I’ve been frightened for my country only a few times in my life: In 1962, when, even as a boy of 9, I followed the tension of the Cuban missile crisis; in 1963, with the assassination of J.F.K.; on Sept. 11, 2001; and on [this past] Monday, when the House Republicans brought down the bipartisan rescue package.
–Thomas Friedman, in Rescuing the Rescue
Oh, please.
Ditto, #1.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would point to the failure of Pelosi to rally her Democrats to vote for the first bill, followed by her success in rallying the vote for the pork-laden second bill.
reason #89,764 why the NYT is losing readers even faster than ECUSA is losing members……
If you read the entire column way down at the bottom he grudingly admits it was both parties who defeated the measure. So I’m really curious why he put the line in about the Republicans high up in the article.
Oh wait, Thomas Friedman, New York Times, never mind.
Heh — I’m frightened by my country having a Senate and House that voted to nationalize an industry, so we’re even.
Shame on Friedman. Why is he posted here?
Someone needs to remind Friedman that the Democrats have a clear voting majority in both the House and the Senate, so it is technically and impossibility for the Republicans to block any vote that the Dem leadership really backs.
Judith or anyone, was the first vote straight down the line by party? I think not. I know my Democratic representative voted for the first bailout proposal.
No, the first vote was not along party lines. A substantial number of Democrats voted no. The point is, if it had been along party lines, it would have passed, Democrats being the majority party. Therefore, the idea that the Republicans killed the bill is requires tortured logic.
Friedman ought to stick to making stupid predictions about foreign policy. At least he sounds plausible in that field.
To me, Judith, the first vote says that people actually voted – a rarity – on what seemed best to them, whether in response to their constituencies or any other motivation. If there was a crossing of lines on both sides, I don’t think *either* party can blame the other for the failure. Just how it looks to me. I found Friedman’s piece to echo my own profound anxiety about the situation. And I think nothing is going to get better until elected offiicials put aside their pork barrels and try to figure out what is in the best interest of the whole country. Even if they get it wrong, they will get points from me for seeing beyond Party. I’m tired of banner waving and name calling when we’re in the middle of a crisis at home and abroad. And if we can’t see beyond that, things will only get worse.
Sherri
Why do Democrats get a pass when they vote their conscience but not Republicans?
I don’t know if the bill should have passed or not, but there are enough Dems that if they had wanted it passed, it could have happened!
It is disingenuous at best, to blame the failure on the Republicans.
Maybe, for once, our reps did try to lead.
Sherri #11, my problem with that is that they [i]nearly always[/i] get it wrong. This crunch is due in no small measure to the politicians “doing something” by creating Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, thus comforting banks who might otherwise have been more risk-averse in their mortgage lending. Political solutions typically merely postpone problems, and frequently exacerbate them.
GaryS, I can’t answer your question because I never said the failure of the bill was due to Republicans. If you actually read my post you will see that I said I didn’t believe either party could blame the other for the initial defeat. I haven’t even looked at the votes as a whole to see how they broke down – I only checked my own representative. Craig, “nearly always wrong” might be better odds than what we appear to be faced with. The scary thing to me is that we are faced with a financial crisis, crises internationally – and what appears to me like a leadership vacuum. 🙁
Addressed priorly here: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/16674/#comments
My comments remain the same.
“If you read the entire column way down at the bottom he grudgingly admits it was both parties who defeated the measure. So I’m really curious why he put the line in about the Republicans high up in the article†—Jim of Lapeer [#4]
Well, Jim, 60% of House Democrats voted for the bill on Sept. 29, and 67% of House Republicans voted against it. Most readers would think that significant. It might just explain why Friedman gave more prominence to Republican opposition.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“It is disingenuous at best, to blame the failure on the Republicansâ€
—GaryS [#12]
Republicans provided three of every five votes cast against the bill.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“There are enough Dems that if they had wanted it passed, it could have happened!â€
Funny thing, but the bailout was proposed by the Bush Administration. They wanted it and told us we urgently needed it to avoid a global financial meltdown. House Democrats acceded to the administration’s request. They didn’t like it and had no special duty to bludgeon dissenting Democrats into supporting it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would point to the failure of Pelosi to rally her Democrats to vote for the first bill, followed by her success in rallying the vote for the pork-laden second billâ€
—Katherine [#2]
You would then have taken leave of your usual good sense and become as accurate as most conspiracy theorists. Speaker Pelosi did a far better job of rallying her Democrats than the Administration and John Boehner did of rallying their Republicans.
Much of the pork in the bill, including the deposit-insurance increase and many of the tax provisions, was calculated to attract Republican votes.
Mr. Friedman makes his money selling what he writes. He had a good idea a few years ago and has been milking it ever since. This is all hype for PR purposes.
Thomas Friedman just lost my respect. What a truly stupid thing to say.
Now if Mr. Friedman had been frightened for his country when Barney Frank and his Democrat colleagues were blocking reform of Freddie and Fannie then I’d be impresssed.
Why was he afraid for his country when JFK was assassinated? Presidents had been assassinated before and the country survived just fine (though the South certainly had a harder time under Lincoln’s successor). No reason not to expect it to survive JFK’s demise either.
Just silly.
evan miller, how old do you suppose he was when JFK was assassinated? I was a child, the Cuban Missile Crisis was raw in my memory, we were in the darkest days of the Cold War – I was afraid for our country when JFK was assassinated. My parents were afraid. I don’t actually know anyone who was alive then, who wasn’t afraid. But Friedman was probably a child at the time, like I was.
“Why was he afraid for his country when JFK was assassinated? … Just silly”
—Evan [#20]
Friedman was all of 9 years old. No president had been assassinated since Friedman’s parents were children. We were, as Sherri notes [#21], “in the darkest days of the Cold War.” So save your scorn for something blameworthy.
#21 and #22
I was 12 years old and neither I nor any of my friends were scared. I didn’t live in fear either, even though we were “in the darkest days of the cold war.” Sorry, but I still think Friedman’s statement is silly.
“I was 12 years old and neither I nor any of my friends were scared”
Well, good for you!