Nancy Pelosi - The Woman You Love to Hate

Nancy Pelosi is one of those public figures that you either love or hate. Some say she has been the female force that has moved President Obama's political agenda. Those to the far left, adore her. Others ... not so much. She has been the poster child for much criticism from the right for at least the past 4 years and prior to the mid-term elections, it was reported that Republicans spent the majority of a whopping $65 million + in attack ads against her. Conservatives have stopped at nothing short of painting Nancy Pelosi as the portrait of the Devil in a Blue tailored dress.

We've all heard references made to what Republicans describe as the "infamous" Obama-Pelosi-Reid triune; but, even more recently, Nancy Pelosi has been made the proverbial "whipping boy" for the Left, in the wake of the recent Democratic defeat in the House. Despite all of the odds against her; she has managed to escape the political "shellacking", fairly, or might I say, contestably, unscathed, by being re-elected by a margin of 150-43, as House Minority Leader for 2011.



Courtesy of Alex Wong/Getty Images N.A.


Why is it that Nancy Pelosi, after more than 20 years of public service, is still able to draw the kind of support she has garnered, even now, from the liberal Left, while simultaneously, evoking so much contempt and disdain from the Right?

Pelosi, arguably, has a pretty impressive track record.  A huge advocate of investments in health research, she has doubled the budget for funding for the National Institutes of Health. She's fought for the Housing Opportunities for People with Aids Program; worked to expedite the development of an HIV vaccine; increased access to Medicaid, and expanded funding for the Ryan White Care Act, along with other programs to aid people living with HIV/Aids. She has also helped pass legislation for nonprofits to assist in creating affordable housing. Nancy Pelosi demands timely and accurate intelligence; navigating diplomatic initiatives for the protection of our military forces. She's fought for greater focus on the threat of proliferation associated with the WMD.  She has fought for human rights for individuals in China and Tibet. In addition, Pelosi has a strong voice when it comes to environmental issues. She achieved passage of a provision that requires that the World Bank and all regional multilateral development banks, check the potential environmental impacts of development, while making this information known publicly.

Some of the accomplishments Nancy Pelosi is more commonly noted for are: Health Insurance Reform Legislation; the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act; the Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act and the American Clean Energy and the Security Act.

Nancy Pelosi has dared to "boldly go where no [woman] has gone before".  In 2002, she was the first woman in U.S. history to be elected as House Minority Whip; in 2003, she became House Minority Leader and the 1st woman to lead a major party in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a bit of a bizarre irony, Pelosi actually defeated John Boehner in 2006, for Speaker of the House; again, branding her as the first woman to ever hold the Speakership and 2nd in the line of presidential succession.  She was re-elected again as Speaker in 2009 and prior to the last election, Nancy Pelosi was the highest-ranking female politician in American history.

Courtesy of Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As the saying (sort of) goes; with much power, comes much responsibility (and great criticism); perhaps, explaining why Pelosi has, increasingly, come under such political fire over the years.

Nancy Pelosi has stood steadfast on many issues that, even in the court of public opinion, may not have been the most popular choice.  It's that unrelenting drive, that has been one of the things that has catapulted her to the height at which she stands today. She has courageously moved President Obama's agenda on health care, and as a result, Americans witnessed one of the most historic pieces of healthcare legislation since the 1960's, become a reality. Pelosi has, indeed, displayed uncanny, political prowess.  She has raised millions upon millions of dollars for the Democratic party and, according to President Obama, has "... fought Republican attempts to privatize Social Security, and heroically taken on the powerful special interests".

Sure, if this were a popularity contest-she'd most certainly be one of the biggest losers. But, ultimately, we don't elect our politicians based on whether they'd win a popularity contest; though some would probably come pretty close. They are elected to serve the American people and help create solutions to the issues that matter most to us.

One might suspect, that even though some on the Left and, most obviously, on the Right, believe that in choosing to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader, Democrats may have handed Republicans their heads on a platter. Pelosi's record strongly credits the fact that she is the one that can get the job done; especially in an environment in the House where Dems are now in the political minority.  Love her or hate her-you have to respect her, if not for her stance on the issues, for that inherent tenacity she continues to, so arduously, display.

Republican Pledge To America-Fact or Farse?

The Republican Pledge to America; some social conservatives say it’s an “impressive step beyond the 1994 GOP "Contract with America.” Other conservative commentators call it “light on substance and short on promises…”. The GOP has stepped out of the shadows and, partly, in anticipation of the upcoming mid-term elections, is pledging a “new governing agenda for America”. Sound familiar? It should; because it is a revamped and renewed version of the Republican “Contract With America”. But just how well does the GOP successor stack up to its predecessor counterpart? Is the Republican Pledge a realistic set of conservative goals or just a 21-page document filled with hollow promises and empty rhetoric?

In government–if It sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Even with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President-Obama wasn’t able to easily do a number of the things promised during the 2008 campaign. How do Republicans propose to push their agenda through both the House and the Senate, without any objections? Just the mantra of governing “differently than past congresses of both parties” seems a bit curious. The details regarding the shortcomings of the current healthcare law (and other policies) tell us that the process of creating law is not so cut and dry. One of the messages that the Republicans made clear through their Pledge, is that promises can be made that sound exactly like what we want to hear, but fall short because of the bureaucratic red tape. If this is indeed, the case, how can we expect anything different with a Republican majority? It seems they are campaigning by utilizing the same verbiage that was used by President Obama in 2008. According to the GOP, “Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works, and we are fighting to bring much needed sun-light to the process…” “We now propose changing the way congress works once and for all, so that the will of the people can be heard and the best ideas can trump the most vested interests.” “The top-down way of governing is out-dated and just plain backwards.” “Change begins at home.”

One’s initial reaction to the “Contract With America”, could be that in 1994, “things seemed so much simplier back then”. Upon further scrutiny, the Contract was, in fact, presented in a very detailed and precise manner, addressing many social issues; which made it more palatable than its successor; though a bit lighter on the moral issues.

However, the more mature and politically saavy we became, the more intense and complex the issues became, the more sophisticated (and perhaps even cynical) the rhetoric. On the other hand, there was something eerily similar about the two documents, in regards to the GOP’s intent to turn things around in Washington. The introduction to the Contract claimed that Republican members would transform the way congress works, end big government and respect the values of the people. It also claimed it would “restore accountability to Congress” and put an end to the “...cycle of scandal and disgrace.”

Both the Pledge and the Contract talk about enacting some form of a budget cap and reducing the deficit. In terms of social and entitlement programs, the Contract speaks in great detail about reforming welfare and establishing work programs; about allowing seniors to earn money without affecting their benefits and reducing the percentage of benefits being taxed, while its successor barely touches the subject of social security. The Pledge does mention that it will require more oversight of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Both the Contract and the Pledge call for (restoration of ) funding of an antiballistic missile system to protect against the threat of an (Iranian) ballistic missile attack, greater resources for defense spending and troop funding, and enforcing Illegal immigration laws or strengthening laws that penalize deported aliens upon reentering the U.S.

Both predecessor and successor call for tax deductions for small businesses on a percentage of its business income; some form of congressional or peer review board to assess new federal regulation and regulatory impact analysis, repealing or capping of some small business mandates, medical liability reform, balancing the budget and reducing the federal debt.

The Contract calls for an anti-crime package, which goes into great detail regarding death penalty litigation procedures, mandatory restitution of victims of crimes, abusive prisoner lawsuits, (effective) death penalties, a criminal alien tracking center, etc. It talks about strengthening the rights of parents, tax credits for the in-home care of another person and stronger laws against the prostitution of children and sexual abuse of minors. It proposes providing a child tax credit, repealing the marriage tax penalty and limiting the tenure of federal legislators.

In contrast, The Pledge calls for ending government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the requirement of the government to end to out-dated programs, replacement of the new Healthcare Law, terrorists to be tried in military tribunals, responsibility of any retaliation efforts by foreign terrorists released from Gitmo Bay, to be taken by President Obama; aggressive sanctions against Iran, operational control of the border, ending of “must-pass” legislation and the opportunity for all lawmakers to offer amendments to reduce spending.

It seems that although the GOP has outlined its future plans for America, many questions are left lingering in the minds of the people: with many of the changes they seek to enact, will the GOP look to reach across the isle? What are the long-term affects of their agenda? How will it affect the middle-class? The question then becomes: How much time are Republicans giving themselves to accomplish the things they plan to carry out-like repealing/replacing healthcare?

On the subject of healthcare; if it has taken almost a century for the reformation of healthcare-how does the GOP manage to rewrite the law that has been recently passed? Will it be something that they plan to work with the Dems on or will it also be viewed as the GOP cramming their version of healthcare down the throats of many Americans that don’t agree with their agenda? What will that ACTUALLY look like and will it require bipartisan support to pass? Will we be forced to go back to the same broken system that we had before? On the issue of ensuring access to healthcare for patients with pre-existing conditions – that’s already been done under Obama’s plan. How is that replacing it?

Have we made any concrete decisions about the release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay? If these prisoners were to ever engage in any terrorists activities in the U.S., how would we hold Obama responsible? What would that look like and are there any other real solutions to Gitmo Bay?

How will the GOP force sanctions against the Iranians, when we are a part of a counsel within the U.N., which requires more that just the U.S. to be in agreement on any kind of sanctions against Iran and North Korea?

And for trying terrorists in a military court as opposed to civilian court, statistically, what is the difference and how will it affect the outcome of the trial? If it were that cut and dry, as some conservatives seem to believe, would there even be the need for the discussion/protests we seem to be having in America today?

Courtesy of AP/Charles Dharapak

While the GOP has made an industrious effort to address many of the issues that we face in our country, the reconstructed version of the 1994 “Contract With America”, has brought about more questions than it actually answers. Can we fully trust that the promises put forth in the Pledge, are just that? How successful was the Republican Contract in fulfilling the promises it decreed?

While no one plan will be the solution to all that ails our country; perhaps the answers might just lie in the alliance and strength of the American people standing together as one, to confront the problems that are before us. Until we grasp that concept, we may, very well, do more to divide, than we will to succeed.