Quote :

"Madam speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion? It’s a staggering figure. And many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing, I think, a very informed debate on all sides — of — of this issue here today. I’m proud of the debate. $700 billion. A staggering number. But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned that around. And now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute, and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over in that respect. Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. And it is that chaos that the secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Fed came to see us just about a week and a half ago — seems like an eternity, doesn’t it, so much has happened, the news was so bad. They described a very, very dismal situation. A dismal situation describing the state of our economy, the fragility of our financial institutions and the instability of our markets, our equity markets, our credit markets, our bond market. And here we were listening to people who knew of what they spoke. Secretary of the Treasury brings long credentials and knowledge of the markets. More fearful, though, to me, more scary, was the statement — were the statements of Chairman Bernanke [Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve], because Chairman Bernanke is probably one of the foremost authorities in America on the subject of the Great Depression. I don’t know what was so great about the Depression, but that’s the name they give it. And we heard the secretary and the chairman tell us that this was a once in a hundred year phenomenon, this fiscal crisis was so drastic. Certainly once in 50 years, probably once in a hundred years. And how did it sneak up on us? So silently, almost on little cat feet. That they would come in on that day — and they didn’t actually ask for the money, that much money that night. It took two days until we saw the legislation that they were proposing to help calm the markets. And it was on that day that we learned of a $700 billion request. But it wasn’t just the money that was alarming. It was the nature of the legislation. It gave the secretary of the Treasury czar-like powers, unlimited powers, latitude to do all kinds of things and specifically prohibited judicial review or review of any other federal administrative agency to review their actions. Another aspect of it that was alarming is it gave the secretary the power to use any money that came back from these infusions of cash to be used at the discretion of the secretary. Not to reduce the deficit, not to go into the general funds so that we could afford other priorities. To be used at the discretion of the secretary. It was shocking. Working together in a bipartisan way, we were able to make major improvements on that proposal, even though its fundamental basis was almost arrogant and insulting. The American people responded almost immediately. Overwhelmingly, they said they know that something needs to be done. Say 78 percent of the American people said Congress must act. Fifty-eight-some percent said, but not to accept the Bush proposal. And so here we are today, a week later and a couple of days later, coming to the floor with a product — not a bill that I would have written, one that has major disappointments with me, beginning with the fact that it does not have bankruptcy in this bill — and we will continue to persist and work to achieve that. It’s interesting, though, to me that when they describe this, the magnitude of the challenge and the precipice that we were on and how we had to act quickly and we had to act boldly and we had to act now, that it never occurred to them that the consequences of this market were being felt well in advance by the American people. And unemployment is up, and therefore we need unemployment insurance. That jobs are lacking, and therefore we need a stimulus package. So how can on the one hand could this be so urgent at the moment, and yet so unnecessary for us to address the effects of this poor economy in the households of America across our country? We’ll come back to that in a moment. Working together, we put together some standards — and I am really proud of what Barney Frank did in this regard. The first night, that night, that Thursday night, when we got the very, very dismal news, he immediately said, if we’re going to do this — and Spencer Bachus was a part of this as well — in terms of if we’re going to do this, we must have equity for the American people. We’re putting up $700 billion, we want the American people to get some of the upside. So equity, fairness for the American people. Secondly, if they were describing the root of the problem as the mortgage-backed securities, Barney insisted that we would have forbearance on foreclosure. If we’re now going to own that paper, that we would then have forbearance to help responsible homeowners stay in their home. In addition to that, we have to have strong, strong oversight. We didn’t even have to see the $700 billion or the full extent of their bill to know that we needed equity and upside for the taxpayer, forbearance for the homeowner, oversight of the government on what they were doing, and something that the American people understand full well, an end to the golden parachutes and the — a — review and reform of the compensation for C.E.O.’s. "

9/30/2008 1:57:03 AM

Quote :

"Let’s get this straight. We have a situation where on Wall Street people are flying high, they are making unconscionable amounts of money. They make a lot of money, they privatize the gain, the minute things go tough, they nationalize the risk. They get a golden parachute as they drive their firm into the ground, and the American people have to pick up the tab. Something is very, very wrong with this picture. So just on first blush, that Thursday night, we made it clear, meeting much resistance on the part of the administration, that those four things, equity, forbearance, oversight, and reform of compensation. Overriding all of this is a protection of the taxpayer. We need to stabilize the markets. In doing so, we need to protect the taxpayers. And that’s why I’m so glad that this bill contains a suggestion made by Mr. Tanner [Representative John Tanner, Democrat of Tennessee] that if at the end of the day, say in five years, when we can take a review of the success or whatever of this initiative, that if there is a shortfall and we don’t get our whole $700 billion back that we have invested, that there will be an initiative to have the financial institutions that benefited from this program to make up that shortfall. But not one penny of this should be carried by the American people. People asked, and Mr. Spratt [Representative John M. Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina] spoke with great knowledge and eloquence on the budget and aspects of the budget. $700 billion, what is the impact, what is the opportunity cost for our country of the investments that we would want to make? O.K., now we have it in place where the taxpayer is going to be made whole and that was very important for us. But why on the drop of a hat can they ask us for $700 billion, and we couldn’t get any support from the administration on a stimulus package that would also help grow the economy? People tell me all over the world that the biggest emerging market, economic market in the world, is rebuilding the infrastructure of America. Roads, bridges, waterways, water systems in addition to waterways. The grid, broadband, schools, housing, certain schools. We are trillions of dollars in deficit there. We know what we need to do to do it in a fiscally sound way, in a fiscally sound way that creates good-paying jobs in America immediately. Brings money into the treasury by doing so, and again does all of this in an all-American way. Good-paying jobs here in America. We can’t get the time of day for 25, $35 billion for that, which we know guarantees jobs, et cetera, but $700 billion. So make no mistake, when this Congress adjourns today to observe Rosh Hashanah and have members go home for a bit, we are doing so at the call of the chair. Because this subject is not over, this discussion about how we save our economy. And we must insulate Main Street from Wall Street. And as Congresswoman Waters [Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California] said, Martin Luther King Drive, in my district Martin Luther King Drive, and Cedar Chavez Road and all of the manifestations of community and small businesses in our community. We must insulate them from that. And so we have difficult choices, and so many of the things that were said on both sides of this issue in terms of its criticisms of the bill we have and the bill that we had at first, and the very size of this, I share. You want to go home, so I’m not going to list all of my concerns that I have with it. But it just comes down to one simple thing. They have described a precipice. We are on the brink of doing something that might pull us back from that precipice. I think we have a responsibility. We have worked in a bipartisan way. I want to acknowledge Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, the work that we have done together, trying to find as much common ground as possible on this. But we insisted the taxpayer be covered. We all insisted that we have a party-is-over message to Wall Street. And we insisted that, that taxpayers at risk must recover — that any risk must be recovered. I told you that already. So, my colleagues, let’s recognize that this Congressional — this legislation is not the end of the line. Mr. Waxman [Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California] will be having vigorous oversight this week, hearings this week on regulatory reform and other aspects of it. I hope you will pursue fraud and mismanagement and the rest. Mr. Frank and his committee will continue to pursue other avenues that we can stabilize the markets and protect the taxpayer. For too long, this government, in eight years, has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation. Again, all of us are believers in free markets, but we have to do it right. Now, let me again acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Mr. Frank. He has been an exceptional leader in the Congress, but never has his knowledge and his experience and his judgment been more needed than now. And I thank you, Mr. Frank, for your exceptional leadership, Mr. Chairman. I also — so many people worked on this, but I also want to acknowledge the distinguished chair of our caucus, Mr. Emanuel. His knowledge of the markets, the respect he commands on those subjects, and his boundless energy on the subjects served us well in these negotiations. But this, this is a bipartisan initiative that we are bringing to the floor. We have to have a bipartisan vote on this. That is the only message that will send a message of confidence to the markets. So I hope that — I know that we will be able to live up to our side of the bargain. I hope the Republicans will, too. But my colleagues, as you go home and see your families and observe the holiday and the rest, don’t get settled in too far, because as long as the American — this challenge is there for the American people, the threat of losing their jobs, the credit, their credit, their jobs, their savings, their retirement, the opportunity for them to send their children to college. As long as in the households of America, this crisis is being felt very immediately and being addressed at a different level, we must come back, and we will come back as soon and as often as it is necessary to make the change that is necessary. And before long we will have a new Congress, a new president of the United States, and we will be able to take our country in a new direction. "

9/30/2008 1:57:50 AM

Quote :

"$700 billion. A staggering number. But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned that around. And now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute, and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over in that respect. Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. "

Quote :

"For too long, this government, in eight years, has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation. "

Its funny how she blames the crisis on the free market and a lack of regulation, but fails to acknowledge the government's role in encouraging these subprime loans and risky investments over the past few decades. That is a surprisingly partisan speech considering the importance of the vote.

Bitch just couldn't keep her mouth shut.

9/30/2008 2:06:43 AM

that doesn't matter. was it a partison speech? sure. but c'mon', none of what she said had any bearing to what was in the bill. to claim that the speech alone changed someone's opinion of what was on the bill is just petty.

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 2:18 AM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 2:15:22 AM

I'm pretty sure that the concept of a bailout alone was pretty distasteful to the majority of GOP congressmen, and Pelosi using it as a repudiation of free markets and deregulation in her speech may have been the tipping point for anyone on the fence at that point.

Her speech was petty. They kept talking about bipartisanship, and then she goes off and spits in the eye of GOP leadership. I'm not surprised that it backfired.



[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 2:20 AM. Reason : 2]

9/30/2008 2:18:59 AM

Et tu, Pelosi?

(I had to say it)

Nancy Pelosi is many things; one thing she is most definitely not, is an idiot. Someone had to give cover fire for this thing to go under; and she is the perfect bad cop, in my estimation.

The reality of this bill is that nobody likes it, and voting for it -- God knows, even, passing it -- is like putting a big red bulls eye on your head. People HATE this thing; it's about as divisive as immigration reform or privatized social security or what have you.

She was doing her part to save the party. My viewpoint before the vote was that if it had passed, the map would go red in thirty days. Now it can be quietly swept under the rug and dealt with prudently, and the Congress can tell Paulson and Bush to go to Hell.

It's called politics for a reason, folks ... and on a side note, I think the original plan as conceived was very naively crafted, and poorly sold ("you guys add the oversight"), and doomed from the start. As it should be in this great Republic.

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 3:10 AM. Reason : foo]

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 3:11 AM. Reason : foo]

9/30/2008 3:09:51 AM

Hey guys, turns out it wasn't Pelosi's fault (for just telling the truth) after all! The GOP is just full of shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092903523.html?hpid=artslot

Quote :

"Just before lunchtime yesterday, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his lieutenants went through the final vote count and realized they had a problem: A rank-and-file uprising was on the verge of torpedoing a bill that had been heralded by President Bush, his top advisers and congressional leaders from both parties as the remedy for Wall Street and Main Street. Boehner and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), recognizing the danger of the situation, discussed whether to urge Democrats to pull the bill from the floor rather than have it go down in defeat. Instead, less than three hours later, the gavel fell on a stunning rebuke to Capitol Hill leaders on both sides of the aisle. "We did everything possible to maximize our votes. Begged, pleaded. We didn't threaten anyone. And we had a pretty good idea of where we were," Boehner said in an interview in his office after the vote."

Quote :

"Republicans initially lashed out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), accusing her of delivering a partisan speech before the vote and costing them a dozen votes. But later, in interviews after tempers cooled, GOP leaders said they had been fighting an uphill battle from the start -- too many conservatives rejected the idea of a large, taxpayer-funded intervention, and too many moderates came from swing districts where constituents were up in arms over the bailout. "

You know, despite the fact that I think this bill needed to passed, I'm rather enjoying watching the GOP tear itself apart over this. Might be the best thing to come out of this for the future of this country.

Oh, and /thread

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 5:38 AM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 5:35:00 AM

Quote :

"Nancy Pelosi is many things; one thing she is most definitely not, is an idiot"

Oh no...she definitely is an idiot...she has been the most ineffective speaker of the house i can remember. blame it on the republicans all you want but when it comes right down to it...she could not get TWELVE (12!!!!!!!!!!!1) of her fellow democrats to vote for something...12...out of 96...thats .125 percent....thats all she needed....but yes...lets please blame it all on the republicans...

also....

Quote :

"Wow, nutsmackr doing what he does best, fagging up another thread with partisan douchebaggery."

9/30/2008 5:59:10 AM

Quote :

"You know, despite the fact that I think this bill needed to passed, I'm rather enjoying watching the GOP tear itself apart over this. Might be the best thing to come out of this for the future of this country."

I actually agree with you, if the GOP is really "tearing itself apart over this."

Maybe they can get back to their root conservative principles and stop trying to straddle both sides on every issue.

9/30/2008 7:41:31 AM

The bailout was a terrible idea, so I applaud everyone that voted against it, regardless of party. If any of you think the bailout was necessary, you should read the fine print.

9/30/2008 7:44:41 AM

I could not agree more..this bailout is crap...it will hurt...and it will suck for a while when all these companies go under....but it needs to happen

9/30/2008 7:51:20 AM

some people just aren't cut out for party politics.

Good bye Reagan coalition.

To paraphrase Tony Blair, "Isn't it interesting that the President of our Country can't even urge his own party to support his own positions. Weak, weak, weak!."

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

9/30/2008 9:54:56 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/30/dobbs.qa/index.html

Quote :

" Lou Dobbs: Hooray for those who defeated bailout NEW YORK (CNN) -- CNN's Lou Dobbs is no fan of the $700 billion bailout plan that went down to defeat in the U.S. House of Representatives on Monday. He spoke with Kiran Chetry of CNN's "American Morning" on Tuesday about how he thinks there are better ways to solve the financial problems plaguing the U.S. economy. Lou Dobbs: Americans "don't want to hear this nonsense about $700 billion to bail out financial institutions." Kiran Chetry, CNN anchor: CNN's Lou Dobbs joins us this morning from Suffolk, New Jersey. You expressed delight I guess you could say, at the fact that it did go down yesterday in defeat. We saw the largest point-drop on Wall Street ever. What happens now? Lou Dobbs, CNN host of "Lou Dobbs Tonight": Well, what happens now is that it sounds like the same fools who brought you this effort are going to try again. Henry Paulson saying he's going to come right back, suggests he's not learning. And he's not paying attention to the Congress. These Congress people are all at home in their home districts, nearly every one of them and they're hearing an earful. The American people don't want to hear this nonsense about $700 billion to bail out financial institutions. Frankly, Kiran, they don't need it. Economist after economist, with whom I've spoken, CEOs, they acknowledge that there are far better ways to deal with the issues confronting our financial system than this bailout. And it's absolutely obscenely irresponsible of House Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, Treasury Secretary [Henry] Paulson, President Bush, Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate; for these people to be clucking about like hysterical -- so hysterically. It really must stop. And to hear there -- go ahead. Chetry: I was just going to ask you -- Dobbs: Go ahead. Chetry: You say that there's other ways around this. One of the things that everyone keeps talking about is the fact that credit markets are frozen and there has to be some way to free that up so that everyday business from Wall Street to Main Street can continue. Do you buy that? Dobbs: No, not at all. And neither do most of the CEOs and economists with whom I'm speaking certainly. The real issue, they say, is liquidity. The Fed has injected more than half a billion dollars in liquidity into this banking system. What we are watching are business -- quote, unquote -- leaders who won't surface and put their faces before the American public who are hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. These are not leaders of moment. They are not leaders of great character or vision. Only Warren Buffett has had the courage to step forward. And that's after he puts $5 billion into Goldman Sachs. To watch our political leaders, they have no idea in the world, Kiran, what they're doing. Literally. And the arrogance with which this administration asks for, not only money, almost $1 trillion, and surely more in the months ahead. But the absolute power for Treasury Secretary Paulson. Give me a break. The American people want this stopped. Those Congressmen and women at home right now, in their districts, are getting an earful because this is an absurdity and it has to end. Chetry: So in one way, you're knocking Congress. But on the other way you're saying that, I guess the system works in that the brakes were pulled. Whether or not you agree with the reasons why it didn't go through. So, weren't they doing their job and showing leadership? Dobbs: Let me be clear, Kiran. I'm saying leadership -- I'm saying the Democratic leadership of this Congress was absolutely in the same situation as this president. They don't know what they're talking about. They're trying to ram this thing down the people's throats and Congress. And those House Republicans and House Democrats who voted against this bailout deserve a great, great expression of thanks from the American people. Absolutely. Chetry: What do you think if you were up there making decisions? What do you think we need to do? Dobbs: Well, the first thing we need to do is return to a traditional role of regulation. ... The problem here is not simply the housing market. ... But $700 billion and nothing in that bill deals with the foreclosure crisis, if you can imagine that. That's arrogance. That's stupidity. That is your leadership in Washington, D.C. Democratic leadership in Congress and Republican leadership in the White House. So that's an absurdity. The first thing that has to be dealt with is mitigating the foreclosure crisis, period. Secondly, in terms of instilling confidence in the banking system and in our credit markets, the first thing to do is to deal with those institutions that are wildly out of balance, whose balance sheets, frankly, are a joke. And the regulators who should have been tending to them over the years are also a joke. It's time to end the joke. That means aggressive regulation. It means aggressive intervention on an institution-by-institution basis. Chetry: All right. Well, they're going to take this up again today, or throughout the week as they try to figure out what the best course of action is. Maybe they should listen to you a little bit more. Dobbs: They'll be back Thursday. Chetry: Right. Dobbs: They'll be back Thursday to try this nonsense all over again, Kiran."

9/30/2008 10:42:29 AM

Nancy Pelosi sucks

9/30/2008 12:37:24 PM

Pelosi, nobody likes you. Why do you want to run for house speaker again?

11/5/2010 3:49:16 PM

She's addicted to power. If Democrats have any sense, they'll pick someone else.

11/5/2010 3:55:19 PM

how can she run for Speaker of the House, thought she was running for house minority leader

11/5/2010 5:19:02 PM

She's not perfect, but if it's a choice between her and Bluedog Shuler then I hope the Dems make her minority leader.

Moot point anyway, all she'll be able to do is give counter speeches on tv with a fancy title below her name.

11/5/2010 5:23:18 PM

^^ oops, pardon my sloppiness

11/5/2010 7:16:20 PM

^^ It's the symbolism of her staying on as the Democrats leader in the house that has Republican strategists celebrating and Dems cringing. This Dem-controlled congress is one of the most despised in recent memory, and they lost a whopping 60 seats in the house. For the Dems to say, 'more of the same' with Pelosi at the helm, well, its just bad politics. Somebody has to be accountable and sacrifice for the good of the party, but as is often the case with women in power,Pelosi refused to fall on her sword.

11/10/2010 1:53:02 AM

I agree that a shake up ought to happen. Something bigger than does Pelosi, Hoyer, or Clyburn get removed now that they are in the minority and have one less leadership seat in this political game of musical chairs. They should do a bigger shake up (maybe get rid of Pelosi & Hoyer).

But Shuler isn't the one to do that. He couldn't build a Democratic coalition around the idea spelling Democrat starting with a D. And it looks like he doesn't represent the remaining Dems very well either according to CNN.

Quote :

"Still, after Tuesday's losses, moderate Democrats are now a very small part of the Democratic caucus. The bigger question, according to multiple Democratic sources, is what Pelosi's fellow progressives want her to do."

^Yeah, its too bad she's being a woman about all this.

11/10/2010 2:19:57 AM

Pelosi wrote an opinion piece that is in today's USA Today. It's pretty good for a laugh or two. As well as a cry or two.

11/10/2010 1:04:48 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-10-column10_ST2_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Wow.

11/10/2010 1:51:17 PM

Quote :

"Democrats have elected Nancy Pelosi as minority leader on a 150-43 vote."

11/17/2010 2:29:30 PM

I'd rather it be her than Heath Shuler. I mean really? Heath fucking Shuler?

11/17/2010 3:07:15 PM

Shuler wouldn't have been a good Minority Leader, but his running served a valid point. There is no reason for Pelosi to be Minority Leader. Get rid of her and while we are at it, get rid of Harry Reid.

11/17/2010 4:04:54 PM

Dems fucked up. Don't reward a loser. It's like when republicans became even crazier after losing congress to the democrats. Ended up with a black man in the white house.

11/17/2010 8:58:35 PM

A loser? Do you need a list of all the things she got passed through the House along with all of the Blue Dogs that lost in the midterms? Being Republican Lite isn't going to help get things done in the House while in the Senate McConnell has already declared his mission is to make Obama a one term president and folks like McCain and Kyl keep moving the goal posts on very important pieces of legislation that would certainly help the president's image.

11/17/2010 9:57:17 PM

You just named dropped a lot of names that have nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi.

The nation just referendum voted and they're going to leave the leader of that triggered that vote in power? Good fucking riddance. They haven't done shit for out of work Americans despite populist jawboning...which is really just slap in the face of every American that believed they actually gave a shit.

Oh joy, health care for all. But hey, don't actually end the wars, don't actually repeal liberty stealing laws, don't actually reign in Wall Street, don't actually do 75% of the shit you ran on.

Fuck the Democrats with an aids infested cactus.

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 10:08:31 PM

Quote :

"They haven't done shit for out of work Americans despite populist jawboning"

i suppose it's the house that's holding up getting unemployment extended for the millions for whom it will run out at the end of the year. or the house that watered down the stimulus and the health care bill so that it was more of a payoff to the rich, right?

11/17/2010 10:23:44 PM

Actually they do have a bit to do with her considering both houses of Congress have to pass legislation to get anything done. When the Republicans are so entrenched to simply be against the president even when it means flip flopping on their own word, you get a decent picture of who actually aims to do their job and which group is consigned to sit there and pout.

Okay, okay, since you want someone in the House, here's the policy moving forward spoken by the new Majority Leader, John Boehner himself, "Hell no you can't!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKa5cyplbec


[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ,]

11/17/2010 10:24:10 PM

did you actually make a point in that rambling excuse of a sentence?

11/17/2010 10:26:18 PM

LOL, liberals get their asses handed to them in the midterms due to runaway spending, unpopular healthcare reform, a trainwreck economy and too much partisanship in congress, and their solution is to... point fingers at the Republicans, stick with the status quo and push farther to the left? Really? You can't be that dumb, HockeyRoman, can you?

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:39 PM. Reason : 2]

11/17/2010 10:38:35 PM

the point of elections is to elect people to do shit. not to win the next election. in that context, pelosi did a hell of a job.

11/17/2010 10:40:22 PM

Quote :

"She's addicted to power."

What politicians aren't?

Quote :

"the point of elections is to elect people to do shit. not to win the next election."

To do shit, or to execute the will of the people who governed them? Because if you want to talk about doing "shit" then yes, you are correct that she did plenty of "shit." If the intent is to represent the American people, then I think the most resounding defeat in the US House since FDR speaks amply to how well she did that job.

Quote :

"LOL, liberals get their asses handed to them in the midterms due to runaway spending, unpopular healthcare reform, a trainwreck economy and too much partisanship in congress"

Interestingly enough, replace healthcare reform with Iraq and you've got why the GOP was run out in 2006 & 2008.


And fuck people who want bipartisanship. Bipartisanship gave us NCLB, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the Vietnam War . . . it goes on. What is inherently good about bipartisanship?

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 10:48:58 PM

democrats ran on a platform that they more or less followed through with post 2008. they'll get the house back. let's see what the republicans do. oh yeah, it'll just be stall and obstruct before 2012. and god knows, that's what america wants.



[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 10:52:41 PM

^^^^ Look, personally, I like that the Republicans took the House. It spreads the liability and they actually have responsibility now to put up or shut up. I just didn't agree with the characterization that Pelosi was inept as Speaker. I just hope the Democrats will call out the Republicans for their amorphous notions and platitudes of fiscal restrain while at the same time doing very little to actually cut meaningful burden on the debt. I mean, earmarks? Really? Is that they best they can do?

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 10:55:51 PM

and a lot of them are backtracking on earmarks (like michelle bachmann saying that stopping earmarks shouldn't mean that she can't get some highway money for her state)

11/17/2010 10:58:46 PM

Quote :

"Do you need a list of all the things she got passed through the House along with all of the Blue Dogs that lost in the midterms?"

are you trying to say that pelosi got things done, while the blue dogs lost their seats? just trying to clarify your stance here....

11/17/2010 11:12:55 PM

People (mainly on the right) dislike Pelosi because they say she is too liberal and won't move towards the center, yet she was able to get a lot accomplished in the House during her time as Speaker. Those same detractors are saying that if only she and the Democrats had moved more towards that center then the voters wouldn't have been as angry, but that simply isn't true giving the massive number of moderate Democrats that lost their seats.

11/18/2010 12:13:55 AM

Yall all crying over the bailouts, most (except Fannie and Freddie and probably AIG) will be paid back (hell, even GM might pay the money back)......bitching and moaning and the money will eventually be paid back, hell, might even make a profit? Looks like for the most part the return on the investment will be pretty good all things considered.....

11/18/2010 12:25:25 AM

^^ The reason that the moderates lost their seats was because they were too closely aligned with Pelosi. If you look at who they lost their seats to, it was Republicans/Tea Partiers - not more liberal democrats. If the electorate wanted more people in the house on the side of Pelosi, then those Blue Dogs would've lost to more liberal democrats.

So your argument, sir, is flawed.

11/18/2010 9:02:52 AM

^^people are bitching b/c that as that bailout money comes back, it should be put directly into paying off the deficit and not some item on the budget.

When you withdraw a few thousand dollars from a credit card account for an investment you don't blow the money on something else when you get a sweet return. You pay off the credit card balance.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 9:07 AM. Reason : e]

11/18/2010 9:06:36 AM

^^more liberal democrats in november?

anyway, they lost because they were in swing districts in 08 that normally go to republicans. this was a more republican year, so they were more vulnerable.

sure they may have won had they not voted for any of the things they ran on in 2008, but then what would the point have been?

^i don't think macroeconomics is your strong suit

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 9:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 9:06:49 AM

^^^ You're assuming all of them had more liberal challengers in the primaries. The numbers speak for themselves. If they are so-called moderate democrats then they wouldn't have been aligned with Pelosi if she was apparently so far to the left. It's a fair argument that they lost because they simply didn't have strong principles to stand on other than being Republican Lite. Personally, I'd like more moderation in Congress, but that isn't the reality we live in anymore thanks to the likes of the nutjob Teabaggers.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ,]

11/18/2010 9:09:22 AM

^^I'm pretty sure reason isn't yours.

11/18/2010 9:17:57 AM

i'll be honest, the reason why i don't like her is because she's not hot

11/18/2010 9:36:43 AM

11/18/2010 9:39:46 AM

That is the classic myopic thinking that is plaguing the Democratic Party as of late. The Blue Dogs didn't lose because they weren't principled (read liberal) enough. They lost due to an electorate that was pissed off at the current congress and particularly Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It's the same reason why many of your traditional Democrats lost elections as well.

Of the 22 Blue Dogs who ran for re-election and lost, only 9 lost to Tea Partiers. The other 13 lost to run of the mill Republicans.

11/18/2010 10:29:29 AM

As a Republican I'm pretty ecstatic that the Democrats reelected Pelosi, she's completely alienating to independents and I can't imagine anyone else who I'd rather have as the face of the Democratic party. It's kind of how I imagine most Democrats would feel if Republicans chose Sarah Palin as their presidential candidate in 2012.

11/18/2010 12:33:35 PM