Pelosi: “No Regrets”

November 4th, 2010 at 1:30 am | 10 Comments |

| Print

ABC News reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today she has “no regrets” one day after a Republican landslide stripped her of the power that defined her historic tenure as the first female speaker of the House.

The California Democrat, who won a new two-year term in Tuesday’s election, said she has yet to consider what she will do now.

“I’ll have a conversation with my caucus, I’ll have a conversation with my family, and pray over it, and decide how to go forward,” she said in an exclusive ABC News interview with “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer. “But today isn’t that day.”

Recent Posts by FrumForum News

10 Comments so far ↓

  • Rabiner

    She should have no regrets, she did a great job leading the Democratic Caucus and achieving some of the most sweeping legislation since the Great Society.

  • JeninCT

    I really dislike her but I have to say she is one tough cookie.

  • TerryF98

    Nancy is a great leader, she has more balls that the rest of the congress put together, on both sides of the isle.

    She also is a pretty nice person despite the ridiculous sexist nonsense spouted by Conservatives.

  • balconesfault

    Pelosi did her job. She pushed through a far superior HCR bill that included the public option, a stimulus bill, and a Cap-and-Trade bill. All in the first 6 months of 2009.

    But perhaps her biggest success was in getting the House Dems to accept the bitter pill of voting in favor of the “HCR-lite” passed by the Senate so that new Senate legislation didn’t have to be brought to the floor after Scott Brown was seated, which would have probably resulted in filibusters and procedural motions that would have killed the bill. Without her leadership, there’s no way the Blue Dog and Progressive coalitions in the House would have held together enough to vote in favor of the reconciliation bill.

    Pelosi, meanwhile, pushed through the strongest ethics reform in the House since the Watergate era – as AP noted back in September:

    The Sunlight Foundation, which tracks congressional fundraising events, has identified more than 9,500 since President George W. Bush signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in September 2007. The law embodies reforms cited by Pelosi as proof that she kept her promise to “drain the swamp” of congressional corruption.

    Pelosi was instrumental in winning increased disclosure of lobbyists’ spending and contributions; a ban on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers; the end of cheap rides on corporate jets; curtailment of privately financed trips that often amounted to free vacations; creation of an independent ethics office; and the identification of sponsors of “earmarks” – congressional spending given to favored recipients, who often returned the favor with campaign contributions.

    Of course, the AP headline was “Analysis: Pelosi falters on ethics pledge for House”. Because lobbyists still have influence. Now we’ll get to see Boehner and the GOP finish the job of cleaning up Congressional influence-peddling.

    Heh. I crack myself up sometimes…

  • abj

    She is a committed liberal and was highly successful from a legislative standpoint. She always knew, and accepted, that the price of that success could be her legislative majority. Therefore, it’s not surprised that she has no regrets.

    I have to say that I consistently underestimated her legislative prowess. She’s one of the most effective Congressional leaders in the modern era.


    She also is a pretty nice person despite the ridiculous sexist nonsense spouted by Conservatives.

    I’ve heard that’s true. Even Tom Coburn has said as much.

  • jabbermule


    “She also is a pretty nice person despite the ridiculous sexist nonsense spouted by Conservatives.”

    And, as we all know, Liberals never spout sexist nonsense.

    Er, wait…
    Meg Whitman: “whore”
    Christine O’Donnell: “slut”
    Sharron Angle: “bitch”

    And they all lost. Seems like a good strategy…keep up the good work, libs.

  • Watusie

    Jabbermule, long time no see. Did you manage to get your contribution to the O’Donnell campaign refunded?

    I have some news for you: I imagine that if you spent enough time on Google you could find one instance of one person on one instance using that word in reference to that woman.

    However, that is one hell of a long way from justifying the claim that all Liberals directed sexist abuse at those three candidates.

    On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi has been demonized by the right, using both sexist and non-sexist language, since even before she assumed the role.

    But I don’t recall her ever complaining about it. She has way too much class to play the victim card.

  • TerryF98

    ‘And, as we all know, Liberals never spout sexist nonsense.

    Er, wait…
    Meg Whitman: “whore”
    Christine O’Donnell: “slut”
    Sharron Angle: “bitch”’

    Please supply evidence of elected national politicians or major people in the Liberal movement who has said these things. You must have multiple sources as you group all liberals together. I will wait with baited breath.

  • easton

    jabbermule, how easy it is for you to distort things, right? Here is the truth as to the whole “whore” nonsense, this from McWhorter:

    The simple fact is that whore has two meanings. One is the original and ancient one of a woman who sells her body for money. It could even be argued that this meaning of the word is becoming somewhat old-fashioned. Words evolve. Always. The newer meaning of whore is a secondary and derived one, applied to a person who takes money or some other form of recompense in return for a service deemed substandard in quality or ethics.

    Note that I write “person,” as whore is applied readily to men as well as women. A quick internet search reveals the word being applied to Ben Stein, Hugh Jackman, Lil Wayne and Harry Reid (and in Jackman’s case, he even happily applies it to himself). Pointedly, Whitman’s current campaign chairman Pete Wilson, back in 1995, accused Congress of being “such whores to public employees unions” (in reference to the Fair Labor Practices Act during the Depression!!).

    This is the meaning that Brown’s aide intended, and an analogy to the N-word does not go through. Nigger implies the generic, definitional inferiority of black people regardless of what they do. The proper analogy would be if the staffer had, with Brown’s tacit approval, referred to her with a word beginning with c and ending with t. That is a word generally applied only to women, and with an implication of total, bone-chilling, ice-cold dismissal of female individuals in general. Another analogy would be Carl Paladino’s blanket designation of gay people as “dysfunctional.”

    It’s hard to fit what Brown’s aide said into that classification. He was using the evolved, secondary meaning of whore that refers to a kind of bargain, and again, one applied to men as readily as to women. Note that the following dialogue is not analogous to one Brown and his aide had:

    “Obama is Eugene Debs reincarnated. What are we gonna do to get the word out?”

    “You mean like calling him a nigger?”

    Nigger doesn’t refer to the specific charge Obama is being accused of, whereas Definition Two of whore does apply to the practice Whitman was being accused of, a practice inherently gender-neutral. Note also: Don Imus’ “nappy-headed ho’” comment was indeed more reprehensible, in that Definition Two of whore in no way applies to playing college basketball. There, Definition One loomed as the only possible meaning. Just as Definition Two looms as the only logical meaning in the Brown exchange–a meaning people like Hugh Jackman are gaily pasting on themselves.

    The problem is the resonance between Definition One and Definition Two, in that Whitman is female. This cannot be ignored. The analogy is with hip young whites who just wish they could use the N-word warmly with black men as black men do with one another, only to find that doing so cannot help but recall what whites’ use of the word can mean in other contexts. Whore is not yet so utterly evolved from its original meaning that we can afford not to attend to its usage as applied to women.

    What should the attending consist of in this case, then? Clearly, if the conversation revealed Whitman being called the genuinely scurrilous thing I mentioned above, we would have grounds for thunderous condemnation. It would be similarly appalling if Brown lobbed whore at Whitman, even under Definition Two, in a public exchange. We can monitor public, deliberative speech. We can even, with sufficient public pressure, have some effect on how speech is used in private. However, we cannot make private speech squeaky-clean. Human beings will never observe a notion as fabulously contradictory as the notion that insult will be decorous.

    And as such, the aide’s utterance of whore under Definition Two was nothing but tacky. It was a rusty little squeak. It was no scandal.

    For Whitman, Brokaw, or anyone else to claim that Brown’s aide’s private usage of whore in the sense he intended is equivalent to someone calling Cory Booker a nigger is, well, politics. Just as when some pretend that blacks and whites are using “the same word” when wielding the N-word–or others pretend that someone like Dr. Laura referring to the N-word is the same as using it–we’re all playing a kind of game, unaware of it only in a willing kind of way.

  • Rockerbabe

    balconesfault: You jest! ” Because lobbyists still have influence. Now we’ll get to see Boehner and the GOP finish the job of cleaning up Congressional influence-peddling.

    I think we are in for 2 years of vetos and treading water; well, maybe giving the rich another tax break, but little else.