Two Faced Hag

I'm sure you guys were hoping I'd have posted about the debate by now. I don't know that I will be, but we'll see. Super quickly, McCain beat the snot out of Obama on the foreign policy side. I missed the first 40 minutes and didn't bother to go look it up.

Anyway... on to today's big mess. Nancy Pelosi. Left wing two faced partisan hag. Today was the big bailout vote that so many of us didn't want to begin with. Now I only caught bits and pieces of it, but apparently she came out right before the floor vote in the House today and delivered a blistering partisan hack speech that served no other purpose but to enrage the Republicans and rally them against her. The portions I saw were full of bitterness and hatred for George W. Bush in particular. Why that man continues to try and work with her is beyond me. Her disgusting attacks aside, the floor vote in the House went down solidly against the bill. With 95 of her own democrats failing to vote for it.

So what did she do? Admit they were wrong and promise to go back and try again? Uh, no. She trots herself out in front of her media darlings and flat out accuses the Republicans of sabotaging the floor vote for partisan reasons. More or less attempting to pin blame on 12 of them in particular. Then she had the audacity to whine and complain that they're playing partisan politics with the earlier press conference the Republicans had immediately following that vote. Maybe she's senile. It's the only logical explanation. Again, remember, not an hour before she was on the floor of the House delivering a blistering hate speech right before the vote. There's plenty of blame to go around you disgusting piece of left wing crap. Have you forgotten you idiots are in the majority? Is it somehow part of that big right wing conspiracy that 95 of your own people voted against your golden parachute bill? Did you fail 3rd grade math? Do you even know what it means to hold a majority?

Well personally I think it was something more sinister. She torpedoed the bill on purpose for political gain. The left wing lunatics are so desperate to get back into the White House that I believe Pelosi was acting on behalf of the Obama campaign and deliberately stirred up a partisan shitstorm to deliver on a poll shift for Obama and to try and make McCain look like an idiot when the bill failed. She quite obviously knew it wasn't going to pass because she had to know her own people were against it. But when political opportunity strikes, you can damn well bet the hard left will take it even when it's a complete bold faced lie. That bill died because she killed it, along with the Democrats. Every last Republican in the House could have opposed it and still seen it go through if the Dems had wanted it to.

So no way Pelosi. This blame game isn't flying today. You deliberately sabotaged the entire proceeding for political gain. And we're supposed to be the partisan hacks after that little speech you gave? No. Go pin this one on the person it belongs with. YOU. You damn two faced hag.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« Eagle Eye
Are You a Neocon? »

Posted on Sep 30, 2008 2:37 am by Samson in: | 5 comment(s) [Closed]
The first 40 minutes were interesting, in their way, to be sure. I came out thinking that both candidates did reasonably well, but nobody won it by anything like a large margin (though consensus backed by poll numbers seems to feel that Obama marginally won by not sucking. I wonder), and both sides said some deeply silly stuff. Namely:

1. Every time Obama opened his mouth about Iraq, the words that came out were, if not ridiculous, then transparently ignorant of the last half decade there. Yes, we are all perfectly aware that Things Went Wrong, but where's your solution now? Considering that everything else he said wavered between "a damn good idea" and reasonable, I continue to be confused about this.

2. McCain said a fair number of dumb stuff himself, mind you, but most of it wasn't particularly important. The one that WAS important is that his position on holding talks is either lunacy or ridiculous ignorant, depending on how charitable you're feeling, and in any case came off like a man sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAHNAHNAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAHNHANAH" over and over.

Both of which positions are not so hot.

Also, the next time I hear somebody make a comparison between Wall Street and Main Street, there will be blood. Seriously, people, find a new phrase.


Now, as to the bailout bill...something weird going on there. It almost feels like nobody wanted to pass the thing and they needed an excuse, so Pelosi made an ass out of herself in her speech, which gave everybody an excuse to not vote for the bill. That or the Dems withheld a bunch of people to make a point, and it totally backfired on them. That's the charitable reasoning. The one I actually tend to believe thinking we could seriously do better with a bunch of 3rd graders, and seriously, can we just throw every single person in the House out and start over?

On the one hand, Pelosi's speech. I've heard, oh, about a third of it. I couldn't watch any more of it - it wasn't just bad, it wasn't even coherent. And seriously, what the hell possesses you, you complete fucking idiot, to get up in front of everyone and insult the hell out of the very people you need? What the hell is wrong with you? (Don't answer that)

On the other hand, the Republicans. I saw that press conference, too, stupid, ignorant, petty partisan hacks. You can't vote on something for the good of the country because your feelings got hurt? Are you people serious? What are you, five? What the hell is wrong with you? All of you.

In short, I'm through with the lot of them. I suppose there are some people on both sides who aren't acting like worthless sacks of crap, but this entire Congress on both sides has been acting like a bunch of children for years, and this is just one more thing where they can't grow up and act like adults.

My personal preference lies with the BBC's analysis:

There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives, all of which are up for election in November. Of the 38 members whose seats are most at risk in November's election, only eight voted for the bill. Among those not considered at risk in the election, the vote was even, suggesting public hostility killed the bill, says the BBC's North America editor Justin Webb.

Before the vote, lawmakers were inundated with calls, emails and letters from constituents outraged by the $700bn package. Correspondence against the bill vastly outweighed that in favour. Only those representatives unconcerned about their re-election prospects could confidently support the package. It is no coincidence that 26 of the 31 members who are retiring in November - including 21 Republicans - voted "Yes".

In fact, only two of the 205 members who supported the bill (Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays and Nevada Republican Jon Porter) reportedly face difficult re-election prospects in November - the vast majority of those with tough electoral contests ahead were among the "Nays".

"We're all worried about losing our jobs," said Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, who voted for the bill. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass but I want you to vote for it, not me', he said."

It's certainly no impeccable analysis - you'd need the hard numbers on the vote by party, election year, and how contested the seats up for re-election are to achieve that - but I think it sounds right.

It may very well be right, but I tend toward the simpler reality. Nancy blames us for torpedoing the bill but she didn't even have her own people in line for it. But if you really want to blame someone, blame us - the people. I haven't run into anyone yet other than retirees who thought this bill was a good idea. Why would retirees favor it? Because right now they're the only ones with any immediate devaluation of their income. And even then, not all of them are in agreement that it should have passed in the form it was just voted on. Lack of oversight, too much power to Paulson, etc. I mean for God sake. Who writes a bill that explicitly forbids judicial review *AND* congressional oversight? Then again. What kind of bonehead takes such a bill to the floor for a full vote anyway?

Now take Newt Gingrich's alternative plan where instead of a wholesale buyout and nationalization, you handle it in the form of loans to failing institutions. You have huge Congressional oversight, and you specifically deny these companies the right to give their CEOs any sort of bonus while they're under these loans. His plan had more details than that, but if adopted would likely pass because a lot more people think it's a safer option. The key difference being that his plan is not one that would nationalize it all.

He also had one other second option which requires no legislation and would be easy to see if it works or not. Suspend what's called "mark to market" which apparently is a hair-brained accountant type thing where you are forced to value property at the lowest price someone will pay for it instead of at the actual market value it would bear. He said doing this would infuse billions upon billions into the credit market and might very well be all that's needed to then let the markets resolve this on their own. I like Newt. The man makes tons of sense. And it's clear he truly does support free enterprise.

From what I saw on the market reports an hour ago, it seems Wall Street is quite happy the bill failed as the 777 point drop from yesterday has been largely erased with what was a 450 point gain today.

Either way, right now, we're all standing witness to history being written. Either we're going to be able to point to September 2008 as the month the Second Great Depression started, or we'll be able to point to it as the month where free enterprise proved decisively that it actually does work as advertised.

I found numbers! Now, if only I had time to analyze them. :( As it is, I must be analyzing evidence for the influence of the Etruscans on the early Roman kings... woohoo, academia. Maybe tonight.

Also, just to come up with a couple of hypotheses:

It seems Wall Street is quite happy the bill failed as the 777 point drop from yesterday has been largely erased with what was a 450 point gain today.

I wouldn't call that so much happy at the failure of this bill as rising expectations of a new bill being passed within the next week. Which isn't actually contrary to your point.

Either we're going to be able to point to September 2008 as the month the Second Great Depression started, or we'll be able to point to it as the month where free enterprise proved decisively that it actually does work as advertised.

Or the month where socialism saved us all!*

Also, please no Second Great Depression. I will need a job in under two years...

*Disclaimer: I do not actually believe this will happen.

Trust me, I don't exactly want a Second Great Depression either, being still out of a job and all. This crap right now is only making it that much harder to find one. I've been noticing a lot less openings being advertised lately. Which should be seen as a deeply disturbing sign since it implies that more places pay their payrolls on credit than we'd all like to admit. I don't consider that a sound practice to maintain any longer than necessary, but apparently it's quite common from what the Fox Business guys have said.

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30