Blue Dog Democrat can’t understand why Pelosi’s still in charge

by editor on December 3, 2010

Imagine that you’re Ben Chandler, a blue dog Democrat from Kentucky. You just watched 63 of your House colleagues go down in flames while you managed to hang onto your seat by the razor thin margin of just 648 votes.

ben chandler blames pelosi

Blue Dog Democrat Ben Chandler: Is he dumbfounded or just plain dumb?

Heads are going to roll, you think to yourself. And then you find out that your surviving colleagues think Nancy did a dandy job and should remain as the Democrats’ leader in the House.

Do you think you’d describe yourself as (a) shocked, (b) pissed, (c) dumbfounded, or (d) all of the above.

Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.), who won reelection by only 648 votes, said in a recent interview that he blames outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for Democrats’ deep defeats in the midterms.

“If not there, where else does the responsibility lie?” Chandler told McClatchy. “You’re talking about the loss of 60 or something seats held by capable public servants. There had to be something going on at a level above them.”

He added, “If that isn’t the lesson, I don’t know what is.”

Chandler, a member of the moderate Blug Dog Coalition, voted against Pelosi for caucus leader, saying that her opponent, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), was a “better fit” for his district.

“It baffles me that you can suffer the largest defeat since 1938 and still maintain the leadership of your caucus,” Chandler said of Pelosi.

Well, Ben, you’re one step ahead of us. We still can’t figure out how a radical like Pelosi became your party’s leader the first time around.

Source: TheHill.com

Leave a Reply

32 Comments on "Blue Dog Democrat can’t understand why Pelosi’s still in charge"

Notify of
trackback

[…] Blue Dog Democrat can’t understand why Pelosi’s still in charge | IHateTheMedia.com […]

KimmyQueen
Guest

oh oh I dont think him and Pelosi will be exchanging gifts this year…

perlcat
Member

Nope, she’s a vindictive b*tch, and he seems decent enough for a donk.

donavandean
Member

pericat… i fly frequently for my job—not by choice. i could take a different job where no flight is necessary, but then that would require me to change my profession. point is, those of us who need to fly are subjected to searches and body scans every time we fly, as if we’re the problem. we are not. our government is NOT solving the problem of terrorism with the TSA. they’re just making a handful of private contractors very wealthy on the backs of tax payers and we’re still no safer.

i’m going to start backward with your comments, because i completely agree with your assessment of our politicians, on both sides…perfectly illustrated with the TSA.

with regards to health care… you say “does not mean that it does a single real benefit over what it replaced”. what did it replace? there was nothing in place to replace…and when you assert that there was a “rush to legislation”… i’m not following, because we have been talking about health care reform for decades and it has been continually rejected by the right and the only time the right touched health care was to implement medicare part D which made medicare a huge liability for our country.

as far as state by state health insurance goes… isn’t that what we have now? don’t states currently regulate insurance policy. if what you’re suggesting is to allow across state buying, then that would take states rights away and force one state to accept another states regulation. seems counter to a conservative view point, if that’s what you meant.

to get to your point about scary ghost stories and conservatives. i have no illusions of conservatives… i get what they want…that’s if you are a libertarian. i however don’t get religious conservatives who profess smaller government and less control, yet insist the government legislate against a womans right to chose, who people can sleep, where a mosque should or should not be built, if someone can smoke marijuana or not… i think you get the point, the list goes on.

donavandean
Member

not to beat this whole conservative hypocrisy into the ground, but the tea party caucus, who is clearly against government. spending was responsible for $1.05billion in earmark spending for 2010… out of an estimated $11billion for all of the house in 2010. i’d say that’s considerable amount of earmarks for those who are against earmarks… so… i mean come on.. what is a conservative really?

donavandean
Member

type o i meant “against government spending was…” no “.” after “government”

perlcat
Member

You have to be careful with labels. This is a fun site, because you get all sorts of opinions — some I like, and some are rather troglodytic. Are all conservatives marching in lock step with each other? Not really. While I see good in the Tea party, for instance, there are a lot of people in there that are just along for the anarchistic ride, some to vent their frustrations, some that have read but did not understand the constitution, and some that are very intelligent, and are making common cause with people they would normally never associate with because they truly want to improve their country. They’ve actually done a fairly good job of self-policing — because they have considerably more accountability than your average leftist group — plenty of people would love to see them fail, and are just hoping for racist signs/slogans to appear, so the gotcha phase can begin…

You can fairly make the same case for members of the Democratic party — I know good people, bad people, boneheads, people who sincerely believe what they are doing is right, people who are crass manipulators, and people that are just plain nuts. I think that somewhere, our entire political system as a whole got lost — it is no longer a case where Republicans oppose Democrats — neither party is governing with the will of the people.

The tea party itself scares the Republican party, and it should. Most people I talk to are enraged. Whenever politicians see a ground swell, they figure they can take advantage. As the old saying goes, “sincerity is key. Once you learn how to fake that, you have it made.” (I was highly amused when Orrin Hatch went on the radio and tried to make the claim that he wasn’t a Washington insider.) But opportunists and politicians aside, the more intelligent politicians know that mobs and crowds are fickle things — and the Republican party is on probation here. They didn’t get into office as a validation of their party — and they’d be fools to assume that. However, they also didn’t get into office as a repudiation of the Democratic party per se.

They got into office as a repudiation of our federal government. That is the only explanation for these enormous swings we’ve seen in our federal government over the past 10 to 15 years. Normally, you’d only see an evolutionary change in government — a half-dozen seats changing in an election is a big thing. What we are seeing is something new, and if it doesn’t scare rational people, it should.

Read this article to get a better idea where I am coming from — Codevilla does a good job of explaining the problems we are facing — like any good theory, it seems to fit the facts well, and he isn’t afraid to place blame where it is due, whether that is on Republicans or Democrats. If you can find a better theory that explains where our country as a whole is going, I’d love to hear it.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

If you want an insight into how I really feel about Obama, check out Stephen Diamond’s review & subsequent discussion of Stanley Kurtz’ book.

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Chief-Barack-American-Socialism/product-reviews/1439155089/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

If you want the ten cent synopsis, Diamond says that Kurtz did a high school term paper type review of Obama’s past, and found enough circumstantial evidence to pound off a book guaranteed to sell well to people wanting to believe that Obama is a socialist, red card and all. Bear in mind that Diamond is a political science professor, and his particular schtick is studying the various socialist groups in the country. His take is that Obama is a crass opportunist, and takes advantage of the various socialists, but isn’t one himself — but a crass opportunist like that is a good deal worse than a socialist. Calling Obama a socialist is a compliment to Obama, and an insult to socialists. (not that I’m all that concerned about their feelings…)

He makes a fine distinction between his different socialists — whether he is right or not on this is a matter for conjecture, but clearly, he is familiar with them, and if he is implying that the various american socialists are PO’ed at Obama for co-opting their agenda and boning them in the process, he probably knows something about it.

Of course, it descended into epic name calling — when people have a pet theory, they are reluctant to give it up, even when the truth is even uglier than what they’d been hoping it would be.

As to your travel? That really sucks — you have my profound sympathy. No American deserves to be treated like cattle. The most outrageous part about it is that after you get felt up or X-rayed, you aren’t any safer. The only purpose to it is crowd manipulation, pure and simple. I am fortunate that I no longer have to travel — I used to remember air travel when they treated you like a human being. The closest I have been to that in recent memory is a flight I took on Aeroflot in ’04. It was nice. When they deregulated the airlines, air travel got a whole lot cheaper in a prostitutional way. I miss flying on TWA — I didn’t care for the TWA coffee, but I did so enjoy the TWA tea!

I think that everyone gets all excited about arguing about health care, and forgets that we are not seeing the forest for the trees — the real issue is an out of control government. That’s what’s radical about it IMO.

perlcat
Member

Actually, it takes guts to be a conservative if you understand all the issues. In a lot of senses, whether you agree with all of what is posited as conservatism or not, the movement itself benefits from people willing to teach and learn from each other. Any movement can benefit from a “devil’s advocate”, just to keep things on the up and up. If everyone sat around here agreeing with each other, it’d be boring.

I’m a little in awe about some of the people on this site. KimmyQueen and others, are really courageous and really believe in smaller government, even though I know they take a lot of crap for it. it takes guts to do that, and they deserve my respect.

I personally do not care for morality legislation — my morals are not other peoples’ morals — as long as they can behave themselves in public, I don’t particularly care what they do in private. I’m fool enough to think that we should all live by the same set of rules, whether you are rich, poor, or somewhere in between. The problem lies in how to achieve that. The answer for me is more of a minimalist approach — the more rules/laws you create, the more opportunity for unfairness to sneak in. If rules/laws are complex, then they are subject to interpretation and political manipulation.

I freely admit that there is plenty of unfairness as a by product of that — but the opportunity for people to change their lives for the better is preserved. Losing that capability is the fundamental unfairness that we are going to regret the most.

I liked what my kids’ textbook says about politicians. If a mutual fund manager makes 2% over market, he’s a genius. If he makes 5% over market, he’s investigated for insider trading. Our politicians, however, routinely make 15 to 20% over market, and the SEC says that there are no crimes being committed.

Yeah, sure.

perlcat
Member

TSA searches you once, and only if you want to fly. A person can live their whole life without flying, so at least they have a choice. As to the other freedoms, I lean more closely to the civil liberties of which Andrew Napolitano spoke of — if the left wouldn’t be tuning out all things Fox, they’d learn some amazing things about how some on the Right view civil liberties.

If the Fed knows your medical records, they have absolute control over you. Marijuana in the bloodstream? Your deductible goes up, and if there’s a choice between giving you help and another person who doesn’t smoke it. sucks to be you. Same goes for cancer — if you smoke, and are told by Big Brother to quit and don’t, want to give me odds on getting coverage when money’s tight? They say pre-existing conditions are covered. That’s true. The problem is, the amount of coverage will vary based upon an unaccountable bureaucracy and a budget that is at the sufferance of the economy. A good economy can support more government (but by definition, a good economy has a better functioning government, too, and that usually translates into smaller government).

Half of what you need may not be enough. Take cataracts. My Mother-In-Law gets socialized medicine. If you in the states went in for cataract surgery, you’d expect them to do both eyes, right? Not so where she lives. One eye is good enough.

Do you know about an information clearinghouse called MIB? When you get life insurance, or a job, they take a peek. If they find something, you get silently dropped out of the running, or your rates are adjusted up. If you like to do risky things (hang gliding, skiiing), your rates/coverage gets adjusted. Imagine something like that on steroids. If it does not scare you, it should. The fact that the ACLU does nothing about the MIB tells you that they are already bought & paid off. They have outrage over privacy violations, but only in limited circumstances, and they’re very careful about *who* they attack.

You guys have been telling yourselves scary ghost stories about us conservatives to gin up a righteous froth, when the really scary story is happening thanks to your own political party.

The sole true reason behind this is power. There is no charity or nobility of spirit — if they’d wanted to cover 100% of the nation, the government could have just bought commercial policies for the 14 million people discussed as not having coverage for far, far, far less than the dollar cost projected for this monstrosity.

The truly constitutional method of doing this would have been to let the various states implement their own health care, and when a solution is found, roll it out to the nation via constitutional amendment. Tell me why this was not viewed as necessary? Again, a stopgap purchase of commercial health insurance would have worked for the short term while that was being worked out.

There was no fair argument. There was no open discussion. There was a rush to legislation, and this president will forever have his name attached to it, and be justly reviled by all who suffer from it.

As a conservative, looking at Americanus Liberalis from outside, I’d have to say that too many have bought into their own propaganda — just because the sign on the door says “ACLU” does not necessarily mean that they will defend all (or even most) civil liberties. Just because the name of the bill had the words “affordable” and “health care” does not mean that it does a single real benefit over what it replaced, or even that it results in affordable health care.

The net result is much like the Chicago School system — such a CF that politicians get elected to ‘reform’ it for many, many years — if they actually reformed it, I might believe them — but they’ve been doing that for over 30 years so far, and no discernable progress yet. Politicians are highly skilled at applying the wrong solutions to problems they’ve created, and in response to the new problems created by the inappropriate solution, proposing even more legislation. All that, while maintaining that “it’s for the children”.

So you’ll have to forgive me if I just don’t believe Congress or any part of our government — The only thing I’d believe about them is that they’re all scum.

donavandean
Member

why does everyone on this site use the word “troll” guess that sort of puts “the original thought” comment back on you YT… anyway, the CBO says it will not add to the deficit — as a matter-o-fact, it will decrease the deficit. health care reform does not require compliance, another conservative myth, it puts a tax on those who chose to go without any health care at all, via employer or otherwise. the reason for said tax is because we, the insured, pay for those who are uninsured should they get sick or injured… which is one of the main points for reforming health care, so the cost of the uninsured isn’t passed on to those of us who are. that’s how the bill reads, so you are wrong. why is this site full of people who don’t actually read the policies????

so… it’s cheaper to use contractors in the long run? really? you see, our country used to have a policy against war profiteering because the temptation to profit from war could potentially affect the start and end of war, which not only puts a humongous burden on the tax payer, but also puts an enormous life cost and is basically immoral. that aside, you are categorically wrong with your assessment of long term costs, as a matter-o-fact, most who serve active duty during war-time tend to not re-enlist when they have served their term and we have lower enlistment rates during war time as well. this is why the military spends hundreds of millions on advertising. we’re having a deficit of labor. additionally those who have joined the military, traditionally, have done so to afford college, again 1 term. we are now seeing a greater spike in those leaving the military due to contractors cannibalizing the military population—recruiting those who’s duty is coming to an end. instead of them now serving our country for 25K/year we are paying them 150K/year as contractors. plus taxpayers subsidize companies like haliburton or blackwater (now XI). so if you really want to compare the overall costs of contractors to military enlistment, i think you’ll find we are paying far more for things the military has traditionally done when using private contractors. the military should be self sufficient…not reliant on profit driven organizations that are invested in the prospect of war or the continuation of war… it’s commonsense.

donavandean
Member

agreed, more bureaucracy and none of us want that… however, we have a country that’s becoming increasingly uninsured, which is a huge drag on our economy, 1/3 of our overall deficit, and a free market that isn’t willing to correct for that. what are the options? here’s one: we stop funding the used dept of homeland security and the 250,000 useless employees they have and the useless TSA. cut back on useless military spending, stop outsourcing our military support—it’s cheaper to use our military rather than haliburton or any of KBR’s companies and save nearly a trillion. our military used to do most of what these private companies do now and it was much more inexpensive to the tax payer. we take the money we save by cutting back in areas like i just mentioned and we revamp our entire health care system so it’s affordable and accessible to all our citizens… i think the health care reform that went through was weak, to say it’s radical is totally out of touch and to say it infringes on our freedoms is even more out of touch when we have the TSA illegally searching us daily and the DOHS tapping our phones and reading our emails daily. that’s radical

YT
Guest

Wow, you really are something else. Have you ever had an original thought in your life troll? Try looking away from the note-cards your boss gave you to re-type and think for yourself. Thinking is that activity that makes your brain hurt. If you practice doing it, it will hurt less each time.

Deficit will be made WORSE by the HC law that was passed. What was once a private cost problem will now be a sovereign debt problem.
It does, in fact, infringe on freedoms by requiring compliance. I don’t HAVE to get insurance if I don’t want to. What happens to the price of a good when its mandated by law? Thats right, it goes up! So now we will all have more expensive health care and it will put the entire US government at risk of default (if it wasn’t bad enough with medicare and SS that crap-for-brains liberals like you thought of one and two generations ago respectively). Man, that lose-lose proposition against the will of the population wasn’t radical at all!

Why do you think the DoD hires KBR? Because if they recruited soldiers to do all the cooking, building and cleaning they would be on the payrolls for the rest of their lives. KBR can be hired and fired at will. Its cheaper in the long run. Try making your brain hurt on those for a while. Do us a favor and try to do it walking and chewing gum simultaneously so you increase your risk of hurting yourself.

danybhoy
Member

I noticed you hit the same old song about the military, KBR, & Halliburton. Find me another American company that does what they do, then I’ll consider that arguement. But then you look at crap like the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, & the Ag Dept. to name 3 that are useless. None of them have improve what it is they are in charge of, & that’s because most of the idiots working these agencies are lawyers who just get in the way of the people who actually try to educate, produce energy, & produce our food supply. Get rid these 3 & other worthless gov’t agencies that get in the way of a better America & push paper around to one another to the benefit of nobody outside of the gov’t bureaucracies.

Get rid of these things.

donavandean
Member

i agree, those agencies are often problematic and we spend a lot of money paying for things that are either unnecessary or often useless. i do however see a need for these departments in some capacity because we need a national standard set to put states on a level playing field for things like agriculture, energy and education…so i guess i’m sort of agreeing, but not completely

danybhoy
Member

Fair enough…

Plainsman
Member

There’s no such thing as a “level playing field.” The best leveler that exists is a free market. Are you afraid of that?

perlcat
Member

Here’s something to think about on this subject. Where a lot of people see a really big problem, I see a masterful sales program. There is genius in how we are gradually convinced that what we have isn’t working, and what we need is more government.

Seems like we have had several really good recent exhibits of that — AGW, and now the new food safety law. Coming from a farm, the scare ads and news stories are absolutely hilarious, but scary. Couple days ago I heard about how eggs at a chicken farm were covered in fecal matter. Hello? They’re chickens. Either the reporter was an imbecile who had never hear of a cloaca, or they were trying to whip up fear in the population.

The answer to this problem that we didn’t know we had? Would you believe that more government bureaucracy is needed? Amazing. Their soft sell on the costs of this new legislation was a marvel of obfuscation.

I fully believe that this was no accident. First, they build fear,. Then they offer a solution that happily gives them more power as an unintended side benefit. If it doesn’t fix anything (and it won’t — chickens have always used that particular hole to lay eggs out of) the answer to the new problems will be, you guessed it, more government. What a surprise. is it any wonder that people are outraged?

perlcat
Member

Believe it or not, I feel sorry for all the “Blue Dogs” — they took it in the @ss for this group, and got nary a kiss or reacharound for their troubles.

Only so sorry, of course. Still voting Ben Nelson out when I get a chance.

donavandean
Member

it’s actually called “health care reform” and if you take a look at national polls, the country asked for it and obama campaigned on it and he won the white house for such “radical” ideas. if you take a look around at other industrialized nations, you’ll see we’re trailing when it comes to health care. i’m not going to say you can’t debate, it’s just more and more clear that you’re not factual, you’re ideological, which is not fact. perhaps if you took time to research what you’re posting it could mitigate any debate…

perlcat
Member

I don’t care what they call it. It is a disaster by any name. Call it HappyFunUnicornFarts for all I care. It was all turd polish.

They took a poorly running healthcare system and introduced *more* bureaucracy and lack of freedom, and “paid” for it on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. What’s not to love if you’re liberal/statist, and what’s good about it if not?

This “solution” was been applied to a very real problem without any consideration of whether it will work or not. Intellectual dishonesty was used (sick of sob stories and anecdotes yet? I sure am.), circular reasoning, and outright political arrogance (“Willing to listen to Republican’s ideas” was pure unmitigated bullshit, as no Republican idea was ever considered — the only “reasonable” option Barry would have allowed would have to be outright capitulation.) only compounded it to where enough voters were enraged to vote out the House. If only they could vote more out.

Yes, by the standards of anyone loving their freedom, this legislation was radical. If it is what you want, I suppose you would not see it that way, but then I sincerely feel sorry for you.

My summary of ObamaCare is simple.

“Obama lies, your grandma dies”

donavandean
Member

radical? what exactly has nancy pelosi done that’s radical? please name 1 piece of legislation that has passed the house that is radical.

Administrator
Admin

Donovan, you’ve hidden out for a few days since the people over at the Obama’s Kenyan Cousin article nailed you on your inaccuracies. Just thought I’d let you know that they’re looking for your response over there.

https://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-kenyan-cousin-odinga-orders-crackdown-on-gays

donavandean
Member

i forgot i responded to that… work got in the way. i’ll check it out. i’m sure it won’t be hard to rebut. although i’d still like to know what legislation nancy pelosi passed that could be considered radical?

donavandean
Member

ok administrator.. responded to odinga and obama post. dude you seriously need to read some more or change your sources… you’re looking like all the tools who just buy into the crap their fed…essentially just another hack who’s too lazy to do the leg work to learn truth…just sayin

donavandean
Member

oh and i’m still waiting for all those “radical” legislative pieces that passed the house…

danybhoy
Member

Obama-care for 1.

YT
Guest

x-mas eve backstopping of all GSE mortgage debt last year.

Administrator
Admin

“Dude,” the only one who needs to change sources is the one who can’t think of a single radical thing Pelosi’s house has passed. As even I hope you can imagine, Editor and I don’t have time, with almost 5,000 articles here, to argue with every troll that comes along. So, as a last comment before going back to work so I can bring you more “crap” that seems to perversely excite you enough to keep coming back, I’ll just say that if you think Obamacare, that more than half the people opposed at the time of passage (more now), and for which congress and the president had to pay off senators to pass, isn’t radical, well, Donovan, there’s no talking to you. Really. It’s a waste of time.

I’ll sit back and enjoy more of your inane posts, especially the upcoming one that will say that I can’t debate you and am be hiding behind my excuse of not arguing with trolls.

Smirk
Member

I feel like a broken record… but here I go again. How about the Child Nutrition Legislation. Which has everything to do with the Soy industry and little to do with health.. well, maybe ill health.. that’s a money maker too. I would call this legislation radical.

Here is a good read on that: http://thegreatsoylie.com/

Navyvet
Member

Yeah yeah yeah. Blah, blah, blah. Blue Dog Communist, er Democrat. (Communist-Democrat, what’s the difference) Big deal. He’ll be smooching Nanny Goat and Numbnuts as soon as the smoke blows over. Like I trust “Blue Dogs” or “RINO’s”.

rs
Member

“The former Speaker is a James Bond Villain…Pelosi Galore” — Dennis Miller

YT
Member

Why didn’t Chandler switch to the GOP along with the rest of the conservatives from the south after the great society programs?

wpDiscuz