Patterico's Pontifications

3/22/2010

Nancy Pelosi Leads from the Front

Filed under: Government,Obama — DRJ @ 5:22 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Politico looks at Nancy Pelosi’s leadership:

“In 2001, running hard to be House Democratic whip, Nancy Pelosi had a blunt message for her caucus: If she won, she was going to lead from the front — and if colleagues didn’t want that style of leadership, they shouldn’t vote for her.

Sunday night’s historic win for health care reform showed just how real Pelosi’s promise was.
***
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is already warning that she is driving her members “off the cliff.” But Pelosi and her inner circle are convinced that delivering health care reform will re-energize a moribund Democratic base, which has grown less enthusiastic about both President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress as key policy initiatives have been sidetracked by GOP opposition.

“She’s pretty much expecting that this will right the ship,” said a top Pelosi adviser of the health care vote. “To her, this is going to change everything.”

Does Pelosi see herself as Obama’s heir apparent? More important, do Democrats?

— DRJ

95 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi Leads from the Front”

  1. Pelosi (March 25, 1940) will be 76 in 2016.

    Charlie B (d207cf)

  2. She’s attained her “Peter Principle”, it’s only downhill from here.
    But, it would be a good idea to keep the Prez and Veep from being co-located, just in case.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d02306)

  3. Oh geez, I just ate dinner. I suppose if Obie decides not to run again she might be a presidential possibility in 2012–her being a woman and so powerful and so beloved and all.

    elissa (91236c)

  4. That is one respect in which Obama has shown he was able to borrrow someone else’s pair …

    For the SOTU speech, he allowed/intructed Secretary of State Clinton to be elsewhere … while everyone between Her Shrillness and the Presidency was in one location … it seems that teh Secret Service is *more* effective than the Clinton Machine, since Obama remains President, in spite of that oversight …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  5. “Pelosi (March 25, 1940) will be 76 in 2016.”

    One thing’s for certain… she’d never be the one who blinks first.

    GeneralMalaise (20e943)

  6. But Pelosi and her inner circle are convinced that delivering health care reform will re-energize a moribund Democratic base, which has grown less enthusiastic about both President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress as key policy initiatives have been sidetracked by GOP opposition.

    “She’s pretty much expecting that this will right the ship,” said a top Pelosi adviser of the health care vote. “To her, this is going to change everything.”

    Holy delusions of grandeur, Batman!

    As revulsed as I am at watching the pseudointellectual pomposity of Barack Obama in action, I prefer that am less sickened by him than by the stammering platitudes mumbled by Nancy Pelosi (“It is with humility and great pride,” she began her victory speech Sunday night). Compounding that is the way Pelosi is treated as if she is the genius that Governor Palin is ridiculed for not being.

    And for all of you around the nation who think there’s more to Pelosi than fundraising and strong-arming, I can tell you as someone who has observed her unremarkable tenure as “my” Representative (aaaargh!) prior to her Speakership that there’s nothing else. She was born in Baltimore as a Democratic Party heiress (the D’Alessandros of Maryland), married into money, and got into the House in the first place as a reward for her ability to feed the California Dem machine (which gave us Boxer, Feinstein, Pat Brown, Jerry Brown, Willie Brown, Pete Stark, Tom Lantos, Bob Mulholland, etc.) buckets full of cash.

    The only thing special about Pelosi is that she is the only one who has sunk to the depths that she has in a case when public opinion is so solidly against the ruling party. Hasn’t anyone watched a mob boss in action before? She and her supporters seem to think that everyone will only remember how delicious the sausage is, and ignore what’s gone into it. She is, in a sense, Mrs. Lovett to Obama’s Sweeney Todd.

    For those idiots who tweeted assassination threats and wishes after the ObamanationCare passed: Consider what happens if anything happens to either Biden or Obama, much less both.

    You … DON’T … want … that. Step away from the rifle, boys.

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  7. She only moves up it something happens to both the Prez and Veep simultaneously.
    If someone takes out Biden, a new Veep will be approinted by the Prez, and confirmed by a majority vote of each house of the Congress.
    If Biden becomes President, he would (like Ford) appoint someone to fill the Veep slot, subject to the aforesaid confirmation by the Congress.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d02306)

  8. Obama – Biden – Pelosi – Byrd – Clinton

    Have we seen a sorrier bunch of aspirants ?

    Alasdair (df44bd)

  9. George Washington wept!

    AD - RtR/OS! (d02306)

  10. DRJ: Heir apparent? To what? The presidency?

    I love Nancy b/c she takes no prisoners and never fell for any of the b.s. from across the aisle. And I am not convinced this bill would have gotten done without her.

    But for numerous reasons, she’s unelectable at the presidential level, bless her heart. The stammering mentioned above is but one obstacle.

    She played her position and is playing it well. She’s already cemented her legacy as one of the most influential speakers in history.

    As for righting the ship, the bill is not a cure-all. But as a member of that base, I can tell you: It helped immensely.

    Among other things, the bill puts us in a position to tell Jim “Waterloo” DeMint, Sarah “Hopey-changey” Palin, Joe “You Lie” Wilson and Rush “I Hope He Fails” Limbaugh to all go screw.

    It was nice to see the Dems fighting back and wielding power, GOP-style, for a change.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  11. You tell me, Myron. I don’t see Mitch McConnell or John Boehner as the leaders of the GOP, even though they’re clearly Republican Congressional leaders. I see them more as legislative managers than Party leaders, and maybe Democrats see Pelosi the same way. But it seems to me she is becoming a brand and someone who speaks for the Party instead of manages legislation. Is that the case?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  12. “Among other things, the bill puts us in a position to tell Jim “Waterloo” DeMint, Sarah “Hopey-changey” Palin, Joe “You Lie” Wilson and Rush “I Hope He Fails” Limbaugh to all go screw.”

    Myron – You were telling those folks to go screw without the tainted bill. Do you actually think passing a bill opposed by 59% of Americans, with people not believing Democrat talking points about the bill by even higher percentages makes things better? You are delusional.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  13. Dream on, Nan. Governing from the left will hurt them. The left is some old hippies and some young disinterested student types, who will not be thrilled when the IRS comes calling.

    Obama got elected because he faked that he was a centrist. Wait till November…

    Patricia (e1047e)

  14. Wasn’t Pelosi the one who did not know that natural gas was a fossil fuel or an I thinking of another Democrat genius?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  15. DRJ: Well, I would have said definitely “no” before yesterday, and my gut tells me my fellow Dems/lefties think she is more of a nuts-and-bolts type operative vs. a charismatic leader. But her role in pushing through such a dearly sought-after Democratic priority could change the equation.

    In the end, she is a polarizing figure by necessity (think Newt) and I don’t see her making much traction in a Democratic primary. Then there’s the issue of age and timing. She’ll be 70 in a few days, and if Obama chooses to run in 2012 as expected, she’ll be 76 at the next open slot (if my math is right).

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  16. Patricia: Do you think this bill is on the left? I’ve heard it compared to the alternative bill that Bob Dole et al. proposed in opposition to the Clinton bill. It’s also well to the right of what Nixon wanted.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  17. I think yesterday changed things, too, and maybe especially in Pelosi’s eyes. I could see her pushing to be Obama’s VP in 2012 if the Democrats lose control of the House.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  18. Of course, I don’t think Obama would go along but it would be an interesting dynamic, don’t you think?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  19. DRJ: Although I liked Boehner’s “hell-no” speech, I agree he doesn’t have “it.”

    But this week, and really the last few weeks, have highlighted a potential GOP star I am genuinely concerned about, and that’s Rep. Paul Ryan. He’s a little nerdy, but then so is Obama. And the last two presidents have shown that big ears are not a disincentive for voters.

    What concerns me about Ryan is that he is not a moderate in any sense of the word — he’s a conservative. But he sounds reasonable. That’s the most dangerous kind. :)

    Look for attacks from the left on him to ratchet up if his star continues to rise.

    I think Ryan and VA Governor O’Donnell could make for two parts of a potentially strong GOP bench for 2012. Depending on how Obama is doing, they might want to sit out and wait. We’ll see.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  20. “Do you actually think passing a bill opposed by 59% of Americans, with people not believing Democrat talking points about the bill by even higher percentages makes things better?”

    These opposition numbers, are they people who wanted the bill to be further left as well as people who wanted it further right? Because I’m not so sure the GOP can count on the support of the former.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  21. daleyrocks: When the bill is broken down into its components, Americans like the components (except for the mandate, which I don’t like, either). But you’ve heard that, I’m sure.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  22. These opposition numbers, are they people who wanted the bill to be further left as well as people who wanted it further right?

    imdw: I assume you know it’s both. I think many on the right don’t know it’s both. The numbers for the bill really started tanking when the public option went down for good. I noticed that.

    Those were people on the left leaving, frustrated.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  23. Ryan, maybe. O’Donnell, too soon.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  24. Myron:

    imdw: I assume you know it’s both. I think many on the right don’t know it’s both.

    Do you always assume your opponents are stupid or is it just this time?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  25. DRJ: No, of course not. I’m just judging by how people on the right keep using the rhetoric of the poll numbers against the bill. Some of them seem unaware that part of the opposition is from the left. These people want a bill, just one even stronger than the one that passed (and by extension, more obnoxious to the right.)

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  26. I see people using Obama’s approval/disapproval numbers in addition to the polling on ObamaCare, both of which show more negatives than positives. Do you think they are both misleading?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  27. “I see people using Obama’s approval/disapproval numbers in addition to the polling on ObamaCare, both of which show more negatives than positives. Do you think they are both misleading?”

    I don’t find them misleading, but I do think people sometimes misunderstand the numbers. The Rasmussen index is particularly vulnerable to this, because he just compares the strong likes to the dislikes.

    imdw (2c1194)

  28. DRJ: I think you can look into any poll and find what you’re looking for.

    I also believe that polls are not the be-all, end-all. Polls on the Iraq surge were horrible, if I recall. I was personally against it. It was still the right thing to do.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  29. If you promise people free ice cream for life, they will vote for it. If you tell them that the price of free ice cream is having their eyes pecked out by crows, not so many vote yes.

    The “parts of the bill” argument is at about that level. This is a disaster of historic proportions which is why I don’t think it will ever be implemented. Some parts which could be of value will be left, such as insurance exchanges. This was in the Clinton bill, too, but, like all leftist solutions to simple problems, they load it up with coercion and criminal penalties. The Clinton bill made it a crime for doctors to treat patients outside the “coops.”

    I expect that, once Obama sees a massive exodus of doctors, they will reintroduce that feature by requiring Medicare and Medicaid membership for licensure.

    Most of it will never be implemented.

    I expect that nearly 100 Democratic Congressmen will be defeated this fall. The only ones safe are the black caucus.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  30. Myron, I will agree that likely some of those who disagree wanted something more to the left, just like some who disagreed with how Bush was handling the war by wanting to be more agressive such as making Iran pay for funneling resources into Iraq.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  31. This is a disaster of historic proportions

    Mike K: Well, I doubt it. I also don’t see 100 pickups, but if it makes you feel better to think so, that’s fine.

    Time will reveal in both instances.

    We just have a fundamentally different view of what government’s role in health care should be, and it won’t be bridged.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  32. Myron,

    If polls are nothing to you, all that matters is what each of us decides is correct. Right?

    imdw,

    I don’t find them misleading, but I do think people sometimes misunderstand the numbers. The Rasmussen index is particularly vulnerable to this, because he just compares the strong likes to the dislikes.

    That’s incorrect. Rasmussen compares both total approve/total disapprove and strongly approve/strongly disapprove.

    Are you sure you don’t find them misleading?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  33. DRJ: No, not each of us. But it does matter what the people we elect decide.

    As you know, we live in a republic, not a pure democracy, or else everything would be decided by referendum. Polls are useful guides for the leaders we elect. They shouldn’t live by them.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  34. So politicians should pay attention to polls but not citizens? I don’t understand that. If they are reliable for politicians, they should be reliable for citizens, too.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  35. DRJ: I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.

    Politicians should listen to citizens and be aware of polls. But they are to use their own wisdom and judgment to make the final decision and not take marching orders from either polls or citizens. That is why they were elected — to lead.

    Now, most of the time, following the people’s will will not only be politically wise, but also the right thing to do, b/c Americans, despite what some may believe, have good instincts. But sometimes the people, for various reasons, don’t get it — that is when leadership is required.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  36. “…I do think people sometimes misunderstand the numbers…”

    Now THAT is funny, considering the source.

    All it needs is a finish like “I work here is done” to be complete.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  37. It’s kind of like playing Twister, isn’t it, DRJ?

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  38. Myron,

    It sounds like you see government and leaders as benevolent dictators, using sweeping powers to help people as they see fit. I see people as granting limited power to government and its leaders to be used as infrequently as possible.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  39. “That’s incorrect. Rasmussen compares both total approve/total disapprove and strongly approve/strongly disapprove. ”

    I said his “index.” That is just a result of the strong. The Second column from the left on the page you linked. The one with the heading “Presidential Approval Index.”

    So today it is at -12, which is 29 (strongly approve) minus 41 (strongly disapprove). The other two columns don’t affect the index.

    “Are you sure you don’t find them misleading?”

    Yes.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  40. It sounds like you see government and leaders as benevolent dictators,

    DRJ: I’m not sure where or how you’re getting that, but no. Politicians are not benevolent.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  41. You know, Myron, you just destroyed utterly any credibility you have with this gem:

    “…I love Nancy b/c she takes no prisoners and never fell for any of the b.s. from across the aisle….”

    Speaking of “BS,” how about her definition of a bipartisan bill? Or having to pass a bill to find out what is in it?

    Nancy Pelosi is an ignoramus, and you know it. Look at the history of the kind of nonsense she does. And like I keep repeating, partisans like you don’t get it. She just made it easier for Republicans to (i) get back some power, and (ii) play the same kinds of partisan unethical games that she does.

    Remember her Hit Parade of nonsense. And you “love” her.

    Get a grip, Myron. She does damage to your party. And she cares about literally nothing other than her own power. You might ask Jane Harmon about her.

    Keep this conversation in mind, sixteen months from now. You’ll carry on then about how different it is…but your hero, the architect of the “Most Honest, Ethical, and Transparent Congress in History” will have made it possible.

    You could have had some honorable Democrats (and by “honorable,” I don’t mean agree with me). But you have your hero. Good for you.

    You consider yourself thoughtful. I sincerely hope not, given that post.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  42. Were you equally opposed to the Rasmussen Index in January-February 2009?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  43. DRJ; This is what I’m trying to get at. Madison said it better.

    As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought in all governments, and actually will in all free governments ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs, when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow mediated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth, can regain their authority over the public mind?
    James Madison (likely), Federalist No. 63, 1788

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  44. DRJ, you hit the nail on the head:

    “…It sounds like you see government and leaders as benevolent dictators, using sweeping powers to help people as they see fit. I see people as granting limited power to government and its leaders to be used as infrequently as possible…”

    These characters don’t care how something is accomplished, so long as it agrees with their political purpose. “The ends justify the means.” And they are hypocrites besides, because without batting an eye they will criticize folks on the Right who do the same thing.

    They just don’t get it. And they never will. I just don’t want their foolishness to damage other people.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  45. I wonder what Madison would think of Nancy Pelosi? Love her, I’m sure.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  46. “Were you equally opposed to the Rasmussen Index in January-February 2009?”

    All of obama’s polls were good for Obama then. What I find crappy about Rasmussen is that it can swing so much from just a speech that the base likes. Look at the time around the state of the union, for example. On the other hand, that’s a useful measure of *something* right? The recent uptick in rasmussen by 9 points in two days measures *something*. But I think it’s really easy for people to misunderstand just what it is measuring.

    imdw (89ba95)

  47. DRJ: Let’s take for example, your right to vote, which was granted in 1920 (though it always existed or course by natural law).

    If such had come to a vote, with only men voting, in 1920, it would not have happened just then. It took 304 congressmen (“respectable(?) body of citizens”) to step out of what may have been prevailing popular opinion among their constituents and do the right thing.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  48. That’s: “always existed OF course …”

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  49. “…I love Nancy b/c she takes no prisoners and never fell for any of the b.s. from across the aisle….”

    Oh for godsake, Myron, this isn’t difficult: She doesn’t fall for b.s. because she is a major producer of b.s.

    When someone says that we have to pass the bill to know what’s in the bill, that is the classic definition of b.s. It couldn’t be any clearer.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  50. I wonder what Madison would think of Nancy Pelosi? Love her, I’m sure.

    Eric: Neither of us know the answer to that question.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  51. “daleyrocks: When the bill is broken down into its components, Americans like the components (except for the mandate, which I don’t like, either).”

    Myron – Obama and the Democrats lost the public debate on health care reform. There is no good way for you to spin that. Congress did not vote on the components separately. Just look at the results of the CNN polling today. 70% believe the bill will result in higher deficits. They do not trust what Obama and the Democrats are saying. Take the components apart if you wish and poll them separately on an honest basis, not just the surface level at which you are talking about and the bill remains unpopular.

    Pelosi and Obama do have one thing in common, they are both very good at lying straight into the lens of a camera.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  52. She does damage to your party.

    Eric: By helping the party get reform it has desired for 70+ years? This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

    I hope you haven’t fallen into the familiar trap of thinking one election in November matters in the grand scheme compared to this health care milestone?

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  53. Myron:

    Politicians should listen to citizens and be aware of polls. But they are to use their own wisdom and judgment to make the final decision and not take marching orders from either polls or citizens. That is why they were elected — to lead.

    Isn’t your statement the description of a benevolent leader, if not a dictator?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  54. ” Isn’t your statement the description of a benevolent leader, if not a dictator”

    Specially the “elected” part.

    imdw (d867f1)

  55. Ah, a lovely expose, DRJ.

    The problem is this odd deification of leaders from the Left. Why, I’ll bet the man defines a leader as “one who gives orders.”

    But again, this type of person trusts leaders with a “D” and excuses them no matter what, and without any kind of mental whiplash accuses leaders with an “R” of heinous intention.

    And Myron? You keep giving yourself high fives, pal. You really and truly don’t get it. Statists like yourself never do.

    Making a hero out of Pelosi? And that makes sense on Planet Myron? I strongly urge you write long editorials to newspapers about the woman, and how she has brought the DNC what it has needed since 1940. Absolutely.

    Keep it up! You are helping the RNC, despite their fumbling.

    We should all subscribe to your nutty deluxe newsletter.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  56. Hey, imdw…ever read any history? Not to give you a bad time, but some of the most terrible dictators of the 20th century were…elected. Imagine that.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  57. Myron, lets just get right to it. You want cradle to grave sh!t. You want free sh!t. You want everyone else’s sh!t. You want everyone else to pay for your free sh!t. Hell, you want to be a ruling member of the ‘taking everyone else’s sh!t’ class. You figure you have a RIGHT to everyone else’s sh!t. How about if we just cut out the middle man. You write me a check for 90% of YOUR sh!t. You want everyone else taxed at 90+% so you can have your free sh!t, so you just mail me a check for 90% of your sh!t and we’ll all be happy. Except that you just expect everyone else’s sh!t free. C’mon, man up ‘Myron’. Send me YOUR sh!t that you think you are just going to get free from everyone else. THEN I’ll listen to your ……………sh!t.*

    *Largely lifted from a rant directed at a whiny progressive on another blog.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  58. And this is just hysterical:

    “…She’s already cemented her legacy as one of the most influential speakers in history….”

    Um. Inigo Montoya would observe that you may not mean “influential” the way history will.

    I’m glad you wrote that, however. It lets everyone know the high esteem you have for Speaker Pelosi. I look forward to your contortions to explain yourself as the months progress.

    Quite the Congress she presides over.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  59. Myron – Milestones are not always good.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  60. By helping the party get reform it has desired for 70+ years? This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

    There’s an old saying about being careful what you wish for. I forget how it goes, but it’s about being careful what you wish for.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  61. We just have a fundamentally different view of what government’s role in health care should be, and it won’t be bridged.
    Comment by Myron

    And just what is that role, if I may ask for clarification?

    Do you think health care should be rationed by the federal government, de facto because of an overall limit of supply at least, if not by direct limitation of specific services?

    Do you think the healthcare disparity in America should increase between those truly wealthy (or connected) and the rest of us?

    Do you think pharmaceutical companies that bring new drugs to market should be financially penalized for it?

    Do you think the further erosion of medicine as a profession will improve healthcare for anyone?

    Do you trust a government clerk or administrator with no medical training to tell your doctor what to do?

    Do you want doctors to worry about ordering too many tests, so that you don’t get the head CT since you’re the third person this month complaining of severe headaches?

    Do you want many of the brightest students to decide to do something other than go into medicine?

    I’m not sure if that is really your view of the government’s role in health care, but that’s what you are getting.

    If you were thinking of ensuring that everyone would have access to the kind of health care you want for yourself and your family, I’m afraid you will be sadly mistaken (or you have very low expectations).

    I say this as a doctor who saw patients whether they had insurance or not, whether they could pay or not, like a lot of doctors in decades past before medicare and medicaid came into being.

    Remember, Medicare rejects services about twice as often as private insurers and is about to collapse under it’s own weight. Just how is giving that kind of system the reponsibility for even more people going to cost less and provide better care?

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  62. Myron:

    DRJ: Let’s take for example, your right to vote, which was granted in 1920 (though it always existed or course by natural law).

    If such had come to a vote, with only men voting, in 1920, it would not have happened just then.

    Color me confused. Weren’t men the only ones voting in the Senate when suffrage passed in 1919?

    After a long and persistent fight advocates of woman suffrage won a victory in the Senate today when that body, by a vote of 56 to 25, adopted the Susan Anthony amendment to the Constitution. The suffrage supporters had two more than the necessary two-thirds vote of Senators present. Had all the Senators known to be in favor of suffrage been present the amendment would have had 66 votes, or two more than a two-thirds vote of the entire Senate.

    Is your point that it took enlightened male leaders to gave women the right to vote? I’m not sure, nor do I know what a 1919 poll would tell us about public opinion regarding suffrage. But you’ll need to show me something more if you think the only reason women have the right to vote, the slaves were freed, and the poor get help is because of enlightened and benevolent leaders who are willing to stand up to bitter, clingy, ignorant constituents.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  63. This chest-thumping and crowing about how great the Dems are was predictable and expected. Good thing is that Myron got his beloved healthcar foisted on the rest of us, because they know better than we do what is best for us. Fortunately, this leftist journalist-type personage will drop by less often, now that this greatest piece of legislation EVAH has been passed, since he seems singularly fixated on it. Leadership is apparently being dishonest, lying, cheating, bribing, coercion, complete lack of transparency and acting directly in opposition to those that give them power. They won this partisan powerplay. Congrats. Now f*ck off.

    JD (bb7add)

  64. Why, DRJ! Didn’t you know that politicians know what is best for everyone else?

    Except when they are Republican politicians, of course.

    Seriously, that is the flaw in all statists. They don’t understand that no party stays in power forever (despite the silly books written, what, ten months ago?). It’s like they are not aware of their own hypocrisy.

    A good example is polling. When polls agree with a progressive, they carry on endlessly about the Will of the People. But when the polls disagree, suddenly those polls are unreliable, and against the principles on which our Republic was founded.

    What they really want is Dear Leader. And here I thought the worst of it were the folks all crazy in love with Barack Obama. But I found someone with a crush on Nancy freaking Pelosi.

    Who admires what she has done. Admires it!

    We’ll see how that works out. But the Pelosi business says everything we need to know about the guy. This isn’t funny, like imdw trying to understand polling and statistics. That is kind of cute. But the Pelosi Admiration Society is not only an opinion not held by the majority of the American people (oh wait, the American people aren’t as smart and hip and cool and edgy as the guy; I forgot), but one that approves of a profoundly anti-democratic precedent being set.

    But for that person, the ends justify the means.

    Scary.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  65. Isn’t your statement the description of a benevolent leader, if not a dictator?

    DRJ: Let me answer your question with questions. Are you saying politicians are NOT supposed to exercise wisdom and judgment and should just do what their constituents want all the time? Do you not believe in the concept of republic?

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  66. I have worked with and for leaders, I have served with leaders, and had leaders as teammates and coaches. There has been nothing that resembles real leadership coming from them.

    JD (4a0e60)

  67. Weren’t men the only ones voting in the Senate when suffrage passed in 1919?

    ERJ: Right. The men IN THE SENATE. I am arguing that if it had been put to a popular vote — i.e., a referendum, the men in the public-at-large would not have voted for suffrage.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  68. DRJ – it will not engage, as it would have to engage in self-reflection. Like its fellow travelers, it is like trying to nail milk to an airplane flying overhead.

    JD (4a0e60)

  69. There has been nothing that resembles real leadership coming from them.

    JD: You can call leaders a necessary evil, and you won’t find any disagreement from me. Theoretically, no free man or woman should have to be led by anybody, if we all simply observed the natural rights of every other person.

    But that’s not going to happen.

    Personally, I have worked with some good leaders and some bad leaders, probably more of the former.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  70. OK, DRJ: I appreciate the thoughtful, if at times vexing, discussion. Eric and JD: Your usual crap was taken in the spirit with which it was offered, i.e., not seriously.

    Nite all.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  71. I said nothing about leaders being a necessary evil. I stated, quite clearly, that nothing about the Dems exemplified leadership.

    JD (4a0e60)

  72. “..Let me answer your question with questions…”

    Anyone surprised by that?

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  73. If such had come to a vote, with only men voting, in 1920, it would not have happened just then. It took 304 congressmen (”respectable(?) body of citizens”) to step out of what may have been prevailing popular opinion among their constituents and do the right thing.

    I am arguing that if it had been put to a popular vote — i.e., a referendum, the men in the public-at-large would not have voted for suffrage.

    I’m sorry, I must have missed this–what the hell is the basis for saying that?

    Alan (07ccb5)

  74. Goodnight, apologist for Pelosi. Your words. Your responsibility.

    Personally, I doubt you have worked much at all in your life.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  75. There has been nothing that resembles real leadership coming from them.

    JD: My bad. I misunderstood. I thought your “them” referred to the people you have worked with and for.

    Of course we disagree on whether Dems are leaders b/c we disagree fundamentally on the best course for this country. And that’s fine.

    OK. Now. Nite.

    Myron (3d5c6b)

  76. I was quite serious in every word I said to you, Myron.

    JD (4a0e60)

  77. Alan, it’s because those pesky voters can’t be trusted with much. Only people like Pelosi, apparently.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  78. I too, am in awe of Nancy Pelosi’s 11% approval rating.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  79. MD in Philly,

    Good comment. I have a feeling it’s a preview of the next 5 years.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  80. Myron,

    You didn’t answer my question at #61. This is about healthcare, afterall.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  81. MD – Those are details. Myron does not like to get caught up in details. He’s a big picture guy.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  82. Thanks, DRJ.

    It should be about what actually works if one is interested in the well-being of people, not spouting garbage how, “I love humanity because I want universal health care and don’t want children to go to bed hungry”, but never, ever, stop one moment to ask if people are really being helped.

    The problem with Utopia on earth is that the earth is filled with less than perfect people, so if you want utopia, there is no room to actually love your neighbor. Hence the French Revolution and just about every other except the US. Whenever the cry for egalitarianism is uppermost, all there is left is the proletariate, there are no more people; only a mass of equals, equally wretched, except for the “superhumans” who have the intellect to tell everybody else what to do, and since they are indispensible, it is only right that they get privileges other don’t, like Mrs. O’s caviar.

    C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, true whether talking about behavioral elitism, economic elitism, genetic elitism. Some may have gifts with which to serve others, but no one has superiority to command others.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  83. Myron:

    DRJ: Let me answer your question with questions. Are you saying politicians are NOT supposed to exercise wisdom and judgment and should just do what their constituents want all the time? Do you not believe in the concept of republic?

    I know you said goodnight, and I’m not trying to get the last word but to respond.

    Representatives are elected to represent the will of the people, not to frustrate it. Thus, if they know most of their constituents feel a certain way about an issue, they should vote that way. The difficult votes come when the constituents are divided, as was the case in some districts, but support for ObamaCare was limited and falling even in Democratic-held swing districts. If you’re interested, this Texas Tech professor’s website has more polls and information.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  84. MD,

    You’re right. It’s very hard to get Pragmatism or Common Sense from Utopia.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  85. Myron– Pelosi is more effective right (or left) where she is as recent events have shown. But she has all the prickly appeal to the public of fingernails being drawn slowly across Glenn Beck’s blackboard. The last Speaker of the House to hold the office of Vice President was another prickly fellow, ol’ ‘Cactus Jack’ himself, John Nance Garner of Texas. And he famously said the office “was not worth a warm bucket of piss.” All the more reason for Nancy to keep carrying water, instead, for President Obama’s agenda as Speaker of the House.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  86. IMP knows all about warm buckets of piss.

    JD (f086e6)

  87. What they really want is Dear Leader. And here I thought the worst of it were the folks all crazy in love with Barack Obama. But I found someone with a crush on Nancy freaking Pelosi.

    Who admires what she has done. Admires it!

    (snip)

    But the Pelosi Admiration Society is not only an opinion not held by the majority of the American people (oh wait, the American people aren’t as smart and hip and cool and edgy as the guy; I forgot), but one that approves of a profoundly anti-democratic precedent being set.

    But for that person, the ends justify the means.

    Scary.

    I presume you don’t live in San Francisco as I do, Eric. I’ve already had the frightening experience of having conversations with a Pelosi Pod Person. She was in the cubicle next to mine during the ’08 campaign. She was a fortysomething mild-mannered cat-loving single lady … under normal circumstances. But when a Republican’s name was mentioned out loud, she turned into an acid-tongued nag. Needless to say she loved Obama, but she preferred Hillary and once said in my presence Pelosi would be the ideal President. I held my tongue to preserve the peace of the office, but that didn’t help my blood pressure.

    The September 2008 bailout vote happened as we all watched on TV when Pelosi gave that infamous partisan speech from the Speaker’s chair, absolving Dems of any responsibility in the crash and slamming the GOP, GWB, and free markets. Seems Pelosi and Boehner had a deal in which he would deliver a certain number of GOP votes to pass the bailout measure, and she would strategically allow so-called “Blue Dogs” and Dem reps in tight races to reject it. But after the insulting lecture from Pelosi, the bill fell short 205-228, and Cat Lady (following the lead of the MSM) blamed Republicans for the bill’s failure despite the fact 95 out of 245 Dems voted “No.”

    I quizzed Cat Lady why it was the Pubs’ fault when Pelosi couldn’t even deliver a winning margin from her own party. She said “Because she won’t pass a partisan bill!” I have a feeling that Cat Lady didn’t have a problem with the bug-eyed bag pulling out every partisan ploy in the book this past month.

    BTW, it was in that speech that the House Madame uttered the immortal line “I don’t know what was so great about the [Great] Depression, but that’s the name they give it.”

    L.N. Smithee (e0d5a1)

  88. I used to live in the Bay Area, LN, in the era of Tom Lantos. Brave man. Nuttier than the proverbial PayDay Bar. Complicated guy.

    But I started calling the people you describe alphabetists because of the phenomena you describe. It’s all slogan and no substance.

    I was proud of Republicans not liking all the things GW Bush did. It was a good sign. And maybe we’ll get there with BHO. But I doubt it, especially when we get posters who actually try to call Pelosi a “great” SOTH who will go down in history in some positive sense.

    Eric Blair (21af67)

  89. She was a fortysomething mild-mannered cat-loving single lady … under normal circumstances. But when a Republican’s name was mentioned out loud, she turned into an acid-tongued nag.

    In my occasional tribute to liberals — and, in particular, to what I bet is the intrinsically phony-ass I’m-so-compassionate nature of the person you’re describing (eg, “I love cats. It’s humans, unless they’re progressive like I am, I can’t stand!”) — I hereby re-post the following:

    Reason.com, Dec 2006:

    ‘Tis the season for giving — and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

    Brooks shows that those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes. The average donation to educational causes among redistributionists was eight dollars per year, compared with $140 from their ideological opposites, and $96 annually to health care causes from free marketeers versus $11 from egalitarians.

    A 2002 poll found that those who thought government “was spending too much money on welfare” were significantly more likely than those who wanted increased spending on welfare to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or give food and/or money to a homeless person.

    Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn’t explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don’t just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.

    The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. Brooks writes that “young liberals — perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today — are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”…. He writes that young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, “a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.”

    Mark (411533)

  90. .

    > Nancy Pelosi Leads from the Front

    Indeed, there’s an giant *ass* out to the fore, no question about that.

    .

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  91. Pelosi and her inner circle are convinced that delivering health care reform will re-energize a moribund Democratic base

    When the near term face of ObamaCare is new taxes and nothing more, exactly how is that going to re-energize the base, most of whom won’t be affected. Most member of “the base” aren’t pols.

    Neo (7830e6)

  92. “the base” … al Qaeda

    Neo (7830e6)

  93. Just wait until all of those “under 30’s” that swooned for The Lightworker, and who are currently uninsured (by choice) have to pony-up big bucks for either the insurance, or the penalty.
    They are going to be really pissed.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d02306)

  94. DRJ – I just read the later parts of these comments, and I am glad to see someone pointing out that we theoretically live in a Representative Republic, not a Dictator-led Republic or a Tyrant-led Democracy …

    The President is the head of the Executive Branch, there to execute the will of the People as expressed through their Representatives in Congress …

    In that prior paragraph, I don’t see it saying anything about the President leading the People and the People’s Leaders in the Congress …

    What was done this weekend was not leadership – and it wasn’t the acts of a Representative Republic …

    As for Women’s Suffrage, women have the vote so that they can participate in choosing their representatives – which is something that took the Great War (to end all wars) to have happen in most western countries …

    Given the current Administrationss fascination with (and comparative leaning towards) the countries which most strongly practice Sharia Law, it is an interesting realisation that Madame Speaker, most likely, in such a legal system, would probably have had her very own cairn by now (if she hadn’t been sewn in a sack with quicklime and cast into the Bay) …

    The sad thing is how many Obama supporters seek a Leader, not a Representative … and yet are surprised when national socialism becomes more and more the order of the day …

    (rueful grin) This weekend may signal the effective repeal of Godwin’s Law – or at least a significant amendment of it …

    Alasdair (205079)

  95. Thanks, Alasdair, and [rueful grin] right back at you. It’s some consolation to be in a sinking boat with such good company.

    DRJ (daa62a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4487 secs.