The Pelosi and Obama thread. - Page 3

Originally Posted by Frank777

So the Republicans take the House and the Democrats remain in control of the Senate and the Executive Branch. Paul leads the Tea Party presence into Congress. Pelosi, Boxer and Reid all survive, which I'm not sure is really a good thing [long-term] for the Democrats. Rubio goes to the Senate, and possibly thereafter to the Presidential contest.

Am I missing anything? What else does this election bring that alters the political landscape?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

There are other reasons to be skeptical of a Clintonian comeback for Obama. Chief among this is attitude. Clinton was (and is a brilliant politician.) He seemed to truly understand the political gamesmanship. He was also enamored with being President and largely unprincipled, so jettisoning any "principles" or "values" he held in order to change and adjust for re-election was probably a no-brainer for him.

Obama seems like a different story. First there seems to be a profound arrogance and smugness about him. He seems to have something of a "I'm the king of the world" attitude. This is revealed in more than one statement he's made to the opposition party. His overall political "strategy" has been to blame others when things go wrong and take credit when things go right. Granted, most politicians act similarly, but he has been so much more obvious and transparent in this tactic. Finally, he's just convinced he's right (about almost everything) and that those who are opposed to what he thinks and does are simply irrational, fearful, etc. He seems much less likely to adjust for re-election.

Plus, the country is in a deep enough mess, I really don't know if it will be turned around by his re-election time.

The real question is whether he will stay to "fight the good fight" or simply walk away to avoid an embarrassing election ass-kicking that renders him not much more than a historical footnote (and cautionary tale.)

Originally Posted by trumptman

It gives the Republicans the House which means Obama needs to actually appoint reasonable judicial nominees. Also it gives the Republicans some say so on budgeting matters. They have enough control to press and alter an agenda but not enough to be held responsible which I think is a pretty good spot to be in for 2012.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

There are other reasons to be skeptical of a Clintonian comeback for Obama. Chief among this is attitude. Clinton was (and is a brilliant politician.) He seemed to truly understand the political gamesmanship. He was also enamored with being President and largely unprincipled, so jettisoning any "principles" or "values" he held in order to change and adjust for re-election was probably a no-brainer for him.

Obama seems like a different story. First there seems to be a profound arrogance and smugness about him. He seems to have something of a "I'm the king of the world" attitude. This is revealed in more than one statement he's made to the opposition party. His overall political "strategy" has been to blame others when things go wrong and take credit when things go right.

Finally, he's just convinced he's right (about almost everything) and that those who are opposed to what he thinks and does are simply irrational, fearful, etc. He seems much less likely to adjust for re-election.

The real question is whether he will stay to "fight the good fight" or simply walk away to avoid an embarrassing election ass-kicking that renders him not much more than a historical footnote (and cautionary tale.)

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I see jimmac is back. I wonder what he has to say about the "wishful thinking" that some expressed (in the form of election predictions) about the Democrats getting their asses kicked?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Show where I said they wouldn't lose the house? Everything went pretty much as expected.

If they'd won the Senate ( Which I said at one point " I doubt " ) then they would have gotten their " asses kicked ".

Voters' anger over a stubborn jobless rate and anxiety over troubled economy helped propel Republicans to a sweeping takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives and a stronger presence in state offices, projections indicate.

With results still coming in, the full extent of the Republican takeover of the 435-member House was still to be determined. But CNN projected that Republicans would win at least 60 more House seats than they currently hold to wipe out the Democratic majority of the past four years.

Democrats cling onto their majority in the Senate, though in smaller numbers, according to projections based on CNN analysis of exit poll data from Tuesday's midterm elections. Democrats were guaranteed of holding at least 50 of the 100 Senate seats, with a handful of close races still outstanding, according to the projections.

An energized conservative electorate, fueled by the anti-establishment Tea Party movement that emerged in 2009, helped Republicans to what could be the biggest house gain by any major party since 1948.

Conservative candidates also made strong gains in state legislatures. The Republican State Leadership Committee estimated that at least 16 state legislative chambers had moved from Democratic to Republican control in Tuesday's voting.

Pelosi's allies, perhaps offering a clue to her thinking, cite the example of legendary Texas Democrat Sam Rayburn, who twice lost the majority but came back as speaker a record three times from 1940 until his death in 1961.

Many analysts believe Pelosi's political career could end Tuesday. Her national popularity is in the basement. She has become a symbol of Democratic excesses, much like Gingrich once was for Republicans, a radioactive "San Francisco liberal" from whom moderate Democrats in marginal districts are fleeing.

Embattled Democrats running away from Pelosi "are obviously getting polling data that indicates any association with her is politically dangerous," Pitney said, "and when that happens, a leader's hold on power is in jeopardy."

The hard climb back to a majority would require recruiting, as Pelosi once did, of the very centrists and conservatives who now consider her an albatross.

The two greatest, most hilarious lines about last nights GOP wins in the U.S. House came from Jimmy Kimmel on Jimmy Kimmel Live:

* I think I saw a tear rolling down Nancy Pelosis ear.

* So, the Democrats lost the House. Everyone else in America lost theirs. So why shouldnt the Democrats lose theirs, too?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Show where I said they wouldn't lose the house? Everything went pretty much as expected.

If they'd won the Senate ( Which I said at one point " I doubt " ) then they would have gotten their " asses kicked ".

Republican.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'd love to see where you predicted the Republicans would swing 60+ seats, create the largest swing in seats in 70 years, and easily beat what they did in 1994 even though Democrats knew it was coming.

A little over a year ago, Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, launched an attack on the "un-American" Tea Party movement. "We call it Astroturf," she said. "It's not really a grassroots movement."

Today Pelosi is former Speaker and a carpet of what she dismissed so haughtily as Astroturf is being laid on the floors of both chambers of Congress. Tea Party-backed politicians Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, the list goes on are no longer shouting into megaphones in windswept parking lots; they are packing their bags for Washington and sharpening their flick-knives for the bloody battles ahead.

The Tea Party movement, which 21 months ago did not exist, and which has been widely derided and ridiculed by those who thought they knew best, can no longer be ignored. Once seen as little more than fodder for Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show, it is now a voice that will dominate congressional debates and direct budget deliberations.

Rejecting demands that she relinquish power after her party's losses in the midterm elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday that she will run for minority leader, potentially setting up an ideological battle within the Democratic membership....

Several Democrats called this week for the Californian to step aside after the defeat of at least 60 Democrats and the return of the House to GOP control. Others said the same thing in private, describing a feeling of frustration with her tough, uncompromising leadership style. Senior Democratic aides said Friday that she will face some opposition in the secret ballot likely to be held the week of Nov. 15....

Originally Posted by jazzguru

The most ethical plutocracy in history?

New documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show Pelosi took 85 trips on military aircraft, cost tax payers $2,100,744.59 over 2 year period

Originally Posted by jazzguru

John Boehner to fly commercial as speaker

What a difference an election makes.

Originally Posted by john galt

Two million?

Obama's trip to India is costing us $200 million. A day.

US to spend $200 mn a day on Obama's Mumbai visit

President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama board Air Force One on Friday to begin a trip to Asia.

It's a story that originated from a single, unnamed sourced in India -- but it quickly gained momentum, spreading like wildfire among critics of the Obama administration in the United States and eventually, the airwaves.

The claim: The United States will be "spending a whopping $200 million per day" on President Barack Obama's trip to Asia.

That's roughly the amount the federal government spends each day on the war in Afghanistan. The figure has been dismissed by the White House as "wildly inflated."

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Careful john galt, you have just been called out by FT, the "Official PO debunker".

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Careful john galt, you have just been called out by FT, the "Official PO debunker".

Originally Posted by john galt

OK then, it's enough that he's out of the country. Whatever the cost, it's worth it

Originally Posted by FineTunes

I only got the unofficial title by totally debunking jazzguru in the Climategate thread. Why you bring it up here is maybe as tm believes, your trolling.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Yeah, you totally debunked me, man. Good job.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Well Thanks---wasn't hard at all.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I'm sure it wasn't.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Pelosi elected minority leader

Nancy Pelosi was elected this week to lead Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the next Congress that convenes in January.

But she did so without the support of Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, who issued a statement saying he cast his vote for Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., to be the House minority leader.

Pelosi, D-Calif., has been House speaker for the past four years. Donnelly said Wednesday that House Democrats need a change in leadership after they lost more than 60 seats, and their House majority, in the midterm elections earlier this month.

Donnelly said Wednesday that House Democrats need a change in leadership after they lost more than 60 seats, and their House majority, in the midterm elections earlier this month.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Such as?

Jun 26, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 219 Ayes, 212 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Nothing happened with that. It stalled in the senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will give up more than just the majority in the next Congress – she’ll be stripped of her right to use military aircraft.

Since becoming speaker in 2007, Pelosi has used Air Force jets for flights back to her San Francisco district, and for other domestic travel. But once she becomes minority leader, Pelosi will be flying commercial, just like her congressional colleagues and most voters, her office told Politics Daily.

Only the speaker is afforded the right to use the military aircraft, Pelosi’s office told POLITICO.

Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he would not be using military planes for his domestic travel. “Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft, and I am going to continue to do that,” Boehner said earlier this month.

Before flying back to his district last Friday, Boehner was spared the Transportation Security Administration screening that other passengers on the flight out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport had to undergo. (See: A 'tipping point' in terror fight?)

Pelosi’s predecessor as speaker, former Rep. Denny Hastert (R-Ill.), started using an Air Force jet for security reasons following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Boehners from Ohio. Sheesh.

"The facts are simple: since 9/11, for obvious security reasons, the Speaker of the House of Representatives (who is next in line behind the Vice President to become President) has flown on government rather than commercial aircraft. Speaker Pelosi is from California, so with the House now back to a five-day workweek the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives requested a jet that can make it to California non-stop. According to the Sergeant-at-Arms,

"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-j...a_b_41145.html

Originally Posted by MJ1970

It's okay. We get the fact that there's always an excuse. Always a reason. \