34
   

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

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 05:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You are merely throwing dust in the air to obscure the defects in your argument.

I didn't assert that the stimulus bill "didn't create any jobs outside of government". However, I did suggest that the unusually slow recovery of our economy from this recession, compared to all others in the last few decades, indicates that it, together with other actions the Administration took, was ineffective. You are arguing against a straw man of your own making.

I guess you want me to defend all the preferences "Conservatives (such as yourself)" might advocate. However, I do generally wish to restrict the reach of the Federal Government more towards its historical norms in favor of state government initiatives (or no initiatives at all). At the same time I would like to see less government overall. There is no real contradiction there.

Finally, I never argued that Pelosi was ineffective in pushing the agenda of the left wing of the Democrat Party in Congress. Instead I suggested that in today's circumstances, she probably brings adverse baggage that the Administration - in the pursuit of its own interests - doesn't need. Moreover, I clearly expressed this as my opinion, based on my expectations for what probably lies ahead. I find it hard to understand why such an opinion would be so threatening to you and why you would devote so much energy to create the illusory impression that it can somehow be "refuted". Did the recent election and the failure of your much repeated assertion that passage of the health care legislation would create an irresistable Democrat majority somehow unhinge you?
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 05:17 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You are merely throwing dust in the air to obscure the defects in your argument.

I didn't assert that the stimulus bill "didn't create any jobs outside of government".


Wow, it really confuses me to see you say that, because you just wrote this just yesterday:

Quote:
I'll take the time to do that when you explain how the billions wasted in "stimulus" programs failed to create any jobs at all (except in government).


It nearly seems to me that you said exactly what I accused you of saying. Do you wish to revise your statement at this time?

Quote:
However, I did suggest that the unusually slow recovery of our economy from this recession, compared to all others in the last few decades, indicates that it, together with other actions the Administration took, was ineffective. You are arguing against a straw man of your own making.


This has now been shown to be clearly false.

Quote:
Finally, I never argued that Pelosi was ineffective in pushing the agenda of the left wing of the Democrat Party in Congress. Instead I suggested that in today's circumstances, she probably brings adverse baggage that the Administration - in the pursuit of its own interests - doesn't need. Moreover, I clearly expressed this as my opinion, based on my expectations for what probably lies ahead. I find it hard to understand why such an opinion would be so threatening to you and why you would devote so much energy to create the illusory impression that it can somehow be "refuted".


Your opinion matches nearly exactly those opinions about her performance in that role in the past; it was wrong then and it's wrong now. But you'll find that out soon enough, I suspect.

Quote:
Did the recent election and the failure of your much repeated assertion that passage of the health care legislation would create an irresistable Democrat majority somehow unhinge you?


I've never predicted that HCR will create an 'irresistible Dem majority.' I predicted that Republicans will end up defending it the same way they currently defend SS and Medicare, which is exactly what we see happening today.

Public opinion has already swung pretty strongly against repealing HCR; and you know as well as I do that your political leaders aren't going to even attempt to do so this cycle. In ten years, it'll be set in stone and as untouchable as other third-rail items.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
talk72000
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 06:24 pm
@H2O MAN,
You must be hot for her. You seem to have her on your mind a lot.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 08:22 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
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.

I see that mess largely as a consequence of Obama's failed attempt to please everyone and win bipartisan support for his stimulus bill. A clear-cut, New-Deal-2.0 agenda would have produced much less of a mess. The same is true of Medicare-for-all, as contrasted to the namby-pamby compromise enacted now. I know we disagree about the overall desirability of Medicare-for-all, but I think even you may agree that it would have been less messy.
Below viewing threshold (view)
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 08:36 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

I see that mess largely as a consequence of Obama's failed attempt to please everyone and win bipartisan support for his stimulus bill. A clear-cut, New-Deal-2.0 agenda would have produced much less of a mess. The same is true of Medicare-for-all, as contrasted to the namby-pamby compromise enacted now. I know we disagree about the overall desirability of Medicare-for-all, but I think even you may agree that it would have been less messy.


Was he really trying to please everyone? Was he really leading these efforts at all ? I believe you are being extraordinarily generous to Obama and the Democrat leaders in both instances. They had commanding majorities in both Houses of Congress and, at the time, a good deal of popular support. Clearly they were able to enact anything their leaders really wanted. They didn't need and didn't get any significant support from Republicans in either effort. Under these circumstances, supposing they were frightened by an evil boogeyman away from their better instincts, seems to me to require a degree of credulity that is unwarranted by the information available to us.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 07:47 am
@georgeob1,
George if you were honest you would admit the honeymoon for both democrats and especially Obama didn't last long. To give credit where it is due, the tea party starting with all those tea party protest and town hall meeting were very successful in cutting the honeymoon mood of the country very short.

What I am wondering about is why republicans/tea party even care whether the democrats keep Pelosi or not. I know I didn't care who the minority leader was after the democrats took the house.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:39 am
@revelette,
One measure of the strength and endurance of a leader or movement is the amount of opposition required to cause them to lose heart and compromise on their own values. If you and Thomas are to be believed, and a bolder "stimulus" togerher with a more complete takeover of our healthcare system were their "real" values, then their committment really wasn't worth much. They had complete control of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government and, at the time these measures were passed (the stimulus in particular) they enjoyed ample public support.

The truth is Obama exhibited his rather unique brand of odd detachment from the details of both programs and allowed Democrat legislators to construct the programs in the chaotic fashion we all observed. The opposition and timid details (if that is truly an apt description of thse pork laden payoffs to their political constiutuents) of what they finally enacted came all from within their own Democrat ranks. The limitations on these programs that appear to concern you were imposed by the Democrats themselves at a moment in which they had the political power (but evidently not the will) to do exactly as you and Thomas now say you preferred.

The Tea Party phenomenon arose because of authentic public concern about what they were doing. It was certainly a fire stoked by sympathetic media and political forces, but it was not started by them.

I truly don't care much about who leads the Democrat caucus in the new Congress. I merely posted my opinion in a thread dedicated to the subject that the Democrats would likely be better off with a new face precisely because Pelosi has proven herself to be such a polarizing figure and because life reveals that new situations (minority status) often require new leadership skills. I also expressed my partisan hope that the Democrats would retain her. Though some dissent is indeed arising among Democrat Congressmen, it appears I will get my wish.

I don't think you have any real basis here on which to question my honesty in this matter. Frankly I find the whining of most Democrat advocates here (and in the media as a whole), that they and their noble cause have been unfairly hurt by evil opposition and a stupid, credulous public to be truly laughable.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:43 am
It's pretty obvious georgeob is just another misogynist, political ideology having no bearing on his dislike of Pelosi.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 11:58 am
I accept the fact the Princess Pelosi will maintain a leadership position and I'm OK with it.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 12:57 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Was he really trying to please everyone? Was he really leading these efforts at all ?

Yes.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:42 pm
@georgeob1,
Gob, could you email me when you get around to answering Cycloptichorn? I really really really want to see your song and dance.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:51 pm
This one is posted especially for georgeob who still seems that Obama didn't try to work with the GOP.
Quote:
Obama tried too hard to work with Republicans

7:36 am October 15, 2010, by ctucker

WASHINGTON — Amplified by the right-wing message machine, Republicans paint President Obama as an unyielding left-winger, an unreconstructed liberal who refuses to compromise. The president’s critics have turned the truth inside out: One of Obama’s greatest political weaknesses has been his stubborn — and unrequited — love for bipartisanship.

The president has made some of his biggest mistakes trying to woo a GOP opposition that has committed itself to frustrating him at every turn. If he had ignored recalcitrant Republicans, for example, his health care legislation might have become law without months of damaging political drama.

In an interview last week in his West Wing office, David Axelrod, one of Obama’s closest advisers, acknowledged that the administration had been surprised by the unified Republican resistance to the president’s agenda.

“Well, I think we miscalculated,” Axelrod said. “We had the idea that, particularly in a time of national crisis, there would be more of an inclination to work together.

“One of the bracing moments was when the president was on his way over . . to Capitol Hill to talk to the Republican House caucus about the Recovery Act. They issued a press release while he was on his way over to say that they were going to vote en masse against it. And that was a signal . . of things to come.”

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009 without a single vote from a Republican in the House and the backing of just three in the Senate, even though nearly a third of it came in the form of tax cuts usually a GOP tool for fixing anything. Most economists have credited the stimulus package with creating jobs and helping to end the recession, but Republicans continue to denounce it as boondoggle that blew a hole in the federal budget.

“I think the Republicans have been diabolically clever about how they’ve portrayed this,” Axelrod conceded. “They stood on the sidelines and made a decision that ‘we’re going to let him wrestle with this mess that we created. And then in two years we can try and hang him with it.’ “

After the stimulus, Obama and his Democratic allies tried to negotiate with GOP leaders on health insurance reform — a decision that gave critics time to mischaracterize the proposal and gin up opposition. Remember death panels? Government-funded abortions? Rationing?

Still, Obama kept going back with proposals meant to lure a few Republican votes for his agenda. That led to his disastrous announcement, just weeks before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, to expand off-shore drilling.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 11:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone, Are you suggesting that I or anyone should consider the words of the president's chief political hack and left wing strategist (David Axelrod) asserting that the Republicans obstinately refused the president's innocent and uncalculated request for cooperation as an unbiased assessment of the situation??

Would you accept the words of Dick Morris or Carl Rove saying the Democtats are advocating harmful programs for the country as a way to pay off their political constiituencies as equally complete and unbiased assessments of the Administration's efforts?

Did you even think about the source of this assessment before you posted it ????

You are often, in my view, excessively critical of others here, calling them crazy, stupid or worse. I do try to avoid that, but in this instance you are being both stupid and crazy.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 11:21 pm
@georgeob1,
No. But what is written in that article was essentially the news that was in many of the media at the time. If you question them, I think the balls in your court to prove them false. I remember some of the things mentioned in that article coincides with what I remember about those events as they happened. I'm sure a simple Google search will support most of what's in that article.

Can also be found in the Philadelphia Inquirer dtd October 17, 2010.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2010 12:15 am
Well, if David Axlerod said Obama tried to make nice with the GOP then it must be true. Afterall, Axlerod has been substantiated, in this regard, by Rahm Emanual, Robert Gibbs, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Michelle Obama.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2010 12:32 am
@cicerone imposter,
Believe what you wish. The Democrats had large majorities in both Houses of Congress and in the first year of the administration they enjoyed widespread public support. They didn't need any Republican votes for their legislative program and didn't really seek any input from the Republicans in Congress. The real struggle over health care legislation was between Democrats in the House and others in the Senate.

It wasn't until his health care bill was in serious trouble that Obama held any leadership meetings with Republicans over the contents of the proposed Health Care Legislation, and in this televised meeting he publicly scolded Senator McCain after hearing his comments saying. "The campaign is over John". I suppose he really just wanted a surrender. Instead he got specific counterproposals from the Republicans which he merely ignored.

The Republicans were seriously opposed to the massive giveaways in the stimulus bill right from the start and for very good reasons. We have had more sudden and worse recessions since WWII, but never have we had such a slow recovery and with such prolonged high unemployment. It is the fear and uncertainty caused by the massive new government regulatory structures created by this administration and their toadies in the Congress; the massive payoffs to organized labor; and the clear intent of the administration to enact its anti business energy policy through administrative action in the EPA (because they can't even get that through a Congress dominated by their own party) that is delaying business investment. Companies are hoarding their cash and access to credit in anticipation of higher taxes; more intrusive regulation; and runaway federal (and state) deficits sucking the liquidity out of our financial markets for the forseeable future.

The truly singular element of the current political situation is the persistent childish whining of Democrats complaining that those bad Republicans thwarted their noble intent and wise programs - when the real truth is they had to engage in massive payoffs to their own members in the Senate to pass the key elements of their own program -- even with a fillibuster proof majority.

Our much esteemed President is in well over his head, and his party is all too willing to blame everyone but themselves for their current situation - ranging from those ever uncooperative Republicans; evil rich donors (except of course George Soros, the SEIU and Teachers & government employee unions, NEA, etc.); to those stupid voters who threw so many of them out of office a few weeks ago.

Oddly this crowd of incompetent zealots appears to believe the country is unworthy of them.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2010 06:07 am


House Dems Avert Leadership Battle Through Private Agreement
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2010 09:59 am
@H2O MAN,
The Reps mounted a major campaign to vilify and diminish Pelosi. For instance, they said she lied when she claimed that the CIA deceived congress. The facts showed that she was correct. The Reps also calledl her stupid when she said that unemployment compensation produced jobs. A Nobel prize-winning economist, the CBO, et al., said her statement was accurate.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 02:00:37