Hume smeared "[un]popular" and not "respected" "Speaker Nancy Pelosi," claimed she would harm an '08 Clinton presidential bid
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brit Hume baselessly smeared House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), stating that she "is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally." Hume asserted that having Pelosi as speaker of the House "would not be terrifically positive" for "the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008," but he cited no specifics to support this claim, and recent public opinion polls do not back up his suggestion that the public has formed a negative view of Pelosi.
On the October 15 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume baselessly smeared House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), stating that she "is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally." Continuing, Hume asserted that "her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever" and "I suspect that" having Pelosi as speaker of the House of Representatives "would not be terrifically positive" for "the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008." Hume provided no specifics to support his claim that Pelosi could hurt Clinton's potential presidential bid in 2008.
Recent public opinion polls do not back up Hume's suggestion that the public has formed a negative view of Pelosi. For instance, an October 6-8 CNN poll found that 35 percent of respondents had a "favorable" opinion of Pelosi, compared with 26 percent "unfavorable"; 29 percent responded that they had "never heard of" Pelosi, and 11 percent were "unsure" how they felt about her. The poll's margin of error was +/- 3 percent. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll, also conducted October 6-8, found that the difference between those who viewed Pelosi favorably and unfavorably was within the poll's margin of error: 26 percent of respondents indicated that they had a "favorable" opinion of Pelosi versus 28 percent "unfavorable." Nearly half -- 46 percent -- said they have not heard of Pelosi or have formed no opinion. The USA Today/Gallup poll's margin of error was also +/- 3 percent.
From the October 15 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
HUME: Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive.
Who is this Hume guy talkin' about? Rush Limbaugh, maybe? Bill O'Reilly? Other Fux News casters?
B.O. says on Hume's own network that 43% of the population do not know of Nancy Pelosi. So, does that mean the other 57% of Americans find her unworthy of respect?
What relevance does Nancy Pelosi have with regard to Hillary Clinton, other than they are both women in the Democratic party?
What a jerk.
She's a fascist reactionary, not a liberal progressive. She's given Bush everything he's wanted, even protected him from impeachment proceedings. She's a collaborator with those destroying the Bill of Rights. She's scum.
about how there's no difference between the democrats and republicans because the democratic senate candidate in your state is antiabortion. of course that position is the exception among democrats.
only in Humes' mind . . .
And I'm still waiting to hear Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign announcement . . .
the righties have already nominated out candidate for us. They didn't even ask for our opinion.
"our" candidate.
What does that make President Bush, who has over 57% of people giving him an unfavorable rating?
[link to www.realclearpolitics.com]
Besides, if you want to talk about a Speaker doing damage, why not focus on this internal GOP poll which says Hastert remaining Speaker could devastate the Republican Party?
[link to www.foxnews.com]
It wasn't that long ago that Bush's low 30's approval rating was helping the Republicans, and now a win for the Democrats damages the Democrats?
Us not welcome you to old Bizarro World, Fox News! It unfair and unbalanced!
Wow. This is sad. You can see Hume just grasping for straws here. How to save this election for the Republicans? On the issues? On characters? Nope. Can't do that, so just try to make Democrats & independents feel some strange fear of voting for her because she's "unpopular" and the absurd idea that a woman in power will somehow hurt the possibility of another woman gaining an even more powerful position. Basically, Hume is trying to claim that if the Democrats win now, they won't win the White House in 2008. This is amazingly stupid, even for Hume.
and I'll admit to not knowing a whole lot about Pelosi, good or bad, but she's on my list to do more research.
And redking, I've told you before that you're much more principled that I am, but the state of things has made me more pragmatic.
I just know (gut feeling only) that anyone who elicits this much hatred and fear from the Foxnews and righty radio heads can't be all bad.
"I just know (gut feeling only) that anyone who elicits this much hatred and fear from the Foxnews and righty radio heads can't be all bad."
I tend to agree with this - if Fox News et. al. hate them, then they're probably a good choice! :)
It is not pragmatic to vote for people who are screwing us over. They should not be rewarded with more time in power. This is a war of good versus evil. Voting for the evil ones isn't helping the good guys win. Pelosi is "establishment", she obeys the DC masters, the M/I Complex, AIPAC, the K Street lobbyists. Her voting record proves it. She votes to kill people, she votes to shred our rights, she votes to steal our money and give it to the rich, she votes to commit war crimes. She IS a war criminal.
As far as FOX whining about her, they'd whine about the Democrats being "liberals" if the Democrats were strutting around in Nazi SS uniforms and demanding we reinstate slavery. It's all a crap soap opera to them, they lie their fascist arses off to make them seem like the defenders from covert communism from the Democrats, while the Democrats are just as racist, reactionary, conservative and criminal as they are. They vote for everything Bush wants. I don't buy their crap, I don't watch their garbage on tv, I don't suffer any illusions about the political realities in this country.
We either get rid of the people in power, both parties, or we're doomed. It's that simple. They're crooks and killers, and they won't get my vote.
Tell me, do you detect a difference between Bill Clinton's administration (remember, he's evil DLC and all that) and Bush's administration? Squint real hard.
If not, vote third party. If so, please vote the lesser evil in, then work on reforming that party.
Clinton murdered people. Bush murders people. The same people. There's no difference.
Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is funneling funds to pro-war Democrat candidates and finding pro-war candidates to run against any anti-war ones, who of course won't receive any Party money. 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. [link to www.counterpunch.org]
If you want this war to end, guess Democrats aren't a viable option.
there is no difference between the parties, but all you ever offer are a lot of generalized statements. do you see a difference on tax policy, abortion, appointment of judges, the environment?
REDKING reminds me of my dad, the pessimist. Dad figured everything would go bad, everyone would disappoint given time, that disaster loomed.
In fact, dad was RIGHT ... part of the time. Because we are human, because mistakes are made, misunderstandings lead to ill-advised actions. And then dad could say, "I told you so."
But MOST of the time, hardworking people with good hearts and laudable goals would do good things, and America has progressed over the past century into a true beacon of self-governance, of equality and opportunity and overall good quality of life for a majority of citizens. America WORKS ... but still has many problems. Particularly, the Bush Administration has resulted in some giant steps backward.
So, you can either work towards solving problems, no matter how grinding and mundane that effort becomes. OR, you can do like dad (and REDKING) and just grouse about doom and gloom, and how EVERYONE is bad, and what's the use, let's just go dig in the dirt and eat worms.
Ultimately, we are responsible for our own attitudes, and toxic attitudes breed a toxic life. Why REDKING would choose such a life, we cannot guess. I know what DAD's problem was: Depression ... treatable by proper drugs.
If you believe things will eventually turn out OK, then you are right MOST of the time.
On the other hand, Grandma used to say about chronic hypochondriacs, "They ENJOY ill health."
Yes, if we continue to vote for criminals and mass murderers, everything will all work out! Yes, let's be so optomistic that we continue to put people who bomb babies back into power, whether they have a D or R behind their names. Doesn't matter, it will all work out.
Anyone voting Dem or Repub this election is voting to kill Iraqi and Palestinian children some more. It's all down to that. Either you take a stand and say "No more mass murder in my name!" or you collaborate and help kill innocent people. Make your choice.
who are being slaughtered by their fellow iraqis. no, we should not have invaded. i opposed it from the start, because i figured it would end up exactly like this. but you refuse to admit that there are differences between the parties. to say they are the same is dishonest.
What we saw from Brit Hume today was a preview of Fox News Channel's campaign coverage strategy. All "reporting" will center on the question: Can America afford to give Democrats a majority in Congress? And Pelosi, whom Hume has already declared unacceptable and FNC's prime-time blowhards have labeled un-American, will be the one-Dem-covers-all villain. After all, with so many races to cover and Fox's favored party in jeopardy on so many fronts, the only approach left is to divert attention to one larger-than-life target . It's simplistic and as biased as Hume is self-important, but no one ever accused Fox of reporting either fairly or in-depth.
You got that right. That's the whole GOP campaign this year: "if you vote us out, you'll only get Nancy Pelosi." My response is --"And...? Why is that bad?" This is really the cons tactic of creating a bogeyman to tar and feather rathe than address real issues, like thw ar in iraq, rising health care costs, loss of manufacturing jobs, effoprts to privatize soc sec..etc. They doe this expertly with Soros--turn him into a bad bogeyman and then link every democrat with him. Its almost a perfect con job--slight of hand. You really have to admire Hume's work and the work of the GOP at times. Only thing is, it ain't gonna work this time. I guarantee it right here like joe Namath did in Superbowl III: the Repbiblicans will lose the house. I also am absolutely sure that Geroge Bush and Karl Rove have destroyed this incarnation of the Republican party forever, and it will take ten (10) years for the Ccons to come back to power. When they do, it will be anew incranation of the Republican party and people will look back on Bush and Rove as the one's who destroyed a version of the Republican party forever--The neocon version. Its over, toast, get the bus ready, they are done.
- who is not a popular figure - hume
Of the five polls researched by mmfa...they cited only the two best for Pelosi...where she averaged 31% favorability. The other three polls gave her a favorability rating of only 16%.
- respected figure nationally - hume
Again, mmfa cherry picked the two polls most favorable to Pelosi...showing 29% haven't heard of her. The other three polls found that 53% haven't heard of her.
Looking at all five polls in total...she has a favorability rating of 22% and nearly half of the respondents haven't heard of her...backing up the statement by Hume.
This is not to attack or defend Pelosi...only to illustrate mmfa's typical partisan spinning.
The real question is...how can half of the people polled not know about the most powerful democrat in the House?
It's completely disingenuous to suggest that when such a large proportion of the respondents don't know who the person is, that person is "unpopular" or not "respected". It's not like talking about Bush where you may have 10% or so give "no opinion", but there is no "who is that" factor there. With Bush it will be something like approve 33% disapprove 56% no opinion 11%. That's unpopular and not respected, just as a random example.
"Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever."
The crux of Hume's point is that 1)her unpopularity is going to be a big minus for the Dems, and 2)that unpopularity is based on her "behavior", but your admission that people don't know who she is completely obliterates both points. It's not like that 16% means 70% dislike her, so how is she going to hurt anything based on those numbers?
As for the second part, if she was really so bad, so horrible, wouldn't there have been more stories about her, and therefore wouldn't she be more well-known? Did Rove fall asleep on the job here, where he has piles of solid anti-Pelosi stories but no media outlet has received them? I find that difficult to believe. In other words, what is the nature of the behavior that Hume is talking about, exactly, where so many people don't know about it?
To follow, any assumption that as more people know who she is that those people will fall into the "disapprove" column seems completely baseless. In fact, your citing of the most recent polls, where only 29% hadn't heard of her undermines that concept as well, since by your admission those polls were the most favorable! And bear in mind, the reason her name is becoming more well-known is because of the discussion of her serious potential for becoming Speaker, much of that discussion along Hume's "Speaker Pelosi...be afraid! BOOGA BOOGA!" tone. Yet, even in this context, her numbers are not dropping (as they would if she really posed a threat to future Democratic candadacies), but getting better. So, how do you think you're "backing up" Hume, when your own comments prove just how disingenuous his arguments are?
As for how so many people haven't heard of her, an uninformed electorate is the key to Republican success.
... Wesley (the Crusader) is a blatant apologist. Save your keystrokes. Nice post though.
Nice ramble...but a feeble swing and a miss.
My post was not about Pelosi...it was about Hume's statement. When you have a favorability rating of 22% and half the people don't know who you are...it's entirely accurate to state she "is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally.".
mmfa researched five polls and chose to cherry pick only the most favorable to Pelosi...dubious work.
And finally, to state that the most powerful democrat in the House has her brilliance hidden because of a republican plot is laughable...pardon me while I...LOL.
....that means you are "not respected"?
No, it simply means people don't know enough about you to have an opinion. Hume is spinning a lack of knowledge about Pelosi into her being unpopular and not respected, and then goes on to say Pelosi will hurt Hillary's Presidential run.
You seem to be ignoring his entire argument, which is that people don't like Pelosi, and that she'll hurt Hillary, not just that she is isn't well known nationally.
"My post was not about Pelosi...it was about Hume's statement."
And Hume's statement was about Pelosi. So the suggestion is I'm off topic, or what? If you actually read what I wrote, you'll notice I was talking about his statement as well, considering I quoted him directly.
"When you have a favorability rating of 22% and half the people don't know who you are...it's entirely accurate to state she "is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally."."
As I noted though, Hume's suggestion was that she was unpopular and disrespected based on her behavior, which is complete nonsense when you consider the number of people who don't know who she is. Is she "unpopular"? If not, what was the basis of Hume's comments that she could hurt the Democrats? What behavior is so damaging? You conspicuously fail to answer these basic questions.
You could take issue with the cherry-picking, except you showed yourself why the more recent polls refute Hume's comments;as she becomes more well known, her numbers get better. Thanks for pointing that out, you couldn't have shown why Hume was wrong more effectively if you had planned on it.
"And finally, to state that the most powerful democrat in the House has her brilliance hidden because of a republican plot is laughable"
I stated no such thing. I'm not convinced her record is brilliant, anyway, but the lack of actual negative stories about her suggests that the scare tactics are completely hollow. She's not popular, she's not unpopular, there's no "behavior" that can be cited to show why her becoming speaker is so dangerous to Democrats. But look at how it works:the MSM runs very little on Pelosi, so people are largely uninformed about her - then, since she is relatively unknown, talking heads demonize her to influence that large chunk of the population. As I said, an uninformed electorate is the key to Republican success.
You can say "swing and miss" all you like, but you didn't actually refute anything I said. You could at least try and "swing", if you thought you had an argument to make.
- What behavior is so damaging? You conspicuously fail to answer these basic questions. - brabantio
I didn't answer because I don't care. My original post stated quite clearly that I was not attacking or defending Pelosi.
Here's a little advice...feel free to continue amusing yourself by trying to claim that someone with 22% favorability and unknown by half the people is a popular, nationally respected figure.
Now, I'll take your advice...re your post...a swing and a miss.
"I didn't answer because I don't care. My original post stated quite clearly that I was not attacking or defending Pelosi."
It has nothing to do with attacking or defending Pelosi. You were defending Hume's comments, and my question strikes at the validity of such. You should care, since you were trying to "back up" his statement.
"Here's a little advice...feel free to continue amusing yourself by trying to claim that someone with 22% favorability and unknown by half the people is a popular, nationally respected figure."
Interesting...considering I said this;"She's not popular, she's not unpopular, there's no "behavior" that can be cited to show why her becoming speaker is so dangerous to Democrats." The whole point, as anyone with even limited reading comprehension should understand, was that the large chunk of people who don't know who she is (and the closeness of the numbers for those who do) makes the declaration of either "popular" or "unpopular" invalid.
Read, then reply. And try a little thought while you're at it, for God's sake.
It wasnt stated she was popular, for that to be true she would have to be better known. The kid who shows up in a new school is not popular, he is unknown. Not being popular when you are not known is not being unpopular. YOU are a shameless appologist keep trying to pretend that being unknown means being unpopular, show with every post what a dishonest, shameless shill you are.
Answer me this how pathetic do you have to be to post THIS:
feel free to continue amusing yourself by trying to claim that someone with 22% favorability and unknown by half the people is a popular, nationally respected figure.
In response to a post that said THIS:
She's not popular, she's not unpopular
you are not even in the ballpark. nowhere did brab "state" that pelosi has "her brilliance hidden because of a republican plot". he said: "an uninformed electorate is the key to republican success". how you manage to turn that into a "republican plot" is beyond me.
Your poor attempt at an appology for this lie was pathetic. IF she is an unknown that DOESNT make her unpopular. Her favorable in these two polls are pretty close to her unfavorables compared to say Cheney who really IS an unpopular politician where his unfavorables far outweigh his favorables.
MMFA's point is correct, you are a shameless appologist for rightwing propaganda.
Step right up folks...come in and see the most powerful democrat in the House of Representatives. Yes, for only one thin dime, you can see for yourself.
Don't be bashful...come on in and see for yourself. She's not popular...she's not unpopular...she's simply unknown.
Be the first in your neighborhood to see this amazing woman. You won't believe your eyes...she's truly unknown.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks fellas. I've haven't laughed this hard in ages. 22% favorability and half the people don't have any idea of she is...Hume got it exactly right.
Well King, this case is closed...LOL.
Wesley,
It is amazing to me why some people like getting hit over the head time and time again like our friends here.
If she is unknown.. then she's not popular.
If those that know her only give her a 22% favorable rating, one could surmize she's not particularly popular.
It is that simple to most of us. But to get this repeated denial we see from our friends here does make me laugh.
Buy'em books and buy'em books and what do they do...well you know how the rest goes.
it's not that hume said she was merely unknown and therefore not popular. he actually said pelosi could hurt hillary's chances, so therefore most people had a negative image of her. that was his point and he was wrong. maybe you two could stop yukking it up so much and actually get the point of the story.
Not being popular is NOT the same as what HUME said that she was UNPOPULAR which is the only thing that would make the context of saying she is going to hurt dems chances reasonable. The only people being beat over the heads is you and Wes. You are embarrassing yourself with your willful blindness. IF you want to make this point it is incombent on you to show how not being known will make her a liability.
AA, you show your black and white thinking yet again. If she's not popular...she must be unpopular, right?
If you can read through these arguments and really, honestly believe that Wes is making some sort of valid point, you suffer from partisan blindness beyond all belief. If not, you're just lying.
I don't know which is more pathetic, frankly, but for someone who claims not to be a troll neither is particularly good for you.
The bottom line is this: This Republican Party is doomed. Its over. Karl Rove's wish for a permanent Republican Majority is Kaput! The Nazis thought that their rein would last a "Thousand Years." Guess what? It struggled to make it twleve years. George Bush and Karl Rove managed to do in only six (6) years what took the Democrats 60 years to do: lose control of Congress. Ouch. And Guess What? After this election it only gets worse. Not only Do I guarantee that The Republicans will lose the House, I also guarantee that some Republican survivors will switch parties and further the cavalcade tearing apart this version of the Republican Party. You can Lament all day about how Pelosi is bad for the Democrats. Meanwhile the Republicans six (6) year Reich comes to a crashing end this November. I wouldn't bother re-arranging those Deck chairs buddy because the ship has clipped a big chunk of ice(Ironically due to Global Warming) and its going DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!
I submit that according to these polls, Ms. Pelosi is not popular. So what does that mean? She is not popular. However, when she takes over the House of Reps discourse and discussion will return to our government. Better than having Mr. Hastert ,who gave away a seat in OUR House by swearing in a non-certified seat and who has a HEARING problem, run the show. (By HEARING, I am not refering to his lack of hearing information of the warnings in the FOLEY FOLLY, I mean let's have some hearings in the HOUSE concerning the FOLLIES of this administration). Mr. HUMM, look at it this way, when the tide of government changes, you will have a wide swatch of hate to spew against your new freely elected officials. Look at the money you will make.
I would submit INSULTS FOR BRIT HUME are better than endorsements from any media personality.
I can't remember a policy that Brit supportted, a candidate he endorsed, a decision he advocated, an opinion about American politics that hasn't been diometrically opposed to the successfull policy, honest candidate, smart decision, or rational opinion in the American Politic.
He has never got it right unless he got inside information about what the White House/Congress may have decided behind closed doors.
He has the distinction of being completely wrong, rude, and stupid on all issues relevant to American politics.
I say Sen. Nancy Pelosi should start those campaign commercials now before Brit gets his conscience and becomes a supporter.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Again amother strawman, in this case, person for FNC. When half the people have no idea who you are how you can be wildy unpopular. This is an early attempt to frame Nancy Pelosi as a shrewish witch from SF. See how O"Reilly is already saying San Francisco values?
The Democrats have to be like Bill Clinto and not let the Democrats define them. When they do they will be accused of operating a Warroom but so be it!!
Republicans have proven to me that they are out of ideas. In 2004, it was "be afraid of 'President' John Kerry". Now it's "be afraid of 'Speaker' Nancy Pelosi". With John Kerry, at least they offered a set of bloviating lies to be afraid of. But with Pelosi, all they can muster is she's "not respected" and a San Francisco liberal.
Guess people should "quake" in their boots, eh?
Fantagor wrote: "But with Pelosi, all they can muster is she's "not respected" and a San Francisco liberal."
Looks to me like that says it all..
;-)
This might be a bit off-topic, but we are talking about Nancy Pelosi and she does have roots in San Francisco.
My questions to you are as follows:
(1) What is a "San Francisco Liberal"?
(2) Why is this sort of liberal called a "San Francisco Liberal" as opposed to a "Seattle Liberal" or "New York Liberal"?
(3) Why the hell does everyone pick on San Francisco?
CSL (from San Francisco)
(1) What is a "San Francisco Liberal"?
Liberal from San Francisco...
(2) Why is this sort of liberal called a "San Francisco Liberal" as opposed to a "Seattle Liberal" or "New York Liberal"?
Because that is where they come live.
(3) Why the hell does everyone pick on San Francisco?
Why the hell not?
;-)
So I can't write a coherent sentence...
I was writing, "that is where the come from" but changed it to "live".
Sorry for the confusion.
on a more serious note...
Now that Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is becoming the Democrats' House minority leader, she is being celebrated as the first woman to hold such a high post. But she is also being described as a "San Francisco liberal" -- which she definitely is.
What do San Francisco liberals do? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so just look at the picture on page 58 of the October 28 issue of Fortune magazine. It shows a small, nondescript wooden house, wedged in between two other houses on a street in San Francisco. The caption reads: "Is this house worth $1.2 million?"
San Francisco liberals, like liberals across the country, spend a lot of time talking and wringing their hands about the need for "affordable housing." Yet, wherever liberals have been politically dominant housing prices are most unaffordable.
Liberals proclaim their concern and compassion for minorities and people with low incomes. Yet these are precisely the people who are being forced out of places like San Francisco, which has the highest rents of any city in the country.
The black population of San Francisco went down 15 percent between the 1990 census and the 2000 census. The number of children in San Francisco has also gone down, since people young enough to have children can seldom afford San Francisco housing.
Despite liberals' professed concern for the poor, San Francisco is increasingly dominated by the affluent. It has the highest average income of any city in the country.
That is not necessarily because San Francisco employers are more generous. People who work in San Francisco, but are not paid high salaries, are likely to be living outside the city -- sometimes far outside -- and commuting to work.
All these things might be considered to be just unfortunate coincidences, if the same patterns did not appear time and time again, in other places where liberals have ruled the roost for years on end, whether in San Francisco or elsewhere. You can see the same thing in elite college towns like Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as in Berkeley across the bay from San Francisco or in Palo Alto, adjacent to Stanford University.
How do liberals manage to leave so much economic and social havoc in their wake, all the while feeling good about themselves and proclaiming their compassion for the poor, minorities, children and others? Economic illiteracy helps, but liberals are also tied in with environmental zealots who promote sweeping bans on the building of housing, using lovely phrases like "open space" and "protecting the environment."
Since housing is subject to supply and demand, like everything else, stifling the supply is enough to cause home prices and apartment rents to shoot up out of sight. History shows clearly that it was not demand which caused the explosive increase in California housing prices that began in the 1970s.
During the decade of the 1970s, when home prices quadrupled in Palo Alto, for example, the population of that city actually declined slightly. The number of children declined so much that several schools in Palo Alto had to be closed.
It wasn't demand that drove the prices up because the average increase in income in California was less than in the rest of the country during the decade when the state pulled way ahead of the rest of the country in the prices of its homes and apartments.
Why did housing prices go up then? Because this was the decade when severe land use restrictions spread through those places in California where liberals were politically dominant. Only in the remaining parts of California could you still find the "affordable housing" that liberals talked so much about.
In recent years, the closing down of military bases has left great expanses of prime land, with magnificent views, available in and around San Francisco. If all this land could be auctioned off on the open market for the building of housing, it could enrich the city, wipe out the housing shortage and bring down rents and home prices. But congressional liberals and San Francisco liberals have made that impossible.
So long as Nancy Pelosi remains in the congressional minority, the rest of the country may escape the effects of San Francisco liberalism. But if such people are ever in the majority, look out!
[link to www.capmag.com]
You know very well what I meant when asking the questions about "San Francisco Liberals". Finding a conservative article about San Francisco housing prices does NOT answer the question. Let me make it EASY for you.
The right wing in this country uses the term "San Francisco Liberal" as a pejoritive. WHY?
Is that easier for you to understand?
Leave it to a conservative to post an article written by a conservative about how liberals in San Francisco have driven up housing prices. You'd think conservatives would be happy about supporting capitalism and making money in the real estate market without having any sort of real estate price caps. Sheesh. Either way, you'll bitch and moan about it, AA. Either way, you want to demonize liberals. You cannot do it, however, without repeating disgusting right wing talking points or using pejoritive terms only to hide behind something completely different in trying to explain why you use such a term. GMAFB.
CSL
Hey,
I hope you have more of a sense of humor in person than here. Of course I was just kidding around... Your post made it so easy.
As for the article by Sowell as I think it explains pretty well the idea many of us here in the heartland think of when we hear someone referred to as San Francisco Liberals. But others are free to disagree...
Now why you are attacking me and conservatives I have no idea. You forget... You asked the question. Since Sowell already answered it in 2002, I only thought I'd pass it along. I don't remember you prefacing your question by saying only a certain type of reply is acceptable to you, but it seems to me that since you didn't get all the warm and fuzzies, you only want to hear how other liberals, (possibly from Seattle or Boston) define the term. But I think I understand why... after all, you are a San Francisco Liberal... ;-)
So, you're saying that to a person in the heartland, "San Francisco Liberal" means high housing costs?
GMAFB.
We all know what you really mean. Quit hiding, coward.
Liberalism is about tolerance, peace, compassionate government, social justice, etc. How the hell does this translate to higher housing prices? And Pelosi is fine with killing arab children for AIPAC contributions. That means she's NOT a liberal. Liberals don't kill people. Liberals do not bomb children.
Transmogrify an economic microcosm into ideologic macrocosm.
Think about other liberal cities like Minneapolis, Detroit, Columbus OH and Baltimore. Have they experienced such a housing market phenomena?
You guys are way to defensive. Its not like anyone on the left ever refers to... uh.. say.. the "Religious Right" in less than flattering terms.
After all, I think we are talking about a "San Francisco Liberal" here. Seems to me the term was invented to describe someone like Pelosi. What's the big deal?
It would be interesting for someone to find any other politician who is referred to as a SFL...
The logical fallacy of talking about the problems of a big city BECAUSE liberals rule there. This cannot be shown. Perhaps people in big cities have a large liberal population because living so close together they develop more of a sense of community. I dont know but niether do the propagandists that wrote this article. Now if you want to talk about the economic wreakage. Just look at out economy pre and post BUSH.
The reason rents are high is very simple, it has to do with desirable quality of life. Each thing has an unintended consequence. Making San Fransisco a great place to live, with beautiful parks, great restaurants, museums, sports teams and many other attributes including keeping its natural beauty makes it a place people want to live. And SINCE it is one of the most liberal areas of the country by keeping the conservatives from screwing it up over a long time it just gets more people wanting to live there.
I understand the San Fransisco liberal label. It is one of the most liberal areas of the country. I saw a list of most liberal cities over 100,000 in the country and about 6 of the top 15 were in the bay area. Conservatives need moronic arguments like this screed posted by AA first of all because their base is so dumb they think it makes sense and second because they dont have REAL arguments.
I think you hit the nail on the head. What I was trying to get out of AA was the true reason the phrase "San Francisco Liberal" is used as an insult. What things do people think about when someone is labeled a "San Francisco Liberal"? Do we refer to anyone else as a "_____(insert city) Liberal"? No, we don't. And it doesn't have anything to do with where a person lives, as AA would like us to believe.
What people like BO are trying to do is demonize people like Pelosi because of her connection with a city that has been called all kinds of names because of things we do here that other cities with "American Values" don't. He is trying to polarize the general populace, trying to make them think that because SF tends to lean to the liberal side, that anyone who comes from SF or represents SF is going to do the same thing to the entire country. For the country's sake, I would hope so. But to use the moniker "San Francisco Liberal" in the way in which people like BO do serves no purpose but to try to insult and demonize those with whom he disagrees. So, again, what qualities must one have in order to be a "San Francisco Liberal"?
By the way, just so people OUTSIDE of the Bay Area understand, not everyone in the Bay Area is a screaming liberal. Get a grip and get over the generalizations.
Finally, it's interesting that all of these right wing trolls get bent out of shape with regards to SF and the Bay Area. Their biggest companies are based right here in the Bay Area. You know, their big, money-grubbing capitalist corporations.
What do you call people who constantly try to insult others with whom they disagree?
ps. I'm sure your mother would be proud. ;-)
pps. Your childish insults mean nothing to me. They only prove to me how infantile you've become.
My reply was to Solon, not CSL.
How do you respond to a post that says things like THIS:
How do liberals manage to leave so much economic and social havoc in their wake, all the while feeling good about themselves and proclaiming their compassion for the poor, minorities, children and others? Economic illiteracy helps
And exactly how different is THAT from what I wrote?
How do liberals manage to leave so much economic and social havoc in their wake, all the while feeling good about themselves and proclaiming their compassion for the poor, minorities, children and others? Economic illiteracy helps
- from AA's post quoting some Conservative without a brain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is blatantly untrue. In fact Conservatives are the ones who shoot down any leglislation introduced to help the poor and down-trodden. And as for the economic and social havoc, give me a break. That's nonsense and you know it. If you look at what's going on right now, I'm sure you'd have to agree that the economic and social havoc we see right now is a result of Republican leadership. Again, the right makes things up, passes it off as truth, and the sheeple like AA and Wesley lap it up like Gravy Train.
Why do crybaby conservatives post insulting things about liberals in a post then snivel like little girls when they get the same thing back?
when the Republicans have an actual platform of ideas to campaign on. They've blown it, man. Republicans have transformed themselves to the selfsame party of corruption and vapid intellectualism to which they have labored conflate liberals. They did a good job of it. They scattered and demonized liberals far and wide and I'm glad they did. Because they energized grassroots progressive and liberal movements nationwide. While conservatives are grousing and blaming everybody but themselves we are in the streets connecting with Americans on issues of fairness in taxation and the market, freedom from the tyranny of warrantless wiretaps. We're talking about equal rights for all Americans regardless of orientation. We're talking about ending the strife of human existence incurred by the occupation of Iraq. We are speaking out against torture and advocating that grand and secular progressive institution that made this country great: due process and rule of law.
So, keep vilifying your fellow Americans instead of working to push the national tenor from fear and loathing to hope and optimism.
hold your breath, my friend. I'm still waiting for answers to a post on another thread, so I'll post it here as well:
What GOOD have Republicans done for this country? My challenge was for someone to name 5 things within the last 30 years that the Republicans have accomplished for the betterment of the U.S. and the American public as a whole.
So far, I've received no response. Color me surprised.
"There's got to be something wrong with a woman who can claw and scratch her way to an position where she can dominate a bunch of men. Women like that can appear most unattractive and sound quite shrill. Any man who would permit this must not be very manly."
--- Imaginary Brit Hume
According to the Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record report by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, Pelosi has a 100% 'A' record for voting on behalf of the middle class. No wonder they're afraid of her.
What struck me about the comment when he said it (see video) was the extreme emphasis he put on the 'NOT'. As in, 'this is solid and irrefutable'.
I think there is a definite component here of the fear of a woman getting high enough to be able to run for the presidency and win. We are just not reliable when it comes to making decisions to do things the way they've been done for the last century. I will be amazed if the multi nationals and other corporate monsters don't have a parnoid fit when the Democrats run the first woman presidential nominee.
Probably another 10 years at least. I expect a black man will be nominated before a woman of any color.
The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy is a non-partisan, non-profit think tank generating the ideas that fuel the progressive movement. From releasing nationally recognized studies of our increasingly fragile middle class to writing landmark analysis showing that a progressive immigration policy is in the best interest of America's current and aspiring middle class, DMI has been on the leading edge of the public policy debate. DMI is also noted for developing new and creative ways to bring its work to the advocates and opinion leaders that need it, from starting one of the first public policy weblogs to pioneering the use of Google Adwords to hold elected officials accountable for their votes on issues of importance to their constituents
[link to www.idealist.org]
Hmmm, oh it's so tough to choose. Hmmm, would I support a leader who does NOT engage in the protection of sexual predators of minors for political gain?
Oh yes, I do have some moral integrity, unlike a particular (and particularly obese) Republican.
Liberals are responsible for the high cost of housing in San Francisco. I always thought it was because San Francisco was a beautiful and highly sought after place to live. Supply and demand, right? I thought that was a central tenet of capitalism.
I believe the term "San Francisco Liberal" is just code for "gay, or gay rights supporter".
At least finally someone said it!
JScott, you're right. That's what they mean. They just don't want to say it for fear of being labeled as homophobic or gay bashers.
See, there's a reason to all of it. That was in the back of my mind, but now they use San Francisco Liberal as some sort of euphemism. I never knew that taking control of your freedoms and exercising your rights would make you guilty of the moniker "San Francisco Liberal". Conservatives make me sick.
Bingo. You know what it means to throw the "San Francisco" in there before the word "Liberal." Its only a little more Subtle than Slim Pickens' line from Blazing Saddles when he comes across his white railraod bosses dancing and singing "Camp Town Ladies" and tells them to stop acting "Like a Bunch of Kansas City Fa#%&ts"
Must be the "Seattle" and "New York" Liberals are now checking in...
I find it funny that the libs here ignore a noted conservative who defines "San Francisco Liberal" and instead have to make up their own definition to give the term a pejorative connotation. (Not only that, look at all the attaboy follow ups!)
Typical MMFA libs. They have no idea how closed minded and prejudiced they really are. When there is no evidence, make up your own... Yeah. That's the ticket.
The lack of self awareness amongst many of you is truly laughable! Thanks for the chuckle.
As opposed to you, who completely ignored the actual arguments being made earlier in this thread and blindly sided with your partisan teammate. That's not "closed-minded" or "prejudiced" at all, right?
And I have to believe that, because surely otherwise you would have presented some sort of argument to show why we were wrong and Wesley was right. Yet you, like Wesley, strangely failed to do so...unless you were sitting there with a brilliant argument but just decided you wanted to look like a partisan jackass instead. Is that it?
What a flaming hypocrite you are.
be very afraid. If Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, gays will come take over your child's school. BWhahahahahaha. Boo!
Doesn't Matter what Hume Thinks
The bottom line is this: This Republican Party is doomed. Its over. Karl Rove's wish for a permanent Republican Majority is Kaput! The Nazis thought that their rein would last a "Thousand Years." Guess what? It struggled to make it twleve years. George Bush and Karl Rove managed to do in only six (6) years what took the Democrats 60 years to do: lose control of Congress. Ouch. And Guess What? After this election it only gets worse. Not only Do I guarantee that The Republicans will lose the House, I also guarantee that some Republican survivors will switch parties and further the cavalcade tearing apart this version of the Republican Party. You can Lament all day about how Pelosi is bad for the Democrats. Meanwhile the Republicans six (6) year Reich comes to a crashing end this November. I wouldn't bother re-arranging those Deck chairs buddy because the ship has clipped a big chunk of ice(Ironically due to Global Warming) and its going DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!