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]

11:58 AM on 10/01/2008

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]

09:30 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

09:17 AM on 10/01/2008

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]

08:46 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

11:24 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

07:08 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

05:42 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

05:05 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

05:03 PM on 09/30/2008

the desperation of the ReThugs is palpable!

they will be resorting to Cannibalism very soon

[Trickywoo]

06:47 PM on 09/30/2008

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

[Bitsko]

04:47 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

05:11 PM on 09/30/2008

slime attracts slime

[Bitsko]

05:23 PM on 09/30/2008

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

[blyrehs]

06:26 PM on 09/30/2008

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

[2warvet]

02:05 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

02:20 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

02:31 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

02:44 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

02:25 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

02:34 PM on 09/30/2008

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

[2warvet]

02:43 PM on 09/30/2008

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?

[AerowsOfArtemis]

01:52 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

01:45 PM on 09/30/2008

Blunt is a c@#$

[Kindheart]

12:59 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

01:26 PM on 09/30/2008

Thats Exactly right! Perfect statements.

[joshuahmcdonald]

02:04 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

12:57 PM on 09/30/2008

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

[sposton]

12:03 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

12:38 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

03:32 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

11:51 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

12:54 PM on 09/30/2008

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]

03:19 PM on 09/30/2008

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!

[Lotus19]

12:02 PM on 09/30/2008

"think you don't want to give too much blame to that speech"

Why not, wasn't it being waved around at yesterday's press conference. They were VERY clear that the speech was the reason for the bailout failure. The speech and Obama...claimed by Republicans to be the leader of the Democratic Party.

[mediawatcher1975]

12:39 PM on 09/30/2008

Talk about a rapid flip-flop.

[joshuahmcdonald]

02:10 PM on 09/30/2008

When you don't think before you speak sometimes you say things that you immediately regret.

[midwesthousewife]

04:42 PM on 09/30/2008

Just so long as you win the immediate media spin cycle, then you can apologize and be more reasonable later, right?