Not every House leader has been popular, but none have reached the nadir of Pelosi. Last week, a Public Strategies/Politico poll showed she is now trusted by fewer than one out of four voters. Asked for a reaction by Politico's Glenn Thrush on Monday, Pelosi laughed it off, declaring "I don't care."

A response like that can only come from someone so securely unaccountable in power that listening to voters is unnecessary. Its starting point is in Pelosi's disregard for the mainstream.

The speaker, who represents radical-left San Francisco, is a proponent of an agenda out of tune with what the average American wants. She has a gargantuan appetite for government spending plus intrusive legislation that curtails citizen freedoms.

Witness the $787 billion stimulus, that pork-and-protectionism package she pushed through. What has it done for the average American? There's also the economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation as well as a card-check bill that ends workers' rights to secret ballot. She's halted a job-creating free trade treaty with our ally Colombia. Now she's nationalizing U.S. health care.

Poll after poll shows these overbearing plans do not appeal to voters outside some Bay Area enclaves. But Pelosi doesn't really care.

Which brings up the second reason why she's distrusted: She doesn't even try to persuade voters. Instead of working with Congress and facilitating free and open debate, Pelosi exerts political muscle and employs sneaky legislative maneuvers to advance her agenda. Who could trust someone like that — democratic on the outside and manipulative behind the scenes?

Pelosi has blocked votes on treaties rather than allowed colleagues to stand up and be counted. In other cases, she has forced votes — the stimulus, for example — without allowing input from the opposition.

She has allowed lobbyists to draft far-reaching bills in secret, denying lawmakers even copies of the bill they had to vote on.

Is it any wonder that someone with that record would be distrusted? Or voted Congress' most partisan, as a Hill poll showed? "If you can't win on policy, then you go to process," Pelosi told PBS.

Pelosi's unpopularity is bad news not only for Republicans. It's now fracturing the Democratic Party and damaging Obama's presidency. It's a sign of a political entrenchment that answers to no voters, and more at home in Caracas than Washington. Congress better end this soon because it is not consistent with democracy.

Q: What do Nancy Pelosi and the Emperor Caligula have in common?

A. The same motto: Oderint dum metuant “Let them hate so long as they fear”...

(08-09-2009 12:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Not every House leader has been popular, but none have reached the nadir of Pelosi. Last week, a Public Strategies/Politico poll showed she is now trusted by fewer than one out of four voters. Asked for a reaction by Politico's Glenn Thrush on Monday, Pelosi laughed it off, declaring "I don't care."

A response like that can only come from someone so securely unaccountable in power that listening to voters is unnecessary. Its starting point is in Pelosi's disregard for the mainstream.

The speaker, who represents radical-left San Francisco, is a proponent of an agenda out of tune with what the average American wants. She has a gargantuan appetite for government spending plus intrusive legislation that curtails citizen freedoms.

Witness the $787 billion stimulus, that pork-and-protectionism package she pushed through. What has it done for the average American? There's also the economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation as well as a card-check bill that ends workers' rights to secret ballot. She's halted a job-creating free trade treaty with our ally Colombia. Now she's nationalizing U.S. health care.

Poll after poll shows these overbearing plans do not appeal to voters outside some Bay Area enclaves. But Pelosi doesn't really care.

Which brings up the second reason why she's distrusted: She doesn't even try to persuade voters. Instead of working with Congress and facilitating free and open debate, Pelosi exerts political muscle and employs sneaky legislative maneuvers to advance her agenda. Who could trust someone like that — democratic on the outside and manipulative behind the scenes?

Pelosi has blocked votes on treaties rather than allowed colleagues to stand up and be counted. In other cases, she has forced votes — the stimulus, for example — without allowing input from the opposition.

She has allowed lobbyists to draft far-reaching bills in secret, denying lawmakers even copies of the bill they had to vote on.

Is it any wonder that someone with that record would be distrusted? Or voted Congress' most partisan, as a Hill poll showed? "If you can't win on policy, then you go to process," Pelosi told PBS.

Pelosi's unpopularity is bad news not only for Republicans. It's now fracturing the Democratic Party and damaging Obama's presidency. It's a sign of a political entrenchment that answers to no voters, and more at home in Caracas than Washington. Congress better end this soon because it is not consistent with democracy.

Another spin filled opinion piece by someone we don't know because he didn't provide a link(which this site can get into trouble for).

Hey WMD, actually that fits better for when Bush was in office.

She is an utter trainwreck.

(08-09-2009 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  She is an utter trainwreck.

Kind of like your entire political party? "Palin for President '12".

(08-09-2009 01:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-09-2009 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  She is an utter trainwreck.

Kind of like your entire political party? "Palin for President '12".

Kind of like your Health Care Bill, Cap and Tax Bill, Immigration Reform Bill and Generally everything that is Obama.

And least we forget the Recovery Plan and Unemployment which was not to go above 8%.

You are the train wreck along with the Dems.

(08-09-2009 01:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-09-2009 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  She is an utter trainwreck.

Kind of like your entire political party? "Palin for President '12".

What is really going to be Boss, is if you Liberal Twids have to Eat Those Words in 2012 and Bow to Palin as your NEW POTUS SUPREME !!!!!!!

I swear I will have to purchase a new Keyboard if that happens I will laughing and banging on this one so hard.

I do hope that God is THAT GOOD !!!!!! :ncaabbs:

.

(08-09-2009 01:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-09-2009 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  She is an utter trainwreck.

Kind of like your entire political party? "Palin for President '12".

"MY party"?

Dude, you don't know me at all.

Second, if the Republicans score any gains at all in '10, one of the biggest reasons will be that loon in the Speaker's chair.

Isn't it amazing how neither party has anyone that people are really "for" these days. They're just against the other guy.

Even Obama's appeal was based largely on the fact that he's not George W Bush.

And notice how often it occurs that someone criticizes Obama and the knee-jerk reaction is, "But Bush was worse."

Can nobody find anything positive to say? And with nothing but negatives, what does that say about where we are headed?

If Obama's popularity (or lack therof) continues on the same trajectory, by the 2010 elections, and certainly by 2012, it may well be said that the republicans could win the election if only they didn't have to run anyone.

I haven't been inspired by a politician in a long time.

"The lesser of two evils" is a lousy way to pick leaders.

Another spin filled opinion piece by someone we don't know because he didn't provide a link(which this site can get into trouble for).
[/quote]

Fidning these links took 3 seconds

(08-09-2009 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Isn't it amazing how neither party has anyone that people are really "for" these days. They're just against the other guy.

Even Obama's appeal was based largely on the fact that he's not George W Bush.

And notice how often it occurs that someone criticizes Obama and the knee-jerk reaction is, "But Bush was worse."

Can nobody find anything positive to say? And with nothing but negatives, what does that say about where we are headed?

If Obama's popularity (or lack therof) continues on the same trajectory, by the 2010 elections, and certainly by 2012, it may well be said that the republicans could win the election if only they didn't have to run anyone.

Couldn't agree more. Neither one of them do a whole world of good but the second one of them does wrong, the other seems to forget all of the problems that they've had and acts as though the opposition is the only one that's ever been wrong.

Another thing could be our lock-step voters or people who vote one way because their parents did it, or because they believe in these extreme lies about the other party. I believe some people can come up with an example.

(08-09-2009 06:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Why do you have her dressed as a Marshall fan? I doubt she is.

(08-09-2009 08:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-09-2009 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

Another spin filled opinion piece by someone we don't know because he didn't provide a link(which this site can get into trouble for).

Fidning these links took 3 seconds
[/quote]You still don't get it. It isn't about Googling to find the links. It is about the rules.

(08-10-2009 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You still don't get it. It isn't about Googling to find the links. It is about the rules.

Roberta, you a moronic, know nothing, piece of Sh!t. What rules, the made up ones in you sh!t for brains head?

I'm still waiting for you to show one court case where a website was shut down or prosecuted because of the content posted by other people.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=380865

I challenge the mods here to put him on read only until he can justify this false claim.

(08-09-2009 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Isn't it amazing how neither party has anyone that people are really "for" these days. They're just against the other guy.

Even Obama's appeal was based largely on the fact that he's not George W Bush.

And notice how often it occurs that someone criticizes Obama and the knee-jerk reaction is, "But Bush was worse."

Can nobody find anything positive to say? And with nothing but negatives, what does that say about where we are headed?

If Obama's popularity (or lack therof) continues on the same trajectory, by the 2010 elections, and certainly by 2012, it may well be said that the republicans could win the election if only they didn't have to run anyone.

I miss Denny Hastert. Everyone loved ol Denny......

(08-10-2009 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  It is about the rules.

What rules?

Eat cake, Proles! -----Nancy Pelosi