She is widely credited with marshalling the passage of former President Barack Obama's signature healthcare legislation, as well as bills to address infrastructure and climate change under incumbent President Joe Biden.
Her big claim to fame...
Getting republicans to vote for a more conservative healthcare plan than what the Republican candidate for president wanted to pass if he had won.
It's fucking disgusting moderates still act like that was the finish line over a decade later and oppose any more improvement to it, while demanding we call them progressive for it.
Although, once you're in your 70s, a decade probably feels like two weeks. Time flies when age related mental decline stops you from noticing the passage of time.
Hey, they had to get rid of the public option part and gut the bill to get some republican support! Ignore the fact that it was still passed entirely from a down party lines vote with zero republican support. They had to make it a shitty gutted bill for some reason. It was such an accomplishment forcing everyone to get healthcare from multi billion dollar companies with fat profit margins.
They had to get rid of the public option to get enough Democratic support to pass.
It was not a party line vote, 34 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting No. It squeaked through the House, 219-212.
So, what you are saying, is that Democrats are extremely bad at getting their own party members to vote in line with what their voters want them to accomplish? Sounds about right.
"Getting their own party members" to vote for something is not as easy as you think. Just ask the current majority leader how easy it is to push around his "Freedom Caucus".
And the public option was not killed in the House. It was killed by Joe Lieberman, who was not even a Democrat any more. But he was the 60th Senate vote, he was opposed to it, and nobody - not even you - could have changed his mind. Consider that his final "F*** you" to his former party. So you can blame the people of Vermont for that, not Pelosi.
This could perhaps be excused if it was a one-off freak happenstance, but with Manchin and Sinema, it's obvious that the ol' switcharoo is intentional.
Manchin, Sinema, Boebert, McCain, Lieberman, and many others all serve to demonstrate that you shouldn't expect party members to vote together all of the time. Even if everyone in that list voted with their party >90% of the time.
It's not a "switcharoo", it's baked into a system in which representatives are ultimately chosen by constituents, not by party leaders. If anything, Congress was originally intended not to have longstanding parties or factions. It was originally intended for everyone to be like Manchin and Sinema. So like it or not, lack of party discipline is a feature not a bug.
Yet the republican party has no trouble keeping their dogs in line.
Are you kidding?
McCarthy is constantly trying to keep Gaetz, Boebert et al from forcing him out as Speaker. He wishes his caucus was as unified as the Democrats. As their leader, Pelosi watched Republicans turn against Hastert, then Boehner, then Ryan.
Reid kept his caucus of 60 together to pass the ACA, McConnell couldn't keep 50 together to repeal it.
Trump was constantly squabbling and calling out the Republican Congressional leadership. By comparison, Biden is best friends with the Democratic leadership.
The only thing the Congressional GOP is good at is obstruction, because that doesn't require any coordination. That's why they rely on the SCOTUS to actually advance their agenda.
Party squabbles mean little when ultimately they're getting their way. If anything, those squabbles push the republican party even more to the right and gets them even more of what they want. Passing the ACA was the best that the democrats could do with a super majority and even then it was a watered down bill.
But they aren't getting the legislation they want.
They failed to privatize Social Security, failed to repeal the ACA, failed to build a southern wall, etc.
In contrast, Democrats passed the ACA, passed Dodd-Frank, passed ARPA, passed the IRA, passed CHIP, etc.
Republicans only look successful because they had to drastically lower their bar for success. They don't want to pass laws any more, so it's easy to get what they want.
It's pretty obvious where the country is heading. You can pick and choose legislation, but the trajectory is clear. Also, things like ACA and Dodd-Frank were watered down trash. CHIPS was bipartisan because it was meant to stick it to China, but you're trying to rebrand it as a democratic victory.
Politics always involves compromise. ACA and Dodd-Frank were improvements on the status quo, which is usually the best you can hope for. They do not need to be perfect to be good.
CHIPS was a typo. I meant to cite CHIP, which provides health care to children, not CHIPS.
Her big claim to fame...
Getting republicans to vote for a more conservative healthcare plan than what the Republican candidate for president wanted to pass if he had won.
It's fucking disgusting moderates still act like that was the finish line over a decade later and oppose any more improvement to it, while demanding we call them progressive for it.
Although, once you're in your 70s, a decade probably feels like two weeks. Time flies when age related mental decline stops you from noticing the passage of time.
Hey, they had to get rid of the public option part and gut the bill to get some republican support! Ignore the fact that it was still passed entirely from a down party lines vote with zero republican support. They had to make it a shitty gutted bill for some reason. It was such an accomplishment forcing everyone to get healthcare from multi billion dollar companies with fat profit margins.
They had to get rid of the public option to get enough Democratic support to pass.
It was not a party line vote, 34 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting No. It squeaked through the House, 219-212.
So, what you are saying, is that Democrats are extremely bad at getting their own party members to vote in line with what their voters want them to accomplish? Sounds about right.
"Getting their own party members" to vote for something is not as easy as you think. Just ask the current majority leader how easy it is to push around his "Freedom Caucus".
And the public option was not killed in the House. It was killed by Joe Lieberman, who was not even a Democrat any more. But he was the 60th Senate vote, he was opposed to it, and nobody - not even you - could have changed his mind. Consider that his final "F*** you" to his former party. So you can blame the people of Vermont for that, not Pelosi.
This could perhaps be excused if it was a one-off freak happenstance, but with Manchin and Sinema, it's obvious that the ol' switcharoo is intentional.
Manchin, Sinema, Boebert, McCain, Lieberman, and many others all serve to demonstrate that you shouldn't expect party members to vote together all of the time. Even if everyone in that list voted with their party >90% of the time.
It's not a "switcharoo", it's baked into a system in which representatives are ultimately chosen by constituents, not by party leaders. If anything, Congress was originally intended not to have longstanding parties or factions. It was originally intended for everyone to be like Manchin and Sinema. So like it or not, lack of party discipline is a feature not a bug.
Yet the republican party has no trouble keeping their dogs in line.
Are you kidding?
McCarthy is constantly trying to keep Gaetz, Boebert et al from forcing him out as Speaker. He wishes his caucus was as unified as the Democrats. As their leader, Pelosi watched Republicans turn against Hastert, then Boehner, then Ryan.
Reid kept his caucus of 60 together to pass the ACA, McConnell couldn't keep 50 together to repeal it.
Trump was constantly squabbling and calling out the Republican Congressional leadership. By comparison, Biden is best friends with the Democratic leadership.
The only thing the Congressional GOP is good at is obstruction, because that doesn't require any coordination. That's why they rely on the SCOTUS to actually advance their agenda.
Party squabbles mean little when ultimately they're getting their way. If anything, those squabbles push the republican party even more to the right and gets them even more of what they want. Passing the ACA was the best that the democrats could do with a super majority and even then it was a watered down bill.
But they aren't getting the legislation they want.
They failed to privatize Social Security, failed to repeal the ACA, failed to build a southern wall, etc.
In contrast, Democrats passed the ACA, passed Dodd-Frank, passed ARPA, passed the IRA, passed CHIP, etc.
Republicans only look successful because they had to drastically lower their bar for success. They don't want to pass laws any more, so it's easy to get what they want.
It's pretty obvious where the country is heading. You can pick and choose legislation, but the trajectory is clear. Also, things like ACA and Dodd-Frank were watered down trash. CHIPS was bipartisan because it was meant to stick it to China, but you're trying to rebrand it as a democratic victory.
Politics always involves compromise. ACA and Dodd-Frank were improvements on the status quo, which is usually the best you can hope for. They do not need to be perfect to be good.
CHIPS was a typo. I meant to cite CHIP, which provides health care to children, not CHIPS.
No Republicans voted for it.
In fact, she had to work to get Democrats to vote for it. It passed the House 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all the Republicans voting No.
That was the joke...