>>>>>>The work week is winding down, time for a Friday afternoon rhubarb ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Waiting for the network guy to fix something for me, I just took a look at today's news and came across this ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/05/boren-the-latest-dem-to-urge-pelosi-to-step-down/?hpt=T2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here is one reader comment at the bottom that I liked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The sheer, unvarnished gall of that woman! She drove her party off a cliff, and now she's clawing her way through the corpses. She should resign, not just from her leadership post, but from the House of Representatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I forget who wrote it but there was something from very early in the Obama administration that hit the nail on the head IMO. "When President Obama is sitting around a table with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi," the columnist wrote, "he needs to realize he's not among friends."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If somehow she does wind up leaving the House completely, the floor is now open to suggestions for her post-political career (evil smile).
>>>>>
>>>>>You may remember my prediction after the election that President Obama had more to fear from Pelosi and Reid than McConnell and Boehner.
>>>>
>>>>why the big thing about Pelosi.I often see her referred to in less than glowing terms.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that with all the media attention over there on the tea party there wasn't at least equal attention paid to Pelosi?
>>>
>>>I actually think the primary reason the Republicans retook the house is not as much about Obama's policies and decisions as it is about wanting Pelosi no longer running the House.
>>
>>That doesn't tell me much does it. And I haven't seen much if any coverage of Pelosi.
>>
>>Also the Tea Party has had some not so bad press over here acknowleding a genuine movement with a troubling lunatic fringe.
>
>I misunderstood then. I thought (from previous posts) that the rest of the world bought into Mike's description of the entire tea party being lunatics. :o) I guess I understood incorrectly. I thought the overseas media was parroting ours. It didn't work here though in the end.
>
>She did accomplish two things that are noteworthy (I'll give her credit because as Speaker she pushed them through):
>
>student loan reform
>credit card bill of rights
>
>She was actually probably the most effective Speaker of the House in a century. She is intelligent, strong, and managed what no speaker of the house has in decades.
>
>The biggest problem with Pelosi is that she promised so many things (an open congress, fewer days off, no earmarks, etc and of course none of that happened) and pushed (RAMMED would be a better term) through legislation via backdeals that the public did not support and that legislation that she pushed through morphed into something totally unrecognizable from what she presented to the American people. At the same time she stonewalled every piece of legislature that she disagreed with so it never even made it to the floor for a vote. Seriously, that is it in a nutshell. She basically decided what was best for America and what Nancy Pelosi wants, Nancy Pelosi gets. She knows what is best for every American regardless of what they want. It was the closest thing to a dictatorship we'll probably ever see (regardless of the grumblings about Obama behaving like a dictator). If you agreed with her politics, great. If not, you got what she wanted regardless.
>
>She lost the middle of the road folks when she told the Steelworkers Union that we need to address the disparity in “ownership and equity” in the United States. She was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. She resigned her membership when she became the minority leader of the house (before they took control of congress and she became Speaker)
>
>The details are available everywhere on the web and have been posted here ad nauseum.
>
>At first I wasn't going to add the membership information or include any details (don't want to get into a flame war). But since I added the membership thing:
>
>http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/CONGRESSMEN_FAIL_TO_INCLUDE_DEMOCRATIC_SOCIALISTS_OF_AMERICA_MEMBERSHIP_IN_THEIR_ELECTION_CAMPAIGNS/32227
>http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13696
>http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/DSA-Members-American-Socialist-Voter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09
>
>I still choose to not cover specifics on her politics and methods. Over and done with (I hope).

Addressing just the bolded part, at least for now -- I never, ever said that. The way I have consistently described the Tea Party is angry white people who are better off than average and still angry. I have not called them nor do I consider them lunatics. (Other than maybe a fringe of the movement, which was the way I took Nick's comment). Their disgust with the political status quo is something I share. It's when you get to their specific views that I part company with them.

They are a clear sign of a country at the boiling point. These have not been good years for us, and part of the dissatisfaction is many view it as part of a long term decline and not just a short term hiccup. In terms of taking our temperature, they are a reading that should not be ignored. What I would need to hear from them before taking them seriously as a game changing political movement is some specifics about how they would change things. And by specifics I don't mean glittering generalities like "cut government spending by 20% this year." Which programs? By how much? When you consider how much of government spending is required by law or untouchable (Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt, military) you are going to have to take a hatchet to programs with genuine constituencies. As someone wrote the other day, it's popular but not useful to say you're going to ditch the National Endowment for the Arts, an old bugaboo to conservatives. That's 0.01% of the budget. If the Tea Party is willing to stand up for really difficult choices I will respect them more.