Seriously?

Despite a clear partisan vote on the House version of the Stimulus bill, in which NO Republican voted for the bill, along with 11 democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thought that she'd use the liberal-friendly media to try to spin the circumstances of the voting and her incorrigible attitude towards conservatism. Any time you can achieve a big fat zero on the number of votes on a bill from the other party, it's usually a bigger sign that there is an absence of the majority party working with the minority...and this time the shutout is just doggone impressive. Conditions behind the scenes must be especially toxic to not gain ONE SINGLE Republican vote.

Yet, Speaker Pelosi tried to sprinkle some Obama fairy dust on herself to make herself seem like the good guy during a press conference yesterday to desperately explain the vote results:

“I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan..."

Okay, Nancy...let me explain this s-l-o-w-l-y...there are two options:

1. Work with other members of the Congress that belong to the other party (bipartisan)

2. Don't work with other members of the Congress that belong to the other party (partisan).

There is no such thing as "nonpartisan"...you can't "transcend party lines" by shutting people out of the process. For the liberal press and the dembots who listen and accept Pelosi's explanations whole-heartedly, the introduction of this non-word was the equivalent of distracting them with something shiny.

Let's look at the holes in the rest of her statement, to look for clues why Republicans, NOT ONE, voted for this bill:

"The president’s agenda is reflected in this legislation. It’s — I mentioned, some of the priorities that were there about creating jobs, cutting taxes, helping states through this difficult economic time, and to do so in a fiscally sound way."

Hmmm...this bill did NOT create jobs...cut taxes...or help states. I can't imagine why the Republicans would not support this bill. If anything, by drafting this bill in the first place, Obama showed his naivety regarding the appropriations process. Much of the content put forth in this stimulus bill was nothing more than augmentations to already-existing entities, namely Federal agencies and departments. All that needed to be done was to have these projects inserted into the spending bills for these entities. But the reason why this was NOT done was not so much because of the "need for swift action" but rather that the ideas for a lot of these projects would be debated, AS SPENDING BILLS SHOULD BE, COMRADE PELOSI. Since a lot of these ideas were half-baked, they would not have escaped scrutiny, and with enough attention to them, would certainly be defeated one by one. So giving money to Federal agencies and departments to spend would NOT create more jobs.

This bill does not cut taxes for obvious reasons. It does no good to have tax cuts be a portion of the bill when the size of the spending itself is so large that there is no way you can cut taxes going forward...the Federal deficit is essentially being doubled with this bill and not only will we pay for it, but so will our children, and their children, and their children...

This bill also fails to help states because 1) it's not going to get released fast enough to do any good and 2) a lot of this spending doesn't happen for 1-2 more years.

So let's review...Obama's agenda set out to 1) create jobs, 2) cut taxes, and 3) help states, and this bill does none of these...and that's why the Republicans voted en masse against this bill.

"People vote for what they believe in. Clearly, the Republicans did not believe in the agenda that I just described for you, and that’s probably one of the reasons they voted that way. I think they probably voted their conscience and they couldn’t support that."

It's hard to believe in something when you're not involved in the process, largely because the demoncrats didn't send you an invitation and changed all the locks.

We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. They were part of the original bill, with the — some of the tax provisions were their suggestions. They had what they asked for in terms of committee mark-up. They had the rule on the floor that gave them plenty of opportunity to make changes. They just didn’t have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress. ”

Reached out? If you include stiff-arms, then yes, the demoncrats "reached out." And let's call out the double-speak in the italicized line above. They didn't have the ideas that the LIBERAL MAJORITY liked so they were told to put up or shut up. This is called PARTISAN politics, Nance! Not bipartisan or "nonpartisan".

The bottom line is that Pelosi is trying to lay the ground work early to get it into the minds of the gullible left that WHEN this stinkbomb of a bill does NADA for the economy, we are to believe it was because the Republicans wouldn't play and not because this bill is going to prove to be ineffective due to being ill-conceived by a woefully inexperienced president who should quite frankly have more understanding of the appropriation process having been in Congress the last couple of years.

Maybe if he would have spent less time campaigning for president and more time learning how the Federal government operates, he wouldn't look like such a political novice now that he's reached the phase in which actual work must start being done.