Yeah, decades of effectively soliciting bribes in exchange for being one of the most pro-corporate democrats in all of California and that’s saying a LOT in the neoliberal utopia of Hollywood, a huge chunk of the music industry and Silicon Valley.
co-authoring legislation in the late 80s concerning the AIDs crisis.
So was many other experienced democrats who didn’t pander to the rich as effectively as the queen of fundraising.
No matter how little you like admitting it, that WAS the only way in which she excelled over other prospective candidates for minority leader and then Speaker.
So now we’re saying she actually did have both signficant political and legislative experience, but won because of a penchant for fundraising. Which is something you see as soliciting bribes. That’s a fair interpretation.
From your original comment:
That’s how Pelosi became Speaker in the first place in spite of having no legislative accomplishments to speak of nor seniority: she was simply the best at collecting fat checks from rich people and their corporations.
My gripe is why invent this idea that her taking a bunch of bribes and being good at soliciting more is the sole reason they made her speaker, with no other qualifications? She had held prominent positions within the party for a while (decades), and was minority whip (second in command essentially) for some time prior to becoming Leader/Speaker. She was minority leader when Dems took the house, which automatically makes her a major contender for the position and she was comparable to her opponents on the whole. A cursory search of her career casts a ton of doubt on your claims, and they’re obviously flawed to someone who lived through that time.
Getting caught up in bashing Pelosi waters down the legit criticism you have, and makes your viewpoint seem biased. We should be upset that her penchant for fundraising is such an asset, not that she was good at it in the first place.
Yeah, decades of effectively soliciting bribes in exchange for being one of the most pro-corporate democrats in all of California and that’s saying a LOT in the neoliberal utopia of Hollywood, a huge chunk of the music industry and Silicon Valley.
So was many other experienced democrats who didn’t pander to the rich as effectively as the queen of fundraising.
No matter how little you like admitting it, that WAS the only way in which she excelled over other prospective candidates for minority leader and then Speaker.
So now we’re saying she actually did have both signficant political and legislative experience, but won because of a penchant for fundraising. Which is something you see as soliciting bribes. That’s a fair interpretation.
From your original comment:
My gripe is why invent this idea that her taking a bunch of bribes and being good at soliciting more is the sole reason they made her speaker, with no other qualifications? She had held prominent positions within the party for a while (decades), and was minority whip (second in command essentially) for some time prior to becoming Leader/Speaker. She was minority leader when Dems took the house, which automatically makes her a major contender for the position and she was comparable to her opponents on the whole. A cursory search of her career casts a ton of doubt on your claims, and they’re obviously flawed to someone who lived through that time.
Getting caught up in bashing Pelosi waters down the legit criticism you have, and makes your viewpoint seem biased. We should be upset that her penchant for fundraising is such an asset, not that she was good at it in the first place.