Just a quickie today:
Question: Where is Barack Obama? The man is the newly annointed head of the Democratic Party. He could tell his followers in Congress that for the good of the country, they have to vote for this, awful as it is. Has he? No. Why? Either because he doesn't understand what we are actually facing, or because he sees it's unpopular and hasn't the guts to risk his lead in the polls by swimming against present opinion.
The country cannot abide such "leadership." You can't just vote "present" on this one. Nor would such a "vote" by Obama be honest, since in fact he's not even present. . . .
Can anyone spot what's wrong with this rant?
Yeah, that's right.
Since Paul Mirengoff and his friend Bill Otis appear not to be aware of this tidbit:
Barack Obama is a United States SENATOR.
The bailout bill that was voted on today was in the United States HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
In case it still isn't clear:
Senators do not vote on House Resolutions. They vote on Senate Resolutions. That's why they're called Senators.
Now, you can certainly argue about whether or not Obama showed enough "leadership" in trying to persuade his fellow Dems in the House to vote in favor of the bill, but that's a different discussion. Plus, he stated pretty clearly that he had serious misgivings about the bill as written anyway, so I don't know that he was in favor of the version voted on today anyway. Finally, HE wasn't the one crowing about how he--and ONLY he--had the magical power to bend the U.S. Congress to his will on this issue; that was McCain, who failed miserably).
That is all.
Actually, as long as I'm wasting a diary on such a trivial display of stupidity, I just gotta ask: How pathetic is it for the GOP to blame their voting down the bill on their "feelings being hurt" by Pelosi and on "the Jewish Holiday" (it's called Rosh Hashanah, guys)? Look, as far as I can tell, this was a lousy bill and there were many legitimate reasons to vote against it...so why on earth would they make up such ridiculous rationales for doing so? Why not just say, "it was a terrible bill" and leave it at that?