Anyone else catch the interview with the Speaker this morning on NPR. What I found interesting and more importantly insightful was the part of the interview addressing her move to SanFran many years ago before she became a politician. She said that when she found the "perfect house", she refused to buy it because the seller was a person that was going to serve in Nixon's administration and that she could not live in a house that had formerly been lived in by someone in the Nixon administration. Okay, I realize that some people get "into" politics, but her refusal to live in her perfect house because it had formerly been owned by someone that was going to be in Nixon's administration seemed a bit over the top and extreme to me. She also said she was in her words "devastated" that Nixon had won. Again, that seems over the top to me. I don't think Obama is going to be good for our country if he gets elected, but I won't be "devastated". Devastated to me is when you lose a close family member; not when the candidate you don't think should be elected, gets elected.

 

I thought to myself: okay, that was 40 years ago, at a time when the Vietnam War was really polarizing people. Surely, over the years Speaker Pelosi has become more reasonable in her politics. Alas, such hopes were quickly dashed. When the interviewer then followed up and mentioned that as the Speaker she had to be able to reach across the aisle to work with the R's, instead of saying that her feelings toward the R's had changed in the 40 years since then and she had "matured", she instead said she was now reaching across the aisle because in her position as Speaker, she "had to". In my words, it is not because she wants to, its because she has to.

 

The interview, which lasted only a minute or so (or at least the portion of it that they aired), provided some more insight into the very polarized nature of our country's political leaders. And I'm sure there are R's just as extreme as the Speaker. Very depressing to me.

 

Maybe I'm making more out of this than I should, but I think these "snap shots" of our leaders can reveal a lot about them. This pig headedness and as far as I'm concerned immaturity and childish behavior, all in the name of power and politics, has to change and WE have to make it happen. The sooner the better and I'm not just talking about getting rid of the extreme D's, but the extreme R's also.

She hasn't exactly lived up to the goals she said she and Congress would achieve when she took power.

LN, you are correct, but there are some on here that have that same mentality. I'm not sure they will be devastated, though, because some actually seem to enjoy being able to point fingers and thrive on negativity. That is not to say that there are none on the other side, just that I don't see as many that vehemently oppose McCain as they do Obama.

 

You are right. Until WE can overcome the foolishness and look beyond labels and party lines, putting aside "ourselves" and look at the bigger picture, there is not a lot of hope for any "change," regardless of who is in authority. I am usually a pretty optimistic kind of person, but I don't know if this can ever happen. I really don't feel as though the United States is "united" in many ways.

Pelosi and Reid were poor choices to lead Congress. They represent what is extreme and dirty about politicians. The Dems would have been better served if they had chosen cleaner more moderate leaders.

She hasn't exactly lived up to the goals she said she and Congress would achieve when she took power.

 

 

You are right. I sincerely wonder if she as the Speaker can lead Congress to achieve those goals.

 

With the D's sure to retain control of the House, does Pelosi as the Speaker cause any of the undecideds possible heart burn in their consideration of voting for Obama? If you are an undecided, is Pelosi as the Speaker a factor in whom you will vote for as President? Should it be? Is the concentration of too much power in one philosophical camp a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Assuming Obama gets elected and brings with him the philosophy and policies demonstrated by his liberal Senatorial voting record, is there a check and balance to be found in Congress (I personally don't think Pelosi provides such check and balance)? Would it be less of a concern if the House was led by a more moderate D or the R's were in the majority?

 

That Socrates dude has got me thinking again.

 

I'll pass on the hemlock, but a little Woodford this evening would be okay.

Maybe it's because Obama is SO FAR LEFT that there are going to be more that oppose his agenda.

 

And does anone else find it more then a little pathetic that Scary Nancy called GWB a complete failure when congressional approval ratings are even lower then his?

Assuming Obama gets elected and brings with him the philosophy and policies demonstrated by his liberal Senatorial voting record, is there a check and balance to be found in Congress (I personally don't think Pelosi provides such check and balance)? Would it be less of a concern if the House was led by a more moderate D or the R's were in the majority?

The Dems don't have 60 Senators, so there is a check and balance right there.

The Dems don't have 60 Senators, so there is a check and balance right there.

 

Yet.

The Dems don't have 60 Senators, so there is a check and balance right there.

The 60 vote rule is just that - a rule. The Republicans should have eliminated it when they had the chance and may have done just that if it had not been for McCain and the Gang of 14.

 

Regardless of which party controls the US Senate, I do not like the 60-vote rule. I would rather that the party in power bring legislation (and confirmation votes) to the floor, get an up-or-down vote and then take credit or blame for the vote.

 

I would be surprised if Democrats allowed Republicans to block appointments and legislation the way that they did when Republicans controlled the Senate without changing the cloture rule.

The 60 vote rule is just that - a rule. The Republicans should have eliminated it when they had the chance and may have done just that if it had not been for McCain and the Gang of 14.

 

Regardless of which party controls the US Senate, I do not like the 60-vote rule. I would rather that the party in power bring legislation (and confirmation votes) to the floor, get an up-or-down vote and then take credit or blame for the vote.

 

I would be surprised if Democrats allowed Republicans to block appointments and legislation the way that they did when Republicans controlled the Senate without changing the cloture rule.

I don't like it either, but it's there now.

 

On your last point, I agree. I'm surprised the Republicans allowed it.

I don't like it either, but it's there now.

 

On your last point, I agree. I'm surprised the Republicans allowed it.

The rule can be changed with a majority vote, so it will not be a real check on liberal power if Obama gets elected and Democrats maintain control of Congress.

 

The only check on liberals' ability to wreck our economy and lose the war on terror will be to deny Obama the White House.

What is scary is that she is 2 heartbeats away from being President!

Anyone else catch the interview with the Speaker this morning on NPR. What I found interesting and more importantly insightful was the part of the interview addressing her move to SanFran many years ago before she became a politician. She said that when she found the "perfect house", she refused to buy it because the seller was a person that was going to serve in Nixon's administration and that she could not live in a house that had formerly been lived in by someone in the Nixon administration. Okay, I realize that some people get "into" politics, but her refusal to live in her perfect house because it had formerly been owned by someone that was going to be in Nixon's administration seemed a bit over the top and extreme to me. She also said she was in her words "devastated" that Nixon had won. Again, that seems over the top to me. I don't think Obama is going to be good for our country if he gets elected, but I won't be "devastated". Devastated to me is when you lose a close family member; not when the candidate you don't think should be elected, gets elected.

 

I thought to myself: okay, that was 40 years ago, at a time when the Vietnam War was really polarizing people. Surely, over the years Speaker Pelosi has become more reasonable in her politics. Alas, such hopes were quickly dashed. When the interviewer then followed up and mentioned that as the Speaker she had to be able to reach across the aisle to work with the R's, instead of saying that her feelings toward the R's had changed in the 40 years since then and she had "matured", she instead said she was now reaching across the aisle because in her position as Speaker, she "had to". In my words, it is not because she wants to, its because she has to.

 

The interview, which lasted only a minute or so (or at least the portion of it that they aired), provided some more insight into the very polarized nature of our country's political leaders. And I'm sure there are R's just as extreme as the Speaker. Very depressing to me.

 

Maybe I'm making more out of this than I should, but I think these "snap shots" of our leaders can reveal a lot about them. This pig headedness and as far as I'm concerned immaturity and childish behavior, all in the name of power and politics, has to change and WE have to make it happen. The sooner the better and I'm not just talking about getting rid of the extreme D's, but the extreme R's also.

 

 

And this is the kinda stuff that a majority of voters(I'll admit) ON BOTH SIDES miss. I mean how can you think a person like this will vote for whats best for the people that voted for them all of the time, when it could be initiated by someone their leader doesn't agree with. And that person has clearly demonstrated that simply because it's associated with someone from another party, that they can't support it(vote for it). That's just dumb on her part to say something like that. Sad thing is, I doubt it'll effect her future.:irked:

This is the same person who wants to tap the strategic oil reserve {700,000,000 barrels?} to bring down the price of oil, but will not drill for billions of barrels of oil.

Maybe this bit of info helps to explain some of her thinking.

What is scary is that she is 2 heartbeats away from being President!

 

It's almost as scary as Dick Cheney being one heartbeat away.