*attempts to kickstart thread*
So...Pelosi as minority leader. Discuss. :)
I think she will be successful in that role. (keeping the Dems a minority that is :P)
I think she will be successful in that role. (keeping the Dems a minority that is :P)*attempts to kickstart thread*
So...Pelosi as minority leader. Discuss. :)
While I laud her efforts with healthcare and bear her no personal malice, the woman was, and still is, incredibly unpopular. I don't think she will be able to accomplish much as minority leader.
While I laud her efforts with healthcare and bear her no personal malice, the woman was, and still is, incredibly unpopular. I don't think she will be able to accomplish much as minority leader.I think she will be successful in that role. (keeping the Dems a minority that is :P)*attempts to kickstart thread*
So...Pelosi as minority leader. Discuss. :)
During the last bout of elections here in New Hampshire, the main Republican tactic was to put up signs with slogans blazing "X (Democratic candidate for whatever post) Agrees with Pelosi!"
It didn't seem to work. I guess Massachusetts has just about taken us over.
Whatever, I don't pay much attention to bourgeois electoral politics. I'm too busy preparing thousand dollar grievances against UPS (hee hee)!
While I laud her efforts with healthcare and bear her no personal malice, the woman was, and still is, incredibly unpopular. I don't think she will be able to accomplish much as minority leader.I think she will be successful in that role. (keeping the Dems a minority that is :P)*attempts to kickstart thread*
So...Pelosi as minority leader. Discuss. :)
During the last bout of elections here in New Hampshire, the main Republican tactic was to put up signs with slogans blazing "X (Democratic candidate for whatever post) Agrees with Pelosi!"
It didn't seem to work. I guess Massachusetts has just about taken us over.
Whatever, I don't pay much attention to bourgeois electoral politics. I'm too busy preparing thousand dollar grievances against UPS (hee hee)!
That it is a tactic in and of itself is a problem, I feel. And on a large scale- it's not okay when the Democrats do it either.
That it is a tactic in and of itself is a problem, I feel. And on a large scale- it's not okay when the Democrats do it either.
I agree. Oftentimes, people don't even know what the person supposedly being agreed with actually believes. Even if they do, what does "agree" mean in this context? Voted with once? Twice? All the time? Of all people, you'd think the U.S. electorate would understand voting for the best of bad choices. And even if a candidate did agree, is that really the only criteria you'd want to use?
Bah. We've got to do better.
That it is a tactic in and of itself is a problem, I feel. And on a large scale- it's not okay when the Democrats do it either.I agree. Oftentimes, people don't even know what the person supposedly being agreed with actually believes. Even if they do, what does "agree" mean in this context? Voted with once? Twice? All the time? Of all people, you'd think the U.S. electorate would understand voting for the best of bad choices. And even if a candidate did agree, is that really the only criteria you'd want to use?
Bah. We've got to do better.
I'm going to disagree to some extent. I think it's valid to point out that a local candidate supported a certain agenda spear headed by a certain party leader. I think it was valid when it was used against Gingrich and I think it's valid regarding Pelosi assuming the local candidate voted with her on key votes like stimulus, health care, bail outs, and budgets. It helps to overcome some of the massive advantages associated with incumbency as well as the "I hate congress, but I like my rep." pattern. As long as it's based on the candidates actual voting record I think it's a valid way to hold them accountable for the votes they cast. It's more personality driven than I care for, but that seems unavoidable in contemporary politics.
Holding representatives accountable for their votes makes sense -- as long as your ads aren't deceptive.
For example, some ads here said things like the candidate voted with Pelosi 97% of the time. But what if that 97% represents nonbinding resolutions and day-to-day business, and the 3% represents healthcare, the stimulus, basically the few most important issues where the electorate in the community differs greatly from Pelosi? Then the ad, while still precisely accurate, is pretty slimy.
Holding representatives accountable for their votes makes sense -- as long as your ads aren't deceptive.
For example, some ads here said things like the candidate voted with Pelosi 97% of the time. But what if that 97% represents nonbinding resolutions and day-to-day business, and the 3% represents healthcare, the stimulus, basically the few most important issues where the electorate in the community differs greatly from Pelosi? Then the ad, while still precisely accurate, is pretty slimy.
Fair point. I'm not saying it's OK, but wading through spin and distortion has become part of the voting process.
Unfortunately attack ads don't have to be even remotely accurate to work.
I have no problem with attack ads, but it would be nice if they weren't so deliberately mis-representative.
I'm going to disagree to some extent. I think it's valid to point out that a local candidate supported a certain agenda spear headed by a certain party leader. I think it was valid when it was used against Gingrich and I think it's valid regarding Pelosi assuming the local candidate voted with her on key votes like stimulus, health care, bail outs, and budgets. It helps to overcome some of the massive advantages associated with incumbency as well as the "I hate congress, but I like my rep." pattern. As long as it's based on the candidates actual voting record I think it's a valid way to hold them accountable for the votes they cast. It's more personality driven than I care for, but that seems unavoidable in contemporary politics.That it is a tactic in and of itself is a problem, I feel. And on a large scale- it's not okay when the Democrats do it either.I agree. Oftentimes, people don't even know what the person supposedly being agreed with actually believes. Even if they do, what does "agree" mean in this context? Voted with once? Twice? All the time? Of all people, you'd think the U.S. electorate would understand voting for the best of bad choices. And even if a candidate did agree, is that really the only criteria you'd want to use?
Bah. We've got to do better.
If we are going in this direction, then mention how many times someone has voted with someone else on an exact vote, not a specific issue.
Holding representatives accountable for their votes makes sense -- as long as your ads aren't deceptive.
For example, some ads here said things like the candidate voted with Pelosi 97% of the time. But what if that 97% represents nonbinding resolutions and day-to-day business, and the 3% represents healthcare, the stimulus, basically the few most important issues where the electorate in the community differs greatly from Pelosi? Then the ad, while still precisely accurate, is pretty slimy.Fair point. I'm not saying it's OK, but wading through spin and distortion has become part of the voting process.
Unfortunately attack ads don't have to be even remotely accurate to work.
I have no problem with attack ads, but it would be nice if they weren't so deliberately mis-representative.
Just because it's part of the process doesn't mean it can't be excised from it. I'd say more, but I've already been ninjaed on the topic.
Also, this whole line of conversation has me thinking of South Park- "You don't hate CHILDREN...do you?"
If we are going in this direction, then mention how many times someone has voted with someone else on an exact vote, not a specific issue.I'm going to disagree to some extent. I think it's valid to point out that a local candidate supported a certain agenda spear headed by a certain party leader. I think it was valid when it was used against Gingrich and I think it's valid regarding Pelosi assuming the local candidate voted with her on key votes like stimulus, health care, bail outs, and budgets. It helps to overcome some of the massive advantages associated with incumbency as well as the "I hate congress, but I like my rep." pattern. As long as it's based on the candidates actual voting record I think it's a valid way to hold them accountable for the votes they cast. It's more personality driven than I care for, but that seems unavoidable in contemporary politics.That it is a tactic in and of itself is a problem, I feel. And on a large scale- it's not okay when the Democrats do it either.I agree. Oftentimes, people don't even know what the person supposedly being agreed with actually believes. Even if they do, what does "agree" mean in this context? Voted with once? Twice? All the time? Of all people, you'd think the U.S. electorate would understand voting for the best of bad choices. And even if a candidate did agree, is that really the only criteria you'd want to use?
Bah. We've got to do better.
I am inclined to agree, but I am analytical and detail oriented. The majority of voters seem to lose interest rapidly when the debate turns to procedural specifics and legislative details. This is very unfortunate because it's reflected in how most news is reported. It's also very problematic because the minutia that goes on in committee and abstruse detail contained in massive bills is where many of the worst problems are buried. Most people's eyes seem to glass over when you start getting into that level of detail, and frankly that's where stuff really gets done.
Just because it's part of the process doesn't mean it can't be excised from it. I'd say more, but I've already been ninjaed on the topic.Holding representatives accountable for their votes makes sense -- as long as your ads aren't deceptive.
For example, some ads here said things like the candidate voted with Pelosi 97% of the time. But what if that 97% represents nonbinding resolutions and day-to-day business, and the 3% represents healthcare, the stimulus, basically the few most important issues where the electorate in the community differs greatly from Pelosi? Then the ad, while still precisely accurate, is pretty slimy.Fair point. I'm not saying it's OK, but wading through spin and distortion has become part of the voting process.
Unfortunately attack ads don't have to be even remotely accurate to work.
I have no problem with attack ads, but it would be nice if they weren't so deliberately mis-representative.
I think it could be addressed by vigorous third party fact checking by the media, but that just isn't done anymore. There really aren't any credible neutral parties to throw the BS flag. Aqua Buddha make have gone a little too far for folks to swallow, but history shows us that "swift boating" works. Because it works that the way it's done. It sucks and it drives people away from being involved, but as long as it works that's how campaigns will spend their dollars.
Also consider that if someone may have not supported Pelosi's positions 100% of the time, but still was in her caucus, that would mean that by supporting that candidate you are supporting her. This is how the house runs. Thus it is fair to use her to target individual members of her party due to how power is divided in the congress.
Also consider that if someone may have not supported Pelosi's positions 100% of the time, but still was in her caucus, that would mean that by supporting that candidate you are supporting her. This is how the house runs. Thus it is fair to use her to target individual members of her party due to how power is divided in the congress.
I tend to agree. This effect also tends to be more pronounced in the house where so many districts have been severely gerrymandered so a lot of house seats are basically untouchable. It's all but impossible to elect any Democrat in my district or any Republican in Pelosi's district.
Also, this whole line of conversation has me thinking of South Park- "You don't hate CHILDREN...do you?"Modern Politics at it's finest. ;)
+1