Nancy Pelosi may stay as Democratic Leader
- Thread starter Icarus27k
- Start date
Your premises are false. The Pelosi-led House has been the most effective and productive in decades. I believe Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein called the current Congress (the 111th) the best since the Great Society Congress of 1965-66. Volumes of books can be written about the law that has been passed in the 111th Congress.
Republicans certainly do think that Pelosi staying on will be beneficial to them, but they don't know what they're talking about. Especially if they think Pelosi is going to be inept, because she can't be describe using that word in any sense. It may be a matter of a choice between a polarizing, yet courageous and good quality Dem leader, and a well-liked do-nothing Dem Leader. The right choice is the former, which is what Pelosi would be.
I think I should also mention that I believe Nancy Pelosi has a pretty good shot of winning the next JFK Profile in Courage Award. What is that, you say? It's an award given out each year by the John F. Kennedy Library to officials who displayed the kind of courage that was described in Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage".
It's kind of a self-sacrificing courage wherein an official risks their careers to do something right. For example, previous award winners have been former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, who took the Confederate emblem off the state's official flag and was voted out of office partly because of it, and Brooksley Born, who in the 1990s tried to warn people able the danger of credit default swaps and was fired from her job as the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission for doing so.
Pelosi has got the perfect story to win the award: Passing health care reform that will insure over 30 million poor people, even though it partially caused her to lose her Speakership.
30 Million poor people? Are you REALLY trying to sell that? The poor have always been 100% insured and covered with health care under welfare. If you are poor in the US you do not have a thing to worry about if you get sick or even have a cold and decide to go to the ER to get asprin. The "poor" do not pay 1 Penny towards their health care.
Obama's Health Care plan forces people who CAN pay for health insurance and do not want it TO get it. It forces the people who could use THEIR money elsewhere to BUY health insurance.
Poor people have always been covered.
Um, no they haven't. The US has a huge problem with not enough people being eligible for welfare. The standards required to get on Medicaid are so high that a lot of people who can be helped by it aren't. That's one of the reasons we have tens of millions of people uninsured.
Think of it this way: there is a definite line where a person becomes eligible for Medicaid. Very few people are actually eligible, and they have crossed that line. However, there are a massive more amount of people who are just at that line but who haven't crossed it. Those people are, by any reasonable sense of the word, poor, but they are still considered too wealthy to be on Medicaid.
That's kind of common knowledge. Social workers can tell you that by their experience of having to turn poor people away because they don't fit the proper definition of "poor".
One of the many great things the health care reform that Pelosi and Obama made law is that it expands eligibility of Medicaid, an astonishing policymaking success in its own right. In fact, that's partially how they are able to insure over 30 million more poor people.
Think of it this way: there is a definite line where a person becomes eligible for Medicaid. Very few people are actually eligible, and they have crossed that line. However, there are a massive more amount of people who are just at that line but who haven't crossed it. Those people are, by any reasonable sense of the word, poor, but they are still considered too wealthy to be on Medicaid.
That's kind of common knowledge. Social workers can tell you that by their experience of having to turn poor people away because they don't fit the proper definition of "poor".
One of the many great things the health care reform that Pelosi and Obama made law is that it expands eligibility of Medicaid, an astonishing policymaking success in its own right. In fact, that's partially how they are able to insure over 30 million more poor people.
''Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein called the current Congress (the 111th) the best since the Great Society Congress of 1965-66''
Millions of Democratic party voters didn't see things quite that way as you can see from the recent election.
''Democrats blame her for what happened.''
You mean for the recent office losses, right? If so, you are correct.
Millions of Democratic party voters didn't see things quite that way as you can see from the recent election.
''Democrats blame her for what happened.''
You mean for the recent office losses, right? If so, you are correct.
That's actually not that important to me. It's pretty obvious that a majority can be wrong. And in this case, they were. Horrendously.
Somewhat disingenuous of you (to say the least) to say that a majority can be right only if it's a democrat majority.....:roll:
It's not disingenuous. I can give all the info to back it up, like all the laws that the Democratic majority passed, and scholarly opinions of the quality of the Democratic-majority Congress. That's pretty strong evidence that a majority is wrong.
Yup starting with george soros and other enlightened progressives or socialists.....knock yourself out..
Nah, I'm continue with Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Read him here...
A very productive Congress, despite what the approval ratings say - washingtonpost.com
Or James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. Read him here...
Audio | Top Historian Views 111th Congress as One of The Most Productive | Capitol News Connection
Or Ross Baker, of Rutgers University. Or Ronald W. Peters of the University of Oklahoma.
“I don’t think there is any Congress that comes close” in accomplishments except those “back in the LBJ time,” said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University professor whose books about Congress include “Friend and Foe in the U.S. Senate” and “House and Senate.”
“Any great innovations always, invariably come with a political price,” Baker said. “Unless the payoff is immediate and goes to all segments of the electorate, you pay a price for it.”
Today, Democrats control 59 of 100 seats in the Senate and 255 of the 435 House seats. This year’s health-care overhaul passed without a single Republican vote.
It is “pretty remarkable” for the Democratic-controlled Congress “to have gotten as much as they have gotten done without any Republican support,” said Ronald W. Peters, a political scientist at University of Oklahoma. Yet the party can’t look to Johnson’s time for any sense of inspiration, he said. After their productivity in the mid-1960s, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate in 1966.
ANALYSIS: 111th Congress makes history, gets no respect - macombdaily.com
Or Linda L. Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth.
In the 1960s Democrats paid the price for events largely outside their control - an escalating war in Vietnam going badly, rowdy anti-war protests and violence in American cities, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College.
"I think that's what's going on this time too," Fowler said, "despite a very significant record of accomplishment."
Despite Rancor, 111th Congress Got Things Done - CBS News
A very productive Congress, despite what the approval ratings say - washingtonpost.com
Or James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. Read him here...
Audio | Top Historian Views 111th Congress as One of The Most Productive | Capitol News Connection
Or Ross Baker, of Rutgers University. Or Ronald W. Peters of the University of Oklahoma.
“I don’t think there is any Congress that comes close” in accomplishments except those “back in the LBJ time,” said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University professor whose books about Congress include “Friend and Foe in the U.S. Senate” and “House and Senate.”
“Any great innovations always, invariably come with a political price,” Baker said. “Unless the payoff is immediate and goes to all segments of the electorate, you pay a price for it.”
Today, Democrats control 59 of 100 seats in the Senate and 255 of the 435 House seats. This year’s health-care overhaul passed without a single Republican vote.
It is “pretty remarkable” for the Democratic-controlled Congress “to have gotten as much as they have gotten done without any Republican support,” said Ronald W. Peters, a political scientist at University of Oklahoma. Yet the party can’t look to Johnson’s time for any sense of inspiration, he said. After their productivity in the mid-1960s, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate in 1966.
ANALYSIS: 111th Congress makes history, gets no respect - macombdaily.com
Or Linda L. Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth.
In the 1960s Democrats paid the price for events largely outside their control - an escalating war in Vietnam going badly, rowdy anti-war protests and violence in American cities, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College.
"I think that's what's going on this time too," Fowler said, "despite a very significant record of accomplishment."
Despite Rancor, 111th Congress Got Things Done - CBS News
The majority sure were wrong when the let Pelosi get away with what she did at the beginning. As I have said all along a Democrat just doesn't know how to tale responsibility let alone be responsible. Let the evil witch of the West fade away along with her minions..
I told you I'd bring it up again in a week or so when Pelosi wins the vote of the House Democratic Caucus.
Pelosi wins Democratic leadership fight - CNN.com
Washington (CNN) -- House Democrats voted Wednesday to make Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, their leader for the 112th Congress, overcoming objections from moderates who argued that she was partly responsible for the party's overwhelming defeat at the polls two weeks ago.
Pelosi turned back a challenge from North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, a member of the party's diminished centrist "Blue Dog" faction, in a 150-43 vote. The speaker -- now set to be House minority leader in January -- retained the solid support of party liberals, who have noted her fundraising prowess and past ability to lead congressional Democrats to power, among other things.
An earlier motion to delay the Democratic leadership vote until December 8 was easily defeated in a 68-129 vote. Some rank-and-file members were seeking more time to "fully understand the causes of our historic losses" in the midterm elections, according to the resolution.
With that Nancy has crashed any chances the Democrats have of winning in 2012. You were right, Democrats are stupid.
A couple of Dems were interviewed on CBS news tonight and both blamed Pelosi for their party's recent losses.