September 29, 2008

Eric Cantor can't be serious

Members of the United States House of Representatives voted against a bill because of a speech somebody made? Wouldn't the text of the bill be different than the content of the speech? So were they voting against the bill, or against the speech?

Why were they even listening to the speech? That bill is more than 100 pages long but only a few hours old. Were they listening to the speech when they should have been using that time to read and reread the bill, to make sure they understood it? And considering its implications, many of which are not immediately evident?

But no, they had to loaf around listening to somebody deliver a speech, which hurt their feelings. According to Eric Cantor.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pelosi speech was just plain dumb when most people know that it was democrat policy that created the problem. Moreover, democrats control the house and could not get enough votes to pass it.

It’s no wonder both houses controlled by democrats have a lower popularity rating then President Bush.

Thomas Joseph said...

Maybe Pelosi needs to learn to keep her mouth shut? You don't act in a bipartisan manner for days to get something done, and then at the 11th hour, stab those same people in the back.

She grandstanded. It cost her. She's a lousy Speaker of the House.

Other Side said...

It just proves the Republicans don't give a damn about actually, you know, governing or doing something for the country. It always is and has been about power and lining their pockets with green.

They could still have voted for the bill and condemned Pelosi's speech.

Clutch said...

WTF?

"I realized that voting for the bill was the best thing for the country at a time of a serious, even terrifying, crisis. But Nancy Pelosi bugged me, so I didn't."

Thomas Joseph said...

Actually ... for me, it matters not the reason why they did or didn't vote for the bill. I'll freely admit that I contacted my House Representative and my two Senators and told them that if they voted for this bill, I would not vote for them come election time.

I don't think a bailout is necessary. I imagine quite a few Republicans (and don't forget about the roughly 40% of the Democrats who didn't vote for it either) voted against it because it just plain old sucked.

illusory tenant said...

"To be honest, somebody finding out that Nancy Pelosi made a partisan speech? I’m shocked," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a lead opponent of the bailout package, adding that the idea her speech shifted votes is "nonsense."

Nonsense, I tell you.

gnarlytrombone said...

it matters not the reason why they did or didn't vote for the bill

Really? Really?

Thomas Joseph said...

gnarly ... did I stutter?

Like I said ... I didn't want to see this bill pass, so I'm happy as to it's abysmal failure regardless of how it happened. Whether it was because of Pelosi's big mouth, or some common sense, the end result is the same. The bill died in the House.

Whether you win by 1 or by 50, the result is the same. A win, is a win, is a win.

gnarlytrombone said...

You don't see any potential negative consequences in supporting Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim bus stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel when he happens to push the right button?

illusory tenant said...

Citation.

Thomas Joseph said...

Not in this particular case I don't. The facts are simple ... 40% of the Democrats (and since they hold the majority ... that's a good chunk of ballots there) refused to march in lockstep with their vacuous Speaker of the House ... so blaming this on the handful of people who got their knickers in a twist because Pelosi is a two-faced, backstabbing twit is merely an attempt to find a convenient scapegoat for a plan that was doomed to failure anyways.

gnarlytrombone said...

So... would you reward a congresscritter with your vote based on their vote against this bill, even if they said the reason they voted no is because the bailout didn't go far enough?

Thomas Joseph said...

Probably not. Especially if they went back to the table, redrew up the proposal and voted for the new bailout.

But you see, you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm more than happy to hold my representatives to a higher standard (and use my vote as a weapon which has about a 1 in 2,000,000 chance of being remotely effective), all the while relishing the defeat of a piece of shit legislation regardless of the way it was defeated.

gnarlytrombone said...

I'm hep to that. But frankly I could care less about this piece of shit legislation.

I'm just looking forward to a vacation from this bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
freaks
.

grumps said...

Look at the bright side. This clears the decks for the Dems to offer up a New New Deal to stimulate the economy, build jobs and support American business and labor.

gnarlytrombone said...

Or a descent into fascist scapegoating. Jeez. I'm don't know why I'm such gloomy gus today.

John Foust said...

My broker of course said this is no time to pull out, but then again, he said the housing bubble pop was nothing to worry about. He suggested going to a jewelry store if you wanted to buy gold. Anyone want to share their fave recipes for beans and rice?

illusory tenant said...

Or Beans and Barley.

Emily said...

Invest in canned soup (fourth paragraph).

grumps said...

@gt- I think that fascist scapegoating is technically two steps UP on the discourse scale at this point.

Zach W. said...

I never knew Republicans were so sensitive.

gnarlytrombone said...

Well said.

It is not impossible to get political decision-makers who can come together in crises, evaluate their options clearly, and act. It just takes a citizenry who insist on being represented by adults, media who actually inform them, and politicians who do not drive them to cynicism by abusing their trust.

Just kidding. We're screwed.