You obviously do not know what "bipartisan" means. I'll give you a hint: it's when the bill is sponsored by members of BOTH parties. Turns out I'm neither ignorant nor naive. What's your excuse?
Well yes. That is what bipartisan means when you intentionally narrowly define the term. The final act was popular on both sides the aisle, had the support of Democratic leadership, and was signed into law by a Democratic President. Keep in mind that Phil Gramm, Jim Leech, and Tom Bliley did not want co-sponsors on the bill. Several Democrats wanted to co-sponsor the House legislation, notably Jim Trafficant and Jesse Jackson Jr. McCain wanted to be a co-sponsor in the senate, and he was denied despite his track record of reaching across the aisle.
its complicated isnt it? many will vote for it not because they support it, but because they want to appear to support it. unless the vote will be close many will do this to this because they know the outcome anyway. but i suppose looking at the vote is the best way there is to tell how broad the support was.
Blankfein supports financial reform legislation - The Hill's On The Money Whats up with this? It looks like Obama is actually doing Goldman Suchs and wall street a favor instead of punishing them. What a backassword world I now live in!
Well, that's the definition. It was a Republican Bill with bi[partisan support and that's exactly how I described it originally. That's very interesting to know. Politics is all about give and take as well as backing someone in a corner to manipulate what you want. I do know that the investment firms really rolled out the red carpet for the legislatures to get it passed. Everyone did well for themselves getting that bill passed.
