Republicans Will Take Care Of Pelosi

It seems that all of the sudden Nancy Pelosi is not popular with many Democrats, especially those who voted with her nearly all the time. While these Democrats were busy playing the game and allowing Pelosi to lead them around by the nose, their constituents began to pay attention. These people supported the out-of-touch Speaker and they will pay for it. They learned too late that she is in a safe seat and will be reelected. She is so certain of reelection that she will not debate her opponent because “time is money” (and her time in charge has cost us plenty).

I wrote before about Democrats claiming to vote with the GOP more than their party and told you that a Republican would give you a better percentage so vote out the Democrat. Now those Democrats are going one step further and saying that if they are reelected they will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker. This position assumes several things. First, that Democrats are going to keep control of the House. That is not going to happen. Second, that we trust them to do what they say. And third, that their votes would make a difference in selection of the Speaker.

I want to ease the minds of these Democrats who are trying to be more and more conservative in order to win. Do not worry about not voting for Pelosi as Speaker because the voters are going to fire her from that job.

So, just like I said we did not need you if your claim to fame is that you voted more with the GOP than your own party, we do not need you to get rid of Pelosi.

We are going to get rid of that pip-squeak, military plane and tax payer abusing progressive jackass ourselves.

So, looks like we don’t need you folks for this one either.

Perhaps you should have been listening to your constituents. If you had, they might be interested in listening to you.

It must be a terrible feeling to know that their blind faith in Pelosi and Obama is going to cost them their jobs. I wonder why they bit the bullet for Obama when they knew it would be political suicide.

No matter, they swallowed the cyanide, now let them die.

Next time maybe politicians will listen to the people they represent rather than the guy who is not on the ballot (and who does not care about them).

Related

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

10 Responses to “Republicans Will Take Care Of Pelosi”

  1. Adam says:

    “It must be a terrible feeling to know that their blind faith in Pelosi and Obama is going to cost them their jobs.”

    You’ve said things like this before but you can’t seem to back it up with anything substantial. What we see is an anti-Incumbent sentiment driven by high unemployment and an economy in a deep hole. How would listening to constituents change that?

    As far as taking care of Pelosi the odds are certainly in favor of that. Most polling groups predict around a 50 seat gain for the GOP but they still hedge a little because of so much uncertainty surrounding the conditions that have put so many seats in play. The GOP could fall short completely or they could win 70 seats. I think at this point the best Dems can hope for is only a slim majority for the GOP.

    When the smoke clears and the drinking stops a lot of voters are going to sober up to the fact that they just voted back in the very same people that failed miserably to lead just a couple of years ago.

    Clearly the voters giveth and taketh away. I’m still not sure why some are so concerned with term limits. The last 10 years have not been a very good decade for a career in Congress.

    • Big Dog says:

      No, I back it up with things you don’t seem to think are substantial.

      Try this

      Anti incumbent does not usually lead to this big a change in the number of seats (if it actually happens). The people who failed miserably were the ones who took over in 2007. Before that the economy was in fairly good shape and Republicans were warning about Fannie and Freddie while the Democrats were defending them as sound.

      Funny, when Republicans were swept out in the last two elections you and your peeps said it was a mandate and a statement on their failures (not untrue statements). Now that Democrats are set to be bounced it is not a mandate or a statement on their failures, it is the inability of the electorate to see what is good for them (indicated by your assertion “When the smoke clears and the drinking stops a lot of voters are going to sober up to the fact that they just voted back in the very same people that failed miserably to lead just a couple of years ago.”)

      How elitist of you…

    • Big Dog says:

      Here is another interesting point of view.

      And constituents did not want the stimulus. Listening to them might have been beneficial.

      But I get it. The country is rational when it elects Democrats and puts a community organizer with no experience in office. It is irrational when Republicans are elected and G-d forbid we want to elect someone with experience…

  2. Adam says:

    It’s not that I think the public loves everything Democrats do or have done lately. They don’t. But I find it disingenuous to suggest that in a year when even Republicans are being replaced in their primaries by new Republicans that the deciding factor against Democratic troubles is that they voted for Democratic policies.

    That is certainly true in certain seats but we’re talking a handful out of the 70 or 80 seats in play that typically wouldn’t be. There’s a larger factor at work and it’s easy to see that it goes well beyond voting with Pelosi on stimulus or healthcare.

    As far as my suggestion of GOP failures, I think 2006 was absolutely a statement of GOP failure.

    I used to think that about 2008 but that was just partisan excitement. I think 2008 was just the first wave of what we see starting again in 2010. A little leftover resentment from 2006 but a healthy dose of anti-incumbent sentiment. It put Democrats in power and it will most likely take them out of power.

    “How elitist of you…”

    Here we have a party that hates government and the members spend all their time working to be elected to seats of power so they can stop government from functioning. Then when they manage to mess everything up they say “See, see! Government can do NOTHING right!” I’m sorry if I can’t find it in myself to think it’s a good idea for the public to elect these people.

    • Big Dog says:

      When you start with a false premise all else is wrong. The people that do not hate government, they want a much smaller government. It is valid to point out that those who were in office before ran on being small government and then expanded it. That is the punishment voters handed out. The Republicans who have lost primaries fall into that category. The voters deemed them to be big government Republicans and replaced them with people they believe will work at making government smaller.

      The other false premise, of course, is that they messed everything up. The problems showed after Democrats took control (though I think they were decades in the making). The whole thing unraveled with Democrats in charge. Those are the folks who can’t make government work (except for the unions and other special interests).

      To rephrase your last paragraph turning it to your party:
      We have a party that hates America and the members spend all their time trying to be elected to seats of power so they can fundamentally transform America into a Socialist nation. Then when they manage to get elected on their platform of lies and push us toward Socialism and their plans are opposed by the majority of people, they scream See, See, we are not trying to be Socialists but America needs to change and you people are too stupid to understand how wonderful the things we are doing really are. I am sorry if I can’t find it in myself to think it is a good idea to keep these people in office or to elect any more of them…

      Yes, Democrat troubles are because they voted for the policies that the majority did not want. You have lots of Democrats elected in red states who pretended to be middle or center right when they ran and were swept in. Now the conservatives in those areas are not happy with the votes of the supposed blue dogs and will make them pay for pretending to be what they are not.

    • Big Dog says:

      The small number in play would be those that are part of anti incumbent fever.

  3. Adam says:

    “We have a party that hates America and the members spend all their time trying to be elected to seats of power so they can fundamentally transform America into a Socialist nation.”

    It would be similar if it were even close to true. Progressives aren’t socialists any more than conservatives are fascists. On the other hand my suggestion that the GOP wants to grind the government to a halt is in their statements this election cycle.

    The Democrats ran on the things they have passed and now you want to pretend people who voted for them expected something different. There’s only one party that dupes it’s supporters into voting over gay marriage, abortion, religious values, more freedom, smaller deficits, less spending…and gets into office and manages none of those things.

    • Big Dog says:

      Right, so the polls showing huge numbers of Democrats who say this is not what they voted for are wrong.

      The Democrats did not pass what they said. They ran on one thing and then passed another. Obama pushed through health care with a mandate and in the debates he said he was opposed to them. To state that he did what he said is fiction.

      He said one thing and did another which is true of many politicians so don’t act like your party is a pure as the driven snow.

      • Adam says:

        “Right, so the polls showing huge numbers of Democrats who say this is not what they voted for are wrong.”

        I welcome links to the polls you’re talking about. That’s not a combative statement though, just a request for more info.

        “Obama pushed through health care with a mandate and in the debates he said he was opposed to them.”

        The President doesn’t get the perfect piece of legislation from Congress every time. This is a good example of that. What about the Democrats in Congress? Did they run against a mandate?

        “…so don’t act like your party is a pure as the driven snow.”

        I don’t think the party is pure and it could use a lot more spine now and again but in general there isn’t a large list of issues the Democrats ran on in the last 2 major elections that they didn’t at least try their best to accomplish.

        • Big Dog says:

          Here is an article that references one of the polls (I am looking for the poll) and here is one of the things it says:

          While no president can be expected to fully rally his supporters when he’s not on the ballot, the survey illustrates the wide scope of Obama voters’ disappointment with the president and his policies almost halfway through his first term — and two years before he’s likely to seek their backing again. [emphasis mine]