Even after GOP leaders backed off accusation, Parker claims Pelosi's speech on bailout bill was responsible for losing GOP votes
SUMMARY: Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker asserted that Republicans "responded" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech before the vote on the financial bailout plan "by voting against the bill," even after House Minority Whip Roy Blunt backed off a claim that a dozen Republicans who might have supported the bill were alienated by Pelosi's speech and several Republicans denied that Pelosi's speech swayed any votes.
In an October 1 column, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker asserted that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech, blaming the credit crisis on the Bush administration. ... Republicans responded by voting against" the financial bailout bill. Parker did not name any Republicans who changed their vote because of Pelosi's speech, and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), after accusing Pelosi at a press conference of alienating a dozen Republicans who might have supported the bill, later backed off his claim. In a clip that aired on the September 29 edition of ABC's Nightline, Blunt said that Pelosi's speech may have cost one or two votes: "We clearly had some members that were there but were precariously there. And one or two [votes] may have been affected by the speaker's speech." Moreover, several Republicans denied that Pelosi's speech swayed any votes.
Sixty-five Republicans and 140 Democrats ultimately voted for the bill -- 12 votes short of the number needed for passage.
Additionally, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported in his blog, Political Punch, that Blunt also said, "That one speech was not helpful, but I think you don't want to give too much blame to that speech."
Further, The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman reported September 30 that, while Republican leaders "initially blamed Pelosi," they "backed away within hours, conceding they never had the votes they had promised." Another September 30 front-page Post article said: "Republicans initially lashed out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), accusing her of delivering a partisan speech before the vote and costing them a dozen votes. But later, in interviews after tempers cooled, GOP leaders said they had been fighting an uphill battle from the start -- too many conservatives rejected the idea of a large, taxpayer-funded intervention, and too many moderates came from swing districts where constituents were up in arms over the bailout."
As Media Matters for America has noted, since the vote, several Republicans, including Rep. Darrell Issa (CA), Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN), and Rep. John Shadegg (AZ), dismissed the notion that Republicans voted "no" because of Pelosi's speech. Issa told Politico's blog The Crypt "that the idea that her speech shifted votes is 'nonsense.' " Shadegg said: "I don't know a single person who changed their vote on the basis of that, or would've." Furthermore, Fox News senior House producer Chad Pergram reported nearly an hour before Pelosi's speech 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."
From the September 29 edition of ABC's Nightline:
TAPPER: At 2:07, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of California gaveled the bill dead. A nail in its coffin. Sixty percent of the Democrats voted for the bill. Sixty-six percent of the Republicans voted against it. Only 65 Republicans came on board, short of their goal of 80. What went wrong? Republicans immediately blamed House Speaker Pelosi's partisan speech for chasing away a dozen Republicans.
REP. ERIC CANTOR [R-VA]: Right here is the reason, I believe, why this vote failed. And this is Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech that, frankly, struck the tone of partisanship that, frankly, was inappropriate in this discussion.
TAPPER: That excuse seemed laughable to Democrats, who pointed out that the Republicans never had the votes.
REP. BARNEY FRANK [D-MA]: Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country. I mean, that's hardly plausible. And there were 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.
TAPPER: And in an interview with Nightline, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt backed off the assertion.
REP. ROY BLUNT [R-MO]: We clearly had some members that were there but were precariously there. And one or two of them may have been affected by the speaker's speech.
From Parker's October 1 column:
That we have become a partisan nation is no secret. This week has provided a vivid example of where rabid partisanship leads with the failure of Congress to pass a bailout bill vitally needed to keep our economy from unraveling.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech, blaming the credit crisis on the Bush administration (omitting the Clinton administration's role in launching the subprime lending debacle). Republicans responded by voting against the bill.
Everyone's to blame, by the way.
Bush is to blame for encouraging home ownership to those who couldn't afford it. check out his 2002 speech for evidence of that.
As for the Democrats, just look at this quote from Barney Frank in 2003, they are equally to blame;
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Jesus Christ, Tommy. Is there any issue you won't work both sides of in order to stay on the attack.
A few weeks ago, I recall making the same argument to you that Bush encouraging home ownership through risky loans was part of Rove's strategy to create a permanent Republican majority because homeowners tend to vote Republican in the long run. I argued that their lust for control was to blame for this implosion. And what did you have to tell me? That I was pathetic and paranoid or a blind partisan or some stupid tommy snark.
You are so filled with unbridled anger and rage, get over it. Your Rove example is still ridiculous, that homeowners vote majority Republican, it was silly when you said it then, and silly now.
And if you can't lay the share of responsibility on your precious Democrats, then so be it. The fact that you despise capitalism and free markets, that you want to punish success and hard work, redistribute income and level the playing field, is tired and worn out rhetoric that you spill here every chance you get. So our system is flawed and far from perfect, but don't hold your breath, your brand of socialism will never see the light of day in America....so again, get over it.
May I suggest that everyone read tommy's second paragraph. It is most instructive.
I don't see it as instructive. I see it as right-wing ignorance.
Sorry, I guess my sarcasm needs to be more obvious.
Is it OK if we despise corrupted capitalism and manipulated markets? Is the current financial meltdown the result of successful hard work? Instead of redistribution, how about restitution?
Our current financial meltdown is, IMHO, a direct result of the failure of Republican ideology (which is inherently doomed to fail). Republicans have always blocked regulation, of any kind. Even the slightest regulation and the right-wingers start screaming about socialism. Some regulation is necessary. Middle path, fellas. It's the best way.
Get bent, Tommy.
I know Dems who sided with the money party and worshipped with them at the altar of Reaganomics share the blame.
But every time you get put behind the eight ball for your ignorant inconsistencies you have to dig into your bag of trite socialism insults. Do you understand how worn out that stuff is, boy? No surprise coming from you as an utterly typical vapid con, devoid of real solutions. What? Would you have us give nearly a trillion dollars to these profligate liars with no return and no conditions on our investment? Would you do as John McCain and further cut taxes and regulations for these guys because it punishes their success to make them pay the tax for their own malfeasance? Jesus. Are you really so stupid as to keep pushing that tax as punishment line? Why don't you take responsibility for a failed ideology that blindly accepts on faith that the magic hand will build a better future if only left unfettered by government?
You need to face it that your bullcrap conservative fundamentalist view of the market has failed, that the socialists are on Wall St., they are the thugs telling us we have to redistribute our wealth upward to them lest the economy crumble.
And do you really want to continue to be an ass and insist that the ownership society was not a calculated move to secure Rove's Thousand Year Republican reign?
Your grand wizard of death to government, Gorver Norquist had this take on the ownership society, "Bush's vision also calls for efforts to increase home ownership. Here's a hint of what that could mean: in House Speaker Dennis Haster's Congressional district in Illinois, 75-80 percent of voters own their own homes. In Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco, the number is 35 percent.... A transition of great political importance is under way. Fifty years from now the move to an Ownership Society will be recognized as a change to America's political landscape as dramatic as the move from farms to factories."
Punk. Tell me I'm just too angry again. Tell me my argument is ridiculous. You don't know jack.
If home ownership is a Republican backed dream, then why did the Democrats resist stricter rules on Fannie and Freddie, and how does that square with Frank's quote above on affordable housing? It doesn't. In fact, it could be argued that those who benefit more from affordable housing vote Democratic, which would explain Frank's take on it.
So you, punk, don't what you are talking about. Your hatred and anger once again cloud any judgment you have. Perhaps if you took an anger management class and stopped hurling grade school insults around here you'd be able to curb your emotion with common sense.
Try to flip the script all you want you sniveling backpedaller. Until you can find actual Democratic strategists making plans to build a permanent majority on the backs of homeowners, your argument is little more than some easily offended snit desperately casting about for some defense of his failed conservative ideology.
Try again punk ass.
Yeah, forget Democratic lawmakers and find me a Democratic strategist instead. How utterly insane. Face it, your silly conspiracy theory is based on your own petty paranoia, and nothing more. Illustrated by your refusal to address my very real example in Frank's own words.
You'd better stop trying, you are just looking foolish.
So Republican lawmakers, at the behest of Republican strategists, go out and gut regulation and oversight on lending practices and I'm the one who has his head buried? Boy, you are truly stupid if you think you're damaging my argument with your insistence that I'm paranoid. How smug, how removed from reality to retrench yourself in dogma, close your eyes and wish I am wrong.
Look, I know that certain dems share that failed fundamentalist view of the markets and they make me want to puke too. You can be goddamned certain that we won't get a people first plan from any Corporate Republican, we at least have a slim chance with the left.
But I really don't know what you think Frank's quote has to do with your point. He said, "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country. I mean, that's hardly plausible. And there were 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."
What does that have to do with affordable housing? You seem to be getting dumber by the second.
Right. I seem to be getting dumber. I thought you were talking about Frank's quote from the article, not your own quote from him.
But I mean, whatever, as interesting as that quote is, I don't see how it exonerates the failure of deregulation, in fact, it highlights the need for oversight and rules. And I sure don't see how, beyond your petulant fist pounding, it dovetails into your argument that affordable housing=dem majority.
That's a very peculiar response to yourself.
I am and always have been an odd bird, Bill.
I didn't see the quote T was talking about in the article, so I ripped him. He said see the quote above and I dumbly assumed he was referring to the quote in the article. Instead, he had already picked some other Frank quote, free of context, chosen from somewhere, sometime to bolster his so called point. Anyway, making a short story long, I inadvertently posted my reply to myself instead of Tommy.
Ok, that makes more sense. I don't even want to hint at the direction my mind went at first.
Does anyone here know if Mae and Mac were in crisis in 2003? If they were in good shape then but then went downhill, I do not think Frank's quote is relevant.
Then go back to Clinton's administration when he and the Republicans wanted stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and the Democrats opposed it.
I did not seem to have gotten my point across.
If the institutions were not in crisis when Frank made his comments, how is he to blame for something that happened 5 years later?
Clintons own words, score one for McCain;
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
During Clinton's tenure, weren't republicans in control of both the House and Senate? Of course they were.
But don't you see, Mag, it's all Clinton's fault! That's the right-wing meme.
Righties preach responsibility, but when expected to demonstrate it themselves, they fail consistently.
The Repubs were in control of both House and Senate during the majority of Clinton's tenure. So, again, who is to blame? It's certainly not the GOP bogey-man, Bill Clinton.
Anything that seems wrong to righties, they blame Clinton.
Look in the mirror, Righties - and maybe practice what you preach, you worthless hypocrites. [incidently, this is a direct quote from me to my father, just in the singular].
The financial institutions bear most of the blame for our impending economic disaster. Once they got their deregulation wish list, they recklessly and eagerly started construction on their house of cards. They made incalculable profits by making questionable loans, and created all kinds of repackaging schemes to buy and sell securiies and commercial paper that has now proved to be worthless.
Sure, hindsight is 20-20, but it's shortsighted and superficial to blame it on economic conditions as they existed five years ago, much less on a speech delivered on the floor of the House.
These financial institutions did these mortgage backed securities as a way to make money. When there weren't enough they actively and the mortgages were tapped out among those who could afford it, they, along with Bush and Congress' help, lessened lending standards, gave loans to NINA, (no income, no assets) and we are all now in this mess. Yes, they are responsible, as are people who bought homes they couldn't afford, and our elected leaders who looked the other way because they took their political benefits more seriously than anything else.
They are all to blame.
Serious question:
People who bought homes they couldn't afford are hurt when they default on their mortgages. Their credit is ruined for years (at least 7, I believe), so these people are facing consequences for their irresponsible actions, in the form of high interest rates on future loans or inability to secure credit.
My question is, what consequences are predatory lenders facing? What about banking institution who irresponsibly invested in junk debt? If we, as responsible American taxpayers, bail them out of this crisis, then aren't we rewarding them for their irresponsible behavior?
Kyle, It is a mess, and I am not smart enough to know exactly what to do now. The responsibility lies with many, and we need many to figure out the best course of action for the country to minimize the damage as much as possible, especially to hard working Americans who had no part in this. Pointing fingers of blame from one party to another to score political points in an election is sickening, and not productive. We need problem solvers and honest questions and answers, not more partisan positioning.
Thanks for the insight, Tommy. I agree we need to stop pointing fingers and start working together on a solution.
I'm one of those 'hard working Americans who had no part in this'. I've maintained perfect credit over the past decade or so, and that's helped me secure a reasonable rate on a modest mortgage. I know that a foreclosure can destroy someone's credit rating and severely hinder their ability to borrow in the future.
Although this crisis has pounded my savings and IRA, I like to think that somehow I'll come out ahead because I was responsible with my financial decisions. All I ever hear about is 'credit crunch' but in the past couple of weeks I've bought a new car (5.9% over 72 mos) and had my two main credit cards raise my limits to $6k and $12k when I rarely go over $2k.
Either way, I am opposed to this bailout. Irresponsible companies should see consequences, too.
And you deserve to be spared Kyle, for the recklessness of others. And many just like you. I absolutely respect your opinion to be opposed to this bailout, you have good reason to oppose it. I am not sure about any of it, admittedly.
My question is, what consequences are predatory lenders facing? What about banking institution who irresponsibly invested in junk debt? If we, as responsible American taxpayers, bail them out of this crisis, then aren't we rewarding them for their irresponsible behavior?
Yes we are Kyle , but if the Govt does not do someehing we as a nation and people will suffer even more. I want my nephew and niece to be able to go to college and not worry about Student Loans. It is scary.
JLyons-
I agree that 'something' must be done. I don't think the proposed bailout is the right thing, however.
One improvement we could make, and that other countries are doing right now, is instead of having the government buy up these companies' bad debt, the government should instead purchase stake in the company itself (sort of like what happened with AIG)
Another thing the government could do is make credit reporting more fair and transparent. The FCRA was a step in the right direction, but there is still much to be done. It shouldn't be a 'no-brainer' for someone to walk away from a mortgage if they are underwater on the loan. There shouldn't be any way to benefit financially from that type of behavior, but our current system encourages 'jingle mail', where homeowners simply mail the keys back to the bank when they owe more than their home is worth.
Predatory lenders are facing ZERO consequences. As someone who was lucky enough to buy their house with no difficulties, I know how disgusting these predators can be. One of the jerks I was dealing with tried to get me into a $1million+ home that I obviously couldn't afford. That's obviously predatory. You might want to blame the NINA folks, but you must also know that many, if not most of them were talked into such situations. They were told that they could refinance later on, etc. etc. to make the dream of home ownership (which is what most people dream of, especially NINA dreamers) a reality. These people were lied to so that others could profit. It's disgusting.
I don't see how these lenders should be allowed to get off the hook.
Parker must be dumb as a brick to think that elected republican leaders are that shallow. And while tommy is correct to point out some democratic leaders for some blame, what gets overlooked is the bill that mccain co-sponsored back then did pass the committee but was never scheduled by the republican leadership for debate. It doesn't sound like they were really interested in getting anything passed though they could easily have done so without any democratic votes.
But they are that shallow!
GOP leaders have backed off this claim because it makes them look like wusses who have no business holding a position in the govt. Parker doesn't have to worry about that.
"Everyone's to blame, by the way."
Bullcrap.
There is but one ideology to blame. Market fundamentalism, that scraps from the table mentality.
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker...
Apparantly, these are the two main requirements for being a "conservative columnist":
1 - The ability to type.
2 - No ability to think.
Parker would call daylight inky darkness if it furthered her sellout to the Repubs.
With columnists like Kathleen Parker the Repugs have all the help they need in lying their way out of this mess. In fact, McCain could REALLY "suspend his campaign" for good and just sit back and let the MSM take over. There are many better qualified righties who can do an even better job of misleading the public than McCain. His lack of morals is becoming all too obvious especially by his ridiculous intrusion into the bail-out fiasco.
Here's all you need to know about Mean Kathleen:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/kathleen-parker-shocked-to-find-her-party-is-full-of-vicious-threatening-delusional-wingnuts/
Ah, Kathleen Parker.
Any time you feel like you need to know what the clueless white Southern woman is thinking, she's your gal ...
Its the repugs fault we are in this mess and the democrats will fix it.