Any other Democrats here who can't stand Nancy Pelosi?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Not a fan. She is Palin's antithesis. Both extreme opposites are equally as bad for this country and should be nowhere near positions of power. Not because of their genders, but because of their politics.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
41,123
10,337
136
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I've seen in this thread is a bunch of generalities. What has she done poorly as speaker? Be specific.

1) Failed to rally the House to get the bailout passed initially, getting only 60% of Dems to go along with her the first time around. She also angered Republicans with a totally unnecessary partisan speech just before that first vote.

2) Besides minimum wage and recently drilling (both solid accomplishments), hasn't actually done much of anything in the House nor has she shown any real leadership in terms of getting Republicans to play nice. She's as left as they come so she's naturally not a good fit for Speaker, yet there she is.

3) Most importantly, didn't actually get the U.S. out of the war in Iraq. As pathetic as George Bush is, she is partially culpable.

Point 1): The Dems vote was a lot higher than the Reps, and it was the Reps administration that proposed the "bailout." So, it appears that Pelosi should be congratulated on that score! She took heat for that, as if she was responsible for the Reps ditching the vote. But look, the one they did pass was a lot better, so why the crying over that spilt milk?

2): As left as they come, she is NOT! Nowhere near. She's from S.F., which is bluer than CA in general, which is pretty blue, so that's why she has that reputation. She's actually very centrist compared to real leftist factions in this country.

3): She's as pathetic as George Bush because what? She couldn't pry the country out of Bush's war? WTF.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
41,123
10,337
136
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I've seen in this thread is a bunch of generalities. What has she done poorly as speaker? Be specific.

Took GWB's impeachment off the table.

And what would the grounds for impeachment be? Impeachment always seems to be on the table after a damning revelation. The missing WMD? We are knee deep in doodoo. A big hoopla over impeachment proceedings would be one more diversion. Look at the stupid circus the Reps stirred up over Clinton lieing about his marital fidelities. Sheesh.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Pelosi's going to become the left's parting gift to Republicans over the next few years. Sure, unlike Tom Foley, she probably won't get bounced out of office as a sitting Speaker, but she's going to make the Dems wish they'd picked someone else soon enough.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
I'm a registered Democrat, but I have voted Republican in the past. As for Pelosi, I can't stand her due to her divisive politics.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm a life-long Democrat AND a Kahleeforneeyan...and I'm not crazy about the lady. She's far too liberal for my tastes...

As for the clout, keep in mind that while the Dems hold a majority in the House, it's still a slim majority...not nearly enough to force any legislation.

It's a larger majority than the GOP had from 2001-2006.

Proof? And before you count LIEberman as a D remember who he's campaigning for.

Lieberman isn't in the House.

In the House, a simple majority is the main thing; in the Senate, a filibuster proof majority is a lot more helpful.

However, the democratic majority in the House is limited from the 'blue dogs'. We need to elect progressive democrats.

Oops... that's what I get for skimming instead of *reading*. :eek:
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm a life-long Democrat AND a Kahleeforneeyan...and I'm not crazy about the lady. She's far too liberal for my tastes...

As for the clout, keep in mind that while the Dems hold a majority in the House, it's still a slim majority...not nearly enough to force any legislation.

It's a larger majority than the GOP had from 2001-2006.

Proof? And before you count LIEberman as a D remember who he's campaigning for.

107th Congress: 220-222 Republicans
108th Congress: 225-229 Republicans
109th Congress: 229-232 Republicans
110th Congress: 231-235 Democrats
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I've seen in this thread is a bunch of generalities. What has she done poorly as speaker? Be specific.

Took GWB's impeachment off the table.

And what would the grounds for impeachment be? Impeachment always seems to be on the table after a damning revelation. The missing WMD? We are knee deep in doodoo. A big hoopla over impeachment proceedings would be one more diversion. Look at the stupid circus the Reps stirred up over Clinton lieing about his marital fidelities. Sheesh.

Warrantless wiretaps > Clinton lying about a BJ.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
She will go down as one of the worst speakers in history. She's the epitome of divisive politics, and I don't see how any can support her.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm a life-long Democrat AND a Kahleeforneeyan...and I'm not crazy about the lady. She's far too liberal for my tastes...

As for the clout, keep in mind that while the Dems hold a majority in the House, it's still a slim majority...not nearly enough to force any legislation.

It's a larger majority than the GOP had from 2001-2006.

Proof? And before you count LIEberman as a D remember who he's campaigning for.

107th Congress: 220-222 Republicans
108th Congress: 225-229 Republicans
109th Congress: 229-232 Republicans
110th Congress: 231-235 Democrats

Sorry... I was thinking about the senate, not the house. My bad and thanks for the proof. :eek:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
She will go down as one of the worst speakers in history. She's the epitome of divisive politics, and I don't see how any can support her.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Please list the divisive things you think she has done, then please compare them to a previous speaker who you believe was not divisive.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I've seen in this thread is a bunch of generalities. What has she done poorly as speaker? Be specific.

Took GWB's impeachment off the table.

And what would the grounds for impeachment be? Impeachment always seems to be on the table after a damning revelation. The missing WMD? We are knee deep in doodoo. A big hoopla over impeachment proceedings would be one more diversion. Look at the stupid circus the Reps stirred up over Clinton lieing about his marital fidelities. Sheesh.

Warrantless wiretaps > Clinton lying about a BJ.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...ekinreview/01word.html

THE unsealing by the C.I.A last week of the documents it called its ?family jewels? was an only-in-America moment. A secret intelligence service freely admitted its crimes and blunders. Americans were reminded of a piece of living history: the time in the 1960s and 1970s when presidents turned the spying powers of American intelligence on the United States itself, searching for an enemy within.

As the ?family jewels? make clear, this web of intrigue began in the Kennedy White House.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
She will go down as one of the worst speakers in history. She's the epitome of divisive politics, and I don't see how any can support her.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Please list the divisive things you think she has done, then please compare them to a previous speaker who you believe was not divisive.

You're absolutely ridiculous. The speech before the bailout vote is a shining example. But you support her, and, based on your previous posts, I'm sure you've committed yourself to that support 100% and would go to the grave with it, so there's no sense in engaging you in time consuming discussion on the matter. Of course, this is where you write off my opinion of you because you "don't care" and tell me I'd engage in it if I had any real leg to stand on. Then I say "think what you want", shrug my shoulders, and we each go about our lives.

I just figured I'd get it all out of the way in one post instead of three.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I'm not a Dem (registered Ind. for almost 2 decades) although I am very socially liberal and I think that she has been pretty horrible.

Eskimospy, you are being a homer and dismissing very valid criticism against her.

1. Impeachment -- it should NEVER be "off the table". If a public official breaks the law or does things in such an unethical manner, you should have all things at your disposal.

2. Iraq -- She campaigned that she would do everything in their power to bring the troops home. After a couple of weak attempts, she ran with her tail between her legs whining about how powerless they were against Bush's veto power. Hogwash. She could have sent the exact same bill with timelines over and over and force his hand as funding was running out to commit to some sort of time table. She failed miserably.

3. Bailout -- although it eventually passed the House, it was more because of the effect of the Senate passing it putting pressure on the Reps than her leadership inspiring her colleagues.

4. Ethics reform -- sure they passed a bill addressing some of the issues, but they left enough loopholes to keep them comfortably safe even while doing unethical things (family members on campaign payrolls for example)

5. FISA -- retroactive immunity for companies that knowingly and willingly ran roughshod over the rights of American citizens? Puh-lease. That bill should have never made it out of committee with that stipulation in it and it certainly never should have passed a vote if the leadership of both parties were anywhere in the same area code with doing their sworn duties of upholding the Constitution.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I've seen in this thread is a bunch of generalities. What has she done poorly as speaker? Be specific.

Took GWB's impeachment off the table.

And what would the grounds for impeachment be? Impeachment always seems to be on the table after a damning revelation. The missing WMD? We are knee deep in doodoo. A big hoopla over impeachment proceedings would be one more diversion. Look at the stupid circus the Reps stirred up over Clinton lieing about his marital fidelities. Sheesh.

Warrantless wiretaps > Clinton lying about a BJ.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...ekinreview/01word.html

THE unsealing by the C.I.A last week of the documents it called its ?family jewels? was an only-in-America moment. A secret intelligence service freely admitted its crimes and blunders. Americans were reminded of a piece of living history: the time in the 1960s and 1970s when presidents turned the spying powers of American intelligence on the United States itself, searching for an enemy within.

As the ?family jewels? make clear, this web of intrigue began in the Kennedy White House.

So what they did was illegal or legal and if the latter why did we have that immunity deal not long ago?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
She will go down as one of the worst speakers in history. She's the epitome of divisive politics, and I don't see how any can support her.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Please list the divisive things you think she has done, then please compare them to a previous speaker who you believe was not divisive.

You're absolutely ridiculous. The speech before the bailout vote is a shining example. But you support her, and, based on your previous posts, I'm sure you've committed yourself to that support 100% and would go to the grave with it, so there's no sense in engaging you in time consuming discussion on the matter. Of course, this is where you write off my opinion of you because you "don't care" and tell me I'd engage in it if I had any real leg to stand on. Then I say "think what you want", shrug my shoulders, and we each go about our lives.

I just figured I'd get it all out of the way in one post instead of three.

Yeah, because pointing out that nobody seems to be able to cite any evidence to back up their claims must equal supporting someone to my grave. You are giving a partisan speech (that did nothing to affect the final vote according to the actual House Republicans voting on it) as your example for her being the epitome of divisive politics? Every Speaker in history gives partisan speeches, many of them far worse than anything Pelosi has ever given. This seems more like evidence for the fact that you don't know what the Speaker of the House does than evidence of her epic divisiveness.

Does your post mean that you have no evidence to back up your claim? Any independant analysis of Pelosi being one of the 'worst in history', or particularly divisive compared to her predecessors? Surely it must take more than making a speech that made someone sad to be the most divisive in America's 230-odd years.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
She will go down as one of the worst speakers in history. She's the epitome of divisive politics, and I don't see how any can support her.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Please list the divisive things you think she has done, then please compare them to a previous speaker who you believe was not divisive.

You're absolutely ridiculous. The speech before the bailout vote is a shining example. But you support her, and, based on your previous posts, I'm sure you've committed yourself to that support 100% and would go to the grave with it, so there's no sense in engaging you in time consuming discussion on the matter. Of course, this is where you write off my opinion of you because you "don't care" and tell me I'd engage in it if I had any real leg to stand on. Then I say "think what you want", shrug my shoulders, and we each go about our lives.

I just figured I'd get it all out of the way in one post instead of three.

Yeah, because pointing out that nobody seems to be able to cite any evidence to back up their claims must equal supporting someone to my grave.

Because you can't read - plenty of your fellow dems already have done what you're asking - is why I didn't bother.

I thought I wrapped this up in one post, but I guess it'll take two. *sigh*

 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
COunt me in as a dem, and lib that hatesd Pelosi. She gives us all a bad name and makes it harder to win elections.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm not a Dem (registered Ind. for almost 2 decades) although I am very socially liberal and I think that she has been pretty horrible.

Eskimospy, you are being a homer and dismissing very valid criticism against her.

1. Impeachment -- it should NEVER be "off the table". If a public official breaks the law or does things in such an unethical manner, you should have all things at your disposal.

2. Iraq -- She campaigned that she would do everything in their power to bring the troops home. After a couple of weak attempts, she ran with her tail between her legs whining about how powerless they were against Bush's veto power. Hogwash. She could have sent the exact same bill with timelines over and over and force his hand as funding was running out to commit to some sort of time table. She failed miserably.

3. Bailout -- although it eventually passed the House, it was more because of the effect of the Senate passing it putting pressure on the Reps than her leadership inspiring her colleagues.

4. Ethics reform -- sure they passed a bill addressing some of the issues, but they left enough loopholes to keep them comfortably safe even while doing unethical things (family members on campaign payrolls for example)

5. FISA -- retroactive immunity for companies that knowingly and willingly ran roughshod over the rights of American citizens? Puh-lease. That bill should have never made it out of committee with that stipulation in it and it certainly never should have passed a vote if the leadership of both parties were anywhere in the same area code with doing their sworn duties of upholding the Constitution.

I would agree that FISA is a knock against her. Not only did they give in to the administrations lawlessness, but they did so when it wasn't necessary. Very valid criticism. As far as ethics reform goes, I already mentioned that the ethics reform was half-hearted, but by any objective measure this Congress has certainly been an improvement. So, take that as you will.

Your other two examples are crap though I'm afraid. Impeachment was never going to happen no matter what. Impeaching GWB (when there's no way he would have been convicted) would have in fact made her an incredibly divisive speaker, for no real gain. She simply said out loud what everyone already knew. If you want to blame her for that, well... okay.

As I already said before, Pelosi acted in the best interests of our country on Iraq. The lives of our troops are not something to play a game of legislative chicken with. If GWB and the Congressional Republicans were unwilling to be adults, I am glad that Pelosi and Reid were not willing to take us off that cliff that would have lead to chaos. Yes, it sucks. It was the adult thing to do though and I can recognize that.

EDIT: It seems to me that most of the criticism present in this thread comes from people that haven't paid much attention to how Congress works until recently. If you don't like Pelosi, you probably would hate every other speaker we've ever had. Seems a bit silly to me.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
I don't really pay that much attention to the inner workings of congress and what not but I don't understand why she's hated so much.


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yeah, because pointing out that nobody seems to be able to cite any evidence to back up their claims must equal supporting someone to my grave.

Because you can't read - plenty of your fellow dems already have done what you're asking - is why I didn't bother.

I thought I wrapped this up in one post, but I guess it'll take two. *sigh*

Looks like that's a no then, eh? Well, you haven't exactly been a stickler for 'evidence' or 'facts' up to this point, so I can't say I'm surprised. Keep reaching for that rainbow!
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yeah, because pointing out that nobody seems to be able to cite any evidence to back up their claims must equal supporting someone to my grave.

Because you can't read - plenty of your fellow dems already have done what you're asking - is why I didn't bother.

I thought I wrapped this up in one post, but I guess it'll take two. *sigh*

Looks like that's a no then, eh? Well, you haven't exactly been a stickler for 'evidence' or 'facts' up to this point, so I can't say I'm surprised. Keep reaching for that rainbow!

Think what you want.

Dammit, you made me do it in 3. You bastard.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I've seen in this thread is a bunch of generalities. What has she done poorly as speaker? Be specific.

Took GWB's impeachment off the table.

And what would the grounds for impeachment be? Impeachment always seems to be on the table after a damning revelation. The missing WMD? We are knee deep in doodoo. A big hoopla over impeachment proceedings would be one more diversion. Look at the stupid circus the Reps stirred up over Clinton lieing about his marital fidelities. Sheesh.

Warrantless wiretaps > Clinton lying about a BJ.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...ekinreview/01word.html

THE unsealing by the C.I.A last week of the documents it called its ?family jewels? was an only-in-America moment. A secret intelligence service freely admitted its crimes and blunders. Americans were reminded of a piece of living history: the time in the 1960s and 1970s when presidents turned the spying powers of American intelligence on the United States itself, searching for an enemy within.

As the ?family jewels? make clear, this web of intrigue began in the Kennedy White House.

So what they did was illegal or legal and if the latter why did we have that immunity deal not long ago?

The idea is to protect them from civil suits to ensure that our wiretapping methods aren't disclosed.

I mainly posted that to show how this behavior has plenty of precedent.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yeah, because pointing out that nobody seems to be able to cite any evidence to back up their claims must equal supporting someone to my grave.

Because you can't read - plenty of your fellow dems already have done what you're asking - is why I didn't bother.

I thought I wrapped this up in one post, but I guess it'll take two. *sigh*

Looks like that's a no then, eh? Well, you haven't exactly been a stickler for 'evidence' or 'facts' up to this point, so I can't say I'm surprised. Keep reaching for that rainbow!

Think what you want.

Dammit, you made me do it in 3. You bastard.

Now that we've all agreed, stop crapping on threads you aren't going to contribute to.