As Pelosi moves into power, S.F. to stand in spotlight (Edward Epstein, November 11, 2006, SF Chronicle)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her city, San Francisco, rose to the top of the congressional political heap this week.

Pelosi’s impending elevation by her fellow Democrats to the post of House speaker, a first for women and for a Californian that will become official in January, already is generating national and international attention for the city. It might also mean more federal dollars from congressional appropriators who inevitably look favorably on projects from the speaker’s home district, even if he or she doesn’t overtly push for them.

But analysts said Pelosi’s rise will do nothing to quiet the loud conservative critics of San Francisco liberalism and the “San Francisco values” they scorn. If anything, Pelosi’s prominence as speaker might intensify the criticism and make the overwhelmingly Democratic city an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

One of the most basic projects in front of Rove and company is getting her name recognition up over 10% and making her the face of the Democratic Party.



  1. Bryan says:

    That’s probably one of the reasons why Bush had her over for that little make-out session the other day.

  2. AWW says:

    After Tuesday do you think anybody will follow Bush and Rove’s political stratergies anymore?

  3. Orrin says:

    Of course they will. They win.

  4. AWW says:

    They didn’t Tuesday

  5. Grover says:

    So is this new website a clever way for the brothersjudd crew to hide in their shame
    from all being such lousy predictors of the midterm elections?

  6. Raoul Ortega says:

    Gotta love those on the Left. Such gracious, classy winners.

  7. Orrin says:

    They weren’t on the ballot. W would have won easily. Note that Jeb had no problem handing FL on to his successor.

  8. AWW says:

    Bush wasn’t on the ballot? Technically yes but almost every Dem ran as the anti-Bush. Casey and
    and Cardin were the best examples.

    My point was that Rove and Bush were supposed to be these political geniuses able to get victories
    when it didn’t appear they could. This election cycle the GOP couldn’t get out the message on the
    strong economy, couldn’t get over the corruption issue, couldn’t get people to focus on
    national defense (where GOP does better) than on Iraq (GOP does much worse), and finally the
    vaunted GOTV (which everyone thought made the polls useless) didn’t occur. Not everything was
    Rove’s fault (the 10+ House seats lost due to corruption, the poor Senate recruiting, the inept
    campaigns run by Burns and Allen) but as the political director he should have done better.
    Specifically, with the House and Senate leadership they should have forced votes on issues like
    taxes, spending, national defense, and judges to highlight the differences for voters to see
    instead of relying on wedge issues like flag burning and gay marriage.

    Finally, as for Jeb Florida is a red state where a competent GOPer should win statewide. Even Harris,
    with earlier support and more money could have at least made it a race. It is too bad that Jeb’s
    future political status will be dragged down by the end of W’s term.

  9. Orrin says:

    Because W wasn’t on the ballot. This is what it looks like when the GOP runs as classic conservatives.

  10. Sandy P says:

    They haven’t been able to get their message out for as long as I can remember, the only
    way is to have a Ronnie and that ain’t going to happen for decades if not longer.

  11. jim hamlen says:

    “Classic conservatives”?

    More like tired old whiners. Or grubby porkers. Or conflicted princes & princesses.

    Two years ago, Bush said he earned political capital. Then, almost from the moment after his inaugural, he sat on it.
    So it eroded (which should have been no surprise to anyone, given the media environment). The President has always had
    prickly relationahips on the Hill, but his ‘agenda’ for the 2nd term (entitlement reform, judges, and making the tax
    cuts permanent, along with the war issues) depended on leading the bigger majority he won. He did nothing with it.
    His unwillingness to crack the whip (or to crack Frist and Hastert) is a large part of why Tuesday happened.

    And of course the GOP Congress-critters acted like they were above it all – not realizing that with a larger majority,
    they faced more hatred from the Left and more expectations from their supporters. Somebody was quoted on InstaPundit
    as saying that the election could be summed up this way: “Both parties spent this election running away from their
    base”. We now know what that means. Somebody else theorized that the Perot vote (whatever that is) went to the Dems
    this time. Of course, many on the Right kept saying (of the Dems) “you can’t beat something with nothing”. The problem
    for the GOP is that they actually had ‘nothing’ themselves. They should have been doing more on the job, and working
    like heck to communicate better. I know OJ says a lot got through (somewhat true), but the appearance of ineptitude
    became the elephant in the living room (for the Right) and the vulnerability exploited by the Left (and the media).

    It is true that in raw numbers, not much changed (with a switch of 60,000 votes or so, the GOP would have kept the
    House, and we saw how close the vote was in MT, MI, and VA for the Senate). Allen and Burns should have done much
    better (and Burns probably should have retired). And many of the victims in the House ignored all the warnings
    about the difficulties this year (I read that Jim Leach in Iowa didn’t even advertise, and several refused to
    run negative ads until a week or two before the election). More worrisome, though, is the shrinking picture on the map.
    Absent Tom DeLay’s work in TX, the GOP wouild have lost House seats in 2004, and the seats the party is losing in the
    Northeast aren’t coming back (whassup with NH?).

    I agree McCain can win big in 2008, but can he carry Congress? If he doesn’t, he will govern even worse than Nixon did.

  12. Orrin says:

    That’s what classic conservatives are.

    Bush held and increased Congress with votes of 49% & 53% McCain’s first term 56$ will bring a wide enough margin to actually get some things done, though the Senate will be narrow enough they’ll have to dump the filibuster.

  13. jim hamlen says:

    Even if McCain wins 56%, it is unlikely the GOP will get to 55 seats in the Senate. The word ‘squander’ comes to mind, no?

    It will be sweet indeed if President McCain is forced to request the demise of the filibuster. And what if he has only 51 Republican seats? Not
    enough to do it. Why should the GOP “Gang” feel any differently now? Snowe was just re-elected, and DeWine’s defeat isn’t going to scare
    anyone else to change. It is also sweet to note that you have changed your view. ‘Bout time.

    Sure, whining and pouting are symptoms of ‘classic’ conservatives. But only those caught between the country club, their lobbyists, and
    their b**** sessions.

    Unfortunately, these types predominated from 2004-2006 (Voinovich, McCain, Liddy Dole, Hastert, Roy Blunt, Jerry Lewis and the GOP
    appropriators, John Warner, Lindsay Graham, et al.).

  14. Orrin says:

    Yes, they have to wait a couple cycles to have a shot at 60 again, which is why the filibuster has to go, but 58 House seats in districts that W carried are now Democrat. The landslide is built in there for ’08.

%d bloggers like this: