Nancy Pelosi -- Should she maintain a leadership position for the dems?

@Cycloptichorn,

The three senators in question have voiced very different versions of the story you cite.

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The three senators in question have voiced very different versions of the story you cite.

Oh, please. Nobody is buying the line of crap you're selling here. Not even yourself.

I believe that Thomas' post, directly above your last one, is exactly correct: recommendations from the other team that the Dems neuter themselves are to be ignored or even celebrated for what they are; but certainly not to be heeded, as if you have the best interests of the Dem party in mind!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You appear to believe that, had he been more forceful or effective, Harry Reid could have led the Senate to pass something like the House version of the Health care Bill.

So, in other words, you have no substantive comments about what I actually said in my post, just about what you speculate I might have suggested.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Actually I agree with that. Obama's and Reid's timidity was indeed a losing bet, and now that they've lost it, the Democrats would be well-advised to adopt an overall face that looks more like Kucinic's and Pelosi's and less like Obama's and Reid's.

Opinions are like assholes in that everyone has one. I certainly don't begrudge you yours in this matter, but cannot conceive how the Kucinic Pelosi team might be an improvement from the Democrat perspective. It seems to me that would be a greater dose of the poison that has already seriously hurt their cause. Indeed such a choice would serve as confirmation of the adverse perception of Obama, as an amateurish idealogue with a tin ear, that is already fairly widespread in the public mind. I recognize that as a Republican my thinking and understanding may be untrustworthy in your eyes, but, given the current political situation in the country - as I interpret it, it is very hard to see how your preference would get the Democrats any more legislative success in the next two years or improve Obama's chances of holding on in 2012.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Well, this is what you wrote.

joefromchicago wrote:

[Pelosi did what Pelosi could. She's in charge of the house, and the house passed what she wanted to get passed. It's not her fault that Harry Reid is a lowly invertebrate who couldn't get anything passed even with 60 votes in the senate or that Obama dawdled for most of the first two years of his presidency, waiting for the GOP to offer compromises that never materialized. I can't see how their failures reflect on Pelosi. If the starting pitcher leaves the game in the seventh leading 10-0 and then the bullpen gives up 11 runs, it doesn't mean that the starter pitched a bad game.

Please indicate which points I missed.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Well, this is what you wrote.

joefromchicago wrote:

[Pelosi did what Pelosi could. She's in charge of the house, and the house passed what she wanted to get passed. It's not her fault that Harry Reid is a lowly invertebrate who couldn't get anything passed even with 60 votes in the senate or that Obama dawdled for most of the first two years of his presidency, waiting for the GOP to offer compromises that never materialized. I can't see how their failures reflect on Pelosi. If the starting pitcher leaves the game in the seventh leading 10-0 and then the bullpen gives up 11 runs, it doesn't mean that the starter pitched a bad game.

Please indicate which points I missed.

I've underlined them above.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Hold on to those thoughts !

Cyclo adamently denies it, but it appears very clear to me that multiple major figures in the Seanate Democrat caucus did not want the House version of the Health care bill for several reasons, prominently including the late emerging budget estimate provided by the CBO. Conceivably an LBJ type majority leader might have achieved Senate approval, but that is at best a debatable proposition. Cyclo of course believes that the all-wise prophet Obama (and others) were duped by Republican senators Snow, Grassley, and Collins, who (he argues) strung them along in pursuit of "bipartisan" support. That propositi0n so defies everything else we have seen about the President's "bipartisan instincts" as to defy belief. The fact is the Democrats had a fillibuster proof majority and, apart from dissent in their own ranks, had the ability, and the obvious inclination, to do it all with no Republican votes.

Blaming others for your own failures and errors is a good way to perpetuate defeat.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Cyclo of course believes that the all-wise prophet Obama

Once you start Appealing to Extremes you kill your argument. What you wrote isn't in fact what I believe, but a caricature of what you believe I believe. It isn't accurate.

Quote:

That propositi0n so defies everything else we have seen about the President's "bipartisan instincts" as to defy belief.

What have you seen that leads you to this conclusion about him? Specifically. Because I think you are just making this part up.

In fact, I think you basically just make everything up as you go along, George, from one post to another. No facts, no examination of what actually happened; just the Narrative, an endless repetition of the Narrative. Regardless of whether or not it matches history. And then when facts and historical events are provided to counter your narrative, you'll simply ignore them or respond with some glib condescension.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Can you count to 60 ?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Can you count to 60 ?

Ah, I see you've chosen to go the 'respond with some glib condescension' route.

You didn't answer my question regarding what Obama has done or said which to you signals he wasn't interested in Bipartisanship. I specifically asked that, because such a statement is the opposite of the reality of the last two years - much to the detriment of the Dems and their plans.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well I do recall during the (very late in the process) televised "meetings" with Republican legislators, clearly designed to give a much needed bipartisan veneer to his efforts, President Obama rudely rebuking Senator McCain, when he (McCain) attempted to outline Republican objections to the health care draft legislation, by saying "we're not in the campaign anymore, John". The remark was gratuitous, unnecessary and starkly contradiced the announced puropse of the meeting. That, coupled with the fact that Obama never met with the Republican minority leaders in the Congress throughout the first 18 months of his presidency is a telling rebuttal of the assertion that the administration was seriously looking for Republican input or support - that is untill their efforts began to falter and they encountered serious opposition from within their own ranks.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

That, coupled with the fact that Obama never met with the Republican minority leaders in the Congress throughout the first 18 months of his presidency

Wait, what? Where exactly do you get the idea that he never met with minority leaders from? He very clearly did on several occasions.

Perhaps you wish to re-examine this claim?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You are correct sir!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, You are correct; I remember - especially early on in his presidency, he met with the Republican leadership several times. I know that is the truth, and will stand by this claim.

Here's some YouTube and abcnews videos of his meetings with the GOP.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=obama%27s+meeting+with+republicans&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS310US311&ie=UTF-8#q=obama%27s+meeting+with+republicans&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS310US311&prmd=iv&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=GaTYTO7hJpOosAP1z7S-Bw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB8QqwQwAA&fp=26dc8d387406e9bb

0 Replies

Pelosi makes a good target for the republican/tea party but she did do her job well which is to pass legislation and if the rest of the democrats want her to stay in her leadership position, fine by me.

(For some unknown to myself reason, she has always gotten on my nerves but I can't deny the above.)

0 Replies

No she's evil..can't you see the horns on her head?

2 Replies

@mattdeezy651,

It takes the imagination of a conservative to see things that doesn't exist.

Rather than use ad hominems, can you describe "why" she has horns?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I believe it is clear that he was using a bit of irony and a well-known metaphor to illustrate the fairly obvious fact that she is a polarizing figure who is intensely disliked by a fairly large segment of the voting public. Frankly I think it took a singular lack of imagination to miss this obvious point. Perhaps the issue at hand is not the excess "imagination of conservatives" (a sensless and sweeping generality), but rather your own lack of it - in this instance.

Why is Nancy Pelosi so disagreeable? This is a question that would take a great deal of effort to answer. and would likely result in at best an incomplete explanation. That she IS disagreeable is beyond doubt.

I earnestly hope the Democrats keep the Pelosi Reid combination that has done the Republicans such a service in the last two years.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

You're right about Reid - they should chuck him for Chuck instead - but Pelosi has been nothing but a thorn in the side of House Republicans for years. You may pretend to have some success fund-raising off of her name, but your bunch would equally demonize anyone who got put forward by the Dems, so I don't really accept that as a valid argument against her.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Nancy is bat **** crazy... she needs to retire.

0 Replies

Nancy Pelosi -- Should she maintain a leadership position for the dems?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know