Posted on 03/28/2008 8:39:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
RNC deputy chairman demands apology from Dean
The Hill | 3/28/08 | Alexander Bolton
Posted on 03/28/2008 7:36:22 PM PDT by Jean S
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1993444/posts
Aw geez. You’re right. It’s late and that photo of the “young Pelosi” damaged my brain!
Who is that???
Pelosi... those eyes... the EYES... agh!
"Busted" in less than 12 hours.
FRee Republic knows *everything*.
Cheers!
She is afraid that Hitlary will beat her out in the power department. I love cat fights!
Politicians such as Pelosi receive the financial support and backing from the very unions she is speaking of.
Her hypocrisy and rebuke of Arnold and McCain (even if one does not like them) is unbelievable. She is defending the teachers union and public education when I believe her own children were given a private education.
Pelosi needs to go back to Washington and mind her own business and House.
Congress has very low approval ratings under her dismal leadership.
Hey, Nancy, A New Direction for America? Not.
Can you believe Mario Lopez cheated on her the night before they got married? WHAT A FOOL!!
...no way that’s Pelosi...
Oh, give me a break. There were EIGHT proposals on the ballot for that "special election", only ONE of which dealt with the teacher unions. Half of the measures that got on the ballot were touchy-feely liberal crap that rightly deserved to be defeated. By your logic, Pelosi is defending free markets for electricity and opposition to big government handouts on prescription drugs since electric regulation and drug rebates went down to defeat as well.
Calcowgirl studied these measures in detail and came to the conclusion that only three were solid proposals that wound guarantee good reforms (the proposals on teachers unions being one of the three)
Face it, GoldieLurks, many of Arnold's "reforms" were badly-written, ill-conceived "bipartisan" garbage that was rushed out to the electorate in a poor-timed, needless "special election" that accomplished nothing but waste taxpayer money. The few initiatives that were actually worth supporting could have been passed WITHOUT wasting taxpayers money if Arnold had simply put them on a ballot during a REGULAR election and actually campaigned for the scary right-wing stuff like parental notification.
Arnie should have never wasted his time on that "special election" in the first place and he got a public spanking for doing so. Everyone in California seems to realize this in hindsight except you. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and Nancy is right that the "special election" was a bad idea from the start and McCain erred in getting aboard the S.S. Arnie-tatic for this one.
Actually, only the parental notification was really a good proposition. The teachers’ tenure was one of those “can’t hurt” measures, but had a lot of weaknesses. The union contribution measure had a huge loophole and wouldn’t have done much in the long term. I voted for those three and against the rest.
Good analysis in #18, btw.
Amazing how many freepers here are having a knee-jerk reaction to Pelosi and still defending Arnie's "special election" after it clearly blew up in his face and every measure went down to defeat (though the parental notification stuff would have probably passed, had Arnold lifted a finger to campaign for it)
I don't see why freepers agree with Arnie Schwartzekennedy that taxpayer money needed to be wasted on an IMMEDIATE election when the same reforms could be enacted WITHOUT wasting additional tax money during a regular election. It's now 2008 -- would it have really made a difference in Arnie's career if teacher's tenure was limited in 2006 instead of 2005? Makes me question how many people here are truly "fiscal conservatives" Of course, many of these are the same freepers who relentlessly attacked Huckabee for being a "nanny stater" and then turned around and backed Rudy "Gun Control" Giuliani or Mitt "Hillarycare" Romney.
I'd like to know just how many millions of dollars were wasted on Arnie's "Special Election" that did nothing.
Q: How much will the special election cost?
Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has estimated the [2005 special] election will cost between $44.6 million and $80 million. The lower figure, released Friday, is derived from the cost of holding a November election in counties where one was not previously scheduled, whereas the higher figure includes the cost of holding elections in all counties. <<
Gotta hand it to "fiscal conservative" Arnold. I'm sure there was some really really important reason, unbeknownst to me, that justified pouring $80 million of taxpayer's money into a "special election" that changed absolutely nothing in the state of California. I mean the state has plenty of money just lying around to burn, right? There must be some matter of grave importance that required Arnie to blow $80 million on this when he could have submitted the same measures on the ballot free of cost a few months later in 2006's regularly scheduled statewide elections.
Shame on Nancy Pelosi for criticizing RINOld here, eh?
Freepers know *everything*.
Cheers!
I am so effin' speechless.
Cheers!
Did not say I agreed with Arnold or McCain?
Have a tendency not to agree/side with Syriana Nancy when she is a speaker at a Dem. fundraiser with Bill Clinton where she voices her support for the liberal led teachers union.
CTA is the most powerful union in the state of CA and they actively work against any Conservative or Republican with their wad of cash they collect from membership dues.
Pelosi like so many other liberals support the teachers union but enroll their children own children in private schools.
You see no hypocrisy in her actions?
You either agree with Nancy Pelosi that it was a colossal mistake that wasted taxpayers money and accomplished nothing, or you agree with RINOld and McCain that there was some immediate urgent matter that required them spent $80 million of taxpayers money to present all these measures, and that they were great, sound ideas that votes should have enacted en masse.
Like many mootbats, Pelosi is a screwy communist nut on about 95% of the issues, and takes the right side the other 5% of the time. This is one of the times she was right and the freepers getting on Arnie/McCain's bandwagon at the time were wrong. The "special election" was a poorly conceived idea, and its proposals weren't all that great. It should not have gone forward in November 2005 and was a waste of valuable time and money.
I said so at the time , when the consesus on FR was overwhemingly in favor of Arnie's "special election", and my comments were dismissed during the Arnie love fest. You'd think in hindsight, freepers would realize that spending $80 million in Nov. 2005 and having nothing to show for it afterwards was a bad idea, but it seems alot of people here are still hellbent on defending Arnie's folly because Pelosi opposed it.
Now as to the specific issue of teacher's tenure (Prop. 74), Pelosi said absolutely nothing about it in her remarks attacking McCain. As such, I see nothing "hypocritical" about her statements since she didn't address the issue at all. She might have directly addressed it at the time (3 years ago), and opposed it being enacted. I would disagree with Pelosi on that teacher's tenure, but as Calcowgirl said, "The teachers’ tenure was one of those “can’t hurt” measures, but had a lot of weaknesses." It was quite clear that those Prop's weren't throughly vetted and were presented to the voters prematurely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.