes.

It was a setup, all right, but a Republican one, and Pelosi -- for once -- didn't fall for it.

Read it, Mike K: Boner knew -- everyone knew -- that the bailout would have to pass with his promised Republican vote or not at all. By accident or design, he didn't deliver. QED.

Chicounsel - your analysis is flawed! -Kevo

Not to speak of the One, who once again, when faced with a tough vote voted "present". -Chicornsel

I hate to belabor the ubiquitous fact that you're a complete moron, but Obama is not in the House. He's in the Senate. He hasn't had a chance to vote on any bailout bill yet.

In technical terms, of Party leadership, Boehner failed - and informally, with that pitiful whine about Pelosi hurting their feelings. (She should have made a different speech for the sake of the moment and bipartisanship, but that doesn't excuse that excuse.) But really, and I know we've talked about it before - the big issue is The [revised] Bailout and whether it should be passed. Many responsible and noted progressive voices are joining (ironically?) with old-line conservative types to say it's not good. I see that OPs here, and Kevin Drum, think it's "obviously" right to support some kind of "bailout" but I think we should at least respectfully consider the voices of dissent. Even if "something is done" it could perhaps take a different form.

Second, despite it being made fun of here etc. some days ago, the right-wing media machine is pushing hard on the "Fannie and Freddie loaning to poor people is the direct cause" meme. I suggest, working harder to confront that instead of snickering it off.

"Doesn't that necessarily suggest House Republicans should send someone else to speak on their behalf?"

No.

The more inept the Republican Party leader, the more divided the GOP caucus is, the better off our country will be.

Leave Boehner just where he is.

Can't the same thing be said about Nancy

No, Chicounsel, as you've been told I don't know how many times: Republican participation was a nonnegotiable condition of the bill's passage. Pelosi delivered; Boner didn't.

Your refusal to acknowledge these facts demonstrates that you argue here in bad faith. I realize carrying water for the Republicans leaves you little choice, but it's no excuse. Shame on you.

Newt Gingrich is the leader of the caucus.

Frankly, nobody's in charge over in GOP land right now. Bush is quacking so loud he's shattering windows, McCain is hated, Boner has no control and the up and coming hardliners like Mike Pence and Cantor the Weepy are already positioning to take over for him. It's complete chaos. The Senate looks better, but if things get bad in November (like, if McConnell loses as looks quite possible now), it could be a free for all over there too.

Can Boehner lead?

No.

"Newt Gingrich is the leader of the caucus."

Isn't Gingrich the guy who shut the government down because he didn't like being seated on the back of a plane?

Well, that certainly explains why his acolytes are willing to tank the world economy because they got their feelings hurt by a speech.

Red State Mike wrote: She's not the Speaker of the House.

Who, Pelosi?! Guess again.

Both sides played chicken here, and instead of either side swerving they just went ahead and collided.

Wrong as usual. Without Boehner's commitement to a bipartisan bill, there would be no bill -- that was stated in advance. Pelosi delivered. Only Boehner didn't. It's really as simple as that.

If I have $100, and we agree to go halvesies on something that costs $140, and you show up with $40, it's your fault if we don't buy it even if I could devote much more capital than you and make it happen. Because, duh, I'd be a fool to do so.

For once, the Democrats weren't fooled by Republican perfidy. And no one is fooled by the dishonest bleatings of the usual suspects. Though it's amusing how quickly Red State Mike's pretense of objectivity vanishes when there's Republican water to be carried. Shame on you.

Maybe Boner should have cried more.

Well, they didn't ax him and McConnell after immigration. Now, if the GOP suffers deeper congressional losses this year, there might just be a reshuffling. And if, as now seems possible (incredibly!), McConnell goes down in his reelection race the GOP will have to find new leadership on the Senate side anyway.

I don't think that Cantor would be a good choice for the GOP--he comes off as a total prick, and he's borderline corrupt. Adam Putnam or Paul Ryan seem like more logical choices, though I believe both voted for the bill and I doubt there's one person at the moment that can unify the GOP caucus on this issue. The fissures are showing between the responsible Republicans that realize that some action is necessary and that not acting might well destroy the Republican Party on the one hand, and demagoging populist ignoramuses on the other who are only interested in cynically playing politics without realizing that presiding over a potential economic meltdown would be far worse for the GOP than backing an unpopular bailout. Sure, there are principled opponents of the bailout. But this is classic Republican politics: just be against what the liberals are for. If the primary opposition to this bill had come from the left the GOP would be solidly behind it. Believe it.

Republicans are inherently dishonest.

They're just starting to display this to their own leaders.

'Cause, gee, what would get them to vote for the bailout plan?

I bet it won't be more liberal policies embedded in it.

Gregory, don't follow the link. It requires critical thinking.

Red State Mike, you shouldn't say things like that when you're busy demonstrating your own lack of criticial thinking (for starters, by repeating Republican talking points that are being debunked before your eyes).

No, it isn't the Prisoner's Dilemma at all. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, when one player defects and the other cooperates, the cooperative player loses.

Pelosi didn't defect. Pelosi delivered her votes. Boehner defected, but Pelosi didn't lose, Boenher did. That isn't how the Prisoner's Dilemma works.

Now, in the iterative model, a player can punish the other for perfidy. And my point in this thread, and others, is precisely that Pelosi arranged the vote so that Boehner could not succeed by defecting -- that is, the bill would not pass if he didn't deliver his support. If Boehner gambled that he could double-cross Pelosi and Democrats would ride to the rescue -- letting him have his cake (a Wall Street bailout) and eat it too (by running as faux populists against the bill they didn't vote for), he was mistaken. (Another point for incompetence.)

That said, it's interesting that Mike cites the Prisoner's Dilemma, as his doing so seems to support my theory that Boehner's failure was due to bad faith. Swell bunch you shill for, there. Mike. Shame on you.

Steve writes: Stepping back, though, something doesn't add up here. House Republicans chose Boehner to lead and represent them, but on the year's biggest vote, they blew him off.

You just don't understand how much Pelosi's speech hurt these guys. I mean, her words were like poisonous darts, tipped with venomous snakes, with killer bees in their mouths, each carrying a dagger reading "Bush sucks" that plunged so deep into their tender hearts that even a teary-eyed Boehner running after them, begging them to vote yes, couldn't stop the pain.

Pale, shaking, in a state of delirium tremens brought on by having drunk so deeply of Pelosi's mean, mean speech, the only way out was suicide. Or voting down the bailout package. The end would come more gently that way.

Actually you had more than $140, but were too cheap to spend it on your country's well-being. Politics first, right?

You do not seem to understand the nature of a contract. I guess I can see the appeal of the Republican party for guys like you. The thing that I find confusing is how Republicans got the reputation of being moral leaders. But they have finally officially lost it. Both that reputation and the "it" of just plain losing it.

Actually you had more than $140, but were too cheap to spend it on your country's well-being. Politics first, right?

You seem to be living that motto, Mike, as you stoop to any dishonesty to defend your party. You also seem completely unfamiliar with the concept of an analogy.

It's fine with me if you want to make it a question of the country's well-being, Mike. In that case, the failure of the Republicans to deliver the votes they promised and knew in advance were necessary is even worse.

I really do find it fascinating that you seem to imply that Boner's move was one of perfidy and not incompetence. So according to you, the Republicans attempted to double cross Pelosi and wound up betraying the country. That's a swell bunch you tell lies for there, Mike. Shame on you.

Red State Mike seems to be the kind of guy who goes out to dinner and then hides out in the bathroom when the check comes. Hey, his friends are rich, so they can cover for him if he doesn't feel like paying! And if they won't pay for him, they're assholes who don't care about his well-being!

Is there anyone more narcissistic than a Republican?

there are several hilarious aspects to the Repub shill arguments on this issue.

the Pelosi speech one is priceless. in her speech, the only slams she makes are directly at GW Bush. supposedly this made the Baby Jesus weep. and Boner, too, but he weeps at anything. but if they are so sensitive about how people treat their Boy Wonder, one might ask why the more calls he made, the fewer Repubs voted yes? these guys dont even like Dubya, but they allegedly took offense on his behalf? please. nearly every R that voted no either spoke, or is of a type with one who spoke, against the bill on dogmatic reasons before Pelosi ever did her thing.

and secondly, any wingnut that tries to dispute gregory's explanation that the Repubs were acting in bad faith needs to explain how it came to be that while McCain allegedly backs the bill, the RNC independent expenditure arm is running ads stoking populist sentiment against the bill, claiming it is a Democratic plan -- and how it is that the ad was cut before the freakin' vote. Pretty strong evidence of bad faith and playing politics. Good luck 'splaining your way outta that one without sounding like Palin discussing foreign policy.

Pretty clever of Nancy as long as you don't care about the country.

That's what must be great about being a conservative. No rationalization or conspiracy theory is too ridiculously silly or too transparently shameless, so long as you blame the Democrats. This one ranks right up there with the notion that Mark Foley's indiscretions were somehow the result of an "environment of permissiveness" generated by liberals.

Funny stuff.

Actually you had more than $140, but were too cheap to spend it on your country's well-being.

Nope.

You keep saying Pelosi's purpose was to pass a bill.

That's simply not correct.

You're criticizing her for something she specifically said she WOULDN'T be doing. And people keep reminding you of that.

Not particularly honest of you....

You're criticizing her for something she specifically said she WOULDN'T be doing. And people keep reminding you of that.

True, but notice how that keeps them from talking about how Boner didn't deliver on his end of the bargain.

To quote 19th century French radical republican Alexandre Ledru-Rollin:

"I must follow them, I am their leader."

Chicounsel - your analysis is flawed! -Kevo

Chicounsel is too distracted by his need to rustle up pennies and nickels to feed the gumball machine to get his law license renewed.

I think what we are watching is the "melt down" of the Repubican Party as we have known it these last years. It appears to be a power struggle with the "old dogs" maybe on their last leg. We know Bush is-Thank God! but a number of others, not always so obvious, are either losing their power or are reaching for it. Boener was "for it", Gingrich was "against it" before he was "for it" and McCain is still wandering around in a field somewhere wondering where the meeting room is to lead them to redemption. Pretty sorry lot!

To feed the troll:

They watched all those Democrat leadership people voting no, and the Franks committee members voting no, and realized the fix was in.

What are you talking about? 25 of 37 Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee voted yes. That is considerably higher than the overall percentage. Furthermore, 9 of the 10 most senior members of the committee, and all of the 8 most senior members, voted for the bill.

As for leadership, there are 16 members of the House Leadership. The top 4 Democrats (Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Emanuel) all voted for the bill. So did Larson, Van Hollen, DeLauro, and Miller, who are also high in the leadership. Of the 9 Deputy Whips, who are the lowest on the leadership ranks, 6 voted in favor. So out of the whole Democratic leadership, only John Lewis, G.K. Butterfield, and Ed Pastor voted against the bill.

As far as committee chairs go - Berman, Brady, Dingell, Frank, Gordon, Maloney, Miller, Oberstar, Obey, Rahall, Rangel, Reyes, Skelton, Slaughter, Spratt, Velázquez, and Waxman all supported it. Only Conyers, Filner (chair of the very weak Veterans Affairs committee), Peterson, and Thompson opposed it.

The idea that this was opposed by the Democratic leadership, however defined, or the members of the Financial Services committee is absurd.

Take a hard look at what is in your face.

The President, George Bush says “If the Congress does not create legislation, just this past week and half, America will suffer huge economic conditions that will devastate the economy that affects you very much”. Where or when has this been part of America’s concern? This past year has been declared as productive or resilient as anything in our time.

But in this election time slot, just this past week, a drama in unfolding, here, theater is in play, gaming appears to be the level of consciousness, feelings and fear is hurled at the electorate in the most major Media way with a network system in broadcasting complicit, embedded and knowing this devastation and working as key player in the fraud that currently grips the country. America because of the very media that is licensed to inform and educate the electorate it is just the opposite, Americas are misinformed and confused because the media is trying to hold power for those that game this system. Oh, no one saw this coming? Hell it is long over due to happen and they know it, which is the panic for those who have swindled the electorate tax money for decades.

No one can disagree, if you do, for me, these people are those that are brain dead, and in total denial, and know what is being dealt out is shame and an absolute cover up for crimes and deliberate fraud. Our President in a very fearful way has cast the entire country and perhaps the world into frenzy in proportions that is not able to be estimated. It is so obvious when these Republicans blame House Speaker Pelosi for some of her interviews as horrible the real target is missed. Oh, so obvious it is our very own President who is in the panic stage. Who would ever conceive that this might happen? Here, it is given to Americans to have no choice but to yield to the president’s demand without knowing what the hell is going down. What is wrong? What are the details of this mess? Well, don’t point fingers now let’s fix the problem? All that is not good enough, Americans need to know the details of the who, what, where, why, how.

In a major way America has been writing fat checks by our Federal Reserve Board that American’s don’t even know about. Likely for years in the name under National Security reasons, George Bush has been using the treasury and the Federal Reserve as his personal piggy bank. Here, Bush and Company are finally drawing in the people and the Congress to avoid the largest fraud perpetrated by any powerful group of combined Corporate and political minds the world has ever witnessed.

The Bush family is complicit with their Arab friends in a huge effort to profiteer all the while American resources are diminished to the advantage of the very enemy America is fighting, the Wahabbi Arabs, and the classical Jekyll Island banking system, the Federal Reserve, that has actually been unconstitutional in play for about a century. Haven only knows that’s why JFK wanted to eliminate the Federal Reserve because of its huge foreign influence connection and long time inequity for the American electorate. Likely the reason for his assaination.

It is a hard pill to swallow; both parties are at fault, though here, it is so obvious that many, many Republicans will resort to change parties, just as the Mainstream Media sometimes appears to be in the public interest yet is governed by money power and influence. It appears as thought the real fraudulent scheme is a deliberate architecture knowingly filled with fluff to deceive the electorate. Joe Lieberman is a glowing example of a man who used the Democratic party to get what he wants, not what the people want. Once a Democrat now parading around as a Republican. Ladies and gentlemen how many politicals people are doing the same thing right in your face or behind the scenes? How many first line Journalist have been following this stuff and know who is guilty of crimes against the Constitution for the last six years of the bush administration.

When I heard FOX news say the Federal Reserve has already signed off on six hundred billion dollars in relief for wall street that was not even part of this bail out package introduced a huge, huge conflict of interest, crimes of deliberate fraud appropriation. The Mainstream Media is harboring fraud all these years and the first line Journalist know it and are complicit to it. That is one huge reason America is screwed up.

Gregory:

Sigh, much like the first rule of being a litigator is to never ask a question of the witness that you don't know what the witness' answer will be, the first rule of Congressional Leadership is not to have a vote when you don't know the outcome. The failure of Pelosi and her leadership team to make sure that they had the votes to pass this thing before the House voted is the policital equalivant to legal malpractice.

Even accepting your claim that she delivered on her half of the bargain to by having 140 votes, did she ever go to Boehner and ask him if he 78 GOP votes to pass this thing? The answer is clearly no. Otherwise, why did she allow the vote to proceed if she knew that she was going to lose. Did she even whip her members to see if she could get the dozen or so votes that she was short? Either she didn't know, which exposes her to be a total idiot or she didn't ask, which exposes her to be a total moron.

Because of her lack of leadership, you now have 140 Democrats, most of which are from GOP districts that were won in 2006, who have casted a hugely unpopular vote a month away from Election Day. Do you think any of them are blaming Boehner for failing bring enough GOP votes? More likely, they blame her for forcing them to walk the plank when she apparently didn't know that she didn't have the votes to win.

Since you are a liberal, or at least a Democrat, I can see why you "think", if that what's you want to call it, that it's not her fault that this thing didn't pass. LOL

The idea that this was opposed by the Democratic leadership, however defined, or the members of the Financial Services committee is absurd.

Since when has the absurdity of an idea stopped our resident Republican water carriers from repeating it?

Hilarious. Chico here has been desperately peddling this same nonsense since the bailout bill crashed and burned, scorching McCain and House Republicans beyond recognition, yet he still hasn't found any "takers" for his bullshit (other than Mike K and possibly RedState). Gregory is right, Pelosi showed great leadership and did exactly the right thing. This was to be a bipartisan bill or none at all. But the House Republicans just had to play politics with the bailout fix and not Bush, McCain, or Boehner had enough leadership to push this bill across the line. Ouch McCain, I believe this is gonna leave a mark.

25 of 37 Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee voted yes.

Posted by: John on September 30, 2008 at 5:26 PM

There's your margin of victory right there. Why didn't those other 12 Dems vote yes?

They watched all those Democrat leadership people voting no, and the Franks committee members voting no, and realized the fix was in.

What are you talking about?

Mike K just makes shit up and talks out his ass.

Simple answers and all that.

Chicounsel - I have to admit, I've never seen tap-dancing like this before. My sister took 20 years of it, and she's got nothing on you.

Not only is your conclusion (it's the Dems' fault) based on a lot of guesswork and maybes. You're assuming Pelosi didn't meet with Boehner (which is ridiculous), you're asserting that Pelosi would have accepted a strictly party-line vote (which contradicts a zillion things), and a bunch of other things. You're also ignoring a lot of things that aren't at all open to interpretation (like the vote order, etc).

I could definitely believe that you're a lawyer. This is stock-in-trade defense lawyer "baffle 'em with bullshit" strategy, throwing a bunch of nonsense against the wall, hoping some of it will stick and add up to reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately for you, people here know better. No wonder it bugs you.

Ckelly:

I hate to burst your delusions, but it would have been regarded as a bipartisan bill because it would have passed the Senate where the GOP wouldn't have objected to its passage.

The minority party in the House is irrelvant because they cannot stop the majority party from passing what ever it wants.

chicounsel (i have no idea why you use that name, you really cannot be an attorney with those reasoning skills), you couldn't be more obtuse.

To use your example, Pelosi knew the answer to the question: she had her commitment covered. Why not bring it to the floor when the only variable is Boehner? If he can't deliver, whose fault is that? (hint: not the Democrats.) Moreover, what makes you think she didn't ask? When she and Boehner negotiated the vote commitments, and they got his to a smaller percentage of his caucus, how do you know he didn't say "sure, I've got 85"? You don't - and it is quite likely that is exactly what happened.

As for her 140 yes votes being upset, you need to go read Nate Silver's analysis (I'm too lazy right now to link it), but the yes votes (in both parties) were largely from reasonably safe districts. Not one of those D's is going to lose in November because of this; you should share what it is you're smoking.

but lets set reality aside, just for your benefit, for a moment. lets through objective facts out the window as to who is at fault, and simply look at what really matters in politics: perception. the polling so far shows that the public far and away blames the House R's for the demise of the bill. so even as a spinner, you lose.

ding dang y'all make Brit Brit look like a nuclear engineer.

much like the first rule of being a litigator is to never ask a question of the witness that you don't know what the witness' answer will be, the first rule of Congressional Leadership is not to have a vote when you don't know the outcome. The failure of Pelosi and her leadership team to make sure that they had the votes to pass this thing before the House voted is the policital equalivant to legal malpractice.

It's malpractice, all right, but not Pelosi's. Pelosi knew exactly how many Democratic votes she'd deliver, and how many Boehner promised to deliver. Boehner, for his part, knew that Pelosi promised that the bill would not pass without the promised Republican votes.

Any votes Pelosi counted would have been based on Boehner's promise, and Boehner failed to deliver. Perhaps Boehner hoped Pelosi would then renege on her preconditions and provide the votes on her side of the aisle, but that wasn't the deal. In fact, it would have been politcal malpractice for Pelosi to fall for Republican perfidy yet again.

Boehner knew up front that without the votes he promised, the bill would not have passed. Pelosi delivered her promised votes, and Boehner didn't. It's that simple.

Your ongoing failure to acknowledge the basic facts of this situation marks you as a dishonest commentator.

The minority party in the House is irrelvant because they cannot stop the majority party from passing what ever it wants.

Yes, because there are no differences between any of the Democrats and what they believe.

Are you really this simpleminded?

Chicounsel wrote: Even accepting your claim that she delivered on her half of the bargain to by having 140 votes

What the hell are you talking about? "Accepting my claim" isn't an option, you dishonest jackass; the vote is a matter of public record.

did she ever go to Boehner and ask him if he 78 GOP votes to pass this thing? The answer is clearly no.

Clearly no? Are you kidding? Aren't you paying attention? Those Republican votes were a precondition of letting the vote come to the floor. Obviously Boehner promised those votes -- that's why it's his leadership that's being questioned by everyone but dishonest meatheads like you.

Otherwise, why did she allow the vote to proceed if she knew that she was going to lose.

Because Boehner promised he did have the votes, duh. Again, the actual question for those of us not in fantasyland is, was Boehner mistaken, or was he lying?

Your ongoing failure to acknowledge the basic facts of this situation marks you as a dishonest commentator. And, of course, a Republican.

"Frankly, nobody's in charge over in GOP land right now."

Ahh, the voice of reason. There are a few adults in the Republican caucus, but the children have realized that they have the adults outnumbered. And if the mean old Democrats don't give them milk and cookies, there will be hell to pay. After their nap, of course. They're making some fine whines in DC these days.

DH Walker:

Glad that you're impressed, but can you point out any nonsense that I have stated in any of my posts?

If Pelosi did know that Boehner didn't have 78 GOP votes, why couldn't she make up the difference? I don't see much difference between a bailout that passes with 140 Dems votes and one that passes with 153 Dems votes. Do you?

Dammit, the 5:54 is from me.

I hate to burst your delusions, but it would have been regarded as a bipartisan bill because it would have passed the Senate where the GOP wouldn't have objected to its passage.

It may "have been regarded" as a bipartisan bill, but then the House Republicans could still have had their cake (a Wall Street bailout) and eat it too (running a faux-populist campaing against said bailot).

I really can't make it any plainer, Chicounsel. Boehner's votes were a nonnegotiable condition of passage, and he didn't deliver. Given that, it doesn't matter if Pelosi could have summoned the neccessary votes for passage; the deal was already off.

Again, it would have been political malpractice of her to have done so. The fact that she delivered so close to -- a little bit, but not too much, over -- her promised total reveals that Pelosi did exactly what she intended to do -- what she said up front she would do.

The question is, did Boehner do what he intended to do -- in which case the vote was treacherous -- or not -- in which case it was his incompetence, for the very reasons you hilariously try to pin on Pelosi?

Your ongoing failure to acknowledge the basic facts of this situation marks you as a dishonest commentator. And, of course, a Republican. And, of course, a stinking jackass -- but I repeat myself.

can you point out any nonsense that I have stated in any of my posts?

You have GOT to be kidding. Gregory has spelled this out for you, several times, in fine detail, with the attention that would be given when explaining simple concepts to a child.

Several times. In detail. You are either colossally wooden-post-stupid, or hell would freeze over before you exhibited the tiniest shred of honesty.

Seriously. It's one or the other.

(i have no idea why you use that name, you really cannot be an attorney with those reasoning skills) -zeitgeist

I had no idea the petulant troll was claiming to be a lawyer.

I just though his name was Chico Unsel.

Chicounsel wrote: can you point out any nonsense that I have stated in any of my posts?

Everybody's already doing that, jackass.

"Can Boehner lead?
No."

Posted by: Jeff II on September 30, 2008
-------------

To put a Blunt point on it.

Heck, I think Michele Bachman should be their leader. I think it would be more fun. She and Sarah Palin could be best pals and lead us all over a cliff.

Just after the vote on 'the bill' I watched the Republicans meeting the press. Trent Franks even went so far as to quote somebody about government being the problem. They are really stuck in a secessionist attitude which is only one small step from treason. Perhaps the one thing that saves them is their stupidity, arrogance and ineptitudinosity.

You are either colossally wooden-post-stupid, or hell would freeze over before you exhibited the tiniest shred of honesty.

Chicounsel's a Republican. QED.

Even accepting your claim that she delivered on her half of the bargain to by having 140 votes, did she ever go to Boehner and ask him if he 78 GOP votes to pass this thing? The answer is clearly no. Otherwise, why did she allow the vote to proceed if she knew that she was going to lose.

Shorter Chicounsel: But if Chewbacca is a Wookie, how can he be living on Endor? It makes no sense!

I think we're watching the death of the Republican party.

And whether you support the bailout or not, Pelosi's speech was damned accurate about how we got here.

The Republican party has augured our country into the ground. Can you trust them to support the middle class now? They never have before.

Pay attention, Steve.

Do you seriously think Boehner is going to get any heat from his caucus for this?

1. He just let a bunch of Republicans vote the easy way on an unpopular bill.

2. He didn't really whip his caucus. You know how I can tell? Because he got a third of them to support this. What makes *you* think he whipped his caucus, that he said he would? When House Republicans whip their caucus, you can tell, because they get enough votes for what they want to do. Exactly what makes anyone think that they *wanted* to do this?

3. His caucus (not to mention his party's presidential nominee) is not, contrary to your reading of the conservative establishment, all that broken up over this.

4. He's already running a minority. Exactly what the fuck does he have to lose? If he falls short and makes Democrats take a stronger ownership stake in this bailout, do you think he's going to miss a chance to pitch that story to voters?

And the award for most imaginative use of adjectives in lieu of profanity goes to -

kevo @ 4:18 PM for "...a droid spewling propagandistic fecal matter...".
Congratulions!

I think it was the Republican party and the conservative movement's Declaration of Independence from George W. Bush. They are looking at the clock and saying January 20th will be here soon.

I'm with Former Dan - Boner should have burst into tears and sobbed, "when are we going to take them on?" That'd melt the coldest Republican heart; they can't stand to see a fellow Republican cry.

In an unusually lucid moment, American voters looked at the vote in Congress and realized it did not pass because there were not enough Republicans voting for it.

On the merits, however, American voters remain as uniformed and clueless as Congress.

In a convoluted way, this proves that the wisdom of the American voters actually DID have an affect, killing this piece of dog doo doo before it threw money at the wrong problem.

You know what we Californians say about legislators getting their feelings hurt by hardball politics?

They're GIRLY MEN

"Can't the same thing be said about Nancy, who had 40% of her members tell her to fuck off."

Who is the better leader?

One who is told "fuck off" by 40% of her members, or one who is told "fuck off" by 67% of HIS members?

Nobody likes this piece of crap. Nancy brought her caucus along, but Boner couldn't bring his.

He's a GIRLY man!

"I saw this on Rachel Maddow last night. It is a very good question. She suggested it might be Cantor."

Seems to be Gingrich as far as I can tell. He's undercutting McCain because they never got along when Gingrich was Speaker, and it's a question of who can hold a bigger grudge.

Advantage so far: Gingrich.

I actually thought Pelosi should have assured that no more Democrats voted for it than ReThuglicans.

I thought she should have assigned one Republicrat to each Dem, saying, "vote like he/she does." Dems then should have held off voting until their "assigned" Republican't voted.

That way, until a majority of the Greedy Old Plutocrats voted for the bill, it would not have passed.

Gregory nailed it at 4:46

Thank you, Jonas.

"Republicans are inherently dishonest."

I think the essence of their existence, tho, is greed. All else comes from that. Dishonesty, fraud, conflicts of interest, all are affects of greed.

"did she ever go to Boehner and ask him if he 78 GOP votes to pass this thing?"

Boner guaranteed votes he did not deliver.

End of Question.

"There's your margin of victory right there. Why didn't those other 12 Dems vote yes? "

HA hahahahahahahaha.

Why didn't Boner deliver the 12 votes he promised?

Why should BOTH parties not pass this by at least 50/50 votes?

Shorter Chicocounsel" Why didn't the Dems fall on their swords so the ReThugs could have run against the bailout next month?

"I don't see much difference between a bailout that passes with 140 Dems votes and one that passes with 153 Dems votes. Do you? "

Yes, I do. As many others before me have pointed out, you are only concerned with making this a DEMOCRATIC bailout.

Nancy was perfectly correct in assuring this was a BIPARTISAN bailout so the Democrats could not be tagged with it.

It is the ReThuglicans who could not deliver on the votes they needed.

They are COWARDS.

They are GIRLY MEN who blamed that "nasty Nancy Pelosi" for pointing out that this is a problem of the BUSH administration.

Oh boo hoo.

"They are really stuck in a secessionist attitude ..."

Then Mrs. Todd Palin is their perfect candidate!