A Political Nitwit ....

is how Washington WMAL talk show host Chris Plante refers this morning to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in her handling of yesterday's House vote on the $ 700 billion bailout package for Wallstreet.

Pelosi emboldened by what she thought was the certain passage of the bill lambasted the Republican members of the House and the Bush administration before the vote with an inflammatory partisan speech seeking to gain political advantage for the Obama campaign.

Some Republicans pointed directly to the Pelosi speech as the reason for the bill's failure. Other House members, Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank among them countered that the notion Pelosi was at fault was absurd and a Pelosi aide stated that members vote on "the bill, not the speech". Frank also commented that he felt he was "not in a position to assess the reasons for the opposition to the bailout bill", even though 12 of his own committee members voted against it.

An interesting comment nonetheless from Frank, since Nancy Pelosi failed to deliver some 95 Democrats from her own Party in support of passage, including prominent committee and subcommittee chairs. Even though the Democratic party is in control of the House, Pelosi could not insure a Democratic majority for the Bill's passage, suggesting that 40 % of the Democrats found the bill to be sufficiently flawed - preventing them from voting for it.

The dissenting Republicans from the outset cited the fundamental structural problems of the bill and the saddling of the American taxpayer with a $ 700 billion debt burden - which they reported was the chief concern of their constituencies running at a ratio of 15 to 1 and as much as 20 to 1 against the bill opposed to favoring its passage.

Political Arm Twisting -

Generally, when Democrats and Republicans call for bipartisan cooperation most are really ducking for cover especially when it comes to legislation that is either widely unpopular but deemed necessary, profound in its potential consequence especially if it fails, or can be used for political advantage in upcoming elections - "If we work together on this and even though I may have to share any success with you at least you can't put me to political disadvantage and injure me if it fails!".

And all too commonly it's manifested in the practice of "arm twisting" by each party's leadership and rank and file at the back of the chamber out of range of earshot and the microphones. This is the political give and take of the legislative process of maintaining non-partisan balances and securing "deals".

Those members who might in principle be opposed to a bill and could be expected to vote against it but could be persuaded to support it are sought out by those seeking the bill's passage and it runs something like this. "Look, I don't like this damn thing and won't support it and won't vote for it", "Okay, I understand that but this bill is really important to me, and I'm asking you to do this personally for me.", "All right, but you owe me in the future when I need your support."

"“I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for the partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the House,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said. “We put everything we had into getting the vote to get there today.”

Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he had 12 Republicans who would have voted for the bill but changed their minds, while member Eric Cantor holding up a copy of what he said was Pelosi’s floor remarks - said the speaker “frankly struck the tone of partisanship.”".

Barney Frank complained loudly that it was irresponsible of the Republicans who said they would vote for the bill and then changed their minds after Pelosi's speech. Although, Frank knew full well that the votes reverted to their original opposition, not because they were "mad" at the Speaker as he said but because she and the Democrats by injecting partisanship (again) into the process had not honored the "arm twisting" deals.

No doubt Pelosi had the votes needed for passage before the roll was called. And no doubt her insults drove them away when she tried to inject a partisan shift in advantage that could be later used against those who had been "arm twisted' into supporting it.

Last evening Bill O'reilly reported that a 70,000 person survey by Fox news on the issue of who is to blame for the financial crisis, found 56 % attributed it squarely as a failure of Congress, with 20 % believing that unqualified borrowers were to blame, 19 % felt it to be the responsibility of "bad companies" (presumably, ceo's as well as predatory lending practices) and only 5 % felt that it was the fault of the Bush Administration.

Commentary last evening and this morning was divided along two lines: that Congressional leadership and the Administration failed to adequately explain both the urgency and impact on the average American citizen and those voting against it lacked "courage", failing to demonstrate leadership by virtue of a "safe" vote - basically, that the public, is "too dumb" to get it and that disaster is upon us because the bill failed! Not surprisingly Wallstreet, much of the press and the politicians who supported passage of the bill cling to this explanation and fear.

The other view is that in the rush to bailout Wallstreet that the American taxpayer is unfairly being called upon again to shoulder the responsibility of the failure of others - perhaps justifiably the American public no longer trusts Congressional and Administration leadership to get it right without screwing the public one more time - and they want all options to be considered; especially those that can avoid further financial burden now and in the future rather than the present alarmist "you have to shake em' up first before you shake 'em down !" approach.

Somewhere in the middle of all the chatter is the notion and growing consensus that there is a deepening financial crisis and some intervention by the Government is necessary soon.

All parties seemed to have pledged now to work in a non-partisan way to further modify the existing bill or craft a new one for the bailout.

Yesterday's vote though is just another ongoing example that Nancy Pelosi's zeal to blatantly advance her Party's interests makes her unfit to serve as Speaker of the House.

As one wag pointed out - "Bad Politics, Bad Bill, Bad Speaker - Bad, Bad, Bad!".

And another, "Congress actually voted as it's constituency wanted truly representing the people - Good God, what a radical idea!".