After watching 60 Minutes, I have concluded that the GOP codeword

is "sexism" when they attack Nancy Pelosi.

she would become the first female speaker. a very powerful position. those sexist/homophobic GOP trash simply could NOT have that!!

what next??? a woman president??? heaven forbid!!! :sarcasm:

and I haven't been so much in the past.

I especially like the fact that she looked like Audrey Hepburn as a teenager. :)

is attacking a woman who has been married to ONE man for 30+ years. Compare her to Newt, who has been married how many times??

was in the hospital fighting cancer....yeah, he's a real 'values gentleman.'

who knows how to gain and use power. How many times did they mention that she's a San Francisco democrat? It hasn't aired here yet.

BOY, she pissed me off with her snarky little hit piece. and it WAS a hit piece, make no mistake about it.

she used the vilest of RW ploys: "Critics say" that her ability to keep her dem troops in line is responsible for the log jam in congress!!!! she actually said that, and in voiceover, so that Pelosi had no opportunity to respond to such an insanely disingenuous assertion.

how can there be a logjam in congress when the pugs have an insurmountable lead in the house, and a FILIBUSTER proof majority in the Senate? I'm still aneurizing over that amazing statement.

you can go sit on it, Stahl

anyway

:bounce:

snide voiceovers that I really didn't hear much in the way of her responses

seems, from others' reactions, that she did fine, and that's a good thing, of course.

but I was stunned at the way Stahl went after her, accusing her of personalizing her antipathy to republican policies. WTF is up with THAT? and she wouldn't let go of that particular approach, either. from what I recall, Pelosi didn't, and SHOULD have, rejected the premise altogether, and said that their POLICIES are DESTROYING our country, not terrorists.

wish she'd said something like that

dems need to realize that they should just IGNORE any questions designed to put them on the defensive, and just say whatever they want to say...and have that stuff memorized in advance---JUST like the fascist robots do. why is that such a difficult task for dems to accomplish

REJECT their PREMISE! don't play their game

I'm so MAD!!!

... Nancy didn't run away from the question. She VERY CLEARLY and STRONGLY stated that the terms quoted by Stahl fell short of what the Republicans have earned.

Bottom line... Nancy did what all Dems need to do. Whatever your position, stand up for it; quit allowing yourselves to be criticized out of your positions.

:nuke:

accept the premise of such snidely disingenuous assertions?

I just ranted on this very subject above

is she afraid that the M$M will accuse her of being unhinged, crazed, OVERHEATED, like they did when Clinton dared not accept Wallace's thinly disguised attack?

how was Wallace's insulting behavior any different from Stahl's?

times like these.

Like when PBS supported the Warren commission and showed a very phony re-enactment of how a head shot from the front (Kennedy) would not bounce backward -but forward. That turned me off to being a PBS contributor of many years.

Same with TV news.

Now, I guess, 60 Minutes.

I'm just 1 person, but I'm doing absolutely everything I can. Even if it's just a 1 person boycott.

no other woman is gonna take the spotlight from ME!

Stahl pissed me off.

questions. But Nancy, bless her, didn't back down!

They are prejudiced against anyone not like them and that included poor people and the middle class.

The most important just revealed(5th) element of the Republicans...PERVERSION!!

Everything they do is a perversion of the TRUTH!

and Leslie Stahl's interviews routinely celebrate mediocrity!

She is completely out of her element when faced with the genuine article.

Good for Nancy!

prefer her to her counter in the senate, Reid. I'm hoping Hillary does NOT run in '08 for president, but runs as Majority leader in the senate.

that Pelosi is reported to have said is that there will be no attempts at impeachment.

I think that is unfortunate to say. If the Dems take a house, there is subpoena power and if the information that we discuss here at DU gets out into the public, how can she say no impeachment?

Crimes were committed against the Constitution. She has NO right to say Constitutional remedies will not be sought. She then is not living up to her oath to the Constitution.

I think it might be cut short, though.

would love to see Hillary replace Reid, who is not one of my favorites. Just listening to his squeaky voice irritates me.

...about recently vis-a-vis the Little Monkey and Dick "Fucking" Cheney in regards to Ms. Pelosi. Personally, I'm beginning to warm to the idea that having these two as the lamest of lame ducks, while moving an agenda of progressive ideas forward, is much better than leaving an impeachment legacy (which may resonate poorly in 2008). Dismantling Little Monkey's base becomes much better if people are better off with a Can-Do Democratic majority.

:)

ty for using Gov Ann's beautiful visage. I miss her like crazy

and welcome to DU :hi:

speaking of the future, do you wish you could just wake up in seventeen days, or what?

not that many close elections are likely to be settled....just think what's in store.

is there any better example of the M$M being completely in the pocket of this evil bunch of FASCIST THUGS?????

I could only read a few words of that before I had to run to the wastebasket and vomit up my recently consumed meal of scones and raw shrimp.

seriously, though, that deserves its own thread

that article seemed consumed with anticipatory glee, didn't it?

I need a break

thanks, though

From the article...

What's more, as Election Central reported the other day, the NRCC has already spent an astounding $40 million in the past seven weeks on efforts to prevent the House from slipping away. Given that the NRCC has $39.2 million on hand, it's hard to see how it'll turn up the ad-campaign volume significantly louder than it has been already.

Well, since there's just 3 weeks left, my calculator tells me that the Republicans can spend more than twice as much as they had in the previous 3 weeks.

$40 million / 7 weeks << $39.2 million / 3 weeks

Nearly three times as much, in fact.

I hope Greg Sargent isn't working the books for any of our campaigns.

I don't need it!

:kick:

A couple of weeks ago, 60 minutes ran a worshipful (or, more correctly, whoreshipful) piece on Condi Rice. She was 'girlish', 'fun', a real kick to hang with at the gym.

Tonight we saw a snarling, sneering Stahl attack Pelosi's clothing, her leadership in the House (funny, I never heard them attack Delay for getting his members to vote together), her vocabulary, mocked her for mentioning that she's a mother and grandmother, and basically set her up with GOP smear points.

Condi is one of the most incompetent public officials we've had in my memory - yet she's slobbered over, feted, butt-kissed. Pelosi, who for many years was my Congressperson when I lived in San Francisco, has represented her district with honor, has been untainted by scandal, yet SHE is the one 60 minutes chooses to smear? In a Congress filled with Republican crooks and pervs?

Boggles the mind.

I should say?

I was trying to think of an example of that, but, since I almost never watch the show......

and WTF is it with Rice? why does she ALWAYS get the kidglove treatment? they NEVER confront her with the virtual boatload of lies, inconsistencies, rationalizations, etc., that she's been uttering for lo these years.

She let Condi play her piano, work out on her exercise equipment, etc. Never mentioned her designer in a manner meant to repulse voters. Didn't once confront her on her many lies, although she did offer one 'tough' question from her little daughter - "What makes us think we rule the world?" or some such nonsense.

It was the most lightweight piece of trash I've ever seen on network television. Contrast that with Stahl's piece tonight and the myth of the 'liberal media' will surely be buried once and for all.

CBS is going to REGRET that lil move, aren't they

CBS=SEE BS

... while the Stahl piece on Pelosi reaked of the personal attack style that Stahl was trying to lay at the Democratic Party's feet. The "Armani in Connecticut, cowboy boots in (TX?)" comment was obviously derogatory. The whole interview came from a different perspective than the Rice interview.... adversarial versus collegial.

And you could hardly be more spot-on in calling Rice one of the most incompetent public officials in recent memory -- though this Administration's contributions to the list rapidly overflow my short-term memory buffer.

How old is she, sixteen? Somehow, I want my SOS to be a person of maturity, not a high school cheerleader. Give me Ms. Pelosi, Ms Clinton, heck, even Madeleine Albright over Condi Rice. Foreign policy is a complicated matter. We need someone who knows his/her stuff.

she is one smart person, very tough and strong.

EMAIL: 60m@cbsnews.com

Kroft hatchet job on the Dixie Chicks

this wasn't as heavy handed, as there was the definite, "subtle" catty, woman vs. woman thing going on there, as well

but it was appalling, nonetheless

as a matter of fact, i sent them this thread.

subject was: leslie, check out the discussion of your interview

right here on the DU with a few people (best I could tell they were all men) who thought Pelosi should announce that she was not going to run for Speaker. They said it would help the midterms - you know, kind of eliminate the target.

I suggested that they were being sexist right here on our DU but they said no - just being politically shrewd. My thoughts - they were just plain sexist and didn't even know it.

Fortunately - most of the people in the thread disagreed with the OP.

that was an incredibly stupid idea.

... based on her being a woman; rather, they're leveraging her district (SanFran) and liberalism as their bogeyman -- since SanFran elicits those warm feelings of hatred for the GLBT community in their base.

As for our fellow DUers calling for Nancy to renounce intentions for the Speakership, I wouldn't necessarily call them "sexist", either -- assuming they were trying to deflate the Republican attack focused on Pelosi, based on the above. Instead, I'd call them Defeatocrats, running away from the fight, rather than standing up for our values and positions -- just the opposite of what we saw from Nancy Pelosi tonight, on '60 Minutes.'

they ARE attacking her because she's a woman.

Feels like the poster should of added "little lady". You know, the paternal pat on the head.

:rofl:

Daddy, can I have a pony?

:rofl:

But that's not an option, so ....

:applause:

... "libural" and "San FranCISco" and look to the hidden mysoginist message -- even though anti-liberal and anti-gay are the mainstays of all recent Republican campaigns and a majority of Americans, and I expect even Republican women, would have no problem with a woman Speaker of the House; and, in fact, would welcome a woman in charge after what all the bloody men have wrought -- Katherine Harris, Sandra Day O'Connor and Condoleeza Rice aside. :)

I get that you don't "get" my opinion, but will refrain from the arrogance of saying you don't get "it" -- as though my opinion is the ultimately correct view.

I am a bit surprised at the replies to my post, though, given that I agree with the basic premise that Nancy will be a great Speaker and that those calling for her to renounce intentions for the Speakership are habitually wrongheaded.

... "Massachusetts Liberal." Except she's so much a better target because a "San Francisco Liberal" gets the added anti-gay boost.

And, finally, if I didn't indicate it before, YES, I do believe that a lot of Americans have a problem with women attaining positions of power; however, I don't see that aspect as the primary or secondary driver of the anti-Nancy campaign. Tertiary maybe.

They constantly bring up this "Speaker Pelosi" boogeyman and the only thing I can think of that is really scary about her is that she's a she. She's hardly an idiological nutter like Gingrich, so this is all I can think of.

... with exit polls showing that many "soccer", "security", "{new_buzzword}" moms voting Democratic in order to put a woman in a top position.

if the woman is a progressive.

Could somebody give her a 'special slap' and remind her which political group opened the door for her to walk from the kitchen and into her cushy little gig?

... on Pelosi, but Nancy handled her deftly. Most of Stahl's questions were loaded, but Nancy didn't take umbrage and offered reasonable answers.

What a wonderful world it will be when the Democrats and other left-of-center advocates start taking the media to task, ala Clinton v Wallace.

and now we won't be able to go forward w/o the level-headedness of the next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi ! This puts to shame all the visions of shrill, blonde, dim-wits the R's put out there...the real 'sexism' on display !