The woman who would be speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has oddly stayed out of the national spotlight in the week leading up to the big vote. The high profile, potentially history-making democrat has turned dramatically low-key. The last photo of vanishing Pelosi on the wires was from an October 21 fundraiser.And since Pelosi appeared on the October 22 broadcast of 60 MINUTES, national TV hits have been nonexistent.A source close to the congresswoman explains she has been busy behind the scenes. Pelosi made a brief appearance with Bill Clinton this week in San Fransisco.Developing...
What do you think?
I'll tell you my opinion later
Friday, November 03, 2006
WHERE'S NANCY?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Seems like many Republics, Drudge has his head up his ass and that's where he's getting this stuff.
Nancy Pelosi appeared in San Francisco on Wednesday with Bill Clinton appearing on television. Also yesterday, CNN aired a feature interview with Pelosi.
Here's a link to what Jim's talking about.
You gotta stop reading Drudge, Game. Really.
OK, Game should have said virtually nonexistent.
Wow, an appearance in San Francisco (her own district), that’s really showing some backbone. As far as the “feature interview” on CNN, I could find nothing on CNN’s site; I wonder what time of day the interview was shown? I’m sure it must have been in prime time and there were tens of millions that saw the interview ;-)
I wonder how many appearances she’s made in the so-called swing districts. I wonder how many Dem candidates from those districts aligned themselves with Nancy.
Jim & Jay, I think you know the validity of the point being made. The Dems are not capable of winning a majority unless they pretend to be something they’re not. The only reason Repubs win is because they’re slightly more conservative than Dems.
So ya see, it’s a win – win situation for conservatives this election. If the Repubs retain the majority, then we know that most voters weren’t fooled. If the pseudo conservative Dems gain the majority then we know conservatives have the winning philosophy.
Damn it must suck to be liberal!
Yeah and Denny Hastert is where?
We all know Pelosi is the boogeywoman. Republics should be worried.
Pelosi and Reid aren't showing their faces in the South or in any place where there is a close race. They don't want to focus the voters on their Liberalism and fringe ideas.
Jay and Jim, you both are far left of center.
pcd is EXACTLY correct...
you don't want people to remember how far left these people are...but I am reminding everyone that reads the story above in the blog
Game, you are such an incredible, inveterate liar. Don't you remember what we talked about the other day? Pelosi's "100 Hours" agenda is enormously popular with the American people. The suggestion that she is somehow far out of the mainstream does not correspond to reality.
And, pcd, you have no credibility on any issue.
More Pelosi non-appearance appearances.
OK. I looked at it. I even went to Kos to do so. Now that I've showered, all I can say is, it must be quite a fantasy world you're talking about Jay. I could believe that the agenda is enormously popular with libs, but clear thinking people wouldn't give it the time of day.
BTW, what does a lobbyist do, but appeal to legislators to see things on behalf of the people the lobbyist represents? If you kick out all those who lobby for a living, what you'd have then is someone who would perform the same task in a slightly different way. The concept of someone representing a group of like-minded people, be they business owners or victims of a disease, is what lobbying is all about. It is completely stupid to suppose that the problem lies with the lobbyist rather than with the lobbied. If I go to a congressman or senator with a bag of cash in order to persuade him to vote on behalf of the AIDs babies I represent, it is the politician you should be worried about. But if you jail me, someone else will step up to try to persuade the guy where me and my cash couldn't. Just another example of libs thinking backward.
And of course her economic ideas are the typical Democratic head-up-ass stuff we've grown to expect from them. The economy is rolling (new report on unemployment numbers looks great) and she, like most Dems/libs, want to reverse all that got us here. Yeah. Smart.
I don't know what's more stupid: Dem politicians, or the people who vote for them.
Well with Pelosi's economic ideas maybe she can do better than double the national debt in six years.
Of course Bush can force a good economy by charging 4 trillion dollars to your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. I know they will thank you and Bush for it.
The economy has expanded as well, Jim. If you make an extra 200K per year and buy a new house, your debt went up as well. But the added income means that the debt is handled. Anyone who doesn't like you can say that your debt has risen, and by withholding the part about your raise, can make it seem like your incapable of handling your money. That's what lefties like yourself are doing with the national debt.
Now I won't argue that the feds need to stop spending so much of our dough, but there's no way that I would expect any spending reductions from YOUR guys. Instead, they'll reverse that which caused the expansion, the tax cuts, and choke productivity, and in order to handle the debt, they'll raise taxes even more, since they've caused revenues to fall. The effect would be a shrinking revenue base to pay off the debt and spending will go on. No thank you.
When I get a raise and buy a bigger house, my debt goes up, but I have a house.
Where's America's house? In Iraq?
The house is all the things that politicians tack onto every freakin' bill they pass. It's hardly the point however. If you want to complain about the debt being bigger, you can't do it as if there's no other side of the coin. If you want to talk about what the money is spent on, that's another topic. Just how long do you think it would take for us to go back and forth about needless spending by each other's party? Let's just agree the spending is too much and things would be even rosier if there was less of it. Don't even try to suggest that Dems don't have a ton of needless crap on which they're just dying to spend your money.
Post a Comment