Pelosi to Americans: you’ll take your health care reform medicine, orally or otherwise
This Politico piece calls Nancy Pelosi “one of the strongest speakers in modern history.” I suppose that depends on what you mean by the word “strong.” If you’re thinking Nurse Ratched strong rather than the greater strength that comes from wisdom and integrity, I suppose you’d be right.
The article goes on to call Pelosi “an authoritarian figure,” and I would be the last one to argue with that. But when it states that, as far as the voting public goes, “The electoral winds that were at Pelosi’s back in the past two cycles thanks to having George W. Bush in the White House are blowing this year in Democrats’ faces,” I almost had to laugh at the notion that the change represents some arbitrary weather fluctuation.
On the contrary. It’s not that those winds have suddenly and inexplicably reversed direction. It’s that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have stopped walking with them, and instead have turned to face the other way to walk against the prevailing winds of public opinion. And then they’ve spit at the American voters. And you know what happens when you spit into the wind.
But that’s for the next election cycle. What will happen in the meantime on health care reform? Reconciliation, of course; but is it a bluff? Can Republicans stall the process effectively by amendments? Would reconciliation only apply to budgetary elements of the bill rather than the whole?
No one really knows, because are in unexplored territory here, and rightly so. Never before has a major bill that affects every American so deeply and personally (and threatens to destroy the economy rather than fix it) been pushed through against the will of the American people, not only lacking bipartisan support, but lacking the support of some of the majority party as well. The Democratic leadership has now given up on convincing moderate Republicans to cross over; their goal now is to get enough moderate Democrats on board to pass this unwanted monstrosity, through any means they can devise.
But reconciliation is only for the Senate. Will there be enough votes in the House under Nurse Pelosi to force Americans to take their medicine? The answer seems to be “not yet, but maybe,” despite public expressions of near-certainty that the votes are there. Is this bravado? Or, as the Politico article states, will Pelosi somehow muster those votes because of her legendary ruthlessness and iron control? As one unnamed “Democratic insider” is quoted as saying (and this was meant to be some sort of compliment), “[Pelosi] will put a bullet in the head of anyone she needs to.” Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Yesterday Nancy Pelosi made two revealing statements. Here’s the first, a prime example of the trademark Pelosi wit and wisdom:
[Republicans have] had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”
Orwell, anyone?
The second came just after her assertion that Democrats in Congress should commit political suicide in order to pass Obamacare. Pelosi then added, “We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress, we’re here to do the job for the American people.”
So, even if the American people will throw the Democrats out of office for this vote, the politicians are nobly sacrificing themselves. Doing the job for the American people? Or to the American people? I can think of no better example of power-hungry condescension and contempt, masquerading as platitudinous solicitude.
Except, perhaps, for this:
If Mr. McMurphy doesn’t want to take his medication orally, I’m sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don’t think that he would like it.
[ADDENDUM: Some detailed speculation on how the votes might be accomplished—or not.]
Thank you Neo, Nancy P as Nurse Ratched is priceless!!!
Oh- I was thinking of Nurse Diesel.
the progressive caucus is fighting for social justice… and social justice and all that is part of an ideology that we are not allowed to consider
Social Justice, the New Feudal Capitalism
http://mainstreetradical.com/2010/02/26/social-justice-the-new-feudal-capitialism/
To not understand that Pelosi is the senschal of the castle and that she is and sees herself as such for our new feudal state is clear. but how many have taken the time to just list and crosslist the memberships to things in which there can be no loyalties to the people, if she serves so many and with their ideas requirign antithetical acceptance.
Social justice is a tool that will cross international boarders and allow for a world that is committed not to individual freedom but rather to a sustainable global socialism, if such an economy is even possible. What is possible, however, is that through increased “cooperation” with international bodies, the administration can tout their open and engaging foreign policy while at the same time using international pressure to force changes at home.
Equality is the stated goal of social justice, yet what suffices for equality under such a system is a government-controlled economy which guarantees that producers and non-producerswould have the same income. Social justice is the exact opposite of equality when you look at the necessity of hamstringing some in order to guarantee equity in outcome to all. The march to social justice has been called socialism by some, but it is something larger. The socially just world that is beginning to emerge is more accurately somewhere between a “Feudal Capitalist” and a Socialist society.
Feudal Capitalism.. is just a fancy term for FASCISM… just as socialism is feudalism…. so if you put feudalism with freedom (captialism) you get state constrained freedom, called fascism. and the progressives NEVER wanted a full communist state, but the more modern industrial fascisms… after all, they supplied hitler with gas through farben. oil from indonesia… calculators and such from IBM… and big finances from Ford, and others who are still playing games…
[edited for length by n-n]
As many people have pointed out, the Democrats are going to give us what we voted for, good and hard. Like many of you, I have children and grandchildren who are going to pay for this insanity for many years. Our deficit and debt are going to ensure high taxes and inflation for as far as the eye can see. This massive health care bill will expand the role of the federal government into every doctor’s office and hospital in the country.
I read all of Mr. Frank’s comments.
On the scale from -10 to +10 the Democrat leadership’s wisdom is in the negative and Mr. Frank’s is in the positive.
People like Nyom voted for this and the Democrats are going to give us what we voted for good and hard.
My daughters are 10 and 13 and I ache for what we are handing to them as a country if we continue voting this way.
We are at a debt = to 100% of GDP. Our deficit is 10% of GDP with no end in site and obligations for social security and medicare and other entitlements mounting.
Dear Liberal,
Yes you are well intentioned. This bill will not equal good results. Please learn economics and listen to our arguments. We are well intentioned also.
Signed,
Very concerned.
Learn economics! those people need to learn how add and subtract.
They understand how to divide. Class warfare ! Pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Demonize.
ok… i digress…
The peculiar thing is when liberals advocate policies for government that they themselves would never adopt in their private lives. For example, a friend of mine who is very liberal (we tacitly agree not to talk about politics) in his own finances is prudent and sober, a “neither a borrower nor a lender be” kind of guy. Yet he thinks Obama and his fiscal policies are wonderful. I can’t figure out how he reconciles those two perspectives, and in keeping with our tacit agreement, can’t ask.
For my part, I’d be thrilled if the government handled its finances the way I handle mine.
Tacit agreement be damned.
For logic to prevail…. it has to be communicated !
“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt.” – John Adams
“Are you crazy? I can’t swallow that!”
“Well, then good news! It’s a suppository.”
– where we are Fry, and ObaPeloReid are Prof. Farnsworth
Tacit agreement be damned.
For logic to prevail…. it has to be communicated !
That’s a fair point, Baklava. I just don’t like to argue with friends, if I can avoid it.
Also, we both play on a sports team on which I am probably the second least right-wing member (!). I discourage others from ripping on liberals in earshot of this guy, because I had the opposite experience first in the Bay Area and then as an academic, where in both cases it was assumed that I, like everyone around me, subscribed to hard left-wing politics.
It’s not much fun. As neo I’m sure will confirm, one either has to constantly hide one’s cloven hooves, or be prepared to argue with all and sundry and to endure the snark that isn’t worth arguing about.
Anyway, I don’t want my friend to feel the way I did when the shoe was on the other foot, if that makes any sense.
Occam wrote, “I just don’t like to argue with friends, if I can avoid it. ”
I can’t call somebody a friend that has the ‘policy’ of not listening. That isn’t respectful.
My sweetie and I have had this discussion. I’ve told her that I listen to every word she says. I’ve expanded my repertoire to include Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and celebrity news in general and I expect that the things I talk about and that excite me aren’t “shut down”.
We have to operate on the basis of respect. We have to treat each other as equals. Otherwise it can’t work.
To be fair – there are plenty of “conservatives” or “right-wingers” that do not help. They will turn off a liberal with their rhetoric very quickly. Can you freaks hear yourselves???? Why is it that you think you are being persuasive?
When you talk – try to be persuasive at least.
As I’ve successfully converted an African American to conservative and he did not vote for ∅bama… I know it can be done.
It’s tough. But a friend can listen to you once in awhile. They don’t want to be deluged though.
BTW, this conversion was in 1999.
A small piece of relevant bad news: Rep. Neal (R-GA) is quitting in one week in order to focus on becoming the R candidate for governor of GA. Made Nancy’s job just a bit easier.
I can’t call somebody a friend that has the ‘policy’ of not listening. That isn’t respectful.
It’s not that he doesn’t listen, but rather that we don’t discuss it. We’ve each gathered that we’re on opposite sides of this, and neither of us brings it up.
Occam,
I sympathize with you in your “liberal friends” predicament. Neo has told us about her dealing with it, and I suspect most of us have. It’s not easy, and we don’t want to lose truly good friends. I’ve lost some friends because of it (I tend to be pretty outspoken), though, and kept others in spite of it. One of the toughest, for me, is my nephew. He’s a fairly newly minted PhD in ecology from a major university, and we’ve had some tough exchanges. I’m a geologist with an MS, also from a major university, and regard ecology as a bogus discipline. I’ve never been quite that blunt with him, but I’ve gotten close a time or two. Such discussions have put a testy stamp on some family get-togethers, though, I can tell you.
The big thing that really knocks me out, though, is knowing some married couples who have the liberal/conservative divide in their marriages. I don’t think I could manage it if my husband didn’t share my political views, and vice-versa–our opinions are too important to each of us!
It’s nice to be able to persuade someone, too–and I love getting a point past the post. But it’s not always possible.
“By their friends shall ye know them.”
I do not have any progressive friends; these folks cap out with me as “acquaintances”.
Hiss at me if you wish, but you above with progressive and / or liberal friends who don’t wish to confront them, are part and parcel, the reasons we are where we are.
They continue to gain ground.
Why we are here is that we are happy to be ignorant.
I am reading an excellent (as usual) piece by Thomas Sowell over at investors.com..
Sowell: Free Market Fights Discrimination
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522638
its an interview, and if one wanted, one could take any one of what is a surprising knowledge of situations which are believed to be common knowledge, and just follow some of the thread where you can follow away from the article.
comments that span student selection at medical school at harvard, apartheid africa, underpaying workers in the south, sitting at the back of the bus…
that last one being a fav given that other than rosa parks incident of refusing, they know nothing else about it! they would know rosa attended highlander, and they would read what sowell tells, and they would wonder whom were those politicians that made such a law, and threatened businesses.
seating blacks in the back of buses was not something that happened since time immemorial. It happened at various times between the 1890s and first decade of the 20th century. The bus companies, which were privately owned at that time, fought tooth and nail against this stuff. They fought in the state legislatures to prevent the law from being passed. They took cases into the courts to get the law declared unconstitutional. And when they failed that they simply dragged their feet in enforcing it.
So, for years after these laws passed, blacks got on buses and sat wherever they pleased. It was only when the local political authorities begin to crack down and arrest the drivers and threatened to arrest the heads of the bus companies that it was enforced.
and then the progressives shaped the history so that what you believe or feel about the event is based more on what they told you to feel, rather than from real feeling that comes from knowing the facts all around.
its what your missing that allows them to shape what your feeling which then moves material to make the choices they would not get if things were otherwise.
his explanation of Harvard and others schools selections make sense why certain high performing able people are not where they worked really hard from a very early age to be…
It’s as if they didn’t want to cultivate the most fertile ground. They wanted to make the desert bloom because that’s more of an achievement for them.
he even addresses this one!
Another theme is that it is unreasonable to assume that different racial and ethnic groups will have similar economic outcomes. Why?
i wonder if he has read the propaganda that was used to alienate certain groups in Germany? i don’t think so given his answer, but his answer shows that this ‘view’ is mostly manufactured, so as to reap similar benefits. (and while some will refute by stretching this to absurdity, its in its extreme use we should respect its effectiveness wherever applied, even if the end is not the same)
the conclusion made as to that comes from how many ways he can show that its not valid. and if its so not valid, and in so many ways, its has to be applied, maintained, and so on till the abnormal that makes no sense is normal practice (just as ripping out hearts while beating in some context in south America seemed just fine and normal).
we confuse normal with what we can adapt to and acclimatize when that really has little to do with it.
anyway.. in a bigger way the article can imply how we would think differently and make different choices over the past 40 years if we had more accurate information…
which has always been my point, long posts, or short posts…
I do not have any progressive friends; these folks cap out with me as “acquaintances”.
I realize I should expand a bit on my earlier comment. Regular readers will appreciate that I’ve successfully overcome my shyness and learned to express my opinions. /sarc Butting heads with “progressives” in most moods suits me to the ground, and God knows I’ve had lots of experience in Berkeley and academia.
This guy is different. As I’ve joked, there’s a good American in there trying to get out. He’s not an idealogue, but rather a farm boy of Scandinavian lineage from the upper Midwest, very upright and decent (which is why I like him, of course), who just thinks that liberal policies are the decent thing to do. A little time in Berkeley would disabuse him of that notion, but he’s never had any. So there’s hope for this guy, and a teachable moment may yet arise.
Bob from Virginia:
“…those people need to learn how add and subtract.”
Baklava:
“They understand how to divide.”
I say: Priceless!
The ultimate irony, though, is that they won’t divide their own money; but they are more than enthusiastic to divide everybody else’s!
The multi-hundred-millionaires who live with the accoutrements of wealth and won’t part with any of the perquisites thereof — the Pelosis (think govt.-paid for jet…), the Warren Buffetts of the world (who can and does do anything he wants — but at least on his own dime), and any number of the Hollywood looney left insulated megarich insist on social justice as defined by what people should have materially, as opposed to the opportunity they have to acquire that which afford them more, better, more secure…
Many make their charitable donations (though sometimes I I wonder if many of them view “giving” as lending their name or participating in certain projects which also nets them publicity) but NONE of them would think of giving away everything to say, the government who would, in turn distribute it equitably to every person in the country. (And I say everyone in the country because, for the most part, these are the same ones who insist that every illegal immigrant is entitled to every right, privilege, entitlement from our govt. as U.S. citizens are)
It’s classic “do as I say, not as I do.” Otherwise known as: Hypocrisy with a capital “H,” plain and simple.
Thanks, Artflgr, for that gem of information about the original laws requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus. I don’t consider myself to be ignorant, and regularly spend tons of time reading… especially searching on the Internet where I can now hunt for answers to nearly every question that pops into my head thanks to modern technology. And thanks to blogs like Neo’s, as well as the informative commentary attached, I learn things that might not have popped into my head otherwise.
The big thing that really knocks me out, though, is knowing some married couples who have the liberal/conservative divide in their marriages.
Me too. When I first met my wife, who is considerably younger than I, she considered my politics slightly…eccentric, shall we say? But over the years she’s moved steadily rightward (under her own steam – she’s no doormat) as she realized I was speaking sense, and further accelerated by my prognostications coming true. Having seen up close at Berkeley how the Left operates often makes it easy to guess what they’re trying to achieve and therefore to predict what they will do next. That’s the ultimate measure of a hypothesis – the ability to predict results.
Right–the ability to predict results. I would only add that, to be scientifically valid, they must be results that no other hypothesis predicts! 🙂
Incidentally, here’s a site that captures my arguments about global warming “science” to a “T”:
http://tinyurl.com/yl7s8tf
“[Pelosi] will put a bullet in the head of anyone she needs to.”
They/we don’t have that much longer to be afraid of her, she will lose her Speaker position in November when her party loses the majority. This is why she and Reid are going hell-bent for broke.
They know it is their final hurrah and they want to go down in a blaze of glory. Drama queens. 🙂
Hopefully any damage they do can be repealed.
“[Pelosi] will put a bullet in the head of anyone she needs to.”
Charity begins at home. We all learned that as children, did we not?
Pelosi is strong in the sense that she is a terrific majority whip. She is abysmally weak when it comes to understanding the political winds blowing around her. She is as or more tone deaf than Obama, without the charm.
Betsy wrote, “I’ve lost some friends because of it
Me too.
The reason. I can’t respect somebody, do business with, take anyone seriously, have compassion for, hang around with:
1) Someone who can’t hear logic
2) Doesn’t take life seriously
3) Isn’t one with personal responsibility
4) Is an anything goes kind of personality
In Psychology class I learned that I believe more in the Humanist philosophy. At the time there were 6 main beliefs and the humanists were more in line with how I felt. I do not believe your environment makes you who you are. Of course it has an influence.
BUT WE have free will. We need to teach our young from day 1 about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
—-
Let me say here – not ONE bank failed in Canada. Why? Because of a mixture of personal responsibility and the laws that didn’t try to push poor people into homes they couldn’t afford and the pre-payment penalties that didn’t encourage people to re-fi and re-fi over and over taking equity out.
Look at this story and the amazing graphs
http://american.com/archive/2010/february/due-north-canadas-marvelous-mortgage-and-banking-system
It takes two to do a loan. The loaner and the loanee. We have the power to rent until we can afford a down payment.
It is criminal for people to just believe that we need to take from one American and give to another ABLE-BODIED american.
I can’t stand by and be friends with that kind of belief system because it rewards a lack of personal responsibility.
And I am generous. I give. I believe that non-able bodied people should have a good life. I believe that able – bodied people need to go to a church or charity and get a leg up.
/stepping off soap box 🙂
Then again – anybody who reads my posts knows that my own sweetie required extreme generosity….
There by the grace of God go I.
Foreclosure
Car Repossessed
Inability to pay for her son’s braces.
Her life is way different than before. She can’t purchase like she used to. She went from a BMW 740 to a Mercury Sable 🙂 Practical car provided by me.
I have strong opinions, too — even passionate ones — more along the lines of fiscal discipline, size of govt. and its ability to intrude into our lives and dictate how we are to live, how much we “owe” for the purposes of redistributing wealth (which is not just the reward for hard work but also the result of prudent spending as well as NOT spending in order to save and insure greater security) and so forth. Though I also have strong opinions on social issues, I am more tolerant for the very same reasons I hold conservative beliefs regarding concepts above: I do not want, nor do I think anyone has the right, to dictate how I should live my life. Thus, I don’t believe I have the right to dictate how they should live theirs. I may not agree, but I also don’t want governmental laws undermining peoples’ freedoms.
That being said, I do have one particular friend — someone who is indeed a friend in every sense of the word: she is always there for me, we have many common interests outside of politics, and we share opinions on things outside politics. Our political positions diverge to the point of being almost diametrically opposed, so we stay away from politics as it almost always has an antagonizing effect. That doesn’t mean she is less a friend to me, or I to her.
As for trying to pursuade others, as BetsyBounds noted, Neo has previously written about the ability to pursuade others and the difficulty thereof. There are other more liberal persons in my life – family, friends, work associates – with whom I feel more free to express my views and present arguments in support I believe that my opinions are based on logical and rational thought and common sense. But I also know that those with opposing points of view often feel similarly (that they are thinking logically and rationally) and I feel if I want to be respected, I should return that respect. In the last couple of years, my more conservative views and, particularly my judgement regarding Obama, have proven to be more right than wrong. We have all witnessed in this time, a huge shift in public opinion based on perception of fact and realities that affect all our lives, as opposed to conservative argument. There’s a fine line between proselytizing and pursuasion. I know how I feel about my convictions toward religion and no amount of proselytizing and telling me I am going to hell for not believing what they believe is going to change that. Many people have similar convictions toward politics. One can present arguments, but condemnation and a patronizing attitudes often result in others’ digging in their heels
There is also a difference between sharing opinions and being immutably intolerant. Very recently, I wrote a comment responding to one of Neo’s posts, and I was immediately excoriated by another commenter to, what was to me, a shocking extent. This was repeated, when said excoriation was followed with a number of comments agreeing with the excoriator and even praising the person for deconstructing every word I wrote, declaring me sinful, all in a mocking — and extremely immature — manner. To say I was shocked at the vehemence of the attack is an understatement. When I realized that this person had apparently taken my commentary as a personal attack, I apologized – not for my opinion — but with the desire to clarify that it was about the subject, not this person. In fact, my sin was to have an opinion agreeing with a person this other person condemned for having an opinion that differed from their own. I suggested we agree to disagree. Even though all further comments posted that day were in agreement with my own regarding Neo’s topic, this person continued to attack my next comment with equal gusto and contempt. That’s when I realized that there was no point in even expressing the opinion that I had a right to have a different view as did others. Not only did this other person have the need to be right and have a fierce need to make clear that they were a better person because of this, but that they had to have the last word. No amount of rationality and tolerance was going to change this.
I heard Dennis Miller say today that Obama is probably the safest President in memory because even a crazed nutcase wouldn’t want to see Mz.2-Heartbeats Away one heartbeat closer to the throne.
When the White House Inner Circle sits around their human sacrifice list at night, do you suppose that they swoon in unison at the mere mention of Nancy’s name? Do they say,”God, I admire her smarts.”(?) Or, can’t you just hear one of the rats saying,”I love, love, love that girl.”(?)
Maybe the prez. doesn’t ask that a House coup be staged on her because she’s one of the few people that makes him look reasonably good by comparison.
Range of Light, seems Louis Farrakhan needs some Dennis Miller instruction:
“Louis Farrakhan Accuses “White Right” of Setting Obama Up to be Assassinated”
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2010/03/01/louis-farrakhan-accuses-white-right-of-setting-obama-up-to-be-assassinated/