True, for Obama. And there probably aren't many Blue Dogs left anyway.It makes a lot of sense in the broader political narrative for 2012. Obama needs to pivot to the middle for 2012, for that he needs to have a goal post on the right of him, Boehner, and one left of him, that will be Pelosi, so he will be the moderate politician taking flack from left and right. It would do him no good to have a blue dog to the right of him as minority leader.
She was also one of the least liked and was one of the big reasons for the drubbing the party just got. She helped galvanize the "other side" like no other. Heck, every add that ran here in Ohio featured her and Ohio pretty much got swept by the R's.
Some of my employees who voted Obama in the last election voted R this time because they didn't like the idea of "more power for Pelosi" and "what's right for Pelosi is not right for us". Ohio is a swing state, and having Pelosi in there is not going to help the democrats recapture it.
Personally I'm glad she retained her position as the face of failure, it helps ensure years of blissful gridlock. :thumbsup:
Nancy Pelosi is such a fabricated enemy for conservatives. The first time I heard conservatives bashing her on the radio, my reaction was "Nancy who??". What exactly is so hateful about her?
They still just don't get it. In the dems mind it is still "we didn't communicate the message well enough". Putting one of the most despised representatives in the nation as your leader in the house is a terrible idea and will further enshrine her face and radical left progressive ideology as what the party stands for.
It couldn't possibly be that The People completely reject progressive thinking, no that couldn't be it at all. I'm happy for this though, it totally solidifies the democrat party is completely ignoring the will of The People and stands zero chance in 2012.
It's not just conservatives. It's the entire country that dislikes her arrogance and agenda.
Allow me to repeat: The job of the speaker is to pass legislation. Odd that you attempt to depict one of the most successful speakers in the entire history of our nation as 'the face of failure'. Then again, it's not like there is anything she could have done that would have made you like her, so your opinion is pretty irrelevant anyway.
It's bizarre how many people seem to think that the purpose of power in this election should be the holding of power for the next election.
You are apparently confused. I never said my opinion should matter. What matters is what independents think of her and whether her image / persona can be effectively used to rally the conservative voters. The answers are: independents think she is scum, and yes, this past election showed she has become the face of failure in the eyes of voters -- perception is reality. You might think she was successful, but fair or not, the electorate in general thinks very very little of her.
The minority party in the house essentially has NO control or influence. There's basically nothing it can do. Having an "effective" leader of the minority party is pointless, the minority party leader's job is to lay the foundation for the next election.
You are apparently confused. I never said my opinion should matter. What matters is what independents think of her and whether her image / persona can be effectively used to rally the conservative voters. The answers are: independents think she is scum, and yes, this past election showed she has become the face of failure in the eyes of voters -- perception is reality. You might think she was successful, but fair or not, the electorate in general thinks very very little of her.
The minority party in the house essentially has NO control or influence. There's basically nothing it can do. Having an "effective" leader of the minority party is pointless, the minority party leader's job is to lay the foundation for the next election.
The minority can have influence, assuming the House is run in a proper manner. Historically most successful bills have bipartisan support and authors from both parties. Hopefully Boehner will return this proud tradition, especially since unlike the Dems' brief honeymoon the GOP can pass nothing through the Senate without Dem cooperation. Also, the minority can propose amendments even to partisan majority bills that, if sensible and popular, can win support if only by shaming those who don't vote for them. Pelosi's reign of darkness was the exception, not the rule. I suspect though that she will continue to be a left wing radical assured that her only failures were not telling the people what she was doing in simple enough language for our limited intellects, and not having a smarter electorate. Thus I expect her to remain a boon for the Pubbies.
I suggest you read how the House was run while the Republicans ran it before the Democrats took over. There are some amazing stories. 'Pelosi's reign of darkness' was in no way an exception. Shitting on the minority is a proud House tradition.
Are you old enough to remember in 1995 when the Republicans changed the "Queen of the ball" rule to "King of the ball"? Having run the House for the last forty years, the Democrats had adopted a policy that in the case of competing amendments - say, one amendment that would increase the Interior's budget for telephone sterilizers by $20 billion versus one amendment that would increase the Interior's budget for telephone sterilizers by only $5 billion - the amendment that passed last was the one added to the bill. Simply by scheduling the votes appropriately, the Democrat leadership could override a 90% majority position with a 51% majority position. One of the first things the Republicans did was to change the rules for competing amendments so that the amendment with the highest support was the one added to the bill. This one change gave the Democrat minority power the Republican minority had never enjoyed.
I'm sure there are horror stories, particularly if one searches the Huffington Post and similar sources. These are politicians, after all. But the Republicans running the House were sunshine and rainbows compared to the Dems they followed. And neither were in any way comparable to Pelosi - for instance, voting on bills that had been crafted by Democrats and their lobbyists behind closed doors and were not available to be read - in at least one case, because they hadn't even finished writing it.
That's not true in the slightest. As I said, policy is what counts, and policy is where she won in spades.
Your understanding of the role of the various offices in Congress is... underwhelming to say the least.
I can only laugh at your typical elitist drivel. Just because you disagree with someone then it must mean they just don't understand , they must not be as enlightened as you.
Bottom line, I'm happy she got the post again, it's going to be a nice tool for the repubs to use come election time, gridlock sweet gridlock.
Difficult to measure Pelosi's effectiveness as a leader when she essentially faced no opposition to her agenda, with a sitting President from her party ready and willing to rubber stamp everything that crossed his desk.I don't know why this would be much of a surprise, she was one of the most powerful and effective speakers in US history, it only stands to reason that she will be an effective minority leader.
Uhmm, you almost certainly aren't as enlightened as me. I've spent a good portion of my adult life studying politics, and quite a lot of that on issues that involve internal US politics. And so, I would absolutely hope that after spending all that time I'm more enlightened than you are. I'm also probably more enlightened than you at troubleshooting and repairing RF communications equipment, because I spent a lot of time learning that too.
What's strange about all that is I bet if I were to give you advice on how RF works, you would take it because you would accept the product of that time and experience invested. Because I tell you about politics though, you get all huffy when facing the unreasonable and elitist opinion of someone who has the gall to think that by spending 6 years studying something they could possibly know something you don't.
Thanks for clarifying your confusion. When you have something that is scientific and objective, experience and learning means you can actually objectively have the right answers. Politics are subjective, everyone has an opinion. Unless you're talking about a specific procedure, fact or rule (which is objective), there is no objective correct or incorrect answer. It's like saying "hey, I studied art for 30 years, so I know better than you if that painting is beautiful or not". Similarly, those 6 years don't mean a hill of beans, but an elitist would think that having studied something makes their subjective opinion more enlightened or more valid.
Bottom line, good job dems, thanks for leaving the witch in place, it's just more ammo for the other side. Of course, the bottom line is still that it's all about the economy. If the economy turns around, Obama wins by a landslide. If it doesn't, it's going to depend on who the repubs have running.... but it certainly helps the republicans when the democrats have the face of failure as the party leader in the house.
Nice to see anti-intellectualism in full bloom today.
You think that an understanding of US legislative history and procedure is akin to the artistic concept of beauty? That's the stupidest thing I've heard in quite awhile. An someone who studied art might not be able to be an authority on if a painting is beautiful, but they could tell you the mechanics behind how it was painted.
The role of the Speaker in US politics is clearly quantifiable both in current action and through the history of the position. I know what that is, and you don't. Because this is politics though, everyone thinks their opinion, however ignorant, is equally valid to more informed ones.
Sorry, it's not. Go peddle your false equivalence somewhere else.
A successful Speaker moves forward an agenda that makes the country happy
Dude, you are far left kneejerk progressive.
By almost anyone's measure, a Speaker who passes some legislation but in doing so costs her party a historic loss is NOT successful. A successful Speaker moves forward an agenda that makes the country happy, not just an agenda that makes her happy, because at the end of the day the Speaker must represent America, not merely her own constituents, in a way that other Representatives do not.
The problem with what your saying is that the general opinion of Nancy Pelosi is clouded by the spin machine's constant vilification of anything she did and even her character..
She has been Rove'd from the moment her position was announced. The things she has passed have passed through the same rovian machinations and have created the false populist outcry...
Health care for instance...the polls bandied about saying that the health care bill is hated by the people INCLUDE the people that were disappointed by the fact that the public option was NOT included because the blue dogs got their corporate agenda in place at the last minute...
If you look at polling on the individual pieces of the legislation to this day people look favorably at a majority of the bill..
When the shouting machine started in earnest with the death panel talk and takeover mantras popularity for the bill dropped from the high 40s to what its at today. Was this because Nancy Pelosi was such a bad person or was this because the shills had it out for her and the democratic agenda that Obama ran on...remember he ran on the health care and banking regulation overhaul bills....
History will look very kindly on Nancy Pelosi....
Compare her tenure to Newt Gingrichs tenure...
Dude, you are far left kneejerk progressive. Studying politics is NOT going to give you gravitas except with other progressives simply because everything you see is colored by your preferences. Take the role of Speaker. True, her role is to pass legislation. The role of EVERY Representative is to pass legislation. It's kind of what they do. That does not mean that her other roles - represent her party and keep them in power (by making sure she and they do not alienate the voters), schedule votes, moderate debate, work with the minority, keep the important stuff ahead of the politically desirable but unimportant stuff, set the rules, represent the House ceremonially, be prepared to step in and serve as President (second in succession) - are not equally valid functions and thus equally valid measures of success. I could argue that passing legislation is a smaller part of the Speaker's role than of an ordinary Representative with a few committee assignments, who has little else to do but see that her preferred legislation passes. Just because passing (progressive) legislation is her most important role TO YOU does not mean everyone will see it so. For instance, there are roughly sixty soon to be unemployed Democrats who probably very much wish Pelosi had passed less legislation - and that's just in D.C.
By almost anyone's measure, a Speaker who passes some legislation but in doing so costs her party a historic loss is NOT successful. A successful Speaker moves forward an agenda that makes the country happy, not just an agenda that makes her happy, because at the end of the day the Speaker must represent America, not merely her own constituents, in a way that other Representatives do not.
Ah yes, the old anti-intellectualism bullshit. I have two bachelors degrees and three masters degrees from top 20 universities because I hate intellect and learning Brilliant!Nice to see anti-intellectualism in full bloom today.
Really? You must not be able to hear yourself talk, perhaps a hearing check is in order?You think that an understanding of US legislative history and procedure is akin to the artistic concept of beauty? That's the stupidest thing I've heard in quite awhile.
An someone who studied art might not be able to be an authority on if a painting is beautiful, but they could tell you the mechanics behind how it was painted.
Wrong and wrong again. I do know what the role is, and you're missing the point about her role. You seem fixated on whether she was a failure in terms of achieving things -- that's completely besides the point. She's been very effectively painted as the face of failure and as the face of all that is bad with politics, as indicated by her popularity and the fact that she was featured very effectively all over the country in the past election to get out the vote. Regardless of whether she was actually effective or not in her position, politically speaking, nationally she's seen as a failure among both independents and conservatives. Her actual effectiveness as the speaker is a completely different discussion/analysis, and one where your background might be beneficial.The role of the Speaker in US politics is clearly quantifiable both in current action and through the history of the position. I know what that is, and you don't.