Speaker Pelosi Loses Support as Voters See 'Business as Usual'

Bloomberg: Speaker Pelosi Loses Support as Voters See 'Business as Usual'
By Laura Litvan

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is unifying Democratic lawmakers and achieving early legislative victories, still is losing support with Americans who don't see Congress producing any real change.

A 39 percent plurality of Americans disapprove of the California Democrat's performance, according to the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times national survey; 36 percent approve. In January, the new speaker scored a 34 percent to 21 percent favorable rating.

The June 7-10 poll also found that 63 percent of those surveyed said the Democratic Congress is governing in a "business as usual'' manner, while 29 percent said Democrats are working hard to bring fundamental change to government.

The results also may reflect discontent with Democratic lawmakers' recent battle with President George W. Bush over Iraq war funding. Americans, "traditionally when they see conflict played out in public, react negatively,'' said Bruce Oppenheimer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee....

By contrast, many House Democrats and independent analysts give Pelosi, a San Francisco lawmaker who became the first female speaker in U.S. history, credit for reaching out to disparate elements of her party and holding together the Democrats' 15-vote majority in the 435-seat House....

***

The agenda for the rest of this year will test Pelosi's ability to hold her fractious party together. Domestic issues, including taxes, trade and energy policy, threaten to expose deep rifts in the party....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=abhNVg8l7rtw

It's 'Business as Usual' in a dress.

I expected better governance from women. More guts. Ms. Pelosi has disppointed me to the point of disgust.

TC

Instead, it does not make a difference at all, it seems. I believe in diversity, BUT, if there is no diversity in actual content and ideas, diversity of skin color and sex means nothing.

your comment is sexist. See my posts below.

arena through the puppet strings of Di ("I'm dining with the George Schultzes") Feinstein

Feinstein and Pelosi are GateKeepers and as such they are doing the job that party politics let them carve out for themselves.

I don't disagree with you about being disappointed in her and what she's accomplished or not AND even that there's been too much "business as usual." But when you have different (higher) standards for her because she's a woman, then that's sexist.

I expected better governance from women.

You've seen ONE woman in the role, not numerous women in "governance." I'd be a little hesitant to make such snap decisions about ALL women and our ability to lead and govern if I were you. Too, in Pelosi's defense, it's still a man's world, everywhere and in every thing, esp. politics and Congress. I imagine there are a hella lot of men's rules she has to play by or feels she has to play by, not to mention a lot of men even on her side of the aisle who have expectations she's juggling. You might consider walking a few blocks in her heels before judging her quite so harshly AS A WOMAN. (And again, I say all that as someone who's critical of her as well, but not because she's a woman.)

Having HIGHER expectations for women than men in leadership positions puts women at a huge disadvantage. And, as I said, it's sexist.

I'm a woman and I expect a woman to have an awareness that the traditional and sometimes chauvinistic male-gendered guy doesn't have. (Especially the older guys)

Maybe that is a bit "sexist" but I do think that a political awareness might develop because of having the XY chromosome thing-ee going on.

My expectations have been met by two women I can think of - both of whom are also involved with
the San Francisco Bay Area.

one is Senator Barbara Boxer.

The other is Congresswoman Lynn Woollsey.

You said that better than I did.

TC

Sexism is, by definition, differential judgment and treatment based upon a person's sex. The truly nonsexist view of Pelosi simply ignores that she is a woman, and judges her based upon her performance and choices, no asterisks, no asides, no excuses.

I've noted that bigots truly never believe they are bigots. They always have constructed a schema that rationalizes their dogma. Indignance is the usual response.

"Bigot" isn't an insult, but a description of a way of thinking. To me, a bigot is someone strongly biased to their own group, race, political faction, or religion, while showing strong intolerance of those who differ.

Pelosi's the Speaker of the House. She's third in line of succession to the Presidency. She is the author of her own fate. The current manuscript looks a lot different from the first draft we were given in November.

just like the old boss.

And I think that is out of line. Why do DUers persist in the circular firing squad behavior that we all know is useless? This just in, the American people are idiotic.

:eyes:

she'd have 60% approval ratings by now.

Gonzales and Cheney

:wtf: over. They're (Gonzo and Darth) still IN POWER!

Here's one long term solution: VOTE ALL THE BUMS OUT!

Vote Out Incumbents Democracy http://voidnow.org :thumbsup:

"If she had put Impeachment on the table, she'd have 60% approval ratings by now."

To which, I added: And 2 scalps on her belt.

It does help to read in context. This isn't the first time I've seen you go off half-cocked. Just a friendly observation, don't you know?

My bad. :hi:

BTW, this isn't the first time I've seen you behave in a dismissive and curt manner. Just a friendly "back at ya" you know. ;) :P

And yes, I will make a note to take time in the future to fully understand "the contest." :blush: :hi:

will shoot way up.

You do know that even though it takes a simple majority to impeach it takes 2/3rds to convict, I can pull the relevant quotation from the Constitution if you need it. Impeachment as pure political theatre is useless and actually counterproductive. The fact of the matter is that these polls right now are irrelevant to what happens in the primaries, much less November 2008. Who the fuck gives a shit about the opinion of a disengaged, brain-dead public? Have you even read The Assault on Reason?

:evilfrown:

everyone has their hands out to the highest bidder....and it ain`t us

Damned right that frustration is mounting. It's not just about "the Iraq War funding" either! The list is so long on Bush's abuse of authority and violations of the Constitution. We have Hearings and...nothing. Gonzo is a pretty good example: Hearings, revelations, leading to another non-binding resolution that forces Bush to do...nothing.

Pre-Democratic majority record was every single thing Bush wanted, oh and one veto that didn't have votes for a veto override. Now, it's looking like the only difference is that there are Hearings leading to more 'non-binding resolutions' that don't amount to a hill of beans.

But I'm not ready to put all the blame on Democrats (though they're not completely without some blame). The Cons shut things down, throw every monkey wrench within their reach, and they get a HUGE! voice from the RW radio/media rampant throughout the nation. Unfortunately, it all adds up to a free pass for Bush which IS business as usual.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:



Those photos of her being too cozy with Bush and jetting off to meet the G8 leaders didn't gain her any support.

What are going to do when Clinton or Obama or whoever is elected President and it's still business as usual?

she needs to be seen as the leader. That means press release after press release and no relenting. Harry Ried is too quiet.

I expect the Presidential campaigns are swamping the media time?

I'm madder about that than the complete capitulation on Iraq funding.

....a contender, she could have been somebody..."

Father Barry: "You want to know what's wrong with our waterfront? It's the love of a lousy buck. It's making love of a buck---the cushy job---more important than the love of man!"

The GOP smear machine is driving up her unfavorables. Notice her favorable rating actually increased slightly, it was the unfavorables that shot up.

Instead of celebrating this news with an "oh yeah she deserves it for not doing her job" we should recognize this is the fruits of a right-wing smear campaign.

of this I wonder, where the overall strategy of the House is decided. Is it, 'at the end of the day' her sole decision to make?

Most are aware the Speaker can bury legislation deep enough it will never see the light of day, never make it to a floor vote. So if anything is too offensive it can be stuck in committee, forever, and conversely this power can be used to not introduce spending bills that are not in favor of party strategy. It is a sad reality of the manipulations in legislation, that often ends up serving no one well. But, the republicans when in power use this perversion of congressional intent, to their maximum advantage, as witnessed in previous congresses. Example, the Holt bill on voting reform never made it out of committee much less to floor vote, before the 2006 elections.

Viewing the above in context, who makes the ultimate decision, on when these partisan legislative tactics are used, to maximum advantage? If the ultimate decision were left up to the Speaker, then if the Speaker had courage and conviction in his/her own moral position, the Speaker could single handedly with no help, not fund the war. Simply not pass a funding bill, by never voting on one. It doesn't take a majority, it is doesn't risk a veto, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Ultimately only one politician can receive the tar and feathers, the Speaker. Only a vote of no confidence from within the party, could derail this strategy. So on the war funding issue, no action at all was well within the reach of the Speaker and the democratic party at large, if their true desire, was to de-fund the war and bring the troops home. In reality the party hid behind the shadows of charades and excuses, that in no way reflected the reality of the power behind the gavel.

More could be done to satisfy the mandate of election 2006. It is the will for change that is absent, not the power. How much of this fairly weighs on the Speaker's shoulders alone, depends on who makes the final strategic decision.

Yeah! Instead of wielding our mandate like - well, like a mandate - let's give our mandate back to Bush, and let him dig a big hole for himself, so in 2008 we can win another mandate! And so on, and so on...

First of all, we STILL do not have control of Congress!! The votes needed are lost due to the RW bigmouths in TV Land, plus the media, preaching to the sheeple, how awful the congress is, in reality they are stalling, debateing, anything to stop the progress of our Congress in the House or Senate. They are using the FAR Left Dems, to devide the congress in hopes of GETTING THE PUGS BACK IN CONGRESS TO RULE!!! AND WE STILL FALL INTO LINE..WHEN OR WHEN WILL WE LEARN!!
The people who hear this on the TV spokespeople (who get the discontent from all the blogs (dem) believe the media..they think they are honest...wake up, we are being swiftboated. We complain here and its taken all out of contex...that we want Republicans back in control...when the fact is WE NEED MORE DEMS IN BOTH THE SENATE AND HOUSE TO GET THE RIGHT BILLS PASSED. THE MORE WE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEMS, THEY BRING IT OUT TO THOSE LESS INFORMED AND USE IT AGAINST US...

OK RANT OVER!