Can I ask some dumb questions? How/why is the failure of the latest deal being assigned to Republicans, particularly southern Republicans? Certainly, the outcome most reflects their sentiment, but if you look at the composition of the vote and the Senate, it looks pretty much like a Republican breakdown, if you assume that Republicans' logical role would have been to oppose the bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_autos
(read the whole article for the Republicans block angle, but here's the vote breakdown)
"The Senate rejected the bailout 52-35 on a procedural vote — well short of the 60 required — after the talks fell apart. Just 10 Republicans joined 40 Democrats and two independents in backing it. Three Democrats sided with 31 Republicans in opposition. Reid also voted "no" for procedural reasons."
Is this pretty much just self-serving spin for everyone so that people who want to be seen as pro-union or pro-US automaker can be, even though they didn't deliver any relief, and southern Republicans can spin it as delivering what their constituents wanted as well, even though if you really look at how the actual vote played out, it hardly seems like a Republican success at all? (if you start with 49 GOP members, and you lose 10 and another six or seven don't apparently vote. . . )
(And, hey Democrats, if you start with 48 members and keep them and get them all to vote and pick up 10 GOP votes and two independents, hey, guess what? you're at 60.)
But, apparently according to the media, the GOP only needs 31 people to hold the line to get what they want. I guess the recent Senate elections weren't as bad as reported for the GOP.
Hybrid Mode
