>>>>>>>>>>Nancy Pelosi says the Rs failed, but, as Sheppard Smith pointed out, the Ds have the votes to pass this thing, without the Rs. Then she wants to rail against the Rs for this mess, when the whole housing thing was brought about by the Ds forcing lending agencies to loan money to people who could not pay.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Come on John. The Dems voted to pass it, and the Reps voted to kill it. If a mere 12 of the 133 Rep 'no' votes had been 'yes' votes, it would have passed. You can spin this any way you want, but the vote went the way it did and it's on record. I even see that Pelosi voted to pass it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What if 12 Dems voted yes? It comes to generics, Alan. Let's look at this board. As I see it, correct me if I am wrong, Democrats essentially supported the bill, and Republicans not. Would it be difficult to put your vote where your words are?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dems supported it and Reps did not. Yes. That's exactly what I said. John wants to blame the Dems for not passing the bill, but it was the reps who overwhelmingly voted against it. What was it you thought I said?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understood your message clearly, Alan, and it was a wrong message, showing, hopefully, certain level of political naivety (don't mind, I know you).
>>>>>>When a political party wants to put a bill through then it marches all members in strict order, very few can go against the party when vote really wanted by party leadership. Dem support was half-hearted, 90 Dems voted against. I don't mind it, because I don't like the bill, but you (in political sense) are the different story. You wanted the bill and still you don't care that 90 people from your side voted against it. Would it be a bit more honest to explain your side moves in clearer terms before going for bad guys in the opposite corner?
>>>>>
>>>>>When did I say I wanted the bill to pass? In fact, I am neither rep not dem, though I admit I am probably more dem than rep. I was only arguing that expecting the dems to vote unanimously while allowing the reps to vote however they like is not a good argument for blaming the entire failure to pass on the dems.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you pay attention? I specifically said that I use word "you" in political sense, i.e. 'your side', i.e. Dem. party. Dem.party constituency wants the bill so it could be expected that Dem.party having majority in both chambers should push the bill through regardless to another party opposition. Imho, it is a very clear notion.
>>>
>>>You are correct. I missed the inference of (in a political sense). Though I'm still not really a Dem politically. I don't think that Pelosi is the Dem Party any more than Bush is the Rep Party. The fact that Pelosi wanted it to pass does not mean all the other members of the party to want it to pass. Clearly that was not the case, unless you are going to get all Machiavelian on me and say that the vote on the Dem side was scripted.
>>
>>Sure, D's are not mandated to vote for it but they owe some explanations of their actions and that's exactly the problem. R's said clearly what they don't like in the bill and why they vote against it. Did D's say it?
>
>There's something I don't get. What is it then with those 65 R (I'm not really sure about that number, but that's what the news here were reporting) who did say yes to the bill?

There was intensive lobbying by Administration, i.e. Bush personally asked R's to vote for it. At the same time, Rep. constituency is against the bill, so it was a tough choice for some R's in the Congress.