A few months ago a political poll was taken at SDMB and I went with:
happy to vote for Obama, not too disappointed so far.
I’m drifting more to the disappointed and sad by now, while still assigning most of the blame to hypocrisy, ignorance and their sock-puppy, unregulated campaign financing.
I don’t think special eyes are needed to see the brief 111st Congress as the sadly unrequited high-water mark during America’s Decline and Fall. I’m reminded of Hunter S. Thompson’s
Obama is beginning to remind me of Carter in ineffectualness. The man lacks balls. Extremely disappointed in someone I have twice voted for (I vote from IL)…
Why do you say this? Honestly, beyond ‘her’ being ‘responsible’ for losing so many House seats, on what do you base this idea? This has come up before, and I don’t understand what criteria is used.
It seems to me that she’s berated exactly because she’s been so effective, but I’d like to be convinced otherwise…
I agree with you. It seems to me that Pelosi managed to accomplish quite a bit, but most of the time she was stymied by Dickless Harry and the Procedural Fillibuster.
Obama, meanwhile, is just too nice/timid/chicken/whatever to actually play hardball. He just tosses a Nerf(r)™(c)(sm) football and says, “There you go, I tried.”
It’s really weird to me how an empty talking point can (and does) gain legitimacy. As much as I’d like to just scoff at it as inconsequential, the “we create our own reality” practitioners are successful at getting others to swallow their shite way too often.
But I have the same question about the other chamber – how does one judge the Senate leader? Like you, I have the sense that Reid is generally ineffective, but it’s based on nothing concrete (just the way he presents himself). In fact, I have the same sense about Senate leaders as far back as I remember (to Dole in the 104th), which makes me think that it’s simply institutional.