Oct 30 2007
Pelosi’s Mad House
Speaker Pelosi has two slots for herself in the history books. First as the first woman Speaker of the US House of Representatives, and one as the biggest failure as Speaker of the US House of Represetatives:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s own party is turning on her, apparently because of a perception among California Democrats that she has not done enough to shake up the status quo in Washington, D.C., according to a Field Poll released Friday.
Congress overall is doing even worse with California voters, with an approval rating sagging to 30 percent or below for only the seventh time in the past 15 years, the poll of 1,201 registered voters found. Both Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who became speaker this year, and Congress as a whole have fallen short of voter expectations since taking over both houses, poll director Mark DiCamillo said.
The failures of the Dem led Congress are dragging down support for all the Democrat office holders in CA. Check out the other numbers on Boxer and Feinstein in the article – too fun. Seems they are only good at griping, not producing results.
And the in-fighting in the Democrat party is getting quite intense as the far left keeps pulling away from what is left of the moderate middle in the Democrat Party. Pelosi is overseeing a Mad House and performing worse than the GOP. I am not sure voters are going to be rewarding them for failure in 2008. The GOP just was not this bad.
Kos kids call Feinstein and extreme right winger. So just how far left is this mainstream they claim to be.
Not only is the failure of the Democratic party to hamper our effort in Iraq turning off the far left, the attempt thereof is making the larger, less strident “middle-left” increasingly embarrassed. At work, many of us are Bush supporters, and those known Democrats we talk politics with, once triumphant, are now ashamed to call themselves Democrats. Their metamorphosis has been startling to watch, and it has to do with what AJ is pointing out in this post.
The pivotal factor for them seems to be not so much policy, but personality. The current crop of Democrats running for the presidency share one ominous trait: they all dodge questions, and seem to have no core conviction. The Republicans, meanwhile, say what they believe, and thus reveal themselves willingly. This is not going unnoticed at the water cooler.
We on this forum know that the Democratic party has become a conglomeration of juxtaposed factions; enviros vs unions, elitists vs the common man, teachers vs parents, the public vs the private sphere, and trial lawyers vs just about everybody. A Democrat running for office thus has to talk out of both sides of the mouth, and the contrast with Republicans is becoming more and more clear. Those whose votes are sought by the Democrats are finding it just as difficult to understand what their candidates really believe as we do, and it’s giving them a queasy feeling. In the end, none of them may pull the lever for a Republican, what I am describing here could dampen turnout, however. Personality could win out over policy, especially among those Democrats who have resentfully watched the netroots replace them in influence within the party.
GWOOD has it right “personality could win out over policy”— this is Bill Clinton’s formula for success and the problem with an American public caught up in the American Idol frenzy when it comes to choosing leaders. After all, what the hell can John Edwards or Barack Obama offer to anyone as leader of the free world—-they are merely pretty boys (to some) serving as foils so the Democrats think they have a choice in selecting Hillary—-sorry Donks but the vast left wing conspiracy has chosen her already. Fortunately, this woman has no personality, at least not one anyone in their right mind would want to be around. So let’s hope the voting public remains in American Idol mode.
She made promises she could not keep.