Nancy Pelosi’s “Disastrous” Week
Tweet
Do the media cats and dogs endlessly reporting this story understand that:
When Nancy Pelosi wakes up on Saturday, she’s the Speaker of the House.
When Nancy Pelosi wakes up on Sunday, she’s the Speaker of the House.
When Nancy Pelosi wakes up on Monday, she’s the Speaker of the House.
When Nancy Pelosi wakes up on Tuesday, she’s the Speaker of the House.
Etc. Any week when someone becomes Speaker of the House of the United States House Of Representatives is simply incapable of being a “disaster”.
32 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi’s “Disastrous” Week”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Nancy Pelosi backs a controverisal candidate for her second in command and is decisively rebuffed by her own party. Nancy Pelosi backs a controverisal candidate for her second in command and is decisively rebuffed by her own party. Nancy Pelosi backs a controverisal candidate for her second in command and is decisively rebuffed by her own party.
And yet, she’s still the Speaker Of The House.
Clearly this is a sign of gloom and doom for the Dems, Oliver, in much the same way it was for Newt Gingrich when his favored candidate lost his election back in ’94.
Oh, wait.
Nancy Pelosi backs a controverisal candidate for her second in command and is decisively rebuffed by her own party.
What? The caucus dared to choose their own leader instead of rubber-stamping the Speaker’s choice?
Can they do that?
I guess this means Nancy Pelosi can’t just wave her diesel bitch wand and make everyone in congress adopt her San Francisco values?
Wow, I gotta stop watching Fox (News) so much.
“Can they do that?”
Certainly, they can strongly rebuff Pelosi.
Let the fun begin!
First we’ll (as will all of america)get to see all the democratic in-fighting…
then, the press will now have another target for sniping beyond the republicans. And yes, there is an unquestionable leftist media bias, but at the end of the day they want to see papers so criticizing the democrats will occur.
Also of note: The republicans have spent way more time explaining why they lost, how they failed their base. They have spent NO time blaming Diebold, or butterfly ballots, hanging chads or voter disenfranchisment. Interestingly, the liberals have finally shut their stinking pie-holes about it too….why is that?
Interestingly, the liberals have finally shut their stinking pie-holes about it too….why is that?
Stinking pie? Sounds delicious.
Perhaps, Peed’, you might acquaint yourself with the legislation introduced by Sen. Obama. It seems that he is opposed to the practice of misleading and harrassing voters with repeated robocalls.
Likewise, you could check in to see who Katherine Harris’ successor will be. What’s that? It’s still up in the air because of a voting machine malfunction?
Ah well. Nevermind.
Um, I think she is Speaker-elect: Big Denny is still Speaker until his term expires in January.
But yes, holding a leadership election is something happens every two years and as with most democratic institutions, there can be surprises.
And the reason why the GOP “spent way more time explaining why they lost, how they failed their base. They have spent NO time blaming Diebold, or butterfly ballots, hanging chads or voter disenfranchisment” is because they can’t blame Diebold or anything else. They got whupped pure and simple and they know it.
“… at the end of the day they want to see papers so criticizing the democrats will occur.”
Oh mercy. I can just see it now all those fretting editors: “Our the final goal of our secret liberal plan to turn America into a godless, socialist paradise is at hand but we have to sell papers! Oh whatever is an anti-capitalist lefty to do?!?!”
See paul, the fact that the R’s are looking inward as to why they failed is the reason they will win next time….
Had the D’s lost all those seats we would be harangued about “diebold” and disenfranchisements etc,etc…blaming anyone but the democrats platform. The R’s realize they have given up a lot of the values that most republicans want to see in their elected officials: Small government, lowered costs of government, strong defense of the country (including enforcement of immigration laws). Because we realize that, change will occur. The democrats just blame others, and therefore have no impetus to change behavior. Make no mistake, this was a vote against republicans, not a vote for democrats. But you want to see it any other way, fine with me…I will take my credit in ’08…
“…I will take my credit in ’08…”
Hilarious.
the fact that the R’s are looking inward as to why they failed is the reason they will win next time….
Looking inward and then electing the same gang of bozos to leadership positions?
What is it they say about the definition of insanity?
Here’s something that ought to keep you awake at night, Peed’:
In 2008, 33 Senate seats will be up for grabs. How many are currently held by Republicans?
“The democrats just blame others, and therefore have no impetus to change behavior.”
This from the idiot who just wrote: “..there is an unquestionable leftist media bias …”
look at the historical number of seats won by an opposition party in an off-year election
OK. How many in 1998? You know, that time the President was in the impeachment dock?
Holy mackerel! I’m psychic!
Paul liberal media bias is a fact, not an excuse…
As you libs are crowing about your “enormous” victory, look at the historical number of seats won by an opposition party in an off-year election. You will find you hit the average. No where near the drubbing that the liberals got in 94 when the republicans “beat” the average by almost 50% ……
If Ollie has the courage to keep his posts up for more than a year, so we can go back and check…see me in ’08. I just wish OW was able to keep some of those posts from a few years ago so we can see how “flexible” Ollie’s opinions really are..
Whether it’s one seat or thirty, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker and Harry Reid is the Majority leader. I never made any promises about this election or do I about 2008. I love your insinuations, but you’re full of shit.
More hard times to come for the speaker elect – “The CBC sent a letter to Ms. Pelosi just to let her know that the CBC is behind Mr. Hastings 100 percent,”
Really, then where are the archives from this blog from 3 or 4 years ago?
WordPress ate them all. Sorry, I mean IT’S A LIBRUL CONSPIRACY OMG
Try the Wayback Machine.
“Paul liberal media bias is a fact, not an excuse…”
The sign of a true Kool Aid drinker. You’re awesome, pedro, truly awesome.
Great, factually laden come back paul….You had better do better than that when you defend your PhD thesis….you ARE still in that “Film Studies”(!?) PhD program aren’t you?
Pedro, please lay out the “factual” basis for your statement.
Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
This highly researched paper circa 2004 is from YOUR own alma mater (well, maybe, are you still matriculated Paul?)
Please read the article to find the factual basis for my statement….
Yes, pedro, highly respected:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003
Oh, the highly partisan anti-media “Media Matters” funded by rich leftists disagrees with the highly researched and footnoted scholarly paper from UCLA…!
I guess I better go looking for another paper then eh Paul?
What an idiot….
Well, well, well… So Ms. Pelosi is the first women Speaker. Two things spring to mind. Isn’t that the way things are supposed to be? The Minority Leader becomes Speaker of the House when the minority Party becomes the majority Party? So? Big deal.
Second, it’s as big a deal as appointing our first Hispanic AG, our first black Secretary of State, or our first female and black Secretary of State, something which was not done by our “First ‘negro’ President”, but rather by one of the most despised Presidents in recent history.
{ BTW, that lack of attention is, in itself, yet another example of the media’s left – wing bias. What’s interesting about left-wing Media bias is that while the left continues to deny it exists, examples pop up every day. }
Pedro, did you read their criticism of the report? Did you even read the report yourself or did you stop at the paragraph you cited?
Their methodology is seriouesly flawed, Here’s one reason why:
BUt that’s from Media Matters, Here’s the response from the Wall Street Journal, which the report found to be more liberal than the New York Times:
http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808
That’s interesting. Based on its methodology, the report found that the Wall Street Journal was more liberal than the New York Times and that the ACLU was a “Conservative” think tank. Are you telling me you agree with this assessment?
But wait, the Wall Street JOurnal points this out:
Four months vs 12 years? Does that sound like a reasonable comparison?
Not only is the reports methodology seriously flawed, bias can manifest itself in countless ways in reporting that simply can’t be quantified like that. It’s totally subjective term. For every instance of liberal bias
So, ya, Pedro, go find another report. Of course we all know what a problem you have with reading
statistics.
No paul, you are exactly right, there is not enough data to make a determination about the Wall Street Journal….but there is MORE than enough to make a valid determination about CBS and PBS….
Keep on trying buddy. Your inability to grasp ideas and put them together into a logical structure does make it pretty clear why you are an “ex”Phd student in Film Studies though….
The methodology for that study is entirely bogus.
It went something like this: First, look at the ADA ratings of members of Congress. See how often each one cites different think tanks to determine which think tanks are liberal or conservative.
Then measure how often news organizations cite each think tank. If a newspaper cites the same think tanks that Ted Kennedy cites, then the newspaper must have liberal bias.
Of course, none of this bothers to examine the content of the cites. If the Kalamazoo Courier quotes the Center for American Progress as saying Apple Pie tastes good, it’s a liberal rag. If it cites CAP on apple pie and the Heritage Foundation saying gay marriage will make everyone’s hair fall out, then the paper is “balanced.”