Although "San Francisco liberal" label is much more common, Pinkerton claimed media "spin" Pelosi as "moderate grandmother ... from Baltimore"
SUMMARY: On Fox News Watch, Jim Pinkerton claimed that Nancy Pelosi "is being presented to the American people as this moderate grandmother ... from Baltimore" rather than someone "from San Francisco [who] represents the left wing." In fact, a Media Matters survey showed that Pelosi has been portrayed in the media as a San Francisco liberal much more often than as a grandmother from Baltimore.
During the November 11 edition of Fox News Watch, political analyst and Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton claimed that "the best example of spin" in the media coverage of the 2006 midterm elections was House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, "who is being presented to the American people as this moderate grandmother, you know, and so on, from Baltimore. I mean, you could just as easily say she is from San Francisco and represents the left wing." Pinkerton added: "They made a choice. They chose to present her as somebody who had -- went to a dinner party with [former President] John F. Kennedy 50 years ago." In fact, prior to the election, the instances in which Pelosi was "presented" by the media as a grandmother from Baltimore were far outnumbered by those in which the media portrayed Pelosi as a San Francisco liberal, as a Media Matters for America survey demonstrates.
Media critic Neal Gabler responded to Pinkerton's claim by noting an October 30 article in The New York Times, in which reporter Jennifer Steinhauer wrote that Pelosi "has emerged as a searing symbol of the country's deep partisan divide," that "even in casual conversation" Pelosi "seemed to be reading from a script," and that "For Republican strategists laboring to maintain control of Congress, she [Pelosi] is the personification of liberal lunacy." Gabler also noted, as Media Matters documented, that Steinhauer echoed Republican false talking points by describing Pelosi as favoring "schools without prayer and death with taxes." The online version of the article was subsequently edited on October 30 to read: "She favors alternative sentencing over prison construction and opposes prayer in the schools." Pinkerton responded: "Well, sounds like a great -- sounds like a great story."
Indeed, Media Matters conducted a survey* of media coverage of Pelosi for 90 days prior to the 2006 midterm elections and found that, contrary to Pinkerton's claim about the media's election coverage "spin," newspapers, broadcast networks, and cable news networks repeatedly characterized Pelosi as a "San Francisco liberal" or a purveyor or symbol of "San Francisco values" while rarely mentioning the fact that Pelosi was a grandmother or that she was raised in Baltimore. Fox News showed the greatest disparity, with 19 characterizations of Pelosi as a "San Francisco liberal" and only one mention that Pelosi was a grandmother. The Fox News program Hannity & Colmes accounted for 11 of the 19 Fox News characterizations.
Pre-election media coverage for the period August 7 through November 7:
From the November 11 edition of Fox News Watch with host Eric Burns, American University professor Jane Hall, and Gabler:
BURNS: Jim, when I really thought there was too much information was -- I watched a lot of coverage at 3, 4, 5, 6 [p.m.] -- when they were analyzing exit polls, and that was really enormously overdone and not very helpful.
PINKERTON: I denounce these exit polls. I denounced them the last couple of elections. I think they're always wrong. This election, once again they were wrong. But look in terms of -- in terms of spin on this, I mean, the best example of spin is Nancy Pelosi, who's being presented to the American people as this moderate grandmother, you know, and so on, from Baltimore. I mean, you could just as easily say she is from San Francisco --
HALL: OK.
PINKERTON: -- and represents the left wing.
[crosstalk]
HALL: You could just as easily say -- wait a minute --
PINKERTON: They made a choice. They chose to present her as somebody who had -- went to a dinner party with John F. Kennedy 50 years ago.
GABLER: Yeah. Let me address that point. Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, on October 30th: "Even in casual conversation she seemed to be reading from a script. She is a symbol of the country's deep political divide. She is the personification of liberal lunacy." New York Times, by the way. "She favors alternative sentencing over prison construction, schools without prayer, and death with taxes."
PINKERTON: Well, sounds like a great -- sounds like a great story.
[crosstalk and laughter]
HALL: Can I get in here?
BURNS: Jane?
HALL: While Jim is calculating all this stuff, how about -- I mean, Fox News has endlessly characterized "San Francisco values." They don't say she is the daughter of a politician from Baltimore because "San Francisco values" works better. Sean Hannity, John Gibson, people were asking whether the terrorists were exalting in caves over the Democrats' win. If that isn't bias in the other direction I don't know what is.
PINKERTON: The Washington Post says she wears conservative suits.
* Lexis/Nexis database searches: "Pelosi w/20 San Francisco," "Pelosi w/20 Baltimore or grandmother" in Major Newspapers, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Editorials and foreign sources were omitted from the newspaper search. Items which used "San Francisco" only as an identifier of Pelosi's congressional district were omitted.
** includes two McClatchy syndicated articles that were counted only once each. One of those articles appeared in four separate papers and one appeared in three separate papers.
She is one of the brightest and best voices we have had in Congress in the last 20 years, yet the media will continue to attack her and discredit her. FAUX will be playing a game to discredit her as well.
Also what does San Francisco liberal mean? Are they jealous of SF and he beauty it holds?
LOLOLOL.... SF only continues to drive families out of there. What is so beautiful about a city that bans Military ROTC? From my understanding it was a Gay issue. So, WHo cares what the kids think that enjoy/ enjoyed the program. SF SUCKS PIG A#S! It is no longer a city of Immigrants.
MMFA should pull in the USA Today crowd with this item.
...Pelosi wasn't in fact a grandmother from Baltimore.
"I mean, you could just as easily say she is from San Francisco."
Uh, except she isn't...she actually was raised and schooled in Baltimore. Talk about spin.
There will be no stopping this smear campaign. No matter what...they will continue to nit-pick ridiculous notions and ideals without ever addressing the important issues (i.e. what truly affects you and I... healthcare, taxes, Iraq, etc)... The smear continues.
I do hope she's half the b-buster (lookout Chris M!) these folks are making her to be. She's going to need it.
The best way for Pelosi to shed the deserved or undeserved label, if she so chooses, is to promote, introduce or back legislation that does not support ultra liberal agendas. If she does that, let her detractors spin away. It's worthless.
Lose-lose with these clowns. Hopefully, the Dems makes some good come of this latest windfall.
You guys keep forgetting Pelosi's agenda that she has laid out already, at least for the first week or so on the job. It's not even anywhere near ultra liberal, and in fact has the backing of the majority of the country. You know, us. She has not said anything that lends credence that she is going to "ultra liberal" or that she's got some radical homosexual agenda to promote (which is what they all mean by saying "San Francisco values" of course). So far, she sounds pretty down to Earth, and far from the idealogue that Newt and company were in 1994.
do know that some Conservatives believe having a minimum wage is ultra-liberal don't you? I think it was Chris Rock who said that the minimum wage is a company's way of telling hei workers I would pay you less if I could.
Just out of curiosity, how would you handle this scenario? A small business owner has employee A and employee B, both working for minimum wage, and a small profit margin with his payroll expenses already maxed out - right now, he is making his payroll but it is very tight.
The government comes in and mandates his minimum wage be increased by say, $1.50 per hour, to both employees - based on a new law. Since there is no law that he must keep both employees, he lets employee B go because his expenses are too high, he can't afford to keep both.
Now you can say this never happens, or won't happen, but the fact is it does. Are you going to tell employee B that raising the minimum wage was a good thing?
I understand the thinking behind those that want the minimum wage increased, but I don't think the ramifications of lost jobs are being considered.
Please Read This
[link to www.epi.org]
"There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses. "
Please read this..........
www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm
I screwed up the link, but you can cut and paste it.
Fact is, jobs are lost with the minimum wage. You didn't address the scenario I presented, you just theoretically discounted it. Wouldn't do much to help out employee B much, would it?
You're right I am discounting your hypothetical scenario, it reminds me of the ticking nuclear bomb scenario that people use to defend torture. Besides,I truly believe that even though a situation like the one you describe may occur somewhere, I am CONFIDENT that the laid off worker would find employment somewhere else and hopefully a work environment more concerned with the needs of it’s workers. Encouraging the existences of a permanent poor class is immoral and parasitic and should not be a goal of a responsible corporate citizen. I live in the city and a person making 5 whatever an hour is POOR. I also know that there is a greed factor that permeates the business world and many businesses who can afford to raise worker salaries WITH no pain will continue to pay the lowest wage they can legally pay. I know this. Moreover it does not do society any good in the long run to encourage an unskilled impoverished work force.
Obviously you also discounted the web page I directed you to as well, as well as the numerous studies and economists which say the same thing.
You have your opinion and I have mine. You say you are concerned with the poor, but to dismiss that people on the lower economic scales will be hurt the most contradicts that.
There are dueling studies that abound and you have chosen to believe the ones you believe. I guess you would say the same about me. But common sense tells me that the strongest economy in the whole wide world as conservatives love to tout can afford to pay a civilized minimum wage.
is from a link at house.gov. hmm, i wonder, could that be the republican controlled house of representatives?
" Moreover it does not do society any good in the long run to encourage an unskilled impoverished work force. "
And, which part of that statement does the minimum wage eliminate? It certainly WON'T eliminate the unskilled part. So you advocate paying unskilled workers more money so they.....what? Is giving them more money suddenly supposed to make them skilled? How bout if you pay the skilled impoverished work force more money and wait for the unskilled to learn how to do the job before you're forced to pay them more money than they are worth.
IMHO the unskilled worker will only seek out minimum wage jobs because that's all the incentive they want...."pay me because I'm here" not "pay me because I'm worth it".
Minimum wage to the unskilled worker is a liberal idea that is a failure from the start meant only to keep individuals supported by the government with no incentive to achieve higher goals. Is that the liberal plan...keep paying unskilled workers to do inept work while claiming they need more money? Who's money you gonna give them? Mine? I work hard for my money and I don't want to keep giving it to people who have NO desire to improve. Instead they would rather continue living off the government. End result; more taxes, more government handouts to unproductive people, . Great plan
The entire overarching premise of you post is condescending. You think low wage jobs are filled by useless people. In the real world unproductive people are fired so the boss can hire a productive person and still pay them dick. Not all employers are dishonest, many as not pay well for honest work.
I believe labor is essential to facilitating the privileges we enjoy as Americans. The jobs that minimum wage earners perform contribute to the character of this country. And if a person works hard and plays by the rules then they are entitled to the same prosperity as you and I.
" And if a person works hard and plays by the rules then they are entitled to the same prosperity as you and I. "
NO they are NOT!! I've been at my job for over 30 years and I still don't make as much as some others. But, I'm good at it and provide impecible work for my employer. Some lazy ars who doesn't want to improve their standings in life and are simply taking up space at the local micky-d or whatever isn't entitled to the same prosperity I have earned over the years. Hell, if it had been up to you then I didn't need to work so hard at excelling in my profession, I could have just gone from job to job forcing them to give me raises every time you feel the government needs to.
You think the average minimum wage earner is motivated to work? Try and get help the next time your at any fast food place. 90% of those people are simply "passing time" and have no real desire to either help you or help themselves. When you find the 10% that DO want to excell then they will, the others will remain doing what they are good at doing...nothing. Both in life and in their job. I owe the lazy ones NOTHING, I owe that 10% a lot and am happy to give it.
You're that guy who thinks that he is God's gift to the company. The guy who won't stop to help a fellow worker because you're too busy standing around waiting to show the supervisor what a busy bee you are. You're the guy whose only "impecible" ability is passing the buck and blaming the other guy for your failure. How else do you explain that you have been at the job for 30 years and have underlings that earn more than you? Maybe you are the one should learn some more skills or work a little harder.
Moreover, your disdain for great American principles like an honest days wage for an honest days work exposes the bitterness of an unfulfilled life. I wish for you the ethic of compassion.
By the by, my first job in high school was for Mickey D's. I sure as hell didn't work with slackers to the tune of 90%. My coworkers were diligent and respectful, even to blowhard, opinionated elitists whose eyes were located way up in their nasal cavity.
This country is not a country of slackers. This nation is a family and we owe each other our allegiance and devotion.
" You're that guy who thinks that he is God's gift to the company. The guy who won't stop to help a fellow worker because you're too busy standing around waiting to show the supervisor what a busy bee you are. "
Ha ha...but wrong. I'm the guy helping the other workers learn how to do their job, sometimes even doing it for them. I'm the guy completing tests so other workers can continue working at the shop. I don't work for an hourly wage...I get paid for work I complete and I my pay gets reduced when I have a 'comeback'. YOU better hope I'm the one who fixes your car because I wouldn't trust 90% of the other techs out there. I've seen what your minimum wage has brought into the auto industry and if that's what you want from the process then quit complaining when your car doesn't get fixed correctly by your pride and joy employees.
I do know one thing. YOU'RE not my boss, because my boss treats his employees fair and gives no special treatment to the minimum wage earners. He expects them to do a proper job, too. If you put down your coffee long enough to do your job perhaps you could learn that same talent.
..and hater seems to suit you well. Encouraging the poor to advance and eliminating obstacles to advancement of the poor from their station in life is a moral issue. There are those of us who want to do this and then there are those who want a permanent underclass to have a permanent cheap labor force ripe for exploitation, and they generally want to have someone to feel superior to. I’m one of the former. Besides, you guys are always yelling hard work, how do you explain the infamous golden parachutes for corporate executives? You know what, even when they F-up and do a poor job they walk away with millions of dollars. That's rewarding hard work and excellence? If you want a hard a-ss dog eat dog world at least show some consistency about it, as usual you guys want to have different rules assigned according to a worthiness factor you determine.
Re: Taxes and employment. Seems that BEFORE the GOP took control of Congress, and started passing out tax benefits to Oil companies, the Oil companies in this area HATED paying their taxes. What to do?
The local Oil companies (here in Texas) prefered to SPEND money rather than claim it as taxable income, so they hired hundreds of maintenance people, to keep all their equipment operating at top efficiency. Though the crews called it "busy work" ... i.e. it wasn't an emergency breakdown ... they replaced worn parts, tested efficiency, painted derricks and maintained the grounds.
Then the GOP changed the TAX rules: You can have LOTS of profit, and we won't TAX them! Such good news for the Oil companies! They immediately laid off these hundreds of workers, and instead paid out executive bonuses, and added millions to the "shareholder" pot. No tax penalty, so why NOT?
Maintenance on equipment reverted to EMERGENCY service ... the same as only looking under the hood of your car when it breaks down completely. It's a false economy to fail to do routine maintenance, but the TAX situation, coupled with a "THIS QUARTER MATTERS MOST" mentality, led to the laying off of HUNDREDS of workers.
Guys like Tommy think Corporations RULE, and whatever the government can do to make them more profitable, will lead to more JOBS. WRONG! Profits will first and always go into the pockets of the Execs, and to HELL with the working man. THAT is the reality, but Tommy has his class-warfare blinders on. No hope of comprehension from that quarter.
To the current subject: Minimum Wage. There is a minimum wage in effect NOW. According to Tommy, this will lead to LOST JOBS across the land. Yet Bush is telling us unemployment is at an all time low (i.e. FULL EMPLOYMENT), and that hiring levels are perfectly ideal. So, is Bush lying, or is Tommy simply mistaken? What Tommy says will happen if minimum wage is imposed, SHOULD be happening NOW. Right? Logically? But IS it? or is it NOT?
Tommy can't explain his talking points ... they are presented as articles of FAITH and THEORY, and have no real world application: Minimum Wage leads to LOST JOBS, PERIOD. No amount of evidence or history to the contrary will be acknowledged. LOL
If he can't afford to pay a living wage he shouldn't start a business. Alternatively, he could do the job himself.
Employers and employees are bound to each other to treat each other with respect and fairness. When one fails they both fail.
"Employers and employees are bound to each other to treat each other with respect and fairness"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I couldn't agree more with this statement.
You're speaking in theory. Of course, it would be nice if everyone was paid a decent wage, but why stop the minimum wage where it is proposed now? Who can live on that? Why not propose $20 per hour, or $100 per hour? People could live off that much easier?
Fact is people lose jobs when employers expenses go up, that is a fact. It may not be admirable, but it's reality.
The fact is there are businesses that are exploiting poor people and those who do it ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Here is the basic moral dilemma behind my support for an increase in the minimum wage:
I believe that life should be more than simply a struggle to stay alive, and I believe in human dignity. I believe that a mother should be able to spend time with her child, and that her child should have the same opportunities as every other child. You tell me why these things are less important than the CEO of a company having a yearly salary and stock options worth 10000 of these women.
It's a matter of morality and principle - if you work hard, you should be able to live your life. There is no reason for someone to starve because someone else somehow has the divine right to become richer. In a nation that has an annual income of $10 trillion per year, there is no reason why people can buy 2 or 3 yachts while a 4 year old kills his friend with a gun he found because his mom wasn't home to supervise him.
Even in a practical sense, most studies have shown that there would be no negative impact due to an increase in the minimum wage. Why? It is poor and middle-class people who spend the most money in this country. If they make more money, they will spend more money.
Furthermore, it really irks me when I hear someone say "well what's the limit? $20/hour, $100/hour...why not $10000/hour". Unless you also say "well, what's the limit on executive pay?", this statement is meaningless and falls under the category of the 'slippery-slope hypothesis'...a class of fear hypotheses that never come true.
Noone is proposing an increase to $20/hour, but rather a gradual increase so that people can EAT. Last time I checked, $7 or $8 or $10/hour is not equal to $20. Stop being stupid.
In a broader sense, it seems that those who are against a raise in the minimum wage are also against things like abortion, and are the so-called 'family values' folks. Since when does a child's life end at birth? What about his or her living conditions when growing up? What about the parents in a family who are working too hard to raise their children?
What sort of family values are those?
You've expressed it plainly and well. I've long thought that the Democrats should co-opt the "Pro-Life" label, since on the vast majority of issues related to making people's lives better, the Republicans could scarcely care less.
On economic issues, the Left wants greater opportunity for all, and wages at the bottom that enable a person to live with a degree of dignity; the Right wants tax breaks for the people who least need them, and have no problem with record-size payoffs to CEO's.
Go right on down the line, from the tobacco industry, the gun lobby, the war profiteers, corporate polluters, issues of health care, etc., and you will invariably find that those on the Left are the ones that care about life issues. We shouldn't let the Right take their opposition to abortion and co-opt the title "Pro-Life" as a result.
CEO's are paid millions in salary, and get even larger bonuses when they are fired for failure.
But the people at the bottom, many of whom are directly responsible for the company's success (defined differently for CEO's) are paid a pittance in comparison.
a superb post.
Thank God for people like you and Tex and Lynn and Roundhouse and the majority of the American public that supports an increase in the minimum wage. Tommy and people who share his view would take us back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when exploitation of the poor was at its zenith and before the advent of social legislation (including a minimum wage) brought the majority of Americans out of poverty. Reagan, both Bushes and their like rely on the naivete of the Tommy's and Republichaters in our country that believe corporations have consciences, to support a social philosophy that is centralizing wealth among a growing elite class while poverty grows at the bottom and the middle class bears the economic burden of the redistribution. They need to wake up. The people who can afford it need to pay a sufficiently fair share back to the members of the public that have made them wealthy to allow the whole society to continue to flourish.
EVERY time the minimum wage is raised conservatives say the sky is falling and the economic world will end and unemployment will skyrocket, then the minimum wage is increased and it doesnt happen.
get along with half the workforce he had before. if he can truly do without employee b, then he did not run a very effecient business.
If the hypothetical employer could get all the labor he needs for his business from one employee, he'd fire the other employee regardless of the minimum wage. We are to believe that this hypothetical employer willingly pays $10.30/hour for labor when he could run a successful business paying $5.15/hour for labor? And that this hypothetical businessman will only figure this out if the minimum wage is increased?
With all due respect to the hypothetical businessman, he's an idiot.
But I reckon it's a real purty hypothesis, for some.
Here's what's bogus about Tommy's analysis of raising the min. wage:
It relies upon the premise that some employees are dispensable-- extras-- and if they're too expensive to keep, we'll just fire them.
If companies get rid of an employee, there's no one to do the work, so the company doesn't make any money. In the old days-- say thirty years ago-- you might have found workplaces with "extra" employees. But not now.
No one's going to get rid of vital employees. It's a bogus threat. That's why stats prove this out.
you are a piece of work!
You've taken positions that It's okay for wealthy to get as rich as they can, and for them to pay higher taxes is terrible, etc, etc, and now you express that employees shouldn't be allowed realize the fruits of their hard labor. Which begs the question--WHICH WAY DO YOU WANT IT ?
Grab some respect for others. And to answer your question with the obvious--If the employer has to lay off "employee B" because he can't afford $40-50 per week, that employer is in some real bad shape. But, lets say he's an idiot, and in real bad shape. How about this option: Reduce both employees hours by 3 each week. They make the same, as before, and have time to look for a real job.
Works for me, how about you?
" How about this option: Reduce both employees hours by 3 each week. They make the same, as before, and have time to look for a real job. "
No, that won't work. You're saying that the employer (obviously struggling if he can only hire 2 people) should keep paying employees for doing shoddy work while they look for another job? So, now the employer is trying to make ends meet and has 0 employees because you think lowering their work load will increase their incentive to continue working for the guy. Brilliant plan.
You people seem to think anyone who starts a business is suddenly some super rich conglomorate with unlimited funds. Have any of you actually entered the real world? Businesses start at the bottom and hire people they think will improve the company. Not every coffee shop starts out as a starbucks, some actually start out with only 3-4 employees, with the owner being one of them. If "status symbol" liberals only go to the starbucks because that's the cool place to go then this smaller company goes out of business. Try thinking about the little guy for a change. He needs to hire qualified workers, not pay for lazy, unmotivated, dishonest ones that the minimum wage would encourage.
Unproductive, unmotivated workers are a dime a dozen because that's all they are worth. Why should someone be forced to pay more than that?
Unproductive, unmotivated workers are a dime a dozen because that's all they are worth. Why should someone be forced to pay more than that?
Nobody is forced to pay them anything because nobody is forced to hire them. An employer who hires unproductive, unmotivated workers is an idiot no matter what he pays them.
I hate to break this to you, but eliminating the minimum wage wouldn't get rid of those lazy fast-food workers who piss you off.
Tommy and I have had this dispute many times over the last 18 months or so. I should inform you (as Tommy already knows) that I do know a little something about business and being an employer.
I'm a builder. My company (yes, my wife and I own it) builds houses, decks, remodeling, etc. We've been doing this for the better part of 27 years. Option 3 works for everyone, while giving the new hires, and trainees a decent starting wage.
So before you climb down from your pillar of ignorance, you might try reaching the door of a classroom that teaches business from up there.
How well does the company do in which you own?
What company do you run?
You don't own a company!
My God, for a minute there I thought you knew what you were talking about!!!
No, Rick, I don't own a company. I don't want to own a company, I don't know what it takes to own a company and I'm not afraid to admit it. I do know how to fix your car, do you? Can you read wiring diagrams that describe flow charts for unrelated trouble codes that set your ses lite? Can you determin whether the cpu is at fault or if it's the tcm or even the ipc? I've got to know how to rebuild every system in your car and now I'm an electrical engineer (with all the computers on the new ones...as many as 30 different computers run your car). I started when we were called "shade tree mechanics", now if you let a shade tree mechanic work on your car it will be towed to ME to fix. Can you remove the front of your engine so you can change the timing chain? Can you put it back together so it lasts another 100k miles? Can you even change your own oil? No, you don't change your oil, you send it to the local 'quicky oil change' that does it for $19.95 with minimum wage employees who forget to tighten your drain plug because the boss is making them rush to get as many oil changes done as possible.
So, when you hire someone and he passes the 90 days, then decide to fire him because he's lazy or incompetant...do you pay his unemployment and pay for another employee to take his spot? Or, do you lie to the unemployment judge in order to bypass your duties as an employer?
Who said they were unproductive? If they were why hadnt they already been fired. You act like there are plenty of really good jobs just waiting for people. You are just a resentful boob with a false superiority complex. If people are poor its because they are crass, lazy, and worthless. Based on your posts alone you are not the brightest crayon in the box and yet YOU manage to make a living. Perhaps the reason your underlings make more money than you is they understand and empathize with their fellow workers and are therefore more effective rather than snivelling and denigrating people wholesale based on NOTHING other than how much money they make. Your posts here are derogatory and pathetic
...she is liberal and her agenda is progressive. It turns out the public thinks this is a good thing.
Raise the minimum wage.
Pass a new rules package for congress.
Pass all the 9/11 commision recomendations.
Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.
Negotiate lower prices on drugs for the medicare program.
End subsidies for big oil.
Allow federal support for stem cell research.
This is what the majority of the country wants Tommy. There is no need for her to "tone down" her agenda at all.
...Is that what Tommy was getting at? I missed it. My point is, in no way has she been proven to be a radical liberal.... just painted that way by the 'pundidiots'.
Oh yeah...and let's not forget 'no-bid' contracts to Cheney...er, ah...Haliburton.
You were right the first time, Intergalatic misinterprested what I meant. The label her opponents affix to her is meaningless. It's her legislative record that is the real test of how liberal or not liberal she is. And even that is in the eye of the beholder.
Liberals and conservatives have a wide and varying idea what constitutes ultra liberal and ultra conservative, I would suppose. So the whole label thing is just fodder for talk shows, primarily.........and bloggers.
there's something in a label. they prefer the spin of left winger from san fran. it's the same tactic as limbaugh. label, label, and label some more. it prevents any real discussion of the issues. did you not also say that we should just ignore the path to 9-11 "movie"?
Tommy called her "ultra liberal" which I would say she probably isn't that, at least to me. But then Tom Delay is just called a "conservative" when in my view he is a right wing extremist on the fringe of the political spectrum. Somehow in this country that is not considered fringe at all.
...he said if she supported an "ultra liberal" agenda.
it's OK to spin and smear people with labels as long as you disagree with their positions? If you view someone as "ultra" whatever, it's OK? Is it just as fair to label people who put forward an "ultra" conservative agenda?
Just what is an "ultra liberal" agenda, anyway? Who decides? You? Shouldn't policies and proposals be evaluated on their merits and not on a label applied to their creators or a knee-jerk reaction?
Pelosi has put forward her plan and identified which issues she will address. It's listed above. Is it "ultra liberal," according to you? Should her critics start their smearing now or later?
Because it's up to HER to make others label her differently.
What a bunch of horse hockey, Tommy. How about the media deal in facts rather than "label" anyone? How about they say what exactly those "San Francisco values" are rather than tossing the label around with a wink and a nudge?
This is an effort to smear her without being explicit about the bigotry of the smearers.
The Democrats do not need to listen to Right Wingers like YOU to decide what they need to do or not do. You guys had your shot, and ran us deep into debt while waging a war on a country that was absolutely no threat to us. How about this? Republicans should shut their mouths and listen for a while rather than spouting off about what Democrats should do.
On how what liberals REALLY need to do is be more like Republicans. Pelosi IS a liberal. I dont know of anyone who has denied this. What San Fransisco liberal is supposed to mean, unless its code for GAY, no one has given any explanation. What Pelosi should do, besides ignoring ANY advise from conservatives on what she should do, is be effective leading the House Dems.
I can see how he could be confused, since she is a moderate grandmother from Baltimore!!
They have to lie, the truth just confuses them!!
He's also dishonest. He is a charlatan. The guy seems spastic. Him and Cal Thomas look like asses on that show every week trying to make lame excuses for George Bush. They need to just stop at some point.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
But it IS a funny article, showing statistics about Pelosi as SF liberal vs Baltimore grandmother. :D
By the way, look at that Fox Graph. That's the "fair and balanced" network. Not like those darn liberals at CBS which mentioned both "versions" once eaqch.
Maybe it's not just ignorance or stupidity. Maybe it's not "selective" comprehension in order to continue to complain about victimhood at the hands of the "liberal media".
Maybe, instead, it's a MEDICAL problem. These guys should be tested, to see if they can actually HEAR all the things being broadcast in the MEDIA every day.
Examiner; "Mr. Pinkerton, put on these earphones, and just raise your hand when you hear any audible sound. Understand?"
Pinkerton: "Sure." Puts on the phones.
First sound: "Nancy Pelosi is a Liberal."
Pinkerton: no response.
Second sound: "Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco."
No movement from Pinkerton.
Third sound: "Nancy Pelosi is a radical San Francisco Liberal who supports the terrorists."
Still no indication from Pinkerton.
Fourth sound: "Nancy Pelosi is a grandmother from Baltimore."
Pinkerton's hand shoots up. "I heard that! Why is THAT the only message being sent out? Where is the BALANCE?"
-------
Maybe they really ARE as deaf as Limbaugh.
Great job! What a dumb statement from Pinkerton. Difficult to rebut your charts.