Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Yes, because we know you're her boyfriend.>> Hey, I'm just a fall down drunk romantic when it comes to those S.F. Loopy Liberals. But then who wouldn't be?
Originally Posted By friendofdd It's her eyes. Who can possibly resist them? The most wonderful thing about having Congress and the Presidency from opposing sides is it tends to create gridlock. That is a good thing for America. The less they do, the better off we are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<People predisposed to think the worst of her and/or hope for disaster on the Democratic side, sure.>> <Or people who follow politics and know how it would be portrayed if it was the Republicans doing it.> It would be portrayed the same way, and people outside of the beltway (and political junkies) would care just as little. Because there's so little concern for inter-party jockying on the part of most Americans, this is hardly a disaster. <<Hoyer is the new #2, he and Pelosi are already making nice, the whole thing was forgotten outside the beltway yesterday - hardly a "disaster.">> <Or they are making nice for the cameras, and quietly plotting against each other.> You have no evidence of that.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>It would be portrayed the same way, and people outside of the beltway (and political junkies) would care just as little. Because there's so little concern for inter-party jockying on the part of most Americans, this is hardly a disaster.<< We're always seeing polls saying that only a small percentage of American voters even know who their own Representative is. How many of them do you think really know or care about the Speaker's second-in-command?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<How many of them do you think really know or care about the Speaker's second-in-command?>> This will be the main topic of political pundants un until the new Congress takes over. All the Joe Blows have to understand is how ineffective their vote actually was in the Primaries if the infighting continues, keeps rising to the surface and becomes a nusiance issue. Given that Pelosi is the first woman to hold the position of Speaker of the House, any chinks in her armour will be widened by the Liberal Press, let alone Fox News Corp. None of this will help the Democrats in '06 and neither will a sudden peace in Iraq. Remember, Washington corruption topped the War on Terror in exit poles. The Democrats need to prove to the Joe Blows that they are capable of handling the issues of the day.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It would be portrayed the same way> I disagree. <You have no evidence of that.> Actually, there is some, but it's relatively flimsy. Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that it was happening, just that it is a possibility.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "This will be the main topic of political pundants un until the new Congress takes over." Meh. You'd like to be, it seems. This all reminds me of how the hard right wanted to insist that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan spoke for all Democrats. The results of the mid-term elections obviously said otherwise. The moderate center won out. No amount of Republican dictating to the Democrats what their issues will be makes it so.
Originally Posted By jonvn "This will be the main topic of political pundants un until the new Congress takes over." That is a joke, right?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj This is a good distraction tactic because a number of the actions that the new Congress will take in January have such broad support in the country that the right-wing nut jobs don't dare try to take them on unless they want to face a backlash. For instance, when the Pelosi run Congress introduces the first increase in the national minimun wage that the Republican Congress took no action on for ten years, how many right wing pundits are going to call that a "big mistake"? They had better stick to their criticism of committee chair-people because that's about all they have right now. Very sad.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For instance, when the Pelosi run Congress introduces the first increase in the national minimun wage that the Republican Congress took no action on for ten years, how many right wing pundits are going to call that a "big mistake"?> I suppose that depends upon how big of an increase they propose. A dollar or two? Big deal, my local McDonalds are paying more than that to start, so there'd be minimal impact. Raise it $5? Now you're increasing unemployment, and inflation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<Or people who follow politics and know how it would be portrayed if it was the Republicans doing it.>>> <<It would be portrayed the same way>> <I disagree.> Really? I thought I was agreeing with you. I thought you were insinuating that if there was inter-party fighting among the GOP in Nov. of a given year, that the press would eat it up and report on it. I think they would - it's a slow time for politics, and they're looking for anything they can get. So I think any inter-party fighting is grist for the 24-hour news cycle, and would be treated much the same. Are you saying you think GOP in-fighting would get MORE press than what we've seen with Pelosi? Then yes, we'd disagree. But my main point is that the average non-political junkie cares so little about this (and as alexbook pointed out, can't even name his own congressman), that any prounouncement that this represents a "disaster" is quite overblown. <<You have no evidence of that.>> <Actually, there is some, but it's relatively flimsy. Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that it was happening, just that it is a possibility.> Wow, really going out on a limb there. It's equally possible that Trent Lott is plotting revenge against those who he feel forced him out the first time. Possible, but until something actually happens with it, hardly worth bringing up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you saying you think GOP in-fighting would get MORE press than what we've seen with Pelosi?> Yes. <It's equally possible that Trent Lott is plotting revenge against those who he feel forced him out the first time.> Considering there have been rumors from people who know Rep Pelosi that she doesn't like Rep Hoyer and she tends to keep grudges, and no such reports about Sen Lott, I'd say the probabilities are not equal.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Are you saying you think GOP in-fighting would get MORE press than what we've seen with Pelosi?>> <Yes.> I'm sure you believe it, but you have no evidence of it. <<It's equally possible that Trent Lott is plotting revenge against those who he feel forced him out the first time.>> <Considering there have been rumors from people who know Rep Pelosi that she doesn't like Rep Hoyer and she tends to keep grudges, and no such reports about Sen Lott, I'd say the probabilities are not equal.> Rumors? Well, there's "proof" (of the sort you often use), then. And no reports on Lott? Well, not exactly. Granted, it's only one man's opinion, but it counts for as much as your "rumors..." <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750148/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15 750148/</a> "SCARBOROUGH: It said, “He said he felt bad about rumors that the administration was undermining me and was proud of how I handled my decision to surrender my office,†Lott writes. “I will always remember my response clearly. Thank you, Mr. President, but the rumors did hurt me and you didn‘t help me when you could have.†Pat Buchanan, you remember how this went down. BUCHANAN: I sure do. SCARBOROUGH: George Bush stabbed Trent Lott in the back, as did the White House operation. Is it bad news for the president? BUCHANAN: It is bad news for the president if he finds he wants something badly and he‘s got to depend on Trent Lott to help him out, I‘ll tell you! Listen, Trent Lott is justifiably—he‘s a bitter man about what was done to him, and I would be bitter, too. The president of the United States did something unnecessary. He undercut this fellow when he was in trouble for no good reason at all. He made a flub, and you should be at your friend‘s side in those kinds of problems. And the president instead pandered to the media, pandered to all the folks that said, Well, he‘s just a Southern Republican, you know how they are. And I think Trent Lott is justifiably bitter. He‘s done a great job. He‘s worked hard. He‘s got this back. But if I were talking to him tonight, I would say, Look, Trent, you won this battle, and they did you wrong. The best thing you can do is do right and be straight and don‘t go for payback." So Buchanan hopes Lott isn't looking for revenge, but says he's justifiably bitter and might be. At any rate, let's get real: neither of us has any real clue what Pelosi and/or Lott might be up to. You'd still like to claim that Pelosi, having a D after her name, is somehow "worse" though. And the main point remains: no one but us political junkies gives a rat's patootie, and therefore none of this is a "disaster" for anyone.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And the main point remains: no one but us political junkies gives a rat's patootie, and therefore none of this is a "disaster" for anyone.>> It is a disaster for the Pelosi cartel if the majority of Democrats in the House buck her political agenda. It isn't what the common man wants or even cares about, it is what Pelosi wants and cares about. She should be concerned and should have made nice, not threaten House members the very first thing.
Originally Posted By jonvn Perhaps you should wait until it actually happens to start crowing about it happening.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm sure you believe it, but you have no evidence of it.> Actually, I have so much evidence I couldn't begin to present it. I've been reading about examples of media bias against the Republicans for years. <Granted, it's only one man's opinion, but it counts for as much as your "rumors..."> I disagree. <And the main point remains: no one but us political junkies gives a rat's patootie, and therefore none of this is a "disaster" for anyone.> If the reports are true that Rep Pelosi threatened members with reprisals if they bucked her on Hoyer vs. Murtha, and they backed Hoyer anywhere, then it definitely is a disaster for Rep Pelosi. She either backs off on her threats, and looks hollow, or follows through and looks vindictive.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj So, if Rep. Pelosi has caused so much disenchantment, why was she unanimously elected to be Speaker of the House. I guess people really weren't that upset about her. Also, check out the Republican votes for the leadership positions -- looks like that side of the aisle is a whole lot more divided than the Democrats in both the House and Senate! Trent Lott won Minority Whip in the Senate by only 1 vote!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Also, check out the Republican votes for the leadership positions -- looks like that side of the aisle is a whole lot more divided than the Democrats in both the House and Senate! Trent Lott won Minority Whip in the Senate by only 1 vote!> The situations are not analogous. I haven't heard that the prospective Minority Leader backed anyone for minority whip.
