Heath Shuler (D-NC) to challenge Nancy Pelosi

[Keystone Phil]

Best wishes to Pelosi. She has a proven record of creating jobs for Republican lawmakers, and deserves to stay on as the Democratic leader in the House.

You mean like the jobs she created in 2006 and 2008?

Very few people knew or cared about her then. Bush created those jobs for the Dems. After four years of her in control, we've more than made up for those losses. 

[Keystone Phil]

Best wishes to Pelosi. She has a proven record of creating jobs for Republican lawmakers, and deserves to stay on as the Democratic leader in the House.

You mean like the jobs she created in 2006 and 2008?

Very few people knew or cared about her then. Bush created those jobs for the Dems. After four years of her in control, we've more than made up for those losses. 

Very few people know or care about her now.

But her actions as Speaker helped the GOP.

[Keystone Phil]

If by that you mean that she successfully passed a big part of the Democrat's agenda on which they campaigned in 2008, then she is guilty as charged.

That was unpopular with the public and helped lead to massive Republican gains, yes.

Please, let's spare each other of the talking points. The topic is Pelosi as an electoral liability.

[Keystone Phil]

If by that you mean that she successfully passed a big part of the Democrat's agenda on which they campaigned in 2008, then she is guilty as charged.

That was unpopular with the public and helped lead to massive Republican gains, yes.

Please, let's spare each other of the talking points. The topic is Pelosi as an electoral liability.

The agenda wasn't unpopular per se.

Are you serious?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How could a war in Iraq be popular in 2003 then incredibly unpopular in 2005? People can change their minds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She wasn't in the spotlight as much in 2006 and 2008. Now she is.

[Keystone Phil]

If Phil's referring to health care reform, it's not exactly unpopular. It's at about 50/50 in the polls now.

50/50? I doubt that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then she helped the GOP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it. I also don't necessarily disagree with every part of the bill but that doesn't mean I supported its passage.

[Keystone Phil]

If Phil's referring to health care reform, it's not exactly unpopular. It's at about 50/50 in the polls now.

50/50? I doubt that.

The CNN poll showed 47/48 split between the "retain and expand" and "repeal" options.

That's not necessarily opposing it though. Those favoring a total repeal have always been fewer in numbers than those opposing it.

Whatever the case, I don't think you can honestly tell me that passing that legislation helped Pelosi and the Dems from an electoral standpoint this year.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil you need to make up your mind, either people didn't vote Democrat because they didn't like Pelosi, or because they didn't like the Democratic agenda. If you say the agenda was the problem then obviously it wouldn't have mattered who their leader was, they'd have lost anyway. If Pelosi was the main reason people voted Republican and Democrats had done a lot better without her, then your basicly saying people didn't find the agenda that objectable.

Uh...Pelosi pushed an agenda that the public didn't like. Pelosi was just especially polarizing while pushing that agenda.

Medicare and Medicaid were also unpopular when passed.
Pelosi and the Democrats did what they thought was right, not electorally advantageous.

I know you don't want to concede a single point to me but, again, this isn't time for party talking points. We're discussing Pelosi and the agenda as an electoral liability. The "what is right" debate is for another time and place and you know it.

[Keystone Phil]

What I said isn't a talking point, it's the historical reality. Look up what happened at the 1966 midterms.

It's a talking point because we're discussing its electoral impact and you're refusing to admit that it's unpopular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You told me it can't be unpopular because it was a popular proposal two years ago. I'm saying that people sometimes change their minds when they find out more about an issue. It doesn't matter if Bush didn't campaign on waging a war with Iraq (which he actually did in 2002 and it's hilarious that you aren't familiar with that or maybe just conveniently forgot). That has nothing to do with my point. The point remains that a policy can be popular at one point and unpopular as debate continues and circumstances change.

[Keystone Phil]

1)We presented you with a poll that shows the electorate being split on HCR. It's neither popular or unpopular. Most people admit that they don't really know what's in the bill.

And I told you already that that's one poll and it asks about repealing the bill. It's not the same thing. Again, you conveniently ignore my point.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush absolutely campaigned on the war in 2002 but, again, that's not the point. The debate about the war shows that an idea can be popular at one point and unpopular later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and the fact that most Americans do not support the bill. You cite their support of the general idea of making sure all Americans can get health insurance. That's great. Americans can be in favor of general ideas; when it comes to getting it done, they don't support the President's plan.

Even if they did support the specific plan in 2008 (which they didn't), they can come to oppose the idea after the debate rages on.

[Keystone Phil]

So let me ask you again. Was it the Democrat's ideas and policies that failed, or was it their leadership? Do you believe the Democrats would have maintained the House if they had a Speaker Hoyser instead of Pelosi?  

I think it can be combination of both and if they had a Speaker that wasn't as controversial (Ms. "We have to pass the bill before we know what's in it"), I think the losses wouldn't have been as great.

[Keystone Phil]

As noted though, most of the Democrats who lost were Fake Democrats. Yes sadly we did lose some good Real Democrats (like Perriello, Oberstar and the super-ultra-mega-epic legendary Freedom Fighter Alan Grayson), but it wasn't pro-Pelosi Real Democrats who suffered mostly.

Yes because now those types are mostly restricted to very Democratic districts anyway. 

[Keystone Phil]

This will make the Democrats look even worse when they reelect her over a legitimate challenger. The GOP can claim they never changed in 2012 if the economy is still sputtering.

The Republicans are a batsh**t crazy extremist party of nothing but no, and they gained 60+ seats so the last thing the Democrats should do is be even more of useless moderate heroes.

You're right. Run to the other extreme and let's make see another twenty or so seats added to the GOP column.

[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...

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.