Heath Shuler (D-NC) to challenge Nancy Pelosi

[Badger]

Ugh.

As I've previously stated, I'm all for Pelosi stepping down. I credit her with passing important legislation that will benefit the country, but the fact is her name is a theroughly discredited brand that will hurt Democratic candidates in 2012. She needs to take one for the team and step aside.

That said, a third term backbencher from an at-risk district is HARDLY my choice of replacement.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Most of the Democrats that lost were the ones who voted against health care reform.

not really "most." disproportionately, yes, but only 17 out of 49 losing incumbent Democrats voted Nay.

[Keystone Phil]

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

Too bad you're in Greece. Otherwise, I'd seriously suggest a job in the DNC communications office. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

Too bad you're in Greece. Otherwise, I'd seriously suggest a job in the DNC communications office. 

You don't have to be communications expert to simply recite the news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20101109/cm_atlantic/hundredsofinvestigationsofobamaadministrationonthehorizon5710

Rep. Darrell Issa can barely conceal his excitement at the thought of the hundreds of investigations into the Obama administration he'll oversee as the new chair of the House oversight committee. Issa wants his seven subcommittees to work at a pace of one or two hearings a week--meaning "seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," the congressman told Politico's Jake Sherman and Richard E. Cohen.

It's a rate almost triple that of Rep. Henry Waxman when the Democrat was digging into the Bush administration. (Waxman held 203 hearings over two years, Issa is gunning for 280 in the next year.) "As Clint Eastwood says, a man needs to know his limitations," Issa said. The California Republican says his committee's job is to "measure failures," though "oversight should be done with a balance for the American people and not as a gotcha." Issa's already called Vice President Joe Biden about oversight of the stimulus. (Whether any of these potential mini-scandals will become fodder for impeachment of the president remains hotly debated.)

[Keystone Phil]

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

Too bad you're in Greece. Otherwise, I'd seriously suggest a job in the DNC communications office. 

You don't have to be communications expert to simply recite the news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20101109/cm_atlantic/hundredsofinvestigationsofobamaadministrationonthehorizon5710

Rep. Darrell Issa can barely conceal his excitement at the thought of the hundreds of investigations into the Obama administration he'll oversee as the new chair of the House oversight committee. Issa wants his seven subcommittees to work at a pace of one or two hearings a week--meaning "seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," the congressman told Politico's Jake Sherman and Richard E. Cohen.

It's a rate almost triple that of Rep. Henry Waxman when the Democrat was digging into the Bush administration. (Waxman held 203 hearings over two years, Issa is gunning for 280 in the next year.) "As Clint Eastwood says, a man needs to know his limitations," Issa said. The California Republican says his committee's job is to "measure failures," though "oversight should be done with a balance for the American people and not as a gotcha." Issa's already called Vice President Joe Biden about oversight of the stimulus. (Whether any of these potential mini-scandals will become fodder for impeachment of the president remains hotly debated.)

I know that but, for about the fifth time, you're avoiding the topic at hand and trying to spin the story in your direction.

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

Let's settle this once and for all: whether it's Pelosi's fault, Obama's fault or someone else's fault, the Dems got their ass handed to them and that is all that matters.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

1)How are you so sure they won't go anywhere?

2)Tell that to Speaker Gingrich. We know after all how much the Clinton impeachment helped him during the 1998 midterms.

[Brittain33]

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

The national leader of the Democratic Party, and its face, is Obama.
The national leader of the Republican Party is... ?

There's a vacuum and it's going to be filled. By whom, is unclear. This is why what Congressional Republicans do is more important than what Congressional Democrats do--they're competing with Obama and defining their party.

[tpfkaw]

I think it's a silly idea, but I'm pretty sure the US economy can withstand one representative out of 435 issuing lots of subpoenas.  Indeed, the US economy would be helped a great deal if every representative did that, instead of "working to fix the economy."

[Keystone Phil]

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

1)How are you so sure they won't go anywhere?

I said they likely won't go anywhere. I said that because the leadership seems pretty focused on certain issues. There's a reason why Issa is basically the only high ranking official talking about this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And assuming Issa gets his way, how can you say for sure that it will end up the same way? Two can play at your silly game, px.

Again, the Dems got destroyed two weeks ago and frankly I don't care who takes the blame on their side. I know you don't want to assign blame; you're just interested in making the Republicans the boogeymen. It's a shame when someone can't simply concede a point.

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

The national leader of the Democratic Party, and its face, is Obama.
The national leader of the Republican Party is... ?

There's a vacuum and it's going to be filled. By whom, is unclear. This is why what Congressional Republicans do is more important than what Congressional Democrats do--they're competing with Obama and defining their party.

And what does that have to do with what we're discussing here? I know the loss still stings but we're talking about your leadership fight. So the GOP doesn't have a defined leader right now. Who cares? If my party is making huge gains without a leader, that's a pretty bad sign for the opposition.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

1)How are you so sure they won't go anywhere?

I said they likely won't go anywhere. I said that because the leadership seems pretty focused on certain issues. There's a reason why Issa is basically the only high ranking official talking about this.

Well, from what I read Boehner has no intention to stop Issa.
And remember that a LOT of the newly elected members are crazies who think that Obama is an illegitimate Manchurian candidate. Do you think they will suddenly behave because the "establishment" tells them so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And assuming Issa gets his way, how can you say for sure that it will end up the same way? Two can play at your silly game, px.

Uhhh... Because all those "scandals" he wants to investigate are nonexistent (or frivolous at best)?

[Keystone Phil]

Well, from what I read Boehner has no intention to stop Issa.
And remember that a LOT of the newly elected members are crazies who think that Obama is an illegitimate Manchurian candidate. Do you think they will suddenly behave because the "establishment" tells them so?

I think they'll "suddenly behave" because these issues aren't important to them.

Again, I know certain people would love for us to get sidetracked but I don't think it will happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even more reason to believe they won't go far even if a good amount of the new members are "crazies." Priorities, my friend.

[Brittain33]

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

The national leader of the Democratic Party, and its face, is Obama.
The national leader of the Republican Party is... ?

There's a vacuum and it's going to be filled. By whom, is unclear. This is why what Congressional Republicans do is more important than what Congressional Democrats do--they're competing with Obama and defining their party.

And what does that have to do with what we're discussing here? I know the loss still stings but we're talking about your leadership fight. So the GOP doesn't have a defined leader right now. Who cares? If my party is making huge gains without a leader, that's a pretty bad sign for the opposition.

My point is a direct response to the paragraph I quoted, i.e., why Pelosi doesn't bear responsibility above and beyond what Obama bears for the results this month, while Congressional Republicans are the leaders of your party right now. Until a nominee is chosen.

[Keystone Phil]

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

The national leader of the Democratic Party, and its face, is Obama.
The national leader of the Republican Party is... ?

There's a vacuum and it's going to be filled. By whom, is unclear. This is why what Congressional Republicans do is more important than what Congressional Democrats do--they're competing with Obama and defining their party.

And what does that have to do with what we're discussing here? I know the loss still stings but we're talking about your leadership fight. So the GOP doesn't have a defined leader right now. Who cares? If my party is making huge gains without a leader, that's a pretty bad sign for the opposition.

My point is a direct response to the paragraph I quoted, i.e., why Pelosi doesn't bear responsibility above and beyond what Obama bears for the results this month, while Congressional Republicans are the leaders of your party right now. Until a nominee is chosen.

Again, Issa will be marginalized. Boehner will be the closest thing to a nationally recognized leader.

If the public didn't care about Pelosi's actions, they sure as hell won't care about Issa's investigations that will likely attract little attention.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why is it such a damn problem that Issa is going to be breaking records launching investigations. I think thats a good thing. The purpose of the congress is to hold the Executive branch accountable, something this damn Democratic congress promised four years ago. If they go no where, no one will care. But if they find something, don't you thik that should be looked into. We have, in this post Clinton era, put ourselves into a place where we expect Congressmen to be more concerned about looking good in the press then making sure the law isn't being broke by Bush, Clinton, Obama, whatever idiot sits in the oval office. This is perhaps more dangerous should we get another Nixon in office. With the expectations, of go along get along to prevent another 1998, we run the risk of a lawless executive branch getting away with criminality. And what the hell was so bad about 1998, the GOP held both houses of congress that year and gained the White House two years later. There was no great rebuke of the GOP for going after Clinton like they did.

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

I hear this all the time from liberals. "Bush has let blank decline because he was too busy in Iraq". "If they work on investigating the President, people will be pissed because they aren't working on the economy". Why the hell do we think politicians can do only one thing at a time?

Bush got several reforms passed despite the War, and Obama has been the king of multitasking. Why must we sacrificed constitutionally mandatted oversight to "work" on the economy? Why can't both be done, and several more things.

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

Boehner's actually a very different guy than his image suggests. But yes having committees placed in the control of goons like Chaffetz, Issa and King is going to ruin them.

The people trying to reign in a "Chicago" President are called "goons". Clever.

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

Too bad you're in Greece. Otherwise, I'd seriously suggest a job in the DNC communications office.  

You don't have to be communications expert to simply recite the news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20101109/cm_atlantic/hundredsofinvestigationsofobamaadministrationonthehorizon5710

Rep. Darrell Issa can barely conceal his excitement at the thought of the hundreds of investigations into the Obama administration he'll oversee as the new chair of the House oversight committee. Issa wants his seven subcommittees to work at a pace of one or two hearings a week--meaning "seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," the congressman told Politico's Jake Sherman and Richard E. Cohen.

It's a rate almost triple that of Rep. Henry Waxman when the Democrat was digging into the Bush administration. (Waxman held 203 hearings over two years, Issa is gunning for 280 in the next year.) "As Clint Eastwood says, a man needs to know his limitations," Issa said. The California Republican says his committee's job is to "measure failures," though "oversight should be done with a balance for the American people and not as a gotcha." Issa's already called Vice President Joe Biden about oversight of the stimulus. (Whether any of these potential mini-scandals will become fodder for impeachment of the president remains hotly debated.)

Why the hell is any of this a problem? Are you in favor of no oversight at all? Or is it because a Republican wants oversight of a Democratic President. Issa wants to investigate the Bush people for christs sake. He may be nuts, and he may be overzealous, but I think that is just the right man for that job. Keep those people on there toes. A great deterrent to corruption in my opinion.

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

1)How are you so sure they won't go anywhere?

2)Tell that to Speaker Gingrich. We know after all how much the Clinton impeachment helped him during the 1998 midterms.

1) If they do go "somewhere", doesn't that mean "something" happened. Something which maybe shouldn't have.

2), We failed to gain seats in the Senate, and lost a handfull in the House. Not exactly a rebuke you know. It was a mixed year. Gingrich failed to meet expectations and was horrible at PR, thats why he was forced out.

Do you realize how damn dangerous this is? If we were to get another Nixon like President? We wouldn't be able ot investigate his actions at all because it might look bad in the Press. Congress has a job, they should do it. IF Obama broke the law, HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, as should any President. It shouldn't be a political chess game played out in the press like it was in 1998. That is the whole damn point of having a process, a process which "worked" in Nixon's days, but wouldn't now because of that sentiment. "What if he finds something?" Lets pray for the sake of the country he doesn't, but if he does, they should do their job.

Nancy Pelosi's decision as Speaker played no role in the Dems' loss but Darrell Issa's threats of investigation, which likely won't go anywhere, will make the GOP leadership very well known and hated. Give me a break, dude.

1)How are you so sure they won't go anywhere?

I said they likely won't go anywhere. I said that because the leadership seems pretty focused on certain issues. There's a reason why Issa is basically the only high ranking official talking about this.

Well, from what I read Boehner has no intention to stop Issa.
And remember that a LOT of the newly elected members are crazies who think that Obama is an illegitimate Manchurian candidate. Do you think they will suddenly behave because the "establishment" tells them so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And assuming Issa gets his way, how can you say for sure that it will end up the same way? Two can play at your silly game, px.

Uhhh... Because all those "scandals" he wants to investigate are nonexistent (or frivolous at best)?

"You have to passed the bill to see what's in it" - Nancy Pelosi.


You don't know, till he starts "hauling the SOB's up there to testify".


We should rejoice we have someone so committed to oversight. I hope he maintains this insistence on it, regardless of who is in the White House.

[DrScholl]

Investigations get public attention and Issa seems to have big plans. There are even threats from other Republicans to shut down the government. These sort of stunts get big media coverage and the people do not care for them. Their main objective is to make Obama a one-term President. That kind of destructive ambition is far more troubling than Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Investigations get public attention and Issa seems to have big plans. There are even threats from other Republicans to shut down the government. These sort of stunts get big media coverage and the people do not care for them. Their main objective is to make Obama a one-term President. That kind of destructive ambition is far more troubling than Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader.

I personally don't give a damn if Olberman or Brian Williams gets all gitty when investigations occur. Its there job to investigate. 

If there is a gov't shutdown it is a means not the end the media is portraying it as. Shutting the gov't down is not the goal. If it occurs, it will be the result of an impasse between Obama and the Republicans. In which case each is equally as at fault for it. And Republicans have a far greater justification for pushing for such drastic cuts and they don't have Gingrich telling Reporters "its because Clinton put us at the back of the jet going over to Israel".

Republicans were not elected to cower in fear of Katie Couric (Bad example, is she even going to be around by then? ).

Keep in mind, "working on the economy" is so generic as to be meaningless. Both sides have their own economists, their own policies, and their own approaches and both will claim to be working on the economy and both will label the other as obstructionists in the way of "fixing" the economy.

Since px75 asked a hypoethical question about where the investigations would go, I will do the same about the economy. 

How do we know the GOP won't win the debate in the eyes of the public and thus Obama end up being viewed as the Obstructionist? Then Obama is in the way of fixing the economy. Interesting prospect.

[Keystone Phil]

Their main objective is to make Obama a one-term President.

Not exactly an unpopular idea with the American electorate right now.

The investigation threats are overblown.

[DrScholl]

I personally don't give a damn if Olberman or Brian Williams gets all gitty when investigations occur. Its there job to investigate. 

If there is a gov't shutdown it is a means not the end the media is portraying it as. Shutting the gov't down is not the goal. If it occurs, it will be the result of an impasse between Obama and the Republicans. In which case each is equally as at fault for it. And Republicans have a far greater justification for pushing for such drastic cuts and they don't have Gingrich telling Reporters "its because Clinton put us at the back of the jet going over to Israel".

Republicans were not elected to cower in fear of Katie Couric (Bad example, is she even going to be around by then? ).

Keep in mind, "working on the economy" is so generic as to be meaningless. Both sides have their own economists, their own policies, and their own approaches and both will claim to be working on the economy and both will label the other as obstructionists in the way of "fixing" the economy.

Since px75 asked a hypoethical question about where the investigations would go, I will do the same about the economy. 

How do we know the GOP won't win the debate in the eyes of the public and thus Obama end up being viewed as the Obstructionist? Then Obama is in the way of fixing the economy. Interesting prospect.

My point was, any investigations will be in the news, it's not something that will fly under the radar. The whole need for investigation just seems more about politics than transparency, in my opinion. Strict partisans like that sort of thing, the mainstream doesn't.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I personally don't give a damn if Olberman or Brian Williams gets all gitty when investigations occur. Its there job to investigate. 

If there is a gov't shutdown it is a means not the end the media is portraying it as. Shutting the gov't down is not the goal. If it occurs, it will be the result of an impasse between Obama and the Republicans. In which case each is equally as at fault for it. And Republicans have a far greater justification for pushing for such drastic cuts and they don't have Gingrich telling Reporters "its because Clinton put us at the back of the jet going over to Israel".

Republicans were not elected to cower in fear of Katie Couric (Bad example, is she even going to be around by then? ).

Keep in mind, "working on the economy" is so generic as to be meaningless. Both sides have their own economists, their own policies, and their own approaches and both will claim to be working on the economy and both will label the other as obstructionists in the way of "fixing" the economy.

Since px75 asked a hypoethical question about where the investigations would go, I will do the same about the economy. 

How do we know the GOP won't win the debate in the eyes of the public and thus Obama end up being viewed as the Obstructionist? Then Obama is in the way of fixing the economy. Interesting prospect.

My point was, any investigations will be in the news, it's not something that will fly under the radar. The whole need for investigation just seems more about politics than transparency, in my opinion. Strict partisans like that sort of thing, the mainstream doesn't.

How do we know though? There are deffinately some things that seem disconcerting to me and a little poking and prodding, never hurts. Let me ask this, what would the administration have to do to justify it receiving the oversight Issa wants? What is the thresshold of ethical or law violations that have to be met without investigations to justify them?

I would rather have an investigative committee waisting money and doing its job, then doing nothing except being a fixture while a bunch of cowboys in the executive branch rob us blind. Its really a question of priorities.

[The Dowager Mod]

Crappy qb crappy congressman.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He obviously won't win, but this still will make the next couple of years pretty interesting.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Their main objective is to make Obama a one-term President.

Not exactly an unpopular idea with the American electorate right now.

The investigation threats are overblown.

Yeah, 45% approval rating in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the 30's is obviously awful. Maybe the guy should ask W. to give him lessons how to become popular.

BTW, ain't it funny that Republicans suddenly rediscovered how important is congressional oversight? It seems that the amnesia from which they suffered during the Bush years is finally cured.
It reminds me of how they also suddenly rediscovered fiscal conservatism after Obama was elected. 

I would rather have an investigative committee waisting money and doing its job, then doing nothing except being a fixture while a bunch of cowboys in the executive branch rob us blind. Its really a question of priorities.

Of course. Obama's birth certificate and the "Global Warming Hoax" are more important than anything else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. The Clintons where exonerated for Whitewater and Foster's death, yet the Republicans just wouldn't let the matter go.

[Sbane]

Their main objective is to make Obama a one-term President.

Not exactly an unpopular idea with the American electorate right now.

The investigation threats are overblown.

Ehh almost half of Americans support the president when unemployment is near 9.6%. I wonder what happens if unemployment goes down to 8-8.5% by 2012. A big if though.

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, 45% approval rating in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the 30's is obviously awful. Maybe the guy should ask W. to give him lessons how to become popular.

Loving that spin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed

Their main objective is to make Obama a one-term President.

Not exactly an unpopular idea with the American electorate right now.

The investigation threats are overblown.

Ehh almost half of Americans support the president when unemployment is near 9.6%. I wonder what happens if unemployment goes down to 8-8.5% by 2012. A big if though.

Yeah, that is a big if. If it's in the same spot it is now, the remaining "Blame Bush" folks will start to turn hard against Obama.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, 45% approval rating in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the 30's is obviously awful. Maybe the guy should ask W. to give him lessons how to become popular.

Loving that spin.

Yeah, it comes straight from the mouth of notorious Democratic spinmeister David Frum.
You know, the one that penned that notorious Dem slogan about the "Axis of Evil".