LA Times repeated GOP claims blaming Pelosi's speech for bailout failure without noting contrary evidence
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times reported that "Republican leaders said they lost 12 votes at the last minute" for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 because of a "partisan speech" given by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and quoted House Minority Leader John Boehner asserting that "we could have gotten there today had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave." However, the Times did not note statements by members of Congress, including Republicans, that Republicans did not have the votes to pass the legislation.
In a September 30 Los Angeles Times article, staff writers Maura Reynolds, Richard Simon, and Nicole Gaouette uncritically reported that "Republican leaders said they lost 12 votes at the last minute" for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 because of a "partisan speech" given by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) despite statements by members of Congress, including Republicans, who dismissed that notion.
In a September 29 post to the Politico blog The Crypt, Ryan Grim reported that Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (CA), a "lead opponent" of the bill, dismissed claims that Pelosi's speech changed votes:
"To be honest, somebody finding out that Nancy Pelosi made a partisan speech? I'm shocked," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a lead opponent of the bailout package, who tells the Crypt that the idea that her speech shifted votes is "nonsense."
Additionally, in a September 29 article (registration required), Roll Call reported:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) threw cold water on a key rationale House Republican leaders have been employing this afternoon to explain why they couldn't deliver more GOP votes for the Wall Street bailout package.
At a Monday afternoon press conference, GOP leaders argued that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) cost the measure a dozen Republican votes by delivering an overly partisan floor speech in support of it.
But Bachmann, speaking at a Republican Study Committee press conference, told reporters, "I want to assure you that was not the case. We are not babies who suck our thumbs. We have very principled reasons for voting no."
Bachmann was responding to comments Democratic leaders made dismissing the GOP leaders' claims. But she apparently confused the Democratic response with the initial charge by Republicans, and her comments mirrored those of the Democratic leaders.
Since the publication of the Times article, on the September 30 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) asserted that Pelosi's speech "didn't move any votes." Shadegg responded to host Joe Scarborough's question, "Well, Boehner said it moved votes. Is Boehner wrong?" by stating: "Yeah. I think their feelings were hurt. It was embarrassing for the leadership of both parties to lose the bill, so they went out and made a stupid claim, but I don't know a single person who changed their vote on the basis of that or would have."
Furthermore, Fox News senior House producer Chad Pergram reported nearly an hour before Pelosi's speech began that he was "hearing from the Republican side of the aisle, they may only have 40 to 60 of their members" supporting the bill, a number that Pergram noted "leaves us very short there." Sixty-five Republicans and 140 Democrats ultimately voted for the bill -- 12 votes short of the number needed for passage.
In addition, The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman reported that while Republican leaders "initially blamed Pelosi," they "backed away within hours, conceding they never had the votes they had promised":
In the thick of the presidential campaign, the collapse of the deal left Washington buzzing with recriminations. Republicans -- from Sen. John McCain's top economic aide to the House GOP leadership -- initially blamed Pelosi, saying her floor speech castigating Bush administration "policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system" poisoned the atmosphere and invited partisan retribution.
In truth, few Republicans were on the floor to hear that speech, and those who were there showed no signs of discomfort, as they often do. Republican leaders backed away within hours, conceding they never had the votes they had promised.
In comments made after the vote on the bill, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) accused Republicans who blamed Pelosi of "covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes" needed to pass the bill:
QUESTION: At the Republican press conference, Leader Boehner [inaudible] and Minority Whip [Roy] Blunt [R-MO] specifically pointed to your speech on the floor, saying that they thought they had an extra dozen Republican votes, and [inaudible] your speech and said this is the reason why they lost [inaudible]. Could you address that?
FRANK: I will address that. I am appalled. Frankly, that's an accusation against my Republican colleagues I would never have thought of making.
Here's the story: There's a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity.
I mean, we also have, as the leader will tell you, who's been working with them, we don't believe they have the votes, and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes.
But think about this: Somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean, that's hardly plausible. And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interests of America, but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make -- I'll make an offer. Give me those 12 people's names, and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they'll now think about the country.
From the Los Angeles Times article:
Republican leaders said they lost 12 votes at the last minute and blamed what they described as a partisan speech by Pelosi.
"I do believe that we could have gotten there today had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "We put everything we had into getting the votes to get there today."
In the speech, Pelosi said the bailout was a result of the Bush administration's failed economic policies, which she described as being "built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.
"Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth and capital," she said. "But left to its own devices, it has created chaos."

















The bottom line for me is that any Republican that actually changed their vote based on what Pelosi said is a disgrace, while I continue to question how strongly Pelosi actually wanted the vote to pass when she gave a speech like that.
Idiots all...
I read the speech and did not see anything that would have made me change my decision to vote one way or the other based on what she said.
can you cite anything that she said that could have a changed someone's decision?
personally, I would have voted against what was on the table yesterday.
As I said already, vote on the merits of the proposal, not on what somebody says in a stupid speech.
The Republicans that trotted out that nonsense are disgraceful. It's BS.
Pelosi may or may not have wanted the proposal to pass. I have my doubts.
After all the drama and histrionics in Washington why would Nancy Pelosi have NOT wanted the bill to pass? I'm not following that... Why wouldn't the Democrats have dug in their heels and pursued another, alternate solution to the economic crisis rather than using the the Bush/Paulson remedy as a framework? Why would the Democrats have even bothered with days of hearings and negotiations? Politically, there is no more to be gained from opposing George W. Bush...he's about as low as a lame-duck President can get.
Bruce,
I agree with you on this one. I don't care how people try to defend her, she made a mistake. There are plenty of opportunities to bash the Administration and their stupidity. This was an instance that required her to encourage people to vote for the bill and she screwed it up.
We, as liberals, need to accept when we are wrong also and not just blindly defend anything a Democrat does.
Why are so many people upset at Congress for not passing a bill that nobody wants?
I'm opposed to giving Bush a huge pile of free money. Let the market hang until we get a real president.
Saying nobody wants the bill is pretty misleading considering that most of the electorate is woefully uninformed on the issue.
This bill should not pass or fail based on public opinion, but instead on the merits of the proposal. Put politics aside for once.
as odious as this medicine may be, it's probably something we need to take. there is blame on both sides for how we got into this situation, but we should not fall for the republican cure-all for everything, which in this case is elimination of capital gains taxes, thereby making our budget deficits even worse and giving even more to them that's already got.
i was watching the today show this morning, and matt lauer was hosting a discussion about pelosi's picking on those poor republicans. he had on two congressmen, one from each party. lauer was being his usual unbiased self [not]. he asked the democrat why pelosi could only get half the california delegation to vote with her, and the democratic congressman started to point out that not one of the arizona delegation voted for it, and lauer starts going off on a tangent about isn't that kind of partisan rhetoric exactly what we're talking about here. uhh, matt? you brought the subject up by asking why pelosi couldn't get all the california delegation to vote for it.
now the senate is discussing tax cuts to be added to their bill to make it attract more votes in the house. wrong move. it's time we started paying for what we spend. time to stop living on the credit card.
Paulson's initial proposal, which invented the number 700 billion from absolutely nothing, contained an explicit requirement for no oversight, and demanded immediate action for no verifiable reason, did not "put politics aside".
When republicans ask for bipartisanship, they always say "you go first". They missed their chance, so let's do it without them with a democratic president. Hopefully it takes more than a few weeks to create a Great Depression. If not, we'll add it to Bush's legacy.
(This is to bruce1ace. Reply isn't working.)