erynthered Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I certainly do not agree with what Pelosi did. However, I also disagree with people who voted nay because they were offended. Anybody who believes that some of them changed their vote because they were offended by what Pelosi said is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 The fact is that most of those that voted against it from both parties are facing tough reelection fights and wanted to vote on the side of caution so it wouldn't be used against them by their opponents. Blaming it on what anyone said or any other excuse is just looking for political cover. I heard McCain make a statement after the vote, and I still can't tell if he would have voted for or against it, he seems to be straddling the fence. I know that Obama would have voted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I know that Obama would have voted for it. No you dont. I believe he never took a position on the bill, did he? Great leadership there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Anybody who believes that some of them changed their vote because they were offended by what Pelosi said is an idiot. Exactly. It's just easy to blame on pelosi because she's a B word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I certainly do not agree with what Pelosi did. However, I also disagree with people who voted nay because they were offended. No - the 'offense' just gave them cover to play it safe on a charged question that they didn't know what to do about. If you genuinely don't know how to vote on a putative solution, it makes your decision pretty easy when one side say's it is all your fault because you are corrupt, and that only they have the integrity to fix your mess (and by the way, you can expect them to campaign on that slogan too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Anybody who believes that some of them changed their vote because they were offended by what Pelosi said is an idiot. A few actually came out and said that Pelosi's speech was a major issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/...sion=2008092918 Virginia's Eric Cantor, deputy whip for the House Republicans, stepped to the microphone this afternoon to blame the bailout defeat on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "failure to listen" and her charged partisan rhetoric in condemning President George Bush's "budgetary recklessness" and "anything-goes mentality." or But outside of staunch opponents like Hensarling, there were many fence-sitters who, as of Monday morning, the White House had assumed were in its column. Pelosi may not have helped, but the plan died because Republicans weren't willing to ignore a revolt among the folks back home and cast a rushed vote on a massively complex subject with an almost unfathomable price tag. "If on the substance, you're undecided, then the politics tips you into the 'no' category," Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, a Republican who supported the package, told Fortune. "It was a tough vote politically in their view." Is it possible that she didn't listen and included something he didn't want or did want and she omitted it from the final bill? No let's just go with a sound bite and not the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 No you dont. I believe he never took a position on the bill, did he? Great leadership there. He would have voted 'present.' Getting the 95 Democrats onboard who voted no was a job for somebody else too - his time was better spent in the service of his country by polishing his debate skills so that he can win the Presidency and make everything better. (Kinda like the courageous sacrifice of Romney's sons.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/...sion=2008092918 Virginia's Eric Cantor, deputy whip for the House Republicans, stepped to the microphone this afternoon to blame the bailout defeat on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "failure to listen" and her charged partisan rhetoric in condemning President George Bush's "budgetary recklessness" and "anything-goes mentality." or But outside of staunch opponents like Hensarling, there were many fence-sitters who, as of Monday morning, the White House had assumed were in its column. Pelosi may not have helped, but the plan died because Republicans weren't willing to ignore a revolt among the folks back home and cast a rushed vote on a massively complex subject with an almost unfathomable price tag. "If on the substance, you're undecided, then the politics tips you into the 'no' category," Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, a Republican who supported the package, told Fortune. "It was a tough vote politically in their view." Is it possible that she didn't listen and included something he didn't want or did want and she omitted it from the final bill? No let's just go with a sound bite and not the details. The House Republicans backed out the first time, the Dems cam back and made amends with them, reworking the deal... and then they walk again. There is the details. But if you want to believe the sound bites from only the republican side go ahead. After all it's there sitting presidents deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 The fact is that most of those that voted against it from both parties are facing tough reelection fights and wanted to vote on the side of caution so it wouldn't be used against them by their opponents. Blaming it on what anyone said or any other excuse is just looking for political cover. I heard McCain make a statement after the vote, and I still can't tell if he would have voted for or against it, he seems to be straddling the fence. I know that Obama would have voted for it. Both McCain and Obama said they would vote for it on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 The House Republicans backed out the first time, the Dems cam back and made amends with them, reworking the deal... and then they walk again. There is the details. But if you want to believe the sound bites from only the republican side go ahead. After all it's there sitting presidents deal. And what happened with the 95 democrats that opposed the bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 No you dont. I believe he never took a position on the bill, did he? Great leadership there. He stated on Sunday he would vote for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 The House Republicans backed out the first time, the Dems cam back and made amends with them, reworking the deal... and then they walk again. There is the details. But if you want to believe the sound bites from only the republican side go ahead. After all it's there sitting presidents deal. I don't know the "details". I don't understand the whole situation. And neither do you. As the congress critter said, if you don't know or don't understand you should vote "no". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 He would have voted 'present.' Getting the 95 Democrats onboard who voted no was a job for somebody else too - his time was better spent in the service of his country by polishing his debate skills so that he can win the Presidency and make everything better. (Kinda like the courageous sacrifice of Romney's sons.) In this age of technology that pretty much everyone understands.. McCain's grandstanding could have been done from Mississippi. After all he pretty much voted present when he FINALLY arrived. Nothing major added to the discussions. I love how McCain's own people can never name an example of something either he or Palin has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Anybody who believes that some of them changed their vote because they were offended by what Pelosi said is an idiot. Then they think the American people are idiots, because that was the reason they gave. Repeatedly, and on the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 In this age of technology that pretty much everyone understands.. McCain's grandstanding could have been done from Mississippi. After all he pretty much voted present when he FINALLY arrived. Nothing major added to the discussions. I love how McCain's own people can never name an example of something either he or Palin has done. Same goes for Obamas people. Actually with Palin they point to the gas pipelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I don't know the "details". I don't understand the whole situation. And neither do you. As the congress critter said, if you don't know or don't understand you should vote "no". Oh, so you don't know... But it's all Obama's fault. OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Still, she delivered two-thirds of her caucus for a very unpopular bill and the GOP in essense tanked it because she pissed them off (AND they hate Bush, AND probably McCain, too)--all after concessions were made to get them on board. To do that and have the market go in the toilet to the tune of 1 trillion dollars makes them look really petty. No other way to spin it, although some have tried. Agreed, but she still should not have given them an excuse, it would have seemed more like McCain's excuse more ridiculous and she should have known better. The next poster said sarcastically and they would have voted for the bill if she kept her mouth shut. No, but enough people dislike her as to make them think the GOP has a legit excuse....NOT!, but still it plays, kind of like we did with Tom Delay even when he had something that made sense being considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Then they think the American people are idiots, because that was the reason they gave. Repeatedly, and on the record. Well then. There you have it. Not that I needed further proof. Just look who those idiots nominated for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Then they think the American people are idiots, because that was the reason they gave. Repeatedly, and on the record. The people of america are idiots. Again for your benefit. If most were killed and dumped in the ocean they wouldn't be missed. 7 years later and most folks don't even remember or care about the attack on the towers or the pentagon. Do you really think if 1/3 of the population was dumped in the ocean that 10 years from now anyone would remember or care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts