Nancy Pelosi

by: Gary Patton

Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 19:53:19 PM EST

I like Nancy Pelosi. Let me repeat that - I like Nancy Pelosi. I think that she's a nice person, an effective politician, and I'm happy that she was recently elected House minority leader. Yes, I know. Many people dislike Nancy Pelosi, but I'm not among them.

Humans have an unfortunate tendency to scapegoat people - to focus their unhappiness on some hapless person. It's not enough to dislike a policy or a situation, we have to hold somebody responsible for creating it. So it is with Nancy Pelosi. In the last election, Republicans in positions of power did their best to scapegoat Pelosi. They spent more money attacking her personally than they did President Obama. And apparently they were successful.

It's perfectly possible to like people, even though we don't like the views they express. It's possible to like Nancy Pelosi, but not her political viewpoints. But we human beings rarely do that; we merge the person with their views. We dislike both of them. We scapegoat. In this case, we scapegoat Nancy Pelosi.

Why do I think Nancy Pelosi is a likable person? I met her two times on social occasions. The first was a political gathering in Rye, New Hampshire. My wife and I took our granddaughter to the event, and Pelosi went out of her way to speak to our granddaughter and encourage her. So what? Pelosi is nice to children; what politician looking for votes from parents isn't kind to kids.

Perhaps, the second example will be more persuasive. My wife and I attended a political fundraiser for Carol Shea-Porter at the Liberty Hotel in Boston at which Nancy Pelosi was the featured speaker. (Yes, that's the "out-of-state" fundraiser held a full 40 miles from New Hampshire that the state GOP roundly criticized. These same people were strangely silent when millions upon millions of anonymous dollars from out of state sources deluged New Hampshire voters with television ads attacking Democrats.)

Republicans are very adept at creating caricatures of Democrats that are unappealing to voters. The GOP presents Pelosi as a "limousine liberal," an uppity, wealthy person who forces unrealistic liberal ideology upon average people.

To an extent, Pelosi inadvertently facilitates that stereotype. She represents liberal San Francisco (seen as the center of homosexuality in America by homophobes); she is very attractive for a woman of her years (over 70); and she dresses impeccably. But there is a whole lot more to Nancy Pelosi. She is a warm and caring person. At the meeting, she moved around the room greeting the guests, and, just as she did with my granddaughter, responded at length to each person's comments. (The typical politician standing in a receiving line abruptly grabs your hand, smiles briefly, and forcefully steers you to the next person in line so as to meet as many people in as short a time as possible.)

Moreover, Pelosi is genuinely appreciative of the opportunity she has in Congress to benefit the lives of the American public. And Pelosi is an effective leader. She knows her constituency well (Democratic members of Congress), and takes that into account when she makes decisions. Massachusetts congressmen Ed Markey and Mike Capuano were at the fundraiser. Pelosi would pause occasionally in her remarks to say things like, "Mike, I know you don't agree with this, but . . .," or "Ed, your experience on this matter may be different from mine."

And you may be sure that when Pelosi takes a bill to the floor of the House she has the votes to pass it. Thomas Roberts commented on Countdown, "Pelosi has, by any measure, a stunning list of accomplishments under her belt from the last two years. Measure after measure, propping up Wall street, automakers, and, in turn, the U.S. economy, tax cuts for the middle class, investments for America's future in green energy and basic infrastructure, health care reform, veteran's benefits, equal pay legislation for women, new rules reining in Wall Street, new protection for consumers against credit card companies, reforming student loans for college kids."

And Pelosi is tough. She gives the Republicans as good as she gets. The Democratic Party is desperately in need of tough leaders who are not pale replicas of the GOP and will not give away the store in one-sided compromises. Republicans may openly rejoice because they feel Pelosi's unpopularity will be a handicap to the Democratic Party, but privately they know they will have a fight on their hands.

We men should be as strong. Nancy, you go, girl!

Nobody Cares About Nancy Pelosi

by: Dean Barker

Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 19:19:20 PM EST

"The most underreported part of Nancy Pelosi's decision  on Friday to run for minority leader: The fact that her announcement (both her Tweet and her full statement) NEVER once mentioned how she plans to lead the House Democrats back to the majority. It was about protecting what had been created (health care, and Wall Street reform), not about how Democrats regain power. We know that Pelosi racked up a considerable legislative record over the past two years, and we also know that she and her team were able to win control in '06. But how does she fix her public image?"

Aside from the Villagers, the politically active, and the part of the FOX viewing GOP base that will never vote for a Democrat, no one cares about Nancy Pelosi or her public image or her being Speaker again.

Do you know what people care about?

People care about their kids having health insurance.  People care about banks not stealing their home.  Older people care about being able to collect Social Security benefits at 67 and not 70.  Younger people care about the money they put into Social Security not being stolen from them on the other end. People care about there being enough jobs.

None of the Blue Dogs who want to be Minority House Leader will fight for those things the way Nancy Pelosi will.  And did.

So we could either placate the Villagers and the Editors-in-Chief over proper decorum in the wake of big election changes.  Or we could put the person who has been the strongest advocate for regular Americans - stronger than President Obama, stronger than Harry Reid - in the most prominent position to stand up to the corporatist Republicans in charge of the House.

Let Us Now Praise Nancy Pelosi

by: JimC

Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 05:49:39 AM EDT

Given the dynamics of these things, she is unlikely to return as Speaker when Democrats take the House back, even if that happens in just two years.

I would like to note that she served her country and the Democratic Party honorably. She showed toughness when she had to, and she was vital in passing the healthcare law, which remains the signature accomplishment of the last two years.

She defended a couple of people that I would not have defended, but she hasn't had a personal scandal or even a whiff of one. And frankly, such loyalty (within reason) is the side I'd like to see leaders err on, because too many people in politics are too quick to throw others under the proverbial bus.

There was that awkward moment when she said, "Oh, he [Obama] was for a lot of things on the campaign trail," but she was hardly the only one who had that type of thought. I'm not going to blame her for saying it out loud.

She "took impeachment off the table" when she took the gavel. This annoyed many people, but I believe it was the right thing to do. It avoided creating a revenge cycle of impeachment proceedings. And it did not exclude other actions taken, say, by the Justice Department. People can say it created a certain climate where that was more difficult, and they may have a point, but let's not kid ourselves, any such action was always going to be difficult. It should be difficult.

Finally, when the GOP tried to make her a lightning rod -- really starting on day one, but especially this year -- and some Democratic members distanced themselves to save themselves (see above), she never wavered. She never condemned anyone who did that. Privately, who knows, it had to hurt and maybe that showed. But in public, she held strong.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TPM: Bush Administration Kept Congress in the Dark Before 2008 Collapse

by: Jennifer Daler

Mon May 03, 2010 at 16:08:28 PM EDT

If accurate, the allegation could constitute a major indictment of the Bush administration, which may have worsened the crisis and resulting economic fallout by delaying the call for congressional action. Pelosi says the admissions from Bush administration officials that they had kept Congress in the dark came in private conversations between her and those officials in person and by phone.

It turns out that after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the Federal Reserve's giving the New York Fed permission to lend $85 billion to AIG, it was Pelosi who called Paulson to ask for a briefing the following morning.

"They said, 'That will be too late. That will be too late. Tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock will be too late,'" Pelosi recalled.

In a meeting that evening with Congressional leaders and staff, Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and others offered a dire assessment, and made an appeal for intervention that ultimately resulted in TARP. Bernanke and Paulson beseeched the legislators to act quickly, warning that, the entire U.S. economy might collapse in days without rapid intervention. But Pelosi had a question. "I asked them, and said, 'Why am I calling you - why didn't you call me?," Pelosi said. (bold mine)

TPM reporter Brian Beutler writes that Pelosi told him to ask Paulson what his answer was. But Paulson did not respond to requests for an interview, so Beutler went back to Pelosi.

This time she [Pelosi] agreed to elaborate: "Here's what they said. They said, 'We were not allowed to tell Congress, but since you called, we're going to answer your questions.'"

HCR Bill Passes US House

by: Jennifer Daler

Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 23:03:56 PM EDT

Is it perfect? No. But it will do some things that will improve health care access for millions of Americans.

Open Thread: Pelosi v. Boehner

by: Dean Barker

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:42:24 AM EST

House Minority Leader John Boehner:

I've contributed to Scott Brown, I want him to win, I think he can win - but beyond that, the American people need to stay engaged in this process because this bill is nowhere close to being finished. There are a number of unresolved issues, a lot of fights amongst Democrats, and we can continue to put pressure on them - we can exploit those differences - and bring this bill down."

She went on to say that Brown has said he want to go back to the drawing board on health care. Not in my House, Madame Speaker said.

"There is no back to the drawing board," Pelosi said. "The Republicans in Congress have said we will kill health care reform. They are the handmaidens of the insurance company."

"Let's remove all doubt, we will have health care -- one way or another," Pelosi said. "Back to the drawing board means a great big zero for the American people."

Pelosi Still Afraid to Take On Bush On the Economy

by: Nate W

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:56:21 PM EDT

... Let's face it, we can only have a stimulus package if the President is willing to sign one.  But we can only go as far as the President will sign.

That's House Speaker Nancy Pelosi starting the negotiations on a second stimulus package by giving away the farm.

There's an old story in Texas about a young man whose daddy has sent him to trade horses on his own for the first time. He meets a wise old sharpie and the guy says, "So how much do you want for that horse son?" The kid answers: "Well Daddy told me to ask for $100 but to take $50." "That's great kid, here's $50, give your daddy my regards."

That's what the Congressional Democrats do EVERY TIME.

While every stop is being pulled out to save the Wall Street "Masters of the Universe", state governments across the nation are being pulled into an economic black hole. It's no surprise that President Bush doesn't care, but its very frustrating to see Pelosi being complicit in his indifference.

She's apparently telegraphing her willingness to throw the states over the side. Why not make the most unpopular president in history veto a bill that would be popular just in time for the election?

Not having a vote on a strong economic recovery package is bad politics. Bad terrible awful dumb politics.  What's the point of electing Democratic Members to Congress if they won't stand up for Americans even when the President won't?

Newsflash to the Democrats on Capitol Hill, this is the perfect time to force some Republicans up for re-election to put themselves on the record as opposing a package to save the economy.

But Pelosi doesn't get that concept. Instead she wants to pass something on the first go and she's so eager to please the president that shes pre-gutting a second stimulus package. Even though she's talking a good game to the press:

Pelosi renewed her vow to try to pass a stimulus measure that would combine billions of dollars for jobs-producing infrastructure projects, more food stamps, additional Medicaid aid to states, home heating subsidies and a further extension of unemployment insurance.

Persistent rumors from Capitol Hill indicate that she's telling the White House that she's willing to throw the Medicaid aid to states overboard.

Should we settle for a bill that only goes halfway in addressing the economic crisis? No. We did that once, earlier this year, and the first stimulus package failed.

This has been on the table for a long time. The same experts who said the first economic stimulus package failed also said aid to states needs to be in the next stimulus:

If a second round of stimulus is necessary, other options that should be on the table. These include payments to states that will need to cut spending because of balanced budget provisions as their tax revenue falls.

And in a letter to House Leadership in late January as the first stimulus package was being prepared, a bipartisan group of 39 Governors "requested that state aid be included in the stimulus:

The nation's governors urge you to include state countercyclical funding as part of your legislation to stimulate the economy.

...

In 2003, Congress approved $20 billion in assistance to states, including $10 billion in Medicaid and $10 billion in block grants. The governors' current stimulus proposal is essentially the same, with the exception that it is a total of $12 billion as opposed to $20 billion. This proposal can be enacted quickly, as there is precedent and it is timely, temporary and targeted.

The plan is there, we know what is needed to help dig us out of this economic muck, and potentially shield the states from further dramatic losses if Wall Street keeps acting up. Our mentality shouldn't be "take what we can get" it should be "this is what we need, this is what will pass." If Republicans want to vote against improving the economy, let them explain it to the voters.

It's time to have a clear vote on a real, working economic stimulus package. It's time to show voters there's a real difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Pelosi Stuns White House, Rebuffs Bush on Trade Pact for Colombia !

by: JonnyBBad

Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 18:33:38 PM EDT

White House and Democrats Clash Over Trade Pact
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: April 9, 2008  5:20 PM

WASHINGTON, April 9 - The dispute between the White House and Democrats on the economy escalated sharply Wednesday over a surprise move by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to scrap the House's rules and hold hostage a trade accord sought by the administration until President Bush agrees to more economic relief for Americans.

Ms. Pelosi's action, which appeared to stun the White House, came just two days after Mr. Bush attempted to gain the upper hand by sending the bill to Congress with the understanding that current trade laws required a vote this year.

Democrats standing up to China on human rights

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 22:27:49 PM EDT

If you can, now is a good time to show your support for Hodes.  Don't forget to do it via ActBlue in the left column.

EDIT: Colbert really took the whole situation to task last night.

"Till debt do us part."

Automatic Ickes: Supers Get More Democracy than You

by: Dean Barker

Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:08:33 AM EST

Ickes, claims that "automatic delegates" (as he puts it in his attempt to spin the issue into confusion) will decide the election - no matter what happens with those pesky small states and those peskier wine and brie eating caucus-goers.

That's not a new argument. Camp Clinton has been building that narrative ever since it became clear to them that they could lose on elected delegates. It's become so pervasive that even neutral Nancy Pelosi smacked it down publicly:

``It's not just following the returns; it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people,'' Pelosi said. It would be ``a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,'' she said.

What is new is Automatic Ickes' attempt to bolster that argument, and it's odious (my emphasis):

"They are closely in touch with the issues and ideas of the jurisdiction they represent and they are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns," Ickes said.

That's radical.

(Title and a bit of wording changed because for some reason I made Ickes a super too - I don't actually know if he is one or not.)

Kucinich Will Force Impeachment Vote Before Thanksgiving

by: dksupport

Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 23:11:21 PM EDT

he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.

Why This Isn't George Bush's War

by: dksupport

Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:25:10 AM EDT