Look:

“The money the Hiawatha lost will go into the fuel tanks and the pockets of Arab countries,” a Chronicle editorial warned on October 7, 1979. “Now that makes sense, if you don’t know what you’re doing.”

Link: newwest.net/to...

In any event, and getting back to the main point, why you blame the injection of presidential politics on someone pointing out that McCain’s triumphalist yet unsuccessful “return” to (or march onto ) Washington was accompanied by all the unnecessary histrionics (including the farcical notion that he actually suspended his campaign to do so, for one) is very strange. Either candidate could have attended, and indeed, they both did. But only one of them did it without the sense of spectacle that McCain wanted to attach to his version of it. At the end of the day, it didn’t seem to help much with anything anyway – at least not with McCain’s alleged attempts to corral his own troops. And yet, you point to others for simply noting that as the unecessary intrusion. Bizarre.

Second, if Republicans don’t have enough of a conscience or the intellectual faculties necessary for defending their vote regardless of how one (anyone!) later would cast it, that’s their problem. I’m of the nostalgic notion that if a legislator wants to defend their job, let alone the supposed nobility of their own profession, it’s incumbent upon them to reconcile their actions with their constituents in a way that they feel ideological comfortable with. Period.

Perhaps if Pelosi were more Macchiavellian she would have kept her powder dry until after the election. But she was just speaking her mind. Oh, the humanity of it! But then again, this is Bush’s DC. She just vies for power within it. Speaking one’s mind seems to have become an endemic thing, doesn’t it?

And third, both sides realized, accounted for and approved that some of their members would support it and some wouldn’t. At least, before the vote they did. As they’re supposed to. It’s called vote counting. Any one of the other factors you mention would be worth looking into, but I simply don’t see why the hurt feelings of public servants should derail a vote. Does Pelosi deserve some blame for that? I suppose in a perfect world where the presumption of emotional maturity is not absolutely assured she does. Do the Democrats deserve to be lambasted for the House’s approval rating? Perhaps. But that will only matter to the public once a real Democratic leader emerges and wipes aside the penchant for subterfuge created by the current administration. And hopefully that won’t be too hard to accomplish this November. This vote and the crisis created by its detractors party shouldn’t derail that prediction too badly.

And finally, fourth, it seems that even Republican David Gergen isn’t having any of this letting the Republicans off the hook talk when it comes to assessing primary responsibility.

Cheers!

This is absurd.

Shalom….

In any event, and getting back to the main point, why you blame the injection of presidential politics on someone pointing out that McCain’s triumphalist yet unsuccessful “return” to Washington was accompanied by all the unnecessary histrionics (including the farcical notion that he actually suspended his campaign to do so, for one) is very strange. Either candidate could have attended, and indeed, both did, without the sense of spectacle that McCain wanted to attach to his version of it. At the end of the day, it didn’t seem to help much with anything anyway – at least not with McCain’s alleged attempts to corral his own troops. And yet, you point to others for simply noting that as the unecessary intrusion. Bizarre.

Second, if Republicans don’t have enough of a conscience or the intellectual faculties necessary for defending their vote regardless of how one (anyone!) later would cast it, that’s their problem. I’m of the nostalgic notion that if a legislator wants to defend their job, let alone the supposed nobility of their own profession, it’s incumbent upon them to reconcile their actions with their constituents in a way that they feel ideological comfortable with. Period.

If Pelosi were more Macchiavelian she should have just saved her powder for then. But she was just speaking her mind. Oh, the humanity of it! But this is Bush’s DC.

And third, both sides realized, accounted for and approved that some of their members would support it and some wouldn’t. At least, before the vote they did. As they’re supposed to do. It’s called vote counting.

Any one of the other factors you mention would be worth looking into, but I simply don’t see why the hurt feelings of public servants should derail a vote. Does Pelosi deserve some blame for that? I suppose in a perfect world where the presumption of emotional maturity is not absolutely assured she does. Do the Democrats deserve to be lambasted for the House’s approval rating? Perhaps. But that will only matter to the public once a real Democratic leader emerges and wipes aside the penchant for subterfuge created by the current administration. And hopefully that won’t be too hard to accomplish this November. I don’t think this vote or the current crisis will hurt it much either way.

As for Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat leadership: Harry Reid set the tone by demanding McCain’s assent to the bill, only to inject presidential politics by accusing McCain of injecting presidential politics when he returned to DC. As for yesterday– you had Rep. Van Hollen on NPR prior to the vote, saying that the Democrats planned to use an aye vote against Republicans in the fall. Meanwhile, Pelosi’s telling certain Dem members they could vote against the bill. She’s asking Republicans to vote in favor while threatening to attack them for it next month.

And they wonder (or do they care?) why they have a nine per cent approval rating. Plenty of dysfunction to go around.