Bailout Bounce

Let's talk about "expected to pass" for just a second.

This generally means that a bill is expected to pass. I know, I was confused by this concept as well. But precisely how do you get from the minority whip saying "80 votes with good floor energy" and the majority whip saying "120 votes expected" to saying the bill is "expected to pass"?

I realize that I'm not a math major, but unless we've somehow entered the Quantum Mechanics field of vote counting, 200 of 435 is somewhat less than 1/2. To venture a guess, I'd say it's about 45.9%. Maybe this is my inexperience talking, but when one estimates 46% in favor, I wouldn't imagine that it's safe to jump right to "the measure is expected to pass".

According to the Wall Street Journal today, party leadership (especially the democratic leadership) didn't even make an attempt to whip their votes, and let individual reps decide for themselves. So they did, and they based their decisions on what their constituents were saying. Which, for about 36 reps, was "I don't understand this and I'll make you pay for it in a month if you push this through". I get why they voted against the bill, and we can't really fault elected representatives in the house for doing what their constituencies tell them to do. That's why they're called "representatives". If we didn't elect free-market republicans to make free-market votes when we tell them to do it, then there are much bigger problems afoot.

And then of course, you have Pelosi's inspiring little speech on the floor that was every bit as classy as giving a pregnant woman six shots of Absinthe. Way to bridge the divide, idiot. I'm not suggesting that Pelosi has a history that would suggest that being a bipartisan leader when it matters most, but it is just about the pinnacle of tone-deafness when you need to whip votes to your side and you roll out a comment like, "It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies". Yeah, that'll make the friends you need.

The issue here isn't that she's not allowed to be partisan, or that republicans voted on the bill and not her speech. The issue is power playing. For the representatives who backed down when they heard those comments, its because up until that comment flew, it was understood by everyone that this was a bipartisan effort - one that included some old-guard republicans, who frequently aligned themselves with the Bush Administration's policies. The speech was viewed by those representatives as an attempt to take what was a bipartisan action of epic proportions, and turn it into a Democratic Party win in the House by way of simple rhetoric.

Republican reps will be damned if they're about to let her do that. 12 lost votes later, the minority whip actually has to say that you can't do stuff that's going to push away the yes votes when you need them.

Its like a really bad ice headache.

Never mind that the bailout package is another economic policy advocated by Bush and a Treasury Secretary that he appointed. While most people would experience some cognitive dissonance when bashing the Bush Administration's economic policies in general in an attempt to push forward one particular Bush Administration economic policy, Pelosi, mercifully free of an understanding of what leadership in congress is, does it without even blinking.

Try it again, this time without a transparent attempt to snatch credit.