Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
How does the Netroots rank Speaker Pelosi’s job performance?
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, December 23, 2007

Well, it can neatly be summed up by saying George Bush wouldn't trade his rating with them for hers. I've been watching a little poll over at the Daily Kos on one of the diary pages, and while it didn't get a huge number of votes, those it did get were fairly telling in their distribution:

And this seems to fairly sum up the feeling of those who voted:
Shame on you, Madam Speaker. Your failures far outweigh your successes. If you had a shred of decency left, a sense of honor, an understanding of your constitutional duties, you would resign the speakership immediately. You would allow someone, anyone, with a spine, a sense of reality, and an urgent goal (to fix our nation) take over for you. You have been measured, Ms. Pelosi, and you have been found wanting.
Of course, you won't hear any of that from Ms. Pelosi, who, this week was touting the successes of the "New Direction Congress".

Down is a direction, right?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Sheesh. I wonder if independents could give her worse marks? At least GWB polls fairly well with us wingnuts.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
No explicit constitutional duty is written in that document for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, although that the Speaker should serve as presiding officer of that chamber is implied. So far as I know, Representative Pelosi has at least sometimes fulfilled the task of presiding over the House of Representatives, so I cannot guess what constitutional duties that the person who wrote that is referring to.

No doubt it is one conveniently scrawled in one of the penumbrae of the document.
 
Written By: Paludicola
URL: http://www.vikinghats.com
so I cannot guess what constitutional duties that the person who wrote that is referring to.
Those would be the duties spelled out in the missing part of the Constitution... You know, the part where Congress is incharge of the military, and you can impeach the Speaker...

I’m cheered by the factthat they are so damned stupid thatthey won’t be able to find their local poling place...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
She’s done a decent job with the hand she’s been dealt. The Senate Republicans filibuster anything to do with the war and any major legislation, and she’s handling a party that has no clear consensus on a variety of issues. For a first term, she’s certainly on par with any recent speakers.

The problem isn’t the Speaker or the President, both of whom get failing marks from a lot of the electorate. The problem is a political system that is starting to fail due to essentially two parties each embracing big government, though in different forms and styles. Also, I think the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties (debt has increased from when Bush took office from about $5.8 trillion to over $9 trillion) is going to have ramifications I think people don’t quite comprehend. The level of denial is great — in both parties. The Democrats speak of new government programs (as do many Republicans) and other Republicans want dismiss all the spending of money on wars/military power, and even talk about bombing Iran, which could lead to a closing of the straights of Hormuz or an intensification of violence in Iraq.

Here’s some reading that can sober up your holiday cheer.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Bush is the widely hated, lame-duck president of a divided country and in a party with a disappointed base, and fighting a difficult war, yet he’s got a lot more to show—a strong economy and a big shift in Iraq—at the end of this year than Pelosi, who came into her leadership with majorities in the House and Senate and all the momentum of the 2006 electoral turn-around.

No one forced Pelosi to make the unrealistic declarations about all the measures the Democrats would push through and their squeaky clean leadership. No one forced her to wear a scarf and visit Assad, undercutting American foreign policy. No one forced her and other Democrats to embrace losing in Iraq and push through vote after congressional vote that would fail.

I have mixed feelings about Bush’s leadership, yet he finished much stronger than I would have thought last January. It seems to me that Bush found ways to succeed in spite of the limitations he had to work with. The same cannot be said of Pelosi.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — Military action always makes the present and near-term worse. The deaths, casualties, destruction, economic hardships and unknown risks that military actions bring are no sane person’s idea of a good thing. Military action only makes sense in the context of defeating or deterring a greater evil and thereby making the future better. It’s a difficult calculation and since we are limited as humans, it’s often not clear—even with hindsight—whether it was right thing to do.

This insight is usually missing from your posts. As you say, bombing Iran would cause economic problems as well as human suffering. That’s obvious to most of us here. The question is whether it would be worth it in the long run to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That’s a tough question. No doubt you assess it differently than most Republicans, but that’s the issue in this case, not denial.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://

I have mixed feelings about Bush’s leadership, yet he finished much stronger than I would have thought last January. It seems to me that Bush found ways to succeed in spite of the limitations he had to work with. The same cannot be said of Pelosi.
Bush has been in office seven years, Pelosi one. I think that has to be taken into account in making comparisons like that. In fact, most leaders and many people in many jobs take more than a year to really catch on, and being Speaker of a an unruly party with a Senate blocking a lot of action isn’t easy!
Military action always makes the present and near-term worse. The deaths, casualties, destruction, economic hardships and unknown risks that military actions bring are no sane person’s idea of a good thing. Military action only makes sense in the context of defeating or deterring a greater evil and thereby making the future better. It’s a difficult calculation and since we are limited as humans, it’s often not clear—even with hindsight—whether it was right thing to do.
I think too often people abstract away the suffering of ’normal’ people and don’t take that into account as much as they should. This is especially a problem in the case of choosing to aggressively use military power to deal with a possible future threat — t a lot of people magnify scenarios so that fear drives policy more than rationality. Iran with a nuclear weapon will be in a more powerful position. But at the same time, it’s not clear they are on their way to making one, and it is true that deterrence has shown itself to be effective in limiting the use of nuclear weapons. So at what point does an imagined set of possibilities of worst case scenarios trump the very real damage going to war will do? And what if we’re wrong and it turns out the attack and the damage done was unnecessary?

Given that wars now kill more civilians than soldiers, and cost in lives is immense, I don’t view war as simply a policy option, but see it as an ultima ratio, the last resort to defend someone from aggression, or stop a clear and imminent threat.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Bush has been in office seven years, Pelosi one. I think that has to be taken into account in making comparisons like that
Well, then, let’s compare Pelosi’s performance against Bush’s in his first year. Again, a no-brainer. I don’t believe that all Dem leaders are necessarily poor, but I do think that’s the case with Pelosi (and Reid for that matter).
Given that wars now kill more civilians than soldiers, and cost in lives is immense, I don’t view war as simply a policy option, but see it as an ultima ratio, the last resort to defend someone from aggression, or stop a clear and imminent threat.
I don’t take war lightly either. However, while "last resort" sounds good and "ultima ratio" even better, it remains vague.

As far as I’m concerned the Iraq War was the last resort to Hussein’s continued non-compliance with the Gulf War cease-fire, umpteen UN resolutions, his continued aggression against his own people and his ongoing support for terrorism. Again, you draw those lines in different places while imagining that you have some qualitatively different and superior approach, and are more compassionate to boot. I don’t think so.

Imagine all the human lives that could have been saved by an earlier, sharper military response to Nazi aggression in the Thirties.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
As to the human costs in Iraq you keep going on about as though you were the only who cares, I refer again to the fact that the Iraqis have consistently supported the Iraq War as worth their suffering. It’s complex picture, and you only point to the negative, while discounting anything positive. Here’s a tidy summation from another professor, in this case a former liberal.
The take-home story is this:

1. The 20 million recently liberated Iraqis (the Kurds and Shiites) believe that their liberation from tyranny has been worth the cost. Nearly 80% hold that view.

2. The Sunnis and Shiites do not like us at all, they believe in conspiracy theories like American liberals do, they support attacks against us, and they want us to leave (and this has been true all along).

3. Iraqis across the board despise terrorism in general and al Qaeda in particular.

4. The large majority of the Iraqi people embrace democracy despite the on-going violence.
—Backtalk

 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
As far as I’m concerned the Iraq War was the last resort to Hussein’s continued non-compliance with the Gulf War cease-fire, umpteen UN resolutions, his continued aggression against his own people and his ongoing support for terrorism. Again, you draw those lines in different places while imagining that you have some qualitatively different and superior approach, and are more compassionate to boot. I don’t think so.
That wasn’t the view of the UN Security Council, who should have been given the power to decide in this case. I don’t think alleged violations of a treaty justifies the massive violence unleashed. Without a Security Council decision (and while the Bush Administration tried to claim that passed resolutions allowed their actions, the other Security Council members vociferously deny this, as do almost all scholars of international law), it’s just opinion.

I also don’t believe the figures you give that say "liberation" is worth the cost of the last five years. As you note, the polls also show intense anti-Americanism amongst the Iraqis who want us out of there (and though what you cite tries to blame ’conspiracy theories,’ they have good reason to hate us, they have been treated often like dirt, with massive civilian causulties). I think they’d have been happier if we’d just gotten rid of Saddam and left, rather than try to shape them into something they never were going to become anyway.

But I’ll take as good news the emerging "Iraq syndrome." The public isn’t going to let the government do anything like this again anytime soon! We’ve learned a lesson the hard way. Trying to shape political outcomes or "reshape the Mideast" with military force is not possible. I just hope this lesson in humility doesn’t come at too high a cost.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Well, we’re getting closer to the point—which is that we are talking about your opinions versus my opinions, rather than some moral and intellectual high ground that you and many anti-war folks presume to own.

However, it is a fact—whether you believe it or not—that a clear majority of Iraqis has consistently agreed that the war has been worth the cost.

And, no, of course it’s not a simple story, but life usually doesn’t present us with the option of having everything exactly as you, me, Americans or Iraqis want. Iraqis are better off than they were under Hussein and they know it—that’s the main thing. Would you prefer Iraqis to continue under the psychopathic rule of Hussein and his sons?

As to "massive civilian casualties"—how many do you think, how many killed by us and compared to what? WWII? the Iran-Iraq War?

As to how this story turns out, none of us know. I put no stock in your omniscience as to the "Iraq Syndrome" or that this is a lesson in humility, and blah, blah, blah. Again, those are your opinions, not reality.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Well, we’re getting closer to the point—which is that we are talking about your opinions versus my opinions, rather than some moral and intellectual high ground that you and many anti-war folks presume to own.
Of course it’s about opinions, and what evidence and arguments back up opinions. Don’t read things into my posts that aren’t there. And it is irrelevant if you don’t believe my opinions are reality. I believe they are, and I’m convinced reality will force you to either accept that, or find excuses (the media fooled the people, betrayed America, yada yada yada).

Iraqi Shi’ites in some polls will say the war was worth getting rid of Saddam — they hated Saddam. It’s not at all clear that they support what’s happened afterwards with continued US military policy, nor is it clear why our analysis of the choice to go to war should care a whit about what Iraqi polls might show (and there are reasons to doubt the validity of such polls). You judge foreign policy analysis in terms of our national interest — and we’ve been hurt immensely by the war, it’s diminished America’s power and status in the world. I don’t think very many people would even try to deny that.

If we had attacked South Africa in 1980 and overthrown the apartheid regime most blacks there would have said it was worth it, regardless of the cost to them or us. But, obviously, that would not have been a good policy.

Massive civilian causalties compared to what would have been otherwise. Just finding different wars that had more isn’t very persausive. Tens of thousands, perhaps even 100,000 is a massive number of dead people!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider