Will this work? Will it sway any undecided voters Pubward?
Energizing the base, that’s all. The undecideds don’t know who she is, much less slaver at the ring of a bell about her. If they’re motivated to find out, they might actually like her, but the Pubs are taking that risk.
Rear-guard action by people trying to limit their defeat.
Never say this. This is the party of big money in the country where big money rules.
Having read the cite, it seems that “scare” “demonize” and “personal attack” are the LibDem talking points in order to scare their base and demonize the Pubs.
Why are they afraid of “compare and contrast”??
Okay, first of all, did you read the same cite I did? Both parties play the demonize game when it suits them. Unfortunately, and too our great detriment, that’s the level to which all national politics has sunk. But for you to imply that this is the modus operandi of the democrats only, based on THIS cite, is ridiculous.
Also, in the context presented in the cite, (a) where did you get that democrats are afraid of comparing and contrasting accomplishments? (b) can you please tell me how one compares actual accomplishments to something someone “might or might not have done”? Doesn’t this strike you as somewhat…retarded?
One of my colleagues at work drafted a proposal for a client. I was asked to draft one for the same project independently of his. The idea is to compare proposals and go with the best one in order to better our chances of getting the client contract. Now, I haven’t written my draft yet. My colleague knows this. Are you telling me it’s valid for him to contrast and compare the accomplishment of his proposal to one I haven’t done yet? After all, I “might” have done a lousy job on my draft. I “may” have decided not to write my draft at all and gone to the beach instead. BUT, as far as my colleague knows I have done neither of those things, so what is he comparing and contrasting? Ridiculous.
Or perhaps you believe my colleague can use my historical personal trends as a basis to compare and contrast his current accomplishments. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? I thought so.
Sheesh. an edit post feature would be really nice. Too=to 
News to me The Hill is a leftie site. Anyway, here’s the story as presented by Fox.
Oh, and another thing, in my opinion, Nancy Pelosi’s constant backing away from committing to initiating impeachment proceedings against Bush if she became Speaker in the event of a democrat majority is a big mistake and is beginning to get on my nerves.
Either she’s for impeachment, which means she’s being duplicitous, or she’s against it, which means she’s okay with giving Bush, a man for whom impeachment seems to have been specifically designed, a pass.
A apologize for the hijack, BG. I woke up on the pissed-off side of the bed this morning.
Did I do that? Yes, I read the same cite and the words in quotes came from the lefties… that was my point.
The Hill… right down the middle of the MSM I’d say.
Why should she take a position on that, before she’s in a position to do anything about it? After all, she’s not obliged to. (Nor to say anything at all about what she would do as speaker – that’s not a job the voters have a direct say in anyway.) If she makes a campaign issue of impeachment and the Dems fail to win back the House this fall, that’s more damaging than if she said nothing. The Pubs will make it look like there was a definite referendum on the Bush Admin and they won it. And do you really think making a campaign issue of impeachment would ensure victory for the Dems? Considering how many “safe seats” there are and how few seats are actually objects of serious competition this round?
I admit to the validity of your points, BG. However, Ms. Pelosi has discussed it. Instead of giving a firm “no comment” (at least in the televised conference broadcast on CSPAN a few months ago that I saw) she meanders through non-clear non-answers, I presume, in an attempt to deflect further questions. I believe her evasiveness on the issue is what the repubs are in a froth about. They’re going to say her goal is impeachment whether she says it or not. How does it help the dems if her position’s unclear? You’re probably right, she shouldn’t say anything about it. My frustration is when she does reference it she might as well be saying “I’m full of crap”.
Again, I really apologize for the hijack, BG.
To get things back on track, no, I don’t believe undecideds will go GOP because of the repubs attempts to cast Pelosi as the boogielady. I do, however, believe it will further galvanize their base and more republicans who may not have voted in the midterms will.
Isn’t that sort of the entire point of an election campaign? Are you8 not supposed to tell the voters what you plan to do with the position you’re running for?
But Pelosi is not, strictly speaking, “running for” the position of speaker, no more than the Dem Party as a whole is “running for” control of Congress. I wish it worked that way, but it doesn’t. It’s a district-by-district, state-by-state election. You don’t get to vote on which party should be the controlling party in either House.
Ramsey Clark to the Supreme Court (impeach Scalia for ugly). Michael Moore, Minister for Information. Constitutional amendment to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages.
What? No, she hasn’t, but she hasn’t denied it either!
Getting back to the question…
I’m not sure that this will work, based on history. This is similar to a tactic used in the 1980’s in House races, in which Democratic candidates were tied to then-Speaker Tip O’Neill. On the whole, that tactic didn’t work back then, as the Republicans did not take control of the House until O’Neill was long retired.
Pelosi just isn’t scary enough as a person for this to work. She just comes off as your average pol in the interviews I’ve seen. It’ll go over like that whole “the current Mideast crisis is the start of World War III” meme the Pubbies tried to propogate, that fell on its face recently.