When being disingenuous comes back to bite Republicans in the ass

[ProSense]

From National Review:

Let’s see if we have this straight: whichever side of the issue you were on, yesterday’s vote was considered one of the most important ones members of Congress will ever face. Many respected voices argued that an economic catastrophe might follow in the wake of its defeat. Opponents of the legislation considered it a terrible violation of free-market principles. The stakes could not be higher.

After the legislation was defeated and only one-third of House Republicans backed the plan, John Boehner and Roy Blunt took to the microphones and indicated that Pelosi’s speech had been so alienating and offensive that a significant number of House Republicans changed their mind and voted against the bill.

Can they be serious? Do they realize how foolish and irresponsible they sound? On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting “the speech made me do it” is lame and adolescent. The vote, after all, was on the legislation, not the speech. And to say that a dozen members of your caucus voted not out of principle but out of pique is a terrible indictment of them. I hope we learn the names of these delicate figures whose feelings were so bruised and abused.

I have been defending House Republicans for a week against friends who thought they were acting in an irresponsible fashion. I argued they were people with admirable free-market principles who were simply trying to improve legislation and have their voices heard, something to which they were certainly entitled. And I thought they made the bill better than it was. But yesterday’s vote, and the excuses that followed the vote, have made me reassess my judgment. Watching Boehner, Blunt, and Cantor blame the outcome on the Pelosi speech was an embarrassment.

We are in one of the most dispiriting moments I have ever witnessed in Washington, when political authority seems to be collapsing all around us. House Republicans have contributed to this, and it’s a shame.

Wingnut Rod Dreher: The boo-hoo House Republicans

CQ Politics: Analysis: McCain’s Bailout Gamble Looks Like a Bad Roll

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. They're now running from that excuse. Today's spin: It was a principled stand.

[ProSense]

2. What Republicans need is a

time machine to erase these series of screw ups.

[ProSense]

3. Wow, Boehner's whine is turning out to be a major fail.

More National Review:

To be sure, Pelosi had delivered a less-than-conciliatory speech on the House floor, for a bill that was supposed to have been the product of painstaking bipartisan negotiations. She had said of Republicans: “They claim to be free market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline.” As she spoke in favor of a massive bailout of Wall Street, she offered the bizarre statement that “The party is over” for Wall Street. She pointedly accused Republicans of being avid corporate welfare supporters, right before they bucked their own leadership and killed her corporate welfare bill.

These were vitriolic words, intended to score partisan points irrespective of the common good. But do House Republican leaders really want us to believe that Republicans killed the bailout just because their feelings were hurt? Are they trying to tell us that Republicans are touchy whiners who will let their country down on a supposedly essential matter because they were offended by typical, turgid partisan rhetoric?

Why don’t Republicans adopt a different political tactic — the one that involves simply telling people what actually happened? The one that also happens to make political sense at a time when a mere 30 percent of Americans support the bailout of Wall Street and only 23 percent approve of the Bush administration’s performance in office?

House Republicans should brag: “We killed President Bush’s lousy corporate welfare bill, and now we’re going to pass something that’s better for the taxpayer.” Why not take credit for forcing the House to consider a better bill — a bill that shows more respect for responsible investors and homeowners? A bill that offers less padding for those who made bad financial decisions on Wall Street? Instead of lamenting the death of this bill, even the Republican leaders who voted for it can acknowledge that the “noes” had legitimate concerns that must be addressed.

Wingnuts searching for a new spin. LOL!