The Pelosi Factor: Poll Shows 45 Percent Of Registered Voters Are Unlikely To Support Anyone Who Supports Nancy Pelosi

220px-nancy_pelosiFor years, Democratic activists and analysts have complained about the negative impact of Nancy Pelosi on their efforts to take back the House of Representatives and forge a new party coalition.  Pelosi, 78, has consistently remained one of the two least popular Democrats in Washington. The other was Hillary Clinton.  So why would the Democratic Party rig a primary for Clinton and keep Pelosi when fighting to curtail Trump? The answer is found in what these leaders offer establishment figures not what they offer the party, the public, or the country.  They deliver in jobs and money for powerful allies who see no personal advantage in supporting other candidates.  The dominance of self-interest is evident in yet another poll showing that forty-five percent of registered voters say they are less likely to support a candidate who backs the California Democrat for House speaker should her party win a House majority in November. It is a fascinating (and familiar) pattern as the party establishment maintains a leader who is clearly a drain on efforts to retake Congress.  Those who support Trump want Pelosi to remain in her position and are running commercials across the country featuring the prospect of her returning as Speaker. Yet, faced with yet another anti-establishment electorate, Democrats are again offering the same establishment leaders.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday  shows that only 21 percent of registered voters say that Pelosi makes them more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate.

The disconnect is crushing for a party that insists that nothing short of the future of our Republic rests in the balance of these elections.  Yet, personal alliances is preventing the party from removing the least favorite Democratic leader to ensure that it can retake the House. President Donald Trump could well prove unpopular enough to cancel out the unpopularity of Pelosi, but why take that chance?  It was the same gamble that the party elite took with Clinton.  We have previously noted that polls have shown Trump would still beat Clinton in a head-to-head election (and here).  While Trump is also facing declining polls, he is at the same level or even higher than Clinton. Clinton posted the lowest polling numbers yet with only 36% popularity and an unfavorable rating of 61%. Polls are showing Trump at 38 percent.  While a new poll shows that half of people feel Trump should resign, it is clear that they want Clinton even less — the very same position held by many in the campaign. Before the establishment all but anointed Clinton as their candidate in the primary, polls clearly showed that the voters did not want an establishment figure so the DNC worked to guarantee the nomination to the ultimate establishment figure. However, it clearly goes deeper than that.  Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorable), Clinton could not even maintain a majority of women with favorability ratings.

Pelosi and the establishment would prefer to take the risk of not flipping the House than make a change in leadership.  Even if Pelosi costs a couple of percentile difference, it could well make the difference for retaking the House. If the House stays in Republican hands, Trump could well be insulate from impeachment or investigation for the remainder of his term. With Trump’s popularity on the rise and Pelosi’s popularity still on the decline, the risk being taken by Democratic leadership is staggering.

The disconnect does not stop there.  Women’s groups and many liberals continue to push Bill and Hillary Clinton to the forefront of speeches and fundraisers despite polls showing that they polarizing and unpopular. In this poll, almost 40 percent of voters said that they would be very uncomfortable in voting for anyone supported by Hillary Clinton.  Only 9 percent view Clinton’s endorsement in a positive way but she continues to be pulled before high-profile women’s and Democratic groups.

Thirty-seven percent answered that they are very uncomfortable with backing a candidate endorsed by the former first lady and secretary of State, versus 9 percent who say they are enthusiastic. The Clinton family is expected to take only a limited role in campaigning for Democrats this year.

The situation is not much better for Trump who continues to be highly polarizing and unpopular.  Only 12 percent looked favorability on anyone endorsed by Trump while 38 percent answered that they would be very uncomfortable.

So we have a repeat of the situation in 2016 with  the least popular figures leading the respective election efforts.  For the Democrats however the choice is more stark. Trump is President and will not resign.  Pelosi has been unpopular for over a decade and led her party into a steady string of defeats, including losing the House of Representatives.  Most expected Pelosi to resign after that loss by tradition, but again her interests and those of her allies prevailed. There is simply nothing in it for establishment leaders in opposing Pelosi and bringing to power someone who is likely to change the leadership across the board.

Notably, many of the upsets this election came from young Democrats who declared that they would oppose Pelosi as majority leader or Speaker.  This includes the two biggest upset for Conor Lamb andAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez. However, there is a cynical calculate at play. If Pelosi remains and becomes speaker, she will shower her allies with key positions and support. If she loses, no one will blame the establishment figures who did nothing to remove the drain on Democratic voting.  The answer is simple in Washington where God, and the party, help those who help themselves.


240 thoughts on “The Pelosi Factor: Poll Shows 45 Percent Of Registered Voters Are Unlikely To Support Anyone Who Supports Nancy Pelosi”

  1. Reblogged this on Roberts Thoughts 2 and commented:
    Pelosi, 78, has consistently remained one of the two least popular Democrats in Washington. The other was Hillary Clinton. So why would the Democratic Party rig a primary for Clinton and keep Pelosi when fighting to curtail Trump? The answer is found in what these leaders offer establishment figures not what they offer the party, the public, or the country.

    1. Right on Robert. Establishment Dems (DINOs) and Repubs (RINOs) get $$$ from the same people. The few pols with principles are consistently undermined by these greedy folks.








    The truth is that too many of the entrenched powers in American politics are well over 70. It’s not just a problem with Democrats, as Professor Turley implies. To the contrary, aging seniors firmly control Republican priorities.

    The Republican tax cut of last fall was ordered by the Koch Bros network of billionaire donors. They don’t care how much said tax cut adds to the debt. The Koch Bros will be dead before debt strangles the economy. The Kochs will be dead when rising seas from Climate Change threaten coastal cities.

    At 87 Rupert Murchoch owns Fox News the Republican mouthpiece. Murdoch was never an American and never lived among Fox viewers. But he controls the Republican message that sways an aging audience of viewers. Yet seniors vote reliably and they voted for Donald Trump. In the unlikely event Trump wins and survives a second term he will be 80!

    At 76 Mitch McConnell has worked hard to sabotage healthcare, ignore infrastructure, ignore Climate Change, ignore gun violence, and limit abortion rights. Would a younger man share those priorities..?? Paul Ryan would. But he takes orders from the Koch Bros (as everybody knows).

    Aging seniors with entrenched power is not new to America. In 1956 a best-selling novel dealt with this same issue. “The Last Hurrah” became a move with Spencer Tracy followed by at least two remakes.


      Peter this is outrageous! Sassing seniors is the lowest you have stooped. As a bitter old man, hated by his children, I bitterly resent your depiction of us. Elders know what’s best. Even the lowest tribes recognize that concept. Village elders are running Pakistan, a country where women keep their mouths shut. If this were Pakistan, Stormy Daniels would shut up. And we wouldn’t know Trump’s lawyer was a hustler on the make. So now I’m telling ‘you‘ to shut your filthy mouth! As a half-demented senior, I should have that right.

      1. Peter Hill – as a village elder I can tell you right now Stormy Daniels would be stoned for getting that boob job.

      2. Peter Hill, I am so jealous. If only I had thought of satirizing Allan. Brilliant. Kudos, Mr. Hill.

    2. Aging Trump voters really don’t understand that the Republican agenda is to privatize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which will undoubtedly mean less health coverage, no COLA raises, no Medicaid qualification for nursing home care and a lower standard of life because they’re going to start having to pay more for health coverage, but with lower Soc. Security. Trump is on track to cause a major recession, too, and with the deficit growing, savings, stocks and retirement accounts will take a hit. This is because the agenda of the privateers is: 1. Profit first; 2. Profit second: and 3. Profit third. Seniors supporting Trump are cutting their own throats, but are so enthralled with the racist, xenophobic and misogynistic babble on Fox that they don’t realize what’s really going on.

      1. Yo Nutchacha – educate yourself – check out Obama’s Grand Bargain offer. This is nothing new – both a D & R thang to please their donors.

        Rs do it Kosher stylewith a quick cut while Ds prefer to bleed slowly with multiple cuts

        1. Ain’t about Obama. As a Fox News/Breitbart/Koch disciple, you don’t understand that, but they love the fact that you will do the pivot without Hannity, Tucker or Kellyanne telling you how. This is about Trump and his privatization agenda. it will hurt seniors, but because many of them, too, are disciples and love the racist, misogynist and xenophobic rhetoric, they don’t realize that the wool is being pulled over their eyes. By the time they figure it out, it’ll be too late.

            1. Autumn, Honey, try to stay focused. The post was about Trump’s privatization, that it will hurt those seniors who love listening to the hateful racist, misogynist and xenophobic rhetoric, and that most of them don’t understand how privatization of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will hurt them. Pivoting to complain about Democrats is not relevant. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not relevant, but was is relevant is your Fox News-esq. tendency to pivot. Koch and Breitbart just love how they’ve trained you how to think.

              1. oh hell yes DWS is very relevant – she hired Pakistani spies and protected them as well as threatening the Capitol Police. She rigged the election against Sanders and against her opponent Tim Canova. Our memories are long and we have AUTHENTIC grievances unlike you and your dumb Dim cultists.

                You spouting off about Fox news, Breitbart etc and I am taking the trouble to introduce you to the Indie Left. You should be grateful.

                This gentleman for example – a Gen Xer who Dem exited. Bob is a proud union member and obviously Black – you know, the kinda folks the Dims are supposed to represent but has alienated

                1. No, Autumn, Honey, the post was about the effect of Trump’s privatization of programs seniors depend on and that they don’t realize how they are hurting themselves and their future prosperity by supporting him and indulging in the hateful racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric he and Trump News Network, a/k/a Fox News spews.

                  1. Dummy, how many Dims are gonna support this? My guess is the majority. SO get off your identity bs and realize that the Establishment Dems are NOT your friends.

      2. Aging Trump voters really don’t understand that the Republican agenda is to privatize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,

        Of course, efforts toward that end in the last 40 years have been close to nil, just George W. Bush’s efforts to have experimental private accounts for Social Security.

        Carry on with your lying rant.

      3. You’re right, Natacha. Older seniors today will unwittingly screw the next generation of seniors. Fox News will make sure of that. And allow me to point out again that Rupert Murdoch, 87, is not a real American. Murdoch has probably never visited the ‘fly-over’ cities that ‘depend’ on Fox News.

      4. Natacha:

        I find complains on the Left worrying about lowering healthcare coverage to be very frustrating.

        Where in the world were all of you guys when we were lamenting that the ACA replaced our excellent, mainstream PPOs that were accepted everywhere, and left us with a plan that had the premiums of a Cadillac policy, deductible of a catastrophic, and the level of care of simply presenting yourself to a county hospital. No doctor I ever visited ever accepted it, so I had to pay out of pocket for care, which did not contribute to my max caps. Nor did getting any off formulary prescriptions. Most major cancer treatment centers do not accept Obamacare individual policies at all. The loss of access to such specialists increases the chances of death.

        The ACA also took money away from Medicare and Medicaid.

        And yet, all of our sincere dismay and concern about this financial catastrophe, and health care crisis, was met with derision. You do remember the rhetoric against ACA critics over the past 8 years, right?

        Found your concern about healthcare costs a bit late, didn’t you?

        1. My family deductible went from $500, to $6,000, and now it’s $12,000 on Covered CA. Thank God I was rescued from Obamacare by a relative who offered me a telecommuting job…because Democrats could care less about it.

          Guess I was supposed to eat cake.

    3. The age discrimination in employment for which you pine is a Federal crime, BTW.

      Re. your claim that “…Trump…shows signs of early dimentia…:” Please list your evidence that the military M.D. who recently examined Trump lied by reporting Trump scored 100% on a mental acuity test instead of describing his “dementia”.

      Re. your failed attempt at humor: keep your day job.

      1. I don’t know whether it’s dementia or just his underlying malignant narcissism. He’s damaged goods, though.

      2. Joseph, in case you didn’t know, the military M.D. who wrote that report has been completely dismissed after a failed attempt to become VA Administer. What’s more, Trump’s former personal doctor, who wrote a glowing report on his health during the campaign, later admitted that Trump wrote that report!

    4. I agree that some in our politics somehow manage to stay on stage too long. It’s not so much age as it is a misguided sense of self-importance.
      As for seniors, many of them are woke. They voted for Hillary. They’d vote for a progressive of any age. They will be demonstrating tomorrow all over the country.
      There are bad seniors and good. Joe Biden is 75. John Lewis is 78. Maxine Waters is 79. Dianne Feinstein is 85. They can still do the job.

      1. NO ONE “woke” went for HRC unless they were delusional. All the folks you have put out there are NOT Progressive.

      2. That would be NO, NO, maybe, and NO. Is there no one on the bench? If this is the best we have to offer then we are f’d.

        1. They were just examples of older Dems who aren’t dinosaurs. There are plenty of younger folks who I am sure you will see in the runup to 2020.

      3. There are bad seniors and good. Joe Biden is 75. John Lewis is 78. Maxine Waters is 79. Dianne Feinstein is 85. They can still do the job.

        What job? John Lewis is notable for not being obnoxious and for not generating scandals. That’s satisfactory. The thing is, in 30 years in Congress, he’s proposed little or nothing of consequential legislation, much less shepherding it through. He’s a fairly unimaginative back-bench member. Eleven years ago, he was eligible for full Social Security and an agreeable pension consequent to 20 years service. Had he gone then, he wouldn’t have been missed.

        As for Biden, prior to entering politics, he was an associate in a suburban law firm and of no special distinction. People who know him well think he’d have made a great real estate agent. Delaware politics seems to run on inertia. Who gets elected is who shows up. Look at Michael Castle’s career. When someone ran a vigorous campaign against him, he folded like a cheap suit, even though the woman running against him was damaged goods. Biden is, like Lewis, an intellectual mediocrity. Unlike Lewis, he’s denuded of an everyday moral sense. Look how he and his wife reacted to his son’s shenanigans.

        As for Maxine, damaged goods. Nothing of value comes out of her mouth.

        Dianne Feinstein has a life expectancy of 6.9 years. That she wants to spend those years on Capitol Hill should discredit her.

        1. DSS – AZ has a dying John McCain who won’t retire so he can be replaced. With his wife’s money does he need the insurance?

  3. There is a certain amount of madness in the politics game.

    Democrats have told poor neighborhoods and minorities, vote for us, and we’ll solve all your problems! Have their problems been solved? No. Welfare rolls boomed under Obama. Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore – have they become Nirvana? San Francisco has devolved to the point that maps are given to tourists of how to avoid human feces and dirty needles on the street. Does the populace riot? No. They’re used to it. At what point do voters say, we’ve given you chance after chance, done all you said, and we’re worse off? When do they stop believing that the Democratic Party will help them?

    Republicans have told voters they oppose illegal immigration, Obamacare, high taxes, and high spending. But when they were given the opportunity, over the decades, to really work on these issues, did they? One thing I will say about Democrats is that they fall into lockstep with the party. Republicans squandered their opportunity to repeal Obamacare, when many of them based their election campaigns upon doing exactly that.

    Acting in personal self interest, making deals, is an affliction shared by both parties.

    This is why I do not want our government to overstep its function. It is peopled with bureaucrats, self-enriching deal makers, and ideologues. Did the FBI do their job without personal political bias? No, they did not. They brought ideology to corrupt the balance of power.

    This is another reason why Big Government leads to ruin.

    I am also dismayed at the increasing popularity of Socialism, especially among young Democrats. The only reason that happened is because the K-graduate school education system was taken over by ultra Left wing ideologues who brought their personal politics, and a complete lack of understanding of history, into the workplace. They are all busily trying to make America into another Venezuela, North Korea, Communist China, USSR – you know, all the eco-warrior countries championing human rights and the chance for living successful lives…Oh, wait.

    If the Left gets its way, then sooner or later, there will be riots over toilet paper shortages. We’ve had a Socialist candidate for President, who had to be cheated out of the primary. Socialist politicians openly preaching their views. I’m not sure of the timeline, but unless the education system starts actually teaching what Socialism really means, we’ll repeat the same failed experiment so many others have tried before. And I don’t see Venezuela going back to the days when people would “fall out of banana trees into Cadillacs.”

    1. Karen, really, save yourself some time. People could just sit at home, starry-eyed and watch Hannity and Tucker spew their anti-Democrat garbage. You don’t need to waste your time repeating it here every day.

      1. You are spot on – if Karen S so chose she could YouTube Left independents who arguably despise the Democratic Party even more! There are so many options.

    2. Karen, what ‘boomed’ was the census of SNAP recipents and Medicaid recipients. SNAP is an ill-advised program, but it’s an income-supplement for the impecunious, not a replacement for earned income. Medicaid is a program accessed in contingencies. TANF, which is the successor to AFDC, enrolls about 1.3% of the population, a share that has seen only modest flux in recent years (and is a great deal lower than the 4.5% enrolled in AFDC 12 years ago).

    3. If the Left gets its way, then sooner or later, there will be riots over toilet paper shortages.

      Get a grip, Karen. Venzuela’s downward spiral has been > 40 years in the making and has been crucially influenced by the distortions in political economy induced by the natural resource bonanza the country sits atop. We have problems. We don’t have those problems.

      1. Are the left-leaning countries in Europe on the verge of toilet paper riots?

        1. No, they are trying to deal with the influx of immigrants and economic migrants which are taxing their systems as well as attempting to battle EU dictates.

  4. A stink piece about Nancy Pelosi, so you can fire up the dumbbells who love to spew hate, especially against powerful women. Meanwhile, Jon, proud father of four, WHERE ARE THE BABIES? WHERE ARE THE GIRLS? More relevant: WHY DON’T YOU CARE?

    1. Did you read the article? Apparently not. Pelosi’s greatest “power” is to insure the success of your political enemies.

      I presume Trump and the GOP donate a good portion of the funds in Pelosi’s war chest to insure her interminable “success” (from your POV Nancy’s “success” equals “failure,” though you’d surely scream my characterizations are inverted compared to your “reality”).

      May Nans live forever and ever.

    2. Where are the babies? Where are the girls? Indeed.

      Lament the surviving family members in Honduras, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen

      Why are the Dems so pro war? Why don’t YOU care?

      1. Autumn: please stop pivoting. The Trump Administration is sequestering babies and girls, taken from their families, and moves them under cover of darkness. They refuse to say where most of them are. THAT’s the story. This is happening in the U.S.

        I’m sure Breitbart and Fox News grin every time they get a dope like you to do the pivot when someone points out a negative about Trump. They’re getting you to see things their way.

        1. I agree, it needs to be fixed. WHERE were/are the Dems?? Oh right milking this issue

          But let me go back to enjoying the Progressives who shine light on what John F. O’Donnell calls “the emo-rats”

      1. This discussion ISN”T about abortion–it is about living, breathing children incarcerated by the U.S. government so their emotional distress can be used as political leverage. That is a crime against humanity, and if another country did this, the U.N. would get involved.

        Again, the Fox News pivoting. It’s amazing how they took the hate, racism, xenophobia and misogyny of people like you and harnessed it to change how people like you think. Instead of responding on the merits about the near-daily crisis and assault to American values brought about by the Trump Administration, you immediately pivot to say something bad about the Democratic Party, President Obama, or some other off-topic response. That’s what’s really scary. People like you have been trained to think their way. And that will lead to the downfall of this country.

        1. , breathing children incarcerated by the U.S. government so their emotional distress can be used as political leverage. T

          No, that’s not the reason, Natacha. The children were detained because they tried to cross into the country unlawfully, commonly in the company of adults.

          1. In the United States, WE don’t jail children for the offenses of their parents. Detain the parents, throw the book at them, if it’s warranted, but don’t put kids in jails, including breastfeeding infants. These kids didn’t choose to enter illegally. In these kiddie prisons, their jailers aren’t allowed to touch or comfort them in any manner, no matter how much they cry or how inconsolable they are. It doesn’t matter if they get 3 hots and a cot, or even if there is some schooling and recreation, they aren’t free to leave. It’s wrong to punish them. Their tender age and emotional vulnerability are being exploited for political purposes. Again, I remain amazed at just how effective the Fox News brainwashing has been.

            1. “Their tender age and emotional vulnerability are being exploited for political purposes.”

              yes it has – glad you can admit that like that despicable liar HRC who destabilized Honduras

              “Give me a break, really,” she [HRC] growls, rolling her eyes. “I mean, this is a crisis of his making that will damage kids for no good reason at all, and I think everybody should be focused on that until the children are reunited.”.

              No biatch, you and Obama set this up. I imagine the kids in Haiti are still suffering from the pilfering of donations by the Clinton Foundation.


        2. it is about living, breathing children

          So you are not concerned about all babies; just those that managed to survive a pregnancy. Got it. How about these babies/children, do they warrant your attention?

          That’s what’s really scary. People like you have been trained to think their way. And that will lead to the downfall of this country.

          People like me have learned to think. Training is for your ilk; think Pavlov.

          1. The topic is NOT abortion. You are pivoting again, like a true Fox News/Breitbart disciple.

            If you can, defend jailing infants under the age of 1, or toddlers, or even older children. Have you ever read about the effects that old-time orphanages had on children, or the reasons why they have been abolished? Do you know anything about the effects of separating children from their parents, forcibly without any time to adjust, or about the long-term effects of lack of touch and comfort to very young children? Have you read anything about the emotional illnesses of kids coming from Russian orphanages where they are parked in cribs all day long, with no comfort or human touch?

            Again, the topic is NOT abortion. Defend what Trump is doing to these kids, if you can, or maybe, you could just cite the comment by one of the “Fox and Friends” commentators: “After all, they’re not OUR children.”

            1. The topic is NOT abortion. You are pivoting again…

              You’ve already exposed your fake compassion for all children, so let’s deal with the children that are alive.The 2nd link I provided you was for FOSTER CHILDREN. While you rant and rave about the poor little children exploited by illegal trespassers into our country, we already have poor little children that are forcibly removed from their parents/guardians IN THIS COUNTRY LEGALLY. My wife and I have been licensed foster care providers for 10 years. We have first hand knowledge of the long-term emotional and developmental challenges these children face. Our son that we adopted from the foster system at 1.5 years of age is now 10 years old. We DID do something. What the hell have you done other than exploit a situation for political gain. That is a pivot. From what? That IG report. Or was it the Awans? Or the $84 million Clinton Victory Fund/DNC campaign finance money-laundering scheme? Your pivot is taking you nowhere.


              Speaking of those children along the border; why are you not outraged that these parents/guardians DID NOT make every effort to seek asylum at the first opportunity between their country of origin and the US border? Because they were ONLY seeking asylum IF they were caught.

  5. Progressive politics depends on three things: the ability to convince voters its opposition is corrupt, the ability to maintain party loyalty by means of its own corruption, and a friendly press willing to overlook progressive party corruption while damning everyone else’s.

    Nancy Pelosi is a litany of all three things – she’s existed in the Pellucidar of progressive politics so long she’s no longer bothered by the vast gulf between what she says and what actually is. An objective reader sees after reading her public speeches for a few months that she denounces what she praised not very long ago. John Conyers was an “icon” whose departure from power after a #metoo scandal was inconceivable, according to Pelosi. Ten days later, she said he had to go. You don’t build party morale like that.

    Whether she’s merely too old for the hugger-mugger of Democratic party poltiics, or a life of imbibing is sapping her of the ability to keep her lies straight, Nancy Pelosi’s ripe for retirement.

    Of course, the longer she and other Democrats remain in denial of the fact, the better for her political opposition – which isn’t just the GOP. Joseph Coleman, heir-presumptive to her position as head Democrat in the House, lost what ought to have been a safe seat to a Democratic Socialist primary opponent. The DSA is imposing the same upheaval on its parent party that the Tea Party did on the Republicans.

  6. Meanwhile, another Hillary supporter is having a few minor legal problems. . .It’s the guy on the far left:

    The head of a charity that campaigns against sexual violence has been arrested in New York for child pornography and allegedly trying to meet with children as young as two for sex.

    Joel Davis, 22, is accused of trying to set up sexual encounters between himself and young children, as well as soliciting an undercover FBI agent to send sexually explicit videos of minors.

    The New Yorker was arrested on Tuesday on child sex abuse and child pornography charges.

    Davis is the chairman of the International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict – an organization devoted to ending sexual violence.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Is that a peace sign over Mr. Davis’ left shoulder, or cuckold’s horns? I’m old enough to remember those two fingers used to mar more than one photo opportunity as a friendly prank. In the light of the charges against him, the sign’s wickedly poignant.

  7. Dems should nominate Bill Clinton to be Speaker of the House. It would drive Republicans bonkers but nowhere in the Constitution does it say the speaker must be an elected member of the House.

    1. TrumpPutin2020 – the House has its own rules, which are not part of the Constitution.

    2. You’d have to win control of Congress first, everyone else in the House would have to step aside, and Clinton would have to want the job. Ain’t gonna happen.

      1. No, the candidates would simply have to say they will select Bill Clinton as speaker before the election. That way they will be linked to a man with a 67% approval rating instead of Pelosi with a 30% approval.

        The Constitution does not require the speaker to be a member of the House. The speaker generally doesn’t vote on legislation either, so a non-sitting speaker could serve.

    3. It does, actually:

      “Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.

      Reading is a crucial skill in parsing the Constitution. If you’d read the second paragraph of Article I, you’d know that a member of the House must be chosen by the people of one of the United States.

      The Democrats are, of course, free to choose Bill Clinton as a mascot. Old dogs are often used for that. But he wouldn’t be a Member of the House unless elected to represent a Congressional District.

      1. No, he’s correct. There is no requirement that the Speaker be a member. Most officers of the House (e.g. the parliamentarian) are not members.

        1. Every Speaker of the House so far has been a Member of the House, without exception.

          This issue’s long overdue to be revisited, considering the Speaker is second in the line of Presidential succession (so a Speaker who doesn’t represent a Congressional district could, conceivably, become President of the United States if both the President and vice-President resigned or were declared incapable under the 25th Amendment of doing their jobs).

          If the House changes hands this November, that raises a scary specter. One more reason to make sure the only blue wave in America is in the commodes of its homes and buildings.

          1. Doesn’t matter if we’ve never had a Speaker from outside the membership. We’ve never had a president under 40, either, but it’s indubitably constitutionally permissible.

            If I had my druthers, the Speaker would be a neutral presiding officer on the British model, drawn from the ranks of elderly or retired judges. The senior partisan officers would be the floor leaders.

            Putting the Speaker in the order of succession was an oddment incorporated into the Presidential succession law in 1947. Putting the President pro tem of the Senate in the order is an even odder bit of business that’s been the law since the Civil War if not earlier. Ideally, both would be removed from the statute. Ideally, also, a revised constitutional amendment would be enacted which would replace the 25th amendment with something workable, as well as altering succession procedures.

  8. While Trump is also facing declining polls, he is at the same level or even higher than Clinton.

    With Trump’s popularity on the rise and Pelosi’s popularity still on the decline, the risk being taken by Democratic leadership is staggering.

    The disconnect does not stop there.

    Huh!? Did you say disconnect?

    I predict the Awan story will be brought to the forefront sometime before November. And then there is this bombshell that the Democrats will not be able to hide for much longer:

    In 2016, the Democratic presidential candidate may have presided over the largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history. A lawsuit based on federal records alleges the Clinton machine laundered $84 million in excessive six-figure contributions through the Hillary Victory Fund, to dozens of Democratic state parties, on to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and ultimately to Clinton’s campaign.

    1. Olly, sigh (!) I hope you are right about the Awan bro cyber spying scandal. The independent Left is well aware of this as is obviously the Right. But the MSM overall has kept this out of the news. And why haven’t the Republican members of the House been raising Hell? I suspect they might have been compromised as well. Who knows what these people were able to access?

      One Dem House member who wrote off the equipment they stole just won again in NY – Yvette Clark – arrogant POS – I hope she is prosecuted

  9. Clinton started her dive when she went Trump during the campaign. Clinton is a scum bucket; that has always been understood. Trump is a lying narcissistic buffoon; that has always been understood. When Trump started campaigning, he focused on name calling, blaming, and outright BS, with nothing to do with the issues. He won the primary and garnered increasing attention, albeit from the dupes of America. Clinton started out focusing on issues and other, now becoming increasingly apparent in this nation, boring stuff. Clinton’s advisors in the cult of the Demo Party, told her to jazz it up like Trump. She did and looked pathetic. Only Trump, a consummate liar with a perfectly crafted joker routine can pull that off. Trump has never confused himself with the issues or the steak, only the sizzle. Clinton has no sizzle. The problem is Americans only respond to the sizzle. A crap piece of meat or the best fillet mignon produce the same sizzle.

    What Turley illustrated above regarding Pelosi and what we are enduring with Trump is a direct result of our oligarchical system which depends on general ignorance and buffoonery. Next to nothing of any import makes the news, nothing of any actual relevance. What makes the news is Trump’s lies and the left’s catching him in his lies.

    You get what you pay for but in America we get what the oligarchs pay for. America is a strong and prosperous nation. However, politically America is a weak and dysfunctional nation. Where America is weak is a direct result of America’s acceptance of its bought and paid for leadership.

    1. The Canadian telling Americans what’s wrong with Americans. Stay in Canada where you belong and worry about your own house, you Jackass.

      1. I’d be inclined to listen if he ever made an utterance that didn’t look like the result of maladjusted lithium levels and if he ever had any constructive criticism.

      2. When you have nothing, denigrate your opponent. Why not focus on the issues at hand? Because it’s easier for those who can’t understand to simply say, go home. Well this is home for me.

        1. What a hypocrite. You more than anyone else who ever posted here use more negative personality characterizations Re. Trump. If you lost the word “buffoon” in your posts 90% of the content would disappear.

      3. Although I don’t agree with my fellow Canadian, I’m going to defend him here… When your country stops asking Canadians to bleed and die in wars that your country got us involved in, then we will stop commenting on US politics. Until then, I would suggest you look at your country’s first amendment and consider what free-speech actually involves and why your statement is wrong headed.

        1. When your country stops asking Canadians to bleed and die in wars that your country got us involved in, then we will stop commenting on US politics.

          Because, of course, the Canadian government has no agency.

          Canada’s military budget is around $15 bn. Thanks for your tuppence.

          1. Canada lost over a 150 soldiers in Afghanistan, the highest per capita involvement of any nation, including the US. No one attacked Canada. Canada, Great Britain, France, and other countries joined in without hesitation. Canada participated in WW1, WW2, Korea and many peace keeping events with the UN. Canada and many Americans saw the colonial hypocrisy that was Viet Nam and refused. Canada and many others saw the colonial hypocrisy of Iraq and refused. When you’re right it doesn’t matter if you are Canadian or American. However, the main problem with the world is a result of those that are wrong but because they have a dozen nuclear aircraft carriers, shove it down throats. This ‘might is right’ routine is as old as mankind but if ever there was a direction mankind has tried to evolve it is away from ‘might is right’ and toward ‘justice is right’; away from ‘my country right or wrong’ and toward ‘my country when right-when wrong stand up’; away from ‘love it or leave it’ and toward ‘love it but when it’s wrong, fix it’. The regressive patriots on this blog are what is wrong with the world. America’s values are under no threat, as they are determined ultimately by the citizens that vote. America’s democracy is under threat from the oligarchs and the chaos created to mask the dysfunction of the system. Those that support this system are those that should leave.

            1. True Isaac. WHY aren’t people aware of and supporting the USS Liberty survivors who are trying despite ALL the odds to get an investigation?

        2. When your country stops asking Canadians to bleed and die in wars that your country got us involved in, then we will stop commenting on US politics.

          Please provide the date/time that anyone in the U.S. government voted in the Canadian parliament to commit the country to join the United States in any combat operations.

          1. Olly,..
            It sounds like Isaac is suggesting that Canadian political leaders are mere vassals of the U.S.😉
            Maybe that’s why Justine talked so tough on the trade/ tariff issue….he was overcompensating to counter the perception that Canada is subservient to the U.S.

    2. “We” what’s this “We” your a Canadian who writes paragraphs of what’s wrong in America and Americans. The only time your an American is when you need good quick healthcare.

      1. You can get good quick healthcare anywhere in the world if you have enough money. However, for the ‘average Jack and Jill’ healthcare costs two to three times as much in the US as in Canada, per capita. For this reaming-no vaseline-you get the 25th best healthcare. In Canada for a half to a third the cost, you get the 14th best. This is because healthcare in America is a commodity subject to the first law of capitalism/free enterprise, charge what the market will bear. In Canada and most other of the more advanced nations, healthcare is seen as a right. Specialists in Quebec recently voted to refuse a pay hike and have the excess funds to go to nurses and hospital staff. Specialists in Quebec currently earn from $350k to $450k a year. The problem of excessive healthcare costs is most uniquely an American one. It is a result of the oligarchical system of government where health care insurance and hospitals have as their hand puppets the so called elected representatives.

        1. “healthcare in Anerica is a commodity subject to the first law of capitalism/free enterprise”.
          Isaac, we’ve had a number of exchanges in the past re health care costs.
          I’ll take one aspect of this debate, your statement I quoted above.
          One aspect,of capitalism/ free enterprise is competition.
          If you buy a car, you will likely get a few price quotes from dealers, check features, reliabilty, etc.
          You’d do the same “shopping/ comparison” with the purchase of a house, appliances, vendors/ craftmen like electricians, plumbers, remodeling contactors, etc.
          In almost every area of expenditures, esp. major expenditures, most people can and will shop for competative pricing.
          That competution feature…a core component of capitalism/ free enterprise….is absent, for the most part, in delivery of health care.
          There may be a little more transpareny than in the past…very little….but for most people, the bulk of the payment is seen in payments to the insurer.
          By the insurer, I’m including ALL third party payers; as I’ve mentioned before, government programs now account for at least half of total U.S. heath care spending.
          So Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc. are third party payers as well as private insurers.
          If you paid a set premium for the USE or purchase of your vehicle, you’d have no incentive to “price-shop”.
          If, for example, you paid a third party a premium $500 per month in order to have that third party pay for the vehicle, you may not know ( or care) what the vehicle costs.
          You’re spending 5 $500 per month to the third party, which will pay the costs of buying a new car every 3-4 years.
          If that car actually costs $20,000 or $50,000, you’re paying the $500 per month.
          I think these comparsons/ examples show that the area of health care is actually the antithesis of capitalism/ free market dynamics/ characteristics.

          1. PS…looks like this health care debate that developed straddles 2-3 different threads.
            I’ll sort it out later and catch up on the different comments made, and where.

          2. Tom

            There is the ideal and the actual. Sometimes, as with computers, cars, etc even after monopolies and other approaches products tend to survive if they are good and cheap. Apple and Microsoft are examples. Microsoft tried to control the market by limiting Apple users vis a vis programs etc. or hardware over software. Apple persevered and now just about anything is doable on either platform. Apple did an end run around Microsoft with the portable devices such as iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc and the rest is history.

            With the American auto industry, competition did not kick in until after the industry was reduced by 500%. At its peak the US auto industry employed over a million workers, mostly in the now impoverished areas called the rust belt. Then with their self styled monopoly of planned obsolescence and the misery of choice people simply turned to Japanese imports that were easier to understand and proven to last. Add gas prices rising and you have a failure to compete and provide a better product.

            So, your argument is pertinent when it comes to choice. However, there is little choice when it comes to health care. You are going to need health care to some degree whether you choose it or not. It falls into the category of defense, police, fire protection, and other government services. What the US has, uniquely is a combination of a captive consumer base and monopolies, all supported by bought and paid for representatives that, under the threat of losing votes or the semblance of losing votes, are too gutless to make the proper adjustments. Nixon was the last politician that had any eggs. Nixon had both sides of the aisle on board before he messed himself. Since that time the private, for profit, parasitical health care industry and the health care insurance industry has metastasized to this unyielding disaster.

            Americans are not receiving any benefits whatsoever from the private health care insurance industry over an insurance industry governed by the people as in the case of police and fire departments. There are over 1,200 private insurance companies in the US, each with the cost of their own administration and the need for doctors, clinics, and hospitals to employ hundreds of thousands of clerks to handle the nonsense. Ask any doctor, nurse, or hospital and they will tell you it is a nightmare.

            The upside if the US used the successful paradigms of all the other countries who rank in the 24 spots above the US in health care quality and pay a third to a half per capita for these superior systems if coupled with no pharmaceutical advertising would be at least a reduction to half of what we pay now. Then focus can be turned to the mercenary practices of hospitals and clinics.

            There is a place for competition and free enterprise but there is no place for the monopoly under which the US is uniquely reamed with no vaseline. Do some research. Statistics don’t lie that much, cannot be manipulated that much.

            The downside would be that a half million people, maybe more would lose their jobs. These jobs represent the redundancy that we pay for. Do some research.

            1. Isaac,..
              – There actually was competition in the car market long before the Japanese became major players in that industry.
              I think that you have an inusual and inaccurate concept of what constitutes “free market/ capitalist characteristics.
              I drew the distinction in my last comment to you, and gave reasonswhy the system is anything but capitalistic and a free market.
              As an aside, the numbers you gave for specialist MD incomes in Canada are WAY out of whack with anything I’ve ever read.
              For example, the average orthopedic surgeon has an annual income of c.$440,000 in the U.S. vs. c.$235,000 in Canada.
              I don’t think that the income gap is as large for internists/ family phusicians as it is for specialists, but it’s still sinificant.

              1. My statement reflected specialists in general in Quebec, not the average throughout Canada. The reason I chose Quebec is that it represents an interesting cross section of urban, rural, and the ‘French Canadian’. You cherry pick orthopedic surgeons on average over the entire country which includes a vast number of economic conditions ranging from the Maritimes where the cost of living is far below that of other parts such as Vancouver, Toronto, Victoria, etc. What was also an important part of my choosing Quebec was the recent refusal for pay hikes by doctors in the province. Their argument is that they make sufficient income-$350k to 450k for specialists-and that there is a greater need to enhance the pay of nurses and hospital staff. You missed the point. This is how the ideal should function, not the travesty of ‘what the market will bear’ or get as much as you can that is the driving force behind a system that is significantly inferior to that found throughout Canada and two to three times as expensive, per capita.

                Regarding free market advantages stemming from competition, again you missed my point. The US auto industry is not health care. The auto industry produces cars that improve and become cost available when competition produces the best for less. The US auto industry missed that bus in the 70s and thus followed its decline. The same was true of the British Auto Industry. The Japanese and Germans competed better. One has a choice of buying a car or using other means of transportation. One does not have a choice as to whether or not one will need healthcare. One is faced in the US with a parasitical, for profit, capitalist monopoly.

                As to ‘what you read’, one typically reads what one wants to read to support one’s argument, you and I both. The info on the Quebec doctors came from the BBC news service. They sourced their news from the Montreal Gazette.

                Aside from doctor’s salaries, which are higher in the US than in Canada, it costs less for a student to become a doctor in Canada than in the US, far less. Significantly lower doctor’s salaries in Canada as compared with the US was a problem and a ‘doctor drain’ was experienced with physicians moving south to make more money. As with any system this was addressed, salaries are rising, and the flow of doctors to the south has stopped. In fact there are now more doctors moving north of the border as they appreciate a superior system, perhaps also for other reasons. The difference between doctor’s salaries contributes to the lower healthcare costs in Canada but far more significant are the differences in costs of administration, pharmaceutical advertising, and hospital gouging. Studies have shown that Canadian hospitals have as high quality machinery as can be found in US hospitals. The difference is that Canadian hospitals use their machines on average 80 to 90 % of the time whereas US hospitals use theirs less than 50% of the time. Hospitals in the US compete, advertise, and stock themselves to attract customers. This provides an immediate access to machinery such as cat scans and MRIs but at a far greater cost. Immediate access is also available in Canada from the private sector. The provincial healthcare plans will reimburse their cost level to the citizen who opts for private and more immediate attention. There is this choice in Canada.

                What may be the most significant cost difference is to be found in the administrative areas. While per capita healthcare costs are two to three times as much in the US as in Canada, administrative costs are five to seven times as high. Each province administers its own healthcare system. In the US there are over 1,200 healthcare insurance companies. There is no competition, only the misery of choice and premiums several times inflated for this ‘private sector’ advantage. Think of the subsidizing of hundreds of thousands of jobs in this small government oriented argument. Thinks of the corporate salaries, private jets, office space costs, stock market responsibilities. Think of the fact that no politician can go against the healthcare oligarchs without risking their job. The reality of the situation is not what was intended.

                1. Again Isaac I agree with you. “misery of choice” is spot on. My doctor left the profession some years ago – a GP who was forced as so many are to join ranks with one of the hospital corps which “graded” him on how many referrals were made for scans, etc. Nothing at all to do with health of the patients rather making money.

        2. Isaac,…
          You and I have probably had about a dozen detailed, comprehensive debates about health care in the U.S. vs. health care in Canada.
          I’m going to respond to a few of the points you made in your lengthy comments.
          As I mentioned, we’ve debated aspects of the U.S. and Canadian systems before.
          In this thread, you focus on Quebec, not the overall country-to-country comparisons.
          I’m not objecting to that; it’s just ironic that you now choose one Province, and accuse me of “cherry picking”.
          I stated in this thread, and previously, that MDs in Canada make less than their counterparts in the U.S.
          That is especially true of specialists.
          These facts are easily verifiable, but I’m not going to dwell on that, because factual accuracy seems to have no impact on you.
          If you want to now cherry pick Quebec to make a claim that their MDs are paid on a par with their U.S. counterparts.
          IF that claim is true, then it indicates that the specialists’ income in the other provinces are far lower than then the overall Canadian average income for specialists.
          Since the MDs’ ( esp. specialists) incomes are far lower NATIONWIDE in Canada, a major province where their incomes are allegedly on a par with the RAISING the average, meaning that in other provinces, most MDs will see an even greater income gap than the nationwide figures indicate.
          I understand the differences between the auto industry and the health care sector.
          I used the examples of auto, housing, appliance, contractor, etc. examples to stress the point that their area actual “capitalistic/ free market ” forces at work.
          In contrast to health care, there is transparency and real price shopping and actual competion.
          I made that particular point specifically in reply to your comment that the U.S. healthcare system was “capitalistic and free market”.
          It is not.
          One aspect that kept surfacing in our previous exchanges was the potential savings from lower administration costs exchanges.
          There may be some potential administrative savings at the margins to be realized with a”single payer/ goverment provided universal coverage plan.
          I’m referring to per capita savings….it’s nonsense to believe that the U.S. is going to provide health insurance to tens of millions of currently uninsured ( or underinsured) Americans with universal coverage, then magically offset those costs via administrative savings.
          I think that you touched on that in your recent posts, and I know that you have wildly exaggerated the potential adminstrative savings.
          I’ve been over this repeatedly with you, so I won’t go into it again now.
          This is about as believable as the claim that the average family would save $2500 a year under ObamaCare,
          Finally, if we’re going to limit our discussion to health care/
          specialists’ incomes in Quebec, which is supposedly far higher than the Canadian national average, then let’s find a city, state, or region of the U.S. where specialists incomes are higher than the U.S. average.
          If you’re going to compare those incomes of a province of Canada to U.S, averages, let’s cherry pick areas of the U.S. where specialists are the highest for comparison.

          1. Isaac,…
            -I would recommend that you do some actual research about some of the factual aspects of U.S./ Canadian health care.
            I have gone over detailed, complex, govermental PDF files, as well as the data presented by Kaiser, by university studies, various think tanks, and other nations.
            So, yes, my formation, analysis, and conclusions are based largely on “what I’ve read”.
            That reading and research on my part is extensive, and relies on a variety of material and different viewpoints.

            1. Healthcare in the US is a commodity that is controlled by oligarchs as a monopoly. If you believe that there is some advantage due to competition then you are too far gone to be a part of an intelligent discussion. There is no competitive advantage. There are, however, many extra costs resulting in healthcare being dealt with by Americans as a commodity in this oligarchical monopoly. I have outlined these extra costs above.

              I also addressed the average costs and salaries across Canada as well as in Quebec. Your arguments lack focus and support. The statistics I use have been around and been consistent for many years. The US ranges over the past half dozen to ten years between 27th on the list and 23rd. It is presently 24th. The costs per capita of healthcare in the US, Canada, and other countries are readily available and are pretty much the same regardless on the source. Per Capita Costs in the US for healthcare are two to three times as much as those in Canada. Canada recently ranked 14th in the world for quality of healthcare. The US ranks 24th. Doctor’s salaries and other issues are not a part of the argument against the disgraceful commodity driven, what the market will bear, system in the US. The US is the only country that has fallen so low in this respect. The US is the only country where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise drugs. Over 20% of the pharmaceutical budget goes to advertising. This is a financial injury to Americans followed by the insult of illustrating Americans as that stupid that they will actually make decisions based on cartoon characters smiling after they have popped this or that pill.

              Now, you have your injury and have been insulted, by the American way.

              1. Isaac,
                Please re-read our previous exchanges.
                I did not say that the U.S. healthcare system,is capitalistic, freee market, or that there was any real free market pricing of services.
                In fact, YOU said that; the first reply I wrote in this recent exchange expressed my view that, in contrast to most goods and services, there is little or no transparency, price comparison, price competition, etc.

                1. Isaac, when you make up your mind if the U.S. healthcare system is ” free market and capitalist”, or .s monpoly controlled by oligarchs, let me know.
                  You are ALL over the place from one comment to the next..
                  You are correct in your belief that it’s not productive to cintinue debating these issues.
                  If you took a position and stood by that position from comment to comment, it migjt be different.
                  When I can’t determine what a person’s position is, when you keep comtradicting yourself, make wildly inaccurate claims, I agree that this exchange is a damn waste of time.

                  1. We were debating the gap between the income of Canadian MDs v. those in the U.S.
                    We were not febating the difference in total or percapita health care costs.
                    That gap in spending is well known and not an real issue of debate.
                    When serivice providers’ incomes are 30-50% lowere than in the U.S., if course the health care costs are lower.
                    And a primary reason for that cost advantage is lower reimbursement/ income for doctors and other health care providers.
                    It is not “efficiency due to administrative cost savings; that is a pipe dream, that the adopting the Canadian or other single payer system will somehow lower health care costs by 40-50 percent or more.

                    1. Tom

                      The redundancy of administration due to the 1,200+ healthcare insurance companies and the ridiculous quagmire of ‘choices’ necessitates an excess of a half million to a million jobs salaries that are paid by the user or the poor sap getting reamed. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that for every doctor or nurse they need four clerks to handle the ridiculous mess created by the private sector. The insured pays for this. On top of this there are the endless clerks handling the mess from the insurance end. On top of this there is the nonsense that necessitates subcontracting billing, appealing, etc companies to handle the problems created by this ‘competitive’ system. The excessive billing by hospitals, the gouging by pharmaceutical companies, and the bloated administrative system have been documented again and again to be the primary causes of the excessive costs for health care in the US. Whatever advantage there might be in the US is available only to those who can afford the Mayo Clinic and the health care plans that include that level of attention.

                      In the provinces of Canada the medical plans will pay for services obtained in the US or in private local clinics. They reimburse the user the amount they put on or pay for within the system. The user pays the difference and can deduct this amount from their taxes. In the very rare occasions where an insured is forced or chooses to seek treatment outside of the system, it still works out better than in the US.

                      Administrative costs are the largest or one of the largest ingredients of this mess. That fact can be seen in comparing Medicaid and Medicare administrative costs in the US with the administrative costs of private healthcare systems.

                    2. Isaac,…
                      You can find an extremely broad range of estimates of the percentage of U.S. health care spending that goes to admistrative costs.
                      I’ll review some of the points that I’ve brought up before in our exchanges.
                      I’ll try to be brief.
                      There are a variety of ways of calculating ad. costs, and the methodology I’ve seen does not to standard.
                      E.G., some functions of the MediCare system, such as billing, are performed by Treasury Dept., and not counted as a cost to MC.
                      That needs to be factored in.
                      I don’t think the tens of thousands of employees of Social Security, who do MC counseling and processing, break down there MC-related expenses and get it counted as a MC expense.
                      That’s another “free ride”.
                      Insurers have a required “Medical Loss Ratio”, which is the required amount of insurance premium dollars that must be spent on paying claims.
                      That is still 85%, as far as I know.
                      So a maximum of 15% of every insurance premium dollar collected is spent on the expenses considered to be related to administrative costs.
                      I’ve mentioned a number of times that c.50% + of health care spending is funded by tax dollars…MC, MediCaid, the VA. etc…I ‘ve listed them a number of times.
                      The most common and popular, or at least well-known, universal government plan is Bernie’s “MediCare for All” plan, supported by at least 17 other Senate Democrats.
                      I won’t repeat all of the problems I see with his plan, but he is essentially proposing expanding MC coverage to every American, with increased coverage over and above what senior now get.
                      If the arguement is that MC administrative costs are so much lower, why haven’t we realized the supposed savings from MC and other government funded/ controlled agencies?
                      50% + of these claimed savings should already have been realized because of the huge role gvt. already has.
                      So even IF there are administrative cost savings of, say 15%, to be realized by eliminating most private insurers, at least half of health care dollars do no even go to private insurers.
                      The government, with it’s supposed ad. cost advantage, already owns “half the pie”.
                      My primary care MD retired, c. late 1980s.
                      A younger MD, probably 5-10 years out of med school, replaced him.
                      Very sharp, good MD from a prominent Med. School.
                      He had an urgent call, evidently from his CPA. I was there for a brief office call…he apologized and said he had to take it, he’d be right back.
                      His office was adjacent to the exam room, and I could hear much of his conversation.
                      When he came back, he apologized again.
                      He said there was “an issue” with MediCare reimbursement that turned into an expensive, troublesome, time-consuming mess.
                      He also added that he thought some of the MC people he was having to deal with “were crazy”…his exact words.
                      He added that he’d probably be leaving the clinic, and getting into a practice that totally avoided any possible interaction witb MediCare.
                      That was the last time I saw him. Not sure where he ended up, but I think he was ready to go to Siberia if necessary to cut off any ties to MediCare.
                      I’m not claiming that his was a universal complaint or that all doctors have problems to the extent that they “leave the MediCare Plantation”.
                      But complaints about the burdensome features of MC are not rare, either.
                      With c.100,000 pages of rules and regulations, ( give or take 25,000…depends on the source), I can see why navigating that MC system could be like dealing with our complex tax code.
                      I’ll skip over some other MediCare “bureaucratic horror stories” I’ve heard from 2 other MDs in the interests of time, and space I’m taking up.
                      I’ve said that maybe there might be some relatively small adminstrative cost savings with a universal, government program.
                      For the reasons I’ve given previously, and above in this comment, I don’t see those potential savings as significant.

    3. “What Turley illustrated above regarding Pelosi and what we are enduring with Trump is a direct result of our oligarchical system which depends on general ignorance and buffoonery.”

      We, the people of the United States of America, went to a lot of trouble to make sure we didn’t have a Governor-General who could prorogue our elected government at the pleasure of an actual oligarchy.

      1. You illustrate better than I how ignorant most Americans are. First of all Canada, along with most other successful democracies do not allow their representatives and Presidents to be purchased before hand by the mega wealthy; in other words do not allow oligarchs to outright buy the elections. Second, the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors are entirely ceremonial and have absolutely nothing to do with the governance of any part of Canada.

        1. If you think our MPs and MPPs are not purchased in some manner, I have some muskeg up in northern Ontario to sell you.

          1. Wally Moran

            Compare the financing of Canadian politicians with the financing of American politicians. Of course special interests will always have an effect, in any country. However, Canada’s system is not founded on the freedom to ‘buy the candidate’. In Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany there are laws limiting campaign contributions. It is human nature to get around and game laws but compare a system designed to curtail this with a system designed to promote it. The US is an oligarchic plain and simple. Canada is a democracy with oligarchical aspects. There is a vast difference. With the climate change and all that muskeg may soon be something akin to the Florida swampland that occasionally gets sold via colorful brochures.

        2. Then how the hell did soy boy Trudeau get in? Of course he’s backed big special interests!

  10. Nancy Pelosi is a genuinely good person that loves her country. There are those from the Party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt that also love their country but may disagree as to the best means to reach that goal.

    The Democrats largely ignored the rural vote in economically depressed zip codes and had “undemocratic” primaries in states like New York and California that excluded independent voters. Instead of focusing on how to create alternative and good paying jobs in coal country and Appalachia, Democrats essentially insulted coal-miners and rural voters by telling them to invest in more education. Not a Trump supporter but he understood this voter constituency. A great documentary to watch is “Last Mountain” which discusses ways to create good jobs for displaced coal-miners and small town America.

    The Democrats could learn quite a bit from Jimmy Carter or Virginia’s Dan Ward that recently ran in a Democratic Primary.

      1. Another gem, Squeeks!

        Squeeks, ya thinks any Honduran “migrants” live close by Nans and/or her family members?

    1. And her liberal millionaire husband’s corporate exec friends, not to mention their wine vineyard real estate barrons

      oh the hypocricies, let us count the million says

    2. As for the 50% favoring Trump’s resignation,

      It was a poll taken 6 months ago by PPP, a Democratic firm. The question is one that’s almost never asked of voters, so you don’t have comparative metrics from 8 years ago or 16 years ago or 24 years ago.

  11. Please Nancy you Maxine, Cow Boy Hat lady, Schumer, Hillabrand, Ellison, Bernie and Ocasia stay right where your are and let Americans see what the Dums are all about.

  12. Mrs. Pelosi came up as a party “apparatchnik” through her family connections. She never learned the basics of fine elocution or meritocratic debate. Instead she grew up on militant sloganeering, of the type labor unions developed 100 years ago. She wallows in shallow identity politics, and has become cynical and burned out over time. Her talking points are mocked. It’s a poor reflection on San Francisco voters that they keep sending her back.

    1. Her father and brother had turns as Mayor of Baltimore (her brother’s tenure rather misbegotten). I doubt that mattered much in the Bay Area where she made her bones. Her husband has run a fantastically lucrative real estate business and that may have provided her with some financing. I suspect her real talent is working a very particular sort of room, first in getting elected California state chairman. She was elected to Congress in a special election in part because her predecessor gave her a deathbed endorsement.

      You look at the Democratic leadership in Congress (Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, upChuck Schumer, Patty Murray, and Richard Durbin) and what hits you is (a) how little of their occupational life has been devoted to anything but politics, (b) how long they’ve been in Congress and in political office generally, and (c) what a collection of geriatrics they are. They’re between 67 and 80. They’ve been in Congress between 25 and 38 years. Pelosi has held public office or party position (bar some interstitial periods) since about 1975; Hoyer has held public office without interruption since 1962; Schumer has held public office without interruption since 1975; Murray has done so since 1985; and Durbin has been a staff aide, contractor, or office holder without interruption since 1969. Durbin and Hoyer haven’t practiced law in 37 years or thereabouts. Murray and Pelosi were once schoolteachers, > 35 years ago in the case of Murray and > 50 years ago in the case of Pelosi. Schumer’s last stint of non-political employment was seasonal work for Kaplan when he was in college and law school 40+ years ago.

    2. Militant sloganeering! What a perfect phrase to describe Pelosi and other Democrat’s “arguments.” Kamala Harris and Maxine Waters fall into the same category. along with the whole of MSNBC.

      That is because the average street-level Democrat is no longer able to think in any rational manner. I wonder if any of these long time Democrats ever get to feeling like Old Stalinists in Russia. Full of pep and energy to transform the country, and 50 years later in the 1980’s, they have to look at a Russia that can’t feed itself, and where you have to wait in line 8 hours to buy toothpaste. Oh, and copy machines are very strictly watched by the KGB.

      I wonder if Old Democrats ever get that kind of Man-were-we-ever-stupid-and criminy-we-f*cked-it-all-up feeling when they look at the Black Inner Cities, and Poopy Streets?

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. That is because the average street-level Democrat is no longer able to think in any rational manner. I

        In our circle of friends is a man with degrees from one of those fancy private colleges in New England and from a private research university which turns down > 90% of those who apply. (1) He just has to tell everyone his latest take on the news (our Republican friends say almost nothing about public affairs) and (2) it’s patent that his only news sources are talking point mills. We get one dippy meme after another from him or from his wife, both of whom are under the illusion that mocking something is discrediting it. Those are your street level Democrats. We have a Bernie Bro in the family, who is a writing instructor in his mundane life. Love him dearly, but every time he utters a word about public affairs he sounds like an opinionated ass. I’m under orders not to reply.

        1. So your tongue is pretty thoroughly chewed up from biting it whenever these folks are around, amirite?

          1. We no longer live in the same town. He’s a couple hours away. We hear from him and from his wife via Facebook. It’s been a surprise to me as we worked together for 17 years and he was never opinionated in the office. His wife could be on odd occasions, but she’s such a good-natured idiot that you didn’t hold it against her.

            1. My cousin lives in CA in or around Redding. After Trump won, this cousin reposted the meme that Trump voters live in “Dumbf___istan.” A very quick view of the CA county map confirmed that her CA County of residence voted Trump (IIRC more than half of CA counties voted for Trump). IOW, she mocked my State for voting Trump, the same as her immediate neighbors. The irony is so thick a laser would bounce off it.

              The pure, pathetic, unadulterated idiocy of progressives knows no bounds.

              This cousin, of course, also posted at FB that “Trump and the GOP eliminate safety net spending.” I calmly explained that since a half C ago, US safety net spending has increased from the mid-high 30% of GDP to the low-mid 70% range. Never expect a progressive answer to the question, “What is your target ceiling for safety net spending as a ratio of GDP.

              1. US safety net spending has increased from the mid-high 30% of GDP to the low-mid 70% range.

                Uh, no. Social Security accounts for about 5% of gdp. Medicaid and Medicare and Medicaid about 6.6%. Supplemental Security Income accounts for about 0.3%, unemployment compensation for about 0.2%, veterans’ benefits for about 0.5% SNAP and other nutrition programs for about 0.4%. Section 8 and other housing subsidies amount to about 0.3%, TANF accounts for about 0.2%

        2. That kind of scenario is sooo common. But if you happen to mention that someone is “educated, but stupid”, then you get accused of being anti-intellectual.

          Democrats have truly become Pharisees. They are so convinced that they are morally and intellectually superior to deplorables, that there is simply no getting thru to them. I think maybe some small part of their psyche recognizes this, and thus there is little complaint from them when their rowdier brethren in the party put on masks and take up baseball bats to go shut up those Pesky Konservatives, like Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter.

          Brutality has become a ego self defense mechanism for the Democrats.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      2. Squeek re: “I wonder if Old Democrats ever get that kind of Man-were-we-ever-stupid-and criminy-we-f*cked-it-all-up feeling when they look at the Black Inner Cities, and Poopy Streets?”

        Why on earth would they? They live in gated communities and never ever mix it up with the working classes. So long as they get to return and make $$$ they don’t even care if they ever get the majority back in Congress. It’s a shell game.

  13. Between Nancy, Hillary and Maxine they are going to sink the Democratic Party.

  14. Did anyone know that Nancy Pelosi & Maxine Waters appeared on the TV series Star Trek? Here’s the video to prove it.

    1. I think there’s a reason Paul Kirk ( took a look at her back in 1985 and said ‘airhead’. Partisan Democrats tend to fancy theirs the smart people’s party. Then they put people in charge who have few adult accomplishments outside the political realm and (in the case of Pelosi) struggle to utter coherent sentences.

    1. The Mighty Jim Jordan struck out yesterday. In fact, Rosenstein and Wray pitched a no hitter. When you can’t defend the indefensible . . . and if you have vacationed in Alaska recently . . . pick on Grandma Nancy.

      1. L4D – it’s a game – all the posturing and threats with 0 results. Deep State rules. If they were serious they’d cut the money off – AND Jeff Sessions would do something. Trump tweets a lot but why hasn’t he declassified the info and released it?

        1. Autumn, no one can declassify evidence presented at grand jury proceedings because classified evidence is not presented at grand jury proceedings. The “game” both for Trump and for Congressional Republicans is to use their subpoena powers to figure out what non-classified evidence Mueller has presented to the grand jury so that they can all get a head start on figuring out how they’re all going to defend themselves against whatever evidence Mueller has presented to the grand jury.

          Meanwhile, Rosenstein and Wray have already given over 880,000 documents in response to Congressional requests or subpoenas and none of those have lent any support to the deep state conspiracy theories in which Congressional Republicans and Trump have been trafficking.

          As I’m sure you know Autumn, the evidence that proves the conspiracy theory is never “produced.” [Double intennuendo intended]

        2. 9-90.230 – Disclosure Of Classified Information to the Grand Jury

          Grand jurors do not have the security clearances required for access to classified information. Accordingly, disclosure of such information to a grand jury may only be done with the approval of the agency responsible for classifying the information sought to be disclosed.

          There are measures that a prosecutor can take that will increase the likelihood that the appropriate intelligence agency will approve the use of its information before the grand jury. First and foremost is the use of an unclassified summary of the information prepared by the prosecutor in concert with the IC agency. In other instances, the agency may simply be able to declassify the particular document(s) involved, in whole or in part, by excising certain portions that make the document particularly sensitive but that are not relevant to the use desired by the prosecutor.

    2. Sayeth an adolescent who has no clue what the work product of think tanks actually is.

      1. Grammar school students know what the work product of right-wing think tanks is: tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts.

        1. with millionaires like Pelosi, Feinstein and Auntie Maxine “batshit crazy” Waters, you are welcome to tax them to fill your soup kitchens with porridge…on your dime

          Nicolas Maduro approves of this message

          1. Nicolas Maduro did not call San Francisco a literal shithole, Jasmine. You did.

        2. L4D – wake up! Left wing think tanks push war and corporatism. All bought and funded by special interests whether right or left.

          1. Admittedly, it takes money to run a think tank. Given that the love of money is the root of all evil, it follows that . . . well, actually, I have no idea what follows from that premise. Paul McCartney claimed “Money can’t buy me love.” If not, then exactly what else do the founders and funders of think tanks think they’re buying?

Comments are closed.