Jump to content

Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m still waiting for legit criticism of Aunt Nancy other than everyone hates her.

Like it or not, we're living in a world where that is a legit criticism.  The Hillary out front should have told you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DixonHur said:

Like it or not, we're living in a world where that is a legit criticism.  The Hillary out front should have told you.

Except it’s not.  It’s angry people that are told to be angry.  Fuck placating them. Challenge their bullshit.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Her best days--as ineffective as they were--are long behind her. Her name is a dog whistle for the Fox News crowd. She needs to get out of Dodge and make way for a younger, inspired "leader".

Whoa whoa whoa--I get a lot of the criticism of Nancy Pelosi.  From a policy standpoint, she is too liberal for my taste.  She is haughty and arrogant, which is remarkable that it stands out among the haughty and arrogant denizens of Washington.  And from a House-management perspective, she is only ever concerned with that 218th vote--she never looks for broad agreement (because that would probably result in a narrower bill, which also conforms to my preferred style of governance).

But "ineffective"?  Really?  That's your critique?  

She held her caucus together to push through a trillion-dollar stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare.  She held that caucus together despite the complete and total incompetence of the White House's legislative affairs department in those years.  No Democratic speaker has ever been able to get healthcare done.  None--not Jim Wright, not Tip O'Neill, not even Sam Rayburn.  And they all tried.  But only she was able to hold together the Democratic caucus.

"Ineffective"?  You've got to be out of your mind.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here is a legitimate criticism. She has overseen, forever, a political party that is partially to blame for the fact that we as a country are in deep deep trouble financially. She is uniquely positioned to help solve the problem by facing the inevitable requirement to reform entitlements, but has completely ignored it for decades.

Even worse, she has been given a golden lottery ticket of a shit show Republican Party and President that have demonstrated even worse fiscal management than the Democrats. All she would have to do is re-position the Democratic Party as the fiscally responsible party, ala Blue Dog Democrats, and waves of moderate Republican and Independent voters would migrate wholesale to the Democratic Party. And in the process, she would help solve the fiscal problem, a problem which is so serious it threatens our country more than just about any other issue, save for nukes from terrorists.

But no. Instead of doing those things she just sits there peddling the same bullshit year after year with her thumb up her ass. She is disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Ok here is a legitimate criticism. She has overseen, forever, a political party that is partially to blame for the fact that we as a country are in deep deep trouble financially. She is uniquely positioned to help solve the problem by facing the inevitable requirement to reform entitlements, but has completely ignored it for decades.

Even worse, she has been given a golden lottery ticket of a shit show Republican Party and President that have demonstrated even worse fiscal management than the Democrats. All she would have to do is re-position the Democratic Party as the fiscally responsible party, ala Blue Dog Democrats, and waves of moderate Republican and Independent voters would migrate wholesale to the Democratic Party. And in the process, she would help solve the fiscal problem, a problem which is so serious it threatens our country more than just about any other issue, save for nukes from terrorists.

But no. Instead of doing those things she just sits there peddling the same bullshit year after year with her thumb up her ass. She is disgusting.

I think that's a critique of the Democratic Party as a whole.  Nancy Pelosi can't snap her fingers and turn the party into one of fiscal conservatism, even if she wanted to (and she doesn't).  Her caucus wouldn't go for it, and she'd be sitting on a backbench within a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Whoa whoa whoa--I get a lot of the criticism of Nancy Pelosi.  From a policy standpoint, she is too liberal for my taste.  She is haughty and arrogant, which is remarkable that it stands out among the haughty and arrogant denizens of Washington.  And from a House-management perspective, she is only ever concerned with that 218th vote--she never looks for broad agreement (because that would probably result in a narrower bill, which also conforms to my preferred style of governance).

But "ineffective"?  Really?  That's your critique?  

She held her caucus together to push through a trillion-dollar stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare.  She held that caucus together despite the complete and total incompetence of the White House's legislative affairs department in those years.  No Democratic speaker has ever been able to get healthcare done.  None--not Jim Wright, not Tip O'Neill, not even Sam Rayburn.  And they all tried.  But only she was able to hold together the Democratic caucus.

"Ineffective"?  You've got to be out of your mind.

Yeah, this.  She helped craft and pass some of the most important legislation of the last 25 years.  Without the stimulus and the bailouts, the banking and auto industry both would have failed.  What did Boehner pass?  I can't remember anything.  Paul Ryan passed a tax cut that was ill advised.

In the history of the Speakership, there have only been two ideologues:  Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan.  The rest are all managers, vote counters, organizers and fund raisers.  Judging by those, Nancy Pelosi is better than most.  Boehner has much more in common with Pelosi than he does Newt or Ryan.  (Pelosi sure as shit wouldn't let the House Intel Chairman run around talking about a "memo.")

There's one reason the Right hates Pelosi and we all know what it is.  They hate her yet are ambivalent about Dennis Hastert and he served actual jail time for being a child molester.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Except it’s not.  It’s angry people that are told to be angry.  Fuck placating them. Challenge their bullshit.

Yeah, yet another reason why there won't be a blue wave.  Dems are resolute in their attempts to find logic in voting patterns.  It's marketing...the GOP is great at it, and the Dems suck at it. 

I'm sorry you don't like the reality of politics today, but the Dems definitely need to start placating if they want to be in power.  Challenging them will just harden their resolve. 

The fact that a person is nearly universally disliked is the MOST legitimate criticism there is in a  moderndemocracy.  

It sucks, but that's where we are...ideas have lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a critique of the Democratic Party as a whole.  Nancy Pelosi can't snap her fingers and turn the party into one of fiscal conservatism, even if she wanted to (and she doesn't).  Her caucus wouldn't go for it, and she'd be sitting on a backbench within a week.

That’s exactly my point. She has failed to be the leader for which she was elected to be. People can complain and blame others all they want, but when a leader has been in the leadership chair for that long, the buck stops with them. More specifically, she also had another golden opportunity she blew when Obama and Boehner got so close on the grand bargain. Certainly the conservative Republican caucus also torpedo’d it, but she failed to lead too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

Heartland voted for a Manhattan real estate developer who despises the Heartland

Yeah, that's a paradox. But he said he loves the heartland and he even bothered to lie to them about other stuff, which Hillary did not do. 

Plus, he's a TV STAR!

Edited by MaybeACoordinator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

She and Schumer fit the stereotype of limousine liberal right down to the ground. NYC and SF, the two cities the heartland loves to hate the most. Typical Dem cluelessness. 

go ahead and call them "kikes" dude. Pelosi's a Catholic but WTF?   We won't judge.

Edited by Gil Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tennesseehorn said:

How about telling us WHY she is worthy of being the Speaker of the House again?   She is senile and out of touch with reality. 

She's neither.  

 

You, on the other hand...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

How about telling us WHY she is worthy of being the Speaker of the House again?   She is senile and out of touch with reality. 

Because she can whip her caucus better than any speaker since Tip O'Neill. She gets legislation passed on the reg.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

She and Schumer fit the stereotype of limousine liberal right down to the ground. NYC and SF, the two cities the heartland loves to hate the most. Typical Dem cluelessness. 

 

This is true.  The heartland hates successful cities, which is in part why the heartland is poor and miserable.  Nancy Pelosi actually fights for things that would make life better for those in the heartland, but she's an old liberal woman with a D next to her name from a liberal city, so screw her, amirite?  

 I understand why heartland America would rather vote for Republicans who, even though they sell them out to the 1% on every issue, at least they appear more like someone they'd rather have a beer with.   'Murica!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom said:

 

This is true.  The heartland hates successful cities, which is in part why the heartland is poor and miserable.  Nancy Pelosi actually fights for things that would make life better for those in the heartland, but she's an old liberal woman with a D next to her name from a liberal city, so screw her, amirite?  

 I understand why heartland America would rather vote for Republicans who, even though they sell them out to the 1% on every issue, at least they appear more like someone they'd rather have a beer with.   'Murica!

 

 

Most of the people who vote for Republicans don't realize that the Republican Party exists to fleece the shit out of them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m stunned that Democrats are happy with her. That would be like Republicans saying they are happy with their party. Have you people not been watching the absolute shit show our govt has produced over the last several years. Not one person should be proud of what’s occurred in the last several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m stunned that Democrats are happy with her. That would be like Republicans saying they are happy with their party. Have you people not been watching the absolute shit show our govt has produced over the last several years. Not one person should be proud of what’s occurred in the last several years.

From a liberal perspective, she was great when she was Speaker. She got shit done. The same cannot be said for her successors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

go ahead and call them "kikes" dude. Pelosi's a Catholic but WTF?   We won't judge.

Whoaaa Nelly, I don't get where that's coming from at all. What does SF have to do with Jewishness? And of course I knew Pelosi was Catholic; I am a member of that tribe myself. 

The heartland associates those cities with rich people who think they're bettern' 'em and gays and minorities, Jews being but one of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just happened to be watching Bill Maher right now (a program I hate), and they are making the exact same point right now about the Democratic Party, and Nancy Pelosi specifically, the fact that she’s sitting back and doing nothing. This is from the mouths of hardened Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s pretty ironic that D’s that support Pelosi are also the ones who sanctimoniously bitch about corruption of money in politics, when the only reason Pelosi is in leadership, despite her terrible approval numbers, is her proficiency at fundraising.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It’s pretty ironic that D’s that support Pelosi are also the ones who sanctimoniously bitch about corruption of money in politics, when the only reason Pelosi is in leadership, despite her terrible approval numbers, is her proficiency at fundraising.  

She's in leadership because she's the best member of Congress at whipping her caucus and keeping them in line for votes. And yes, money has a lot to do with that.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Why not?  What's she's saying is true. Wages have lost ground over the last 40 years.  She should be your hero.  

I didn't say I disagree with her statement. I said I don't care for her, I don't like her politics. She is a liberal Representative from San Francisco, I am a Libertarian from Texas, there are more than a few things about her I disagree with politically. Personally, I dislike Trump, Republicans and conservativism but a Democrat would at least have to be a champion of civil liberties to get my vote.

There was a time when Pelosi had the power to use her caucus to influence the withdrawal of troops in the war in Iraq. As I recall, Murtha called for a withdrawal around '05/'06 but Pelosi quashed that shit. Instead she took pot shots at Bush administration from the sidelines without ever using her power to stop it. She also had an opportunity to fight warrantless wire taps, Gitmo and the Patriot Act but failed to do so.

As I said, I am not a fan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Yeah, yet another reason why there won't be a blue wave.  Dems are resolute in their attempts to find logic in voting patterns.  It's marketing...the GOP is great at it, and the Dems suck at it. 

I'm sorry you don't like the reality of politics today, but the Dems definitely need to start placating if they want to be in power.  Challenging them will just harden their resolve. 

The fact that a person is nearly universally disliked is the MOST legitimate criticism there is in a  moderndemocracy.  

It sucks, but that's where we are...ideas have lost.

Placate who? That's why it doesnt matter who the Dems run. They will be run through the Rush and Fox ringer and will be hated. Gillibrand, or who ever else, will see the vitriol ratcheted up to Hillary and Pelosi level before the primary is over. Obama was a neophyte and Fox watching MFers still want to see his birth certificate and think he is a Muslim Kenyan.  

The Hannity out front should have told you. Time to give the south what it wants. A separate nation.  All we need is a Dem President and grassroots resolve from the left to inflame anti-American Confederate passion on the right rather than trying to suppress it.  The problem with the left is that they care for poor, minority, female, and gay Southerners, but we can better help them through a robust refugee program. Send Hannity down there with it when its over.  After 100 years of failed Christian theocracy, the South can reform. Otherwise, its always gonna be like this.  They are an economic and social anchor on the nation with a chip on its shoulder because of a 150 year old war.  We will be doing this in 500 years too if we dont let them try and fail. In the interim, Texas can also go it's own way, but I expect it will quickly reform to Western standards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the latest NBC/WSJ poll 21% of respondents said they are more likely to vote for a candidate that would support for Pelosi for speaker. 45% would be less likely.

House candidates are being put in a position where they must say they will not support her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slow down there hoss. Maybe we could have a loose confederation of city-states in the South and Texas and let the hayseeds have their theocracy. Capital could be Montgomery. They would have to pay duties to come into blue city-states. 

Edited by MaybeACoordinator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SF is seen as immoral, rich and ghey by the average hick. New York is seen as arrogant and rich by the same cohort. And put the two of them together and you and some serious Blunder Twins action, as seen by Joe Bob in his shack in the Davy Crockett National Forest. I do believe that they know that deep down they are more aligned with Dems but they can't bring themselves to sidle up to those city slickers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

SF is seen as immoral, rich and ghey by the average hick. New York is seen as arrogant and rich by the same cohort. And put the two of them together and you and some serious Blunder Twins action, as seen by Joe Bob in his shack in the Davy Crockett National Forest. I do believe that they know that deep down they are more aligned with Dems but they can't bring themselves to sidle up to those city slickers. 

And yet they elected an immoral arrogant rich New Yorker as their flagbearer. Sidled right up to that city slicker and sucked his dick. Someone who actually represents every thing they claim to hate about NY. Born rich.  Doesnt give a shit about the heartland. Doesnt know what it's like to earn an honest paycheck. 

You got it wrong.They love NY because they wish they could be a sideshow huckster like Trump.  They hate Dems because they aren't arrogant about being rich and they support programs for the needy. You see, Joe Bob doesnt know he's poor. He thinks he is a millionaire that hasn't happened yet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

And yet they elected an immoral arrogant rich New Yorker as their flagbearer. Sidled right up to that city slicker and sucked his dick. Someone who actually represents every thing they claim to hate about NY. Born rich.  Doesnt give a shit about the heartland. Doesnt know what it's like to earn an honest paycheck. 

You got it wrong.They love NY because they wish they could be a sideshow huckster like Trump.  They hate Dems because they aren't arrogant about being rich and they support programs for the needy. You see, Joe Bob doesnt know he's poor. He thinks he is a millionaire that hasn't happened yet.

I just don't know. I go back and forth and that. I really think if there was a hillbilly Dem on TV who "fired" people they would suck his dick too. 

But yeah, my better emotions get ahold of me sometimes and I forget that this country is built on racism more than the Constitution. I get racism as an abstract concept, but I was lucky enough to have gone to very integrated schools in the mid-70s and it never really took with me. There was still a lot of idealism flying around and the battle lines between the white kids and the black kids hadn't been drawn yet. 

So, oddly, I am naive about it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...