Pelosi: “You Hate Me. You Really, Really Hate Me.”

Shocking! An older woman in power from the most liberal area in the country is getting ripped to shreds. In this country? No way!

Well, she represents those of us who elected her quite well, thank you very much. She has done so long enough to be in the Speaker's seat. Even if she does have "bags under her eyes." Which of course must come up in the conversation, because she dares to be an older woman in the public eye.

Yes, we really do hate you, Nancy. It is not that we HATE you but we HATE YOUR (TAKING A WORD FROM OBAMA) "STUPIDITY." Yes, Nancy. People don't like you, especially in the "fly over country." Why? Because you are dictatorial. I bet you were the "all that girl" in high school. Just had to run everything and not let anyone else have a say in anything. You will set back the women's movement for at least 20 years. Why? Because after the Democrats are voted out of office in the 2010 congressional elections, YOU will take the blame and all the Democrats will pass that blame on the fact you are a WOMAN. Don't think that will happen. Well, Nancy, dear, you should get out of Washington and San Francisco and travel around a little. Try some of the formally blue states like Michigan and Ohio. That's right I live in Ohio and you aren't like even by liberals I have known for years. Sorry, girl. Obama is going to blame someone and it isn't going to be him. Don't believe me, Nancy. But, I bet I am right on the money.

Jazz wrote: "Madam Speaker, we gave you the keys to the car with a full tank of gas and you’re driving us off a cliff."

Jazz your "story" seems a little heavy on 'hit piece' and little light on what the Politico article was all about. 'Your link' didn't say anything about 'her driving us off a cliff' the article was about the fact the Nancy Pelosi DOESN'T CARE what you (or I) think... That's why the title was: "Nancy Pelosi on being unpopular: 'I don't care'"
You say that:

"Her unfavorability rating is right on par with Dick Cheney right now, and a couple of points above the lesser known John Boehner. What to make of this?"

So what? 'Your link' wrote:

"Pelosi countered: “Our leadership team is so effective it is driving Republicans to distraction. And they and their allies have decided that I am their target, and they come after me relentlessly — relentlessly. On the left, I have to put forth a bill that’s going to fund the war and the rest, and they’re not happy about that. So none of it is a popularity contest. You just have to be responsible for the job you’re setting out to do.”

And target she has been, the slash and gouge wing of the nutters has spent months spreading their steadily eroding talking points while Madam Speaker has been quietly doing her job.

Going back to you 'unfavorability rating' comment 'your link' also said:

"She’s still better off than Gingrich when he was at the same point, two-plus years into his short speakership. His approval rating had already sunk to 25 percent in 1997, after shutting down the government and whining about having to exit from the rear of President Bill Clinton’s plane.

“All these other leaders — Tom Delay, Newt, Dick Gephardt — had higher aspirations,” said a Pelosi confidant. “Her advantage is that members know it’s all about them and not about her. She has no higher aspirations. This is it.”

Not sure why you seemingly missed all this... Maybe your bad feelings about what you think Nancy Pelosi is doing to OUR country has affected how you read the Politico article.

I agree with Jazz about this part:

John Boehner, we don’t care if you’re in the minority and can’t get anything out of committee. You’re not putting forth fully developed legislative solutions of your own to counter what the Democrats are doing. We’d at least like to see it, even if it won’t pass. That way we can make a better informed judgment next fall.

Especially since Republicans are willing to push legislation that they really care about.

Also Jazz, Where did you get the Pelosi quote “You hate me. You really, really hate me.” that you used in the title of your post?

It wasn't in the Politico link and I don't remember seeing it before.

SteveK - it is a parody of Sally Field's Oscar acceptance speech.

Thanks AustinRoth - I thought there was a quote out there that I'd missed.

I think Pelosi not caring about whether polls favor her or not is kind of refreshing. More politicians should govern on the basis of their beliefs and not mercurial poll numbers.

On the other hand her actual policies are pretty bad, but you have to give her points for sincerity.

DaGoat wrote: "On the other hand her actual policies are pretty bad, but you have to give her points for sincerity."

I hear this ("the her actual policies are pretty bad" part) from Republicans over and over again but other than a talking point they never seem to give examples of the "actual policies" they think are bad.

Would you please specify which of her policies you had in mind when you wrote this comment.

I hope you're not characterizing me as a Republican, SteveK. I am socially libertarian/fiscally conservative, something that used to be welcome in both parties but now is welcome in neither.

With that in mind I think Pelosi is consistently irresponsible when it comes to spending, and I would include the stimulus package, the budget and the health care reform bill in that. And yes the GOP was also fiscally irresponsible.

DaGoat, Thanks for your reply and I apologize for calling you a Republican... it's nice that neither of us want this to digress into a Dem. Rep. non sequitur.

Here's a link to all the legislation that the 111th Congress has passed under Speaker Pelosi's leadership that has either been signed into law or pending: Legislation of the 111th Congress

I'd never actually looked into it this deeply before and must say that I was surprised, educated, and (considering my political leanings) both impressed and pleased.

It doesn't look at all like the talking points (both left and right) that we're all used to. Take a look if you'd like and then I'd like to hear what you have to say.

I am afraid John Boehner is too busy trying to decide how to deal with the Birfers to come up with any kind of counter legislation. What would be the point? Leave the boring policy stuff to the dems, there are tin-foil hats out there to be worn!

I was out this evening, so I missed SteveK's question whichAustinRoth already answered, sorry. Have I really gotten that old? I thought the Sally Field (picture was at the top of the post) "You like me, you really, really like me" was iconic by now? Maybe not. Sorry.

One doesn't have to like all of Pelosi's legislation, but if one looks at the link that SteveK thoughtfully provided (thanks, SteveK), is it really legislation that would objectively support her low approval ratings?

Personally I think she's low hanging fruit for the Republicans to target and keep their dispirited troops fired up over, and that carries over to the general population. I also think in the current Congress there's more good legislation for the people and for the country than was seen under the recent GOP-controlled, anti-environment, pro-wealthy congressional sessions.

But I also think the Dems are guilty of doing the same to the GOP majority leader when the GOP has the keys to the House.

The funny thing is, Jazz, that is one of those 'iconic' lines that was never actually said, like "Play it again, Sam."

What she actually said was "...I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!"

AR, and in the age of digital editing of online works, including books.... someone will change Pelosi's line to: "I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!"

I'd better print out the actual quote so as least I'll know what was truly said.

Just a bit of humor. :)

I am socially libertarian/fiscally conservative,

So basically you are a Republican who lacks the intestinal fortitude required to call himself one.

If the current GOP is socially libertarian, Don Quijote, I'm sure that is news to a lot of people.

If the current GOP is socially libertarian, Don Quijote, I'm sure that is news to a lot of people.

Or Fiscally Conservative...

Unfortunately the sane people in that party let the whack-jobs take it over.

Or Fiscally Conservative...

Unfortunately the sane people in that party let the whack-jobs take it over.

I don't understand DQ, if you feel the GOP is neither socially libertarian nor fiscally conservative why do you think I'm really a Republican? I actually agree with you that that extremists have taken over the GOP.

if you feel the GOP is neither socially libertarian nor fiscally conservative why do you think I'm really a Republican?

When people describe themselves as Fiscally Conservative, they can generally be relied upon to hold their noses and vote for the Republican candidate assuming that he hasn't been caught with a dead girl or live boy.

The Republican party is fiscally conservative only when it's out of power and unable to direct money to their contributors (See Bush II, Bush I and Reagan administrations).

Pelosi is indeed among the Dems who learned the wrong lesson from the elections of 2006 and 2008 and is at the forefront of rushing so very stupidly to enact such bad, harmful legislation. She is a poster child for the Dems' pathological behavior that is causing more and more concern and opposition from all but the worst among the public, not limited to the developing failure-ridden health care initiative. The only saving grace they constitute is that they are a handy lightning rod for Obama to deflect criticism which rightly should go instead or also go to Obama and his administration, which also is to blame for the wrongful Dem behavior in Washington currently. (Pelosi can't be blamed for Obama's "campaigning" elsewhere.)

Pelosi is held in lower esteem than Obama, and rightly. The left-Dems in Congress are the worst that Washington threatens and presents to us, and we have a record already this year that confirms this.

And Pelosi says that favored "targets" have more to "contribute" -- is the following surprising at all?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

"Well, Nancy, dear, you should get out of Washington and San Francisco and travel around a little. Try some of the formally blue states like Michigan and Ohio. That's right I live in Ohio and you aren't like even by liberals I have known for years. "

I (who grew up in the Bay Area) left California for the rest of the USA years ago and have been in Michigan(where I currently am) and through Ohio, and yes, you're right, left-Dems like Pelosi alienate many of the Dems in older Blue states like these as well as people elsewhere (all but other left-Dems and those even farther left who don't accuse her and the Dems of being centrist or conservative), and it's not simply due to the more idiotic environmentalist stances of those people that are deliberately destructive to the auto industry. (So don't anyone bother with that pathetic argument.)

The climate legislation alone, affecting everyone, not just auto industry employees, has so much of the public here concerned, even more than any dumb state or regional initiatives arbitrarily demanding new, unavailable-or-too-expensive alternative electricity generation sources in place of cheap coal or of nuclear power.

(A striking coincidence among Pelosi and the other silly lib-Dems in Washington is that they rush to pass harmful legislation that increases costs to people at this time, with energy as well as health care and other entitlements, during a recession for which they've claimed earlier authority to spend wildly in the name of "stimulus" needs.)

" You’re not putting forth fully developed legislative solutions of your own to counter what the Democrats are doing."

This comment is incorrect on its face, though it addresses something more broad.

There is _no_ obligation of anyone else to offer or present an alternative to what the Democrats are doing. There is _no_ need or obligation of Washington to do _anything_, on any issue, at all, necessarily.
If what the Democrats are seeking is bad, and is wrong, it's correct to oppose it. Issue closed.

Now for the Republicans (and US conservatism, the default home for non-liberals who necessarily aren't truly conservative) to be viable, they must be a true alternative to the Dems and liberals. But often they are not. The GOP's principal reason for failure lately is that they've been too much like the Dems, notably in the fiscal area. (It's not a winning prospect for conservatism to become, and become _known_as_, a true and attractive alternative to liberalism, especially with a liberal media and a large population bought by entitlements and other government "goodness.")