Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:20 PM ET, 11/19/2010

Why does D.C. care so much more about Pelosi than about Reid?

By Ezra Klein

reidandpelosireax.JPG

For all the hubbub over the decision House Democrats made to keep Nancy Pelosi, there's been almost nothing said on the decision Senate Democrats made to keep Harry Reid. But what's the difference? Pelosi might be a bit more unpopular, but they're both pretty unpopular. And Pelosi is a lot less vulnerable in her district than Reid is in his state.

Another possible answer is that Democrats lost their majority in the House, but not in the Senate. But it's hard to give that explanation much credit, either: Senate Democrats would have lost the majority if all of them had been up for reelection. They hold the chamber because only a third of the Senate was up for election, not because Reid's forces were more popular than Pelosi's.

So what gives?

Photo credit: Jim Young/Reuters.

By Ezra Klein  | November 19, 2010; 5:20 PM ET
Categories:  2010 Midterms  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Commissions as stalling devices
Next: Reconciliation

Comments

Sexism. The ads slamming Pelosi trying to take out Giffords here in Arizona were just dripping with redneck sexism / male resentment.

Posted by: AZProgressive | November 19, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

No penis?

Posted by: citizenstx | November 19, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

A powerful female from San Francisco is much more frightening to the old white men who vote Republican than a quiet Mormon male from Nevada.

Sad, grim, pathetic

Posted by: saratogian | November 19, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Most of the Senators have not yet been informed that they lost the election. To do so would place their ancient arteriosclerotic hearts in danger of arrythmia.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 19, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"Another possible answer is that Democrats lost their majority in the House, but not in the Senate."

This is the correct answer. You don't resign for losing seats, just control of the chamber. As you have pointed out, the party of the President usually loses seats during off year elections.

Posted by: jnc4p | November 19, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

perhaps a part sexism, but also because Pelosi is much more successful than the reid in their respective jobs.

for example.. the house will vote on a middle class tax cut - because of pelosi

reid won't take a stand.

Posted by: newagent99 | November 19, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Simple--she's more exotic and more threatening, because she's a strong, successful woman. She's rich but still identifies with middle-class people and their aspirations, unlike most of the rest of the DC denizens, and calls them on their bs.

Posted by: Mimikatz | November 19, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

No penis, but lots more balls than the pathetic wimps who are criticizing her.

Posted by: guesswhosue | November 19, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I second all these emotions.

Posted by: scarlota | November 19, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, was your question "So what gives?" a genuine one? I am always astonished at what a huge blind spot otherwise brilliant men can have when it comes to sexism. My guess is that Annie could have answered that question for you readily!

Posted by: suehall | November 19, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Yep, here comes the encore of liberal morons. That must be why women voted Republican for the first midterm election in a long time.


It has to do with Pelosi being from San Francisco and carrying with her the entire repugnant liberal ideology.

Reid and heck, even Chuck Schumer, are not like that. Reid is gambling and mining, Schumer is banking, and of course, Pelosi is associated with the gays and the queers and the potheads and the rest of the San Francisco deviants.

I really laugh at her being more unpopular than Cheney.

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 19, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Sexism is the easy answer everyone is jumping to, but I don't think it's anywhere near the main factor. The real reason is because, as you point out, Democrats didn't lose control of the Senate. If Democrats had retained the majority in the House and lost it in the Senate, and kept both Pelosi and Reid, then I think all the talk would be about Reid. I don't think anyone would question the decision to keep Pelosi if Democrats hadn't lost the House, so I don't think the "sexism" reply makes much sense. In fact I think people are too quick to look for both sexism and racism in top-level politics where it really isn't a big factor.

The constant yelping in the presidential election campaign about how the most minor events supposedly constituted racism (against Obama) or sexism (against Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin) got pretty tiring.

Posted by: bigmandave | November 19, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I think these comments claiming sexism is the obvious answer actually does a major disservice to Pelosi's extraordinary list of accomplishments and the genuine trepidation many in the beltway fear towards her progressive agenda.

Aren't there still 420 bills passed by the House waiting for a Senate vote that will disappear into the ether thanks to Reid's inaction?

I wholeheartedly agree with Klein's premise that Reid is the one who should be controversial for his ineptitude, not Pelosi. After all, the fact that the Dem's still have a majority in the Senate occurred in spite of him, not because of anything he did.

Posted by: kiweagle | November 19, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and these 3 gems:

[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Pelosi said, "When I became speaker of the House ... our majority made PAYGO the rule of the House -- that if you wanted to have an investment, an entitlement, etc., you had to pay for it. There was no open-ended spending."

With the early returns and the overwhelming number of democrats who are coming out, we're on pace to maintain the majority in the House of Representatives,” Pelosi said. “We're very confident in our candidates and the message that they are delivering to preserve social security, to make it in America [and] to fight for the middle class.”

What a stupid woman.

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 19, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

She seems to address the public much more, and in a different way, than the retiring Reid. That, and her being from San Francisco, AND her being a poster child of conspicuous consumption (which Reid in no way is) have brought this upon her. With her insistence on a fancy jet, her extensive plastic surgery, her wealth and the suspicion that she has used her power to protect her own financial interests make her a bigger target than Reid ever could be. Maybe there's an element of sexism, but she has behaved in a way that makes her a target of public antagonism. This is not rocket science.

Posted by: truck1 | November 19, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't buy the claims that Harry Reid is "incompetent" either. Pelosi needed majorities to pass bills. Reid needed 60 senators. He managed to get 60 senators to vote for him on the stimulus, health care reform, financial reform, the Fair Pay Act and a whole bunch of other bills. I don't think there's many politicians who could have managed even that much; let alone also persuaded all the Blue Dogs to vote for cap and trade, or Lieberman to vote for a public option, or Republicans to vote for a path to citizenship for immigrants, etc.

Posted by: bigmandave | November 19, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

It's because she is a she. Hilary was the target too, for a woman having power. If you make her seem different than how others' think a woman should behave, then that taints all her actions and opinions as suspicious.

Posted by: ctown_woody | November 19, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

This sexism spiel doesn't make sense to me. Pelosi and Hillary were "targets" solely because they were "women with power"? Is Obama not a target? Was Bill Clinton not a target? There's no real difference in how they're treated. People just love to look for sexism whenever there's a woman involved in top-level politics, even when there's no real evidence for it.

Posted by: bigmandave | November 19, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

apparently, no matter how qualified you are and how well you do in comparison to the other person- it all comes down to whether or not you have a y-chromosome. Both left and right. Look at how MSNBC treats female candidates. The US will get out of the stone ages someday.

Posted by: NYClefty | November 19, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary , Pelosi , Michelle Obama , strong opinionated women ,, scary scary

Posted by: sligowoman | November 19, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"Pelosi is associated with the gays and the queers and the potheads and the rest of the San Francisco deviants."

That guy shows the real reason: she's an effective liberal. Yeah, there's some sexism but there's also some attitude that liberals have toward Tom Delay: they get things done. To conservatives, that's repugnant. To liberals, that's awesome (and very, very rare).

Posted by: Chris_ | November 19, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

bigmandave said, "This sexism spiel doesn't make sense to me. Pelosi and Hillary were 'targets' solely because they were 'women with power'? Is Obama not a target?"

Obama is an "African-American with power". Sexism is not the only prejudice out there, you know.

Posted by: suehall | November 19, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein doesn't say who is making a hubbub over the decision to keep Nancy Pelosi. Assuming it's conservatives, or people in the news business who take their cues from the right wing noise machine, I think Chris has it right. Conservatives would like Democrats to choose a less capable leader than Pelosi.

Posted by: KennethAlmquist | November 19, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

"Yep, here comes the encore of liberal morons. That must be why women voted Republican for the first midterm election in a long time."

Liberals are not moronic enough to get all their news from Newsmax. Among actual *news* organizations, it was reported that the female vote was split in this election, but *not* Republican:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8108163/Midterms-2010-Obama-coalition-collapses.html

Posted by: ciocia1 | November 19, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

"her insistence on a fancy jet"

Still pushing that lie, truckles? If you've invented a less "fancy" jet that passes security muster for the second in line to the presidency and can go non-stop from DC to California, then tell the world.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | November 20, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

"Still pushing that lie, truckles? If you've invented a less "fancy" jet that passes security muster for the second in line to the presidency and can go non-stop from DC to California, then tell the world.
"

God forbid that someone has to stop somewhere to refuel. What an inconvenience!

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 20, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

"Liberals are not moronic enough to get all their news from Newsmax. Among actual *news* organizations, it was reported that the female vote was split in this election, but *not* Republican:"

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1

CNN exit polls:

Female 49% Republican, 48% Democrat

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 20, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

The story is in the crazy misogyny directed towards female leaders. She was the first woman Speaker of the House--the highest office a woman has ever held. But that was never the story. There are more people satisfied seeing her lose that position. The good old boys won. But maybe that wasn't enough...maybe they wanted to see her completely knocked out of leadership.

The House passed *a lot* of bills. House Democrats were absolutely successful under Nancy Pelosi. It's the Senate that hasn't been able to keep up. They're backed up 400+ bills.

Posted by: GrrrlRomeo | November 20, 2010 2:26 AM | Report abuse

"CNN exit polls:

Female 49% Republican, 48% Democrat"

O.K., when you consider that there is an error rate within exit polls--and it is probably bigger than 1%--it essentially means...nothing. Thanks for playing:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_01/005483.php

Posted by: ciocia1 | November 20, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Ezra, is this post some kind of joke? The reason people are more concerned a bout Pelosi is that there has been a nationwide oropagabds campaign by the right to drum up ire about Pelosi, and DC journalists reflect the concerns of that right wing noise machine campaign. Seriously, that much is obvious. As to why they picked Pelosi instead of Reid? I assume republicans perceive that Pelosi is an "exotic" target-- shebhas a funny last name and is from a place that not many republicans have been to, as well as the fact that she's more threatening because she's effective.

Posted by: tyromania | November 20, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

gee, I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that she's a woman.

Posted by: willow8300 | November 20, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"O.K., when you consider that there is an error rate within exit polls--and it is probably bigger than 1%--it essentially means...nothing. Thanks for playing:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_01/005483.php"


So, naturally, we should round the results in your direction just because........

Whatever. The GOP did better among women than it has ever done in recent history.

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 20, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"That guy shows the real reason: she's an effective liberal. Yeah, there's some sexism but there's also some attitude that liberals have toward Tom Delay: they get things done. To conservatives, that's repugnant. To liberals, that's awesome (and very, very rare)."


Thanks for being smart enough to get it.


These are the boorish thugs who saddle us with Pelosi.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calif-protesters-beat-cop-with-his-baton-while-rallying-against-tuition-hikes/

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 20, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Sexism, augmented by her actually being capable and fairly consistently liberal. SATSQ.

Posted by: Bullsmith1 | November 20, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

It's simple: one word: COMPETENCY. Reid has been highly ineffective, Pelosi has been highly effective. The right hates competent women that's why they rally around Palin.

Posted by: EdFladung | November 20, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

krazen1211, you don't have to round a thing. The Repubs did better this year with women than they usually do,which is like being the world's tallest midget. But better than Democrats on the whole? Very debatable.

Posted by: ciocia1 | November 20, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"krazen1211, you don't have to round a thing. The Repubs did better this year with women than they usually do,which is like being the world's tallest midget. But better than Democrats on the whole? Very debatable."

If you say so. You're obviously going to believe what you want to believe regardless of the data.

What isn't really debatable, though, is that a bunch of the lefties automatically scream sexism or racism regardless of the facts, or how untrue it is.

I guess its fits the leftwing narrative that special people can't be criticized.

Obama won Burlington, Bucks and Delaware countries pretty heavily 2 years ago around here. Now that they tossed out the Democrats for Republicans, they must be racist.......yeah....


The funniest thing is that even if people ARE sexist, there's nothing the lefties can do about it except fire Nancy Pelosi, which they refused to do. Shrug.

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 20, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"It's simple: one word: COMPETENCY. Reid has been highly ineffective, Pelosi has been highly effective. The right hates competent women that's why they rally around Palin."

Kind of like Margaret Thatcher, right?

Posted by: krazen1211 | November 20, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The answer is.....the filibuster. Reid had one and Pelosi didn't, ergo Pelosi was able to pass a much more radical agenda than Reid was, pissing off a lot more people in the process.

Posted by: bgmma50 | November 20, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, what bgmma50 said (although "radical" is kind of in the eye of the beholder here). But the GOP just really, really, really hates Nancy Pelosi, mostly because she actually was really effective at passing the Democrats' agenda. So the fact that they still have to deal with her as minority leader despite their big win is really pissing them off. Personally I think that's a great reason for keeping her.

Posted by: NS12345 | November 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"God forbid that someone has to stop somewhere to refuel."

That'll be "the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Pentagon forbid", truckles.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

Now where's your bargain-basement transcontinental jet? Is it in the same place that Nancy Pelosi put your balls?

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | November 20, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

huh? These were taxpayer funded jets loaded with family members, friends and caviar. Snopes? Come on, why not quote Pravda? The problems with her go far beyond people's fear of a "strong woman" -- if there is such a fear. Why do you never, and I mean never, hear her name as a possible presidential or vice presidential candidate? She actually has more relevant experience than Clinton. It's because something about the way she carries herself in public makes her not able to be a national candidate.

Posted by: truck1 | November 20, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

"Snopes? Come on, why not quote Pravda?"

Why not quote what comes out of truckles' ass? Oh, he already did. Sorry you got pwn3d on that one.

"Why do you never, and I mean never, hear her name as a possible presidential or vice presidential candidate?"

Why do you never, and I mean never, hear Justice Scalia's name as a possible presidential or vice presidential candidate? Oh, I know -- it's because there are three branches of government, and it takes very different skills to get to the top of each one.

Really, truckles, you're embarrassing yourself now. Speakers rarely run for president: the last to be elected was James K. Polk. In 1845. The last to be VP was Cactus Jack Garner, of "bucket of warm piss" fame.

In recent history, the only one who's shown signs of running has been Gingrich: he's never got past the tease stage and probably never will. There's a reason for that beyond his sounding like Kermit the Frog.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | November 21, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

So people who get to the top of the legislative branch are not the same as those who rise to the top of the executive branch? Okay. Typically, a cabinet officer would be his party's nominee for president, per you?

Posted by: truck1 | November 21, 2010 6:50 AM | Report abuse

"So people who get to the top of the legislative branch are not the same as those who rise to the top of the executive branch?"

Stop wriggling. I've presented you with the facts, which show that precisely one former Speaker of the House was elected president, and that was 155 years ago. The last president to come from the House minority leadership was Ford, and I assume you know the route he took. If you actually buy into the American model of tripartite government, instead of pretending it's the French presidential system, this isn't a big shocker.

Who gets elected president? These days, mainly governors and VPs.

The reason no-one suggests Pelosi for national office is the same reason no-one suggested Denny Hastert or Tip O'Neill or Sam Rayburn for national office: it's an office that carries significant powers that aren't available to the presidency, and rewards different political talents. (Put simply: it's an up-to-the-elbows dirty job.)

The idea that it somehow reflects on Pelosi's character is absurd, and says a lot more about you than it does her.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | November 21, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"[Obama is a target because he] is an "African-American with power". Sexism is not the only prejudice out there, you know."

Isn't it funny, then, that Bill Clinton received almost identical treatment to Obama in his first few years? Same demonization over the push for health reform, same poll numbers, same midterm wipeout, same obstructionism and constant accusations of socialism. If anything I feel conservatives hated Clinton even more passionately back then than Obama now.

But no: obviously because he's black, it must be racism. Because Pelosi's a woman, it must be sexism. I find this line of thinking incredibly tiring. There are obviously some exceptions, but on the whole, it's not racism, and it's not sexism. Get over it.

Posted by: bigmandave | November 21, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Bigmandave,

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but there are a couple of studies using different methodologies that all seem to agree that racism has cost Obama a couple of points. http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/5/917.short is one example.

Posted by: DavidShor | November 21, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Probably Chris Matthews' is upset, he seems to be.

Nancy Pelosi is a fighter and the House passed many bills under her leadership; bills that did not pass in the Senate. Of course she had more Democratic members but she still had success and she is not afraid to fight for the public option and true liberal reform. Liberal reform meaning reform for the whole of the nation and not just the part.

Posted by: wdsoulplane | November 21, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Ezra -

Where have you been and how young are you?

Re: 'Why does D.C. care so much more about Pelosi than about Reid?'

Nancy Pelosi is a woman.

Posted by: abmcc | November 21, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

America Supports Hypocrisy in the White House!

1. Obama talks, talks and talks but can not lead by example and the public lives with Obama’s hypocrisy.
2. Obama’s stance of automobiles – go green using fuel efficient electric or hybrid while riding around in a belchfire gas guzzling V-8 Cadillac SUV.
3. Obama’s stance on religion – loves them all Muslims, Jews and Christians whereas the reality is he snubs Jewish leaders, bows down to muslim leaders and expects Christian to turn the other cheek to his incessant lying and failure to fulfill a single campaign promise.
4. Is opposed to smoking for health reasons but continues to set a negative example by lighting up!
5. States he “feels the pain of air travelers confused and frustrated with the TSA lack of consistency and immorality whereas he and the “WH dinner crashers” do not go through any security checks.
6. Believes muslims are a fun loving, caring faith while he tolerates a muslim terrorist shoots and murders a total of 31 unarmed soldiers at Ft. Hood and a country protecting terrorist whole almost sunk and I billion dollar missile ship, the U.S.S. Cole; trains terrorists and persists in packing toner cartridges with syntax hoping to blow up UPS jets.
7. He states he want to crack down on lobbyists while hiring and appointing lobbyist like Axelrod into the Obama administration.
8. He wants to crack down on Wall Street while accepting campaign donations from Wall Street.
9. He wants to “gets tough” with insurance companies while accepting campaign donations for AARP and United Healthcare.
10. He Uses a teleprompter, audio visuals for his speeches and presentations but says the public failed to get the message form him and hence the House lost their majority to the opposition GOP.
11. Obama talks racial diversity but uses offensive analogies like the GOP should be “riding in the back” or “punished”. These are analogies that are very meaningful to the blue collared tax payer black community of America.

At a time when America needed a commander in chief but after the election of 2008 it has been clear that America got a “Hypocrite in Chief” instead.

Posted by: Templeton62 | November 21, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

She's a woman. He's a man.

Posted by: bloomingpol | November 22, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a STRONG, in-your-face, left-leaning, extremely effective legislator/politician, who just happens to also be a woman! She is above all else a darn good LEADER!

Historically, those opposing the agenda of any group, party, or organization will seek to undermine it via maligning, re-defining, and otherwise assaulting the character of its LEADERS!

Such has been the unyielding, monied focus of those on the right toward Rep. Pelosi.

Is it sexism? Many recoil and feign offense these days that any of the 'isms' are even mentioned. They claim that none of these 'isms' (sexism, racism, etc.) are extant. They can't be; we are post all of that stuff! Sure, and if you really believe that, I would like to sell you a "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska!

Here is a clue. If you spend tremendous time, money, and energy promulgating half-truths and demagoguery; attempting to engender hatred toward others who are "not one of us" or "not like you and me"; then there is a good chance that one of the 'isms' is at work. At the core, we are hating people because they look, act, think, or believe diffently than the rest of us. That is _ _ _ ism!

There is a huge difference between disagreeing and hating! From what I have seen these past few years, there are people in this country who HATE Rep. Pelosi, President Obama, the Clintons, President George Bush, Rep. Barney Frank, and the list goes on and on. Sadly, we have not 'overcome'!

Sadder still, we are stuck in this mire of internal hatred and fighting, while the rest of the world is moving past us into the 21st century!

Posted by: Eatmore41 | November 22, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

As I've posted else where, the decision by the Republican Noise Machine to demonize Ms.Pelosi was made some time ago: in '05, my wingnut brother from Florida was going on about the horrors that would occur if the Democrats took the House: among them, "Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker!" When I asked why this was bad, what in her legislative record made this significant, he couldn't tell me, it was just that Rush and Neil and Foxnoose had told him she was a "bad San Francisco librul!" A powerful woman! With legislative skills! The right radio media was Pelosi hating well before the '04 election.
I have to give it to the right: they play a long game, and she came into office with a cohort of rightwing voters already hating her.
It's similar to the hate the President gets: it's hatred of the right's imaginary propaganda Obama, "arrogant, socialist, unChristian", who has only a passing resemblance to the guy who is actually in the Oval office. They have made Nancy Pelosi a symbol (not unlike Mrs. Clinton was) of the things they hate. The real woman is of secondary importance.
I just can't see the Dems doing this sort of propaganda attack on Denny Hastert. They ought to on future Speaker Boehner, but they just don't roll that way.

Posted by: mrbill30560 | November 22, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Because Pelosi got an awful lot done and Reid barely managed to pass anything. That's because the House actually governs whereas the Senate is where government goes to die.

Posted by: wd1214 | November 22, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Democrats want something lacking on their side of the aisle, and also lacking in the administration: brass balls.

Posted by: tmd678 | November 22, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

As far as I'm concerned, keep them both. They were around for the initial crumbling of their lead in both houses. They might as well be around for the collapse. In fact, they will be primary reasons for its collapse.

And if Hillary doesn't run, the GOP will have a resident back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January 2013.

Posted by: buggerianpaisley1 | November 22, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Maybe it's because Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency and only second in line to the Vice Presidency.

Posted by: WriterDude | November 22, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

History has shown, when the Repub party is serious about attacking a successful Demo POLICY or PROPOSAL, they always have focused their efforts by personally attacking the most successful individuals that represents the policy.

Since the 2008 election, the Repubs have again personalize their fight and they have spent the last two years attacking both Obama and Pelosi. Their simple position is to just SAY NO TO EVERYTHING.

The Repubs and their supporters on talk radio and network TV have attacked Obama and Pelosi every day-24/7-on every issue possible again-and if there is not a issue that the voters can identify with-the Repubs and their supporter just make one up.

Let us not forget, Obama won the election by the largest margin in history, and his votes pulled in tons of new and old Demos and gained a super major majority of voters white and new black.

Pelosi was elected by the one of, if not the greatest majorities for a House member by gettin over 70% of the votes in one of the most liberal regions of the country.

As soon as it was clear that Obama was going to be unlike most Presidents and tackle several of the countries most serious problems that affect the majority of Americans, the Repubs started attacking him by not only challenging his efforts, but by also spinning lies about him personally that he is "un American", he is not a citizen and should not be President, he "wants to destroy America"-"his health care plan will kill Grandma"-their BS is on every lie is a mile wide and a foot thick.

In the meantime, it is widly recongized in the political world that Pelosi has been the most powerful and effective Speaker in many years.

In addition, she is totally unlike several of the former Repubs leaders, in that she is "not for sale" to special interest groups. She proved that she would be more likely to represent a specific issue that the public needs rather than accepting financial support from special interst groups who were opposed to the changes the she supported.

As soon as she started getting historic legislation passed, the Repub labeled her as a "wild left wing commie extremist" and have attacked her from every direction on a 24/7 daily basis.

History has shown that the Repub view is "when the opposition is successful, we must do anything to DESTROY them".

One only has to read many of the comments responding to this article and see the amount of totally incorrect facts, out right lies, and personalized hate to see what problems this county is currently facing.

Oh yes, there is one more reason that the Repubs what to make Obama a one term President...in case one has not notice..President Obama the first African American (BLACK) President...and while the Repubs claim this is not an issue..and they now have a Black leader of the Repub party--which, by the way-they are also now trying to make a one term leader.

One can count the number of Black Repubs in ALL OF CONGRESS on one hand...(2)

Posted by: meyer390 | November 22, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Seems that Speaker Pelosi is more effective than her spineless Senate counterpart Harry Reid so, she must be made into a boogie woman. Pelosi is doing all she can to forward that voter initiated radical 'Obama agenda' and she has been damned successful at it; therefore, she must be stopped.

Posted by: noland_abc | November 22, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company