Jump to content

Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

I think this is worth revisiting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/opinion/nancy-pelosi-midterms-democrats-republicans.html
 

Quote

Who’s Afraid of Nancy Pelosi?

By Paul Krugman. 
Aug. 13, 2018

Normally, a party that gives away $2 trillion without worrying about where the money will come from can buy itself at least a few votes. But Donald Trump’s tax cut remains remarkably unpopular, and Republicans barely mention it on the campaign trail — in fact, Democrats are running against the tax cut more than Republicans are running on it.

Nor are Republicans talking much about Trump’s trade war, which also remains unpopular.

What, then, does the G.O.P. have to run on? It can hype the supposed menace from illegal immigrants — but that hasn’t been gaining much traction, either. Instead, Republicans’ attack ads have increasingly focused on one of their usual boogeymen — or, rather, a boogeywoman: Nancy Pelosi, the former and possibly future speaker of the House.

So this seems like a good time to remind everyone that Pelosi is by far the greatest speaker of modern times and surely ranks among the most impressive people ever to hold that position. And it’s interesting to ask why she gets so little credit with the news media, and hence with the general public, for her accomplishments.

What has Pelosi achieved?

First, as House minority leader, she played a crucial role in turning back George W. Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security.

Then she was the key figure, arguably even more crucial than President Barack Obama, in passing the Affordable Care Act, which produced a spectacular fall in the number of uninsured Americans and has proved surprisingly robust even in the face of Trumpian sabotage. She helped enact financial reform, which has turned out to be more vulnerable to being undermined, but still helped stabilize the economy and protected many Americans from fraud.

Pelosi also helped pass the Obama stimulus plan, which economists overwhelmingly agree mitigated job lossesfrom the financial crisis, as well as playing a role in laying the foundation for a green energy revolution.

It’s quite a record. Oh, and whenever you hear Republicans claim that Pelosi is some kind of wild-eyed leftist, ask yourself, what’s so radical about protecting retirement income, expanding health care and reining in runaway bankers?

It’s probably also worth noting that Pelosi has been untouched by allegations of personal scandal, which is amazing given the right’s ability to manufacture such allegations out of thin air.

So how does Pelosi stack up against the four Republicans who have held the speaker’s position since the G.O.P. took control of the House in 1994?

Newt Gingrich was a blowhard who shut down the government in a failed attempt to blackmail Bill Clinton into cutting Medicare, then led the impeachment of Clinton over an affair even as he himself was cheating on his wife.

Dennis Hastert, we now know, had a history of molesting teenage boys. Personal behavior aside, the “Hastert rule,” under which Republicans could support only legislation approved by a majority of their own party, empowered extremists and made America less governable.

John Boehner didn’t do much except oppose everything Obama proposed, including measures that were crucial to dealing with the aftermath of the financial crisis.

And Paul Ryan, the current but departing speaker, is a flimflam man: a fake deficit hawk whose one legislative achievement is a budget-busting tax cut, a fake policy wonk whose budget proposals were always obvious smoke and mirrors, pretending to address the budget deficit but actually just redistributing income from the poor to the rich. In the final act of his political career he has also shown himself to be a coward, utterly unwilling to stand up to Trump’s malfeasance.

Looking at modern House speakers, then, Pelosi stands out as a giant among dwarfs. But you’d never know that from her media coverage.

While in office, Hastert was generally portrayed as a stolid embodiment of middle-American values. Ryan was for years the recipient of fawning media coverage, which lauded him as the ultimate serious, honest conservative long after his phoniness was obvious to anyone who paid attention. But Pelosi is typically referred to as “divisive.” Why?

I mean, it’s true that she’s a political partisan — but no more so than any of the Republicans who preceded and followed her. Her policy stances are far less at odds with public opinion than, say, Ryan’s attempts to privatize Medicare and slash its funding. So what makes her “divisive”? The fact that Republicans keep attacking her? That would happen to any Democrat.

Or maybe it’s just the fact that she’s a woman — a woman who happens to have been far better at her job than any man in recent memory.

Does all this mean that Pelosi should become speaker again if Democrats retake the House? Not necessarily: You can make an argument for a new face despite her extraordinary record.

But her achievements really have been remarkable. It’s a sad commentary on Republicans that they have nothing to run on except demonizing a politician whose track record makes them look pathetic. And it’s a sad commentary on the news media that so much reporting echoes these baseless attacks.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Jeffries is a corporate Dem that formed a PAC with Josh Gottheimer (fuck him) to oppose progressive candidates and is tight with the Cuomo party machine that handed the GOP the majority. I hope his relative youth gives him a better understanding of the Republican party he's up against, but he may end up spending more time punching left against his base than Nancy did.

If he’s smart he’ll give as good as he gets. The progressive caucus is not shy about criticizing other Dem members with whom they disagree. To be impactful, he’ll need to follow Nancy’s blueprint for success which includes being both principled and pragmatic. When under pressure to support the party backed Democrat in the NYC  mayor’s race, Hakeem chose to support the most radically progressive candidate in the race. 
It would be foolish to prematurely judge him at the point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Jeffries is a corporate Dem that formed a PAC with Josh Gottheimer (fuck him) to oppose progressive candidates and is tight with the Cuomo party machine that handed the GOP the majority. I hope his relative youth gives him a better understanding of the Republican party he's up against, but he may end up spending more time punching left against his base than Nancy did.

I've liked what little I've seen of Jefferies. I'm sure just about everybody has a few skeletons except AOC. 

I'll judge him on his merits from today on. I'm optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Js1 said:

ACA, BIB, IRA, ARRA, ARP. 

Without a doubt, one of the most effective speakers, wrangling very diverse caucuses under 4 different presidents. 

She deserves her farewell tour in 2023/2024 and then ride off into retirement. 

Yup.  But more than a little disturbing that her retirement is happening in the setting of her husband being almost killed in a politically motivated attack.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Macanudo said:

The Dems should have given AOC the speaker slot 5 minutes before it was time to give it to McCarthy so he had to take it from someone other than Nancy. 

Or the Dems should try to be as petty as Paul Ryan was about relinquishing the gavel to Nancy. He didn’t even show for the ceremony and left it to an underling to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

May have already posted but apologies if this is a repeat.  I remember looking back to see when and why Pelosi became unpopular—what did she do? She was elected and was a D. The smears started as soon as she took office and they never stopped, but increased in rage.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

Can anyone imagine this happening today, this is just 15 years and 4 presidents ago

 

 

Fuck that. Those cunts literally stole an election and accused anyone who didn't support the Iraq war of treason.  That they played nice 1 day out of the year doesn't change that they were monsters.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

May have already posted but apologies if this is a repeat.  I remember looking back to see when and why Pelosi became unpopular—what did she do? She was elected and was a D. The smears started as soon as she took office and they never stopped, but increased in rage.

Well, it starts with "Democrat" and ends in "female".

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the war criminal  was a better president than Trump. Prob not to the families of the soldiers and civilians who died for his manufactured war, but at least he didn't try to overthrow the government.

Edited by trauma babe
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nancy Pelosi, Oct 3 2002

House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued the following statement this afternoon about the new Congressional resolution authorizing military force against Iraq:

"The decision of whether to send our brave men and women in uniform to war is the most solemn and serious choice we face as Members of Congress. Before putting our young people in harm’s way, we must be certain there is no other recourse.

"Because I do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic remedies, I cannot support the Administration’s resolution regarding the use of force in Iraq. I am also extremely concerned about the impact of such action on our war against terrorism.

"A number of my colleagues are working on an alternative that I hope I can support. An acceptable alternative would require the United States to seek a multilateral diplomatic initiative before authorizing the use of force.

"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.

"If we invade Iraq, we will show our military power. If we can eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction without invading, we will show our strength."

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For contrast, HRC on Oct 10, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including Al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should it be hard, but I cast it with conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

May have already posted but apologies if this is a repeat.  I remember looking back to see when and why Pelosi became unpopular—what did she do? She was elected and was a D. The smears started as soon as she took office and they never stopped, but increased in rage.

I believe it was her role in getting the ACA passed that pegged the rage meters of many folk.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-obamacare-leadership_n_5bfdc95de4b030172fa7f593

https://time.com/5832330/nancy-pelosi-obamacare/

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Poe It Up said:

Man I miss this guy. 

I think history will end up judging his presidency a different way, but that's for another thread. 

/csb alert, but I gotta tell it because I get painted as a leftist commie nutjob (I am certainly the third one) by a huge swatch of this site.  Mrs. Bush was regaling us at the Texas Book Festival years ago with a story about that night in 2007.  This was around the time it looked like Pelosi would be passing the gavel off to Boehner.  And most of his administration loathed Pelosi, but George got along with almost everyone.  Anyway, he wanted to mark the occasion with exactly what he ended up saying, But Mrs. Bush says, he got some big pushback from his team about making too big a spectacle about Nancy---acknowledge the moment and move into your speech.  But George wanted to say more and soak up the history and let her have a couple of ovations.  As you can see, that's what happened.  But it wasn't supposed to go down like that.  He was just gonna say one quip with one quick clap, but he told Laura on the way to the Floor, "I'm gonna do it the way we talked about it, not the writer's way...for Jenna and Barbara and all our little girls."  Mrs. Bush telling the story from memory years later FWIW.  

I don't like Nancy Pelosi.  I don't like a lot of people, some of them happen to be women.  I also don't like that my daughter goes to a 'Girls in STEM' camp, or I introduced her to DAA winner who was "First Latina in this" or "First Woman to do that."  It shouldn't be labeled like that, but it is.  And that's fine.  But she has a full shelf of books and photographs and event programs signed by female astronauts, scientists, Pulitzer prize winners, Supreme Court Justices, Former First Ladies, Congresswomen, Councilwomen, Women's Olympic Medalists, et. al.  Things I have accrued since before she was born through waiting in long lines and calling in favors.  And when Pelosi steps down officially in January, we'll watch that and I'll try and get something signed by her for my daughters. 

For the very same reason President Bush made that gesture that night 15 years ago...because it's for all our little girls.  One day, the lines will be blurred and gone.  But for now?  Fuck yeah, we need to acknowledge the women pioneers who pulled the arrows out of their backs and kept marching on ahead to clear the path.  

The most understanding man I ever met was Jesus Christ.  The most intelligent man I ever met was Stephen Hawking.  The most interesting man I ever met was Don DeLillo.  And subjugating women never even occurred to any of them.  Pelosi's politics are fucking bullshit, but she's got backbone and patriotism...enough for me. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I believe it was her role in getting the ACA passed that pegged the rage meters of many folk.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-obamacare-leadership_n_5bfdc95de4b030172fa7f593

https://time.com/5832330/nancy-pelosi-obamacare/

Yes, I agree. I mean the pre-MAGA tea partiers were deranged at all Dems at that point but it was the whole “pass the bill so we can read it” thing that made her a target. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an obvious coverup.  I’ll tell you who opened the door.  This is what the deep state libs are trying to hide.  Hunter Biden opened the door.  He was trying to get to his laptop that had Hillary’s emails about benganzi and proved Ukraine funds have been going to Sam Bankman-Fried

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Did Hunter Biden open the door with his massive dong? A lot of people are saying he did.

Tall Dong answering the door from a jilted lover?  You're thinking of when Jake rings the bell and Duc answers in "Sixteen Candles."  Lotta people are saying it's John Hughes' second best film ever.  Lotta people.  

Edited by YGIFS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/18/2022 at 11:16 AM, Michael Knight said:

Can anyone imagine this happening today, this is just 15 years and 4 presidents ago

 

 

George W Bush is fundamentally a good man. He made mistakes. Most men do. Perhaps his errors outweigh his deeds. History will be the judge of that.

But I do think he is a good man.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2022 at 6:32 PM, Ghost of LL said:

George W Bush is fundamentally a good man. He made mistakes. Most men do. Perhaps his errors outweigh his deeds. History will be the judge of that.

But I do think he is a good man.

C'mon man. Performing the most basic aspects of courtesy doesn't make one a good man. Even wanting to be a good man doesn't make one a good man. I think it's fair to say he wants to be a good man and in interpersonal relationships he probably tries to be a good man, but he did Iraq. That's too fucking big a "mistake" to earn consideration as a good man. Millions are dead and tens of millions have been crippled, displaced, or lost everything as a result of his decision, which was justified with lies and based entirely on his ego.

If you can do that, never atone for it, and still be called a good man, those words are meaningless. We need to expect more.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Reading some of the comments is even tougher.  On yahoo, it's far worse but that's what I get for looking at a public board.  I don't even want to imagine the comments on TexAgs.  Brutal, and really, really ugly.  I wish groups like Fox would watch this and say, hey, we were wrong and this is very concerning regarding prior violent rhetoric, while also claiming christian victimization at other times.  But, we all know what will win out.  Cheers, to hoping nobody dies.     

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...