Seems that the Dems in Washington are commited to keeping Nancy Pelosi in the House party leadership position:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-13/pelosi-heads-off-democratic-leadership-fight-backs-hoyer-for-no-2-post.html

The Republican strategists have got to be popping open the champagne bottles over this.  Quite frankly, if more than one-third of the Senate seats had been up for election last week, we'd have seen the Senate taken over by the GOP too. Pelosi as the House minority leader will cement a continued Republican majority in the 2012 elections, and likely will generate enough ill will to further help the GOP in the 2012 Senate elections too.  And she'll be of little help to an O'bama reelection bid.

Come on, Democratic leadership... you GOTTA be able to do better than this.  ::)

Throw in the towel?  What towel?  They've thrown in so many they ran out of them.

Throw in the towel?  What towel?  They've thrown in so many they ran out of them.


Sounds like they need to throw in an old bag...  ;D

The Democrats are doubling up like a gut-punched fifth grader.  The difference is, they have no guts to punch.  I'm no Pelosi fan but at least she's got the stones to fight for her job.  Come Easter after a few months of Boehner, you'll miss Pelosi like crazy.  I mean, LB won't, but a bunch of you just might!
::)

Whether you like Pelosi or not, she is probably the most effective Speaker in the history of this country. She passed over 400 bills even with the Party of No obstructionists. If that isn't effective, I don't know what is. Most of those bills didn't make it to law because of the dysfunctional Senate. But at least she knows how to govern-and is a leader in every sense of the word.  Boehner, on the other hand, doesn't know how to lead. He only knows how to obstruct. It should be very interesting to watch him fall on his face in the next two years.




Cat

Whether you like Pelosi or not, she is probably the most effective Speaker in the history of this country. She passed over 400 bills even with the Party of No obstructionists. If that isn't effective, I don't know what is. Most of those bills didn't make it to law because of the dysfunctional Senate. But at least she knows how to govern-and is a leader in every sense of the word.  Boehner, on the other hand, doesn't know how to lead. He only knows how to obstruct. It should be very interesting to watch him fall on his face in the next two years.


Cat
She is very effective I admit but the most effective speaker in US History? I don't know about that one.

However it is very easy to pass bills when you have something like a 256-177 margin in the US House except for the Health Care Bill which she had to fight to pass twice. Once by a 220-215 margin and the other time it went through the US House by a 219-214 margin.


If she is a great leader as you say why didn't she pass a budget for this year? I mean this year was the first year that the US Government didn't have a budget to work under in 35 years.

I agree about the Senate being dysfunctional. Why does it take so long to pass a bill? I say get rid of the fillibuster already.

The Democrats are doubling up like a gut-punched fifth grader.  The difference is, they have no guts to punch.  I'm no Pelosi fan but at least she's got the stones to fight for her job.  Come Easter after a few months of Boehner, you'll miss Pelosi like crazy.  I mean, LB won't, but a bunch of you just might!
::)
I'm happy Pelosi won't be House Speaker for the next 2 years. Of course she might be House Speaker in the 113th Congress because the Dems Core Base will be out in full force in 2012 to vote.

I agree about the Senate being dysfunctional. Why does it take so long to pass a bill? I say get rid of the filibuster already.



They need to go back to the old rules for the filibuster.

They need to go back to the old rules for the filibuster.


THIS.

The point of the filibuster wasn't to require a 60/40 to pass anything.  It was to require a 50/50 vote, and may the most determined bastard on the Hill win.  If you're serious enough about something to be willing read the phone book into the Congressional record, the other side had better be just as seriously willing to urinate in bottles.

The present agreement serves nobody except the lobbyists and the politicians.  So long as they're only pretending to filibuster, they're only pretending to give a damn about anything other than who's signing the donation check.

THIS.

The point of the filibuster wasn't to require a 60/40 to pass anything.  It was to require a 50/50 vote, and may the most determined bastard on the Hill win.  If you're serious enough about something to be willing read the phone book into the Congressional record, the other side had better be just as seriously willing to urinate in bottles.

The present agreement serves nobody except the lobbyists and the politicians.  So long as they're only pretending to filibuster, they're only pretending to give a damn about anything other than who's signing the donation check.


And may the corporation with the deepest pockets win!
::)

THIS.

The point of the filibuster wasn't to require a 60/40 to pass anything.  It was to require a 50/50 vote, and may the most determined bastard on the Hill win.  If you're serious enough about something to be willing read the phone book into the Congressional record, the other side had better be just as seriously willing to urinate in bottles.

The present agreement serves nobody except the lobbyists and the politicians.  So long as they're only pretending to filibuster, they're only pretending to give a damn about anything other than who's signing the donation check.
Get rid of the lobbyists too!

Get rid of the lobbyists too!


You have the Constitutional right to petition your government for redress of grievances.  SCOTUS interpreted this First Amendment clause in 1967 to include "lobbying." (United Mine Workers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association, et al.).  However the term "lobby" as in to petition government in favor of a cause or an enterprise was not coined until the 19th century.  

I support the right to lobby, but not the way big corporations and interest groups with deep pockets get to do it nowadays. It is unlikely an outright ban on lobbying would ever make it through the courts.  However, some serious reforms in re: Influence pedaling might...though not in the Roberts Court.
:(