Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

The Genuis Of Nancy Pelosi

Mickey Kaus asks, ?If Nancy Pelosi had wanted to screw Sen. McCain, could she have done a better job?? Good question.

Although she and her consigliere Barney Frank are now quick to blame Republicans, they apparently did nothing to secure votes for this ?essential? legislation from their own caucus. Rep. Hank Johnson (D,GA) told ABC?s Jake Tapper that ?he felt no pressure at all to vote for the bill.?

David Bernstein, on Volokh, also notes that Pelosi?s actions appear designed to sink the bill.

She was trying to round up votes for a bailout package that shes claims to believe is essential for the stability of the American economy. She can?t, and doesn?t want to, pass the bill without a substantial number of Republican votes. So what does she do? You would think she would say, ?let?s pass this emergency measure now, in the best interests of the country, and talk about who is to blame later.? Instead, Pelosi began her speech with a highly partisan tirade against ?Bush? and ?Republican? economic policies, which were allegedly to blame for this situation.... She focused on an attack on the growth of federal deficits, which clearly are at best tangential to the current crisis. That, to me, is the sort of irresponsible thing you do when (a) you?re not claiming there is a vast emergency; and (b) you are in the minority, and not claiming to exercise leadership....

All I?m saying is that if you are trying to rally the House to pass an emergency bill, you make it seem like there is AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY, which more or less precludes partisan attacks. To the extent any Republican voted against the bill because of Pelosi?s speech, it may not be a question of them being offended by her partisanship, but the perspective that if Pelosi thinks that the situation calls for partisanship, it must not be a serious emergency, because leaders simply don?t engage in such antics when a true emergency is at hand. For that matter, if I were a Democrat skeptical of the bill, Pelosi?s speech may have discouraged me from voting for it for the same reason.

Bernstein then quoted a shrewd commenter on his post:

Pelosi was not acting out of stupidity, but out of malice to obtain partisan electoral advantage.

The woman knows how to count votes. She has kept several bills from coming to votes over the past Congress because she knew she was short on votes and would lose.

The woman knows how to follow polls. Obama was losing to McCain until this mess emerged a little over a week ago. Now Obama has a 5 point lead.

One has to be willfully blind not to see that Pelosi was attempting to dump on Bush and pick a fight with the GOP to ensure that this rescue plan lost and the partisanly advantageous crisis continues.

Further evidence for the conspiratorial supposition that the Democrats were concerned more about helping Obama?s campaign than bailing out/rescuing the financial markets: On Saturday night, Obama attended a banquet of the Congressional Black Caucus, where he received an award. On Monday, a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the bailout, including Jesse Jackson, Jr., the co-chair of Obama?s campaign. Did Obama attempt to persuade the CBC members to support the bailout, or did he encourage them to oppose it with a wink and a nod?

Perhaps the view that Pelosi and the Dems wanted to help Obama and embarrass the Republicans more than they wanted to pass the legislation is too conspiratorial. I can be persuaded that?s true, but in order to persuade me you?ll have to demonstrate that Pelosi and Frank are so incompetent, or so dumb, that they didn?t know they didn?t have enough votes when they allowed the bill to be voted on.

Full post as published by Discriminations on September 30, 2008 (boomark / email).