Yes its rove commentary and so what, he still knows whats going on DC, and his opinion like it or not, is still interesting at least, so lets move on please….anyway, I find his comments interesting and , well they accurately portray his words here and reasons that perhaps many rep.s did not get on board.

According to him, and the voting record which I fact checked ( below link), and supports him, Pelosi released 16 congressman in troubled districts to vote NO. She released her elder committee heads to vote NO as well for political cover.

Of course, he may be wrong, they just could have voted no because they didn’t like the bill and he heard wrong or is making it up, I only throw that out there because everyone hates rove;
BUT we all know how this works, you don’t buck your leadership, and not on something like this, so as for the newbie congressman, I don’t see them voting no without her permission, as to the elders of the comm.’s, they are her allies, and were appointed by her, they are the proverbial peas in the pod. If anything as to their senior positions in the party they should have certainly voted to sppt. it.


Its also remarkable that some of the leading lights of the party and her personal allies and those she appointed to committee chairmanships when the house turned over to the Dems 2 years ago, voted no, I personally know from being our here in California she does a lot of campaigning with and for the Sanchez sisters….plus Conyers etc etc every name he said is on the NO vote list.

So, it appears, this was never meant to be a non partisan vote to start with, I am open to other arguments though, is there any other reason for this?

I suppose on one level everything is partisan in DC, but she certainly after making such moves should have kept her damn yap shut as to her speech and post commentary as to the “republicans failing to step up” etc……what gall.

She needs to go, seriously.



He speaks to it directly at approx. the 40 second remark, but the entire first 2 minutes are well worth listening too…


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGpxUEN4RU

the yea nay results by name of vote-


110th Congress, 2nd session, House vote 674 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

well tip of the hat to corp media sux...its seems this is not a one off....

from the site he posted, excellent....



FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Swing District Congressmen Doomed Bailout


Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.


so there was something to it on both sides, as to the committe bigwhigs well, that still troubles me.......a lot.

whats scares me now is how they from both sides, ran away as far as they can from this, as if they sense a bomb going off.

That scares me, a lot.

They don't have ANY confidence in this at all, so maybe it was better going down....


Those safe or not up for votes know they have 2-4 years to obfsucate....this is fucking scary. I mean it.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I think that they just voted against it because it is currently unpopular and reports suggest that calls to congressmen are against this thing 100-1. The thing is that voters understand their tax dollars going to pay for what they view as Wall Street only and do no understand the economic arguments for it which are more complicated. Voters would rather go with their own understanding rather than listen to the experts. If this failure causes economic collapse then it will be both the house members and voters that are to blame for acting in their own self interest and lack of understanding.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Yup, you are spot on with that POM.

But also like Imp said, Pelosi has to go, she is a cataclysmic failure of a speaker, what a disgrace.

It may be true that "the people" don't understand that this bill needs to pass. I know I don't see why this bill NEEDS to pass or else. Americans don't trust politicians this much everyone knows. Now if Pelosi would bring in somebody like Warren Buffet to speak publicly about why this bill should pass then I think that would ease a lot of concerns. Of course since Pelosi is too stupid to have public hearings with respected economic experts developing the bailout plan.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

If you look further back on that site Imp linked to, you can see an article from 2 days ago about the poll #s from voters in regards to the bailout. The thing is voters want a wall street recovery bill by a 2-1 margin, but they don't want a Wall Street bailout bill by the same. While at first you can say it's just people being stupid and falling for the whole "wording" (bailout is negative, recovery is positive, framing the wording of a poll is important for this reason), it goes deeper than that. People want to see a bailout of companies they know are important for the health of the overall economy, but they don't want their tax dollars signed over in a blank check, and they don't want to see the CEOs of bailed out companies cashing in on severance packages, they want them retiring on SS if they qualify. And they want to be sure the tax dollars spent on a bailout are well spent, and have a reasonable chance of being recovered in the long term. They also don't want a cut of the returns going to ACORN, even those of us who support ACORN thinks it's foul play to muddy the waters earmarking this thing.

yes but my point was and is, this is rife with the stink of politics...they cannot not for one fucking day oput the shit aside...she running around telling her folks hey cool don't vote yes we don't want to lose that seat, then tells her buddies running the committees hey if you need political cover too, vote no, half the fucking finance committee dems don't vote yes, and at the end of the day she comes out and says, that its the republicans are holding up the works.....
( though she has the votes anytime she wants to crack the whip).

I mean lets be clear here , if this was a schip bill or entitlements for some such give away, it would have walked sailed by because they could use their majority and buy votes with it, but now, oh no , they are scared and cannot dredge up the balls to do what they as the party in majority and in control of both houses needs to do- lead.

this my friends is pure unadulterated bullshit and now, to protect themselves the stupid republicans have no choice to do what they have to do...this is years getting here, polarization , ill will, etc.....and it stinks.....

and hand in hand with lack of knowledge as to how this will really effect us the average American says fuck you, vote no on the bill and that’s what they are hearing….so there it is…

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

People who like laws and sausages should not watch either being made........

This is how it's done, which is why a simple majority is not control, you need the extra votes so that you can let members in tight races vote in consideration of that tight race.
Don't hate the player, Hate the game.
Because in a tight race, you know that the challenger would be running "He voted to give 700 billion to Wall Street Fat Cats" ads before the ink was dry.
This is why the bill needed bi-partisan support, because while something has to be done, the Democrats are not going to destroy their future, and subject the country to further GOP misrule over this issue.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

ahh goober, you're the king of irony.....

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

No not their own, just everybody elses...

I think this is pretty straight forward.

The bill was not popular. Even the people who supported it said that people had to hold their noses and vote YES.

The leadership of the Democratic wanted to make sure that this was seen as a non-partisan bill. They did not want to have all the Democrats vote FOR and all the Republicans vote NO. The bill would have passed and the Republicans would have a partisan issue to take to the elections (look what those damn Democrats shoved down our throats). They had agreed with the Republican leadership that each side would deliver a simple majority in favor of the bill and that is what would make this non-partisan.

The Democrats in tight races and the Republicans in tight races were allowed to vote in the way that would hurt them least in the election. There would still be enough to pass and not put either side at a disadvantage in the election because of the way that they voted for this.

The Republican leadership did not deliver on their part of the bargain.

Was Nancy stupid to rail against the excesses of the current administration? Absolutely. Did this give the Republicans justification for changing their votes? Not unless you believe that the honor of a Republican President is more important than the economic security of the nation. Bush did, after all, tell his Republicans to vote for this and I bet he didn’t call in and say that what Nancy is saying is making me change my mind on this bill and now I think you should vote against it.

The Republican leadership never really had their folks in line and Nancy gave them a scapegoat.

I think that she is a miserable Speaker of the House and I hope she doesn’t get chosen again (fat chance); but this bill failed because of the poor performance of the Republican leadership.

[quote=zip98053;1303540]I think this is pretty straight forward.

The bill was not popular. Even the people who supported it said that people had to hold their noses and vote YES.

The leadership of the Democratic wanted to make sure that this was seen as a non-partisan bill. They did not want to have all the Democrats vote FOR and all the Republicans vote NO. The bill would have passed and the Republicans would have a partisan issue to take to the elections (look what those damn Democrats shoved down our throats). They had agreed with the Republican leadership that each side would deliver a simple majority in favor of the bill and that is what would make this non-partisan.

The Democrats in tight races and the Republicans in tight races were allowed to vote in the way that would hurt them least in the election. There would still be enough to pass and not put either side at a disadvantage in the election because of the way that they voted for this.

The Republican leadership did not deliver on their part of the bargain.

Was Nancy stupid to rail against the excesses of the current administration? Absolutely. Did this give the Republicans justification for changing their votes? Not unless you believe that the honor of a Republican President is more important than the economic security of the nation. Bush did, after all, tell his Republicans to vote for this and I bet he didn’t call in and say that what Nancy is saying is making me change my mind on this bill and now I think you should vote against it.

The Republican leadership never really had their folks in line and Nancy gave them a scapegoat.

I think that she is a miserable Speaker of the House and I hope she doesn’t get chosen again (fat chance);


how do you come to that conclusion? I don't even blame nancy totally......

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

The "deal" between the leadership of both sides was that they would deliver 50% of their party to vote FOR so that the bill's passage would be non-partisan. The Republican leadership did not get the 50% of the Republicans which they had committed to deliver.

Nancy took her party from the minority to the majority, so she's the speaker, that's the way it works.
I thought Gingrich was a complete ass, but I never begrudged him the speakership, it was his party.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

No, but you guys did screw DeLay over, big time! Newt wasn't as effective as Tom, Tom ran the single most effecient House majority in history.