We could start with the shrew in charge of the House of Representatives who's been playing politics with this issue from day one. Some patriot. Or maybe Barney "what me, worry?" Frank for ignoring the growing problems with Fannie/Freddie in 2004...all he didn't say was "Frankie's (Raines) doing a heckuva job" while at the time he was busy running an Enron-like accounting scam. Thankfully he's had time lately to lower his golf handicap. Today Frank blamed the bill's defeat on GOP members getting their "feelings hurt" over Pelosi's hardball partisanship while Main Street's future hung in the balance. After his history we can now deem him officially clueless.
But let's not forget all the Republican Congressmorons who voted no to protect their reelection chances over their country. Maybe Pelosi was right about their patriotism. Or the 90+ Democrat Congresshacks who hit the no button either out of fear or because there wasn't enough bailout in the bailout. What, not enough nuts for the ACORN lobbyists who helped get us in this mess? Stunning hubris.
By the way, if the shrew plays this card all HELL should be rained down in Washington. Not literally, of course, but via whatever communications means are available.
Main Street? Sure, a lot of us fell hook, line, and sinker for the "I want it all, and I want it now" school of finance. But we were all duped, of course, right? Right. Apparently too many of us were not listening closely when "Poor Richard's Almanack" was discussed in school, if such a thing is even mentioned anymore. Or maybe it's all Bush's fault for telling us to "go shopping" or not yelling loud enough from the pulpit. Still, the problem remains.
This is a seminal moment in American history, the kind of moment that in the past has produced great statesmen who've stepped up and done the right thing. We await their arrival.
In the meantime, this is America--we always take the glass half full side. "777" is supposed to be a lucky number. Things will be done--there are simply too many people depending on us across the globe.
Again, if this was such a "crisis" and Pelosi needed bi-partisanship to git r done, why did so many Dems take a pass?
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.Something else. It's well known that older voters vote early and often (not in the Chicago sense). They are very sensitive to disruptions in their annuities/fixed incomes for obvious reasons, and quite often choose accordingly. Who's now in better position to help the seniors?
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.