52 comments:

Krugman and many others are calling for Pelosi to double down and do whatever it takes to ram the bill through. Since this is what she wants to do anyway let's hope she takes their advice.It would be so much fun to watch her do a Thelma and Louise and drive right off the cliff.Steny Hoyer probably hopes for the same thing since it's no secret he'd like to be Speaker (or, after November, Minority Leader).

Hoyer and Pelosi Galore can't stand each other, so a war would be so much fun to watch.

Like the other crypto-commie at the opposite end of Constitution Ave., I can't see San Fran Nan pulling back to lesser goals. She'll try to ram this through (yes, I know what Barry said, but remember what Rush said about expiration dates) and if she takes the party down with her, that's tough for the party.

Regarding Obama advising not ramming it through, all I heard yesterday was his opinion that the Senate not vote on anything until Brown is seated. That leaves the door open for the House to pass the Senate version. Maybe he said something further I didn't see, but I'm of the opinion that the strategy du jour is to pass the Senate bill in the House.

Pelosi is poisonous. She is entitled, contemptuous, domineering, intolerant, and verbally inept. She could only have come to power in the context of the rebellion against Bush. She is a good reason to vote against any and every democrat on the ballot in November.

Pelosi is Speaker of the House. In the House, if she wants to run a very left-wing operation and to dominate her caucus no one can stop her.

Even if she wants to pass laws as opposed to winning roll call votes in her chamber, she doesn't need to change. She can pass stuff out of the House and use the reconciliation process when necessary.

Meanwhile, there is nothing Pelosi can do to make the Senate functional. The Senate isn't functional.

The meme that Pelosi needs to change seems to be based on the idea that her majority is at risk. Maybe. But all she needs is a 1 vote edge and her power in the House is still absolute. That's the nature of the House.

Hoosier Daddy said... Or birth control. Just hang it up above the headboard.

Pelosi, the anti-Viagra?

I was struck by this Newt quote.

[Former House Speaker] Tom Foley would basically tell me, ‘Newt, I can’t bring up that bill — They’d kick me out if I did.’”

That implies and I suspect that it is true, that in the Tom and Newt days, the Speaker and the Minority Leader could fight on the floor, but talk about the legislative agenda over a glass of bourbon later.

Somehow I doubt that Nancy is on speaking terms with any GOP leadership member, so reaching across the aisle directly is a non-starter and the normal mode of using Hoyer as the messenger no longer works because Hoyer's agenda and Pelosi's are diverging rapidly.

I remember when Pelosi became speaker the reports were that she was bullying and strong-arming junior Democrats and was punishing those with seniority who didn't pledge some sort of fealty to her by blocking committee chair-ships.

What was the most shocking was that the reports were coming from Dem/liberal political commentators like Elinor Clift, who were bragging about it with stary-eyed wonder at how strong and effective this showed Pelosi to be.

There is a significant difference between building loyalty and demanding loyalty. There is a difference between leadership and punishment.

Is this the same place that Obama came from with his "I won" thing? Like cooperation is ever anything but voluntary for everyone involved?

I don't understand, but it's certainly not the first time I've found the Democrat version of "acting tough" to be unbalanced like that and for the Democrats, like Clift or some commentors here, to think it's wonderful.

"We're not in a big rush. We'll pause," Pelosi said. "We have to know what our possibilities are."

That reminds me of the Dirty Harru quote: "A man's got to know his limitations."

Well Nancy, I recall that you were supposed to be getting this done last year and give the American people a Christmas present. What is it now goona be Valentines?

Ironic because for being the stupidest man on the face of the earth, Bush didn't have this much trouble getting legislation passed and he didn't have the kind of Congressional majority the Democrats have. Seems to me that there is a real serious dearth of leadership in that party.

Dow was down 200 points yesterday right after the win, and before any announcement of Wall Street regs. Hmmm. I heard there was going to be a huge rally if and when Brown, but the opposite has happened. Brown in, and health care reform dead, and the market is tanking.

The Republicans should get together and promise to vote for the debt extension if a couple of relevant amendments, such as this:

"Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota immediately offered an amendment to end the bank and Wall Street bailout, officially known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Thune would prohibit further expenditure of TARP funds and would require that all funds paid back be used to retire debt."

are included. Otherwise, not. We have got to start tackling this disaster somewhere.

Don't you think it takes a real special type of incompetence to have the huge majorities in Congress and still be stalled? I mean did they step too hard on the gas and flood the carburator?

Do you think that maybe its possible that the Democrats down deep inside can't stand Obama in the same way they did Clinton (I'm sorry garage, I know that stings)? Do Reid and Pelosi actually have any real power over their own?

No there is no connection because the market does what the market does and generally will react to tangible events such as a 9/11 or earnings reports. Brown’s election or Obama’s regulatory pronouncements may have a slight reaction but its fleeting. In a month the market will have risen and fallen and back again as the more stable minded go and grab some cheap picks.

Don't you think it takes a real special type of incompetence to have the huge majorities in Congress and still be stalled?

The Democrats truly have the big tent in which you have conservative blue dogs sitting next to East Coast liberals and Bay area socialists all of whom have little in common save for the D behind their name. Trying to control that Party in a unified manner is like herding cats whereas the GOP by and large generally follows the party line (for good or ill). That said, at least the Democrats with such a large majority have enough people within their own party that can put the brakes on monstrous bills like health care reform (although whether they can exercise the same kind of discipline with other bills remains to be seen). If enough free thinking members of the GOP had been willing to put a stop to things like Iraq, Part D and the catastrophic spending of the Bush years, they may not be slapping each other over the back over gaining one measly Senate seat.

So tell us again about how the conservative Dem senators put the brakes on that horrible bill. Instead they were bought and paid for at the expense of the public and only gave us a mea culpa when it became obvious even their own states didn't appreciate the deals. Nice ethical crew you got there.

So tell us again about how the conservative Dem senators put the brakes on that horrible bill. Instead they were bought and paid for at the expense of the public and only gave us a mea culpa when it became obvious even their own states didn't appreciate the deals. Nice ethical crew you got there.

Not my crew. When it comes to the two political parties we're stuck with I tend to vote none of the above.

I'm sorry you missed the point of my post which was the lack of control for the Democrats. Obama rode to the White House on a wave of change yet his leadership on the bill has been non-existant. Pelosi and Reid then find themselves having to hog trade within their own party to get some kind of bill put forth and after its all said and done and the smoke clears the field, they still can't get the damn thing passed.

I didn't say they put the brakes on the bill for any ethical or principled reasons although in any event the end result was the same.

Not what you said. You were talking about how the Dems had conservative members who would put the brakes on the idiocies of the liberal dDems. When you consider that the Dems voted right down the line, where are the conservatives who should have caught the idiocy of the bill? All bought and paid for.

It has been the Republicans over the years who have worked with the Dems to pass legislation. The Dems do all they can to lock out anyone not a Dem even daring to suggest a change to their bills. And the Dems then have the nerve to talk about how they have reached out to the Republicans. The rewriting of History is a wonderful thing to watch and we Republicans are in the process of watching that right now.

Not what you said. You were talking about how the Dems had conservative members who would put the brakes on the idiocies of the liberal dDems.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I suggest you re-read my orginal post without the ideological blinders. Here let me assist you:

That said, at least the Democrats with such a large majority have enough people within their own party that can put the brakes on monstrous bills like health care reform

Enough people, not conservative, not liberal, just people which was the point of my post; that the Democrats have enough 'diveristy' within their party that proceeding on a unified front is near impossible without having to make major concessions that you would normally have to hand to the other party (GOP in this instance) to get a bill passed.