Originally posted by whodey
Pelosi will always be remembered for saying that:
1. They needed to pass the ACA in order to find out what is in it.
2. Derided those who questioned the Constitutionality of the bill, as if there was no chance of it even being reviewed by SCOTUS.
Well just as a comprehension test you fail.
On the first point, when challenged on the interview, she pointed out that the process of making legislation meant that quite a lot of changes were still to be expected but she was confident at the end of that process that the result would satisfy (reasonable) critics and meet the intentions of the bill. Obviously, in a complex debate, if people choose to seize on a phrase and misuse it out of context then they can make her look stupid but she did not strike me as stupid based on this interview. Phrased differently, I suggest that if we wanted her to comment on the bill as it is at the time then that is fine, but if we want her to comment about changes that might be introduced and might later be removed, then that is unreasonable and she would suggest that we must await the final outcome before we can reasonably debate it.
On the second point it is the job of a legislator to ensure as far as possible that legislation will not fall foul of constitutional challenges. The fact that almost any legislation can in principal and in this case probably will in practice be challenged does not make her point invalid.
If the object of this exercise is to demonstrate how impossible it is to debate rationally with the American Right then I think we can count it a success. If the object was to invite us to evaluate the performance of a woman politician then I would say that she has presented a very impressive image and does great credit to herself and those who welcome women in politics at every level. If the object is to rescue something from this drunken, offensive contribution by Kilgore Trout then it fails for me. You should choose your friends more carefully.