Nancy Pelosi Blames Republicans for Partisanship

off her medsReasonCould you call it metapartisanship?

From USA Today:

Americans have historically low views of Congress, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says Republicans have fueled that disgust for political reasons and Democrats can win elections by highlighting GOP obstructionism.

"Nothing deters voting more than confusion, 'a pox on both your houses,' and that confusion is one of the successes of the Republican Party, to make it look equivalent in terms of who is holding up jobs. It's not equivalent, and we have to make that clear to the American people," Pelosi said Tuesday at a meeting with the USA TODAY editorial board.

Heading in to confrontations with Republicans this fall on implementation of the Affordable Care Act, funding the government, and raising the debt ceiling, Pelosi said congressional Democrats and President Obama are positioning the party as the bipartisan, cooperative alternative to what she described as the "anti-government ideologues" in the Republican Party

But then who would Democrats be “cooperative” with? Sounds like Pelosi would prefer a one-party system. If you can’t laugh, you’ll cry.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • fish||

    LIGHT THE KEN SCHULTZ BEACON!!!!!!

    Cuz you know what I think of "Dead Eye" Nancy!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    She's a cont?

  • fish||

    You just won't light the fuse will you EDG?

    C'mon help a brother out!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    No. "U" light the fuse.

  • fish||

    CUNT!!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!

    (god I need a cigarette!)

  • ||

    cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt

  • ||

    (helping a brother out; I'm a pisces, it's symbol is fish, etc)

  • Christy021||

    my best friend's sister makes $85/hour on the laptop. She has been fired for 6 months but last month her check was $19891 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site... WWW.CNN13.COM

  • Hyperion||

    I have a reply.

    STFU, you old bag!

  • MJGreen||

    *steals marble rye*

  • A Serious Man||

    Heading in to confrontations with Republicans this fall on implementation of the Affordable Care Act, funding the government, and raising the debt ceiling, Pelosi said congressional Democrats and President Obama are positioning the party as the bipartisan, cooperative alternative to what she described as the "anti-government ideologues" in the Republican Party

    "We, of course, want to go full-retard with our progressive policies. But graciously we are willing to compromise and only go 3/4 retard if only the Republicans would play ball!"

  • Vincent Milburn||

    I'm going to kick you in the nuts ten times. No, no, I'll compromise. I'll only kick you in the nuts five times.

  • Gladstone||

    Why does the hotlink say USA Today but the actual link is to Reason 24/7?

    As to the article itself, as Epi would say, PROJECTION!

  • Sevo||

    "Why does the hotlink say USA Today but the actual link is to Reason 24/7?"

    What do you think sells web ads?

  • Bardas Phocas||

    tits

  • Ted S.||

    +1.

    Well, actually, +2. As long as they're not Pelosi's tits.

  • Sevo||

    Yep, tits get hits!

  • ||

    So do you think she's being mendacious or just moronic and delusional?

    And no, it cannot be both. Except possibly with Pelosi...

  • Hyperion||

    She's fucking stupid dude, seriously.

    The only reason Pelosi is in politics is for the money. She could care less about policies. She's just playing for her team and she's way too dumb to know what any of it actually means. And she doesn't care.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    She ain't stupid, dickhead.

    She pulled in bag bank on her Mastercard and Visa IPO's which went straight up. And she laid off the Silicon Valley dogs like Facebook.

    I follow the market. I know - you fuckers hate me for it.

  • fish||

    Oh no shreeky we hate you for many things! Like how you type so well with your gullet stuffed full of TEAM BLUE cock!

  • Guillotined||

    Using the money she made from a salary that was earned through an institution of coercion. Totally a pinnacle of entrepreneurship.

  • Hyperion||

    She's a fucking government crony. You call that smart and successful?

    You're fucking scum.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    They are all crony jackasses, you idiot. Every single fucking one of them.

    And that includes Rand Paul who protected his Medicare optician racket with his anti-liberty vote.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 7.30.13 @ 8:11PM |#
    "They are all crony jackasses, you idiot. Every single fucking one of them."

    Yes, you slimy turd, and you only defend the life-forms who have D behind their names.
    Think no one notices? How stupid are you?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I recall some analysis of congressional portfolios that showed that they outperformed the market by a huge margin. Good thing they're immune to insiders trading restrictions, huh?

  • Irish||

    All that proves is that they are our superiors and should be allowed to run our lives.

    After all, they are super duper smart and clearly pick stock really well!

  • Guillotined||

    Yup. Same goes for pretty much all California D's.

    http://www.sfgate.com/politics.....924070.php

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah.

    Pelosi's stock picks are uncanny. Like Hillary Clinton's "cattle futures".

    Someone is giving her good advice.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It's not advice.

    She hatches a scheme, involving government coercion, and uses her power and influence to execute the scheme.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well then she must be fucking brilliant in a Medici way.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Medici is a pretty good analogy.

  • Gladstone||

    So where is her Bartholomew's Day?

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 7.30.13 @ 8:16PM |#
    "Well then she must be fucking brilliant"...

    Only you would make that comment.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That you think that's brilliant says a lot about you.

  • fish||

    Someone is giving her good advice.

    Stop dancing around it Anal Blockage....are you you picking stocks for Nancys portfolio?

    And good lord how are you being compensated?

  • Irish||

    Pelosi's stock picks are uncanny based on abuse of power.

    That VISA IPO she participated in occurred while there was pending legislation to limit the fees card issuers could charge to users. This held down the value of VISA's stock because no one knew what was going to happen.

    While this was going on, Speaker Pelosi, in a move that is TOTALLY not insider trading, participated in an IPO for the company. The bill died very shortly after Pelosi bought the shares, at which point VISA's stock value exploded.

    What an entrepreneur!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    My Gawd! You are right!

    Pelosi is a new Machiavelli and she exhibits the three traits of the Dark Triad!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

  • anon||

    Shut up, Shriek, you don't know the first thing about Machiavelli.

  • Gladstone||

    So what is your opinion on whether or not "The Prince" was satire?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's funny you mention this, because I've long thought the evidence was overwhelmingly clear that it was. Absolutely nothing in Machiavelli's career is consistent with what a straight reading of The Prince would suggest.

    Naturally, that should make political scientists pause, but it doesn't.

  • Gladstone||

    Not to mention that "The ends justify the means" is apparently not the most accurate translation.

  • Gladstone||

    Apparently the main arguments that The Prince was meant seriously are that Machiavelli either could have changed his mind, thought Italy needed unity or that he wanted the Medicis to give him his old job back.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's so tenuous. The far more likely possibility is that the life-long republican was criticizing something he clearly disliked without doing it overtly. Think about what he does--he tells readers that their leaders are lying, conniving assholes. Who could be avoided with a republican form of government.

  • Gladstone||

    There's also the part about him dedicating the Prince to a man who overthrew his Republic and had him tortured. So either he was sucking up to him or he wrote the Prince as a big FU to him.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, if Cesar Borgia as a model for the prince isn't proof positive, I don't know what is.

  • ||

    Machiavelli to me was all about 'what is' and not 'what ought to be.' A book written in prison.

  • Sevo||

    Hyperion| 7.30.13 @ 7:46PM |#
    "She's fucking stupid dude, seriously."

    She is, without doubt, dumber than rocks. Dumber, even, than shreek. If you ever had the mischance to deal with her in person, you would be shocked at her appearance (scary) and her lack of intelligence.
    I mean, this woman is almost as dumb as Boxer, and that's hard to do if you are capable of bi-pedal ambulation.

  • ||

    It's disturbing the heights to which really stupid but really venal people can rise.

  • Sevo||

    Paul had the money to carpet-bag her to a safe district; between his money and her position, they can hire brains they don't have (all of whom profit). He may also not be upset that she's not always there.
    And then they get useful idiots like shreek to pimp for them. Disturbing, but so long as the gov't gets to hand out the goodies, certainly predictable.
    BTW, Pelosi's stupid enough to wrinkle eye-brows; Boxer is stupid to the point of 'avoiding eye contact, backing toward the door'. Her staff is well paid, but it's probably close to the Ginger Baker effort where the roadies prop him upright for the show.

  • Sam Grove||

    I don't think Pelosi's in it for the money, she's in it for the politics, the power, the ego gratification.

  • Nazdrakke||

    This women needs to be indicted for crimes against the English language.

  • fish||

    And her plastic surgeon needs to be indicted, tried and executed for unleashing that visage on society!

  • Hyperion||

    And furthermore... I don't give a fuck what that old hag thinks about partisanship. I got some partisanship for her. All of the policies that she supports are fucking stupid bullshit and I'm not compromising with any brainless progressives. No compromise, fuck you, assholes.

  • Redmanfms||

    I believe we have a ready-made answer for her ilk:

    Fuck you, cut spending.

  • Gladstone||

    anti-government ideologues" in the Republican Party

    THIS IS WHAT LEFTISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!

  • Guillotined||

    "But the sequester!"

    /Progtard

  • anon||

    If only there were more than a handful...

  • Sevo||

    "Nancy Pelosi Blames Republicans for Partisanship"

    OK, folks, we got the punch-line right here. Now let's write the jokes.

  • anon||

    Brevity is the soul of wit; leave it be.

  • Gladstone||

    Wasn't Polonius a windbag though?

  • Killazontherun||

    Like a wincing, stuttered pastoral snore.

    But then, I hate Shakespeare.

  • Gladstone||

    So I take it you're a Voyager and Deep Dish Pizza fan?

  • Killazontherun||

    I've never seen an entire episode of Voyager.

    And sweet tomato sauce with a sprinkling of cheese on a thick pastry is not pizza even if you can find a few versions that are tasty.

  • Mendelism||

    She really does have to be stupid, or to be generous, have a profound lack of curiosity for opposing points of view, to say some of the things she has. The "are you serious?" presser is a prime example: I don't think that was an intentional question-dodge. I think Pelosi just couldn't comprehend how someone could ask, in good faith, where in the Constitution the Congress was authorized to mandate health insurance. So that anyone asking such a question was by definition "unserious".

    She has spent her whole life in a liberal bubble and is too stupid to question the orthodoxy.

  • Sevo||

    ..."or to be generous, have a profound lack of curiosity for opposing points of view,"...

    Much too generous. That hag is low-tide; there is no interest in what a tidal change might bring.

  • Brian D||

    Sounds like Pelosi would prefer a one-party system.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkxvIaKsFU

  • Gladstone||

    You know who else wanted a one party system?

  • Sevo||

    Obozo!

  • ||

    The Beastie Boys.

  • Gladstone||

    Reason should make a 24/7 post that links to this post. That way you have to link to two posts to get to the article.

  • MappRapp||

    Sounds like some pretty serious smack to me dude.

    www.Anon-Top.tk

  • Jakesta7||

    Ohhhh big surprise...the blame game...while we keep enduring a stalemate.

  • eyeroller||

    The next time a Republican complains about Democrats obstructing something, let's see if Ed Krayewski posts about it.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Fuck you, Skeletor.

    -jcr

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement