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.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<So, if Rep. Pelosi has caused so much disenchantment, why was she unanimously elected to be Speaker of the House.>> Please note that Pelosi's questionable actions occured AFTER she won the House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hastings Seeks To Head House Intelligence Panel By Thomas Ferraro Wed Nov 22, 5:50 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) "Last week, House Democrats defied Pelosi and elected Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland as their majority leader over Rep. John Murtha . . . . " "The possibility of a Hastings chairmanship has drawn fire, particularly from conservative commentators. They note Pelosi, in helping Democrats win control of Congress this month, vowed to clean up how the scandal-rocked House does business." "There has been indications Pelosi will not pick Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), a fellow Californian who now serves as the panel's top Democrat. " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,230613,00.html Pelosi, Hastings and the Future of House Democrats Sunday, November 19, 2006 By Marc Sheppard "Should Thursday's 149-86 message be ignored by the now official first mistress of the House, and Hastings be appointed, they'll be hell to pay for sure. And, while the many investigations promised by the new party-in-power are unlikely to extend beyond the opposition, they'll also be several questions demanding answers." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061113-094609-6419r.htm" target="_blank">http://washingtontimes.com/op- ed/20061113-094609-6419r.htm</a> Pelosi and Hastings TODAY'S EDITORIAL November 14, 2006 "Mrs. Pelosi embraced the candidacy of Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha. He's that old "unindicted co-conspirator" from the 1980 Abscam scandal." " Mrs. Pelosi now seems poised to oust fellow California Democrat Jane Harman from the party's top post on the House Intelligence Committee in favor of Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, whom, as a sitting federal judge in 1988, Mrs. Pelosi joined 412 House colleagues in voting to impeach." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15741999/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15 741999/</a> Battle of Hastings Adds to Pelosi Drama Democratic Leader clashes with some members on Intelligence panel chair By Tom Curry National affairs writer MSNBC "In a move that would likely incur Pelosi’s displeasure, the Blue Dog Coalition — a phalanx of 44 centrist House Democrats (20%) — is drafting a letter endorsing Harman, a Blue Dog member, for Intelligence Committee chair. " "That letter is likely to be released Thursday. " "At a press conference at the Capitol Wednesday, Blue Dog communications spokesman Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas said “Jane Harman may very well be chair of the intelligence committee,†a prediction that drew only a cryptic smile from Harman who was standing near Ross. " "Explaining why the Blue Dog Democrats are issuing a letter of support for Harman, a Democratic House source who is familiar with their thinking, said, “Blue Dog members are fired up; they want to flex their muscles.†. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Take note: These issues are not going away and will drive the 110th Congress into a direction that Pelosi is not in anyway prepared to go.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is a disaster for the Pelosi cartel if the majority of Democrats in the House buck her political agenda.> "Pelosi cartel??" Okay, then. LOL! <It isn't what the common man wants or even cares about, it is what Pelosi wants and cares about.> On the contrary, the only issues I've heard Pelosi talk about are things like raising the minimum wage, congressional ethics reform, fixing the Medicare plan D bill... things the common man both wants and cares about if the polls are any indication. You seem to think she has some other shadowy agenda (ooooh! The boogeyman!), but we've seen nothing of it. Only people demonizing her before she's even become Speaker.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<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.> From sources that are themselves biased, I've no doubt you do. And sometimes their allegations even hold water, as there are unquestionably left-wingers in the media who let their biases get in the way of their objectivity. As is the case with right-wingers. Then there's the whole question (often ignored by conservatives) of who OWNS the media, and how that influences what gets shown in the first place. A quick google search will provide literally thousands of sources that "show" either left-wing or right-wing bias in the media. It's no surprise which you believe. At any rate, this is about your assertion that if this were about incoming GOP'ers, that the coverage would have been worse. And for this specific assertion you certainly have no evidence, and no way by definition you COULD show it, except for your basic underlying belief. <<Granted, it's only one man's opinion, but it counts for as much as your "rumors...">> <I disagree.> That's nice. <<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.> Please. This is politics, and this sort of thing is a long way from uncommon. Tom DeLay, for one, was known for similar hardball tactics with his own members - he wasn't known as "The Hammer" for nothing, and there were all kinds of reports of heavy handed tactics, perhaps most famously to get the Medicare bill passed, but hardly limited to that. And those he leaned on may not have liked it, but it didn't threaten his position within the party one bit. Grumblings to be sure, but no sort of mutiny - if anything, a sort of grudging admiration. Certainly not a "disaster." Now, perhaps when he ran into trouble he couldn't count on the backings of those he'd angered over the years, but that's a whole other question.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A quick google search will provide literally thousands of sources that "show" either left-wing or right-wing bias in the media.> It's been well documented in serious studies that the media leans left. The only people who deny it are extreme left-wingers. <At any rate, this is about your assertion that if this were about incoming GOP'ers, that the coverage would have been worse. And for this specific assertion you certainly have no evidence, and no way by definition you COULD show it, except for your basic underlying belief.> I disagree. The past is a fairly reliable predictor of the future. <Certainly not a "disaster."> We'll just have to see how it plays out.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<congressional ethics reform>> And there you go. She's already thrown that one out the window with the Murtha Secret Vote (very well documented), and publicly expressing Hastings for Intelligence Committe Chair. These are two seperate individuals that have had serious ethics charges leveled against them, and with Hastings, she voted in favor of impeachment of his judicary appointment. These actions set her up for mistrust among House Democrats, it inflames her already Democratic enemys, such as Jane Harmon and it puts a cloud over all Democrats simply due to association. From a practical standpoint, she has already created problems for her party and if you don't think that the press isn't going to continue to dog her and the Democrats come January over this, then you are mistaken. My prediction is that her agenda will be looked at on the floor the first 100 hours, but probobly only the National Minimum Wage increase will be all that passes. A rubber stamp manuever to say the least.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's been well documented in serious studies that the media leans left. The only people who deny it are extreme left-wingers." It's also an historic fact media bias is cyclic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<A quick google search will provide literally thousands of sources that "show" either left-wing or right-wing bias in the media.>> <It's been well documented in serious studies that the media leans left. The only people who deny it are extreme left-wingers.> The only one I've seen that seemed unbiased at its source was the UCLA study, but that one had very strange criteria. We talked about it in its own thread. Though keep believing it's been "well-documented," as I'm sure you do. <<At any rate, this is about your assertion that if this were about incoming GOP'ers, that the coverage would have been worse. And for this specific assertion you certainly have no evidence, and no way by definition you COULD show it, except for your basic underlying belief.> > <I disagree. The past is a fairly reliable predictor of the future.> Actually, there's a latin term (which escapes me) for that logic fallacy. And that would go only if you accept the idea that GOP foibles are more scrutinized than Dem. ones. I'm sure you believe that; a more dispassionate approach would show that the media loves to sieze on ANY foible - that's the grist for their mill, far more than if it's D or R. <<Certainly not a "disaster.">> <We'll just have to see how it plays out. > Indeed. Which is why simply proclaiming it a disaster at this point is premature at best.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<congressional ethics reform>> <And there you go. She's already thrown that one out the window with the Murtha Secret Vote (very well documented),> What was secret about that vote? <and publicly expressing Hastings for Intelligence Committe Chair.> Has she? All I've seen so far are speculation that she doesn't like Harman and MIGHT nam Hastings as her choice, but hasn't done so yet. Jump the gun much? <These are two seperate individuals that have had serious ethics charges leveled against them, and with Hastings, she voted in favor of impeachment of his judicary appointment. > I've already said I don't think Hastings is a good choice. If she goes for him, I think that's a dumb move. But dumb move does not equal disaster. And it might even be good for her that she's getting these lessons before she even takes over the Speakership. <These actions set her up for mistrust among House Democrats, it inflames her already Democratic enemys, such as Jane Harmon and it puts a cloud over all Democrats simply due to association. > Over ALL Democrats? Wow. Pretty much reveals where you're coming from there. <From a practical standpoint, she has already created problems for her party and if you don't think that the press isn't going to continue to dog her and the Democrats come January over this, then you are mistaken.> Oh, as I said above, I think the press will dog anything they think they can dog. <My prediction is that her agenda will be looked at on the floor the first 100 hours, but probobly only the National Minimum Wage increase will be all that passes. A rubber stamp manuever to say the least. > Rubber stamp by whom? Bush? If that's what you mean, I think you may be right; he'd be completely politically tone-deaf to veto that. But it would still be noted by the populace that the Dem. congress pushed through a minimum wage hike - finally, after too many years without one - while the GOP congress did not. I also don't think Bush could afford to veto any ethics legislation they presented him with. So if they put anything together there, however minor (and my guess is they don't pass anything that really gets to the root of the problem), that will pass too. Medicare would be a harder nut. Bush might or might veto that - so much would depend on what it said and how it was sold. If all they do is allow the government to negotiate bulk prices for drugs (as the VA already does, but which the GOP bill actually prohibited for Medicare), most Americans see that as a no-brainer, and Bush would be hard pressed to veto it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Actually, there's a latin term (which escapes me) for that logic fallacy.> It would only be a logic fallacy if I drawing a definite conclusion; I'm not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, you drew a pretty definite conclusion in this exchange: <<Are you saying you think GOP in-fighting would get MORE press than what we've seen with Pelosi?>> <Yes> Whereas I think the press just loves to seize on any foible or in-fighting as grist for their mill; whether it's D or R, they love them all.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh My answer was definitive, but your question wasn't. You were asking me what I thought, not what I knew. An element of speculation is implied.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Ah - you THINK GOP in-fighting would get more press than Dem. in-fighting. Sure, I'll buy that you think that.
