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

Well, given the Republican majority, the Democrats don't get to vote in a Speaker of the House. The issue is who will lead the Democrats in the House. I think the current Democrat Majority leader, Rep Hoyer, fits that bill fairly well.

Don't misunderstand: I earnestly hope the Democrats keep Pelosi (and Reid) in office. It is simply my opinion that, given the election result and their new minority status in the House, they would be better off with a new face.

That the underlying problems which caused the recession have not been addressed, and that the problem was deeper than anyone anticipated at the time. The financial crash of September 2008 peeled back away a lot of veneer and revealed rot which has completely worked its' way through our financial system.

Part of the reason the crisis hasn't fully worked itself out has been active resistance on the part of your party - and some bought and paid for Dems in the Senate - when it comes to enacting any meaningful reform or using public money to help soften the blow to the economy. It's a little ironic to see a group who has been trying as hard as they can to keep anything from being done to improve the situation, bitch that the situation hasn't improved more.

Cycloptichorn

The ball is in the park so the blame game is the way out for them.

George, you misunderstood my question.

When I asked you to suggest someone who would be a good Speaker of the House who isn't a polarizing figure who is intensely disliked by a fairly large segment of the voting public, I was obviously talking about Republicans.

As I pointed out, Boehner is certainly polarizing and intensely disliked by a fairly large segment of the voting public. Of course the big question is who else the Republicans have?

Rand Paul?

The voting public has had two years with which to judge Pelosi's performance in office. In comparison Boehner is a relatively unknown figure. Your estimate of him is based on relatively little in comparison to the esteemed daughter of the former boss of the Baltimore Democrat political machine. I don't accept your proposition that he is as intensely disliked as is Queen Nancy - and the results of the recent election confirm my view.

If you want to spin, you should at least get the facts straight.

Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker since the Democrats took the majority after the 2006 election. After the 2008 election the Democrats added seats to their majority with Nancy Pelosi in the Speakers chair.

I just checked the polling. Boehner's favorability ratings are the same as Pelosi's. Pelosi has much higher unfavorability ratings, but as you point out, Boehner hasn't had time in the spotlight. We will see in two years.

By the way. Pelosi's unfavorability poll numbers are much lower than those Gingrich received.

Would you care to comment about what you think the 2006 and 2008 elections meant?

So you think the fact that the wave of new republicans in the house being elected is proof that people voted republican because of Nancy Pelosi? Don't you think you re jumping to conclusions just a bit?

There was a poll conducted and it said the majority of Americans who voted republicans did so because of the economy, her name was not mentioned.

Exit Polls: Economy, Voter Anger Drive Republican Victory

Thanks largely to Nancy, we will no longer have 55 million without health insurance, and 45,000 per year dying due to lack of coverage, etc.

Interestingly, my new congressman, Mick Mulvaney, who defeated John Spratt, made the repeal of the HC reform his number one campaign promise.

Hi GerogeOB you got me thinking, thinking about Tip Oneill.

I'm not sure where you're going with this analogy. Let me point out, though, that you showcased yours first (your opinion, of course). Also, just as the analogy would predict, your opinion is full of---okay, that's enough. Let's not take your asshole analogy any farther.


Let me explain to you, then, how the Democrats would have been better off in the November-2010 elections if they had pushed for a platform closer to the policies Kucinic and Pelosi stand for.

1) Democrats would have pushed for an adequately-sized stimulus package. If they had gotten it, and if the American economy follows anything like the standard, macro-economics-101 textbook models, unemployment would be lower today, and voter unsatisfaction wouldn't have evicted as many House Democrats from their seats. Democrats could well have retained the House that way.

On the other hand, if Democrats, had pushed for adequate stimulus and hadn't gotten it, they could have at least pilloried Republicans for sabotaging economic recovery. That's not as good as getting America moving again, but at least they could have scored a few points with voters that way. But the depressing thing is, Democrats were to timid to even ask for what would have been adequate. That way, Republicans could truthfully point out that Obama pretty much got the stimulus he asked for, and it didn't work. That's zero for one for timidity.

2) If Kucinic and Pelosi had had their way, the Obama administration's bank bailout would have taken fair value in bank equity for their bailout money. Then they would have stabilized the banks, perhaps used their shareholder power to throw a few bums out of bank management, and later sold back the equity to stock markets---at a profit for the taxpayers who had funded the bailout.

By contrast, what Democrats actually enacted was a windfall sweetheart deal that rewarded banks for failing. It nationalized the risks of the bailout while keeping its opportunities private. No wonder Republicans became the voice of populist anger against the bailout! This wouldn't have happened under a more audacious bailout plan. Zero for two for timidity.

3) Finally for now, healthcare reform. Kucinic would probably have pushed for an honest-to-Hippocrates, Medicare-for-all system like the ones Canada and France have. If international comparisons are any indicator, that would have made for a much more efficient system than what America will get now---to say nothing of the mess it now has.

Would Kucinic have gotten the through Congress? Probably not. But Republicans would have fiercely opposed whatever the opening bit of the Democrats would have been. And after a few months of back-and-forth, Republicans just might have compromised on what Obama actually proposed in the first place. After all, it's the system Mitt Romney enacted in Massachussets. It's the system the conservative Heritage Foundation used to promote not seven years ago. It's the system Republicans had been favoring as far back as during the Nixon administration. I don't see any fundamental reason why Romneycare would be taboo for Republicans. But since it was Obama who proposed it on the federal level, their political knee-jerk reflexes compelled them to oppose it. Zero for three for timidity.

There's more, but these are the big three reasons why a Kucinic/Pelosi agenda would have helped Democrats.

Interesting perspective. I don't agree in all points, but your case is arguable. However, that's really a new question. The fact is the Democrats did what they did using the Pelosi Reid leadership team in the Congress, and are where they are today. The question I was addressing is what should they do now, and in particular who is best suited to lead their contingents in the Congress for the next two years. The situation they face now, particularly in the House where they are now a minority, is profoundly different from the commanding majority of the last two years. Different situations often require different attributes in a successful leader. My view is that Pelosi brings them unneeded baggage, both within the House and in the public eye. This, of course is their call, and I will be pleased if they retain the Queen of Pacific Heights in their leadership role.

I am curious how you conclude, given the results of the election and the substantial public concern about deficit spending and the sloppy way the very large stimulus package they did authorize was actually organized and spent (it was mostly a jobs protection program for government bureaucrats at all levels) that an even larger and more ambitious package might have been enacted and administered by this crowd. It doesn't look like a very realistic possibility to me. However, we are both speculating.

Your opinion on what the Dems should have done is very valid. Obama has been all about excellence, but he would have had more success relative to the economy had he followed your prescription.

Which is exactly what others on your side of the fence said about her in 2002, when she was elected... minority leader. She then ran the House very effectively, killed the Bush Social Security privatization scheme (without resorting to a single trick or procedural point to do so - she just argued against it very effectively - which should serve as an example to you how it should be done), held her party together on some tough votes, allowed regional-based compromises on others, and eventually led her party into the majority in 2006.

Your chicken-littlish pronouncements of doom for the Dems if she is in charge are completely unfounded in reality.



This is the second time in a row that you've repeated this lie. Please provide attribution for your position, or stop knowingly spreading falsehoods.

Cycloptichorn

Roughly a third of the stimulus package was in the form of grants to state education, transportation and environmental departments, presumably to fund "shovel ready" projects. (Do you remember that bit of rhetoric?) . Very few such projects emerged. Instead the states used the money to delay action on the still growing problem of funding their expanding unionized bureaucracies. The collapse of the commercial paper market for short term securitized loans also cut off state and county governments from their normal source of bridge funding between property tax collections. Together these factors meant that the federal grants went mostly to delaying the inevitable (and overdue) thinning of local governments - a needed process that has only just begun in a few states.

My company does a lot of environmental work for several state highway and environmental agencies. Lots of stimulus money went to them, but no contracts were let.

You should tone down your inflated moralistic rhetoric. It makes you look foolish.

Good post, Thomas.

Wow, there's an ironic statement if I ever saw one. Repeat that to yourself the next time you're tempted to lecture on the evils of Communism.

Your (mostly anecdotal) pronouncements aside, you won't find a single economist who agrees with you that the Stim bill didn't create any jobs outside of government. In fact, I would challenge you to provide actual, yaknow, evidence to support your position, if not for the fact that you will refuse to participate in such a challenge.

I also find it puzzling, that Conservatives (such as yourself) on one hand call for the elimination of many jobs at the State and Local level, while on the other hand demanding that more and more functions of government be transferred to the... State and Local level. Do those two positions actually square up, in your mind?

I note that an actual historical examination of Pelosi's record as Minority Leader didn't merit a comment from you - likely because it turns out to be the opposite of what you predicted her performance in such a role would be.

Cycloptichorn

Pelosi should be burned at the stake and democrats need to light that fire.

Cyclo and Stalin,
sitting in a tree . . . K - I - S - S - I - N - G.

David, Do you ever write anything worthwhile? Why are you wasting everybody's time - including your own?