Blunt Walks It Back: It Wasn't Pelosi After All

Maybe it was Barney Frank's mockery, or maybe it was just an impulsive decision to tell the truth, but Missouri Republican Roy Blunt, the lead House GOP bailout negotiator is backpedaling his claim from Monday that Nancy Pelosi's floor speech turned had led to GOP defections.

Blunt told ABC News that only "one or two" Members could have been affected by Pelosi's speech, adding "I think you don't want to give too much blame to that speech."

Politico also has an interesting piece up about how John Boehner's job may now be in jeopardy. What struck me most was this paragraph:

“You can’t break their arms, you can’t put your whole relationship on the line, ask them to do something that they do not want to do and have that member regret that vote for the rest of their life,” Boehner said. “Twenty years from now, nobody will care how anyone voted except those members. You can’t do that. You just can’t.”

No wonder the vote failed. Not only are they rabid right-wingers, but their leader doesn't even really think it matters much anyway.

Comments

[Bendersky]

I saw the speech. The repubs are trying to throw up a smoke screen to distract from the fact that eight years of republican rule has lead us to this point. They are the masters at feigned righteous indignation, only this time it back-fired and made them look even that much more pathetic.

[RedKnuckles]

So when they said the reason they voted no was that a single woman hurt all their feelings, that that was just a...whaddya call it....I'm digging here....tip of my tongue....oh, yeah...A LIE.

[texasweed]

No. Wait. It's not really a lie, because, well, one factor in their vote was this feeling they had, and Pelosi, well, she hurt....

[Keith52]

From Politico "You can"t abandon a man who at his core respects that you can have principled differences," McCotter said. "That"s why all of us still love him."

I am so sick of this men's club BS in Washington. And I am not therefore supporting Palin / McCain which would be reckless. But can't we just get some smart people elected and dispense with the men's retreat, brotherly luuuuv baloney? Can we just get the job done?

[nodakjob]

I agree. If Rethuglicans would have awarded Ron Paul as the party's nominee for POTUS, they would have been ahead in the polls, ahead in popular vote, and ahead in the electoral count. He is the guy with the answers -- period.

[Brother Stephen]

I ask this question, not to make a political point, but whenever I see Mr. Boehner, I ask myself if he is a heavy drinker. Please only respond to this post if you have factual information, if he is a boozer or not a boozer.

[BlueGreen55]

Both sides are missing the politics of Pelosi's move imo. Agree or not, but she is not stupid. I think she made a calculated move to anger Republicans into voting against it so they will be hooked to their vote in their respective state races, and to also allow Obama to come in and broker the deal McCain could not in time for the next debate on Tuesday.

[lagumbo]

That 's what wrong with the Repubs. They like living on the high hog , spend, spend ,spend, and thinks it should continue, but not once thinking of the consciences. They never think of the little people.
John Mccain with his 11 homes, how in the hell can he know what going on. He is so out of touch. Now Mccain and the GOP wants to blame everyone else for their failures. Lets vote all of these crooks out.

[kellygrrrl]

the desperation of the ReThugs is palpable!

they will be resorting to Cannibalism very soon

[Trickywoo]

I can already see a few ragged bite marks around the edges of a few (R)s' ears.

[Bitsko]

Roy Blunt's son is governor of Missouri, and his wife and two of his kids are lobbyists. Nice little set-up these beltways folks have.

[kellygrrrl]

slime attracts slime

[Bitsko]

ironic, considering they're working at a snail's pace right now.

[blyrehs]

I live in MO and we are not ashamed enough of these people.

[2warvet]

What I find most amazing is that Pelosi couldn't even deliver her own party to the table. 93 voted against her, well 77. There were the 16 that she called and told to not vote for the bill since the Repubilcan party would use that against them. Bet she wishes she had not made those calls now, huh? Also lets not forget the pork that the dems were loading in to these bills.

And all you dems want to see the beginning of the housing market crash look to Andrew Cuomo towards the end of the Clinton era (1998 or so.) That is were Freddie and Fannie got the ok to buy lots of bad paper. About the same time that Nobama's financial advisors were cooking the books to show Fannie and Freddie were more profitable than they were so they could get ther fat bonuses.

[FloridaShutterBug]

For anyone who wasn't paying attention: The vote had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi and it had nothing to do with helping the country. It was a plain and simple "mine's bigger" contest. The Republicans won - America lost. Yea Republicans! Kudos to Republicans who voted for country rather than party.

[AerowsOfArtemis]

I was paying attention, and it looked like pushing for more money with less oversight I don't agree with that, and I don't agree with Obama if he supports it. I'm not sure what McCain supports - last week he suspended his campaign for a package, continued it that same day without one, and now isn't interested in packages.

I can work with Obama's views if he is for the package, I oppose his position. I dont know wtf McCain wants to do, and neither do his supporters and the man himself.

[2warvet]

I think you should rethink that idea. If you look at how many in the US are against the bail out you would see that those who voted against it voted for the voice of the people not their party.

[MaryanneAZ]

Excuse me, but Pelosi actually did deliver HER share of the votes--a majority of Democrats. The deal was that it was going to be a "shared" vote on the Bill where both parties would deliver a majority of their members to vote FOR the Bill. The idea was to give credence to the Bill on its face and to prevent any one Party from shouldering the responsibility of this horrendous mess during an election. It was worked out before hand, and the votes were "in the tank" before they opened the voting. Apparently, some Republicans, afraid to anger their constituents (who likely know nothing about economics) and lose their races, blinked when it came to their turn to vote. They know who they are. They blinked and the whole Country lost. The Democrats could actually push the Bill through tomorrow if they want to take on the responsibility as a Party for the mess the Republican administration caused, allowed, fostered, encouraged, created, etc. As for pork being loaded into the Bill, the fact is the Republicans want more provisions added to the Bill and the Democrats were trying to keep it lean and focused so as to not hold up the Bill with partisan floor wrangling. That was the request of Bush and his cronies at the Treasury--quick and simple Bill for fast relief of an immediate financial crisis. I'd love to see the evidence that you have of the other claims that you cite in your post.

[AlwaysFairDem]

Thanks for explaining it to that dumba$$ 2warvet. Republican's be a little educated before opening your mouth.

[2warvet]

The "quick fix" as you call it is not even a good estimate. There is no official tally for the bail out. There was a number floated and everyone said OK! Read the Forbes artcile.

http://www.forbes.com/businessinthebeltway/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html

Pelosi deliverd 60% of her party, but that means that 40% voted against her. That is a huge number considering that she, through leadership, should be able to deliver at least 80% minimum to the table for something that is so good for the country. Of course she would actually have to be a leader to show leadership. She wanted to be in charge and now she doesn't even know what to do with it.

Lean and focused? You mean by adding in money for paritsian groups like ACORN?

[2warvet]

Here's an article from 05 showing Raines and Johnson receiving money because of irregularities. Raines and Johnson are associated with Nobama. One is an advisor the other was part of the vp selection commitee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32845-2005Apr6?language=printer

Before anyone of you say it I already know you all hate Rush, I just didn't feel like digging up all the video and he does summarize nicely. The Dems in 04 fighting the regulation of Fannie and Freddie.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092908/content/01125107.guest.html

[AerowsOfArtemis]

This may or may not be directed at me, and I am a Democrat who is mad as hell. I worked for 8 years at a huge financial services company, and I *had* to attend series 7 investment classes.

This bailout is the equivalent of giving a loan to your crack-addicted cousin so he can pay off the dealer he owes because he is in too deep. I am not advocating that the crack-addicted cousin should die, or anything, but I'm not handing him a no strings attached loan, either.

Get real about what we are doing. Gene Taylor, D-Miss 4th district, said it best - "if there was a hell, no button I would have pressed it".

[AerowsOfArtemis]

MaryanneAZ, she also lost because her bill made no sense to Republicans as equally as it was senseless to Democrats. I firmly disagree with Pelosi, and have, ever sense she got to Washington and stopped listening to the people and started championing BS. For the record, I've appreciated her stance on gay marriage, gay people should be allowed to take a sacred oath, but that does not blind me to the fact that she is a financial farce.

Pelosi, and McCain are cut of the same cloth - party and pandering before all else. I dont necessarily want to vote for Obama, but I am in the place where I have to vote against idiots so no McCain under any circumstance.

[AerowsOfArtemis]

I disagree with you 2warvet as heartily as I disagree with Pelosi. 1999, and Phil Gramm, the infamous "don't be whiners" lobbyist who succeeded in killing any financial sector regulation, and torpedoed that which has been in place since the 1920's to protect investors, is the architect of our current mess.

To be honest, this isn't as big of a crisis and they are making it out to be. A crisis would infuse $700 billion into the pockets of traders, they want it. Ignoring it completely will be harmful, but not the doomsday prediction we are seeing. Wise investors, long term holders will profit. You are watching the "de-regulate" bottom feeders implode.

We do *NOT* need a crisis package that hands money over to Paulsen with no oversight, and we don't need to have lawmakers walking lockstep with the leaders that brought us here. Bad decisions lead to bad policy, and bad policy leads us to where we are now.

We need level-headed government that is proactive, not jumping up and down because they bet the farm and lost.

[plwood01]

Exactly! McCain is a long time gambler according to recent news stories; he has been very involved in making sure that the Indian Casinos do well and grow and his contributions are made on a regular basis. His aides were reportedly trying to warn him about the appearance of his favorite past time and he said to them, "you worry too much." Everyone knows that if you gamble you have the 50/50 chance of losing, so why be mad at someone else for your own lack of judgment. The markets were up today even without a bailout so what does that mean exactly when Bush has tried so hard to "put the fear of God in us all?" It would seem that he might be wrong again...and if we all add up all the money for each month we have been in Iraq at $10 billion a month, not to mention Afghanistan, that explains quite a bit in terms of where we are financially.

[chappelforpres]

Twist, twist - wiggle wiggle. The Repuglicans have been in charge for most of the last 35 years. Trickle down economics, borrow spend and the free market economy, was was Ronnie Rayguns religion and the neoconservative mantra. Phil Gram orchestrated the passage of banking deregs through a Republican controlled Congress during Clinton's presidency. Democrat's insisted that banks be forbidden to red-line loans, by racial profiling urban communities. Most of the sub-prime loans that are in trouble, were not made by banks but by loan brokerages. Loans made in 1998 / 1999 are not even on the radar, property values were just off their recent 10 year lows.

Quit your bellyaching, stop spinning garbage and take your medicine like a man you troll. The same Republican house that eagerly screwed the goose now flees from the bailout and Bush (who they voted in lockstep with for 8 years) to save their sorry little as#$s. Next thing we'll hear is how the Dems were really the ones to throw away the initial $600 Billion in Iraq.

[onegandolf1]

I hadn't noticed that there existed; such a creature as a "republican leader".

Sort of an oxymoron, isn't it?

[AerowsOfArtemis]

Yes and that's why we are where we are. I can handle a leader I disagree with; I won't put up with one that leads me to ruin because he doesn't know wtf he's doing or what he stands for.

McCain is the embodiment of the worst type of bipartisanship - he climbs on board repeatedly with extreme solutions in thought because his party is on board, and supports worst-practice implementation because he thinks he is a maverick for going against the crowd. There is nothing romantic about drowning in a sea of bullsh!t and agreeing because it might boost boat and hip-boot sales.

[AerowsOfArtemis]

She still aided those wishing to fleece the populace for the *fourth* time by agreeing (Paulson has come hat in hand asking for increasingly huge numbers just in the last 18 months - see 200 million FM relief), and status quo by endorsing it as written.

WTB Pelosi of 2002 who supported gay rights, in addition to the rest of America, by not supporting craptastic legislation that is a danger to us all, gay, straight and even the holy-rollers.

Bush's bill is the last hurrah of the "spend more" corporate cowboys that just don't seem to understand we need real law in town, not a guy that destroys the well in response to a drought.

De-regulation repeats history.

[LWkcma]

Blunt is a c@#$

[Kindheart]

Perhaps Pelosi should have saved her speech for after the vote, but she was only telling the truth. That is something the GOP have no clue about. All they do is lie and spin the facts.

[TrooAmerican]

Thats Exactly right! Perfect statements.

[joshuahmcdonald]

I think that any Republican who voted NO because of Pelosi's speech is a coward and a child.

That said, and I say this as a San Francisco resident and a constituent of Pelosi, our Speaker has proven time and again to be a weak, partisan, petulant opportunist. This speech was spiteful and could have been summed up in 4 words: I told you so!

While I firmly believe that Karl Rove and the aftermath of the Clinton impeachment have caused immense damage to our political system by creating enormous right-wing partisanship, I have to admit that Pelosi has been on the front-line of the left-wing partisan movement which has aided in the complete failure of our government over the last 8 years.

[Kindheart]

Is this a "cover your ass" at all costs????

[sposton]

Congressional democrats decide to pass Bush's legislation and so we must all support that? I don't like this hastily arrived at bailout either. I think Pelosi democrats are making yet another mistake by just rolling over for the Bush administration. I am not questioning the need for the bailout - it may indeed be urgently needed, but that is one more reason to extract the most value for the American people and not for those who brought us this disaster. Why not follow senator Bernie Sanders' idea for letting those who have most benefited by lax regulations (and lobbied for it) pay for most of this bailout? I believe that is only fair, don't you?

[mediawatcher1975]

They did not roll over. They were trying for a compromise so that it would be a join plan. The Dems could have easily pushed the bill that they wanted and passed it with no Republican input.

Either we are all in it together, or we are not. I guess the Republican defection shows where they stand on Bi-partisan unity.

[sposton]

They have essentially adopted the plan given to them with minor adjustments. That, in my opinion, is rolling over. The plan is from the same people who only a short time ago were telling us that nothing was wrong! Congress does not need to accept treasury's plan if they think it is unfair or of questionable effectiveness. In my opinion Bush ought to get rid of Paulson and bring in someone untainted by this fiasco, someone preferably acceptable to both McCain and Obama. Then involve a cross section of experts that can hammer out the best possible plan. It is entirely possible that there is a real urgency to come up with a solution but it is inappropriate to come up with the wrong plan just because of the urgent nature of the problem. The administration should have already had a proper plan in the works. They, once again, failed to do their job.

[nodakjob]

First of all, someone (maybe like B. Obama or T. Kennedy) will have to take the time and effort to explain to Rethuglicans in Congress what the terms "bi-partisan" and "unity" mean, because it's apparent that none of them have a clue -- including McCain.

[tickettonowhere]

I think there is a bunch of truth to what you say...Unfortunately, even today, as bad as things are, there is just no dealing with the rightwing...Just look at the attempt to end the occupation in Iraq...Nothing less than staying there is good enough for the Bush Admin...I say blow off these jerks on the Right...Dems write their own bill and let the vote fall on party lines...Send the approved bill up to Bush and let him veto it ...And let the fallout of rethugs begin in earnest...Anthing less would be a compromise to Bush...and again he gets what he wants and the rest of us suffer...

[sposton]

Pelosi & Co. should have done that with the Iraq War issue and that is what they ought to do here as well. I think this plan was hastily designed and unfairly paid for. I think we should involve a better cross section of expert opinion to arrive at the best possible plan with the least cost to most of us. It seems to me that most of the expertise for this plan came from Goldman Sachs and this alone stinks. And how do we pay for it? In my opinion the class of people that benefited the most should pay the most!

[CitizenKane16]

The fact that the market lost close to a trillion dollars yesterday seems to be lost on a lot of folks calling for us to say no to this bailout. Let's keep going with that and see how much more money we can lose. We could have more than paid for the bailout with what we lost yesterday.

[joshuahmcdonald]

The market is back up almost 400 points today. The market is IMAGINARY and, as such, is not reflective of the reality of the housing market.

However, I do feel that both will eventually have to fail on a catastrophic level before the Market Fundamentalists begin to understand the full impact of the damage they have done.

Putting a bandaid on skin cancer (which is what this bill would have done) does nothing to solve the problem. It would simply have freed lending institutions to...wait for it...MAKE MORE BAD LOANS!

[joshuahmcdonald]

There are 4 factions involved:
1) Neocons who support the bill to support Bush and Wall Street
2) Democratic Partisans who support the bill because they follow Pelosi and Reid and feel a need to DO SOMETHING.
3) Conservatives who are opposed to the bill because they are true Market Fundamentalists who don't want a socialist solution
4) Progressives who are opposed to THIS bill because it is a BAD bill.

I'm firmly in category 4, apparently with you. Now that the Republicans have tanked this version of the "bailout" let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a REAL plan.