Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

After Bailout Bill Failure, An Un-Shanah-Like Shanah Tova

Rosh Hashanah, the start of the Jewish New Year, isn't exactly a day of fresh beginnings in the House, where partisan animosity remains intense a day after all hell broke loose.

The blame game continues over which party's House leadership is at fault for the stunning defeat Monday of a massive bipartisan $700 billion financial bailout bill. Mainly, it's a blame game over counting (or miscounting) votes.

While Republican leaders are blaming their Democratic counterparts for not whipping (counting) votes on their side of the aisle, Democrats say it is GOP vote counters who are to blame. As House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on this morning's "Today" show, "You deliver the votes you promised. Now, they did not keep their promise on the other side."

He was referring to an agreement he reached with House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and others in the wee hours Monday morning. According to aides, the bipartisan deal involved Democrats agreeing to deliver half of their caucus -- 118 votes -- and Republicans putting up the other half, 100 votes, to get to the magic number of 218 for passage.

In the end, the bill failed on a 228 to 205 vote, with 140 Democrats voting yes and 95 voting no; 65 Republicans approved the measure, 133 Republicans rejected it.

According to one Democratic leadership aide with knowledge of the deal, two hours before the floor vote, Blunt told Clyburn he could "only get to the high 80s." Meaning, he could get that many 'yes' votes. "Clyburn said, 'OK, I'll help you out, I'll spot you 15 votes and get to 133. You pick the rest,'" the aide tells us.

Obviously, the high 80s turned out to be a much chillier mid 60s. "Where were the votes?" the Dem leadership aide asked rhetorically of Blunt. "If you thought you only had 65, why didn't you say something?"

House Minority Leader John Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, sent reporters an email Tuesday evening pointing to a Politico story that said Clyburn, the House Democratic whip, "was not actually whipping this vote," as Steel put it. And he pointed to the Democratic leadership's "failure to get nearly 100 of their members to vote for the bipartisan financial rescue plan."

And Republicans -- though not all of them -- continued blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan floor speech as the reason why at least a dozen Republicans changed their minds at the last minute and voted against the bill. (Though Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) calls that a "stupid claim" by his leadership.)

As Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Monday, "I'll make an offer: Give me those twelve 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."

Frank is observing Rosh Hashanah today and, therefore, isn't taking press calls, his spokesman tells us. So he wasn't able to answer our question about whether he's finding the start of this new year to be one of fresh beginnings with his neighbors on the other side of the aisle.

By Mary Ann Akers  |  September 30, 2008; 1:30 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Campaign, Of MILF and Men
Next: Biden Camp Preps for Debate: 'Gender Isn't the Issue'


It looks like we already have our first New Year's gift from Jack Cafferty.

Cafferty has just skewered Sarah Palin again after a second Katie Couric interview (with John McCain by her side in case a tough question gets asked).

I have just posted the video, along with the original video where Cafferty calls Palin "pathetic."

You can see both videos right now at:

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 30, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

i think everyone should read this! i wonder why this isnt being reported on by the media?

Posted by: adrian | September 30, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

From "Fact Of The Matter"

Camp McCain today issued a new Propaganda ad Called "rein", in which the RNC pointedly accusses the Democrats for the oncoming financial catastrophe that this current administration, and not too mention The past Administreation of Ronald W. Reagan' which begin this snowball effect when they begin undoing the regulations that were in place for banks....

Regarding "Regulating Banks: Enough Already" (Viewpoints, Feb. 7), let's see if I have it straight. Deregulation in the 1980's under President Reagan led to the savings and loan scandal, which led to the Federal bailout, which led to increasing the national debt -- and in the process caused some people to be led to jail.

Now comes Jay Baris, a New York financial services lawyer, arguing (presumably with a straight face) that President Clinton should further deregulate banks. Am I missing something?


Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system
By Martin McLaughlin
1 November 1999
Use this version to print

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.


John McCain: The Deregulator
I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.”
– John McCain [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, 4/23/08]

McCain Is An Avid Supporter Of Lax Rules For Financial Institutions
McCain Supported A Banking Bill Because It Eliminated “The Tremendous Regulatory Burden Imposed On Financial Institutions.” While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, “This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions… One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.” [Congressional Record, 11/19/93; emphasis added]

so we now have a brief history leading up to this mess and John McCain is wrapped right in the middle of the NET of blame he is trying to cast on the DEMOCRATIC PARTY
while he lies in this propaganda ad that Obama is silent...

Posted by: need4trth | October 1, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

For the record, the title of this piece roughly translated into a "non year new year." I'm guessing Ms. Akers wanted to say an "Un-Tovah Shanah Tovah" which would suggest a "non good new year."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Wonder if there is any truth to the actual candidate that bumps off mutual opponent will win in November regardless of debates, issues and poll numbers.

Apparently the mutual opponent exposed corruption within both political parties and is presently targeted.

The question is how?

Will these parties use the popular practice of sweetheart exchange dealing where convicts commit crimes/murders in exchange for less jail time, conveniently covered up and culprits are not suspected?

For example, will GOP use a Guiliani-like mob ties such as used by his protege, ex-NYPD commissioner who got indicted and may be serving up to 140 years in jail? Or Gotti, Jr. who may be available for the gig as he is in the midst of his conspiracy/murder trial?

Will Dems use an OJ Simpson-like black convict with jail time? It appears that he may be available too since he is in the middle of his robbery and kidnapping trial.

As this information is revealed, should we worry about our physical safety too? For example, should we worry about our car being tampered with, walking or jogging in public or sleeping in the middle of the night inside our home as all our habits and plans are known in advanced due to bugging devices? And would such orchestrated attacks once discovered be conveniently considered as 'random' to simply further distract the public from the real truths?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I think you mean an un-tovah like shanah tovah

Posted by: josh | October 2, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company