Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Far Left Cheering Dem's Electing Pelosi Caucus Leader

Over at the Daily Beast, one of the few blogs that regularly presents articles from both sides of the political spectrum is a peice that lauds Heath Shuler's protest against reselecting Nancy Pelosi to lead the Democratic Party.  Here's a thread from the comments

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barak Obama are the Judas Goats that led the Democratic Party to the slaughter. If the caucus wants to be anything but the party of limousine liberals, urban blacks and predatory unions, they will relegate Nancy Pelosi to the back bench where the electoral performance of the party in the 2010 elections show she belongs.

Flag It                              Permalink                                 Reply
(1) Show Replies

Collapse Replies7:32 am, Nov 17, 2010
Don't worry, Snidely. In 2013, Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House again, and you can go back to complaining about her.

Flag It                                                                     Permalink
Reply   (3) Show Replies                                                    Collapse Replies11:16 am, Nov 17, 2010
Mattin, I have indeed said in a number of threads that while I was sure a lot of Democrats would lose, I didn't think Republicans would win the House or Senate.

I was half wrong - we lost the House. Happy now?

As for redistricting, I doubt it will be much worse than it was in 2000, when Republicans controlled a lot of states. And when Obama wins in 2012, his coattails will carry a lot of House seats for Democrats no matter how redistricting goes.

Flag It                                                                                Permalink7:45 pm, Nov 17, 2010


Alan, it's not just loss of control of the house that is going to hurt the Dems for at least the next 10's the 680 state legislative seats and control of 22 MORE state legislatures, on top of the 29 governships they now have.

"Republicans now hold about 3,890, or 53 percent, of the total state legislative seats in America, the most seats in the GOP column since 1928. The GOP will now control at least 54 of the 99 state legislative chambers, its highest number since 1952. As a result, state legislatures will likely reflect a more conservative political agenda when they convene in 2011, NCSL reports.

"2010 will go down as a defining political election that will shape the national political landscape for at least the next 10 years," said Tim Storey, elections specialist with NCSL. "The GOP, in dramatic fashion, finds itself now in the best position for both congressional and state legislative line drawing than it has enjoyed in the modern era of redistricting.""

THAT is what Dems should be concerned about. They will control redistricting of not just the US House, but of their states legislative districts as well. Furthermore, in California, redistricting of state legislative/senate districts as well as US House districts has been taken away from the legislature and given by voters to an independent order to eliminate gerrymandering. Think about that for a moment...thus have Nancey Pelosi, Barack Obama and Harry Reid have wrought.

Their far left agenda has driven the Democratic Party to a disaster worse than any other leadership has since 1928, yet 2 of those three were "reselected" by their legislative caucus (Obama's turn comes in 2012). Senator Evan Bayh wrote in the NYT just after the election:
Many of our problems were foreseeable. A public unhappy about the economy will take it out on the party in power, even if the problems began under previous management. What's more, when one party controls everything - the House, the Senate, the White House - disgruntled voters have only one target for their ire. And the president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections...It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a "political realignment" and a "new progressive era" proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left...We also overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation during a severe recession. It was a noble aspiration, but $1 trillion in new spending and a major entitlement expansion are best attempted when the Treasury is flush and the economy strong, hardly our situation today. "

Your party is more cohesive, because every one of the moderates who voted for the party line...were defeated and kicked to the curb by their constituents. Those who bucked, and voted against Cap & Trade, The Porkulus and ObamaCare, survived. Think about that for a moment. The democratic party that is now represented in Congres is going to be at least 63 seats smaller than is was a few weeks ago. With redistricting coming in this year, it will likely lose at least another 20 seats in 2012. By following an agenda that has been roundly rejected by a strong majority of voters, and promising to continue pressing that agenda, how on earth, other than living in a fantasy eduring, echo chamber can you see a recovery in only 2 years? I can't see how that could possibly happen.

You can't depend upon the opposition to FUBAR (though, I wouldn't put it past the GOP to do just that). If they even stick to half of their party's principles, the Democratic party will be in the wilderness for at least a decade. The Democratic leadership in the House, Senate and White House vastly over-reached and led the party off the cliff...we can't get rid of Obama (impeachment would be stupid in the extreme), but reselecting both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to lead in Congress was stupid in the extreme.

For the first time in our history, the party leaders who lead their party to election disasters have been retained in their leadership roles. This basically says that their party's representatives want more of the same, even when a large majority of the country's voters have said...NO!

I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican any more...but having 2 relatively strong parties vie-ing (spell?) one against the other has done well for our country for well over 200 years. I would hate to see that balance upset by stupidity of one party or the other. We as a nation don't do well, when one party gains too much power over the other. We prefer bi-partisanship when ever possible. The past 2 years of Democratic control tossed that out the winder. The GOP was never given the opportunity of particiapate...because "We Won" attitude became pervasive in Dem circles in the party, and the country will pay for that stupidity.

Think about it, ObamaCare passed through both houses of Congress without one single vote of the party in opposition. When you look at the major social legislation in history, every singe one was passed with affirmation by the minority party...the Voter's Rights act of 1964, the vote cast that passed it was by a GOP Senator...same with much of the agenda of Lyndon Johnson...but the current leadership chose to pursue a straight, one party agenda. That, and that alone is what cost the Dem's control of so many seats in not just Congress but, "3,890, or 53 percent, of the total state legislative seats in America..." YVndxj

It's time to wake up and realize that this country isn't a left/right...but more of a centre/right country and a straight liberal agenda will be soundly defeated at the polls. Instead of trying to "Get it all NOW"...a more incremental agenda, one that's been followed for more than 80 years has a better chance of success. But Nancy, Harry and Barack have forgotten that in their hubris of the 2008 election. Now at least 63 (3 more races are pending, with the GOP contender leading) have paid the that will be continued to be paid for at least 10 more years.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, MD
The Vail Spot                  Flag It        Permalink7:40 am, Nov 18, 2010
The rest of the thread is pretty much an echo chamber where Nancy is lauded for all "of her accomplishments...leading the country off the cliff.

No comments: