Wesley Pruden, over at the Washington Times, is one of many conservatives across this land to blame Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker from San Francisco, for the failure of the bailout bill in the House yesterday. Pruden goes on to make the best suggestion Sarah Palin has gotten all month: she should use Thursday’s debate with Joe Biden to whack the heck out of Nancy Pelosi for killing the bailout package with that pesky partisanship that Palin will end to if the American people so bless her and John McCain with the privilege to serve them.
It’s a great idea, considering there really aren’t any live ones out there to improve Governor Palin’s image of late. I look forward to seeing how Joe Biden fields direct assaults from Palin. But seriously, can we really blame Pelosi’s speech for the failure of the bill? Here is what she said:
“When President Bush took office he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years he had turned that around and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.
“They claim to be be free-market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality: no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.”
She added: “Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.”
The thing is, the prepared version of that speech was not nearly so direct a condemnation of the Republican party. I feel for the poor staffer who wrote that speech and had to sit and listen as the boss went off message. Yes, Pelosi’s comments were clearly not helpful, and they were not in good taste. She should have waited until after the vote to deliver her stinging condemnation of Republican economic policies. But was it enough to tank the bill?
One has to ask the question, why were the dozen or so Republicans – who John Boehner and his Republican whip (vote counter), Roy Blunt of Missouri, claim were spooked by the partisan rhetoric – why were they going to hold their nose and vote for a deal they didn’t like and that they thought would certainly hurt them politically? They were prepared to do it, one can only surmise, for the good of the country, for the good of the economy. What other reason could there have been? Moreover, why didn’t all of the Republicans protest? Why only twelve – the magic number needed to pass the bill?
Nancy Pelosi comes off looking idiotic for her gratuitous GOP-bashing on the House floor before the big vote. But I cannot accept that her poorly-timed partisan jabs would give those 12 members license to throw the good of the country overboard. Those members who objected to Pelosi’s partisanship actually succumbed to that very vice by rejecting the bailout bill at the last minute.
Barney Frank, the famously grumpy chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wasn’t buying it either.
“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 . . . 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 an offer,” he added. “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.”
Inform Your Consent 