Skip to main content

Is this the best the Democrats have got?

New York Times Begs Pelosi Not to Run for Minority Leader

The Times weighs in on the Democrats' palace intrigue, but it's obvious that both sides in the Pelosi debate still don't understand what happened on Nov. 2.
November 8, 2010 - by Bryan Preston

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has already announced that she’s running to be House minority leader in spite of last week’s defeats. The Democrats’ house blog, the New York Times, is out with a piece today begging Pelosi not to run for a return as leader. The editorial reads as if it were written in Fringe’s alternate universe:

"Nancy Pelosi has been an extremely effective speaker of the House for four years, shepherding hundreds of important bills toward passage and withstanding solid Republican opposition. Her work in passing health care reform and strong ethics oversight achieved what many thought was legislatively impossible".

Yet she never quite got around to pressing
Congress to pass a federal budget this year, which is actually one of the Congress’ main duties. Neither of those other initiatives mentioned by the Times are, and of the two mentioned, ObamaCare is among the direct causes of the Democrats’ defeat.

"If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat".

That “ludicrous caricature” resulted from, on the one hand, Pelosi et al. passing ObamaCare even though the majority of the people clearly didn’t want it, while on the other hand, she actually argued that we have to pass the bill before we can even find out what’s in it, while on the gripping hand, she rode around in military jets at taxpayer expense and acted like an imperial queen. The only thing about the “caricature” that wasn’t true is the bit about the fur hat, and the Times made that part up to ridicule the otherwise accurate picture of Pelosi as elitist. Everyone knows Pelosi wouldn’t wear a fur hat anyway. It would ruin relations with her far left base.
Note also, the Times agrees with the larger lefty Democratic talking point that has emerged from Tuesday; namely, that they lost because their communications were insufficient, not because the voters rejected the Democrats’ agenda. The Times, like the folks atop the Democratic Party, still don’t get that it wasn’t communications that cost them the election, it was policy.
If communications were really the problem, why does lead Democratic spokesman Robert Gibbs still have a job? If the Democrats really believed their own rhetoric, Democratic communicators’ heads would be rolling from one end of Washington to the other, with Gibbs’ own melon leading the macabre parade. And Pelosi wouldn’t even have a shot at a committee chairmanship, much less retain her post atop her party: the “communications” of returning her to leadership would be problematic, to say the least, whether she’s actually a good leader or not.
On this note the Times seems to agree with a group within the Democratic caucus. Fox has a draft letter going around the Hill from Democrats to Pelosi, arguing that she should not remain at the head of their party. Though the letter’s basic point about replacing Pelosi is sound, its reasoning is delusional:

In the draft of the letter, the members say that they were “victimized by a national wave of resentment toward Democrats, a wave that ensnared you along with us.”

“Victimized”? The Democrats have long played up victimhood as a means of attaining power while demonizing their opponents. That’ s one of many bits from out in far left field that they have mainstreamed over the past few decades. Now they seem to be bitterly clinging to their own “victimhood” as a party, for having been voted out of power. The question is, if they’re the “victims,” who is making victims of them? The voters? Those eeevil Republicans who were totally outspent in 2010?

The letter goes on to say “Madam Speaker, fairly or unfairly, Republicans made you the face of the resentment and disagreement in our races. While we commend your years of service to our party and your leadership through many tough times, we respectfully ask that you step aside as the top Democrat in the House.”
The letter says that the defeated members “fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing, they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership, in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting.”

The “fairly or unfairly” line is a nice comic touch. Making Pelosi the “face” of the party was easy to do when so-called Blue Dogs like Chet Edwards voted with her about 97% of the time. And by electing her speaker of the House, Democrats themselves made Pelosi the face of their party. Republicans didn’t do that. They had no power to do that. If they could have chosen a more moderate speaker from among the Dem ranks in 2006, they almost surely would have just to make their lives easier, but they didn’t have the numbers. It was Pelosi who chose to do that Walk of Triumph with the giant gavel when she took the reins in 2007. It was Pelosi who yelled “Let’s hear it for the power” when she took over. So once again, the Democrats are claiming “victim” status where it doesn’t belong at all. They are victims of their own actions, if they are victims at all. Or they’re victims of Republicans saying things about them that were true.
The letter, by the way, is from “Defeated Members.” That’s why it’s unlikely to persuade Pelosi on the merits. They’re not around; she still is. She can claim or believe that they lost for the stated “communications” reason, not because they voted with her and it cost them their seats while earning their party crushing defeats down the ballot.
Meanwhile, practically the only viable Democrat left in the South, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, doesn’t seem to be buying the “poor communications” line. Bredesen is arguing that the top Democrats are still just out of touch:

“There doesn’t seem to be anybody in the White House who’s got any idea what it’s like to lie awake at night worried about money and worried about things slipping away,” said retiring Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat. “They’re all intellectually smart. They’ve got their numbers. But they don’t feel any of it, and I think people sense that.”

He has a point here: Obama and most of his cronies hail from either academic or activist backgrounds, neither of which has much in common with anyone who has ever had to meet a bottom line or a payroll. Success in activism is based largely on creating the appearance of success in order to attract more liberal foundation funding, while success in business tends to be backed up by real numbers and actual profits against expenses and losses. It’s telling that Democratic stronghold California rejected two women who have had huge success in business in favor of Democrats who have liberal activism in their DNA. They’ll get the results they voted for, unfortunately.

Meanwhile back in Washington, the Democratic caucus in the House got smaller last week, and because several moderates and Blue Dogs were defeated, it got skewed even more to the left. This ironically may make Pelosi stronger among House Democrats than she was before, at just the time the Bredesens of the world think the party needs to signal that it got Tuesday’s message. If the letter from the Defeated Members is any indication, even they don’t get it yet:

This is a difficult letter to write, because we admire your commitment, your drive, and your conviction. You have been an historic figure in our great nation, and for that we are all proud, as should you be. Nonetheless, we each experienced how Republican demonization of you and your leadership contributed to our defeat.

In other words, it’s not the party’s policies that are the problem. It’s not even Pelosi’s actual leadership style that’s the problem. It’s the “communications.” Funny thing about that, though: Policies “communicate” an awful lot, too. So far, two years of uninterrupted Democratic policies have “communicated” massive, chronic unemployment and unsustainable national debt, while moving the country in a direction the majority doesn’t want to go. The voters “communicated” their disapproval pretty clearly last week. Since the Times and even the Democrats haven’t learned anything from Nov. 2, they should keep Pelosi in leadership. It would be the most honest “communicating” they could do.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/n...der/?singlepage=true

Letter @ N Y Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11...ion/08mon4.html?_r=1
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Even the RNC sides with the liberals. Unity is so warming.

quote:
“Hire Pelosi,” a sign outside the Republican National Committee headquarters read after the House speaker announced Friday she was running for minority leader. The slogan was a play on “Fire Pelosi,” the vilifying cry from the right that experts say likely helped the GOP to win a majority in the House last week.

“The Republicans are very happy” about her candidacy, said Grant Reheer, director of the Alan K. Campbell Institute for Public Affairs at Syracuse University. “Going into 2012, they would love to be able to run against Nancy Pelosi again … someone you can hold up and scapegoat.”
From Cage: Wow 5 hours and 30 minutes later...and not a single Lib shows up in the "New York Times Begs Pelosi NOT to Run"...which IS a proven fact.

Ok CAGE: Let me break down YOUR proven fact:
1. Who is Bryan Preston? A quick google search has a Bryan Preston listed as a contributor for the Hot Air blog.

Here is the actual editorial from the NYT which appeared November 6, 2010.

Editorial
A New Leader for the Democrats Published: November 7, 2010
Nancy Pelosi has been an extremely effective speaker of the House for four years, shepherding hundreds of important bills toward passage and withstanding solid Republican opposition. Her work in passing health care reform and strong ethics oversight achieved what many thought was legislatively impossible. But is she really the best the Democrats can come up with as their leader as they slip into the minority?

Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House minority leader. That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat. Both Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are inside players who seem to visibly shrink on camera when defending their policies, rarely connecting with the skeptical independent voters who raged so loudly on Tuesday.

With President Obama proving to be a surprisingly diffident salesman of his own work, Congressional Democrats need a new champion to stand against a tightly disciplined Republican insurgency.

Does this read like begging? This sites an opinion in an editorial stating Nancy Pelosi's strength and weaknesses, as is usually the case in a BALANCED editorial.

Thanks for bringing your post to my attention Cage. It is becoming a full time job just be a BS buster of the right wing propoganda. I have been so busy with the extensive work of b50m, I missed yours. Cool
Last edited by rocky
Cool Rocky. While you were posting this over here, I was on that other thread posting the same thing. Cool

If people would only stop listening to bloggers and Fox news, and yes, even MSNBC, and get their news from the Associated Press raw news site, they wouldn't have to wade through the opinions of others, and could decide for themselves what they think. I guess that's too much to ask.
Great O No! Please help me share the workload! Since it may be beyond our abilities because we are not trained psychiatrist or cult deprogrammers (well I am not anyway) to change the right wing way of thinking created by years of indoctrination by Fox and friends, I feel it my duty as a truth loving American citizen to debunk the propoganda and other distortion of the right wing posters when it needs to be done.
quote:
Here is the actual editorial from the NYT which appeared November 6, 2010.



quote:
If people would only stop listening to bloggers and Fox news, and yes, even MSNBC, and get their news from the Associated Press raw news site, they wouldn't have to wade through the opinions of others, and could decide for themselves what they think. I guess that's too much to ask.


Duh..."Reality paging rocky...O No"????
There's a link at the bottom of the post with the NYT Editorial??? At the BOTTOM...Ya' know?
Bottom?
quote:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/n...der/?singlepage=true

Yes I saw another BLOG site used at the BOTTOM! It is odd that both O No and I did not see anything linking to the NYT until AFTER we responded to your posts. We both could have missed this although somehow it seems unlikely. Of course the headline for the topic was Fox News at it's best because the interpretation in the post was a blog and if someone actually reads the editorial it is like I stated earlier, written in a style that shows the speakers strengths and weaknesses, and nowhere shows any sign of begging. It is REALLY ODD that BOTH O No! and myself missed your link! I wonder if it is possible to revise a post without a time stamp???? Confused Confused Roll Eyes
Last edited by rocky
quote:
Sez rocky:
Yes I saw another BLOG site used at the BOTTOM! It is odd that both O No and I did not see anything linking to the NYT until AFTER we responded to your posts. We both could have missed this although somehow it seems unlikely. Of course the headline for the topic was Fox News at it's best because the interpretation in the post was a blog and if someone actually reads the editorial it is like I stated earlier, written in a style that shows the speakers strengths and weaknesses, and nowhere shows any sign of begging. It is REALLY ODD that BOTH O No! and myself missed your link! I wonder if it is possible to revise a post without a time stamp????

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rocky, 09 November 2010 09:04 PM


Uhhh...the other site at the BOTTOM is the actual NYT web.
I can understand you and O No! missing it the first go round (tears in your eyes) Wink...OR do I have magical powers allowing me to edit without it being noted? Woooooooo.... Wink
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Cool Rocky. While you were posting this over here, I was on that other thread posting the same thing. Cool

If people would only stop listening to bloggers and Fox news, and yes, even MSNBC, and get their news from the Associated Press raw news site, they wouldn't have to wade through the opinions of others, and could decide for themselves what they think. I guess that's too much to ask.

The New York Times is also run by Fox News?
Wow, I didn't know that! Razzer
No B, but the "article" Cage posted was from a right-wing blog. The original article in the NY Times was actually favorable to Democrats, and this blogger spun it to make it sound otherwise. The NY Times would like to see the Dems fight harder, and they implied they should get down and dirty like the Repubs did during this last election cycle.

But yes, I still think that people should get their news ONLY from AP raw news. Anything else isn't news, it's opinion. Why would ANYONE want to be told what to think??!!
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
No B, but the "article" Cage posted was from a right-wing blog. The original article in the NY Times was actually favorable to Democrats, and this blogger spun it to make it sound otherwise. The NY Times would like to see the Dems fight harder, and they implied they should get down and dirty like the Repubs did during this last election cycle.

But yes, I still think that people should get their news ONLY from AP raw news. Anything else isn't news, it's opinion. Why would ANYONE want to be told what to think??!!


So you're saying the people that write the news at AP raw have no feelings or political leanings? I find that hard to believe.
quote:
No B, but the "article" Cage posted was from a right-wing blog. The original article in the NY Times was actually favorable to Democrats, and this blogger spun it to make it sound otherwise. The NY Times would like to see the Dems fight harder, and they implied they should get down and dirty like the Repubs did during this last election cycle.


The New York Times may be a liberal mouthpiece, but they are not complete idiots. I think they are well aware what will happen if Pelosi remains the "face" of the Dem, Administration, and liberal policies...another ass waxing.

No, this was "gentle push" on the surface...but anyone in the Democratic Party, Pelosi included, that isn't still living in the "Denial Dome" has realized WHY this happened to them "gets the point" the Times is making.

Please feel free to bring to attention any point the writer has taken with any of the arguements made by the NYT post that doesn't "jive". There is plenty of evidence out there to show different.
Ferrelj, the Associated Press is where almost every news story you will ever read (other than local news or editorials) comes from. Left leaning newspapers pick the stories that complement the left, right leaning newspapers pick the stories that compliment the right. If you read ALL of the stories on their website, you are getting JUST the news. Stories that make the left look good and stories that make the right look good. Then you can make up your OWN mind.
Cage, the only reference to the "draft letter" I could find came from Fox news. No one has owned up to either writing, nor signing this supposed letter. Could it be that Fox news is making it all up? Wishful thinking on their part, or more likely, another attempt to mislead people. I'll believe in this letter when I hear it from a reliable news source.
quote:
Irritated Shepard Smith Decries 'Sour Grapes,' 'Slimy' Methods of Anti-Pelosi Democrats

By Scott Whitlock | November 09, 2010 | 16:24

A visibly annoyed Shepard Smith on Monday decried the "sour grapes" and "slimy motives" of a group of defeated House Democrats who are circulating a letter in opposition of Nancy Pelosi staying on as a leader of the new Democratic minority. The host even appeared to depart from his teleprompter to defend Pelosi.

Smith then veered in a different direction, suddenly opining, "She got everything the President wanted through. She did everything he wanted, got the entire House organized, put out a record number of pieces of legislation. She is probably the most successful female politician in the history of this country."

The next time someone slams Fox News as only right-wing, perhaps someone should remember Shepard Smith's outbursts.

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...-pelos#ixzz14urevhAw


You've got to love Shep.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
No, I doubt they would make it up since dems have said they were going to sign it, but, hey, believe what you want.


According to Fox news. I'm sorry, but I would still need to hear it from a RELIABLE source. I would think that if such a letter existed, some other news outlet would know about it.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
No, I doubt they would make it up since dems have said they were going to sign it, but, hey, believe what you want.


According to Fox news. I'm sorry, but I would still need to hear it from a RELIABLE source. I would think that if such a letter existed, some other news outlet would know about it.



ONo. What is true, Fox is a very reliable source. The other news outlets

wouldn't say if it went against the dems.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×