Jay Reding.com

Pelosi Fails Her First Test

The incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) failed her first test of leadership as Steny Hoyer beat Jack Murtha for the Majority Leader position in the new Democratic House. Pelosi had been strongly backing Murtha over the past few weeks, despite his ethical problems relating to the Abscam investigation in the 1980s and his history of earmarks.

Hoyer defeated Murtha by a vote of 149 to 86 — a rather astounding margin when Pelosi had been so strongly pulling for him.

Pelosi’s support of Murtha never made sense to me, unless it was due to their doctrinaire dislike of the war in Iraq. Murtha was never a strong candidate. His ethical issues were a ticking time bomb, and his style of management would not make him an appealing member of the Democratic leadership. There had to be some kind of quid pro quo involved somewhere. What it may have been is now probably an academic question.

Pelosi’s strong-arm tactics in pushing Murtha signal that despite all the rhetoric of unity coming from the Democratic camp, the divisions are already starting to show. The fact that Pelosi tried to use committee assignments to force Charlie Rangel into the Murtha camp do not bode well for Speaker Pelosi’s future relations with the Democratic majority. If this is going to be her governing style, the split between Pelosi’s liberals and the Blue Dog conservatives could get bigger and bigger over time.

The Democrats are caught in the same Catch-22 they’ve been caught in for years. They got to the majority based on winning in conservative districts, but now the liberal base that has the real power in the party is going to want results. One side of the other is going to have to win, and if the Blue Dogs win the liberal left may walk away. If the liberals win, it will help the Republicans in their efforts to regain the majority in 2008. Pelosi can’t push too strongly in either direction without tearing the Democratic caucus apart, which doesn’t help her all that much.

The only thing that seems to unify Democrats is wanting to bug out of Iraq, but with top generals saying that’s a horrendously bad idea, the Democrats are in serious political trouble. If they don’t cut and run, the liberal base will call them traitors. If they do, it will further demonstrate that the Democratic Party is not a party that can be taken seriously on national issues. A defeat in Iraq will be a defeat for the United States. Do the Democrats really want to be the party that pushed for an American defeat as the keystone of their majority agenda?

One thing is for certain, it’s going to be a very interesting two years…

38 responses to “Pelosi Fails Her First Test”

  1. Seth says:

    We have differences in who we want to lead our party. The Republicans want racists to lead their party. I think I’m in the right one.

    Also, had you been waiting 9 days to write that headline, or longer?

  2. Jay Reding says:

    We have differences in who we want to lead our party. The Republicans want racists to lead their party. I think I’m in the right one.

    The difference is that we don’t have a former member of the KKK (Sen. Robert Byrd) as a member of our party. Nor do we have a member of an anti-Semitic organization like the Nation of Islam like Rep. Ellison.

    Trent Lott may be guilty of making an exceptionally stupid comment, but that doesn’t make him a racist.

    Also, had you been waiting 9 days to write that headline, or longer?

    I’m surprised it took Pelosi 9 days to screw up, but at least she made up her tardiness with the magnitude of her error.

    Sadly, having John “Redeployment to the Other End of the Planet” Murtha as majority leader would have been a great boon to pointing out the fundamental irresponsibility of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Rep. Hoyer ran on a platform that tried to convince his colleagues that he was, in fact, just as irresponsible, so perhaps it ultimately doesn’t matter.

  3. Mark says:

    “Nor do we have a member of an anti-Semitic organization like the Nation of Islam like Rep. Ellison.”

    Generally, I think Trent Lott got a raw deal over his lighthearted salute to Strom Thurmond in 2002, but your suggestion is even more outrageous. Show me one thing that Ellison has said or written that is anti-Semitic, or else slither back into your hole.

  4. Jay Reding says:

    Show me one thing that Ellison has said or written that is anti-Semitic, or else slither back into your hole.

    Ellison’s dubious history with the Nation of Islam is quite well documented.

    “Slither back into your hole?” Bloody hell, I figured that actually winning an election would make you lefties a bit more agreeable, but apparently I was incorrect.

  5. Erica says:

    Trent Lott may be guilty of making an exceptionally stupid comment, but that doesn’t make him a racist.

    Wait, what? If all but saying that “America wouldn’t have all these problems” if only we’d rescinded the Anti-Lynching Act (as Thurmond campaigned on a platform of doing) isn’t enough to conclude he’s a vestigal appendage of Old Racism, what is? Does he have to come out and say “I hate niggers”? Or keep a few nooses in his office? (Oh, wait, that’s just a “reminder” of how good grits are, or something. I can never keep Republican excuses for racism straight.)

  6. Erica says:

    Strong-arm tactics? She wrote a letter.

    Look, it’s obvious what this is about – any indication that Pelosi doesn’t get every single thing that she wants from House democrats will be used by conservatives to suggest that a woman doesn’t have the qualifications to be Speaker of the House.

    She’s not the Hammer, folks. She doesn’t have DeLay’s bag of sleazy tricks to enforce rigid party orthodoxy. (Thank goodness.)

    Bloody hell, I figured that actually winning an election would make you lefties a bit more agreeable, but apparently I was incorrect.

    I guess so, if by “agreeable” you mean “agreeable to bending over for more of Jay’s abuse.” Though I can’t imagine why winning an election is supposed to make us all pushovers.

  7. Alec says:

    Whether Iraq is a success or failure, historians will pin it all on GW, not a Democratic Congress. Remember, the buck stops with the commander-in-chief. I hear that historians are already beginning to discuss where exactly he falls on the “worst presidents” list.

  8. Alec says:

    I also think you need to remember, Jay, that Nancy was elected unanimously by her party. No one voted against her. I hardly call that a “failure of leadership.”

  9. Jay Reding says:

    Whether Iraq is a success or failure, historians will pin it all on GW, not a Democratic Congress. Remember, the buck stops with the commander-in-chief. I hear that historians are already beginning to discuss where exactly he falls on the “worst presidents” list.

    Future historians will be unlikely to be as ravenously partisan as contemporary ones…

    I also think you need to remember, Jay, that Nancy was elected unanimously by her party. No one voted against her. I hardly call that a “failure of leadership.”

    Losing a major vote like that almost certainly is. Her getting elected doesn’t make her an effective leader…

  10. Alec says:

    All beside the point. Historically, GW will be blamed or praised for Iraq, not the Dems. And I’m not sure why hundreds of Dems would elect Nancy speaker if she hadn’t demonstrated her leadership abilities. So Hoyer was elected, who cares? No one will remember this intraparty election after this coming Sunday. It doesn’t change the outcome of last Tuesday’s election.

  11. zzx375 says:

    Smart move to pick Hoyer over Murtha. Murtha had too much baggage.

  12. Jay Reding says:

    Strong-arm tactics? She wrote a letter.

    Did you read the article? She threatened Rangel by saying that he wouldn’t get committee assignments if he didn’t support Murtha.

    Look, it’s obvious what this is about – any indication that Pelosi doesn’t get every single thing that she wants from House democrats will be used by conservatives to suggest that a woman doesn’t have the qualifications to be Speaker of the House.

    Only in your head…

    She’s not the Hammer, folks. She doesn’t have DeLay’s bag of sleazy tricks to enforce rigid party orthodoxy. (Thank goodness.)

    Except for the fact where she does, as the WaPo article states.

    I guess so, if by “agreeable” you mean “agreeable to bending over for more of Jay’s abuse.” Though I can’t imagine why winning an election is supposed to make us all pushovers.

    Given the quality of your comments, I wouldn’t be complaining about “abuse”.

    And besides, if you’re so abused here, it’s quite easy to find the exit…

  13. Erica says:

    Given the quality of your comments, I wouldn’t be complaining about “abuse”.

    Is it really that hard to actually address my arguments? Ad hominem is beneath you.

  14. Jay Reding says:

    Is it really that hard to actually address my arguments? Ad hominem is beneath you.

    Ad hominem only applies if the accusation is untrue. Furthermore, I did address your argument. You claim that Pelosi didn’t use strong-arm tactics. Is threatening a senior member of your caucus not a strong-arm tactic? Was what Speaker Pelosi did to Rep. Rangel not a “dirty trick?”

  15. Seth says:

    Trent Lott may be guilty of making an exceptionally stupid comment, but that doesn’t make him a racist.
    Agreed. What makes him a racist are his connections throughout the 1990s with the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, his legislative deals to promote a tax exempt status for Bob Jones University, his votes against extending the Voting Rights Act, his vote against extending the Civil Rights Act, his vote against making Martin Luter King Jr. Day a national holidy, and his vote to de-fund the MLK Holiday commission. And the one comment about Thurmond is excusable. Except Lott said the same thing on several occasions.

    Ellison–it’s pretty tough to understand why the American Jewish World would endorse an anti-Semite for U.S. Congress. Typical of elitist Republicans to continue to run with that one, though.

    And the difference with Byrd is that Byrd publicly said he knew he would need to change his position if he wanted to play a part in national Democratic politics.

    So, yeah. One party elects racists to leadership posts, and the other has a difference about who should be in the leadership post. I think this isn’t really that big of a deal and it at least shows the Democrats will think with their own heads instead of blindly following leadership. After the Tom DeLay years, I think we need some more of that.

    It’s going to be fun today, though, when the GOP sends the same people that sent them to defeat to keep leading them in the House.

  16. Erica says:

    Ad hominem only applies if the accusation is untrue.

    They teach you that in law school? Ask for your money back. Argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy of assuming your opponent’s argument is rebutted simply because you’ve called them a dirty name.

    Is threatening a senior member of your caucus not a strong-arm tactic?

    Well, it didn’t work, did it? Couldn’t have been that strong, then.

    But look, this is exactly what I’m talking about; how Pelosi’s gender will be used to submarine her at every turn by conservatives. Tactics that they would praise as “strong” or “decisive” or “showing leadership” when a man is doing them become “shrill” and “bitchy” simply because Pelosi has a uterus. It’s no surprise that conservatives don’t think a woman is capable of being Speaker of the House – they invoked her name and gender as a scare tactic all election – but I would have figured that they would have tried to hide their sexism a little harder.

  17. Jay Reding says:

    They teach you that in law school? Ask for your money back. Argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy of assuming your opponent’s argument is rebutted simply because you’ve called them a dirty name.

    Not quite.

    I stated that your comments are poor, relying on bad faith arguments that boil down to “all conservatives are racists|sexists|bigots|homoephobes|doodyheads” — which you continue to prove. That is not an ad hominem, that so happens to be the truth.

    Well, it didn’t work, did it? Couldn’t have been that strong, then.

    That’s just daft. If I threaten to beat you with a baseball bat if you don’t wear a T-shirt that says “I (heart) George W. Bush” and you refuse, then you’d argue I didn’t make a threat. The existence of a threat does not at all depend on that threat being successful, and it’s ridiculous to argue that threatening to remove Congressional committee assignments is not a strong-arm tactic.

    But look, this is exactly what I’m talking about; how Pelosi’s gender will be used to submarine her at every turn by conservatives.

    You’re the one who brought up Speaker Pelosi’s gender.

    Tactics that they would praise as “strong” or “decisive” or “showing leadership” when a man is doing them become “shrill” and “bitchy” simply because Pelosi has a uterus.

    Except no one but you used the term “shrill” or “bitchy.” What Pelosi did to Rep. Rangel was dumb regardless of the position of one’s genitalia.

    It’s no surprise that conservatives don’t think a woman is capable of being Speaker of the House – they invoked her name and gender as a scare tactic all election – but I would have figured that they would have tried to hide their sexism a little harder.

    This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned an argument in bad faith. The issue was never Pelosi’s gender, but the fact that she’s a San Francisco liberal whose views are dramatically outside the American mainstream. Evidently you’d prefer to bash away at a nice straw man rather than deal with the arguments being made, but if liberals had any conception of logical argument or reason, most of them wouldn’t be liberals anymore.

  18. Jay Reding says:

    Well, now it looks like those notorious right-wing sexists at The New York Times agree with my position on Pelosi’s performance

  19. Alec says:

    Glenn Greenwald has a good post that counters Jay’s spin.

  20. Jay Reding says:

    Glenn Greenwald has a good post that counters Jay’s spin.

    If by my spin you mean the opinions of everyone who isn’t a hack like Greenwald…

    The one spinning here is Greenwald. To have a Speaker get into the position that Pelosi is now in can’t be spun — it was a major defeat for her, and it’s dividing the Democratic caucus. Now Glenn Greenwald and the left of the lefty blogosphere can try to rationalize that away until the cows come home, but here on Planet Earth, the reality of the situation is what it is.

    For instance, Greenwald makes the ridiculous assertion that “The Bush administration has spent six years completely obsessed with personal loyalty to the President and intolerant of the slightest independence. The entire Congress was kept strictly in line for the last five years.”

    Gee, I guess that Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports deal, and the steel tariffs never happened. I suppose John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, or any other Republican Senator never spoke out against any of the President’s policies.

    When someone makes a claim as patently idiotic as that, there can be little doubt that they’re not making serious arguments. Then again, we are talking about Glenn Greenwald, for whom the term “partisan hack” is an understatement.

  21. Alec says:

    The statement you quote of Greenwald’s is not ridiculous. The Republican Congress was a rubber stamp for the Congress a vast majority of the time. Bush used his veto authority, what, once? This is evidence enough of a Congress kept strictly in line. For every “independent” types like John McCain there were 10 Bush Republicans like Santorum, Hassert, and Delay. Greenwald’s point is not “patently idiotic” because it’s true.

    Second, I suppose that if Murtha and Hoyer running for a position within the Democratic caucus shows a “divided party,” the Republicans must be in divided dire straits, too. After all, my gosh, look at the race for whip between Lott and Alexander: the vote was 25 to 24! Red alert! Divided Republicans! Film at 11! But we don’t hear much from you, Jay, or the media, about the tremendously divided Republicans and McConnell’s lack of leadership for not uniting more Republicans behind one candidate. And not a word from you about the race between Pence and Boehner.

    Cherry pick, cherry pick, cherry pick…

  22. Erica says:

    I guess you don’t expect people to read what you link to? Because your link proves exactly what I said:

    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

    If by my spin you mean the opinions of everyone who isn’t a hack like Greenwald…

    See, here’s what I’m talking about. No rebuttal necessary at JayReding.com; it’s sufficient to assert that Greenwald is a hack (pot, kettle, black) and we’re done, I guess. Pelosi’s from San Francisco, so we can completly discount her views. (I’ve always thought San Francisco was a nice city; I don’t understand why conservatives hate it so much.)

    If you don’t have a response to my arguments, that’s fair. I don’t expect you to be an infinite font of conservative talking points. But actually lying about the content of my posts? That’s just plain rude.

  23. Jay Reding says:

    The statement you quote of Greenwald’s is not ridiculous. The Republican Congress was a rubber stamp for the Congress a vast majority of the time. Bush used his veto authority, what, once? This is evidence enough of a Congress kept strictly in line. For every “independent” types like John McCain there were 10 Bush Republicans like Santorum, Hassert, and Delay. Greenwald’s point is not “patently idiotic” because it’s true.

    No, it isn’t. Again, Harriet Miers. The Dubai ports deal. Social Security. The idea that Congress was a mere “rubber stamp” for the President is not true, as significant portions of the President’s agenda never got passed, and didn’t pass due to Republican opposition. Greenwald’s point does not at all hold, and he can’t merely gloss over what actually happened.

    The fact that Bush rarely vetoed a bill is more of a sign that Bush was a pushover than he was getting what he wanted every time. He signed McCain-Feingold despite his opposition to that bill. He signed NCLB despite the fact it had been severely watered down. He signed the McCain Amendment despite disagreeing with it.

    The difference between a Glenn Greenwald and someone who is actually worth reading is that a hack like Greenwald will ignore facts that don’t support his ravenously partisan worldview. I suggest that you read more intellectually edifying writers rather than the Greenwalds of the world. In terms of being a hack, Greenwald’s already in Ann Coulter territory.

    Second, I suppose that if Murtha and Hoyer running for a position within the Democratic caucus shows a “divided party,” the Republicans must be in divided dire straits, too. After all, my gosh, look at the race for whip between Lott and Alexander: the vote was 25 to 24! Red alert! Divided Republicans! Film at 11! But we don’t hear much from you, Jay, or the media, about the tremendously divided Republicans and McConnell’s lack of leadership for not uniting more Republicans behind one candidate. And not a word from you about the race between Pence and Boehner.

    Again, think about the situation. Pelosi endorsed Murtha. She put her credibility at stake in doing so — and she lost. Nothing comparable like that happened with the GOP elections.

    Look, if you want to be more than just another partisan hack, you need to stop treating politics like football. Just cheering for your team is simply dumb. There are real issues here, with a lot of shades of gray that a hack like Glenn Greenwald doesn’t give a damn about it. Reading that tripe is worthless, and a waste of your time.

    If you’re a liberal, read The Nation, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, etc. Those may be partisan, but they’re not dumb. Avoid 90% of the leftwing blogosphere, except for Talking Points Memo, which tends to be fairly intelligent, if still stridently partisan. Don’t bother with Greenwald, Kos, DU, Atrios, or the rest of the moonbat crowd. They’re not worth reading. They don’t make arguments, they just fling their crap all over. It’s not intelligent argumentation, it’s schoolyard taunting.

    If you’re a conservative, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and First Things are all worth reading. Most of the righty blogs are fairly good, although I find Red State too stridently partisan. Don’t bother with some of the more radical blogs either, although right-wing blogs tend to bash Islamists rather than liberals. I’ll admit to enjoying Hannity, Limbaugh, and Ingraham from time to time, but they’re fluff more than anything else. Hugh Hewitt is by far the best talk show host, and well worth listening to.

    Everyone should be reading The Economist, Instapundit, and Real Clear Politics.

    The biggest problem that this country has is that too much of the media is a bunch of stridently partisan crap-flinging with no depth of analysis. I’m getting pretty damn sick of all this “my side is better than your side” nonsense going on here, and quite frankly, if this is all I’m going to get, it’s just not worth opening posts to comments. If I’m going to read a contradictory argument, I’d rather have it be an intelligently constructed one than a talking point somebody ripped from some hack.

  24. Jay Reding says:

    I guess you don’t expect people to read what you link to? Because your link proves exactly what I said:

    No, it doesn’t. I asserted the contention that the quality of your comments were poor. I maintain the truth of that statement. QED.

    See, here’s what I’m talking about. No rebuttal necessary at JayReding.com; it’s sufficient to assert that Greenwald is a hack (pot, kettle, black) and we’re done, I guess.

    And then I went on for some time illustrating an example of why Greenwald was a hack, backing it up with concrete illustrations of why his argument that Congress has been a “rubber stamp” for the President is manifestly untrue.

    Pelosi’s from San Francisco, so we can completly discount her views. (I’ve always thought San Francisco was a nice city; I don’t understand why conservatives hate it so much.)

    Again, that’s not the argument. I said that the dislike of Pelosi comes from her being a “San Francisco liberal”, not her having a uterus. Furthermore, would you argue that San Francisco is representative of the culture of the country as a whole? I don’t think many residents of San Francisco would even agree with that.

    If you don’t have a response to my arguments, that’s fair. I don’t expect you to be an infinite font of conservative talking points. But actually lying about the content of my posts? That’s just plain rude.

    Given that I did no such thing, I wouldn’t complain.

  25. Erica says:

    The biggest problem that this country has is that too much of the media is a bunch of stridently partisan crap-flinging with no depth of analysis.

    And yet you run a blog where you claim a monopoly on the crap-flinging. If you’re so interested in intellectual debate, run a site called “Conservatism with Brains” instead of “Conservatism with attitude.”

    And then I went on for some time illustrating an example of why Greenwald was a hack, backing it up with concrete illustrations of why his argument that Congress has been a “rubber stamp” for the President is manifestly untrue.

    Three examples in 6 years does not a rubber-stamp unmake. It’s hilarious to watch you fling accusations of hackitude, all the while throwing around hack arguments like this. You’re an embarassment, Jay.

    Furthermore, would you argue that San Francisco is representative of the culture of the country as a whole?

    It’s certainly a part of the country, as much as that drives conservatives nuts. The mere idea that any one place could be a stand-in for the entire nation is laughable, but just the level of intellectual labor that can be found anytime at Jayreding.com.

    San Francisco is a part of the US, and they have every right to have their views represented, especially since progressive views are supported by a majority of Americas as every recent poll shows. (Which I’ve proven several times in posts that “conviniently” seem to disappear from your blog.)

  26. Alec says:

    Speaking of “hacks,” now Fox news commentator Mort Kondracke is labeling Nancy Pelosi the “Wicked Witch of the West.” Real high brow analysis there.

  27. Erica says:

    Speaking of “hacks,” now Fox news commentator Mort Kondracke is labeling Nancy Pelosi the “Wicked Witch of the West.”

    Funny – I posted the exact same thing two hours ago, but it still hasn’t shown up on the site. Funny how that works.

  28. Jay Reding says:

    Speaking of “hacks,” now Fox news commentator Mort Kondracke is labeling Nancy Pelosi the “Wicked Witch of the West.” Real high brow analysis there.

    God forbid anyone make a joke… and I happened to see that bit, in which Kondrake made a very astute observation that Steny Hoyer is now in a position to stab her in the back.

    Oh, wait, it’s not analysis that people care about any more, just silly cheap shots. Never mind, then.

    Funny – I posted the exact same thing two hours ago, but it still hasn’t shown up on the site. Funny how that works.

    My guess is you linked to something from some left-wing link factory that’s frequently used to spam blogs – which Askimet treats as spam… because it is.

  29. Erica says:

    My guess is you linked to something from some left-wing link factory that’s frequently used to spam blogs – which Askimet treats as spam… because it is.

    Uh-huh. So, legitimate liberal sources are dismissed as “spam” and disallowed from the debate, but you link to Faux News all the time? This is supposed to be the open spirit of intellectual discourse you’re so interested in fostering?

  30. Jay Reding says:

    Uh-huh. So, legitimate liberal sources are dismissed as “spam” and disallowed from the debate, but you link to Faux News all the time? This is supposed to be the open spirit of intellectual discourse you’re so interested in fostering?

    1) I don’t control what Akismet tags as spam. However, if that were a legitimate news source, it wouldn’t be getting blocked.

    2) I haven’t linked to Fox in a long time. Mainly because all the content on their site are AP stories, same as everyone else.

    Oh, and “Faux”? Can we be more childish?

  31. Erica says:

    There’s no such thing as “www.akimet.com”.

  32. Jay Reding says:

    There’s no such thing as “www.akimet.com”.

    Indeed there isn’t… I corrected the link.

  33. zzx375 says:

    “Pelosi’s from San Francisco, so we can completly discount her views. (I’ve always thought San Francisco was a nice city; I don’t understand why conservatives hate it so much.)”

    Hate’s? Doesn’t fit. But it probably is a nice city if you share their world view, otherwise too bad.

    How so?

    How about their school board banning JROTC, a program that about 1600 kids participated in? The program had been in existence there for 90 years and taught leadership, organizational skills, and personal responsibility.

    Guess they can teach the kids to imagine whirled peas instead.

  34. Erica says:

    How about their school board banning JROTC, a program that about 1600 kids participated in?

    I thought conservatives were all about local control of schools. But I guess when it comes down to it, what conservatives really stand for is using the power of government to force their agenda on others.

  35. zzx375 says:

    Erica wrote: “I thought conservatives were all about local control of schools. But I guess when it comes down to it, what conservatives really stand for is using the power of government to force their agenda on others. ”

    How have conservatives forced their agenda on anyone in regard to this SF issue? And the basis (example #1, example #2, etc) for asserting that conservatives are all about local control of schools would be……(this ought to be good)?

    In SF, the liberal komerades, using the government appendage known as a school board, forced their agenda on others by removing an program that had huge (apprx 1600) support from the kids. There was nothing mandatory about participation in the SF JROTC, but the kids chose to be in it. Free choice – what a concept! Why Erica, since you support a women’s right to choose, why not support the same right to choose for those kids and parents right?

    BTW, its your liberal friends and the NEA that want give the federal government local control of the schools. What will replace the JROTC class? Perhaps a whirled peas class based upon “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

  36. Erica says:

    And the basis (example #1, example #2, etc) for asserting that conservatives are all about local control of schools would be……(this ought to be good)?

    Yeah, you’re right. There basically is no set of principles conservatives won’t pay lip service to then discard as soon as it becomes inconvinent.

    In SF, the liberal komerades, using the government appendage known as a school board, forced their agenda on others by removing an program that had huge (apprx 1600) support from the kids.

    These are the actions of the democratically-elected school board. Are you saying our schools should be run according to what the kids find most fun? Admittedly, Nintendo 101 would be an awesome class, but I don’t see that strategy promoting educational needs.

    Why Erica, since you support a women’s right to choose, why not support the same right to choose for those kids and parents right?

    They did choose. They made their choice at the ballot box when they elected the school board.

    BTW, its your liberal friends and the NEA that want give the federal government local control of the schools.

    I never said it wasn’t. Federal enforcement of a certain set of educational goals is a good idea. What’s your point? First you said opposing federal control of schools wasn’t part of conservatism. Now you say it is? Why is it that you’re so inconsistent?

  37. zzx375 says:

    Erica,
    Point? You make assertions but provide no support for them. But then your assertions, your views, are no better or worse than anyone elses, including Pelosi’s. And since we are in a free society, we are free to completely discount Pelosi’s views if we choose. Right? Or does that bother you?

  38. Erica says:

    Point? You make assertions but provide no support for them

    Unfortunately, Jay has chosen to make it impossible for me to provide any sort of hyperlinks in my post. If you want me to be able to support my points, you need to take it up with him. Every time I post a post that links to supporting information, it’s taken off the blog.