I apologize if I was misleading, but I think most posters probably managed to figure out where the quote actually came from. It wasn’t exactly hard to spot.
The fact (or opinion) that Pelosi is actually more pragmatic than the wild-eyed lefty extremist that many conservatives have been trying to paint her is not necessarily spin, true. But the fact that many conservatives are now stressing Pelosi’s moderation, and passing over their former alarmist rhetoric about her liberal extremism, is spin, IMO.
And I think, as I said, that the recent posts I quoted reflect that spin. (Not necessarily that either magellan01 or Evil One was deliberately trying to spin the issue, mind you; just that what they say about Pelosi is to some extent influenced by what the conservative spin machine has injected into the current political conventional wisdom.)
Yup. The OP asked “why he should fear Speaker Pelosi” based on the highly negative opinions of her that he’s heard from many conservatives. And I’m suggesting that in fact, those negative opinions are derived largely from former anti-liberal scare talk that conservatives are now discarding in favor of portraying Speaker Pelosi as more moderate. The posts that I quoted were examples of the “more moderate” portrayals.
In other words: don’t worry so much about reasons to fear Speaker Pelosi, because from now on conservatives aren’t going to bother so much trying to scare you with her.
It’s simpler and broader even than that. You can accept evidence based-reasoning, or be a current conservative, but not both. It’s a clear either / or.
That’s to entrench the expectation of moderation. If the Republicans continued to describe her as a crazy San Francisco liberal, anything she did to the right of extreme liberalism would make her look like she’s working across the aisle. If the Republicans emphasize her intentions to be a moderate Speaker, however, any moves she should make to implement Democratic positions can be spun as a shift to the left, away from the moderation she promised.
I think the demonizing was spin and talk about moderation is closer to the truth.
But OP already knows that the scare tactics aren’t coming from well informed individuals:
Frankly, though, the OP would be better served by telling us what his politics are because the question in the thread title can’t be answered without knowing that. Just saying that there’s nothing to be concerned about misses, I think, an important part of what the OP is trying to get at. But then maybe I’m reading too much of my own interst in to the OP-- I really do want someone who knows her politics well to tell us about what she stands for.
Fair nuff. I found this 2001 article about her, from when she became House Minority Whip, that seems to be a good introduction to her background and general relationship to SF and national Dem politics.
I don’t mind telling you about my politics (see below), although I do think the topic can be addressed without doing so.
Bingo. I simply want to know about her politics. I had intended this to be a straightforward question - apologies if I failed.
If it helps, I usually vote Democratic although I don’t identify myself with any particular party.
And as I alluded in the OP, I’m automatically suspicious when someone claims a dislike for a politician without specifics. This often appears to be based on mannerisms or personality - be it Hillary Clinton or GWB - and it doesn’t usually inform me of how they will legislate.
I’m not terribly interested in whether Bush can’t pronounce the word “nuclear”, or if Clinton strikes some people as a harpy. I want an idea of what they’ll do in office based on past performance.
Pay attention. The First 100 Hours agenda was out long before the election.
The 2 different questions that do need to be asked, among the better-informed, are:
How effective will her “administration” be at enacting it (especially with the drain-the-swamp stuff)?
Will it have the long-term beneficial effects we can hope for? Hamlet, you’re right about demonization of “bogeymen” being part of the right-wing mindset, but it has always seemed to me to be more focused on personalities than issues in the realm of domestic policies. How often do you hear the words “Hillary” and “Teddy” used in lieu of policy statements from them even today? Or the “San Francisco [i.e. queer-loving] liberal” soon to be Speaker?
There’s a similar effect in international policy, but it’s focused on personalities only when the decision to “do something about them” has already been made and the next phase is one of, well, marketing. Saddam was little different from dozens of other dictators we’ve propped up over the decades, in the name of either cheap oil (when the country in question has had it) or “anti-communism” (whatever the hell that ever was) otherwise. We saw it between the end of the USSR and 9/11 too, when there was a lot of thrashing around trying to identify the next evil in the world for us to Ride Tall In The Saddle against. For a while it looked like China had been designated, North Korea not having been credible enough, but now there’s a sufficiently amorphous yet real enemy called Terrorism to make a fine bogeyman for them for another generation to come.
The campaign financing bill that was pushed through earlier.: was it close and did dems feel it was too weak? I hope she pushes that. It would stir things up.I fear the Dems will think they are getting a ride on the gravy train and be just as bad.
Pelosi isn’t a moderate. She was a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is pretty much the socialist caucus among Democrats. Other members include Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Shiela Jackson-Lee, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson Jr, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Lantos, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, and a bunch of other members of the far left wing in the house.
The scary thing to Republicans isn’t just Pelosi as house leader, but other members of the CPC are about to take over key committees. Charlie Rangel and John Conyers, for example. (Ways and Means and Judiciary).
So for all the talk about the Democrats moderating, which I think is true with the people elected this week, it’s also true that the left wing of the party is ascending into some very key positions.
Thinking people want to know what happens from hour 101 onwards. The first 100 hours is the easy part, and represents only a tiny fraction of the time she will be in that office. Thanks for playing, but that’s not the meat of the issue.
Uhm, calling it “socialist” isn’t really adding to reasoned debate on the subject, Sam. It ceratinly is the left wing of the Democratic House memebers, but let’s not poison the well with inflamatory labels. Progressive ≠ Socialist, and there is no reason to not look at the agenda of that caucus and evaluate it objectively:
Also, Pelosi is not listed as a member currently. When was she “a leader”?
Well, lets wait until the committee asignments are made before was assume what is going to happen. Another key committee to look at is Intelligence, which should, theoretically, go to Jane Harmon-- a true moderate.
basically, it’s a scare tactic. You’re supposed to fear her, because, …well…they tell you to.
Some conservatives scream about Pelosi the way some (well, lots, actually) liberals screamed rants about Karl Rove and Diebold. Those rants died off, magically, at 10 pm on election night. And the screams about Pelosi began.
When you feel threatened and your party is helpless and out of power you scream a lot.
Okay, let me put on my objective evaluation hat. Let’s see…
Universal health care…check
Trade protectionism…check
Strong support of trade unionism…check
Higher taxes on the wealthy…check
Increased welfare spending…check
Anti-corporation…check
Looks pretty socialist to me. Bernie Sanders, a CPC member, openly says he’s a socialist. I think a few others have made that admission as well. The CPC website was hosted by “The Democratic Socialists of America”, until 1999 when WorldNetDaily exposed the link, at which point the CPC web site was moved.
As for Pelosi’s membership, according to Sourcewatch:
The Progressive Caucus doesn’t represent the majority of the Democrats. It’s got about 60 members, which makes it roughly 25% of the House Democrats (plus Sanders). I can’t imagine that you didn’t know that.
They should be. Waxman is licking his chops and is quoted as saying he has so many opportunities to investigate he hardly knows where to begin.
That’s your objective hat?
Corporate accountability is not “Anti-corporation.” None of the others are really socialist. Where is the call for nationalized heavy industry? Where is the centralized economic planning? Using “socialism” in this way is akin to referring to any calls for law and order as “facscist.”
Do they have elements of socialism (when compared to utter laissez faire Capitalism)? Yes. But we have not had that sort of Capitalism in a hundred years and we have never had socialism in the U.S. (Heck, every time someone talks about the “socialist” medical system in Canada, some irate Canadian jumps in to insist that it is not “socialized medicine.”)
I don’t see anythinkg about government ownership of the means of production. Left-leaning? Yes. Progressive? Obviously. Socialist? Nope. Why call it socialist when that’s only going to devolve into a rat-hole of a debate about what socialsim is? And they’re not anti-corporation just because the want to end corporate welfare. I want that and you do, too. Neither of us is anti-corporation.
The topic isn’t the Progressive Caucus but We the People and whom we choose to run the government for us. We knew who Pelosi was, and what the Democratic approach to governance is, when we overwhelmingly chose them a few days ago. That pretty much makes them moderates by definition.
But yes, there are sophists, apparently including the Alberta Republican Caucus, who define moderation as whatever matches their *own * views, and wingedess in relation to themselves. Those definitions need not be accepted or even taken seriously by the “reality-based community”, of course.
Prioritize, Henry, prioritize. Concentrate on Halliburton and the rest will fall into place.