Ut Oh, Could Nancy Be Facing....

1978

Did the current President Bush run for congress in 1978,or did his father,the former President Bush,run in 1978?

The current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush%2C_George_W.

His father served in Congress from 1967 - 1971.

Thank you,I learned something new.
I didnt know he had ever run for congress.

Never too old, eh :wink:

~~~~~

My question about what level Congress is was serious. While I remembered (from where?) that'd he'd run unsuccessfully for Congress, when you said State/Federal, I wondered if Congress was perhaps neither.

Gotta give this to M C & LSM; they're uniters - they've managed to structure a situation which has brought together an unusual coalition ... I don't often find myself allied with present company in a political discussion. Certainly goes to show idiocy knows no ideology. Wingnuts are wingnuts, and Pelosiphobia is just as silly as Bushophobia.

Now, realistically, Pelosi is in over her head, a poster girl for the Peter Principle, and the only question is how long before the herd of cats which is today's Demomocrat Party turns on her. Ambition exceeding their grasp, the Dems frankly haven't the votes to accomplish anything of substance in either House or Senate. They'll stymie Administration initiatives, and, of course, launch a flood investigations (which will be seen as partisan witch hunts distracting from the business of running the The Nation as taxes, inflation, energy costs, and global instability and violence rise, and which investigations in the end will prove futile, exposing only the hollowness of the allegations behind them), accomplishing in the public eye nothing but obstructionism accentuated by bitter internecine squabbling among the assorted factions within the Democrat Party, creating for themselves a backlash. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi, incapable of managing her herd of cats, will bear the brunt of the Dems' certain frustration and the resultant disappointment and displeasure of The Electorate. 2006 is done, 2008 looms, and the Dems are unlikely to be able to control the ball and drive for the goal - look for the Democrats to bring off a fumble allowing the Republicans to recover and score.

I grew up under Pelosi's dad's reign in Baltimore. She comes from a very poliically astute family. Sure, she will suffer growing pains as she assumes command but I would not underestimate her. She is one tough cookie.

I can't imagine that she won't shine especially when compared to her predecessor.

Remember,once she takes over then you can no longer compare her to her predecessor.

Once the dems take over congress,anything the repubs did or didnt do is history and not to be used for comparison .

Those are the rules that many of the left on here set,so you have to abide by them also.

American citizens will greet the liberating republican forces with flowers. I can see it now.

Pappy Bush reached unlooked-for heights in the Republican Party because he was willing to take the national chair of the Party in the darkest days of the Nixon debacle, when no other Republican was willing to risk a career to be associated with the man. His first reward was to be appointed Director of Central Intelligence by Ford. Thereafter, he considered that the first spot on the Republican ticket in 1980 was his by right of party loyalty. Reagan's campaign was a steam-roller, and Bush was well and truly blind-sided by the man, who was considered a "dark horse" in 1980 (even though people now, in retrospect, have forgotten that because of his stunning 1980 victory). Pappy Bush declared that Reagan's campaign economic agenda was "voodoo economics," which put him pretty much in the same economic camp as John Anderson. Anderson was a life-long Republican of the moderate wing of the party, headed by Nelson Rockefeller (and called "liberal" with contempt by conservative Republicans). Anderson took a seat in the House from a solidly Republican district in Illinois, and became the leader of the Republican House Conference Committee. He was one of the most articulate members of the Republican House caucus ever to sit in that body, and was well-respected by Republicans, including the conservative wing who otherwise disparaged his politics, and by Democrats. When he ran in 1980, a time when the economy had still not yet recovered from the Vietnam War and the "run-away inflation" of the Nixon and Ford era, he stressed an economic policy which, sadly, the Republicans have never adopted--high taxes, reduced expenditure, and paying down the debt. It was a similar policy endorsed by Pappy Bush which lead him to describe Reagan's economic policy as voodoo economics.

Pappy Bush was given the second slot on the 1980 ticket in recognition of his stalwart loyalty to the Party and his representation of a large portion of the Republican Party (mostly moderate), which the party leaders did not want to see defect to Anderson. He was being paid back for his loyalty in the dark days at the end of the Nixon administration; he was recognized as representing a large segment of the party who were not yet necessarily willing to sign on to "Reaganomics," but who were willing to follow Bush's lead.

Nancy Pelosi is in a similar, but not identical position. She represents a significant, but not the majority segment of the Democratic party. I've commented before, and immediately after this mid-term election, that most of the Democrats who have been elected to the next Congress are moderate or conservative Democrats, and that the party leadership will need to be careful how they proceed. I disagree with the Big Bird that the Democrats don't have control of the House. They did far better than even they expected to do when the Republicans were sinking beneath the waves of scandal just before the election. They have enough seats that the House Majority Leader and the House Majority Whip can be lazy about attendance--the likelihood is that the Democrats will have a simple majority of any quorum ever present in the period 2007-2009.

I agree that the Democrats do not control the Senate, just as the Republicans did not control it before this election. Senate Rule 22 calls for a three-fifths vote to end debate and proceed to a floor-vote (and contrary to repeated claims in these fora, the so-called "nuclear option," better known to Senators as the Byrd option, applies only to the debate in progess when a point of order is raised--it cannot be used to change Senate Rules), and calls for a two thirds vote to change Senate rules. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote for the Senate to ratify treaties or to confirm Presidential nominations--matters upon which the House does not vote. The last time either party controlled the Senate absolutely was when the Democrats had 68 seats in 1965, and the Republicans have not controlled the Senate absolutely since 1923.

I also disagree about House investigations. That procedure could blow up in the faces of the Democrats, if they mismanage it. But a great many people in this country, including many who habitually vote Republican, are looking for answers which this administration has not been prepared to give. For the Democrats to succeed in this next Congress, they will need to be very careful.

The Big Bird in his predictions consults what he wishes to see happen, rather than a crystal ball which unfailingly predicts what will happen. He is absolutely correct to point out that Pelosi represents an "extreme" wing of the party (but only in terms of the American political spectrum). However, it is not a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will self-destruct. That is something he simply hopes for. They may self-destruct, if the party leadership is not very careful, and does not proceed very carefully. However, properly managed, the Democratic majority in the House, and their slight edge in the Senate (if the two independent Senators reliably caucus with them) can be a means of preparing for the 2008 national elections. Pelosi is not by definition a liability to the party. The measure of her stature as a leader (and by which she will be judged historically) will be how effectively she can keep the party together, and manage the investigations which the Democratic constituency demands, without falling afoul of the perception of a partisan witch-hunt.

Whether or not the Democrats can pull it off is the question which will be answered in the next Congress. Anyone here who is willing to be honest will acknowledge that they do not yet know if the Democrats will manage it well or not. Big Bird does not know, he simply consults wishful thinking. I don't know either--it remains to be seen.

WTF? Is like a "new rule?" Bill Maher, you ain't.

If that is "the rule," why do conservatives continually bring up "Slick Willy" whenever Bush is criticized? I consider your claim to be knowingly disingenuous.

And a Merry Christmas to YOU, too.

& Nancy denounced NAMBLA?

and Nancy endorsed NAMBLA?

Hey buster baby, Texans have as much right to speak out as you do, you need to read the Constitution too, it would seem.
BTW-Homophobic? NAMBLA is an evil org that perpetrates & encourages sex crimes against little boys. You want to defend that sort of evil, go for it, it's your right, I have the same right to tell it like it is. Nancy Pelosi by her silence, endorses that scum. As for Foley & Hastert, Foley is gone & hastert saw the handwriting on the wall, he didn't evem run for a leadership position. Where are Barney & Gary? Oh yeah, gary met his maker (beelzeebubba, maybe) & Barney, is he still running a little call boy service out of his basement? Did ya know that Nancy NAMBLA Pelosi never condemmed those actions either.
Her silence is deafening.

You have no case Madam.

I am not bringing a case, just pointing out the obvious. The Dem leaders endorse NAMBLA with their silence.

I had forgotten that too. He & Laura spent their honeymoon on his campaign.