Those who voted 'No' in the House I believe hardly did so as some sort of cheap slap-back at Nancy Pelosi. That train of thought fails to explain the 90 Democrats who voted no along with the 138 Republicans.
Most likely, the 'No' voters honestly did not believe this short term solution was a solution in the long term.
For instance, there has been no discussion on addressing the irresponsible Congressional mandates on the financial industry which caused this problem in the first place. This means that a primary impetus to the current crisis remains.
This seems akin to trying to treat lung cancer while encouraging the patient to continue smoking.
There seem sensible arguments both for and against the Bill - none of which seem to be coming from the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Schumer (et al) for what it's worth. But the prospects of treating cancer while smoking would be a wholly logical objection. Not that I've heard that articulated, mind you.
Two cents. Perhaps less.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Congress, Economics, House of Representatives, Senate
Comments (5)
The partisan rants from the... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Larry | September 29, 2008 5:39 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The partisan rants from the Dems was a signal to some Repubs that nothing would be done about the core issues you discuss. I had heard that there would be something done in the very near future to change the regulations governing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that would address the worst parts.
And yea, a few Congressmen are not exactly the coolest heads around and they did get totally pissed off at Pelosi. For them, it more of the same disrespect she has shown since she got the office of Speaker. The number I got was eight, which would not have put it over the top, but would have made it close enough for arm twisting to maybe work.
There is also something else going on in the background that I no longer have the contacts to dig down to. Maybe you can Steve. I have heard rumors of a real October surprise, but zero details.
1. Posted by Larry | September 29, 2008 5:39 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 29, 2008 17:39
2. Posted by GarandFan | September 29, 2008 7:31 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Nancy did the Republicans a favor with her pre-vote "bi-partisan" speech.
This bill would have been a temporary fix for a Democratic problem.
*** **** Nancy!
[Comment edited.]
2. Posted by GarandFan | September 29, 2008 7:31 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 29, 2008 19:31
3. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | September 29, 2008 8:13 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
They voted no because their constituents are pissed. They are afraid... very afraid. It's about time the people were heard on this.
3. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | September 29, 2008 8:13 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 29, 2008 20:13
4. Posted by epador | September 29, 2008 9:20 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
A more common problem is trying to convince the patient who is smoking to quit even after they get cancer. I think that is a more appropriate metaphor in this case.
4. Posted by epador | September 29, 2008 9:20 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 29, 2008 21:20
5. Posted by James Cloninger | September 30, 2008 12:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That train of thought fails to explain the 90 Democrats who voted no
How many of those Dems are running in hotly contested seats this year?
Can you imagine the ads, "Democrat voted $700b to save fat cats on Wall Street, etc..."
Because you know that the Democrats WOULD run such an ad against a Republican, guaranteed.
5. Posted by James Cloninger | September 30, 2008 12:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 30, 2008 00:03