4 ms·

Even though this didn't pass, it's still bad for Pelosi. If you're minority leader and you don't even manage to get half of your party to vote against an amend

Even though this didn't pass, it's still bad for Pelosi. If you're minority leader and you don't even manage to get half of your party to vote against an amendment introduced by a republican, despite extensive lobbying, what good are you? There has to be at least one tech industry person with beaucoup bucks and an interest in politics that can take on Pelosi. Every Democrat insider would oppose a primary challenge, but I can imagine a scenario where someone with a lot of resources could bypass the establishment and speak directly to voters. Jerry Yang comes to mind. He could perhaps even mobilize the Taiwanese population in SF.

rdl 13y ago
I think the catch-22 is that you'd need a lot of money to run outside of the political system, but SF voters are anti-capitalist (at least, a fair number are) and wouldn't elect a rich person. Of course, Pelosi has $58mm, but she didn't earn it through something big and impressive, but through normal sketchy congressional investment dealings.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I think the catch-22 is that you'd need a lot of money to run outside of the political system, but SF voters are anti-capitalist (at least, a fair number are) and wouldn't elect a rich person. San Francisco has a history of electing wealthy people to public office. Reality disagrees with your stereotypes.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Her husband is a businessman that owns a real estate firm.
  - rdl 13y ago
    She made a lot of money from various non-public stock deals, such as Visa, which were pretty shady. A lot of people in congress do. Marital wealth is less "obvious" to voters. Voting in a person who actually made a bunch of money through business is much more overt. Inherited wealth is also safe by comparison.
hillbilly1980 13y ago
Oh my god. So every thing that a republican introduces defacto must be defeated by the democrat? This is exactly what's wrong with your so called democracy. The house it too big and the egos can't rise enough to engender real debate, so the debate moves to a hidden back rooms of a few key power brokers polarized to clear opposites. What a broken system of thought and argument.

rdl 13y ago

I think the catch-22 is that you'd need a lot of money to run outside of the political system, but SF voters are anti-capitalist (at least, a fair number are) and wouldn't elect a rich person. Of course, Pelosi has $58mm, but she didn't earn it through something big and impressive, but through normal sketchy congressional investment dealings.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I think the catch-22 is that you'd need a lot of money to run outside of the political system, but SF voters are anti-capitalist (at least, a fair number are) and wouldn't elect a rich person. San Francisco has a history of electing wealthy people to public office. Reality disagrees with your stereotypes.
rayiner 13y ago
Her husband is a businessman that owns a real estate firm.
- rdl 13y ago
  She made a lot of money from various non-public stock deals, such as Visa, which were pretty shady. A lot of people in congress do. Marital wealth is less "obvious" to voters. Voting in a person who actually made a bunch of money through business is much more overt. Inherited wealth is also safe by comparison.

hillbilly1980 13y ago

Oh my god. So every thing that a republican introduces defacto must be defeated by the democrat? This is exactly what's wrong with your so called democracy. The house it too big and the egos can't rise enough to engender real debate, so the debate moves to a hidden back rooms of a few key power brokers polarized to clear opposites. What a broken system of thought and argument.