Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Petty and Pettier

If it was in the nation’s best interest to pass the bailout bill yesterday, then it was a betrayal of the public trust and the public weal for any congressmen not to vote for it for any reason, much less the petty reason that Nancy Pelosi was even pettier in her speech. Nevertheless, it is (charitably speaking) disappointing to hear her speech. Here it is. Judge for yourself. What's wrong with these people?

Here's a little background and context that is really disappointing.


  1. I recognize that this was not the time nor place for such partisan rancor; but, how can any legislator vote for such a thing without stating, on record and in public view, the obvious at some point.

    Speaker Pelosi may have simply stated that this bill must represent the end of 'conservative' economic policies in the United States, as its very presentation is evidence of their failure.

    This, however, would have left questions, as 'conservative' has not always meant imprudence. At some point, in the past, probably before Ronald Reagan, 'conservative' meant limited, prudent, and possibly even moderate. Ronald Reagan ushered in a new age and a new meaning for this term, 'conservative,' and today we are left with this ideology's devastation. After this bill, more than a trillion dollars in deficit spending and many trillions in debt are on the national books. The point had to be made, and it had to be tied to Bush, Republicans, and 'conservatism' (the newer form).

    Nonetheless, I recognize fully that immediately prior to the vote on the bill was not an appropriate venue for such a speech. This is especially true for the Speaker of the House, who had just worked so hard to build a coalition to see its passage.

    This entire scenario is so shamefully in so many ways.

  2. She worked so hard to build a coalition? Hardly. Read the appended article. She didn't lift even one of her painted fingers to move anyone from her own party, much less from the other side of the aisle.

  3. Pelosi certainly failed to mobilize her own troops. Conclusion: she let many Dems off the hook, who were probably in close races and were worried that an affirmative vote would have hurt their chances. Cynically, or carelessly, she figured she could get the bill through without them, and let their Republican counterparts take the heat. She should have known better. I am sure there was a certain amount of glee from the other side as it became obvious that Pelosi was getting her own back, in spades.

  4. To Jumco's point ("how can any legislator vote ..."):

    They do this all the time. And anyway, the time for making these "for the record" points is not the last thing before the vote after a hard-won compromise; and the person is not the one who had the responsibility of moving the legislation through.

    Good form, in negotiations, demands that you accept one another's hypocrisies with no (or minimal) comment, in the interest of moving forward. The goal is the deal, after all. Save your ideological purity for your memoirs --someone may be interested by then.

  5. “I don’t know what was so great about the great depression, but that’s the name they give it” I think the speaker needs a new speech writer.

    I am disappointed that she, representing the democrats, is still too timid to make a bold statement in favor of the state-driven economic and social welfare policies which are the best for Americans and people everywhere. More than false, her dichotomy between “jobs and capital” and “chaos” was nonsense.

    An ideologically partisan speech, where she asserted policy alternatives to those currently pursued, would have been fine. She choose an ill forum for accusatory, name-calling partisanship (that’s what stump speech is for).


Please post your comment(s) here. To reply to a specific comment, be sure to paste the appropriate @ displayed into the box below as the first line.