Pelosi: 'Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do'

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Pelosi: 'Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do'
7
Wed, 04-13-2011 - 2:48pm

Poor Nancy Pelosi,

She doesn't think elections should matter as much as they do (unless Democrats win, in which case it's fantastic).

The queen of partisanship, has decided, after a few months in the minority, that partisanship isn't fun. Her suggested cure is for Republicans to become more like Democrats. This reminded me of an old (and bad) song, "Why can't a woman be more like a man". Poor Nancy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/13/pelosi-elections-shouldnt-matter/?test=latestnews

Pelosi: 'Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do'

After a few months back in the minority, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi says elections "shouldn't matter as much as they do."

That's what the former House speaker told a Massachusetts crowd Friday in between the raucous budget debate on Capitol Hill. Talking about the importance of shared values, Pelosi seemed to urge Republicans to moderate their views so that the space between the parties is not so vast. Then, she imagined, elections wouldn't be so determinative.

"To my Republican friends, take back your party, so that it doesn't matter so much who wins the election because we have shared values about, again, the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country," she said.

Pelosi went on to say: "There's so many things at risk right now ... but the fact is is that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do, (there) should be some place on the spectrum where we respect each other's views and all the rest."

Otherwise, she said, "that can be problematic for the country, as I think we can see right now."

But the comments, made at Tufts University, seemed a departure from remarks President Obama made on the topic shortly after he took office.

During a widely reported meeting with Republicans about economic proposals, Obama was quoted telling the GOP leaders "elections have consequences," and, in case there was any doubt, "I won."

Back in 2009, Pelosi also agreed about the consequence of the vote, especially in terms of developing the stimulus bill: "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election."

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
But you have to assume that enough people are actually voting.

I see the differences between the parties as being that the GOP is much more interested in commercial aspects & the Dems are more socially oriented. That said, the GOP has tied itself to unyielding Christian conservatives & that will keep me from voting for them until that changes. Other than that - both parties are in it for the 'power'.

What I find sad is that our country (not only the politicians but too many citizenstoo), in it's quest for power/fame/riches, has lost the ability to compromise. That's the only thing that's going to allow us to get back on our feet & become a united country again.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Obama was able to excite many on the left when he ran his "Yes we can" campaign. He got many to vote that often do not. In response, the Tea Party has been a reaction to, and has learned from the Obama 2008 campaign.

I don't believe Obama is happy with people who don't see government as the solution to most of our problems.

I believe the difference between conservatives (usually Republicans) and liberals (usually Democrats) isn't so much a matter of social issues or economic issues. It runs deeper.

Liberals see government as a venue to solve most of life's problems, conservatives see government as an impediment against liberty.

We now regulate how large a flush our toilets can make, we are about to prevent purchase of 75 and 100 watt traditional light bulbs, and our government has mandated low watt bulbs in things as mundane as ceiling fans.

Liberals like this stuff, conservatives don't want government to have that much power.

When listening to a liberal talk about Bush tax cuts, they believe the money not taxed is theirs, as if something were given up. The presumption is all wealth belongs to our government. Conservatives believe a government large enough to give everything you want is also large enough to take everything you have.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
What I meant is that it is sad that so few legally registered voters actually vote in an election-by-election basis. Then they b*tch about the outcome...or they just vote the big elections & follow a party line without educating themselves about the issues.

I still don't feel that our country has the ability to compromise. It may be that in the past, those who thought alike had all the control & those who thought differently had none. Perhaps this is a phase - 'growing pains' - that we have to learn to get through. But, listening to the continually increasing rhetoric makes me think that too many have lost sight of country's well-being & are just focusing on gaining 'power' so that they can 'have it THEIR way' completely.

I'm not talking about breaking up the country. Although there are days.... ;) I just feel that we are deeply fragmented. That is, perhaps, because of the 'growing pains'. Differing viewpoints & disagreement are a good thing - however, if we can't find a way to see the common ground, we won't accomplish much.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002


I disagree.



Not for me it doesn't. I'm a moderate liberal & the only 'deeper' issue I see is the GOP's ties to the Christian right & their assertion that 'Christian values' must be the ones in force in our country.



That's a pretty broad statement. I don't know any liberals who see it that way. I see our gov't, in part ONLY, as a way to assist those who need it when they need it.



So you have a smaller water bill & that's a problem? As with any change, there will be complications, but that's just silly. Doing something that makes our environment a better place is bad? No one is forcing anyone to change the type of toilets they already have in their homes.

As for light bulbs...we haven't used traditional light bulbs for years. It's nice not having to change the bulbs so often. Of course, our main power source around here is hydroelectric, so the area is a little more conscious of that . Even our street lights were changed over years ago.



What stuff? What do you think things would be like if we left it to private industry? They are mostly interested in profits - not the consumers well-being.



That's another broad sweeping statement. No one believes that. However, many believe that all should pay their fair share. The middle class (which is quickly becoming the lower middle class & working poor) are the ones carrying the load. Many rich (not all) protect &/or off-shore their money. It's not usually reinvested in our economy or given to charities to help those who need it. Why should the middle class have to pay a larger part of their income out than 'the rich'? Someone has to pay for roads, police, firefighters, & other infrastructures. And it's much cheaper to provide people with preventative medical care than to have to accommodate them in hospital ERs. What about schools? Higher education? Yes, there's a lot of 'pork' out there - on both sides of the aisle, but that's not what the GOP is going after. And, we're going to have to all tighten our belts to even attempt to get through this. However, that does not mean that the rich should keep their Bush-ear tax cuts. They obviously haven't done much to improve the economy since they went into effect.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
I've read your response, and stand by my initial post.

Thanks for your thoughts.