Posts with the tag Pelosi

Pelosi can give her husband $100,000 but Palin can't give a supporter a job?

Rob-33704 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:41:44 EDT

Some of you people just do not have a clue how things actually work in most of this country??????

No one can be that stupid !

Of course I could be wrong.

Why is CNBC trying to blame Rep, Pelosi?

Democrat in New York, NY — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:55:02 EDT

The republicans have their own news network, FOX, but yet CNBC feels the need to provide more propaganda on the republican's behalf. So the argument that the republicans are making is that the bill failed because Rep. Pelosi made a partisan speech. Wow! What's even more amazing is that CNBC is choosing not to challenge any of the republican guests who use this line of defense for their indefensible action in the house yesterday. I have two questions:

1. Republicans, is this what you call patriotism? When your country need you you chose to avenge your pride by allowing a speech to guide your actions.

2. CNBC, were you bought by FOX? When did Rupert Murdoch buy you guys and mold you into a republican attack machine?

I think the whole idea that the republicans chose to vote against the bail-out bill because of Rep. Pelosi's speech is just absolute baloney. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for choosing their fragile pride over the country's business. Also, if republicans can't handle a speech then how can we Americans expect them to fight the terrorists? These guys will run to their mom's side if the terrorist were to shout bhoo! Republicans are weak.

House Refused to Impeach so...

Gene Madison — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:36:19 EDT

It has me wondering. As much as Pelosi herself states over and over how the Bush Policies are responsible. Though if Bush & Cheney were both impeached, she would be President Pro Temp.

It would definitely explain why she would delay any inquiry. Could it be? You would think that a person having knowledge of the President's Policies having a severity as they have had would only make impeachment that much more important. But it doesn't seem like anyone was surprised with a single failure of the economy. Bet you all of Congress sold their stocks recently.

Girls Only: Pelosi's Pearls

Liz — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:17:11 EDT

If Pelosi's pearls didn't knock your socks off--you must not have an ounce of the girlie girl in you.

I not only saw them on Pelosi, but I also saw several of the women there sporting them--started me thinking that politics might not be a bad gig. LOL I saw that same necklace (I think in an ad in Vanity Fair). The price was RIDICULOUS-- $20,000 or maybe even $35,000.

I just went on the Internet and found a place were we girls can get them "cheap" if we want,

Pelosi - Using War to Win Election

Gene Madison — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:55:57 EDT

It is nothing more than an abuse of life and power to state that you only fight the fights that have the best oppurtunity for winning. She doesn't feel an exercise of impeaching the President is wise Politically. Politically? I'm all about being polite but WTF is wrong with you? What a disgraceful adherence to party partisanship. The strongest branch in the Government is the Legislative. Are you telling me that if you stand up and tell the American public that your are proceeding with Impeachment because the security of the United States IS more important, and the breaches by the President of the U.S. Constitution are outrageous, and you would rather proceed with an impeachment hearing, where Due Process rules, and it has never been considered unfair in its final decision.

So are you really saying to the american people that you expect all Americans (assuming they have no direct political influence) are expected to follow the laws of this Nation, pay taxes, and ignore the man behind the curtain?

I am sorry if it sounds like I care too much about the entire world, and the true meaning of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I cannot comprehend how horrible of a choice we have this year for an election. What choice do people have who realize that a 'constitutional scholar' should have never voted for FISA, because it is an obvious violation of OUR rights. And as it was said by Alexander Hamilton...

[QUOTE]I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[/Quote]

Which unfortunately, he was correct. American Citizens are forced to pay taxes in order to be employed, and those with some sense of honor and loyalty, lose some of the best qualities you can find in a person all because the crooks can go free, and with them goes our liberty!

You are a disgrace to mankind, and whatever species you belong to!

Pelosi blasts Lieberman???????

Rob-33704 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:02:41 EDT

Why is Nancy Pelosi just now feeling the need to threaten to help strip Senator Joe Lieberman of his committee chairmanship.

The real question is - why has Senator Lieberman been permitted to occupy what is rightfully a democratic party chairmanship when he has obviously not been a democrat for some time?

Could Pelosi be feeling a little heat from Cindy Sheehan???????

Mr Obama

Rob-33704 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:43:28 EDT

The simple truth is that Mr Obama is the party nominee.

The party will either win or lose with him.

If someone can vote for Mr McCain or not vote at all for preident and in good conscience still consider themselves a democrat that is between them and their conscience.

The primaries are long over. It's time to move on until after the election in November and then we can start all over again - if necessary.

Right now we should be emailing Ms Pelosi to reconvene the house and get some work done.

Congressional Recess

Rob-33704 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:42:15 EDT

CNN and other news organizations are reporting that
"congressional conservatives" continue their protests against the 5 week recess that began last friday.

I think they may be right. The idea that congress can take a five week break every August shows just how out of touch they - both republicans and democrats - are with the lives of "average" Americans.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to end this recess and get congress back to work. They need to introduce meaningful legislation and if the president vetoes it let the republicans live with it in November.

Nearing a Special deadline! Message from Pelosi

Liz — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:20:00 EDT

In 10 days we will face one of the most critical deadlines in politics -- 100 days until November's election for change.

The 100-Day deadline is the tipping point in the election cycle when decisions are made about advertising, field operations, staffing, and what races will receive what resources. This is the official kick-off to the final stretch before the election.

With more races in play in districts nationwide than ever before, it is clear our House candidates' success will build the foundation for Senator Obama's victory in the White House. That's why the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has set out to execute the most robust and sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation in history. But, we need to raise an additional $3 million to hit our goal before this critical 100-day deadline to help us fund an additional dozen races.

Achieving this goal is so vital to me and the DCCC that I am pleased to announce one more opportunity for you to be my guest at our Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Contribute $25, $50, or more to our 100 Days of Action campaign and you will be automatically entered to win hotel, tickets, and flight to the Democratic National Convention in Denver (August 25-28th). The more times you contribute, the more times you will be entered to win.

As Chair of this year's Democratic Convention, I could not be more excited about the celebration we have in store. Our convention will honor our commitment to building a stronger and greener future for America - and on the final night, Barack Obama will deliver an acceptance speech for the ages in front of more than 75,000 people.

These next 100 days are critical to our success - I hope you will contribute today and enter yourself to win a trip to the Convention and to help us win big this November.

Your commitment to America's future has brought us to this exciting point. You have helped us recruit an outstanding class of candidates, who are prepared to join us in Congress next year to help President Obama write the next great chapter of the American story.

Now, let the final 100 days begin!

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House

Kucinich Speech on July 10 for Impeachment

Liz — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:55:38 EDT

As I mentioned in a previous post, I came home yesterday after work and switched on C-span to see Kucinich delivering testimony once again regarding why Bush should be impeached.

I'm encouraged on this for two reasons. I've watched all of the Honorable Kucinich's previous presentations on impeachment for Cheney and for Bush; however, I found this one encouraging on two accounts: 1) the people in chambers applauded when Kucinich concluded his remarks--to the point that the presiding officer had to call for order and 2) Speaker Pelosi said on Thursday that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Kucinich. This clearly signals a new willingness to at least entertain the notion of kicking Bush out.

However, I've become so cynical of our Congress that I'm inclined to think that this new declaration of Pelosi's is likely nothing more than the good cop/bad cop routine that the Democrats and Republicans play against the people. (Now that there is little chance of impeachment being implemented before the jackasses' term runs out, we can begin our impeachment proceedings.) Impeachment proceedings should have begun in April of 2007 when Kucinich first filed.

Following is part of the text of his speech in the House yesterday afternoon late:

Purge Repost

Jack Kafka — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:24:07 EDT

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Jackkafka/CNy4

SEND THEM TO THE GULAG!!!

Jack Kafka — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:42:57 EDT

Now when Democrats win in November. Let Purge our spineless leader

About Pelosi She is Doing the Right Thing

Liz — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:39:56 EDT

After 8 years of Cowboy George storming full speed ahead in his simplistic world of black/white goodguys/bad guys, many Americans have forgotten that the world is far more complex that it may appear.

I support Pelosi pulling that legislation regarding obtaining permission to invade Iran.

That legislation would have played right into the Administration's hands. It is like asking for permission to support a law that is already on the books. Doing this would set forth the implication that it is not ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR BUSH TO INVADE IRAN--GET IT?

Bush by law ALREADY IN EXISTENCE LACK THE POWER TO INVADE IRAN. You don't want to mess with that.

If he were to try to invade Iran without obtaining permission from Congress they could yank his ass out of the White House in blink.

Here is one article that might explain it a little better. Save your visciousness for the Republicans and McCain.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-15-iraq-debate_x.htm

Dennis and the Impeachment Trail (not Trial)

Liz — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:57:06 EDT

Dennis REALLY must not like George. LOL. H.Res.333 which Kucinich proposed in the House of Representatives against Cheney on April 24, 2007, which if passed would impeach Cheney on only three charges. The Bush Impeachment articles were MUCH more expansive--35 in all. LOL. All the House needs to do is approve one of the articles. Then it moves to the Senate where 2/3 (of those present--not 2/3s of the entire Senate) have the constitutional authority to try the official for the crime.

After six months without a debate or vote on H Res 333, Kucinich introduced it as a new resolution H.Res. 799 on November 6, 2007. Like Res 333, 799 was also referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Then today the House of Representatives voted to send the articles of impeachment against Bush to the Judiciary Committee for Review. Kucinich pushed for this referral. The motion passed 251 to 166 with 24 Republicans voting.

Pelosi said that she wants the options to remain "strictly off the table" but we will see if that is honored.

Kucinich is confident that when the committee have time to read the articles that they will agreee that it is appropriate and necessary to begin hearings on the resolution. Time will tell.

Why Democrats

Gary — Mon, 05 May 2008 08:47:54 EDT

Dear Ms. Pelosi:

I have been a Democratic Party activist for about 40 years. Chair of a county committee, delegate to numerous state conventions and once to the national convention, elected official, etc. I want to write to you to let you know what I am hearing among Democrats.

They keep asking me, “Why was it we elected a Democratic Congress? Remind me, why that is so important?” Frankly, Ms. Pelosi, it is getting harder and harder to answer that question. I need help.

Many Democrats were and still are angry when you took impeachment off the table. These people tell me Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with a consenting adult. No one was killed. No huge deficit. The Bush administration lies about the war has given us the biggest debt in the nation’s history and hundreds of thousands of dead and our reputation around the world is shot. The Bush administration outed a CIA agent, which would be an impeachable offense on treason. What the Bush administration has done is 10000% more impeachable than what Clinton did and yet the Democrats don’t even hold hearings. The Democrats I talk to are disgusted.

Then came the war. You admit people all over the country elected a Democratic Congress because they wanted out of Iraq. Here is how they perceive the funding situation.

Bush: Ms. Pelosi, I want another $50 billion for the war.

Pelosi: Mr. President, you are not going to get one more dime for this war. The people elected Democrats to get us out of the war. No Way. Ain't going to happen. Not one more dime! What part of NO, Mr. President, do you not understand?

Bush: Well if you wont give me $50 Billion, how about $75 Billion.

Pelosi: OK.

The third issue that Democrats are disgusted about is some of your comments when speaking to the press.

When a reporter asks you why Democrats haven’t done more to the end the war in Iraq, you say something like “Well it is all Bush’s fault. Whatever we propose, he will veto”. The reporter doesn’t seem to have any brains to ask the obvious follow up question.

I wonder if the majority of Americans buy your explanation. I sure don’t.
If Bush wants more money for the Iraq, Congress should just say NO. What part of NO do you not understand? It has nothing to do with a Bush veto. Just don’t pass any more funding. It is that simple.

If the Democrats, who have been elected to Congress in 2006, don’t have the balls to stand up instead of rolling over and playing dead, what is the point of electing Democrats? Help me to understand.

Letter to Nancy- 40 million more reasons

JMesserly — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:00:02 EDT

Nancy- I read of the DCCC getting a spike in donations after the threat letter you recieved from the Clinton backers.

Well, keep on fighting the good fight. We are behind ya! It's a new politics, and lots of small folks are swarming. If you come back from scouting something and convince the hive that there is trouble, the swarm will annihilate that threat.

Barack is using the force of that swarm. It is not an unthinking mass but when he says he needs money, he can tap into 1.25 million of us bees. We sent in 40 million dollars this month following our donations 55 million in February.

The 20 big donors who sent their quaint letter are from the school of political antiquarianism who like to dress up in their armor and play with swords, but I think I am not telling you anything new. Good for you

Donors of a bygone era.

Pelosi wrong. Challenge to superdelegates and both camps.

Leigh of Austin — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:52:48 EDT

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, says that the superdelegates should go with the vote of the people. This means that she believes the superdelegates should do nothing more than mirror what has already taken place and, therefore, have no effect and serve no purpose. Perhaps Speaker Pelosi would like to remove superdelegates from the primary process. If so, then she should work to change the process for future elections -- through the proper channels of the DNC, which decided that superdelegates were essential. Why? For many reasons -- look it up. The one I am most interested in this time around is:

ELECTING A DEMOCRAT TO THE WHITE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER SHOULD BE OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

Unless Democrats are expecting a spectacular landslide victory over the Republicans, which is absolutely not the case this time, then we need to put our most electable team on the ticket in November -- Yes, even if my candidate ends up completely off the ticket. Many of us simply cannot afford another four years of Republican rule. Of course, this is a challenge to the superdelegates -- please don't think so much about the feelings of these two extraordinary people (or political correctness or racial/gender sensitivity) that you overlook the needs of an entire nation of hurting individuals and families. We, the people, need relief from the Republicans. Our roads, our dams, our bridges, and our schools need relief from the Republicans. We are truly blessed to have not one, but two, exceptional candidates. It is unfortunate that the race is so close. But we need to not be so distracted by the race that we lose sight of the prize.

DEMOCRATS MUST TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER OR THE FURTHER DECAY OF OUR SOCIETY AND OUR COUNTRY WILL UTTERLY DESTROY MANY, GOOD, HARD-WORKING PEOPLE.

From here on out, both candidates should limit their speech to the informative. Tell us about your priorities, long-term goals, and visions for our country and how you, as president, plan to achieve them. Share your thoughts and ideas about national security and international relations, topics the Republicans are preparing to crucify us with. What current foreign policies would you change and why? What do you hear the people saying; what do you see happening to us down here; and what are you going to do about it? Don't mention the other (Dem) candidate except to fairly, clearly, and concisely compare differences between policies or plans. It should sound similar to a scientific comparison of a golden delicious apple to a pink lady apple. No bashing. No fear plays. At this point, no one in the party should make a statement about either candidate that is not a verifiable fact relating DIRECTLY to an issue. No one in the party should be making judgmental comments about either candidate -- unless something significantly horrible comes out and is fully verified. No exaggerations about one another. No distortions. No attacks. The country is sick of these dirty tactics. Only truth should be spoken.

Finally, every time the press keeps a story afloat that should have no place in our political process, the Party should put out a new commercial or article on an extremely important issue, especially if it is something the Reps have screwed up. Big or small, the more critical (truthfully hard-hitting to the public), the better. Hillary shouldn't have to pay one iota for something Geraldine Ferrarro said. And Barack shouldn't have to pay for something his elderly, excited, and about-to-be-retired pastor said. A man who has been seriously disrespected and treated horribly by most whites all his life, and whose religion and faith have kept him going through the hopeless decades is likely to become overwhelmed when he sees the darkness that kept him down all his life taking a major blow. If his religion and politics got blurred and magnified during a moment of late-in-life hope and excitement, it's understandable -- give the guy a break. As for Gerry, I don't know what to say. I totally disagree with what she said. I believe that Barack is a sensation because of his incredibly organized online communication network and his heavy emphasis on change from day one. Both Barack and Hillary adequately said (the first time) that they did not agree with these supporters' statements. So everyone else needs to be ready to displace these types of erosive stories with real issues and the democratic response to those issues. Redirect every time they attack.

San Francisco Voters: Tell Nancy Pelosi to Endorse Barack Obama Now

Mark C. Eades — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:55:30 EDT

California congresswoman, Speaker of the House, and superdelegate Nancy Pelosi, representing the voters of San Francisco, has thus far declined to endorse either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Primary voters in her home district, however, did choose Obama by a wide margin as did voters throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Pelosi herself, meanwhile, has on at least a couple of occasions strongly suggested a tilt toward Obama in her own sentiments regarding the election. These are both excellent reasons for endorsing Obama now, and San Francisco voters could be very helpful in encouraging Speaker Pelosi to go ahead and take the plunge.

In statements reported Mar. 13 by CNN and other agencies, Speaker Pelosi reiterated previous comments that, in her opinion, a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton "dream ticket" would be impossible. This time, however, she seemed to lay the blame for that impossibility squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton campaign, saying that Clinton "has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-chief than Obama." In other words, Clinton with her "scorched earth" campaign has potentially hurt her own party by suggesting that a Republican would be a better president than a fellow Democrat who happens to be running against her for the nomination. In earlier statements reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and other agencies Jan. 29, Pelosi came as close as she could to endorsing Obama without actually doing it. On the aftermath of the Kennedy-Obama endorsement preceding Bush's final State of the Union address, the Chronicle's Zachary Coile wrote that:

"The buzz in the speaker's office Monday was not about Bush's address, but about Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy's fiery speech earlier endorsing Democrat Barack Obama.... 'Did you ever see anything like that?' asked Pelosi. 'Transferring the mantle from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama. It was the most stunning thing. I mean, I couldn't take my eyes off it. And I didn't have any time to sit there and watch TV, you know - we had a whole schedule. I just was mesmerized by it'."

If Nancy Pelosi truly feels as warm toward Obama and as cool toward Clinton as her statements suggest, voters in her home district could be very helpful in encouraging her to go with those feelings and endorse Obama now. It simply isn't good for one to keep feelings like that all bottled up inside. Sometimes one simply needs to throw caution to the wind and let those feelings out; and the best way of doing that, if one happens to be a superdelegate, is to make an endorsement right away. San Francisco voters who would like to help Speaker Pelosi in taking that brave step may refer to the contact page on her congressional website, including an online contact form, direct e-mail addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers of her Washington and San Francisco offices.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Nancy Pelosi Endorses Barack Obama (Almost)

Mark C. Eades — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:37:05 EST

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, pledged to remain neutral in the Democratic primary race, came as close as she could Monday to endorsing Barack Obama without actually doing it, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports. On the aftermath of the Kennedy Obama endorsement preceding Bush's final State of the Union address Monday, the Chronicle's Zachary Coile writes that:

"The buzz in the speaker's office Monday was not about Bush's address, but about Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy's fiery speech earlier endorsing Democrat Barack Obama.... 'Did you ever see anything like that?' asked Pelosi. 'Transferring the mantle from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama. It was the most stunning thing. I mean, I couldn't take my eyes off it. And I didn't have any time to sit there and watch TV, you know - we had a whole schedule. I just was mesmerized by it.' ...Pelosi is staying neutral in the presidential race, citing her role chairing the party's national convention. But she couldn't help being affected watching the endorsement because she grew up idolizing President Kennedy. 'That's my era,' she said."

As suggested in my previous post, I think we'll see more of this in the days to come.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Pelosi went to Syria

Mark (and I'm not sure about the former) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:53:25 EST

She did, sat down with the leader and everything. Even though the Shrub asked her not to. Actually managed a little foreign policy. Anyway, my point is if Pelosi went to Syria, where did Barack go? On his own? I mean he went to New Orleans with Hillary. I am sure he went other places with other people...but what about on his own? If the problems in Darfur are so important he could have gone. I am sure they would have welcomed him and given him safe passage. They might have even listened to him some...not sure, I don't know politically anything about what is going on in Darfur...except it's a talking point at times. But anyway, all these opportunities to show leadership and garner experience and what is Barack doing with them? More importantly, what has he done in a leadership role in America? Let me think about that one for a while!