A Toast To A Remarkable Leader: Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Originally posted by Alxandro
Sestias, surely you can't be serious.
Do you seriously believe she actually ran "the most open and ethical Congress in history" into the ground?

With my edit, i certainly would agree with that statement.

I keep seeing the thread title, thinking that it should be "roast", not "toast"

reply to post by Sestias


A Self Centered Delusional Politician living in her own Fantasy World oblivious to the Suffering of her Fellow Americans due to her Left Wing Political Agenda can Rot in Hades for all I care .

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I am glad you refrained from bashing Pelosi's looks and focused on her accomplishments, which are a legitimate topic for dispute.

The reason some of the base didn't like her was because she was not liberal ENOUGH for them, not because she was too far left.

Many presidents have polled low in middle of their terms and then were voted back into office when their accomplishments were recognized and had had their full effect. Low numbers now do not prove anything.

Also, I would like to have some real evidence that would validate your claim that this is the most despised Congress in American history. Remember Congress was not popular when it passed laws mandating desegregation, voting rights, and other civil rights acts during the 1960's. Now EVERYBODY, including Republicans, acknowledge that these reforms represented progress for the country. They ignore the fact that most Republicans voted against them.

Yes, John Boehner will urge his majority to vote for huge tax cuts for the richest 2% of the population and other measures to benefit the top tiers (not the average employee) of big corporations and Wall Street. He will vote to eliminate food stamps, unemployment benefits, social security, medicare, medicaid, public housing and any and all other social programs now in place. He will cheer the House majority on when they raise taxes on on the middle class, which has always paid the highest percentage of their salaries in income tax under Republican administrations. In fact, anything that impacts the most elite of the elite and works for the benefit of the average citizen will be voted down.

Yay. Soooo much better than Wall Street reform, health care reform, credit card reform, student loan reform and increases in their funding, mortgage reform, the START treaty, support for community colleges, increased veterans' benefits, and on and on. We wouldn't want the average guy to prosper or the middle class to grow rather than shrink, now would we?

What a bitch Nancy Pelosi is.

NOT!!!

reply to post by Sestias


There is alot of deep hatred and spite towards Pelosi over here. Personally I do not think she was an effective leader mainly because of her passive role, and yes I do believe she was passive, in congress. She allowed for such policies as the patriot act and the investigations towards george Bush to slide, she's turned the other cheek plenty of times. However I will agree that much of the hatred towards her goes little more than that of ideology or partisanship. I'd give more of an ear to many members here if they argued against her standing as house speaker over the fact she allowed for such policies as the patriot act to slide, but most of the arguments against here go no further than her speading some "progressive" or "homosexual" agenda. I've always asked folks what made Pelosi worse than gingrich and the answers have not amounted to anything.

Next year Boehner will take the spite from progressives and all I can say to that is by the least have reason, not ideological biases, when making the case.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Nancy Pelosi and her radical left wing agenda

Yep, responses like this against Pelosi is all I hear from conservatives. There are plently of legit reasons to be critical of her, but ever since she assumed the house speaker position, this has been the line of talk. Nothing of substance against her standing as house speaker.

But nevertheless conservatives are housetrained to hate by Fox and co.

reply to post by Sestias


Don't misunderstand me. On the surface, i despise just about everyone in DC. It has to do with the bastardization of our Constitution.

But in specific, Pelosi's biggest failure is her ability to provide effective leadership. With a majority, she still barely managed to get any of her agenda passed (thank God).

But the conservatives are no better. Their job is to get the People into a frenzy so that the Dems can go and start removing rights. A "1-2 Punch" where the People are made to believe that there are only two options: violence (the GOP war machine) or the loss of liberty (proposed by both sides, but much more by the Dems).

The Libertarians seem to be more on target...but i want abject liberty and nothing less.

If anyone on this planet deserves painful, terminal cancer, it is Nancy Pelosi.

We can only hope

I am most grateful that this sniveling termigant is GONE! I went from disdain to moribund HATRED when she reponded to a reporter asking her about the Constitutional authority granted the government to mandate that people buy something, like health insurance, and her response was "Are you serious, are you serious?"! Yes Nancy, he was serious and so were millions of other Americans! Take your "Let them eat cake" ass and GET OUT!!!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I'd like to know what policies or actions made Pelosi stand out to you bigfatfurrytexan? The thing that made Pelosi stand out for me was her support for the Iraq nonsense prior to becoming house speaking and her silence over the renewal of the patriot act in 2009, something Republicans had lead ahead. Aside from that her stances on policies have been no different than typical liberals or democrats, so then wouldn't your issue with her really be ideological and just that?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I'm not certain what bigfatfurry's response is, but isn't ideology the crux of a politician? I mean one could hate her for her shoes, her clothes and whatnot - but isn't it her ideology that drives the policies and laws that she seeks to enact? I'm just trying to understand what it is you are attempting to segregate here...

reply to post by kozmo


What I am saying is that Pelosi is little to no different to that of Clinton or even Obama, they hold the same policies, hers is progressive, yet she is the centerpoint of hatred at times. What makes her stand out?

What specific policies did she push for that got to you? And I am well aware of the healthcare bill, but obviously you had it for Pelosi well since before then, so I'd be curious to see what set you off.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I'd like to know what policies or actions made Pelosi stand out to you bigfatfurrytexan? The thing that made Pelosi stand out for me was her support for the Iraq nonsense prior to becoming house speaking and her silence over the renewal of the patriot act in 2009, something Republicans had lead ahead. Aside from that her stances on policies have been no different than typical liberals or democrats, so then wouldn't your issue with her really be ideological and just that?

No, like i said, it is more her failed leadership. The way she talks. The things she says publicly. The manner in which she behaves. It is the same thing with most others in DC, though.

When I hear her talk, I get the feeling that I am hearing the words of a small and petty mind.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Well SG, as Bigfatfurry stated, I couldn't stand her arrogance and attitude. She carries herself like she is better and smarter than us great unwashed masses. In short, she carries herself like she is royalty and we should worship her. It is that "Let them eat cake" attitude I alluded to earlier.

Further, there are degrees of ideology. Yes, Clinton is progressive yet Pelosi borders on socialist. Clinton recognized that "Healthcare reform" was not the will of the people and dropped it. Pelosi, on the other hand, worked harder than ever to ram it through despite the fact that the majority of Americans opposed it. She is NOT about "Representing" us, she is about ramming her ideology down our throats regardless of what the majority of us want or don't want. That is enough for me to hate her.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Did you read the OP? Or did you just call her "ineffective" because she didn't single-handedly solve all the country's problems or rally the House to vote "yes" for every single bill the conservatives or the liberals or you specifically might have wanted -- just many, many of them? I might remind you that no Speaker of the House can force every Congressman to vote the way he or she wants, and no Speaker in history ever has. The Speaker can rally his or her own party to unite around some issues, but even the Democrats have their factions, like the conservative Blue Dogs, who will resist even their own party's agendas from time to time.

Again, a segment from the OP about Pelosi's accomplishments:

With the election of Barack Obama and the consolidation of her majority, Pelosi demonstrated her remarkable leadership. The swing votes in the House came from largely conservative Democrats elected in districts that voted for John McCain. Yet, time and again, in the face of unified Republican opposition, Pelosi rallied her caucus to pass historic legislation -- the largest recovery act ever, the largest increase in student aid ever, comprehensive health care reform, comprehensive energy legislation, financial reform, and more. She asked her members to take tough votes and they responded. Too often, she was then hung out to dry by a passive White House and an obstructionist Senate, that diluted, delayed and defeated major reforms.

Her true grit was demonstrated in the fight over health care. After Scott Brown's stunning victory in Massachusetts, many in the White House and the Congress assumed comprehensive reform was dead. Pelosi would not accept retreat or defeat, and wouldn't allow the White House to go wobbly on her. The lady was not for turning. Inane White House strategy -- dithering for months with Max Baucus for example -- made the bill far weaker than it had to be, but the result was an historic accomplishment.

The best measure of Pelosi's stature -- and her achievement as a woman in leadership -- was that Republicans joined her with the president as their poster targets in the election. With hundreds of hours of ads vilifying her without any effective rebuttal, her popularity plummeted, her "negatives" soared. Democrats were held accountable for failing to revive the economy that conservative policies had taken over the cliff. The recovery act -- too small in conception and weakened badly in the Senate -- was inadequate to the cause. With a Democratic President commanding the bully pulpit of the White House, no Speaker, no matter how powerful, could drive the election message.

There is no need to idealize her. On several issues from the war to the public option, many liberals, including myself, fought against compromises Pelosi forged. But there is no doubt that she has been the most effective reform Speaker since the days of the New Deal.

proofreading

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
No, like i said, it is more her failed leadership. The way she talks. The things she says publicly. The manner in which she behaves. It is the same thing with most others in DC, though.

When I hear her talk, I get the feeling that I am hearing the words of a small and petty mind.

So it is just personal? It's her personality? To me the actions of a politician are more relevant to whether they are fit to leadership than their personalities or the way in which they present themselves. This is the problem we've had with our country for so many years, that for the majority of the population the judgement of a politician is based on personality and talk. Many people liked Reagan because he acted like the perfect president, yet his policies and actions over his administration resulted in one of the worst performances in the whitehouse. Many people voted for Obama over personality and race, and this angered many conservatives particularly on this forum. This attitude that pelosi is not a good politician or leader because her personality gets to you is no different from the previous two examples in my eyes.

In anycase I don't see Boehner making a whole lotta difference in DC, neither do I seem as any less arrogant in anyway. His actions and comments during the early Bush years should be very evident of whats to come in DC. But hey who knows, things may actually change for the good believe it or not. I can't see the future after all, I can only assume based on passed evidence. If Boehner takes the initiative to remove such policies as the patriot act and further seperates himself from lobbyists, I may have a change of heart.

Originally posted by kozmo
Further, there are degrees of ideology. Yes, Clinton is progressive yet Pelosi borders on socialist. Clinton recognized that "Healthcare reform" was not the will of the people and dropped it.

Actually there are no fundamental differences between Clinton (Hillary or Bill) and Pelosi. Clinton dropped the healthcare bill because the republicans refused to cooperate and held the majority of congress, most folks actually supported healthcare reform back then as they did last year. Lets not forget that Clinton actually raised the corporate tax rate from 31% to 35%, the first time the tax rate was raised in what? 30 years? I've never actually seen Pelosi vote to raise the corporate tax rate or income taxes, atleast not to the degree of what clinton did. Lets not forget that the clintons supported universal healthcare, Pelosi was a supporter of the public option and stated time and time again that she wishes to see private insurers take on more people off the hands of the state. So there are no really differences, those differences only lie in your personal views.

Pelosi, on the other hand, worked harder than ever to ram it through despite the fact that the majority of Americans opposed it.

Lets distinguish the difference between socialist healthcare and corporate healthcare. This current healthcare bill which I and 70% of the country oppose (including yourself) is not socialist of nature. It holds a mandate to have everybody apply for private insurance. It has nothing to do with the government offering a public alternative. Socialist healthcare is and has always been supported by the majority of the public. The majority of the public supported the public option and the majority of the public oppose any measures to remove medicare and medicaid. Have you ever wondered why the Republicans reaffirmed their support for medicare? Because they know it's political suicide to take any measure to remove it, they know their constituents, many of which are elderly or babyboomers, despite being conservative in nature, depend heavily on such programmes as medicare and medicaid. Michael steele himself reaffirmed his support behind medicare last year. So this argument that the majority of the public opposes socialist healthcare does not fly when we actually look at the stats.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

... Nothing of substance against her standing as house speaker.

But nevertheless conservatives are housetrained to hate by Fox and co.

Ha, what about the conservatives that don't even watch Fox news?

Let me give you an example of why she is/was NOT a remarkable leader.



In case you decided on not to click on the link, here is the mini trascript:
"We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it."

How can you even defend this?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
No, like i said, it is more her failed leadership. The way she talks. The things she says publicly. The manner in which she behaves. It is the same thing with most others in DC, though.

When I hear her talk, I get the feeling that I am hearing the words of a small and petty mind.

So it is just personal? It's her personality? To me the actions of a politician are more relevant to whether they are fit to leadership than their personalities or the way in which they present themselves. This is the problem we've had with our country for so many years, that for the majority of the population the judgement of a politician is based on personality and talk. Many people liked Reagan because he acted like the perfect president, yet his policies and actions over his administration resulted in one of the worst performances in the whitehouse. Many people voted for Obama over personality and race, and this angered many conservatives particularly on this forum. This attitude that pelosi is not a good politician or leader because her personality gets to you is no different from the previous two examples in my eyes.

In anycase I don't see Boehner making a whole lotta difference in DC, neither do I seem as any less arrogant in anyway. His actions and comments during the early Bush years should be very evident of whats to come in DC. But hey who knows, things may actually change for the good believe it or not. I can't see the future after all, I can only assume based on passed evidence. If Boehner takes the initiative to remove such policies as the patriot act and further seperates himself from lobbyists, I may have a change of heart.

edit on 26-12-2010 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

I have made an entire career out of leadership. Personality, as it is presnted to and perceived by subordinates, is the most important thing. It is what sets the tone for the type of shop you are running.

I don't see anyone making a whole lot of difference in DC. Maybe Ron Paul, if he isn't killed first. Whatever "liberty" movement begins to gain traction will be usurped by one of the two parties. It doesn't really matter, i don't think.

We just have to be as unruly as possible. That is how you keep the powers at bay.

ETA: Pelosi is not as big a scoundrel as Gingrich. She is far to ineffective to be quite that bad. Boehner...he won't be much better. Unless he can get people to buy his crocodile tears.

It isn't the person. I mean, there is some leeway they have. For the most part they do what they are told to do. maybe they are tricked, like the People. Maybe they are in on it. I dunno.

She is quite remarkable..

I'm not sure if that's a good thing for her.

reply to post by Sestias


Outside of the Patriot Act, she presided over the greatest deterioration of our rights that I have seen in my 38 years on this planet. Sure, i realize that for the last 100 years or so it has been a constant struggle. But several of her key "victories" will end up being undone by the oncoming congress. The public pretty much wants this. I mean, i don't like the idea of socialized healthcare (libertairan at heart). But if we are going to have some socialized medicine, i won't throw a fit. The problem is, what was rammed through is a trainwreck of a bill that, in all honesty, has no chance of success.

I can tell you that the business i run will have to fold if we have to pay healthcare for our employees. Either that, or you can get used to $200 a night hotel rooms.