"Head up one's arse" is, I think, the technical term for it.

What's happened with the GOP? For years they have always been able to keep their lies straight, and now it seems like every one of them has to make up their own story?

Crowley/TNR - not to p*ss on the snarkfest against OtherSide, but could we please have some interviews and reportage about those * * *  82 Democrats * * *  who, per Nate S, are in completely safe districts and nonetheless voted against this POS bill?

Why did they buck Pelosi and shoot this thing down? Obviously, these 82 Dems have substantive objections. What are they?

tia,

t

icarus, what is this "arse" of which you speak?  Talk American, dammit!

It's as if the dark age of Bush has passed, someone turned the lights on in the kitchen, and all the roaches are frantically running around confused.

Ah, my old buddy Congresswoman Bachmann (formerly State Senator Bachmann).  As someone who has worked with her, I can only say that she has some unique perspectives on the world and is certainly--and consistently--her own person.

DrDan, did not want any confusion between the buttocks out of the middle of which Republican speaking points ooze out, and the Democratic donkey.  Beauty of English, you can draw upon specific words to convey specific meanings, when generic terms might lead to confusion.

Any way, I'm a Canuck, and a heavily anglophile monarchist one at that; and despite spending two years in Indianapolis and Boston, I've had to learn how to say oot and aboot and shejule and arse ...  

I'd say it sounds like she's being honest. Good for her!

Monarchist, you say?  Well, it's hardly been a banner week for democracy.

DeDan: there's no substitute for an old Queen ;-) ... and who would not want Willie as the next Sovereign?  Honestly, if you have to have as the Head of State a dissolute gin-soaked lightweight son of an aritocratic dynasty, would go rather go with W or The Tampon, even if he is married to Caligula's horse?

Nancy Pelosi missed the chance of a lifetime to be statesmanlike at a critical historic juncture.

Instead she made an inanely partisan speech at the pivotal hour, questioning the patriotism of the GOP congressmen and attempting to blame the Republicans for the current problems.

It was unnecessary, counterproductive, and itself unpatriotic.  

I doubt if it was the speech itself that made the vote go south.  But, Pelosi stupidly put a nail in her own reputation.

For awhile during this, I was ready to modify my previous opinion that Pelosi was something of an idiot.  

In the end, she made that reversal unnecessary.

Tell me that you don't actually believe what you just wrote, Chan. So the GOP killed a bill they claimed was necessary to avert disaster because Pelosi's general actions cemented her reputation? Isn't that even a more lame excuse than blaming the speech?

Yes, Jeff, it is.  But that doesn't obviate the fact that the Speaker showed extremely poor judgment in making a fundraising speech at that point.

She is already an embarassment, so no surprise there.  Maybe by Thursday she and the nos will all be able to play nice.

Complete and total rubbish Chan.  In deals like this, both sides come up with the necessary votes.  That's the statesmanlike thing to do.

Pelosi may have stepped up to, and perhaps over, the line, but they all big kids out there and as such should be able to handle themselves.  If they can't take their medicine, they should find another line of work.

Nothing funnier that a bunch of conservative proto-libertarians running around with "hurt feelings."

Jeff - nevermind Chan.  He, like other Republicans, has gone batshit.  To say that a "partisan" speech - whatever the hell that means - was "unpatriotic" is precisely the same kind of "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" crap that has sullied the reputation of the US and that has led to this political impasse today.  

When Granpa McSimpson is running around the country and actively lying about Obama's credit or fault in this episode, Chan has the unmitigated chutzpah to label Pelosi unpatriotic?

Johnson was right: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.  To pull that particular card, right now, in respect of a speech that is being mirrored on the other side in equal measure - if not more bitterly - is not just being a scoundrel, a knave and rook, it is morally repugnant.

The reason paleoconservative Congressmen voted against the "rescue" is pretty straightforward:  they are elected from paleoconservative districts, and safe districts at that.  Although Nate has also shown that members who were in "swing" districts also tended to vote against the bill, far more of the GOP members who voted against where doing only what they were "supposed" to do:  represent their constituents.

We tend to forget that Congressional districts tend to be relatively homogeneous politically, partly because of a natural demographic gerrymand and partly because state legislatures so some more artificial gerrymandering by adding a bit more security to the seats of members from the majority party in the state.  In contrast, U.S. Senators represent more diverse districts -- the whole state, not a part of it. And as a result they tend to be less driven to the far right or left than members of the House of Representatives.

This difference was largely anticipated by the Federalists (with the added aspect that in the Constitution of 1787 Senators were elected indirectly, by state legislatures).

Hey Icky, don't you know the Democrats have to smile while they eat this shit sandwich served to us by the Bush administration while the Republicans in congress get to vote no and trumpet it to their constituents back home? 2/3rds voted no. As it only helps Obama for the economy to tank then the Dems should hold out until that 2/3rds becomes a yes vote (I wouldn't hold out for any higher since probably 1/3 of Republicans in the house are basically batshit insane)

Time for Dems to play hardball like they never had before, the day after election day they can pass whatever they want without Republicans.

"...don't you know the Democrats have to smile while they eat this shit sandwich served to us by the Bush administration..."

Blackie, I think you've hit the nail on the head in regards to the reason for Nancy's monologue. If Dems have to eat a shit sandwich, she's going to serve up some hot crow for the Repugs.

Chan, how is villifying the Bush administration and "some" Republicans (she corrected herself to not accuse Republicans in general) for their ideology of fiscal malpractice to be qualified as Partisan? Such willfully liberal interpretation of words seems rather Partisan to me.

Mack2, actually Congresswoman Bachmann's district is hardly the home to the paleo-conservative.  It's a booming outer-ring/exurban district with a lot of financially stressed 30-to-45 year old residents who are mortgaged and second-mortgaged to the hilt, which makes this vote odd on a straightforward ecnomic basis as interest rates will probably rise and put these folks, many of whom have more garage stalls than bedrooms, in even tighter circumstances.

But again, Congresswoman Bachmann is nothing if not consistent.  This is her line and if she goes off the plank (not likely), she won't have second thoughts.

Mack - of the 95 Dem nay votes, 82 were in safe districts. Either a) Congress harbors vastly more loony leftists than you or I ever imagined, or b) some/many of these people have intelligent and principled, dare one say populist, objections to this POS plan.

Still waiting to see some reporting that will give us an indication of the relative weight of a) and b)