Patterico's Pontifications


L.A. Times: Poor Nancy Pelosi Just Doesn’t Get Any Credit

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:47 am

Their headline actually reads as follows: “Pelosi’s Effectiveness Is Not Rewarded.” No, I am not making that up:

Note that one of the authors is Official Gusher Faye Fiore, the same person who assured us in 2007 that Pelosi was a “conciliator” who “embraced a centrist agenda and built relationships with rivals.”


Today Fiore & Co. are a bit more realistic about Pelosi’s partisan legacy as Speaker, now taking the tack that she is indeed partisan . . . but was effectively partisan:

Historians predict she will go down with the likes of Sam Rayburn and Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill as one of the country’s most effective, albeit partisan, speakers. . . . . Congress could hardly be called do-nothing on Pelosi’s watch. She pushed to passage the most far-reaching healthcare overhaul since the creation of Medicare, an economic stimulus program and the revamping of financial regulations, often with little or no Republican support.

. . . .

If Pelosi was one of the country’s most effective House speakers, she was also one of its most polarizing. Despite promises of red and blue working together, signaled by the purple suit she wore at her swearing in, the age-old Washington tradition of the majority ignoring the minority prevailed with her in charge.

“The speaker might as well have posted a ‘Do Not Enter’ sign on the front of the Capitol,” Republican members of the House Rules Committee groused [Damn grousing Republicans! — Ed.] in a recent report.

Sounds a bit nonconciliatory. Sounds rather uncentrist.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious: looks like you were wrong in 2007, huh, Faye?

Now, as for the rest of the article . . . did Faye Fiore et al. ever consider that perhaps Pelosi’s effectiveness is being rewarded? That perhaps the loss of 60+ seats in the House was directly connected to the things that she and her pal Barry “accomplished”?

For the common-sense spin that the L.A. Times always seems to miss, I’m always here.

25 Responses to “L.A. Times: Poor Nancy Pelosi Just Doesn’t Get Any Credit”

  1. You must have to rinse your eyes with bleach after reading their manure. But thanks to you, we don’t have to.

    Old Coot (ac0ff6)

  2. playing the world’s smallest violin for nancy.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  3. The reason that there was no Republican support is that the trifecta didn’t want any Republican input. They just wanted the Republicans to rubber stamp what they shoved down the throats of the American people. Nope all of the Democrats’ woes can be laid at the feet of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Hussein (insane) Obama. They had the mindset “We Won” and to hell with bipartisanship and it cost them dearly in the House.

    Stan25 (103775)

  4. Pure comedy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. Comparing her to Rayburn and O’Neill is equally ridiculous considering both men held their Speaker positions far longer than Pelosi was able to, and lead their parties effectively even when the Democrats weren’t in charge of the House. It speaks volumes that after six years, she’s essentially getting kicked out of the catbird’s seat.

    Her accomplishments were exemplified by a scorched-earth campaign that she never would have been able to get away with, had her party not had super-majorities in the House and Senate. Her tactics more than anything else showed that even she understood how unpopular and divisive her time in charge and the legislation she pushed through was going to be.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  6. Another LA Times thesis is contained in the front page story: The shrinking center. I laughed out loud at the jump headline: Election’s big loser is political center.

    California is a left wing experiment now, heading toward a end like Greece.

    Arizona Bob (e8af2b)

  7. We should start a contest – Comparing the outragous claims made by LA Times and Paul Krugman

    Joe (6120a4)

  8. Here’s hoping that someday Harrison Gray Otis is cloned and returns as editor and publisher of the Times. I can dream, can’t I?

    Pat Patterson (56dc55)

  9. Oh I think that the country gave Nancy all the credit she deserved in this election. It’s amazing that Nancy got 85% of the vote in her own district.

    Mike Myers (0e06a9)

  10. I guess the LAT can forget about that federal bailout now.


    Patricia (9b018a)

  11. To compare her to Sam Rayburn is a sin. She flew in military aircraft and used the taxpayers like we were her servants. Rayburn died still poor and did not get rich while running Congress, He was a great American, she should not be mentioned in the same light as him.

    Florida Guy (04cdf7)

  12. well, she was effective. that was exactly the problem. she got things done that the american people overwhelmingly didn’t want the congress to do.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  13. This comment on the LAT’s Pelosi puff piece summed it up nicely:

    Hey, LA Times editors, ever wonder why the huge overwhelming majority of posts to these liberal left wing socialist rants of yours are negative? It’s because you NEVER saw a buck you didn’t want to remove from somebody else’s pocket and spend on some welfare sucker. No wonder Fox news is so popular and the communist papers and tv shows are panned. I gave up my subscription years ago and will never ever put another penny into your socialist coffers.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  14. The comments are hilarious. I guess they figure bad comments are better than no comments at all!

    Patricia (9b018a)

  15. Rayburn got things done. Pelosi did too, I have to admit, but there was a major difference in how she did.

    Boasting that she doesn’t even understand whats in the bill she’s passing in the middle of the night kinda takes away some of the glory, IMO.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  16. Earth to Nancy – WE WON. Elections do have consequences, yes? Now don’t let the door hit your stretchy face on the way out. Have fun with your fellow nutbags in the Tenderloin and SoMa districts – they still love you, Grandma.

    Dmac (ad2c6a)

  17. I spoke wirh Faye Fiore some years ago–she interviewed me for a story or I met her at some function, I don’t recall which–and I distinctly remember thinking that there was something off about her, a lagging ability to comprehend and converse. Ever since, when I see her byline, I make a point of reading a few grafs of the story, and sure enough, invariably she has written something pretty fucking moronic. Like this latest howler. I wonder if there are newspapers other than the LAT that would even employ her.

    Kevin Stafford (abdb87)

  18. Poor Nancy! Someone needs to go out and buy her a Happy Mea– DAMMIT!!!

    Icy Texan (659547)

  19. SF Mickey Ds has replaced Happy Meal toys with Week Old French Fry Pick Up Sticks. To succeed you must be one with the congealed grease and the only rule is don’t lick your fingers.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  20. Allahpundit is delighted that Pelosi may stay on as House Minority Leader. My theory is she thinks that as Minority Leader, she can wheedle a military plane for herself and her entourage.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  21. Next up from Faye Fiore:

    “General Robert E. Lee not rewarded for ordering Pickett’s charge”

    Calfed (c9fe79)

  22. DRJ, you’re probably right. As sad as that is to say, but Pelosi probably is far, far more interested in the trappings of office than the impacts on policy. What Boehner did not get, Pelosi would, because Obama would grant it to her.

    She’s been shameless with her expensive travel. It looks tame next to the White House lately, but she’s been shameless. It would be hilarious if we could just ebay the Pelosi plane and demand commercial travel for non-emergencies.

    Her calls to members are not inquiries for support. They are negotiations and reminders of old favors.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. I know my brother would agree with you here, but I’m not sure that’s accurate in all cases

    Emil Sundahl (e0a85a)

  24. Good info, but I think there needs to be more details in the 3rd paragraph. Not everyone is going to understand exactly why…

    Fat Loss 4 Idiots Scam (3ab2aa)

  25. I’m not so sure I agree. Most pros will be able to spot the problem before it gets that severe.

    Jarod Roker (850f89)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0947 secs.