30th August
2010
She asked you a simple question, and you gave a not so simple answer. This is really a post on why politicians have to be so difficult.
29 Comments
login
Polls
Loading ...Recent Comments
- internal hemorrhoids treatments on Egypt Reactions
- like this on John Thune and Sotomayor
- jquery mobile tutorial on College Football/Nebraska-KSU Challenge
- discount learn css3 pdf on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now aka ACORN
- site link on Rep. Weiner on Justice Thomas and the Appearance of Bias
- rate us online on House Officially Disapproves of Wilson’s Outburst
- rate us on Will Rogers Said It Best
- t1 circuit info on Good God Glenn
- reality show casting on Teacher takes Student the wood shed…
- insurnace companies on Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (130)
- Arizona's Racist Law (119)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (83)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (80)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (76)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (62)
- Sarah Palin: Persecuted Jew? (57)
- Healthcare (53)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (50)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (49)
Blogroll
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
…because you ask stupid questions. Of course a Democrat will vote for a Democratic speaker, just as a Republican will vote for a Republican speaker. And because Krisit isn’t smart enough to debate actual policies, she has to keep pandering to the inattentive voters and the cult of negative personality. It’s a lot easier to whine “Nancy! Nancy!” than to enunciate a coherent policy analysis. Noem needs to get off the canned talking points and outline practical policy if she wants to earn the right to serve in Congress.
There are other Democrats in the house who she could cast a vote for speaker for. Or she could run herself.
Why is this such a difficult concept? Yes, or no. And if no, who?
Yes, Cory, there are other democrats to vote for. Its not a stupid question….If its so stupid, why she does she dance around it
It’s stupid because the answer is obvious. She dances around it because the person obviously wanted her to say she’d vote for Pelosi, which could be used for some disingenuous advertisement. Each party nominates a candidate, and clearly Pelosi is the nominee. Voting for the Republican (or even being the lone person to nominate someone else) could likely mean being stripped of seniority and power. It’s better (in the eyes of you guys, at least) that she just stay in power and fight Pelosi to hold up the passing of bills until changes are made.
Adam, You said. . .” could be used for some disingenuous advertisement.” Would an ad that said SHS to vote for Pelosi be disingenuous. Near as I can tell, it would be honest and truthful; unless she plans something else. Nah. . .
Well said Alice. When Pelosi became speaker, I watched on CSPAN as she cast her vote for Pelosi. She danced around the question. Filled us full of BS and ignored what is truly is truly wanted.
But now SHS has fire of her own…Speeding tickets. Maybe that can used for some disingenuous advertisement.
What? The princess doesn’t do that. Have you seen the new ad where the jet is flying overhead? You’d think she was starting her own third party comprised of nothing but high standards and soaring ethics. Got to stick in the craw of the truly left of the democrat party. Also, I kept expecting her to look over her should and wave shouting “Hi Nancy” while the jet passed overhead. Let’s start with a simpler question. Steph, did you share drinks with your chief of staff on the night of her arrest? When did you become aware of her charges?
People would use it to say she is Pelosi’s puppet, which is false. I remember one of Stephanie’s first campaigns they had an advertisement saying she was supported by scary liberals like Hillary Clinton. It’s an attempt to guide people away from substance and her policies to get them to associate her with other people.
Sure Adam, I see your point. . .you mean like Frankin did, right?
When you say like Franken did, do you mean his comments about Stephanie voting for Pelosi? I think he was wrong, both on the facts and for saying it.
The most significant national figure to help the princess with her campaign, Franken, came to SD at her invitation and promptly tied her to Pelosi by saying she would be another vote for Pelosi. Nothing that the GOP or Noem could have done would have associated her more directly to that issue than her own campaign got done. I am sure you think Franken and Pelosi are the best of the best. What’s you trouble with anyone else calling it the way it is where the princess is concerned.
Looks to me that even Fox News knows that Congresswoman Herseth-Sandlin isn’t tied to Nancy Pelosi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qD0c5NvCCg&feature=player_embedded
The princess would wet the carpet if she ever had to stand up to pelosi when her vote would potentially change an outcome and we all know it.
No I don’t. Princess (is that bad?) has led the charge that has led to changes in several bills. You know that.
Name the bill, name the change. Do it three times. . .you did say “bills”.
And please make them significant changes in significant bills, not some minor procedural little things.
It may be lazy, but here is an article with some examples I have used before: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_1/news/48012-1.html
You are right about the lazy part. It was an interesting article, but mostly anecdotal and seemed to be Herseth Sandlin trying to claim personal accomplishment for anything that resembled a political image she could portray back home. I really was expecting more from you, but I am learning.
That constitutes evidence? “We’re going to increase spending, but less than the most liberal amoung us.” Those changes carry the substance of a color change for the office letterhead. Swing and a miss Adam. Which bills and wich changes. Name three.
That constitutes evidence? “We’re going to increase spending, but less than the most liberal amoung us.” Those changes carry the substance of a color change for the office letterhead. Swing and a miss Adam. Which bills and which changes. Name three.
Sunday on Fox and Friends (Adam’s Favorite Show) state the DNCC was going to cut funding to Candidates that are not moving anywhere in the polls. They name 6 candidates for sure with the closest being Earl Pomeroy, D-ND. After the latest polls are released this week, could SHS be on that list? Hope so.
Although I will say, the Noem camp needs to move on from the Pelosi deal. They have used it and Noem is starting to sound rehearsed. Find something new to attack.
The unemployment bill became deficit neutral. The state bailout saw much of the proposed spending cut (nearly half). Blue dogs were a part of the reason the public option was removed from the health care plan (though Herseth-Sandlin never did vote for it).
Wow. Quite a record. Again, if her position is to spend, but less than the most liberal amoung the liberals, well than I think she should announce it proudly. Let’see how well it works. Deficit neutral? My, but you are naive.
Let’s just face it Adam, you have ZERO on this issue.
Why? It’s obvious Stephanie is no Pelosi and Blue Dogs push for more fiscal conservatism, often to the detriment of important legislation, in my opinion.
Let’s just face it Adam, you have ZERO on this issue.
Sigh.
Sounds like surrender to me.
Exasperation.