Well, his work was done.
Could you maybe give the rest of us a scorecard, so we know which Republican congressman to believe when he gets on national TV and declares that they have an agreement that will pass both the House and the Senate?
Sure. As soon as you cite a Republican doing that.
Why don’t you just give us a name up front that’s credible. Are there any you WON’T believe?
WTF? You want me to give you a name for a Strawman? No thanks.
Again, cite the Republican that announced there was an acceptable deal for both the Senate and House.
Also, from the original AP article: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioHc80xKMiATnqCpK0cDKJzk_nPQD93DU0FG0
Robert Bennett. Pay attention, would you?
If you need a scorecard, that should tell you there isn’t an agreement. Hell, I’m not seeing much agreement among economists on this monstrosity of a bailout plan.
Now, McCain is certainly handling his side of this in a bumbling manner, but I’ve not seen evidence that the House Republicans, as a caucus, were comfortable with this deal. Some may have been, but others not. And the “not” side turned out winning the argument, at least for the time being.
The need for a scorecard is that we have Republicans saying that they have reached an agreement, and Republicans saying that they haven’t. And a Republican candidate for president not really saying much at all.
If we’re no longer dealing with one Republican party, it would be nice to know if I need a “R-House” or “R-Senate” or somesuch after someone’s name to know what talking points they are spinning from.
There is a huge difference between “I expect that we will indeed have a plan’ and 'We have a plan”.
For example, most people on this board expect Obama to win the Presidency. Does that mean that its a done deal? No.
Here’s a quick guide. If they have R-Senate or D-Whatever, they don’t speak for the R-House. I’ll leave the rest for you to extrapolate.
I said that a Republican had announced “that they have an agreement that will pass both the House and the Senate”. There is a huge difference between what I said and what you, here, are attempting to imply that I said.
So you can’t give us a scorecard of which Republican to believe, then.
edit: Ah, yes. Two Republican parties, then. Well, three if we count the White House lame ducks.
Whoever said that either party always had to speak with one mind at all times? What was the Democratic Party’s position on the Iraq AUMF? The Senate was virtually split down the middle.
Oh, and if you want a non-political reason for why lawmakers aren’t too keen on this bailout:
Do yiou understand the reason for that question. We were told yesterday by BOTH Democratic and Republican Senators that a deal had been reached. If Bennett was lying, it’s only fair to ask which Republicans we’re allowed to believe.
Since Paulson’s plan has been dead since thursday, and was not under discussion yesterday, this poll has no relevance.
Bennet did not say that. He said that he expected that they would have an agreement.
Well, I guess that you said that, since I made no such claim. It is a bit confusing when you have Republicans negotiating on behalf of the Republican party with Democrats on behalf of their party, who come out and announce they have something that will satisfy both the House and the Senate… and then get sandbagged by their own Republican collegues in the House.
I’m rather keen on knowing which politician I can trust to know what the hell he is talking about for his party. But then, I’m odd that way, I guess.
And thanks, but no I don’t need non-political reasons for why lawmakers aren’t keen on the bailout. The whole damn country has a myriad of reasons why they aren’t keen on the bailout.
Well, my goodness. That nitpick completely proves your point.
He wasn’t lying. His expectations were incorrect. Just like all the people who expected the Patriots to beat the Dolphins last weekend. Doesn’t mean they all lied when then picked the Patriots in their NFL pools.