Pelosi's new mission: Block Obama deals with GOP

[Magox]

So what was the message to Pelosi after the Midterm "shellacking"?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112403302.html?hpid=topnews

 

WASHINGTON -- Hers was the face on the grainy negative TV ads that helped defeat scores of Democrats. His agenda, re-election chances and legacy are on the line.

 

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, chosen after a messy family feud among Democrats to remain as their leader in the new Congress, and President Barack Obama share a keen interest in repairing their injured party after this month's staggering losses.

 

But Pelosi's mandate is diverging from the president's at a critical time, with potentially damaging consequences for Obama's ability to cut deals with Republicans in the new Congress.

 

Their partnership is strained after an election in which Pelosi and many Democrats feel the White House failed them. They believe Obama and his team muddled the party's message and didn't act soon enough to provide cover for incumbents who cast tough votes for his marquee initiatives.

 

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House. "We think if he'd done less compromising in the last two years, there's a good chance we'd have had a jobs bill that would have created real jobs, and then we wouldn't even be worrying about having lost elections."

 

So let me get this straight, according to Lynn Woolsey, Obama was governing from the "center-right"? I always knew she was a moron but this just takes it to a new level.

 

 

 

A band of centrist Democrats who last week failed to oust Pelosi in favor of a fresh, more moderate face for the party is ready to side with Republicans on key issues next year. They say they're eager to work with Obama and the GOP on middle-of-the-road initiatives that are unlikely to be embraced by Pelosi or her liberal allies.

 

"I'd like to think there's an opportunity to do that," said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, a leader of the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats.

 

The coalition, comprised mostly of Southerners who were once known as "Yellow Dog" Democrats, was born after the Republican takeover of 1994, when it was said they felt "choked blue" by their colleagues on the left.

 

In those days, Matheson noted, they worked with then-President Bill Clinton on welfare reform and balancing the budget - things that enraged liberals and led to angry accusations that the president was betraying his own party. Welfare is "an example of being honest brokers, working together to get things done, and that's what Blue Dogs want to do."

 

It's not what Pelosi or many other Democrats have in mind.

 

Rep. Brian Higgins, D-N.Y., said Democrats learned from the last two years and their shellacking at the polls that "we need to be more aggressive with the White House. They were looking for what was acceptable and then moving toward that, instead of what was important, and moving toward that," Higgins said. "We need to be true to our principles."

 

 

First, they won't be able to block **** if Obama decides to go more to the middle. NOt only do they not have the votes in the house, but many of the centrists will vote with the GOP in just about every major initiative.

 

And another point, if Obama heeds Pelosi's counsel, then that will ensure Obama's less than mediocre one-term tenure as president (unless Palin runs).

[Nanker]

Damn, beat me to it.

Well, there goes the big hand-across-the-isle efforts at bi-partisanship that was the hallmark of President BO's recent "election victory" speeches.

 

The blue dog dems are for the most part gone - having lost reelection to repubs who leveraged the conservative leanings of their district's voting population against their representative's voting-with-pelosi record on key fiscal matters. What's left in that party looks like a 50 year reunion picture of the Weather Underground and SDS class of 1960. I encourage her and them to pursue their scorched earth policy to the fullest. I await the onslaught of their tantrums and tirades when they don't get their way.

[Chef Jim]

We'll get a good taste of how well "Progressives" do with government here in SF. Gavin Newsom was just elected Lt. Gov of CA and will be sworn in after the first of the year. The progessive supervisors are all excited about who will be chosen (by them) to finish Newsom's term as Mayor. Even though Newsom is very liberal he is a moderate compared to the Sups. He recently vetoed a bill that would ban toys in McDonald's happy meals in the city. I'll keep you posted during the year ahead to let you know how much they !@#$ up this beautiful but already politically !@#$ed up city. Can't wait.

[DC Tom]

Their partnership is strained after an election in which Pelosi and many Democrats feel the White House failed them.

 

I'll say this for the Democrats, they're consistent. Everything is always someone else's fault.

[IDBillzFan]

The blue dog dems are for the most part gone - having lost reelection to repubs who leveraged the conservative leanings of their district's voting population against their representative's voting-with-pelosi record on key fiscal matters.

What's interesting to me is that the progressives point to the loss of the blue dogs as proof positive that America WANTS a progressive agenda. If American wanted a conservative agenda, they argue at HuffPost, etc., the blue dogs would have remained. But they lost because they weren't progressive ENOUGH, giving up on things like single payer.

 

What is lost on these dolts is (1) the progressives who were re-elected were from predominantly progressive districts and (2) the blue dogs who were defeated were only elected in the first place because (as I remember reading) Rahm Emmanuel was masterful in running conservative Democrats in conservative regions during the "anyone but Bush" election. It was the running of the blue dogs that gave Obama full control of both houses so he could actually pass significant legislation like Obamacare and stimulus. It was, admittedly, a brilliant move.

 

But progressive somehow convinced themselves that they're not only better off without the blue dogs, but stronger. And now they are convinced that Obama is becoming a blue dog.

 

Awesome.

[Magox]

But progressive somehow convinced themselves that they're not only better off without the blue dogs, but stronger. And now they are convinced that Obama is becoming a blue dog.

 

Awesome.

 

As insanely leftwingnutty as this sounds, there are people who truly suscribe to this.... errmmm errmmm Lybob

[OCinBuffalo]

If Obama loses in 2012, history will surely blame Nancy Pelosi.

 

Normally I would say too bad for Obama, but not in this case. He has chosen to throw every major initiative over the fence to Congress. He has refused to lead on anything. I have no idea why he would do this. IF Obamacare is Obamacare, not Pelosicare, then why in the hell would he let her(read: the Tides Foundation) write the bill?

 

The same is true of the Spendulous, and everything else.

[Passepartout]

Just IF Obama loses in 2012. Which he has a 50-50% chance as of now. Blame it on Pelosi!

[OCinBuffalo]

 

As insanely leftwingnutty as this sounds, there are people who truly suscribe to this.... errmmm errmmm Lybob

Which is why I continue to state that if my grandfather was alive, he'd be cracking Democratic party heads. He would not be alone.

Just IF Obama loses in 2012. Which he has a 50-50% chance as of now. Blame it on Pelosi!

Let me explain why right now, that's not an if, and right now, it's more like 40-60. The idiots in charge are pissing away their blue collar and rural demographics, which have been largely Democratic since Andrew f'ing Jackson.

 

I have been saving these 2 links for a thread that seemed appropriate. This is it:

Assessing the Obama coalition 1

Assessing the Obama Coalition 2

 

For those of you with ADD, this all comes down to:

Mindbogglingly, Obama seems to believe that metrosexuals and catering to the so-called "Creative Class"(as in, the stimulus spending on college professors and worthless green startups that were predicated on a market that has already failed), will replace the reliable and traditional votes he loses. These people are, by definition, unlikely to be loyal to anything other than their own self interest. And worse, they live in states that he is likely to win.

 

Yeah, Democrats are setting up to be a real strong....regional party that can't win any branch of Federal government. Liberals are fond of making fun of the Midwest. Too bad they don't realize that the Midwest/Appalachia is the only reason they haven't been irrelevant for the last 30 years. It's hysterical that they don't realize the massive error of focusing on their little fiefdoms on the coasts...even as these fiefdoms lose House seats.

 

Dissing the traditional blue collar and rural voters is how you pull a McGovern, and lose New York, never mind the swing states. And yes, magox, the fact that these idiots are too stupid to see this is laughable all day. Yes, let's strive to get 60% in 10 states, and lose the other 40...morons!

Edited November 25, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

 

Dissing the traditional blue collar and rural voters is how you pull a McGovern, and lose New York, never mind the swing states. And yes, magox, the fact that these idiots are too stupid to see this is laughable all day. Yes, let's strive to get 60% in 10 states, and lose the other 40...morons!

You know what it is OC?

 

They aren't stupid or at least not most of them, it's they can't stand the thought that their ideology was repudiated by the American electorate. It's easier to caste blame on an individual for the woes of the party than to accept that the ideology was outright rejected.

 

So if you are on the other side, it is natural to say, "You should of been more bold mr. president" because if you accept that he needed to move more to the middle, then it is an admission that their policies were scorned upon from the electorate.

 

That's what it is is OC.

[....lybob]

 

As insanely leftwingnutty as this sounds, there are people who truly suscribe to this.... errmmm errmmm Lybob

 

Sounds good to me- I support someone because I think they have policies that would be good for the country not because of what team colors they wear. I voted for Obama because I saw him as a reputation of Bush/Cheney policies and McCain/Palin as a continuation of the Bush/Cheney policies- so if Obama continues Bush/Cheney policies why should I support him. I would rather the country have clear cut choices and if that means Palin/and a republican House and Senate then so be it. If under that right-wing administration the country flourishes we will have an answer and if the country crumbles we will also have an answer.

[Chef Jim]

Sounds good to me- I support someone because I think they have policies that would be good for the country not because of what team colors they wear. I voted for Obama because I saw him as a reputation of Bush/Cheney policies and McCain/Palin as a continuation of the Bush/Cheney policies- so if Obama continues Bush/Cheney policies why should I support him. I would rather the country have clear cut choices and if that means Palin/and a republican House and Senate then so be it. If under that right-wing administration the country flourishes we will have an answer and if the country crumbles we will also have an answer.

 

I said this the day after the election two years ago and I'll say it again.

 

Hook, line and sinker.

 

Oh and BTW if the country crumbles under Palin and a Republican House and Senate the Republicans will of course blame Obama.

[Nanker]

Sounds good to me- I support someone because I think they have policies that would be good for the country not because of what team colors they wear. I voted for Obama because I saw him as a reputation of Bush/Cheney policies and McCain/Palin as a continuation of the Bush/Cheney policies- so if Obama continues Bush/Cheney policies why should I support him. I would rather the country have clear cut choices and if that means Palin/and a republican House and Senate then so be it. If under that right-wing administration the country flourishes we will have an answer and if the country crumbles we will also have an answer.

 

Yes. We don't have to wait till 2012 to get it either.

In case you haven't noticed, things aren't going swimingly for the country.

[Chef Jim]

Yes. We don't have to wait till 2012 to get it either.

In case you haven't noticed, things aren't going swimingly for the country.

 

That's Bushes fault. Have you not been paying attention?

[Nanker]

That's Bushes fault. Have you not been paying attention?

 

Still?

Oh yes, that's right. If President BO knew things were going to be this bad, he'd have never run for office. He didn't realize that people would actually hold HIM accountable.

[Chef Jim]

Still?

Oh yes, that's right. If President BO knew things were going to be this bad, he'd have never run for office. He didn't realize that people would actually hold HIM accountable.

 

I did a meeting for my staff last week on the 6 hurdles to success. I saved the best for last and it's "The Blame Game." A few on my staff are very good at that and it's a very unprofessional stance and not very becoming. I told one of them one day......"just stop!"

[OCinBuffalo]

You know what it is OC?

 

They aren't stupid or at least not most of them, it's they can't stand the thought that their ideology was repudiated by the American electorate. It's easier to caste blame on an individual for the woes of the party than to accept that the ideology was outright rejected.

 

So if you are on the other side, it is natural to say, "You should of been more bold mr. president" because if you accept that he needed to move more to the middle, then it is an admission that their policies were scorned upon from the electorate.

 

That's what it is is OC.

This is similar to the racist "communism has failed because it's only been tried by people of color, and Eurotrash. If it was tried by white western nations, it would succeed" statement that we hear from the supposedly "sensitive" leftards. They won't admit that we have never seen a single country where it works, with hundreds where it has failed. I get it. But, I don't think this is "what it is".

 

Again, I think that there has been a misguided political calculation here. Surely you can raise more money from the "creative class" than you can from blue collar/rural. You can also get more volunteers and ground game people.

 

But both of these pale in comparison to the concept of suddenly forcing millions of generationally trained voters to stop and think, or worse, permanently break the tradition of auto-voting Democrat.

 

I honestly believe that the current Demcrats want to disown the Southern Democrats once and for all. They seem to want to play to minorities and try to force the south into a break even in terms of Congress???? Too bad they don't realize how many white professionals have moved South. For all I know this idiocy started in the NYS Legislature...another group of idiots that can't seem to realize they are losing the game.

 

How else can you describe this?

[Magox]

So this is a good exampleof what this article was talking about. You have the looney left progressive wing that basically is dividing the democratic party (which btw would of never accepted JFK as their leader as Nanker adeptly pointed out)

 

Resentments between President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats that began simmering even before their mid-term disaster are nearing a boil on Capitol Hill, as liberals make clear that Obama’s efforts to strike a lame-duck deal with Republicans will come at a cost: Open and on-the-record taunting about whether the president is a patsy.

 

"This is the president's Gettysburg," Rep. Jim McDermott, a leading progressive and a subcommittee chairman on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told POLITICO Monday. Referring to Obama’s choice about whether to compromise or stand firm against Republicans on the question of higher taxes for the wealthy, the Washington Democrat said: "He's going to have to decide whether he's going to withstand Pickett's charge ... I worry."

 

 

There is a presidential wing, led by Obama, who sees it in his and the party’s interests to strike a posture of reasonable accommodation—on the theory that it is both good policy and good politics to be seen as trying to get public business done even in a season of divided government. (See: Obama: 'The right thing to do')

 

And there is a congressional wing, led by liberal lawmakers and cheered on by several prominent commentators who believe in confrontation—on the theory that Republicans will never bargain in good faith and that demoralized Democratic activists and the general public will both rally around leaders who draw clear lines and are willing to fight to defend them.

 

“You can attack the president to the point that you’re going to get a Republican president, so just keep that in mind,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who will head the Congressional Progressive Caucus next year. “This is not about the president. It’s [about what] Republicans are demanding. And the focus needs to be on them, not on him. ... I just want to encourage the president to hold his ground and just ask all Americans to think about what we could do with $700 billion instead of just giving it to people to buy luxury items.”

 

And there you have it folks, the mindset of a liberal. They believe they can spend YOUR money better than you can. This is a core difference between a conservatism and liberalism.

 

As I said, class warfare.

[IDBillzFan]

And there you have it folks, the mindset of a liberal. They believe they can spend YOUR money better than you can. This is a core difference between a conservatism and liberalism.

The NYT recently ran an article that broke down all the things the government could purchase with the $700B. It was like a Sally Struthers commercial. "For just $700 billion, you could feed 3 starving children."

 

Like you said, "there you have it."

Edited December 7, 2010 by LABillzFan

[....lybob]

The NYT recently ran an article that broke down all the things the government could purchase with the $700B. It was like a Sally Struthers commercial. "For just $700 billion, you could feed 3 starving children."

 

Like you said, "there you have it."

As always no socialism except for banks and large corporations, no morale hazard except for the CEOs of banks and large corporations, no economic distortion except for.... yes you guessed it banks and large corporations.