Nancy Pelosi has been an awful House leader
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 9/26/08 @ 9:11 am - Filed Under 2008 National Elections, National Politics
As readers of this blog know I have been extremely disappointed with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress. The Democrats swept to power on a platform of restoring ethics to Congress, ruling in a bi-partisan fashion, working harder, and getting the people’s work done.
By any-one’s measure except the most partisan Democrat they have failed to implement the above promises in the last two years.
Over the last couple of days Nancy Pelosi has shown herself to be more interested in politics and increasing her Democratic majority then in passing legislation that she believes must pass.
Per Reuters,
Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have said that President George W. Bush has to deliver a large number of Republican votes for the politically unpopular bailout to pass Congress.
In other words she 100% believes that this socialist bailout package MUST pass; however, she is unwilling to pass it unless a significant number of Republicans vote for it, because she does not want the Democrats to be blamed for it since the voters do not like it.
Nancy Pelosi is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.
Leadership is taking a stand and doing what you think is right each and every time.
I am sick and tired of spineless politicians who are more worried about the success of their Political Party then doing what they think is in the best interests of the Country.
I am against the 700 billion dollar socialist bailout of companies that made massive profits over the last decade; however, Nancy Pelosi is in favor of it and yet refuses to pass it without political cover from the Republicans.
Is there ANYONE who thinks Nancy Pelosi is showing leadership on this issue?
Mike Sylvester
Comments
9 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi has been an awful House leader”
Leave a Reply
Pelosi’s performance has been dismal at best. And she blames George Bush for her poor performance.
I think with this whole “change” campaign, new leadership should be in order - however, that’s not likely AT ALL to happen.
Mike: You hit the nail on the head when you said she is looking for cover. She will simply blame it on the Republicans if this fails, but she knows that many of them don’t support the plan because they know it will likely fail. And it is against their principles.
When I got my eyes opened yesterday by a liberal prof. of econ. was scary. Not that he is a liberal, because he is a friend, but his concern that the proposed plan could have been the biggest give-a-way ever.
Taxpayers secured position would have ranked about like a 3rd or 4th mortgage on our homes. In simple words we would be little more then an unsecured creditor.
The oversite provision would have nearly tied the hands of any assistance as needing oversite committee prior approval. These people could help their “buddies” or screw over some company their “buddies” wanted to. Let alone leaked information to the public that could enhance adverse market reactions.
That in the next five years there is a entire group of 5 year interest only payment, ballon mortgages that will be coming due. This is ticking time bomb as people having these short term ballon mortgages are in deep trouble.
The house they live in will be worth 20-30% less then the mortgage balance. They will not have the money to cover the shortfall and will be unable to convert the mortgage to a long term mortgage. These are not subprime mortgages issued to people of questionable credit worth.
While “subprime” mortgages are the key word everyone is hanging their hat on is an error. Over half the mortgages have a greater current balance then their home’s current value. Two years a go bundle of 100 million dollars worth of mortgages is now worth around 80 million dollars in true worth.
Frankly if the talking heads all over the halls of congress cared about the general public they would not even be talking to the media. They would have locked themselves in the room with the top leadership of each party and not some assigned party committee member.
As for Obama and McCain. I would think both would have a highly invested interest in the final outcome. One of them is going to have to live with the results. Regardless, what comes out of congress will impact what programs they may be able to launch and carry out while they are in office.
Remember laws are made by people that talk the talk and few can do the walk. So we get what we voted for. They play to our fears and weaknesses!
We do not like to vote for people who tell us the truth that things are not perfect, will not be perfect, and we can not do everything for everyone. But when someone runs for office and tells us they will make the world perfect and we can do something for everyone we push the button or pull the lever. We have gotten what we deserve!
Republicans with principles what a classic example of an oxymoron.
If the Speaker had come out against the plan, I am sure the Republicans would have fallen all over themselves to say that she was doing something to ruin the country and the economy. By coming out in favor of a modified plan, she put the ball in their court. Do the Republicans believe their leader Pres. Bush or not?
I think that it is unbelievably naive to believe that politicians wouldn’t pay some attention to the political ramifications of their decisions.
As far as the bailout goes, I think this is an example of the rich guys trying to wring a little more out of their investment in Bush-Cheney before their term is up.
The more I learn about Ron Paul, the more I like him. We the people must ask for better leaders in the first place. Ron Paul doesn’t care that his fellow Republicans don’t agree with everyhing he says. Both Democrates and Republicans have failed us. Talk radio has failed us. The Right seems okay with Americans having less freedom in the name of terror. (Limbuagh, Hannity just angry rich white guys). The Left is okay with Socialization and Government intervention. (Rhandi Rhodes and Thom Hartman, Please) Less freedom, not good. More Government, not good. Corporate monopolies, not good. Less choice, not good.
Pelosi said THERE WOULD BE CHANGE when she took over the Senate…and we sure as heck GOT it, didn’t we?
This is very interesting on ethics reform.
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o&eurl=http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=1472311&start=61&CurrentPageiurl=http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/H5tZc8oH–o/default.jpg
I think you are wrong about Pelosi on this issue Mike. It seems to me that she needs Bush to get some Republicans on board in order to get enough votes to pass the bailout. You posted some pretty strong words against her based on the reuters article, but i don’t think that article supported any of the claims that you made.
Justin,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Nancy Pelosi gave a five minute partisan speech right before the vote where she blamed the entire problem on Republicans. This did not help her gain Republican votes. She was playing Presidential politics rather then trying to push her socialist bill through.
Even after her five minute speech she still got 65 Republican votes including “big Government” Mark Souder.
I think the article supports all of the claims. Please tell me what claim you think is unsupported…
Mike Sylvester
[...] more issue that must be addressed. In a separate post Sylvester suggested that Pelosi was looking for “political cover” to pass the bill. The truth is she didn’t have the votes and she knew it. Furthermore any [...]