« McCain Campaign Fighting Off Story About Sarah Palin's Affair | Main | Angry Republicans Act Out Against Americans - Schwarzenegger style »

Next Up: A Republican-led Depression

How they voted on today's $700 Billion bailout bill.

DEMOCRATS - Yea 140, Nay 95
REPUBLICANS - Yea 65, Nay 133, Not Voting 1

Total in favor: 205
Total against: 228
Not Voting: 1

60% of the Democrats voted in favor of the bailout plan.

Only 33% of the Republicans voted in favor of the bailout plan.

Maybe this is just another John McCain election stunt, and he'll ride up to the Capitol on his white horse and magically enough Republicans will switch their votes in favor of the bill to allow its passage.

Maybe Americans will have to go to the polls and vote enough House Republicans out of office to allow a strong enough Democratic majority to ensure its passage.

Update: After John McCain's campaign stunt last week McCain, speaking earlier today, was ready to take credit for the passage of the bill:

"I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made in Wall Street and evil and greed in Washington," McCain said.

Despite numerous earlier claims that this crisis was not a situation to be politicized, McCain then added, "it's a matter of record Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first, at first he didn't want to get involved. And then he was "monitoring the situation." That's not leadership, that's watching from the sidelines."

And of course now that McCain's efforts failed, he'll blame Obama even more.

All you have to do is check those vote tallies above to see which candidate failed to rally a majority of their party's house members to vote in favor of the bill. Only 33% of Republicans voted in favor of the bill while a full 60% of the Democrats voted yes.

McCain cannot lead those in his own party, much less a bi-partisan agenda of change.

John McCain represents more of the same old crap in Washington. There are even Republicans who claim that a speech by Nancy Pelosi resulted in enough Republican anger that the bailout bill failed.

Catch that, American voters? Republicans who would otherwise have voted in favor of the bill are punishing you because they are mad at Nancy Pelosi.

Vote these clowns out of office and put Barack Obama in the White House. Let's stop this madness....

Update II: A statement released by the McCain campaign mirrors perfectly the anger expressed by House Republicans who chose to punish hard-working Americans by voting no:

From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Sens. Obama and [Harry] Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.

Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.

There you go. A statement from the McCain campaign that spells out specifically that House Republicans voted against this bill out of anger towards Democrats.

Does that sound like "Country First" to you?

Update III: The good new is that John McCain is finally admitting that the country is in a recession:

McCain said Democrat Barack Obama advocates tax-and-spend policies that "will deepen our recession"

Considering that two weeks ago McCain wouldn't even acknowledge that there were problems with the economy -- well, this is progress, at least.

But since John McCain cannot even recognize a recession as it boils up around him, why should we trust John McCain's judgment that Barack Obama's economic policies will "deepen our recession?

McCain is a pathetic hack that'll say anything to get elected, and when America laughs at what he says he just changes his tune and says the opposite.

Update IV: More McCain buffonery (h/t Brad deLong):

Chief McCain strategist Steve Schmidt said yesterday on Meet the Press, "What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this." And this morning, McCain backer Mitt Romney told NBC that "this bill would not have been agreed to had it not been for John McCain....this is a bipartisan accomplishment, a bipartisan success. And if people want to get something done in Washington, they just watch John McCain."

Yeah, watch John McCain fail.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.2/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.2/5 (13 votes cast)


Comments (28)

Codekeyguy[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Lee,
Just keep in mind that in a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY house, the queen (Pelosi) couldn't get a passing vote. Just voting PARTY LINE would have passed it, so quit blaming the Republicans. Those 95 DEMOCRATIC NAYS are your problem. When I last checked, 140 + 95 = 235. It needed 218 to pass. What say you?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I say 60% of the Democrats voted for it.

and if as little as 40% of the Republicans voted for it then it would have passed.

I say George Bush and John McCain failed to even get a simple 50% majority of the Republicans in the House behind this -- and that pretty sad.

And I say a change is needed in Washington - today we need 13 less Republicans in Congress, and thanks to the failure of John McCain we will likely see at least 13 Republican clowns voted out in November hopefully more.

MunDane:

Last time I checked, Rep. Nancy Pelosi lead The House, not George Bush...

Last time I checked, Congress wrote the rules governing the banking and lending institutions, not the President...

Last time I checked, Sen. Obama was also trying to talk house members into the bailout...

But, since Lee never mentioned those things, I must obviously be in error...

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"Could it have anything to do with the fact that 60% of americans don't approve of a tax funded bail-out?"

Republican house leader John Boehner claims it was Pelosi's fault, and McCain claims it was Obama, Pelosi and Reid's fault.

And you're saying they are lying and that there are really other reasons?

Like funding for ACORN? That was stripped out in negotiations days ago, and since you lied about that I'll assume that you are lying or uniformed on the other issues as well and not bother fact-checking your bullshit.

Or maybe you're just another angry, irrational Republican who hates Democrats so much you can't think straight, Chad.

Feel free to come back when you can..

And how's that "Draft Chuck Norris for VP" movement of your going? Be sure to give us an update in your next comment, putz.


Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"Last time I checked, Sen. Obama was also trying to talk house members into the bailout..."

Obama got 60% of the Democrats to support his bill.

McCain only got 33% of the Republicans.

Who did better?

vinny from NC:

Lee did you went to the same University that Hussein Obama went? Quit smoking that grass it is affecting your little brain!!!!!

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

There's rarely unanimous agreement amongst Democrats -- we're too diverse and independent.

All it would have taken is a simple majority of Democrats and a simple majority of Republicans.

60% of the Democrats delivered and voted yes.

33% of the Republicans did the same.

Just facts -- no lies... and like "Failure McCain" you blame the Democrats? A majority of whom supported the measure?

What a putz.

How exactly would there be a "Republican-led Depression"? Because Republicans refused to approve this particular bail-out bill? Who caused the problem in the first place?

That would be Democrats, and Democrats alone. Democrats wanted their constituents - the poor, unemployed, and uncreditworthy - to be able to get loans to buy houses. Democrats also thought banks were bad, bad, bad if they didn't make enough loans to these poor, unemployed, uncreditworthy people. Indeed, Democrats like Obama sued banks if they didn't make enough loans to Democrat-favored minorities - blacks and hispanics - without regard whatsoever to individual creditworthiness.

Democrats created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these "sub-prime" loans and implicitly guaranteed that the U.S. Government - e.g., me and people like me who actually work and make money - would cover any losses if the recipients of these "sub-prime" loans couldn't pay their mortgages. In other words, Democrats created a round-about way of pure housing welfare.

Now that the whole unsustainable scam is crashing down, you and fellow Blue people have the gall to blame Republicans? Haven't you seen the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

Allen:

Ref. #10.
Ben, you are correct up to a point. Yes Clinton got that bill passed making banks give loans to the poor.

But the GOP was in charge of both the house and senate when they passed it. And as long as the GOP had control of Congress, they had 0 % of oversight on anything.

Since the GOP didn't do any oversight, and are now hindering any type of oversight since the 2006 elections, just who is to blame?

WAKE THE F--K up. Both parties are not working for the American taxpayer. They are working to fill their pockets at our expense. So don't blame one party or the other, blame both parties!

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"How exactly would there be a "Republican-led Depression"? Because Republicans refused to approve this particular bail-out bill?"

Holders of US stocks lost $1.2 Trillion in stock value today, thanks to the fact that 67% of the Republicans voted against today's bailout.

But that's only the tip of the iceberg.

The credit crunch is going to cause businesses to fail as they can't borrow or have to borrow at much higher rates - there will be layoffs and more workers will lose jobs at a time we already have skyrocketing unemployment, and house values will fall further as the housing market deteriorates because of the credit crunch. Our recession will turn into a depression in a matter for months.

Republican Eric Cantor announced that House Republicans switched their votes and voted against the bill because mean old Nancy Pelosi pissed them off.

Welcome to Republican America -- where everyday Americans suffer because poor-widdle Republicans have their feelings hurt.

Mike:

There's nothing to see here, really, except a perfect example of why Pelosi & Co. have damn well earned their 9% approval rating.

It's also a perfect opportunity to question why the Obamessiah didn't simply stand before Congress, raise his arms to the heavens, and say, "Peace, be still" -- and thereby command the entirety of Congress to come together in peace and unity. After all, that's what Obama is all about, isn't it? The Chosen One? The Lightbearer?

What I saw was a clueless Obama who didn't know what to do, didn't think his input was necessary, and then -- when he finally showed up -- derailed his golden White House meeting with partisan attacks. It was a perfect opportunity for him to be a leader, handed to him on a platter by President Bush, and yet he failed miserably.

This sham of a bill was stuffed like a Thanksgiving turkey with perks for loyal Democrat constituencies, and it utterly failed to address the central problem -- government forcing banks to give a certain percentage of their loans to racial minorities, and then forbidding the banks to assess the credit-worthiness of minority borrowers, because ACORN Housing and other race-based special interests declared such assessments to be "racist."

And if liberals want to play the Robin Hood card with regard to CEO bonuses, how about making it retroactive and forcing Daniel Mudd and Frank Raines to pay back at least half of the $140 million that they collected in salary and bonuses while running Fannie Mae into the ground. $70 million would pay off a lot of mortgages for poor people, don't you think?

Michelle Malkin is absolutely right to label this bill a $700 billion $&!t sandwich, and I'm glad Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Dodd, and the rest of the Democrats who killed two major GSE reform bills during the last five years were forced to eat it today.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Ladies and Gentlemen -- Mike is one of those Republicans who will lead our country into a depression because they hate Democrats with an unbridled passion.

Michelle Malkin is absolutely right to label this bill a $700 billion $&!t sandwich, and I'm glad Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Dodd, and the rest of the Democrats who killed two major GSE reform bills during the last five years were forced to eat it today.

Democrats can eat shit, according to Mike -- but who is Mike hurting by opposing this measure -- a measure created by Republicans, and one which John McCain supports strongly?

This angry little minority of Americans cost stockholders $1.2 Trillion today alone (expect similar results in the days ahead) simply because they hate Democrats in general, and Nancy Pelosi in particular.

I'm glad Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Dodd, and the rest of the Democrats who killed two major GSE reform bills during the last five years were forced to eat it today.

It's a Republican-led Depression that lies ahead, thanks to Americans like Mike.

DaveD:

From a NYT article:
"Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure. But where Mr. McCain had accused Mr. Obama of taking a hands-off approach to the financial crisis, Democratic advisers said they believed that Mr. McCain now had a role in the legislation's failure."

So Lee, I guess Obama took the easy way out. He cajoled the 60% who were already going to vote aye to vote......aye? That's pretty impressive leadership.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Well, Dave, considering that Senator McCain had suspended his campaign to work on convincing Republicans in Congress to pass this bill what Obama did would have been plenty if only McCain had delivered.

But McCain delivered crap. 66% of the Republicans in the house voted against John McCain's wishes.

I"m convinced more would have voted for it if McCain had not suspended his campaign and turned it into a political showboating election stunt.

He suspended his campaign!

and he delivered a crappy 33%!

Obama stayed on the campaign trail and delivered 60%, expecting John McCain to come through.

John McCain failed!

DaveD:

Sorry Lee,
If you want to tout that McCain failed, I will not argue with you on that. I don't interpet that way, but I will not argue that point. The fact that Obama has more power to deliver votes than Pelosi is an illusion because he himself would have no clue how to vote on this one. Accept the fact that there are politicians on both sides who are worried about their jobs. Accept that there is a rather intelligent electorate from both sides who are having a tough time trying to understand the complexity of the situation and are quite cautious about accepting an obtuse bit of legislation in the midst of panic when they felt they have seen this whole story before. This morning, there was some rebound on stocks. What does that mean? Are these stocks being bought without credit? Maybe I'm being macabre but I am happy to see the feet of Bush, Paulson, Bernake, and the Congress being held to the fire by the electorate.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I don't have a problem with members of congress who found legitimate reasons to vote no.

I am disappointed in John McCain. Senator McCain 'suspended his campaign" to work on a solution, and took credit for the passage of the bill before the vote.

Ooops! It failed, so did John McCain.

But my real concern is with the Republicans who stated publicly that they voted no because of remarks made by Pelosi.

What petty, childish idiots! Those Republicans are punishing everyday Americans because of their childishness.

House Minority Whip Bonehead Boehner said this was the reason certain members voted against it, and obviously both he and McCain failed in allowing those members to break rank and act out like children.

Don't you agree? They stated that voted against it because of Pelosi's remarks. You don't see that as childish and petty? Given the $1.2 Trillion lost in the market yesterday alone as a direct result of their actions?

$1.2 Trillion! And the damn bill was for a total much less than that - a total which many tell us will eventually be recouped in full.

Idiots. Childish, angry Republican idiots!

DaveD:

"Don't you agree?"
Actually, I do. Even if it were my real reason, I would not be stupid enough to put it out there.
But, unlike you, I understand the frustration. This is a problem that has it's origin in poor fiscal policy dictated by the Democrat Party in Congress. It is beyond dispute that the Democrats blocked the reforms needed in mortgage lending through Fannie and Freddie two to three years ago. And now the Republicans are being blamed for not being enablers in helping the Democrats clean up the mess. All of a sudden they are not patriotic because they don't automatically buy into this bailout. I read sites that say smaller banks are awash in liquidity. The Dow is up 400 today as I write this. What does this mean if we are on the precipice of financial disaster. Do investors know a better bill is on the way? Are they squeezing the last bit of profits out of the market before to fall? Are these people buying with cash or is there really enough credit out there to sustain these transactions? Maybe they got rid of the short sellers and the problems they bring to market stability? Look with words like "assholes" or whatever invective you want to use in your headlines here, you pretty much determine what the level of discourse will be. So, yeah, it pretty much makes you an expert on childish. Geesh, "Asshole" in a headline; what are you 12 years old or something?

Lee Ward:

"It is beyond dispute that the Democrats blocked the reforms needed in mortgage lending through Fannie and Freddie two to three years ago. "

Would you care to explain how it is possible for Democrats to block reform in a Republican-controlled house and senate?

Hint: It isn't possible.

"And now the Republicans are being blamed for not being enablers in helping the Democrats clean up the mess."

Oh, I see - first blame it on the Democrats, then use that as justification to act like children, causing millions of Americans with 401Ks and retirement accounts to loose billions.

"All of a sudden they are not patriotic because they don't automatically buy into this bailout."

They aren't patriotic, they are acting like spoiled children who realize that their reign of terror is just about over, so they are covering their pathetic asses because it's re-election time and these desperate, pathetic asses are worried about re-election.

Sorry, Dave - Republican George Bush presented this proposal after 7 years of Republican oversight and regulation of the industry -- and Republican John McCain endorsed and suspended his campaign to insure its passage -- and Republican John Boehner said it failed because of petty childish actions of House Republicans.

Own it, lock stock and barrel it's a Republican mess -- quit the bullshit.

engineer:

"Would you care to explain how it is possible for Democrats to block reform in a Republican-controlled house and senate?

Hint: It isn't possible."

Lee, don't pretend to be ignorant of Senate rules.

It takes 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. The republicans didn't have the necessary votes because the Democrats were lined up to either filibuster and/or vote no to cloture.

The republicans still should have tried to bring it up for a vote, just so everybody could be officially on record either as filibustering and against cloture.

BTW, the Congressional Black Caucus voted 18 yes, 21 no for the bailout. Should we blame Obama for not delivering the necessary votes from them?

Lee Ward:

I don't care about no steeenking rules...

I looked into the 2003 and 2005 bills briefly several weeks ago and my recollection - I'm not 100% sure but my recollection -- was that neither of these ever made it to a vote, cloture or otherwise.

So I was hoping that DaveD would back up his usual bullshit with a fact or two - such as a specific vote on these two bills - to back up his claim that it went down as a result of democrats. A link to that vote or to some verifiable, reliable quote would be nice as well.

A lot of people throw out crap based on what they read on neighboring right wing blog which shall remain nameless.... and my experience shows that these commenters show up here with their heads filled with ... misconceptions and distortions.... that are just plain untrue.

Did these bills even make it committee? OH wait - you answered the questions yourself -- "The republicans still should have tried to bring it up for a vote," - so Dave's rant is just his version probably picked up from some right wing blogger...

"BTW, the Congressional Black Caucus voted 18 yes, 21 no for the bailout. Should we blame Obama for not delivering the necessary votes from them?

Housed Republicans changed their vote -- they were going to vote for it but decided to vote against it -- because of words Pelosi said.

Lots of members have legitimate problems with the bill -- not these immature clowns -- that were upset because mean old Pelosi said bad things about President Bush.

I don't care about people with real reasons to vote no - but the House Republicans who voted no did so because they are immature assholes. And you want to point at BLACK Democrats as being at fault as you defend the immature Rrepublican assholes? Hmmmm.... Blaming Pelosi isn't good enough for you - you have to bring race into it?

engineer:

"I don't care about no steeenking rules..."

But that is the rule.

"I looked into the 2003 and 2005 bills briefly several weeks ago and my recollection - I'm not 100% sure but my recollection -- was that neither of these ever made it to a vote, cloture or otherwise."

The 2005 bill was voted on in committee 11 yes (all Republican) and 9 no (all Democrat). Strictly a party line vote. The vote in the Senate was threatened with a filibuster or a no vote for cloture along party lines, hence the bill would never have the chance of coming to the Senate for a vote. As stated earlier, the Republicans still should have brought it up for debate and then there would be an official record of the filibuster or the no cloture vote.

"So I was hoping that DaveD would back up his usual bullshit with a fact or two - such as a specific vote on these two bills - to back up his claim that it went down as a result of democrats. A link to that vote or to some verifiable, reliable quote would be nice as well."

A simple google search will yeild the specifics of the bill and committee vote.

"Did these bills even make it committee? OH wait - you answered the questions yourself -- "The republicans still should have tried to bring it up for a vote," - so Dave's rant is just his version probably picked up from some right wing blogger..."

I made no reference to Dave's 'rant' only responding to your comment.

"Housed Republicans changed their vote -- they were going to vote for it but decided to vote against it -- because of words Pelosi said."

And you have actual evidence of this? Not just a representative stating that they were upset. An actual count of the specific Republicans and their names that switched their vote? Maybe a couple of the Democrats that Nancy thought she had yes votes from decided at the last minute to change their votes.

"Lots of members have legitimate problems with the bill -- not these immature clowns -- that were upset because mean old Pelosi said bad things about President Bush."

An how 'mature' was it of Nancy Pelosi to make that speech right before the vote?

"I don't care about people with real reasons to vote no - but the House Republicans who voted no did so because they are immature assholes. And you want to point at BLACK Democrats as being at fault as you defend the immature Rrepublican assholes? Hmmmm.... Blaming Pelosi isn't good enough for you - you have to bring race into it?"

The question I was asking was if you're going to criticize McCain for not delivering a majority of Republicans (from your first comment), could we not make an agrument that Obama couldn't deliver a majority of the black caucus, since he is a member? (Yes, even though he is a Senator, he still is a memeber of the Congressional Black Caucus). Would he not have more pull in a small group as opposed to a larger group (ie the entire Democrat House). It's not a racist comment, it's to point out the shortcomings in your own agruement in requiring McCain to provide a majority.

Lee Ward:

"And you have actual evidence of this?"

Of course. We have the public statement of House Republicans, including Minority whip Boehner, blaming Pelosi's speech as they reason they changed their votes.

"The question I was asking was if you're going to criticize McCain for not delivering a majority of Republicans (from your first comment), could we not make an agrument that Obama couldn't deliver a majority of the black caucus, since he is a member?"

Obama didn't need to deliver more votes, he already had 60% of the democrats behind him -- which would have been plenty of McCain had delivered what he promised he's deliver, and if the House Republicans -- who supported the measure -- hadn't acted like children and changed their votes.

Obama delivered what was needed. McCain did not.

In fact, not one single Arizona congress critter (Democrat or Republican) voted for the bill - and it's McCain's home state! He wasn't able to convince his own Arizona Republicans to vote for it.

Got a link to those committee results you cited? If not, why not? You'll have to pardon my skepticism, but we get a lot of statements like that which turn out to be lies, and if you wont' include a link I'm highly skeptical...

engineer:

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus:
http://www.cbcfinc.org/About/CBC/members.html
43 members, Obama doesn't count, he's a Senator
Tubbs is dead, she doesn't count
Christian-Christensen doesn't count - Virgin Islands
Norton doesn't count - DC
39 members that voted.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bailout.reax/

From the article: "Baca voted against the bailout. Twelve members of the Hispanic Caucus voted against the plan and 8 voted for it. Meanwhile, 21 members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the bailout package and 18 supported it."

A little more research and I can give you the exact representatives, since I had them earlier from a link from Fox that listed how everybody voted.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I apologize - I wasn't specific. I wasn't asking for a link to the Black Caucus vote. That's just a racist red herring cobbled up by the bigoted right wing blogosphere.

Urban congresspeople wanted more relief in the bill to deal with blighted inner-city housing crisis. By voting no, they were voting in support of their constituencies.

Blaming them and Obama is just racist Republican bigotry at work. Are you also suggesting that the bill failed because Palin didn't rally females? or that McCain didn't rally senile old white farts?

It's the Republicans who switched their votes who sunk this bill on Monday, and they did so because Nancy slapped their beloved President around in a speech. They admitted that publicly.

I was referring to the vote on the 2003 and 2005 initiatives you cited - the ones that failed during the Republican-controlled Congress which yousay was the Democrats fault.

Seriously, drop the racism. It's not tolerated on this blog. Last warning.

engineer:

I assumed that you wanted information on the vote of the Black Caucus since it was right after talking about deliverig the votes. I misread the word 'committee' for 'caucus'. Sorry about that.

Here is a link the various information on the bill in 2005. You'll have to click through the links for additional information such as who sponsored it, the exact wording of the bill and various questions and answers including the committee voting breakdown. There is some partisan answers on both sides in the Q & A, but that's to be expected.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

"Seriously, drop the racism. It's not tolerated on this blog. Last warning."

That is in response to my posting the link that I thought you requested?

In my first post, I was trying to show that it would be ridiculous (it was a rhetorical question in which the obvious answer is no, it was not a racist comment) to expect Obama to 'deliver' a majority (sorry forgot to put in the word majority originally) of the Black Caucus, in the same way that it would be ridiculous to expect McCain to 'deliver' a majority (...John McCain failed to even get a simple 50% majority of the Republicans in the House ...) of the House Representatives as you stated in your first comment (that would have required an extra 35 votes). It was my fault for not directly linking to your first post.

Lee Ward:

Thanks for that link, engineer. I apologize for my contribution to the misunderstand.

I went to the link and read (under Q&A) that it came out of committee and was killed by Chairman Santorum (Republican) who sat on it and never sent it to the floor for a vote:

It was passed, as an amended version. That's what that line in the status means. It was then referred to Conference Chair Santorum, who then appears not to have moved it on. The Congressional Record makes no mention of it after he got it. Which means it was never placed on the agenda for a floor vote.

That matches my understanding of the measure as I expressed it in comment 21 above:

I don't care about no steeenking rules...

I looked into the 2003 and 2005 bills briefly several weeks ago and my recollection - I'm not 100% sure but my recollection -- was that neither of these ever made it to a vote, cloture or otherwise.

Reality - again - has a left leaning bias.

You will go around to the all of the right wing blogs who are claiming that a Democratic filibuster killed the bill and correct the record, right?

You see - Democrats had nothing to do with killing this bill, and yet everywhere you read you find that lie being repeated.

In fact Jay Tea over at Wizbang has a post up that claims:

"In 2005, several senators -- including John McCain and my own senator, John Sununu, along with Elizabeth Dole and a couple of other Republicans -- tried one final time to impose some serious regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, warning that the situation with them had grown even worse since the last attempt, and the damage their collapse would trigger would be absolutely devastating to the nation. Once again, the plan went down in flames amid Democratic protests that there was no real problem, and this was all because Republicans hated poor people and wanted to keep them poor."

Since Jay never bothers to link to any proof of his bullshit it's hard to tell if he's talking about the same bill, but I would assume he is, and that he's isn't linking to anything for fear he'll be proven out as a lair again supports that.

Glad we had this conversation, engineer. Obama '08!

PS - regarding the steenking rules:

Filibusters only apply to votes by the full Senate, not a committee. Pointing to the fact that the Democrats may have been able to filibuster the bill in the full Senate has nothing to do with whether the bill was passed out of the Republican controlled committee.

Sorry to make you go to the work of providing the proof that you're wrong, but time and time again conservatives come onto our comment threads repeating bullshit, lies and total crap that they read on right wing blogs and throw it in my face, then challenge me to prove them wrong.

I provide links in my posts, so I expect commenters to do the same, especially if they are trying to prove me wrong. Only fair, eh?

Take care. Thanks again, and sorry about the misunderstanding.

-Lee

engineer:

Lee:

I didn't prove myself wrong, I actually proved myself correct.

Nobody that I have read stated that the 2005 bill was filibustered (and if you read what I wrote, I neither stated nor implied that it was), but rather that the Democrats threatened to not vote for cloture or that they would filibuster if the vote was brought up in the Senate. There is a difference. When the party in power knows that they don't have the 60 votes necessary for passage of a bill, they don't let the bill come up for a vote and be killed. They hold the bill and try to bring it back up again later under more favorable circumstances. Or they can have the Senate Leader vote against the bill if it is voted on so that they can bring it up again, such as the following:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/senate-fails-to-block-cut-in-doctors-medicare-fees/

"You will go around to the all of the right wing blogs who are claiming that a Democratic filibuster killed the bill and correct the record, right?" - I must not read those blogs. I haven't seen one that stated that they actually filibustered.

"Filibusters only apply to votes by the full Senate, not a committee. Pointing to the fact that the Democrats may have been able to filibuster the bill in the full Senate has nothing to do with whether the bill was passed out of the Republican controlled committee." - But if you have the foreknowledge that it will be, why waste time.

Again, I fault the Rebuplicans for not bringing it out of committee and making everybody go on record by voting for cloture.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"but rather that the Democrats threatened to not vote for cloture or that they would filibuster if the vote was brought up in the Senate."

Where's the link backing up that claim, engineer?

Sorry, but the none of the research I've done shows that to be true in this instance, so if you are going to make claims like that you need to back it up with some evidence, please.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.