The Nancy Factor

David Weigel | August 31, 2006

OK, does no one else see the irony in this?

Ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that the thought
of California Rep. Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House
and being third in line to the presidency is frightening."

The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole
attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness
and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the
country," the outspoken Republican said.

Really, if anyone should understand how little the specter of a new House Speaker figures into a voter's decision, it should be Newt Gingrich. The electorate of 1994 knew perfectly well that Newt Gingrich would be speaker if they elected a GOP congress. Democrats campaigned on that theme, knowing that the pugnancious minority leader was even less popular than Bill Clinton. The media gave them an assist by demonizing Gingrich, as seen here in some magazine called "Time."

It's fair, obviously, for Republicans to point out how left-wing a Democratic Congress will be. But they're simply not going to turn Nancy Pelosi into a swing voter-repelling cartoon character in 69 days.

Comments

|8.31.06 @ 1:24PM|#

It's fair, obviously, for Republicans to point out how left-wing a Democratic Congress will be. But they're simply not going to turn Nancy Pelosi into a swing voter-repelling cartoon character in 69 days.

I'd agree that this is probably aimed more at the Republican base. Gingrich's statement will probably never be used to appeal to Security/Soccer Moms again. ...not that they ever were.

|8.31.06 @ 1:26PM|#

Perhaps Newt realizes this, but thinks having Pelosi as speaker will help his '08 ambitions.

|8.31.06 @ 1:31PM|#

So Pelosi and the Democrats want to:

-- Let fags get married
-- Overspend the Federal budget by billions
-- Massively expand the welfare state

Bush and the Republicans ALREADY HAVE:

-- Started an illegal war for with no discernable benefit to the US
-- Illegally wiretap US citizen in defiance of federal law
-- Overspent the Federal budget by billions
-- Massively expanded the welfare state (Medicare)

Hell, I'll take Dems for a change.

|8.31.06 @ 2:02PM|#

Yes, but Pelosi is, to put it charitably, an idiot.

|8.31.06 @ 3:13PM|#

ed, you underestimate her, she's also a hypocrite.

|8.31.06 @ 3:22PM|#

they're simply not going to turn Nancy Pelosi into a swing voter-repelling cartoon character in 69 days.

No. She already IS "a swing voter-repelling cartoon character," Dave.

She rates a 100% from ADA, 90% from ACLU; 8% from National Taxpayers Union. She's a tax-raising, union-loving Left Coast liberal.

No distortion is necessary for the GOP to betray Pelosi as a rich, clueless "San Francisco Democrat." She's left of Lenin.

|8.31.06 @ 3:45PM|#

They do seem to be reaching for ever more obscure Goldsteins. Anyway I think the correct terminology is "San Fagcisco values".

That pic is hilarious. Bloated, femmy, and demonic all at once. Well played liberal media.

|8.31.06 @ 4:12PM|#

She rates ... 90% from ACLU
...
She's left of Lenin.

Huh, I never thought that supporting civil liberties smacked of statism. I guess I was wrong.

|8.31.06 @ 4:28PM|#

No. She already IS "a swing voter-repelling cartoon character," Dave.

I've met a bunch of hardcore Republicans who think they're part of the swing vote. It's astonishing. I think it has something to do with the Security Moms swing to their side since 9/11, or maybe it has something to do with the reflections they seem of themselves via their own news and radio networks. I don't know.

Don't get me wrong. I've met hardcore Democrats who think of themselves as the swing vote too--it's a bihyperpartisan phenomenon.

|8.31.06 @ 4:39PM|#

She's left of Lenin.

You had me, then you lost me.

|8.31.06 @ 5:13PM|#

Who cares which group of philosophical midgets governs us? Why should we care?

|8.31.06 @ 5:16PM|#

ed, Todd,

Being an idiot and hypocrite in Congress just makes her about average. If they want to play fearmonger, I can go one better... "In a surprise move Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has selected Nancy Pelosi as her running mate."

Are they really that worried about 3rd in line? I didn't think so.

|8.31.06 @ 5:23PM|#

David, in '94 most of the voters either wanted Gingrich as speaker, or wouldn't have minded. I very much doubt most voters want Pelosi as speaker today. So no, I don't see any irony.

Besides, looking at her can make your forehead hurt, because her eyebrows always seem to be on their way to the top of her skull.

Kwix: unfortunately, the "civil liberties" Pelosi supports include racial quotas, gun control, restrictions on campaign speech, and many other things that most folks around here don't consider to be actual civil liberties.

|8.31.06 @ 5:33PM|#

She's left of Lenin and you're a swing voter. Got it.

|8.31.06 @ 5:36PM|#

I very much doubt most voters want Pelosi as speaker today. So no, I don't see any irony.

I doubt very much that most voters even know who Pelosi is, much less caring about whether she is Speaker of the House. The only people who have a problem with pelosi becoming speaker should the Dems take over are partisan conservatives / GOPers.

Let's not kid ourselves into pretending that the most voters at large are contemplating the leadership positions that will be in play should the house / senate change hands....

also, since most the recent polls show that americans prefer a democratic takeover (albeit by a slim margin) -- it seems, to me at least, highly unlikely that Pelosi as a boogeyman would be an effective campaign tactic.

|8.31.06 @ 5:41PM|#

No doubt lots of people hate her. But I don't think that'll be a big enough issue. I mean, if the Dems take back the Senate, Hillary might be Chairwoman of some committee, possibly even something important, but will that bring out the base? I doubt it. Congressional organization is simply less sexy of a topic than war/corruption/gays/abortion.

|8.31.06 @ 5:43PM|#

No doubt lots of people hate her. But I don't think that'll be a big enough issue. I mean, if the Dems take back the Senate, Hillary might be Chairwoman of some committee, possibly even something important, but will that bring out the base? I doubt it. Congressional organization is simply less sexy of a topic than war/corruption/gays/abortion.

|8.31.06 @ 7:07PM|#

Because of the McCain-Feingold legislation, the Republicans really only have 9 days to turn Nancy Pelosi into a swing voter-repelling cartoon character.

|8.31.06 @ 8:53PM|#

The only people who have a problem with pelosi becoming speaker should the Dems take over are partisan conservatives / GOPers.

Do you really think the Pelosi's policies are totally acceptable to the average centrist voter? Sure, they may not know who she is, but I'd bet lots of centrists would have lots of problems with her.

|8.31.06 @ 9:25PM|#

Really, if anyone should understand how little the specter of a new House Speaker figures into a voter's decision...

And just when did Gingrich say anything about it figuring into the choices of voters?

Oh wait, he didn't.

He was saying he doesn't like the thought of it. I didn't see anything about using Pelosi as a political tool against the Ds.

|8.31.06 @ 10:39PM|#

Has anyone considered that the current (Republican) President Pro Tem of the Senate (fourth in line of presidential succession) is Ted "the internet is a series of tubes" Stevens. Surely Republicans don't want an illiterate and incurious doofus in the White -- Oh-oh, never mind.

|9.1.06 @ 1:09AM|#

I just moved to Sanfrancisco 2 weeks ago. The prospect of voting against Nancy Pelosi makes me smile a bit.

Too bad it won't do a damned bit of good.

|9.1.06 @ 1:54AM|#

She's left of Lenin.

We need a counterpart to Godwin's law for righties who play the "Commie card" everytime a liberal politician pops up in conversation...

|9.1.06 @ 9:07AM|#

Let's just call it "Walsh's Law" then! Whaddya think, Jim, can you handle the celebrity?

|9.1.06 @ 11:04AM|#

"You had me, then you lost me."

Jeezus Les, you're easily had.

|9.1.06 @ 1:38PM|#

What we really need, to keep things civil, is a law to prevent anyone from comparing anything to anything else that any person might consider bad.