+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi (/showthread.php?tid=219571)
Pages:
1
2
Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - pdq - 08-14-2018
House speakers over the last 25 years; compare and contrast.
While in office, Hastert was generally portrayed as a stolid embodiment of middle-American values. Ryan was for years the recipient of fawning media coverage, which lauded him as the ultimate serious, honest conservative long after his phoniness was obvious to anyone who paid attention. But Pelosi is typically referred to as “divisive.” Why?
...maybe it’s just the fact that she’s a woman — a woman who happens to have been far better at her job than any man in recent memory.
Worth a read.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - vision63 - 08-14-2018
Reading. BTW, she was on fire this weekend.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - $tevie - 08-14-2018
I whole-heartedly agree with Krugman.
I suppose everyone is by now familiar with the Atlantic article I post whenever Pelosi's name comes up:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-nancy-pelosi-problem/554048/
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - pdq - 08-14-2018
Honestly, I think most people that hate Pelosi and Clinton do so for three reasons:
1) They're women
2) They're successful women
3) They don't like their kind of personality (in a woman).
I've left their politics out of this, of course, and I will grant that that plays a big role for many people. But most folks don't (or shouldn't) hate people solely for their political views. How many folks on either side would admit to hating Obama (or, say, Jeb Bush?)
For the people that hate, really hate, Pelosi and Clinton, it's 1-3 above.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - Pam - 08-14-2018
pdq wrote:
Honestly, I think most people that hate Pelosi and Clinton do so for three reasons:
1) They're women
2) They're successful women
3) They don't like their kind of personality (in a woman).
I've left their politics out of this, of course, and I will grant that that plays a big role for many people. But most folks don't (or shouldn't) hate people solely for their political views. How many folks on either side would admit to hating Obama (or, say, Jeb Bush?)
For the people that hate, really hate, Pelosi and Clinton, it's 1-3 above.
For some democrats, they pull away from her because of the vitriol spewing from the right regarding her.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - SteveG - 08-14-2018
For many years, Pelosi has been a poor spokesperson for the Democrats. Reid was the same and Schumer isn't much better.
I quite frankly don't care what kind of maneuvering they are capable of behind the scenes. When a leader speaks I expect them to advance the cause. Pelosi and Schumer don't.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - pdq - 08-14-2018
Pam wrote:
[quote=pdq]
Honestly, I think most people that hate Pelosi and Clinton do so for three reasons:
1) They're women
2) They're successful women
3) They don't like their kind of personality (in a woman).
I've left their politics out of this, of course, and I will grant that that plays a big role for many people. But most folks don't (or shouldn't) hate people solely for their political views. How many folks on either side would admit to hating Obama (or, say, Jeb Bush?)
For the people that hate, really hate, Pelosi and Clinton, it's 1-3 above.
For some democrats, they pull away from her because of the vitriol spewing from the right regarding her.
I totally agree, for both Clinton and Pelosi. As much as they'd like to pretend otherwise, after a generation's worth of slime and accusations tossed at both, the right has absolutely bupkis on either, and has to rely on outright prevarication or playing word games (which is deplorable :wink: )
...which is not to say that if the Dems take the House, Pelosi must be speaker - there's something to be said for passing the torch.
But make no mistake - the GOP and their media and enablers will slime anyone in that position.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - vision63 - 08-14-2018
Steve G. wrote:
For many years, Pelosi has been a poor spokesperson for the Democrats. Reid was the same and Schumer isn't much better.
I quite frankly don't care what kind of maneuvering they are capable of behind the scenes. When a leader speaks I expect them to advance the cause. Pelosi and Schumer don't.
Maybe not Shumer, but clearly you don't know Nancy. Also, if you don't do Twitter, you're out of the loop.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - davester - 08-15-2018
pdq wrote:
Honestly, I think most people that hate Pelosi and Clinton do so for three reasons:
1) They're women
2) They're successful women
3) They don't like their kind of personality (in a woman).
Those things alone would not be enough. However, the massive volumes of propaganda that the right puts out on Pelosi and Clinton extensively uses "successful woman" dogwhistles to stir up the misogynistic side of their base.
Re: Paul Krugman’s take on Pelosi - deckeda - 08-15-2018
TN had primaries early this month. Most Republican candidates for Governor spent their time fighting each other, each trying to convince voters they were more conservative and more aligned with Trump and what he wants to do.
Some flyers and ads simply accused a candidate for “actually” being a Liberal, in league with ... Pelosi. That’s correct: A TN Governor risks taking orders from Pelosi. Somehow. When I tried to connect the dots I ran out of ink.
Wanna know who won the Republican primary for Governor? A true “outsider” who was FAR outspent by his opponents, one of whom currently sits in the House of Representatives (Diane Black, who along with Marsha Blackburn could not be bothered to show up for a vote to raise military pay.)
Also, he was the only one to take the high road when it got nasty towards the end.
Sometimes, voters DO have a brain.