Oh well, Pelosi's going to stick around


For a while there some of us thought that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who failed to win back a house majority for the Democrats, might decide her time was up and step down as minority leader (which would probably have meant retiring from Congress). That would have set off one of the hottest political battles in town; just about everyone knows that Pelosi's daughter is interested in the seat, but there's no way she was going to get it without a fight. There are lots of ambitious people in this town who would jump at a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a Congressional seat, starting with possibly all of our current state Legislators and a few supervisors.

Would progressives and independents sick of the notion of a Pelosi family dynasty get behind one candidate (say, Mark Leno)? Would Scott Wiener, who Leno has supported and mentored all these years, run anyway, arguing for a younger candidate who could be around for long enough to get seniority? Would Leland Yee, who will be termed out and didn't get elected mayor, jump in the race? Would Tom Ammiano, who doesn't seem at all ready to retire?

Lots of crazy speculation -- and now it appears we'll have to wait two more years to go through it again. Because, barring a huge upset in the Democratic Caucus, Pelosi's sticking around.

I'm not so thrilled about that -- and I swear it has nothing (well, almost nothing) to do with the amazing story that a contested race would create for political reporters. It's just that Pelosi's been a big disappointment to San Francisco; she cares more about her national constituency that about her district, and her legacy achievement is the privatization of a national park.

It would be nice to get someone representing San Francisco who represented San Francisco values.

Oh well.


Which passed Congress thanks to her efforts - as did DADT repeal. There's also that small thing of her being the first female speaker of the House. And being right in opposing the war in Iraq.

Tim's "legacy achievement"? Being against everything which ended up happening anyway.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

The Heritage Foundation's version of Romney Care was what Pelosi's legacy will be.

Young gay men dying as fodder for empire the next time a draft blows through the land will be the other.

The Cato Institute's Commodity Futures Modernization Act is also a feather in her hat.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

might actually have to fight and get killed?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

Yes, I saw the ban on gays in the military as a Good First Step towards a military that only allowed straight white conservative christian males to be wasted as cannon fodder for empire.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

What did Marcos get?


Posted by Troll II on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

He wasn't on the ballot, Lucretia Snapples. Just like you weren't.

And I'd be more likely to write him in than you. We already have too many bottom feeders in positions of power.

And yes the sheep (85%) keep doing the same thing over and over again. Vote that party-line no matter what the politician does.

Although there was some positive news:

Obama received 7-8 million votes below his vote four years ago. The decline was not a result of support for Romney, (his vote total was lower than McCain). Instead, broad sections of the public expressed their disillusionment and alienation from both corporate war parties and the entire political sham/set-up by not casting a vote at all.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

I'm Troll II.

Your laughable analysis of the election gave me a giggle. Yes, large portions of the public expressed their disillusionment by supporting Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr. Nancy Pelosi's 85% of the vote was really a defeat. Obama is a tool. Up is down. War is peace. Black is white.

Errr... Not.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 10:03 pm

It's his wife that left him for the 50yr old plumber that can unclog a pipe in more than a minute.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 11:01 am

Obamacare = A corporate bailout to the mangled "health care" industry.

DADT = oh great, gays can now go kill brown people for stealing a country's national resources and for Empire building. Wonderful.

Pelosi = I took impeachment of Bush/Cheney "off the table" as if the U.S. Constitution belonged to me.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 6:37 pm


DADT = oh great, gays can now go kill brown people for the U.S.'s purpose of stealing a country's national resources and for U.S. Corporatocracy Empire building. Wonderful.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

Sure, she voted against going to war and then voted for every appropriation to keep it going. If Pelosi truly opposed the Iraq war, she would have opposed funding it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

This forum is littered with such piles of odiferous matter and while most people understand the nature of the problem, the response it to try and ignore it as much as possible.

Yes. Only Barbara Lee opposed the war in Iraq.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

Hey lils - is that lillipublicans on the SF Examiner comment section really you? Man - I don't know why you chose a mid-70s JC Penny photography studio pic as your image because you look even uglier than I thought possible and also quite a bit older. Are you pushing your late 70s now?

Poor dear. I do feel quite badly for you.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

by taking a narrow parochial view like, er, you do.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 5:48 pm

Are you joking? Scott Wiener????????? Hell no. If anything, that right-wing thing needs to be recalled.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

Come on big talker - make it happen. Your slogan could be "dicks not Wieners." Because, you know, most Castro residents are stupid sex-crazed idiots who have no investment in their neighborhood beyond how much cock they can suck - right?

The implicit internalized homophobia in much of the criticism of Scott Wiener is disgusting.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

"The implicit internalized homophobia in much of the criticism of Scott Wiener is disgusting."

Criticism of Scott Weiner is not due to homophobia - it's due to the fact that many ppl feel he's too conservative for the district he's the supe of. Good try at the diversion though - unfortunately for you, it has zero foundation.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 1:12 am

This is where the rubber meets the road - stop spinnin' the tires on that brand new Prius and get those recall petitions out there. As I have said before - I'm SURE you'll be successful.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 10:12 am


Posted by Guest on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

I guess that bottom-feeder Troll II (Lucretia Snapples who vegetates on this site 24/7...what a pathetic life!) doesn't know that awhile back someone did start a recall drive of Wiener, but some people felt it was too early in his term as supervisor, so it was suspended.

Now would be a good time for a recall of Wiener, (it's not "too early") for those not working two jobs and with other responsibilities. Of course some $$ would help.

Maybe those who started the recall could restart it. Because this guy Wiener is bad news.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

What are you waiting for big talker?

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 6:57 pm

Whst is meant by so called San francisco values, and how does pelosi supposedly not represent them?

Posted by D. native on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 11:30 pm

There was a 60 Minutes program in 2011 that claimed Pelosi used information gleaned from closed sessions in congress to make money for herself. She denied it, calling it a right wing smear. For years, there have been questions about this, including even allegations that she profited from investments in defense contractors whom she had appropriations control over as House Speaker. That would make her a war profiteer.

One thing is for sure. She did not accumulate a net worth of $58 million while in congress, as a result of public service.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 8:42 am

and her money is in a blind trust? Republicans have been trying to make these smears stick for years without success. It's sad to see the bitter dead-ender progressives try it now.

Hey - what's with Obama's birth certificate Greg? Why'd he get 100% of the vote in certain precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania? I want answers!

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 10:44 am

No corruption to see here, government is squeaky clean, move on, move on.org

Posted by marcos on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 11:01 am

"That would make her a war profiteer."

Just like Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein = Democrat in Name Only.

"Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee."

From the article:

Dianne Feinstein: War Profiteer
Why a San Francisco Democrat is one of the biggest warmongers around
by Justin Raimondo, October 12, 2009

Posted by Guest on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

Your description as Feinstein as "Democrat in Name Only" is misleading. The Democrats and the Republicans are both war parties. Feinstein just made sure to enrich her family with war profits. I haven't researched Pelosi's increase in wealth during her congressional tenure. I'm pretty sure that it didn't come from humanitarianism, like feeding the hungry or empowering the poor.

Posted by Eddie on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 11:47 pm

I agree with you and I wrote the comment you responded to. Frankly, nearly all of them are Democrats in Name Only. Most of them are neocon Republicans with a D next to their name.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 2:14 am

Tired of business as usual? Read Steven Hill's stellar piece on proportional representation at FCJ. Here's an excerpt~

"After well over a year campaigning and an estimated $6 billion spent (including by SuperPacs), we ended up with the same president and roughly the same Democratic-controlled Senate and GOP-controlled House. The status-quo prevailed, ultimately, so it looks like we can look forward to two more years of stalemate.

"Most of the people I have talked to are not so much happy that Obama won as they are relieved that Romney didn’t win. So many Americans today vote according to what we call “negative consent,” not so much for a candidate or party as much as against one. Near-final estimates are that voter turnout in 2012 was only about 58 percent of eligible voters, quite a bit lower than in 2008 (62%) and even 2004 (60%). That means an astonishing 93 million eligible citizens did not cast ballots. For congressional elections, it looks like we didn’t even hit 50 percent voter turnout.

"That’s depressing. My associates and friends in other countries where voter turnout often hits 75-90% shake their heads over such dismal numbers. I often joke that if people all over the world were allowed to vote in the American election, they would turn out in droves because they know how important the US president is to what happens in their own countries. But in the States, such low participation rates are a clear consequence of the lack of choice that Americans must resign themselves to in our two party-dominated system.

"The American people, with its vast array of ethnicities, religions, languages, geographic regions, political philosophies, jazzy urban centers, websites and Twitter tweets, are a dazzling peacock of dizzying color and shimmering array — but the U.S. government is still a drab, two-toned bird.

"The free market has spread everywhere, except to our politics."


Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

"But it’s also a function of the fact that in our geographically-based system, all voters are not equal. Your vote counts more depending on where you live. As we just saw in the presidential election, the mad science of political campaigns pushes the candidates to focus narrowly, not only on a handful of battleground states, but also on a handful of swing voters within those states. A handful of voters in a handful of states decided this “national” election. Because of what I call the “steroids of politics,” the mad scientists have become experts at slicing and dicing the electorate, with damaging impacts on the body politic.

"And most legislative districts are not competitive either, but it’s really not due to redistricting abuses, as conventional wisdom suggests. It’s much more due to partisan demographics, i.e. where people live, with the Democrats/liberals dominating the urban areas and the coasts, and Republicans/conservatives dominating in the rural areas, many suburbs and flyover states. The demographics are so daunting that it’s nearly impossible for even an independent redistricting commission to create competitive races (as California just discovered in its first election using lines drawn by a commission).

"And that’s not all: these partisan demographics also give a decided advantage to the Republicans when it comes to winning a majority of seats in the U.S. House..."


Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

same as if we had a poular vote. Obama won by about 1% and, while the electoral college flatters his victory, it sometimes works the other way, as in 2000.

It's not a perfect system but it's better than the alternatives.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

if this area was represented by a non life time government flunkies? All the people mentioned in the blog are the usual SF lampreys.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 2:47 pm