Michael Moore Gets Results

Perhaps the House Republican leadership have read Michael Moore‘s latest diatribe?

Let me cut to the chase. The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies — who must soon vacate the White House — are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.

As it turns out, of course, the House Republicans killed the bailout legislation in question.  That was supported by Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats.   So, does this mean that it’s the Democrats who were trying to rob the good old American Middle Class and give the money to evil oilmen?

Or is this a classic Roseanne Roseannadanna “Never Mind” moment?

via Memeorandum

FILED UNDER: Economics and Business, Humor, Popular Culture, , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    As it turns out, of course, the House Republicans killed the bailout legislation in question.

    Hmmm… that’s odd. I thought the Democrats had a majority in the House and didn’t need Republican votes.

  2. James Joyner says:

    I thought the Democrats had a majority in the House and didn’t need Republican votes.

    Sure, for pure party line votes. But on massive bills that are being backed by a Republican president and Treasury Secretary? You’re going to need some Republican votes for that.

  3. Steve Verdon says:

    Yes, and the Republicans will likely say, “We gave the 1/3rd of our votes…what happend to the rest of theirs?”

  4. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    You’re going to need some Republican votes for that.

    They got 66 Republicans to vote for it, including my Republican rep. They needed only 13 votes to pass it and 92 Democrats voted against it.

    So explain to me again, how is this the fault of the Republicans?

  5. bains says:

    They needed only 13 votes to pass it and 92 Democrats voted against it.

    And they (the Democratic Party) control congress. Word is, she left it up to her caucus’s discresion whether or not to support this plan. And Pelosi is Speaker of the House?

    James, in retrospect, virtually every thing Moore has directed/produced is an “Emily Litella” (not Rosanna) moment.

  6. Boyd says:

    And Pelosi is Speaker of the House?

    In my cattier moments, I call her “Sphincter of the House.” But that’s probably unkind, and I should feel guilty for even thinking such a thing.

  7. Nice to know the game is called “Blame the Republicans.”

    Anybody else hear Nero’s fiddle?

  8. bains says:

    I should feel guilty for even thinking such a thing

    The left certainly wants you to feel guilty. But then, is not that one of the biggest differences between right and left?

  9. Brian says:

    I think everyone is missing the point here, and that is: Michael Moore’s an idiot.

  10. laura says:

    Micheal Moore is an independent, not a Democrat.

    There are a whole bunch of Democrats in Congress who didn’t like this bill because there was not enough oversight among other issues. The bill was weak on over site etc. as a compromise to get Republican votes in order to make the bailout be a genuine bipartisan bill.

    The Democratic leadership did try to get the majority of Democrats to back it out of concern for the country in general and out of fear of the consequences if no bailout was passed. It was the Republican leadership in the House that did not strong arm members–Boehner told the Republican House members to follow their consciences (I know, I know, a Republican House member with a conscience?)

    The Republicans did kill the bill.

    I can’t speak for MM, but my guess is that he wishes that the Democrats would write a bill that had no compromises in it to get Republican votes, just a straight Dem bill and put that up for a vote.

    Or maybe I’m projecting because that’s what I wish.

  11. Yes, because the minority can kill a bill in the House. This isn’t the Senate Laura. Oh, and they tried to get a straight Dem bill, but not even the Democrats would buy into the nonsense loaded onto it.

    You see Laura, some Democrats can actually think things through, see things clearly and be expected to do the right thing without having to get another piece for themselves. Alas, it seems to be too few to matter.

  12. Beldar says:

    Dr. Joyner, the Republicans didn’t kill this bill.

    This wasn’t a Republican bill. It was a Democratic bill. I know you understand the mechanisms of legislation, and I’m pretty sure you know that this was a bill drafted by Democrats, controlled by Democrats, and brought to a vote on the House floor by the Democratic leadership of the House. They permitted only such changes and compromises suggested by Republicans as they, the majority party in both chambers of Congress, decided to permit.

    I’m sure you understand what a “party loyalty” vote is — i.e., one in which the party leadership has told its membership that they are expected, as good party members, to vote the party line (rather than their unencumbered consciences).

    Nancy Pelosi made a conscious decision that this would not be a party loyalty vote. She decided that the House leadership would use none of its ample carrots or sticks to encourage the members of the Democratic Party to vote in favor of this bill that was drafted, brought to the floor, and nominally supported by the Democratic Party leadership.

    Any dozen change of votes would have resulted in a different outcome. Barney Frank had 12 Democrats on his own committee alone who voted against this bill.

    Seventy-five Democrats voted against this bill precisely because Nancy Pelosi made it a no-cost opportunity for them to shoot the finger at George W. Bush. No one’s committee assignments were jeopardized; no one’s staffing or budges; instead, Democrats were assured that they would not face so much as a whiff of party criticism for defying the superficial recommendations of the party leadership. The Democratic leadership committed not so much as a single parking space to get this bill passed.

    Whether one supports this bill or not, anyone who understands the basic mechanisms of Congress, the two-party system, and partisan voting cannot fail to reach the conclusion that the defeat of this bill must be laid at the feet of the majority party. For you to describe this bill as being killed by House Republicans is, with due respect, inaccurate and unworthy of your usually fine powers of observation and reasoning.