Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDid you see the New York Times page one photo of newly-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, gavel in hand, celebrating the start of the 110th Congress surrounded by a swarm of her grandchildren as well as other Congressional members' offspring? What did you think when you saw it?
I'm still sorting out my feelings--but I feel conflicted.
I wonder why Pelosi, a woman I admire, seemed so keen to use her first day as Speaker to portray herself as a traditional, family-first kind of woman? Sure, it was fun to see children working a room usually used for adults (who too often act like babies). But why not use those first, symbolic hours to surround yourself with all the Democratic women in the House--including the newly elected eight--and signal that this is "The Year of the Democratic Woman?" (That image would have also shown those newly elected alpha males, macho Dems the power women have in the new House!)
Where were the many images of the tough and shrewd politico, now the most powerful woman in American history, two heartbeats away from the presidency, who finally cracked what she calls "the marble ceiling" of the Capitol? What about the woman of impeccable style (though her suit certainly fit the bill) and doggedness who's been likened (not on the style quotient) to the late majority leader Tip O'Neill? What about the ambitious leader who's worked tenaciously to advance full equality and justice for women--of all kinds--not just moms.
But, maybe, as veteran women's rights activist Gloria Feldt put it, "like Nixon going to China, it takes what looks like a traditional woman to make lasting, radical changes in public policy." And it's not as if the image of Pelosi as mother figure isn't authentic; she's the only speaker whose first career was as a stay-at-home mom. She's led a multidimensional life--as do so many women today. In her case, she's now not only the leader of 233 Democrats, she's a mother of 5 and a grandmother of 6. And certainly her ascension means that little girls have a new role model--something the photo clearly signaled. As Congresswoman Rosa de Lauro, put it, "for every little girl who has wondered what she can be when she grows up the glass ceiling in this institution has been shattered forever."
But it's the Rorschach quality of the NYT photo that intrigues me. Reactions run the gamut, but all relate to the conflicting emotions, views men and women have about what the template is for women in power, circa 2007. (If you scan the globe, it's clear there's no one-dimensional model. Chile's first woman president, Michelle Bachelet, was elected last year as a single mother, in a conservative Catholic country where divorce was only legalized in 2005. I doubt she marked her inauguration surrounded by children--though it might have played well in a country where fewer than half the country's women work outside the home. Other women leaders around the world--German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, Ellen Sirleaf of Liberia and Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate in France's upcoming Presidential election, also offer different models and images of leadership.)
I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the men I've talked to about the photograph--an older male colleague, my father, a college friend--think it's an iconic photo and moment. To my father, the photograph suggested profound change and fresh hope for our nation. My colleague sees a new spirit, "nourishing, not destroying," that is needed in this nation. Pelosi, he believes, "has a chance to represent that, so long as she also represents the tough leader. Potentially, this a politically compelling combination that reaches across the usual divisions. Soft and tough, anchored in values that are deeper than politics. I judge that this combination is within her, we will find out. Meanwhile, it is to her advantage to be under-estimated in stereotypical terms."
Yet many of the women I spoke to worry that the photo fed into the image of woman as one-dimensional. A Friend with a new baby hadn't even had time to look at the Times that morning. (I suspect that was the case with millions of stay-at-home and working mothers--the very people Pelosi may have been trying to appeal to with these images.) At the Nation, where the top senior editors are women (as are the top business staff), one thought that invoking the "Mother thing" makes women seem weak and passive -- following, not leading. Another worried that it reinforced stereotypes of the Dems as the so-called Mommy Party. That certainly has been the stereotype and, sure, it is still very present in the culture. But maybe things are changing.
As my male colleague wrote me, "Masculine delusion is one of our great national pathologies. You can see it playing out in the politics of Iraq. How can we exit without losing our 'manhood'? I am not romanticizing women and mothers. I am channeling Carol Gilligan and suggesting her general observation of 'a different voice' is now in play in our politics. Not just because Pelosi is female, but because events and circumstances argue for a deep shift in how we approach public concerns in general, war and peace in particular. The 'boys' are going to keep picking fights, playing 'king of the hill' around the world, because that's what they know how to do. We need to blow up the scoreboard for these deadly games. I do think the country is ready for such a different cultural understanding. The younger people I know are already comfortable with a different perspective (in complicated ways) which tells me the country can change too."
What do you think?
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
For most of our history, but particularly since 9/11 when those terrorists knocked down our two biggest erections, this country has been ensnared in a weird cult of testicle worship, the belief that all problem can be solved by the application of 'more balls'. I don't care how its done, but somebody has to free us from this cult.
Posted by Sousa at 01/07/2007 @ 8:54pm
What do I think? I think that I am not suprised that it would bother you that Speaker Pelosi would emphasize the fact that she was a grandmother, mother, and wife i.e. tradtional family. Why can't she be all of those things and still a politician??? Why do you think that it should be an either or proposition? I agree with very little of what Nancy Pelosi stands for politically. But to criticize her for bringing up her family ties when taking the Speaker position only further convinces me that we should never under any circumstances let people like KVH gain real political power in this country.
Posted by Len Mosse at 01/07/2007 @ 9:09pm
"I wonder why Pelosi, a woman I admire, seemed so keen to use her first day as Speaker to portray herself as a traditional, family-first kind of woman? "
To make people think she is "just like them" and not a left wing nut, kook, uber lib, from the fringe "progressive" edge of the Dem Party...she wants the press to show her as a "middle of the road", which the press will do obidently...in other words..she is lying...
Look, look, look..I am normaL like you..see? is the message for the folk down home in the South, next will be pictures coming out of church..think we will hear any gay pride speeches any time soon..? I don't.
Posted by john maasch at 01/07/2007 @ 10:45pm
I, for one, can't wait for the cat fight of the year between the "smartest" woman of the world(with an "I don't recall memory")and thje "most powerful woman in the world"...it will be fun to be ringside...
Posted by john maasch at 01/07/2007 @ 10:47pm
Just another politician exploiting another photo-op. I'm surprised she didn't have a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! banner in the background.
Posted by Left is Right at 01/07/2007 @ 10:59pm
By the way, SOUSA, I've never heard the 9/11 attacks put quite that way before.
Posted by Left is Right at 01/07/2007 @ 11:01pm
Zero issues a challenge to FROMREDNUTS for seat 1 in row 1, but the Z man is safely in seat 2....quite the section building up here...
Posted by john maasch at 01/07/2007 @ 11:07pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel,
Nancy Pelosi being surrounded by romper room on the opending day of the 110th Congress IS NOT THE STORY HERE...................
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/07/2007 @ 11:41pm
TIME TO HOLD YOU AND THE NATION MAGAZINE ACCOUNTABLE FOR LYING TO YOUR READERS AND SUPPORTERS:
Posted by POSEIDON 01/07/2007 @ 11:40pm
So exactly how did you plan to do this? Post in all caps until they submit to your will?
Posted by Will C. at 01/07/2007 @ 11:56pm
To make people think she is "just like them" and not a left wing nut, kook, uber lib, from the fringe "progressive" edge of the Dem Party...she wants the press to show her as a "middle of the road", which the press will do obidently...in other words..she is lying...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/07/2007 @ 10:45pm
do you have any evidense to support that assertion maaach or are you just blowing it out your ass like usual?
Posted by Will C. at 01/07/2007 @ 11:59pm
Sure, her record..she is a left wing nut, hell, even the MSM, which certainly is not in the republican camp, label her as a San Francisco liberal...hell, the world knows she is a lib...YOU think she is main stream?..Please.
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 12:06am
Sure, her record..she is a left wing nut, hell, even the MSM, which certainly is not in the republican camp, label her as a San Francisco liberal...hell, the world knows she is a lib...YOU think she is main stream?..Please.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 12:06am
Ok what about her record makes her a left wing nut?
Posted by Will C. at 01/08/2007 @ 12:12am
and for the record, I never said she was main stream. I'm actually hoping she is a dry land democrat, feet planted firmly on the ground. That way she along with the rest of the country will have excellent position to watch all you hamster conservatives out in the main stream bob your asses on out to sea.
Posted by Will C. at 01/08/2007 @ 12:12am
For starters her TOP Ten List of Socialistic crap...which will not fly through the Senate, or survive a veto pen...when she opens hr mouth will, just like when you type...you are also a left wing...I know you think you are middle and main stream, but, outside this blog...you may be surprised that you are in the section....
I am admittedly right of main stream..always have been...sometimes I have moved and sometimes the stream has moved, but I have no misconceptions about where I am and neither do I as to where you are...and you ain't in the middler, not by a long shot.
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 12:36am
Wow...I figured only a photo of her with her non-union, non-native employees would have you libs up in arms. But with children as part of her actual family?? OH, the horror!!!
Posted by Sliver at 01/08/2007 @ 12:46am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/07/2007 @ 11:07pm
Oooo! Oooo! I wanna sit up front too!
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 01/08/2007 @ 12:59am
For starters her TOP Ten List of Socialistic crap...which will not fly through the Senate, or survive a veto pen...when she opens hr mouth will, just like when you type...you are also a left wing...I know you think you are middle and main stream, but, outside this blog...you may be surprised that you are in the section....
I am admittedly right of main stream..always have been...sometimes I have moved and sometimes the stream has moved, but I have no misconceptions about where I am and neither do I as to where you are...and you ain't in the middler, not by a long shot.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 12:36am
well for starters. If you actually want to make a case than you might want to print out her top ten list of socialist crap, explain to us why it's socialist, why it's crap, and why it won't fly through the senate or survive a veto pen. That's how you make an argument.
Now I understand that bobbing around in the main stream doesn't always allow for deep breaths or any thoughts but survival.
but Maasch, you're drowning.
Posted by Will C. at 01/08/2007 @ 01:31am
swim mutherfucker... swim
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 01/08/2007 @ 01:32am
I don't really remember anymore why I used to admire the US and its citizens; it can't have been for tolerance, equality of opportunity, or any such thing, because, reading these posts, and observing the country's politics from an ocean away,I see a country of fanatics, loonies, nutcases, intolerant knows-it-alls.
Why on earth should it be a problem that a woman (!!!) chooses to be a mother first (I speak here of time only), and then go after a career (in politics) with a vengeance? Why on earth should anyone have the right to second-guess her career decisions. To me (I'm male, over fifty, BTW) the picture of Pelosi taking the gavel among children is a great sign of hope for a nation that lost itself quite a while ago.
Posted by sapatatanka at 01/08/2007 @ 04:59am
To make people think she is "just like them" and not a left wing nut, kook, uber lib, from the fringe "progressive" edge of the Dem Party...she wants the press to show her as a "middle of the road", which the press will do obidently...in other words..she is lying...
Look, look, look..I am normaL like you..see? is the message for the folk down home in the South, next will be pictures coming out of church..think we will hear any gay pride speeches any time soon..? I don't.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/07/2007 @ 10:45pm
I have to agree with you on this one, Maasch: this is just part of a campaign to sell Pelosi as a normal, trustworthy, caring woman. She may be all of those things, but I hate people abusing their children and grandchildren for political ends. (which is why I still haven't forgiven my parents for dragging me along to all those hippie demonstrations against the Vietnam war in the early seventies).
It seems to me, though, that you're incapable of using the words 'left wing' without also using the word 'nut.' Now you may indeed be of the opinion that all those on the left wing are nuts, but I'm curious: do you think that there are also right wing nuts in this world? If so, could you tell me how a person would have to behave to classify as a right wing nut in your book? And could you give me some examples of people you consider right wing nuts?
I don't really remember anymore why I used to admire the US and its citizens; it can't have been for tolerance, equality of opportunity, or any such thing, because, reading these posts, and observing the country's politics from an ocean away,I see a country of fanatics, loonies, nutcases, intolerant knows-it-alls.
Why on earth should it be a problem that a woman (!!!) chooses to be a mother first (I speak here of time only), and then go after a career (in politics) with a vengeance? Why on earth should anyone have the right to second-guess her career decisions. To me (I'm male, over fifty, BTW) the picture of Pelosi taking the gavel among children is a great sign of hope for a nation that lost itself quite a while ago.
Posted by SAPATATANKA 01/08/2007 @ 04:59am
I'm an ocean away from the US as well, so I can understand how the present-day United States would puzzle you, compared to what the country used to be. I hardly think this Pelosi case is a good example of how the US has lost its way, though, because the points that KVDH is making are universal textbook feminism.
I have never had a problem with feminism. I do think, however, that there are far more important Pelosi issues to address than her parading her family around, such as the fact that she has said she won't give the president a blank cheque for his escalation (sorry, surge) in the Iraq war. Bush will have to make a case for sending more troops into the Mesopotamiam quagmire, according to Pelosi. Hmm... That sounds to me as if she's already given in. I'm betting that the president wil make his case and get his cheque. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I'd hoped Pelosi would use words like 'out of the question.'
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 01/08/2007 @ 05:47am
Posted by SAPATATANKA 01/08/2007 @ 04:59am
Think you've got it wrong Sapa. Pelosi looks OK to me (for a granny) and I'm sure most Americans would agree with you about her. I'm on the other side of the Pacific and I can assure you we haven't got any Italian grannies over here that would hold a candle to that very attractive symbol of fecundity and power.
As far as this site goes, though not essential, it probably helps to have been certified, so that you know you are among like minded people. But my experience of other Americans in many different contexts has confirmed that they are OK people.
(Had a 32 year old Persian girl, (refugee from the Iranian mad Mullahs) just back from a 2 week holiday at her sister's place in Arizona, tell me when I picked her up today at the airport, that she hates the way those Americans are always waving their "bloody flag" in your face. So there you are. They do take that sort of thing more seriously than others).
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/08/2007 @ 05:54am
Posted by WILL C. 01/07/2007 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person
Hopefully by convincing you and others to stand up for principle and if necessary, put the screws to The Nation magazine if they do not comply with the voters wishes of ending the Iraq War. But if you don't believe in principle, I can certainly understand why.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 07:21am
WILL C, JOHN MAAASCH, MASK, RESE,
Take a page out of the book of all people, NEWT GINGRICH. He has said one thing that makes perfect sense, "without real change" you can not have "real change" in this country. Sometimes, real change has to be by definition, radical, by what Americans are normally used to. The days of "nothing but incrementalism" are long dead. Incrementalism has its place at certain moments in time, but then there are moments when radical change is very much necessary to make real progress.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 07:26am
Really, KVH, "the most powerful woman in history" Please stop using a technicality to slobber all over her. She's just another liberal Washington politician, and I can think of many other women throughout our political history whose level she should be aspiring to
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/08/2007 @ 07:38am
Note that I am male and so my comments certainly reflect certain enculturated biases:
I have watched my wife, who is graduate student on the cusp of earning a Ph.D., and her colleagues struggle with these issues. It seems that the current generation of feminists want to recreate the mold; that is, they are not content to merely assume roles previously occupied by males, but wish also to bring a new focus to those roles: particularly when it comes to defining the relationship between professional and familial obligations. This new focus is for everyone's benefit (male and female).
In academia, that means that instead of furthering one's career through competition and a heroic work ethic (which actually means spending more time at work away from family), it might be possible to create an atmosphere of collaboration, both in academic pursuits (where two academics pool research, write collaboratively, and/or share resources), and in social/familial responsibilities (as in where two young couples with children collaborate for child care.) It also means increasing the acceptance of and provision for children at the workplace (on-site childcare, breastfeeding breaks, etc.) These ideas contribute to a more integrated way of living.
Speaker Pelosi, surrounded by grandchildren, represents a woman of spectacular professional achievement, who has also apparently been a successful mother and grandmother. She is a role model, not just for young women, but for us men too.
Posted by twocinc at 01/08/2007 @ 08:36am
The time for parties and celebrations should have been after the election. I felt that it was not a good image, like showing up to work the first day with a diaper bag and saying the baby sitter didn't show up ! Imagine a lawyer showing up in the courtroom with baby on hip. I was especially bothered by the children parading back to their seats AS the swearing in was taking place. Clearly, the children had no idea of the importance of what was going on so I'm not sure why they were there except for the photo op.
We saw all the stereotyes of WHY it has been so difficult to crack that ceiling.
Posted by jane_r at 01/08/2007 @ 08:57am
Clearly, the children had no idea of the importance of what was going on so I'm not sure why they were there except for the photo op.
Swearing in is a ceremonial occasion, like graduating from high-school or receiving a military commission. It is highly appropriate that Speaker Pelosi would want her children and grandchildren there. I certainly would if I were being sworn in as Speaker of the House.
Posted by twocinc at 01/08/2007 @ 09:09am
The word Macho is used to make the word bully seem respectable.
Posted by Donald James at 01/08/2007 @ 09:18am
Really, KVH, "the most powerful woman in history" Please stop using a technicality to slobber all over her. She's just another liberal Washington politician, and I can think of many other women throughout our political history whose level she should be aspiring to
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/08/2007 @ 07:38am | ignore this person
she makes Catherine the great look like Shirley Temple. It hadda be said.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/08/2007 @ 09:25am
TIME TO HOLD YOU AND THE NATION MAGAZINE ACCOUNTABLE FOR LYING TO YOUR READERS AND SUPPORTERS:
Posted by POSEIDON 01/07/2007 @ 11:40pm
So exactly how did you plan to do this? Post in all caps until they submit to your will?
Posted by WILL C. 01/07/2007 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person
hilarious, pithy
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/08/2007 @ 09:27am
2 points...
1. If ANY male columnist had used a line like "The 'boys' are going to keep picking fights, playing 'king of the hill' around the world, because that's what they know how to do."....for example, "The 'girls' are going to keep playing nice-nice and trying to kiss and pat the heads of dictators around the world, because that's what they know how to do.".....he'd be called a sexist pig and rightfully so.
But the double standard continues, in Ms vanden Heuvel's world, where men can be demeaned and called stupid. I always thought feminism wasn't about putting down men, but raising up women??? Does she think that way about Stephen Cohen???
2nd-- Grandma Pelosi got run over by a Steny-deer--
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Some of the other leading Democrats in Congress aren't ready to echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's suggestion that lawmakers might hold up funding for additional troops in Iraq.
On CBS's ''Face the Nation'' today, Pelosi said Democrats won't cut off money for those troops already in Iraq -- but that President Bush would have to ''justify any additional resources.'' The comment comes as Bush puts the finishing touches on a plan that could put thousands of additional U.S. troops in Iraq in an effort to stem the sectarian violence.
But Pelosi's second-in-command in the House Democratic leadership, Steny Hoyer, told Fox News he doesn't ''want to anticipate'' that possibility. And the Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, says Congress doesn't have the power to second-guess Bush's military strategy -- because lawmakers had voted to authorize him to wage war. Biden appeared on NBC's ''Meet the Press.''
The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, agreed, telling Fox News that Congress can't ''micro-manage'' the tactics in Iraq.
When asked about Pelosi's remarks, a White House spokesman said Bush welcomes any ideas on Iraq that ''lead to success.''
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2007 @ 09:28am
Really, KVH, "the most powerful woman in history" Please stop using a technicality to slobber all over her. She's just another liberal Washington politician, and I can think of many other women throughout our political history whose level she should be aspiring to
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/08/2007 @ 07:38am
Please stop misquoting, Chip. There is a difference between "the most powerful woman in history" and "the most powerful woman in American history" -- unless you assume, of course, that the most powerful woman in American history must necessarily also be the most powerful woman in history. If that is indeed the case, I urge you to read some history books.
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 01/08/2007 @ 09:33am
1. If ANY male columnist had used a line like "The 'boys' are going to keep picking fights, playing 'king of the hill' around the world, because that's what they know how to do."....for example, "The 'girls' are going to keep playing nice-nice and trying to kiss and pat the heads of dictators around the world, because that's what they know how to do.".....he'd be called a sexist pig and rightfully so.
Did you note that this was a quote in the original post of one of Ms. Vanden Heuvel's male colleagues? Here's a towel for that egg dripping off your nose.
Matt
Posted by twocinc at 01/08/2007 @ 09:43am
Posted by WILL C. 01/08/2007 @ 01:31am Almost clever..
The campagain promises of 100 hours and the list printed by KVH..
..go to the bottom of this blog and click on the older post. The answers are there for your questions..
"Now I understand that bobbing around in the main stream doesn't always allow for deep breaths or any thoughts but survival. "
If you are bobbing around, then you are no where near the main stream or any stream..you are backwatered.. try getting INTO the flow of the middle and out of the same old sociaslistic horseshit. You should be able to recognized when an old car is painted a different color, but it is still an old car...YOU figure out the goals of the Madame speaker and see if it will get through the Senate, much less the mainstream...
Feel free to be funny.....
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 09:45am
"Oooo! Oooo! I wanna sit up front too!
Eric"
Won't be long now, don't worry...keep posting.
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 09:46am
Posted by AMSTERDAM69 01/08/2007 @ 05:47am
Left wing nuts are the fringe on the left, in my opinion,the kooks who are out of the steam of their own party...Here many of us consider Nasderites to fully embedded in the far left fringe, outside edge or orbit if you want...on this site the most ridiculios would be, Zero, fROMREDBIRD, WILL, DARLADOON...
and on the right, you bet,...Examples..P ROBERTSON, HAGGEY,BROWNBACK,REED,...
Does this help the perspective?
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 09:52am
" Incrementalism has its place "
I believe that this is called socialistic creep in other words...all the programs and changes are in this line of thought as the "govt" becomes the provider and the excuse for all people, all failures and all hope...ie..GOD for most of those who can't or won't work on their own to improve their own life...always someones else fault...Unveresal health care as am example...force it on those who dod not want it by taking it out of a butchered paycheck and call it a right....as an example...where is my choice? What if I don't want it? Most other programs to help are taken out of the paycheck before you even see your check and how are they working? Medicare, SS , ect are all upside down and over bloated..more expensive than first thought...should we expect anything less on health care brought to you by the same people who gave us the other "great programs"?
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 10:00am
But from what I read here, that is called progress here...which is why I try to protect myself from that kind of progress and progressives....professional theives..
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 10:01am
The picture of the children---our nation's future--is certainly eons better than the macho grand-standing of "Mission Accomplished." It is a great theme change. Otherwise, the article is much ado about very lttle.
Posted by Morris Taber, at 01/08/2007 @ 10:03am
"Posted by TWOCINC 01/08/2007 @ 08:36am "
I would agree in general, but Pelosi has been a multi millionare for a long time and never required what you and your wife are aspiring to acheive...Pelosi ain't one of you....she is one of the class most hate here..... wealthy and achieved.
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 10:04am
"Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 10:04am | ignore this person"
Perhaps, but that does not have to negate the impact or contextual meaning of the iconic image of Speaker Pelosi raising the gavel surrounded by her grandchildren. Contrast that with this [en.wikipedia.org] other iconic image, which ironically contains all men.
Posted by twocinc at 01/08/2007 @ 10:30am
Personally, I don't care how she/he takes the gavel or with whom..it is politics and we all will get the bill shortly.
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 10:38am
Sorry....posted this first on another thread....but meant it for this thread:
Personally, I'm a bit dismayed at the POLITICAL stance of The Nation rather than the infinitely more substantive POLICY aspect.
For instance, last week the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report detailing how Exxon paid for the bogus "science" that they've used to muddy the waters in the global warming debate.
While other nations stopped the silly "what's causing this" routine a decade ago and got past those sophmoric "debates" and moved into enacting policy to make a difference we are still kidding ourselves that it might all just go away.
Frankly, the press had an opportunity last week to shift the focus away from whether or not Nancy should celebrate her ovary harvest to something that WILL (like it or not) affect us all.
Exxon paid for bogus science: America and the world have been less dilligent with carbon emmissions for the last decade as a result. And we're all going to pay (as in Hurricane Katrina and worse) because it was convenient for Exxon at the time.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/08/2007 @ 10:54am
I can only offer so much: I am from Germany and ever since Angela Merkel has emerged onto the political scene, she has been criticized for being not woman-ish enough. Her looks have been made fun of (she has been accused of being ugly or lookig like a man), her marriage has been made fun of (saying her husband would have to be a sissy and do all the housework since she is the breadwinner), her job as a scientist has been made fun of (as something women aren't supposed to be interested in). I am sure if she had children and showed herself with them sometimes, she wouldn't get this criticism. So I guess showing herself with her grandchildren was a way for Nancy Pelosi to show that even though she has political power, she still is a full-fledged woman with all that pertains thereunto. She did what many struggle to do. She had kids and a career. Now how is that not a positive image?
Posted by Phoebe_R at 01/08/2007 @ 11:13am
Posted by PHOEBE_R 01/08/2007 @ 11:13am | ignore this person
Hillary gets this treatment, and worse.
when a rich republican is elected this is cause for jubilation. when a rich dem is elected, we should repudiate him/her out of class solidarity. If a rich dem runs under a populist banner, he /she is expected to give away all his fortune and don sackcloth. no $4000 suits for you, dem baby.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/08/2007 @ 11:23am
She did what many struggle to do. She had kids and a career. Now how is that not a positive image?
Agreed. Only you won't get that same sentiment from the "radical" feminist/pro-Planned Parenthood/The earth is over-populated/Global Warming crowd here.
Posted by Sliver at 01/08/2007 @ 11:26am
JR,
depends on how one became rich, doesn't it...cattle futures when one never trades or know cows from goats vs when one earns his/her wealth...being in politics one should NEVER become weakthy, at least, not while in office...when Clintons came to Washington, Hillary had no money..
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 11:28am
JR,
And I don't recall anywhere or anyone celebrating the election because someone was rich, rather, their philosophys..
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 11:38am
Maasch, my subject on wealth was Pelosi and Edwards. my subject on feminine image was Hillary.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/08/2007 @ 11:55am
I think it was cute. show the House for the Nursery that it has become.
What they need is more nappy time.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/08/2007 @ 11:57am
TO AMSTERDAM69,
An error on my part, old boy. AMERICAN history. Although frankly, the rest of my comment still stands. Check out our history
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/08/2007 @ 11:59am
"I wonder why Pelosi, a woman I admire, seemed so keen to use her first day as Speaker to portray herself as a traditional, family-first kind of woman?"
OOO! OOO! OOO! I KNOW! I KNOW! It's because liberals are afraid to show who and what they really are.
Posted by woodyee at 01/08/2007 @ 12:05pm
Nancy Pelosi has accomplished more in her life than you ever will in yours, Maasch.
GOD, but that burns you up, doesn't it?
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 12:20pm
Regarding reactions to the NYT picture of Nancy Pelosi, its often risky to try and guess how "others" will react to the same event or object we are all looking at. As a California male who has watched and supported Nancy Pelosi over the years what immediately struck me about the picture was not Pelosi as the symbol of motherhood and family. What I saw was a proud Pelosi wanting her grandchildren to share in a historic moment that will not likely be repeated for her again. As for her acknowledged woman power, hers is just the most recent all-be-it highly significant example of that accomplishment. While the kids on display undoubtedly evoke "family" to observers, they and their cohorts are the ones that would be at risk in whatever our next foreign policy debacle turns out to be. You can say the picture is about motherhood and family, and as a Rorscharch it will certainly bear that, but I suspect Pelosi may also have had in mind saving the future from our bankrupt past. That is a good deal more important than taking the edge off male fear at the prospect of a woman in power.
Posted by alledge at 01/08/2007 @ 12:25pm
I am a voter in Speaker Pelosi's district. I think the photo is TERRIFIC. What a great way to blunt all the taliban republican attack dogs by (1) runnng this photo round the world and (2) stressing Nancy's Baltimore working class roots. I love The Nation but, jeez, sometimes the lefties are too serious about themselves. Thank goodness we have a solid realistic Democrat speaker who has great PR skills. Lighten up, please.
Posted by Leerossh at 01/08/2007 @ 12:26pm
there goes zero, again, spouting all completely ridiculous (and radical) statements. pelosi not leading the charge on impeachment---therefore, a coward?
how would a far left, san francisco radical (which is what zero appears to want) get anything done as speaker of the house at this point in time?
if zero wants impeachment of bush and cheney, then guess who would be president?
cowardly nancy pelosi!
so, which is it, zero? impeachment or no impeachment?
Posted by darladoon at 01/08/2007 @ 12:33pm
"Nancy Pelosi has accomplished more in her life than you ever will in yours, Maasch. "
Really? Good for here, I guess
"GOD, but that burns you up, doesn't it?"
It does? why would it? I don't covet my neighbors success..I celebrate it...I have always believed this is a good thing...
Maybe you don't know me and lump me into your stereotype...
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 12:36pm
I don't covet my neighbors success..I celebrate it...I have always believed this is a good thing
hey, look, i agree with maasch again.....
Posted by darladoon at 01/08/2007 @ 12:38pm
pelosi is wisely taking incremental steps to try and (at a minimum) communicate with the president, in the most bi-partisan fashion possible. elevating oneself to speaker, and going after the president's head in the form of impeachment, would be a wholly unwise strategy, one that would most certainly backfire in possibly worse ways than what we've seen these last 5 years.
pelosi is a shrewd, reality-based politician. she has already proven herself to be a shrewd and effective politician.
i'm a pretty radical woman, myself, and surround myself with nocal pagans and witches, grow herbs, support codepink, and what not, but i wouldn't support a more radical version as speaker of the house. let the radicals work on the west coast, locally.
Posted by darladoon at 01/08/2007 @ 12:47pm
Careful Darla,
...the neighbors here will back away from you and I may have to move you a few rows baqck in the section ...I have agreed with a numbner of your posts lately...especially regarding the ever numbing ZERO...seat 2.
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 12:49pm
"i'm a pretty radical woman, myself, and surround myself with nocal pagans and witches, grow herbs, support codepink, and what not, but i wouldn't support a more radical version as speaker of the house. let the radicals work on the west coast, locally."
Well, then again...
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 12:50pm
well, freedomplease, if all policy were formed with the well-being of the next seven generations of ovary harvests as the first consideration we would not have to face our extinct status in the near future. the usual policy maker is a fat pasty old bastard whose only concern for children centers on fantasies about the hottest adolescent male in the building.
i thought it was great that she invited all of the children up to the podium. all of the children.
the fact that women can create and sustain new human life is a miracle. it is long past time we let go of the ridiculous notion that this miraculous ability results in any sort of weakness. i've seen lots of women transformed from obsessively self-swallowed into someone whose main goal in life is service to another person. most women gain incredible strength and maturity in the process of creating life. another related ridiculous notion we need to let go of is that a man who has less testicles than another man is any closer to being a woman and possessing the ability to create and sustain human life.
unfortunately, these retarded perspectives toward women are found in the entire political spectrum. harold, who is just as annoying as ever, is an example of the worst kind of woman hating weirdo and he is ultra left wing. he practically fantasized about sawing off a woman's head off--when was that? last week, harold? in his sick twisted mind, the vulgar name he has chosen to call me is the worst insult he could throw at me. absent it's vulgarity, he is just saying that the fact that i can create human life is an insult. fortunately for me, i am not one of the brainwashed women who believe this. and, by the way, your romper room comment was quite telling as well, harold.
luvs to give up his liberty posted some telling comments himself the other day about pelosi's invitation to the children. what his comments told, as usual, is that he is a hypocrite. as are many from the religious right. why would this invitation to the children be construed as an appeal to the right? they are about as good with ensuring the health and well being of american families as they are with fiscal responsibility. actually, they seem hell bent on ensuring only the sickness and ignorance of the american family. it is long past time we let go of the ridiculous notion that right wing politics is going to do good things for the american family.
Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2007 @ 12:59pm
look, i want radical change as much as the next gal in these parts, but we have far more pressing problems to deal with at this point. going after impeachment will only increase tensions on capitol hill (as if they weren't high enough). republicans will back away from helping the democrats go after bush on iraq, on global warming, on constitutional breaches.
the democrats need all the support they can get right now (remember, they actually won in november, which means people in the south and the midwest voted for them, people who are normally pretty conservative). impeachment will only isolate these people. but solving concrete problems (health care, poverty, education, environment) in a bi-partisan fashion is the only way we can move forward on anything.
zero is to the left wing what michael moore is to twinkies---they just keep eating away at us.
Posted by darladoon at 01/08/2007 @ 1:00pm
loveloki, it should also be noted that san franciscans are very communally-centered people. we love kids, dogs, old people, cats, gays, straights, blacks, whites.....so, i think her surrounding herself with children is just an example of what we are like.....communal, together, etc.
Posted by darladoon at 01/08/2007 @ 1:05pm
Loveloki,
I don't care if Nancy brings the kids up. I also don't think it's very newsworthy whether or not she does.
If a man did it would we care?
The point AI'm trying to make is that it's a distraction (a POLITICAL) stunt if you will) from the real diaster of the POLICY direction we're still headed in (be it on Iraq or global warming).
Posted by freedomplease at 01/08/2007 @ 1:08pm
freedomplease, i agree that it is one in a long parade of distractions from the horrid realities we face. my rambling response to katrina's question seemed to be directed at you. sorry about that.
Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2007 @ 1:12pm
freedomplease, pelosi is forming a separate committee to deal with global warming, and has stated for the record, that she will not escalate the war, and will instead move to bring the troops home.
if she goes in there and says right off the bat: "we're going to impeach and end the war immediately", well then, i guarantee you she will not get anything accomplished.
just face it people, pelosi is about 100 times as smart as all of us put together.
now, joe biden on the other hand?
Posted by darladoon at 01/08/2007 @ 1:13pm
Posted by TWOCINC 01/08/2007 @ 09:43am
You're right, TWO...I apologize to Ms vanden Heuvel.
BUT, I would like to know the name of her "male colleague" who's been so indoctrinated or cowed by the misandronist "feminists" that HE thinks he can get away with crap like that?
Posted by Mask at 01/08/2007 @ 1:23pm
We don't need any strong Democratic women, thank you! I am a 36 y/o male, lifelong Democrat, feminist, pro-choice advocate.
We don't need any strong Democratic women! What we need are powerful, feminine, practical, loving, patriotic, motherly, humorous, graceful, steadfast, nurturing, gutsy, smart, and righteous female Democratic leaders!
Speaker Pelosi is the perfect person to be leading the Party of real American values: community, liberty, justice, not tolerance but acceptance and celebration, equality for all.
She has my full-throated support!
Posted by dpotemkin at 01/08/2007 @ 1:23pm
Rese, can you do me a personal favor?
Please put the myriad of things that you cut and paste onto this blog on a separate web page where those of us who wish to can access it. Trying to get through all that you post in the short time that I have to surf the web is more than a little time consuming.
Posted by edwriter at 01/08/2007 @ 1:27pm
Rather than dissecting this picture like a professor of english dissects word phrases wondering "what did the author mean here" why not accept the possibility that she just wanted a bunch of kids around her. Easy, huh?
Posted by Mike Hunt at 01/08/2007 @ 1:34pm
dpotemkin, personally i find you and many of the other men who post here to be a cause for celebration and hope.
Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2007 @ 1:35pm
" Incrementalism has its place "
I believe that this is called socialistic creep in other words...all the programs and changes are in this line of thought as the "govt" becomes the provider and the excuse for all people, all failures and all hope...ie..GOD
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 10:00am
If God helps those best that help themselves and our gov is 'we the people'... Of course if all Maasch knows to use is a hammer, our gov helping provide other more sophisticated and subtle tools for intricate operations, wouldn't make sense to him whilst he's thinking 'just hit the kid on the head with my hammer', and wilst what's needed and our gov may provide is a computed axial tomography brain scan... Yet, convince Maasch it's not a waste of money.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/08/2007 @ 2:43pm
Has it ever occurred to you by surrounding herself with children, Nancy Pelosi is attempting to convey the idea, "here you see the future, here you see what must be nurtured, here you see our most precious resource." I didn`t see Empire, or War, or Gaining Control of foreign Oil supplies in that picture.
Posted by sabat at 01/08/2007 @ 2:49pm
The fact that a woman is in that role, AND is a Democrat, AND brings those kids up there, is what makes the image, yes, iconic, and more than that, subversive. If the scene had any 1 or 2 of those three things it would not have the same power, but with all three, now you have something....getting up there with the new female Democratic electees instead of the children, would be, I'm sorry, tired and lame. We need more than that and more than the divisiveness (both phony and legit) that an all-woman scene would create. Having the kids up there re-emphasizes that what politicians SHOULD be doing is making society better for the future, and not just trying to make yourself safer richer or more comfortable today....the image is almost Capraesque, but still manages to be subversive and not saccharine because of the perilous state of the country today, and in the imminent future. For people to deconstruct this scene in this way takes energy away from actually constructing anything. It's a waste of time, and more than that it's more liberal internal petty criticism that results in votes for Naders and elections for Bushes. When will people learn?
Posted by dloops at 01/08/2007 @ 2:55pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 10:00am | ignore this person
Totally clueless as usual. When you can get your head out of the sand of the cold war (communism is dead regardless of what faux news tells you) you let me know. As for my post, I am talking about ending the tragic, useless Iraq war. If you can find a socialistic thread in that idea, then you deserve to occupy the oval office.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 3:27pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/08/2007 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person
Exactly. There is nothing newsworthy in bringing fast times at elementary high to the House of Representatives. It is all political theatre meant to distract people from the real issues and tasks at hand that should be dealt with. Number one on that list should be ending the Iraq War.................
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 3:30pm
Posted by DARLADOON 01/08/2007 @ 12:47am | ignore this person
We could have you burned at the stake for this you know......(LOL)
Posted by DARLADOON 01/08/2007 @ 12:47am | ignore this person
i'm a pretty radical woman, myself, and surround myself with nocal pagans and witches, grow herbs, support codepink, and what not, but i wouldn't support a more radical version as speaker of the house. let the radicals work on the west coast, locally.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 3:32pm
Posted by DPOTEMKIN 01/08/2007 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person
Wrong answer! Taking impeachment and defunding the war if need be to keep bush in check totally off the table? Nancy Pelosi is not strong, she is weak, so weak in fact, that in November 2008 she will be a one term House Speaker and the shortest reigning one in Congressional History...............
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 3:36pm
"[M]any of the women I spoke to worry that the photo fed into the image of woman as one-dimensional."
I don't see that at all.
Look at the picture. This woman, surrounded by her grandchildren, is standing on the podium of the U.S. House of Representatives with the gavel in her hand, the very first to ever do so. It's priceless and speaks to the (not new but newly-perceived) multi-dimensionality of women in modern society. One can almost see the shattered remains of the marble ceiling lying in ruin off in the distance behind her.
Posted by scoff0165 at 01/08/2007 @ 3:56pm
Posted by SCOFF0165 01/08/2007 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person
Priceless? That and 50 cents will get you a cup of cold cocoa.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 4:04pm
"Nancy Pelosi has accomplished more in her life than you ever will in yours, Maasch. "
Really? Good for here, I guess
"GOD, but that burns you up, doesn't it?"
It does? why would it? I don't covet my neighbors success..I celebrate it...I have always believed this is a good thing...
Maybe you don't know me and lump me into your stereotype...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 12:36am
No, Maasch - you are a partisan liar, and you fit the "stereotype" to a T ---- you just don't like it and would never dare admit it.
You DO NOT unequivocally celebrate the success of ANY rich or celebrated Democrat. You want to prove me wrong? Do it by finding a single complimentary post about a Democrat in the last three years that wasn't precluded or followed by a slam against same. Creating a response of whole cloth today doesn't count.
If, just once, you started your posts with:
The following will contain clearly partisan rhetoric (of the decidedly right-wing variety) about a Democrat --- any Democrat (since they're all the same to you by virtue of their political party)... I will proceed to vilify that individual (and the party) just because they are Democratic (because I can find fault with ANY Democrat), with no back-up for my personally-motivated, rhetorical opinions.
You couldn't say a kind word about Hillary the other day without shitting on her in the same sentence, and you do the same with Pelosi today.
Will demolished your personal rhetoric and asked you to support your statements - you called him a kook for it.
You also embarass yourself (without realizing it - how sad) by claiming now that you are a conservative, when you've been telling everyone for months that you are a "libertarian" and [i]not[/i] a conservative.
You are a ridiculously partisan hack, John, and apparently, don't even realize it.
You're just plain sad, dude.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 4:15pm
the fact that women can create and sustain new human life is a miracle. it is long past time we let go of the ridiculous notion that this miraculous ability results in any sort of weakness.
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2007 @ 12:59am
A.... MEN.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 4:16pm
Rather than dissecting this picture like a professor of english dissects word phrases wondering "what did the author mean here" why not accept the possibility that she just wanted a bunch of kids around her. Easy, huh?
Posted by MIKE HUNT 01/08/2007 @ 1:34pm
Oh, Dear God (mentioned intentionally), no!!! We can't have that!
Remember, she's a Democrat, so there must be some insidious, evil ulterior motive for her actions!!
Gasp, and she's a woman, too!
Two things that Republicans loathe - women and Democrats.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 4:19pm
Kinda looked like a stunt to me. That's all. Nothing too sinister. Though very egocentric and a distraction from pressing issues, Pelosi knows how to play the game. And it is a game.
Posted by antiPartisa at 01/08/2007 @ 4:20pm
getting up there with the new female Democratic electees instead of the children, would be, I'm sorry, tired and lame.
Posted by DLOOPS 01/08/2007 @ 2:55pm
And would have been LAMBASTED by the Repugnicans who post here as exactly that.
Pelosi, a Democrat and a female to boot (the first female appointed to her post in... well... ever... can't seem to win, hm?
Go figure.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 4:21pm
"Will demolished your personal rhetoric and asked you to support your statements - you called him a kook for it.'
Actually, will demolished himself..he IS a kook and he better hope his employers stay in business.
I am a conservative at heart and have always been on the right side of the middle stream and am moving more and more libertarian...one thing I am not, if you have read anything I have written, is a Bush Republican, I think he and his father destroyed the Reagan revolution and have been fired for it.
I do celebrate honest wealth and riches no matter who earns it as it helps us all, I just don't think Hillary, Kerry, or to a degree Edwards have done it honestly...I don't think Kennedy is a man of principle, nor most of the dems I saw in power for the last 40..You follow dems and libs as blindly as you claim the repubs follow Bush...yoiu might want to look at that..
"Two things that Republicans loathe - women and Democrats."
You write this and say I am an embarassment to myself..Jesus, ....
Why is it Republicans have appointed more women in high government seats and courts, more minoritys...or is that a lie?
I feel Pelosi is in over her head and only time will tell...I don't care if the speaker is a man or a woman..I care about substance over style..which is all it seems the dems and the MSM offer is style over substance...there is still no reason to vote for them...
ND,...are you a partisan?
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 4:47pm
I think it's curious that being a mother/grandmother/family loving woman is associated with weakness and lack of intelligence/ambition. Having raised four children, worked and supported two of them with no financial help from their father, I consider myself strong, intelligent and ambitious. I wish progressives could see that a true liberal and inclusive culture includes respect for those who chose to be mothers and who give that a priority in their lives. Nancy's decision to appear with all those kids is great! Why should she hide that part of her life or think it makes her less powerful or competent. As far as I'm concerned any woman who's raised five children succesfully is super-competent and I'd let her run the country any day.
Posted by carolynp at 01/08/2007 @ 5:04pm
Posted by CAROLYNP 01/08/2007 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person
It does seem odd that liberals/ progressives hate women who love and nuture children. The constant belittling is horrific.
Also, did anyone note that KVH must, according to all bad stereotypes of commenting with regard to women of power, comment on Pelosi's clothes? Quote "What about the woman of impeccable style (though her suit certainly fit the bill)"
That is odd. Does Hastert gain any credibility because he wears de la Renta?
KVH perpetuates the stereotypes she rails against. Maybe KVH should start a fashion column for the new speaker. Let us know if the shoes that she wears on Wednesdays are up to the task of leading the House of Reps. Maybe if she screws up something, KVH can blame it on her choice of scarves, and not ideology.
Have at it.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/08/2007 @ 5:42pm
thanks newdawn. how have you been?
Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2007 @ 5:42pm
Well what would've been a better American icon for the podium-- fake boobs, a severe botoxed plastic cut face attached to a Barbi waist/leg/torso ratio, jogging shorts w/one arm around Arnold, the other holding a bible stuffed with cash, lots more little American flags and military personnel in the background, then she'd 'preform' the twirling baton up in the air and fall down into a splits. Now we're talking IMAGE.
But kids! Why bother, where's the payoff with that? We can't be frist place with anything dealing with 'kids'... no profits. Well, maybe junkfood, but not until they're ripe enough for repub pervs or large oil corporations for use as security guards, ... otherwise yawn. Let Maasch hit them all on the head with his one tool, a stone age hammer. That'll fix it. That'll fix it all. HA.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/08/2007 @ 5:45pm
TO AMSTERDAM69,
An error on my part, old boy. AMERICAN history. Although frankly, the rest of my comment still stands. Check out our history
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/08/2007 @ 11:59am
I have, old chap -- I even graduated in American history. ;-) Never mind, though. I thought you were deliberately misquoting to score a point. Slight error in judgement. Sorry.
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 01/08/2007 @ 5:57pm
Left wing nuts are the fringe on the left, in my opinion,the kooks who are out of the steam of their own party...Here many of us consider Nasderites to fully embedded in the far left fringe, outside edge or orbit if you want...on this site the most ridiculios would be, Zero, fROMREDBIRD, WILL, DARLADOON...
and on the right, you bet,...Examples..P ROBERTSON, HAGGEY,BROWNBACK,REED,...
Does this help the perspective?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 09:52am
It does, Maasch. Thanks.
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 01/08/2007 @ 6:03pm
Since the History of this country is truly a parade of political fools and knuckleheads drenched in the blood of countless forgotten inocents, Why I ask would one worry over a single photo of finally a women elected to such a powerful position Im exstactic just that she is there. We dont know what the future of her time there will be,but I guarantee its a voice of reason when contrasted with the underhaned,selfish,greedy,thoughtless ninconpoops who have plunderd the world for the last 250 plus years. Why cant we all just get along...
Posted by worldcitizen at 01/08/2007 @ 6:04pm
thanks newdawn. how have you been?
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2007 @ 5:42pm
In my skin, for better or for worse. Miss you when you ain't around, Loki.
And as for John Maasch -
"You follow dems and libs as blindly as you claim the repubs follow Bush...yoiu might want to look at that..."
Oh, do I, really? Really, Mr. Maasch, to respond to a post that says you talk shit without anything to back it up by talking shit without anything to back it up is fucking hilarious, but no less than I expect from you. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, JOHN.
But no, perhaps I jumped the gun. Please, by all means, Mr. Maasch, prove your statement above, that I "follow dems and libs blindly".
"Two things that Republicans loathe - women and Democrats."
You write this and say I am an embarassment to myself..Jesus, ....
How is this either untrue or an embarassment to me, John?
"Why is it Republicans have appointed more women in high government seats and courts, more minoritys...or is that a lie?"
Is that true? Prove it. And if it is, are you asking my opinion why this administration has done so? If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that it is likely for political gain. God knows that almost everyone else this wWhite House has appointed has been for personal gain or for a personal favor, certainly not because thoe appointed are qualified. You have proof otherwise? Pony it up or shut up.
"I feel Pelosi is in over her head and only time will tell..."
Until then, you've got zip but your opinon, and a biased one at that.
"I don't care if the speaker is a man or a woman..."
Who knows if you're telling the truth or not?
"I care about substance over style..." Horseshit. Will's got you beat with style all day, and with substance too, for that matter, unless we're discussing how everyone in the world is trying to get into your wallet (which they aren't).
"which is all it seems the dems and the MSM offer is style over substance..."
What's your part offered the country for the last five years, John? If you argue "substance", I will laugh in your face.
"there is still no reason to vote for them..."
Name one better reason to vote for a Republiacn, since we're whitewashing with the "them" rhetoric.
"ND,...are you a partisan?"
Well, let's see.
Merriam-Webster defines "partisan" as:
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance 2 a : a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy
No, John. I am not a partisan, but you knew that. You want to argue that I am anyway? Prove it. Please elucidate for the benefit of the board what "party, faction, cause, or person" I blindly adhere to.
Good luck with that.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 6:09pm
"What's your part offered the country for the last five years, John?"
should be
"What's your party offered the country for the last five years, John?"
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 6:12pm
God, my typing was atrocious in that postabove - I'm not going to correct all of the mistakes, but take me at my word - oops!
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 6:13pm
Posted by AMSTERDAM69 01/08/2007 @ 6:03pm
very funny, amsterdam.
:)
Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2007 @ 6:14pm
It does seem odd that liberals/ progressives hate women who love and nuture children. The constant belittling is horrific...
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/08/2007 @ 5:42pm
Gee, I wonder if there was anything important in the rest of that post...
I stopped reading at the first sentence above...
And your chosen screen name is "Wall Street"! Why do I find that so devlishly amusing?
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 6:16pm
DEVILISHLY
Jesus, what is wrong with this keyboard today??? I think I may have spilled something on it...
;)
Posted by New Dawn at 01/08/2007 @ 6:17pm
"Gee, I wonder if there was anything important in the rest of that post... "
kinda like..
""Two things that Republicans loathe - women and Democrats." "
As to your proof...
O'CONNER CONDI GONZALES HUGHES POWELL MINETA MEIERS BUCKLEY
FOR STARTERS....
MAYBE YOU COULD CHECK OUT THE STATS YOURSELF....I THINK YOU WILL BE SURPRISED.
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 6:39pm
New Dawn,
"Will's got you beat with style all day,"
Style in posting is personal..substance is what matters..obviously you like his style, but his substance will get you unemployed and you will never have any wealth, muchless security.... if he happened top work for us he would be let go, unless he was making sawdust at a job site and did this extremely well,we want to hire the best in their fields and politics do not enter unless near the capital , then many things matter,so, for Will never near any decision making level involving cash .....and if you worked for WILL your economic future would be bleak indeed.
"Name one better reason to vote for a Republiacn, since we're whitewashing with the "them" rhetoric."
None today, as I have stated ad nauseum..they were fired..Dems win by default. Very simple and in 2 years we will find out if the dems will be fired..
"Who knows if you're telling the truth or not? "
Doesn't matter if I am believed or not.
"What's your part offered the country for the last five years, John"
I assume you meant party...nothing,as my party was never in power and never will be..I am for fiscal responsiblilty..something the repubs have lost and something the Dems never had and something the "progressives" don't understand.
I don't want to argue anything and don't need to prove anything to you since I am not trying to change your mind on anything...you have a right to believe what you want...I see the world from my experience and you from yours..live and let live...I didn't buy anything from Bush and I would hope you don't buy anything from Pelosi, Hillary or any Dem, but I have the feeling you already have your wallet out....
And good luck with that.
oh, yeah...for you... :)
Posted by john maasch at 01/08/2007 @ 6:56pm
Some of you people are either out of your minds, or not following the directions on the cold medication you're sucking down.
It's just a photo. Nothing more. It doesn't mean that the United States will be saved by the great liberal Pelosi. It doesn't mean that Pelosi is the "World's Greatest Mommy". It doesn't mean that women can suddenly ascend in politics despite having procreated.
It doesn't mean a damned thing, other than the fact that those kids were assembled for a photo-op.
It's just a photo. Nothing more.
It's pathetic that I even need to say this, but I'm not attacking Pelosi at all. I'm merely saying that a photo isn't going to change my feelings about her. Actions will. They speak louder than words--and photos.
Unless you've downed way too much NyQuil.
Posted by Left is Right at 01/08/2007 @ 9:32pm
and did zero already forget that pelosi supported murtha last fall?
was that cowardly of her?
Posted by darladoon at 01/08/2007 @ 11:35pm
Katrina Vanden Huevel,
YOU CAN BE DISMISSIVE OF MY WARNINGS AS SIMPLY ONE POSTER OUT OF MANY, BUT I CAN PROMISE YOU, SHOULD THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE ON THEIR PRESENT COURSE UNTIL NOVEMBER 2008, THEY WILL LOSE POWER IN THE CONGRESS AND THEY WILL LOSE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Reversion to Form
Meet the Democrats: Party of Invertebrates
By DAVE LINDORFF
Reverting to form, Democrats in Congress are cautiously trying to have it both ways so as to avoid having to take a stand on any of the issues that matter.
Faced with President Bush's own disastrous decision to go "double or nothing" on his losing Iraq War by adding another 20,000 or more troops to the front, House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid chose towrite a letter to the White House "urging" the president not to go that route.
The idea seems to be that if he goes ahead and sends the additional troops into the cauldron and things go from bad to worse, Pelosi and Reid will be able to say that they opposed the idea, while they will be immune from right-wing charges that they undermined the commander in chief, since they didn't do anything concrete to block his insane plan.
The truth is that Democrats could, if they had any principle and if they honored the wishes of the electorate, bring U.S. involvement in the Iraq War to a screeching halt. How? They could vote to cut off all funding for the Iraq War except for the costs of safely withdrawing all troops from the country. Nobody could accuse them, were they to do this, with putting American troops at risk. But they would have to face those who would accuse them of "cutting and running."
Democrats also have the votes to put an end to Bush's serial trashing of cherished civil liberties. Instead of grumbling about violations of the First and Fourth Amendment, as Democrats have been doing so ineffectively now for five years, they could simply vote to revoke the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, approved almost without objection by both houses of Congress back in September 2001 (there is no veto for resolutions). It is that resolution which Bush and his mob attorneys in the White House and "Justice" Department have been citing as justification for the president's assumption of dictatorial powers, such as the power to revoke habeas corpus rights of American citizens, the power to authorize torture and detention without trial, the power to kidnap and render people, the power to declare American citizens to be "unlawful combatants" devoid of citizenship rights, the power to invalidate duly passed acts of Congress, and the power to ignore federal laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Revoke the 2001 AUMF and the president would have no grounds, fraudulent and unconstitutional as they in any case are, to claim that the nation is in a state of war and that he, as commander in chief, is no longer constrained by the Constitution.
We don't hear any calls in Congress to revoke the AUMF though, because that would require taking a concrete and resolute stand on principle in defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and taking the heat from right wing cranks who would accuse them of being "soft on terror."
And of course there is impeachment.
On Jan. 3 and 4, most members of Congress took their oath of office for the 110th Congress. That oath pledges them to "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." If they were to take those words to heart, it's pretty clear that--given the president's blatant abuses of power and willful violation of both law and Constitution--they constitute a call to action. This is, after all, not a simply matter of lying about a blowjob; the president has already been found by a federal district judge to have violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-a felony. Moreover, a majority of the Supreme Court justices also declared last June that the president had violated both the Third Geneva Convention and the U.S. Criminal Code in authorizing and failing to prevent rampant torture of captives in the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and the so-called "war" on terror. The members of the House and Senate know full well that the president lied to them and to the American people about the reasons for the Iraq invasion, just as they are lying now about the reasons for a future war on Iran. All of these things-and the list runs much longer (check out my book, "The Case for Impeachment")-are serious threats to the Constitution, and call for impeachment.
In fact, the escalation in Iraq, with the addition of 20,000 more troops, will itself be a clear impeachable violation of the War Powers Act unless the president first obtains the approval of both houses of Congress. As constitutional attorney Francis Boyle points out, the Section 4(a)(3) of the War Powers Act states unambiguously that the act is triggered "in the absence of a declaration of war [and there has been no declaration of war in the case of the Iraq invasion], in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introducedin numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation."
So where are the bills for impeachment? The party's Grande Dame, Nancy Pelosi, still insists that "impeachment is off the table," and John Conyers, the new House Judiciary Committee chair, who knows better and who even has a new book out that outlines many of the president's Constitutional crimes, has so far buckled under to pressure from Pelosi and the rest of the party leadership, even echoing her words about impeachment being "off the table."
The Democrats, so far, are proving yet again that they have become a party devoid of principle, without spine and without conscience.
One thing is certain: If the Democrats, having control of both House and Senate, fail to act on these three critical issues-ending the war, revoking the president's claim to dictatorial powers, and initiating impeachment proceedings-they will have sealed their fate come 2008 as an anachronism, not a party, and will deserve to be abandoned by all thinking voters.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 11:51pm
I agree with your Father and your male friends, who see it as a healing. I see it as wholistic. The Native American societies were Matriarchal. Those Women didn't compromise their power by raising babies and growing vegetables!.................................................. I was in the front wave of liberated women, raising two children, without child support, (law of the land didn't jail Fathers who escaped that responsibility back then) I painted murals and part of my sales appeal was my independance and free spirit, while my clients were stay at home wives and Mothers. I've observed that some of the more recent liberated women seem to have given up something precious in exchange for their advancement. Some female CEOs I've encountered, are as steely eyed and hardened as the male predecessors they are competing with. It's not about bipartisanship; it's about balance, and Nancy Pelosi understands that from the toes up!
Posted by rucognizant at 01/09/2007 @ 12:02am
Posted by RUCOGNIZANT 01/09/2007 @ 12:02am
If you would, please read "The Myth of the Matriarchal Pre-history" by Cynthia Eller. Mormanism has a firmer basis than this ol' 70s feminist fable!
to order [amazon.com]
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2007 @ 09:19am
it was just a photo-op. PR...
form over substance...
now that thats over, substance...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/09/2007 @ 09:54am
please...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/09/2007 @ 09:54am
I had no issue with the photograph. If anything, it sent a message like this: Now, rest assured, the legislature is controlled by a party, and being led by a woman, who cares about the next generation. No longer is legislation about me, me, me. Its about them. Them. Our children.
And we're supposed to believe the message, because look, the new speaker actually knows how to handle a child. The kids are well-behaved, well-dressed, and in general look like a bright future Frankly, I don't know if the message is true, but as a message it ain't bad.
Posted by lshape at 01/09/2007 @ 11:39am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 6:56pm
Fair enough, John. To each his own.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/09/2007 @ 11:45am
.Dems win by default.
that's why the ballot had only repub names on it, right?
biggest piece of horseshit, and that's not easy, considering the source.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/09/2007 @ 1:06pm
The campagain promises of 100 hours and the list printed by KVH..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 09:45am
So you can't list them can you? But you're sure they won't get through the senate.
And a maasch, Katrinas list is katrinas list... not pelosi's
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2007 @ 6:10pm
If you are bobbing around, then you are no where near the main stream or any stream..you are backwatered.. try getting INTO the flow of the middle and out of the same old sociaslistic horseshit. You should be able to recognized when an old car is painted a different color, but it is still an old car...YOU figure out the goals of the Madame speaker and see if it will get through the Senate, much less the mainstream...
Feel free to be funny.....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/08/2007 @ 09:45am
interesting set of mixed metaphors. Exactly how do you drive while submerged?
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2007 @ 6:13pm