Sep 30th, 2008 at 9:25 am
In Case You Were Wondering
I’ve been a bit confused as to how the failure of a bill supported by Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, and a majority of House Democrats, and a majority of Senate Democrats but opposed by a majority of House Republicans could possibly be laid at the feet of Pelosi, but if you’re interested in exploring this alternate universe in which Pelosi controls the behavior of House Republicans Megan McArdle “explains” the whole thing. It’s strange that such delicate souls are in the rough-and-tumble business of electoral politics.
56 Responses to “In Case You Were Wondering”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 30th, 2008 at 9:33 am
George Stephanopoulos apparently said this morning that ABC has a snap poll coming out which shows voters blaming the Republicans in Congress for killing the bill. So, it looks like these efforts by Republican hacks like McArdle to spin this as Pelosi’s fault aren’t working. Strangely enough, it appears the voters can count.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Judging by the first few comments to McArdle, no one with half a brain is buying the Boehner talking points she’s trying to sell.
The republicans were supposed to deliver 100 votes; they managed 65. Pelosi was supposed to deliver 120 votes; she came up with 140.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am
McArdle seems to be in the habit of being completely wrong about everything.
McArdle: “I completely agree that Pelosi’s speech was one of the saddest pieces of half-hearted garbage I have heard from any politician.”
I completely agree that Megan’s diatribe against Pelosi’s speech is one of the saddest peices of half-hearted, misinformed outrage I have heard from any blogger.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Again, a fact-based hypothesis from Nate / Poblano.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Yeah, the “all Dem’s/Pelosi’s fault” meme is making its way through wingnut land. You can cheer all that defeated this bill or blame all that voted against it. Any other position is just cheap spin.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Megan McArdle is the Sarah Palin of blogging.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am
C’mon guys — take a look at Eric Cantor. With those vapid, pretty-boy looks, you know he got pushed down on the playground every day. And now he’s a big important — sniff — Congressman and he’s not gonna take it – gasp, sob — anymore!
September 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I really don’t think Nate’s analysis holds up. The number of vulnerable seats was only 30. Even if they went 50/50, the vote wouldn’t have passed. I agree with Rick Pildes over at Jack Balkin’s blog:
Only 30 negative votes came from members in vulnerable seats. True, this means 79% of those in vulnerable seats voted against. But there were 198 votes against from those in safe seats, which is right around 50% of those in safe seats, and while those in vulnerable seats might be thought to have provided the marginal difference, those votes would be irrelevant if there were not such widespread opposition. Put another way, if those 30 no votes from vulnerable seats were split the same way as the votes from safe seats, there would still have been 213 votes against the bill. It’s important not to lose sight of how few House seats are actually vulnerable and how few House elections are competitive.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:54 am
All Pelosi did was tell the TRUTH — that this disaster was caused by the corruption, stupidity and irresponsibility of the Republicans who controlled Congress and the White House from 2001-2006.
But Republicans think telling the Truth is a strongly Partisan act — because, as Steve Colbert has noted, Reality has a Liberal Bias.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Matt, now that you’re over here instead of at Atlantic can’t you just stipulate that she’s an idiot?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:01 am
br: I think that this is partly changing the terms of the debate, because the discussion begins with the assumption of widespread opposition.
The point is, and was emphasized by my using the word “hypothesis”, that the Nate / Poblano approach, as well as the Pildes approach, attempts to base voting trends on evidence which we might be able to discover, rather then such weird nonsense as rattled off by the McMegans of the world.
In the same vein, you need some sort of other evidence or logical argument to link (A) ‘Nancy Pelosi said things Republicans don’t like throughout the week’ with (B) ‘Republican YES votes fail to pass agreed-upon threshold as a finished argument. Even without being unjustifiably anal about it.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
El Cid,
I thought you were trying to change our discussion on this thread to really get to the bottom of why the bill failed. We can reserve that conversation for later, because I’m totally with you on your main point. The stupid always burns when it is hurled at us by Megan. I really don’t understand why she gets to claim to be some sort of post-partisan libertarian hero. As this post proves, she’s just a run-of-the mill Republican apologist.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I’m equally confused as to how the failure to pass a bill that only requires a simple majority to pass could possibly be laid at the feet of the minority party.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I’m equally confused as to how the failure to pass a bill that only requires a simple majority to pass could possibly be laid at the feet of the minority party.
because, as i’m sure you know, the leader of that minority party said he could deliver enough votes to cover the deficit Pelosi couldn’t deliver from her own party – the votes were assumed to be there. but then, he didn’t deliver, and then he blamed Pelosi for saying mean things.
but, of course, nothing is ever the fault of Republicans.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Also worth noting that at least some of the House Republicans who actually voted against the bill also reject the idea that Pelosi was the cause:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Issa_riducules_notion_that_Pelosi_speech_impacted_vote.html
The Pelosi-speech argument seems like some the Republican House leaders said off the cuff that likely will backfire by making them look like whiners. They’d have done themselves and the House Republican membership much better by simply saying a lot of the membership thought this particular bill would create more problems than it solved, wouldn’t be effective at decreasing credit costs, etc.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
The answer to JohnMcG’s question lies in the fact this is a massive and somewhat politically risky new expenditure. So, you have the House GOP trying to put the entire weight of that risk on the House Democrats, and the House Democrats not being willing to accept taking on the full risk.
Accordingly, who you should blame depends on what you think is the fair resolution of this risk problem. If, for example, you think it would be fair for the Democrats to take on all the risk, then they are to blame for not doing that. But if you think the risk should be shared, then the Republicans are to blame for not doing that.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I think it’s utterly irresponsible to not spread blame around on this one. Pelosi gave a nasty partisan speech laying blame at the foot of the Bush administration, when a much more bipartisan speech should have been delivered. Anyone whose feelings got hurt (wah wah wah) and changed their vote because of Pelosi’s stupid speech should be strung up the Capitol Hill flag pole and laughed at by their constituents.
To pretend that some of the blame doesn’t belong on Pelosi’s back is also misguided. She is the Speaker. She should be smart enough and wise enough to have her finger on the pulse. I agree with Megan (though not to the venom-spitting hyperbolic pitch she took last night in her post) that politics ultimately killed this bill. Pelosi definitely participated.
That said, I personally think you guys are judging Megan unfairly simply because she represents the other side of the political fence. Deep breath, guys.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I’ve read Megan quite a bit. She posts pretty decent analysis alongside full blown nonsense all the time. This blame Pelosi rant was probably one of her worst posts yet. Being a post partisan libertarian creates a need to bash both sides at some rate, regardless of whether what you are writing makes any sense.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:42 am
lobstakilla: Do you have a link or cite for the info about how many votes each side was supposed to bring to the table? I’m not disputing it, just looking for some solid confirmation. Assuming that’s true, it seems to me to be the beginning and end of the story. There was a deal. The Dems did what they promised (with some cushion) and the Republicans didn’t hold up their end of the bargain.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I’m not convinced by McArdle. I do, however, think some blame can be laid upon the Democratic leadership. When your party owns the House, it should be able to pass the House. To not do so is a failure of party leadership, espicially with about 60 or so votes in support from the opposition. Pelosi has no excuse on that front – her party is on the ascent, it shouldn’t be a fractured coalition like the Republicans are as a party on the decent. You don’t see the British Conservative party split like this – its the Labour party at the moment with divisions, because they are on the wane. Same with the Republicans – they are on the wane, the Dems are on the rise, and they should be able to get a majority from their own numbers if their leadership thinks it is necessary. I always thought this is what party whips were for.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I thought the Republicans were blaming the bailout plan on the Democrats (even though Bush’s guy Paulson proposed it). Now they are blaming the Democrats for not passing it. The talking points will give you whiplash as they fly by in every direction.
One of the funniest things during the debate was hearing McCain complain that Obama hadn’t supported the surge, but now said it succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. And later, hearing McCain exhort incredulously about how Obama refused to admit the surge worked. Attacking Obama for both acknowledging the surge worked and for not acknowledging the surge worked is … maverick!
Now, McCain complains about the logjam in Washington. Suspends his campaign to hammer out a compromise bill. Brings the house Republicans on board. Then scuttles his own compromise bill by getting the house Republicans not to vote on it. And, now has resumed his campaign while all his hard work goes up in flames. You can be my wing man anytime, Maverick!
Saying the Democrats should have passed this alone is naive. The Democrats said pretty clearly that they were not going to pass this alone. Part of the compromise of the legislation was that it was going to pass bipartisan. The Democrats provided no more votes than required for that purpose. Those are political considerations for sure, but that’s reality in the Congress.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Pelosi has no excuse on that front – her party is on the ascent, it shouldn’t be a fractured coalition like the Republicans are as a party on the decent.
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
– Will Rogers, 1935
September 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
JohnMcG, on the off chance that you’re just pig-ignorant and not deliberately obtuse, here’s why the minority party is to blame.
i) The bill was crafted to adequate support from Democrats and Republicans, not overwhelming support from Democrats. This was done because a bipartisan bill was judged to be better to address an issue of common concern.
ii) The Republican leadership found the bill acceptable enough to promise to deliver a certain number of votes.
iii) The Democrat leadership delivered on their commitment while the Republicans did not.
That clear enough for you?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
According to Sam Stein, of Huffington Post, Andrea Mitchell is reporting that it is different Speaker that derailed the bill. “Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package.”
This doesn’t exempt Pelosi from mustering up the additional Democratic votes, however. But, it does show how both current congressional members, as well as ghosts from the past, are fiddling while Wall St. and Main St. go up in flames.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
> That said, I personally think you guys are judging Megan unfairly simply because she represents the other side of the political fence. Deep breath, guys
Bullshit. Megan is a hack not because she is on the other side but because her attacks on Pelosi conveniently matches the latest bullshit Republican talking point. When your views echo the party line on issues which have nothing to do with a shared ideology, you’re a partisan hack.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
“When your views echo the party line on issues which have nothing to do with a shared ideology, you’re a partisan hack.”
I don’t know. I’ve always been of the mindset that Pelosi needs to have her mouth sewn shut. But I’ll agree that she doesn’t deserve the Lion’s Share of the blame here.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I agree that the failure of the bill will be laid at the feet of Republicans, despite what they say about Pelosi.
What I find interesting is that the progressive blogosphere will be faulting the R’s, especially if nothing is done and the economy tanks.
Yet a lot of bloggers, and blog commenters, had their heads up their butt, if you ask me. “There is no crisis.” “Let it burn.” “No, no, no!”
Really, I never knew their mistrust and hatred of all things Bush, or fear about losing an election, would leave so may so willing to let the country go down the tubes. The possible consequences of a “no” vote were hardly ever part of the calculations.
Maybe I’m naive, but I find that to be shocking.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Megan pretends to be a libertarian but times such as these reveal her to be nothing more than a partisan Republican. While I can appreciate the fresh perspective of twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings on any number of issues, economics is not one of them. The foundation of Megan’s free market world view (namely, the prosperity that no previous generation has enjoyed) is collapsing, and her reaction is to rant against Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in the House. In truth, the House Republicans tried to snooker the Democrats in the House by promising to vote in favor on the rescue legislation all the while intending to bail and vote against, and then afterward pretending to be populists who opposed the bail out. Megan’s behavior is no less a sham than the behavior of the House Republicans.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I’ve always been of the mindset that Pelosi needs to have her mouth sewn shut.
So you are for torturing and starving a Congresswoman merely for expressing her views? Or perhaps you merely were being metaphorical and are suggesting that pointing out the massive failure of Republican rule is out of bounds?
Look at the difference between rule under Clinton, even with the malign Republicans holding Congress, and rule under Bush. The answer to the question of who is to blame for the current mess isn’t hard – once you are willing to shed the bullshit “everyone had a hand, therefore everyone is equally guilty” pose of childish libertarians (but I repeat myself).
September 30th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Yet a lot of bloggers, and blog commenters, had their heads up their butt, if you ask me. “There is no crisis.” “Let it burn.” “No, no, no!”
JJF, the people you speak of exist, but they are a relatively small group. And the ones saying no bailout is necessary are not the same ones blaming the Republicans for the failure of the bailout. Glenn Greenwald, for example, is essentially praising the Republicans for killing it.
What those who want to blame Pelosi and the Democrats fail to realize (though it’s been pointed out again and again) is that for the Democrats to pass this bill on their own, without majority Republican support, would be political suicide. The Republicans would run around calling it a Democratic bailout and try to ride that all the way to election day. The Republicans know this. That’s why they voted against the bill.
Maybe some people really think that the Democrats should have gone ahead anyway, but that’s really just a ridiculous position. If the Democrats need to pass a bill without Republican support, then let it be a Democratic bill, not a compromise. Let it be a full nationalization of many of these banks, or perhaps a package of loan guarantees tied to major new regulations.
But the bill that failed yesterday was a compromise bill. Why should the Democrats spend a week negotiating a compromise with Republicans and then be forced to pass the bill on their own?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership did a tremendous job in the past two weeks. Bush, McCain, and Boener failed miserably. There really is no other reasonable interpretation of what happened.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Again, Pelosi did muster up the Democratic votes. This was not a Democratic bill. It was a bipartisan compromise, and, as such, significant opposition is to be expected from borth parties. She was to bring 120 votes, and Boehner was to bring 100, and the rest of each caucus was to be left to do as it liked. Pelosi brought 140 votes (that’s +20 from what was agreed upon); Boehner brought 65 (that’s -35).
If Pelosi had wanted to pass a bill with Democratic votes alone, it would not have been this bill. The effort to blame the Democrats when it was obviously the Republicans who scuttled this is absurd.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Really, I never knew their mistrust and hatred of all things Bush, or fear about losing an election, would leave so may so willing to let the country go down the tubes. The possible consequences of a “no” vote were hardly ever part of the calculations.
How has Bush inspired confidence in his ability to perceive risk and generate appropriate solutions? Was it his remarkable alertness in the run-up to 9/11? Perhaps his stellar job at protecting America from the existential threat of Iraq? Katrina? His management of the DOJ?
This motherfucker has been at the forefront of everything that’s been wrong with this nation for eight years. Now his guy comes out and says “Give us 3/4 of a Trillion dollars or the economy gets it.” He also demands no oversight and then lies about it. Do you really think this is a performance to inspire renewed confidence in the Bush Administration?
So, forgive those who think there’s already been enough looting of the treasury by Bush and the rest of the Republicans.
Was the bill a good one? I doubt it. I don’t know for certain. I do know that it had bullshit toothless “executive pay” language, and that in the end it was far too close to Bush’s initial demand and so was unlikely to be a decent “compromise” especially once Bush added his usual fuck-you-I-don’t-have-to-obey-your-laws signing statement.
This is a Republican bailout, it is by, for, and of, the Republicans. But they don’t want to take responsibility for their decades of malice and idiocy. The Democrats should not have to take the full brunt of the pain for cleaning up this Republican mess.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Ha – no, I wasn’t not suggesting a literal silencing of Pelosi, merely suggesting that when she opens her mouth, my forehead frequently makes contact with my desk.
I simply think that there are many, many parties to blame and by placing all of it onto one administration, person, political party, etc. I think Pelosi, republicans, democrats, the constituents who supposedly complained enough to get their representatives to tank this should feel responsible.
I’m not a fan of Pelosi, never have been.
Not a fan of the Bush administration, never have been.
But this is a complicated problem with complicated roots. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, some of it deservedly falling on this administration, and some of it should also rest with those in the private sector who seem to think that lending people 100% of their purchase price with no income verification was a good choice. Some of it belongs with democrats, some with republicans.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:53 am
JJF – good points.
The astonishing and willful ignorance of so much of the left blogosphere was very disheartening here. Lots of populist cries to let the bastards eat it. Not, so far as I can tell, any understanding of the actual problems the economy is facing.
I’m pretty disappointed by the immaturity and stupidity of such large chunks of liberal opinion here.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
The Democrats technically could have passed this bailout; all it would have required was whipping the conference. The problem is that Republicans would have bailed, leaving an overwhelmingly partisan vote, which would have been a no win situation for the Democrats–if markets tanked anyway, the Democrats would be blamed, and markets were never going to improve enough before the election for Democrats to take any credit. To be politically viable this bill had to be bipartisan. Otherwise, unless the Democrats are absolutely convinced that waiting until November 5 to pass a bailout will significantly reduce the effectiveness of a bailout, no bailout will happen until then.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
this is not even a hypothetical. the RNC made the ads before the bill even “failed”.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Pelosi’s speech wasn’t that aggressive at all. This is as cynical and false as the whole Obama lipstick smear. Shame on Meghan.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
meghan is so deeply dishonest that i find it hard to bear. she is the one i read when i’m all blog-read out.
she’s bathroom blog reading and yet, and yet she still makes my blood boil. the dishonesty, again, is what makes her work so contemptible.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Regarding who the public really blames for the current crisis, see Gallup on Sept. 26-27 ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/110782/US-Leaders-Not-Getting-High-Marks-Crisis.aspx )
Obama: 3-point positive rating
Congressional Democratic leaders: 11 points negative
McCain: 16 points negative
Henry Paulson: 23 points negative
Congressional GOP leaders: 27 points negative
Bush: 40 points negative
…and http://www.gallup.com/poll/110746/Americans-Favor-Congressional-Action-Crisis.aspx (Sept. 24):
Pass Bush plan: 22%
Pass different plan: 56%
Do nothing: 11%
“Very important” to cut compensation for executives in bailed-out corporations: 63%
“Very important” to help homeowners who can’t pay mortgages: 49%. (”Somewhat important”: 31%.)
_____________________
Bottom line: Americans overwhelmingly opposed the Bush plan because they thought it assisted the undeserving wealthy too much — and, despite the House GOP’s frantic efforts to muddy the water, Americans are perfectly well aware of which party is more pro-wealthy.
There is no reason to think that Krugman, DeLong and Mark Kleiman are wrong: the Dems should pass their own plan on a strictly party-line vote, dare the Senate Republicans to filibuster it and Bush to veto it, and then sit back and let the votes roll in in November.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Yes but I’m too lazy to have done the legwork myself to get those numbers, I cribbed those numbers right off of Andy Tobias’ blog (www.andrewtobias.com).
September 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Think about Meghan’s notion a different way. Think of Pelosi’s speech as perhaps a feint-within-a-feint. If she realized that she was going to get sabotaged by Boehner and his cronies, wasn’t this smartest thing she could have done? Call the Republicans’ bluff, give a speech with some tempting partisan bait and then, once the Republican saboteurs sprung their trap and “blamed” Pelosi’s too-partisan speech, they come off looking like ridiculous idiots and the American people blame the Republicans for the whole mess. A pretty shrewd Aikido move, in my estimation.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
John (at 34. — gotta be different from John at 31.):
So you believe you have detected an astonishing and willful ignorance on this topic in the lefty blogosphere? Along with lots of populist cries to let the bastards eat it, with no understanding of the problems the economy is facing?
You use that term, “astonishing and willful ignorance”. I do not think it means what you think it means (hint: some introspection on your part is in order).
Seriously, do you get out much? Read the wingnutosphere? Listen to Limbaugh or any of the little Limbaughs? FOX “News”? Heard what Palin/McCain have to say about this? Anyone? Beuller?
You’re 180 degrees off, man. The lefty blogosphere is about the only place you’ll find thoughtful discussion on the economic (mostly credit) crisis, the bailout proposals, etc. Not all good, by any stretch. Still, most everything on the Right is an absolute horror show (quelle surprise!). If there’s anything worthwhile on the Right, it’s buried deep. No comparison.
On the specific issue of what happened on the bill that failed yesterday, read what DJ at 23. wrote. It’s why uber-hack McCardle is so completely wrong on that.
If, as you say, you’re ” pretty disappointed by the immaturity and stupidity of such large chunks of liberal opinion here”, you must be absolutely crestfallen at the immaturity and stupidity of such large chunks of conservative opinion. Or would be with some of that aforementioned introspection.
Simply put, movement conservatism needs to die, and appears to maybe, just maybe, be doing so, praise the FSM. The sooner the better, before they make things even worse.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Some of it belongs with democrats, some with republicans.
See, this is the problem I have. Just because there is some overlap in responsibility doesn’t mean that both sides are equally guilty. Sure, Clinton was only a mildly left-leaning President and passed a lot of crap, but it is the free-market morons who gave us this disaster. And guess which party has a lock on the moron vote (especially when it comes to the “free market”) – that’s right the Republicans.
A pox on both their houses is a cheap way to avoid recognizing reality.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Nope, they were both me. I can both be a Democrat and think that Matt Stoller is a fucktard.
I do, in fact, find conservative opinion as expressed on this bill to be incredibly stupid and ignorant, as well. But I don’t expect anything better from them. I expect them to be stupid and ignorant and demagogic.
And you’re certainly right that there have been thoughtful elements of the left blogosphere on the subject. Generally those elements are the ones I like to read better. But every comment thread I look at is full of idiots who don’t seem to understand anything at all about economics decrying the bailout. And a lot of the leading bloggers (Stoller and Kos, notably) have been feeding into that and exploiting it. A lot of the less leading bloggers have at least dabbled in it.
I’ll happily admit that the Republicans are worse. But in the context of my comments, “But the Republicans are worse” is really just the same as Republicans answering criticisms of the United States with “But Sudan is worse”. Yeah, sure, Republicans are even stupider. But I’m not a Republican. I don’t read Republican blogs, for the most part. I’m a Democrat, and, as such, I’m more dismayed by incredible levels of stupidity among Democrats, where I expect better, than among Republicans, where I expect nothing.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Evil Twin -
“there is some overlap in responsibility”
-Good we agree.
“doesn’t mean that both sides are equally guilty.”
-Hmm…I never said it did. The broader point here is that it is a bit weak to try to argue your own party out of the spotlight and skapegoat the “more guilty” party, whomever you deem that to be. Ta-Nehisi put it best yesterday:
To put this to bed, I DO blame all democrats and republicans who voted against the bill. That’s an easy blame game. I think Pelosi is a terrible leader for the Democratic party in congress, and if she were more effective, she might have been able to stroke the delicate egos of these flowery republicans who were apparently so wounded by her “partisanship” or solution 2 – perhaps she would have understood that the bill was going to tank before bringing it to vote. When you’re the HBIC, you get to shoulder responsibility, and therefore blame. It’s how the blame game works.
If we want to address the broader crisis we have on our hands, apply TNC’s comment. That problem is far too broad to lay it at any one person/entity/party’s feet.
Though I agree that figuring out what exactly and precisely led to this is the only way out. But spreading the blame around is not a “cheap way to avoid recognizing reality.” In fact, quite the opposite. If my language was not specific enough, I apologize. By suggesting that blame should be widely shared, I am not suggesting that be the final stop. I’m suggesting that it’s the beginning of an investigative process and analysis ultimately leading to reforming the very tools that brought us to this point.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 16th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I love this blog, can you e-mail me and tell me where you got your template
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
hi nice post I currently use a cream called cosmetyn to treat stretchmarks I done a little review of it on my site if
April 9th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Thanks for the review! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Sorry. You can go a long way with bad legs and a good head.
I am from Belgium and bad know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Book cheap flights to india, australia, manila.”
With best wishes
, Aggie.