General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, let's say Pelosi gets replaced by (insert name here). Do you think that will stop the . . . .
. . . . vilification of the Democratic House leader?
If you actually think that, maybe you need to look around and study history. Politicians in ANY leadership position are vilified. Compare Trump and Obama, Bush and Clinton. We do it. They do it. It is what is done. Always has been. Always will be.
What can be said by the GOP in opposition to Pelosi is that she needs to go because She Is Good At Her Job. Indeed, if she is not the most effective Democratic leader, she is in the top five. Ever.
So please. Just stop saying she is a lightening rod. You sound silly when you do. She is a lightening rod because of the position she holds, particularly with no Dem president. What you should be worried about is if she were not a lightening rod.
The degree to which a political leader is a lightening rod is directly proportional to their power and/or effectiveness as a leader.
Got it?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)If she is hated THAT much by the RW, she MUST be doing something right. And we are going to abandon her to please conservatives? HUH?
Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts)I see a good bit of it as the young turks trying to climb the ladder. (Looking right at YOU, Tim Ryan).
Age and guile beats youth and exuberance hands down!
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)under what odds. I've posted previously, but it falls on deaf ears. Why?
UGLY AGEISM
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)See ya !!
I VOTED for her when I lived in S.F. (S.F is part of the Marin County district btw..) and I'd vote for her for Rep., but not for Speaker - - AGAIN.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Those who work in the House, full time, and know what the job of the Speaker is decide who is Speaker.
Is that clearer?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)because you see that you are losing the argument.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is that clearer?
Also, "I know you are, but what am I?" won't help your credibility either.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)aren't thinking that because we are secretly republicans or are so stupid that we are getting played. Maybe we realize from our last election that we need new blood. That the same old names aren't going to continue to cut it. We need someone younger. We have a huge voting block in the Millennial and Gen Z voters. Those two generations together are the biggest block. Perhaps we may want to have some political figures that are going to get them excited and not some Baby Boomer that reminds them of their Grandma.
Or we can continue to do the same old and get the same old results.
Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts)Come up with one more and you can score a Hat Trick.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)I said Grandma because that is what Pelosi would be. If we were arguing the Senate and Schumer, I'd say Grandpa.
And, yeah, I am arguing age. Because the largest voting block right now is no longer the Boomers. Sorry. We might want to make sure the largest voting block wants to vote Dem. YMMV I guess.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)get out the vote?
That's DCCC. and that's Representative Ben Ray Luján's job.
Perhaps your concerns about "who's going to appeal to the kids" need to be directed to.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)But the Speaker is a very visible face of the party. If we put someone in that role that is going to turn off the largest voting block, that doesn't seem like a really awesome idea, does it?
But, yeah, just keep blowing off the Millennials and Gen Z. That worked so well for us in 2016. Let's just keep doing the same thing with the same faces. I'm sure it's bound to work.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Since when has it been the job of Minority Leader to "get the millenials and Gen Z excited?" I didn't see that on the job description, and it certainly didn't seem to be the job of Dick Gephart or Tip O'Neill to get anyone but their own consituents "excited" about voting.
Last I heard it was the job of the DCCC to get people excited about voting, including millenials.
I'm not blowing off millenials - perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?
Or you found a sale on strawmen?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)But are you really going to tell me that the Speaker position doesn't have an impact on how people see the party? How they perceive what the party sees as important by who they put in leadership roles? That is isn't a huge face of the party?
I have created no strawmen. But who we put in Speaker if we win the House is going to affect how millenials (sic) view us. We might want to be cognizant of that. You don't seem to care about it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You put the responsibility on her to get millenials excited to vote....
And try to wiggle out of it by splitting hairs and saying that you were talking about GOTV...
And now you are trying to backpedal by hyperbole with trying to attack yet another strawman that I " think the Speaker position doesn't have an impact on how people see the party."
And another with that I "don't seem to care about how millenials see us."
I guess you're getting free shipping on those strawmen, too?
Atman
(31,464 posts)Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Must've hit it on the head...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in people who haven't gained the maturity to pay attention.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)As far as I can tell, the people she turns off most are Republicans and ultra-conservative Dems. That’s not our largest voting block.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
emulatorloo
(44,113 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And Feinstein needs to go because she's liberal but not liberal enough.
But Bernie’s awesome because he’s really liberal and isn’t afraid to piss people off
And Biden’s da man because he’s liberal but not too liberal so he appeals to blue collar whites.
emulatorloo
(44,113 posts)Probably better to stop expecting consistency around here lol
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm not sure how they do things in your parallel dimension, but over here, Congressional party leadership sits on the DCCC and has a long list of formal and informal duties that includes campaigning and fundraising for Democratic candidates. So yeah, in my neck of the woods, the Minority Leader is partly responsible for getting out the vote.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Yes, the Leader is partly responsible in the way that ALL Members are expected to pitch in. But getting out the vote is NOT the Leader's responsibility.
But funny thing - some folk seem to attribute to her the responsibility but not the credit for outcomes. So, when Joel Osoff lost his race, it was Pelosi's fault. But when Conor Lamb won his race, it was HIS doing.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)mcar
(42,300 posts)And how, right after a great Dem win, we see all kinds of negativity.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The Minority Leader has historically taken a more expansive role in campaigning than is expected of other members of Congress. They often play an active part in recruiting candidates, establishing PACs, stumping, using their connections to influence endorsements, coordinating multiple campaigns, and, ultimately, positioning the minority party to become the majority party.
As for Osoff and Lamb, I don't recall expressing congratulations or blame to anyone. Someone said something stupid and I corrected them. End of story.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)lies elsewhere. Which is why it's ridiculous to blame Nancy Pelosi for losses and demanding she step down while not putting a similar onus or demands on the candidates themselves and the DNC, DCCC and other people whose FULLTIME JOB it is to win House races.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Or is it because you just need to vent?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It was claimed the House Minority Leader does not play a role in motivating constituents to vote for Democrats. I refuted this claim, and that is all. I made no comment as to the efficacy of the current Minority Leader, much less who deserves credit for Lamb and blame for Ossof.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not seeing GOTV repsonsibilities (except for their own district) anywhere.
In this universe Ray Ben Lujan runs the DCCC.
Also, isn't fundraising is a vital part of winning elections?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/31/nancy-pelosis-fundraising-breaks-25-million-for-2017/
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Does the value of fundraising to winning elections confuse you?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)So I'm not having any trouble with this at all. You still seem to be stumbling over the concept of "informal duties", though. Pro-tip: it means they're not written down anywhere but they're still expected of the person holding the relevant position.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I tend to vet my sources, rely on the "formal duty" list, and understand that what some people think are "informal duties" often are suddenly assigned to someone that is being scapegoated.
Especially when that person being scapegoated has gone above and beyond their relevant "formal duties" when they weren't required to.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Have fun with that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but it's reality.
lapucelle
(18,245 posts)She's expert at counting and whipping votes, She's been masterful at keeping our coalition together since Trump's election. No wonder Republicans hate her
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/12/nancy-pelosi-raised-nearly-50-million-democrats-20/
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Being a young,well Educated person with great ideas and great background did.
lapucelle
(18,245 posts)True Blue American
(17,984 posts)The money! 
Republicans wasted millions.
lapucelle
(18,245 posts)True Blue American
(17,984 posts)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Yes, they spent millions, however we won by a sliver.
And are you under the impression that everyone just donates everything for campaigns - the printing, the office space, the travel costs, the consutants, the media?
Because those things are expensive. Even in a small campaign.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)I also know Republicans spent 13 Million against Lamb.
Lamb took no PAC money.
So,in spite of the millions thrown against him, Lamb won!
Money is not winning elections. Good candidates are.
Same with Doug Jones, Ala.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Media Ads aren't free, consultants aren't free, travel isn't free, printing isn't free, office space isn't free....
And no one here claimed that Pelosi got Lamb elected with that money.
Strawman much?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)In my posts about Lamb? He made it clear he was not in favor of Pelosi.
And would vote against her as Leader.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Your started your series of rants about how Lamb didn't win with the help of money as a response to someone pointing out that Pelosi raised a huge amount of money for candidates. You felt a need to diminish her incredible accomplishment by positing that good candidates win without the help of lucre....
And I clarified that no one claimed that Pelosi won that election with the money she raised.
Is that clearer?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Gee thanks. I was stating my opinion as others do.
I also stand by the fact that Lamb won in spite of the 13 Million used against him in the election.
End of my conversation on this.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And strawmen to boot.
pazzyanne
(6,547 posts)there is something to be said for those people who have been around for a while and have seen the dirty tricks and the recycling of those dirty tricks. One thing about Nancy Pelosi, she never gives up. She persists and develops a plan and then works that plan. A lot of our younger representatives can learn a lot from her and from some of the other older congress people. I agree that we need more young blood with new ideas, but we still need the expertise of the battle wise older ones. We need a little more teamwork and a little less fighting within our own ranks. So easy to judge others without full knowledge and information of what they bring to the table. We all need to work on respect because we have gotten so use to being critical of everything that we no longer know how to cooperate with each other. (climbing down off the soap box, folding it up and stashing it for the next time I need.) Have a good day, everyone.
mcar
(42,300 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)The point I am making is that we need to get the Millennials and Gen Z into the Dem party and voting. They are a powerful block.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/
George II
(67,782 posts).. in number (~70 million for 20-35 and 74 million for 52-70)
The age groups don't match up exactly in each breakdown, but projecting one on the other:
46.1% of 70 million for 20-35 (actually the 46.1% is for 18-29) = 32.3 million
66.6% of 74 million for 52-70 (actually the 66.6% is for 45-64) = 49.3 million
Older voters still are the largest voting block by far, and I suspect it will remain that way.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)But in the next ten years, both Millennials and Gen X are going to overtake Boomers. In my mind, as a HS teacher, I see a lot of similarities between Millennials and Gen Z as far as a voting block.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)regardless of the the familial situation in life, there is a whole lotta negative professional shit that goes with calling someone a grandma. Especially someone with the track record of Pelosi.
There is NO ONE in the Senate I trust more right now, than Pelosi to tackle that snake in the grass McConnell. I don't know of anyone that knows their way around the convoluted rules of House and legislating as much as she does.
You would have been better off learning from the mistake and rewording your nasty rhetoric.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)So you trust NO ONE in the Senate?
"nasty rhetoric"? Whatever helps you get through the day, I guess. She is literally a grandmother.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)I figured you'd realize your mistake that I assume was just a mistyping.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)this person saying I'm ageist and sexist when that is nowhere in what I posted. Keep making this a place people want to be.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Pelosi is a good organizer, a good leader. Let nature take its course. She cannot remain speaker forever.
This is not really an issue. We need to focus on getting the vote out.
We also need to focus on developing an energetic, active, vibrant image for our Democratic Party. Nature will take its course. Age does slow us down. It's reality.
Pelosi is smart and will know when to quit.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Sad, as America's premiuer Pelosi basher would say.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)hlthe2b
(102,225 posts) Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)
See, I can do that, too
Response to Cuthbert Allgood (Reply #4)
MrsCoffee This message was self-deleted by its author.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)But, specifically, the Speaker is a party leadership role. Part of that is about making sure that Dem voters are happy and want to continue to vote Dem. Since our largest voting block is younger, one might want to appeal to that voting block.
drray23
(7,627 posts)The job of the minority or majority leader is to implement the agenda by using the levers of Congress as effectively as possible . It's a complex role that requires a lot of experience.
Getting other democrats elected is the job of the dnc (tom Perez and Keith Ellison right now) .
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)But it is about leading the party. And the party is made up of voters. And if the voters don't like the face of the party then they aren't going to vote for the party. It does matter.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)that you have no idea what Pelosi's role is, do you? Let me clue you in: She does not lead the party. That is done, as you should know, outside the walls of Congress, and Biden is very well suited for that role, simply because he is not in office. Maybe Dean, too. A party leader also works better when they can concentrate on just doing that, instead of functioning as a congressperson.
Through your numerous posts about dumping her, none of your reasons add up. You say she is too old, you say she too well entrenched (experienced), and it is very clear that you are just throwing stuff out there to see if something will work. So your reasons boil down to replacing for simply the sake of replacing her.
So out with the truth - what's your story here?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)She is very much a visible face of the party and would be even more so if she were Speaker, yes? Paul Ryan is very much a major face of the Republican party, yes? I understand fully what the Speaker of the House does as well as fully understand how that role impacts public perception of the party.
1. "she's too old." Didn't say she was too old for the job. Said that if we want to get and retain the young block of voters which is becoming the largest block of voters, we probably want to give them a face of the party they can relate to. Also not Biden and Dean, btw.
2. "she's too well entrenched" I don't remember saying that. But, yeah, establishment Dem all the way and we know from polling that isn't working too well for us.
My story is that I don't want to lose to the worst presidential candidate ever one more time. I don't want the Republicans to keep control of our government. I don't want to make an enormous voting block feel like this party doesn't care about them and is not one that holds the values they see as important.
What's your story?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That's a new role for Minority speaker, now that it's Nancy.
Not so much with previous Speakers - I don't think that Tip O'Neill was supposed to "appeal" to a broad set of voters other than his own district.
What's changed now that it's Nancy?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)Really? I thought it was the case when it was Pelosi before. And Boehner. And Hastert. And Gingrich. Hell, I was in high school during the O'Neill years. He was one of the main Democrats I would name at the time.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)There must be a sale on strawmen...
Donald Trump is the face of the Republican Party.
But since you brought it up, I guess you think that Nancy was the face of the party when Obama was president?
Really?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)Of course he is.
And that's not a strawman because it's about the Speaker.
And if we get the House back this year, the Speaker will be the highest Democrat in line for the Presidency. Well, actually the only one. But keep telling me that the Speaker isn't a face of the party they belong to.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So why didn't "Nancy's face" hinder Obama from election and re-election?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)NOW inventing that I "keep telling you" the "Speaker isn't a face of the party they belong to."
Seriously, if you keep needing to make up things to rebut, you're going to need a bigger haystack...
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)No, not only are speakers and other congressional leaders NOT the faces of their parties, but they all understand that accepting these positions means basically giving up pursuing higher elective office outside congress, such as governorships or the presidency or VP.
Bob Dole is the only congressional leader to win a presidential nomination since the early 1800s, and he and the last one both lost. Similarly, congressional leaders almost always lose when they run for governor. The dynamics of this are complex, but the electorate sees them as part of a group in congress and want them to stay there. And at that, very, very few have any idea who they are or what they do--until they step out of the pack and run for other office.
Also, only on forums like this do silly people imagine that they, instead of the members of those groups, should have a say in choosing congressional leaders. No one else. And at that they're ALWAYS, always, always deluded into this arcane conceit by malicious troublemakers for the usual reasons.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Since when?
Since it's Nancy's face?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)They are 2nd in line for the Presidency for fuck's sake.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)For fuck's sake.
Yes, I remember how Pelosi being speaker was the reason that Obama didn't get elected, or relected.....
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts) ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You need all the victories you can get, don't you.
And you didn't even need to make something up that I didn't say to argue against this time!
That must feel great!
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)You were wrong. And the counting doesn't start at 2. It is called the line of succession. VP is 1. Speaker is 2.
At least you handled being wrong like a champion.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You could learn from that.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)She is Minority Leader.
Paul Ryan is next in line.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)and how it isn't just an internal position.
I'm aware the Republicans control the House.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)It is just that many continue to call Pelosi, “ Speaker.” She has not been since we lost the House.
Ryan is.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But it’s primarily about INSIDE party leadership, not outside. It’s not the Speaker’s job to go out and excite the base and rally the troops. Their most important job is inside organizing of the Caucus, legislative strategy, managing the Members, keeping people in line, whipping votes, raising money, etc. That requires a seasoned Member, someone who has worked within and knows the House leadership structure, who has mastered the rules, strategies and traditions of the House, who has built strong relationships and developed respect of the Caucus Members and knows where all the bodies are buried.
Too many people seem to think the Speaker is supposed to be the face of the party and is responsible for getting out votes in the field, but that’s not true. Other people and organizations are responsible for that.
One of the problems I see is that many of the young Turks who keep trying to challenge Pelosi haven’t bothered to do the spade work necessary to develop the skills they need to be effective House leaders. They don’t seek out Deputy Whip or other junior positions and don’t participate in House Caucus management activities. Instead, they focus their energies on appearing on television, creating a high profile for themselves and speaking up about everything and anything. They don’t build relationships within the Caucus, they don’t spend their evenings participating in Caucus meetings or their weekends traveling the country raising money for other Members, they don’t step up for assignments, they don’t participate in the whip operation, etc. That’s why, when party leadership votes come up, people like Pelosi and Hoyer, who have put in the time and effort to learn the ropes and become effective leaders, always kick their butts.
Youth is not a disqualifier, but by itself, it doesn’t qualify anyone for House leadership. They need to do the unsexy work and, usually, it’s older people with more experience, who have figured that out and are willing to focus on the long game.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)And very well said.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I wonder what the difference is between them and Nancy Pelosi?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)How is this possibly just INSIDE leadership role.?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And I'm correct. The Speaker's PRIMARY job is to be Leader INSIDE the House, notwithstanding her position in the line of succession - just as the Secretary of State's PRIMARY job is to handle foreign policy, even though they're also high up in the line of succession.
But you raise an excellent point that fully supports what I've been saying. A position second in line to the presidency shouldn't be filled by someone whose main attribute is their youth and new blood but who has no experience in leadership. Yes, we've had successful presidents who have never run anything - most recently President Obama - but they became president after a lengthy and grueling vetting process in which they convinced a majority of voters they could handle the job - and they were selected by millions of Americans across the country.
On the other hand, a Speaker is chosen by 218 House Members out of a pool of people who were elected by a few hundred thousand voters in one district in one state in the country.
For that reason alone, we need to be very careful about who we put in that position and should not put just anyone in there because they "represent new blood."
mcar
(42,300 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)But then you spend the rest of the time talking about how it isn't about being a face of the party. Which it clearly is. It's who we want as a party to be second in line to be President. In the hopeful case of 2018, it would be the only Democrat in line to be President.
And since we are talking about misstating, I have never indicated we pick someone with no experience or talent just because they are new blood. There are people to pick from that are new to party leadership that do have experience and talent.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.conginst.org/house-democratic-leadership-positions/
It's the job of the DCCC to get dems elected. That would be Representative Ben Ray Luján's job, not Nancy Pelosi's
Is that clearer?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)I am older,a female, so do not put labels on me.
The world has changed drastically in the last 30, 40 years. Had this discussion with my Son and Grandson yesterday. One in College, the other newly retired thanks to being in a Professional Union. One designed and had built robotic machines. The younger building and designing robots.
We compared how so much has changed during the time One was in College, the other in now.I am smart enough to know I grew up in a different world.
We need younger blood to guide us through this catastrophic time. Just because a person accomplished all kinds of things in the past, that does not solve the problems we face now.
I want younger people in charge with new ideas, fresh thinking. I am sick of being in the minority.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2018, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Yes, I agree that our world needs new leadership and fresh ideas. That doesn't mean I want a guy who just graduated from med school to do my open heart surgery because he's a fresh thinker.
The Speaker's job has very specific duties that require unique skills and experience. What special value does being young bring to any of those duties?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)We have plenty of experienced people in both the House and Senate.
They had much experience in the real world.
Adam Schiff is just one example. There are many more. We have not had the Majority in years now. And Nancy is in charge of the Minority.
Harry Reid stayed much too long, cost us the Majority in the Senate.
Not sure what question I did not answer. Posted from my long life of experience.
Ask me again, I will answer.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The Speaker's job has very specific duties that require unique skills and experience. What special value does being young bring to any of those duties?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Pelosi has been Speaker so long I was still working and did not have a lot of time to research politics then.
What skills does Nancy have? The last time she accomplished anything was the ACA. We have been in the minority after the next election.
Raising money is not what we need now. Money did not help Saccone. Fresh ideas and promising to help the average voter did.
Pelosi was fine in the past, but when you keep losing elections your time is gone. At least Reid understood that.
I am sorry we disagree but that is how I feel.
One thing we have in common. I loved my Grandmother. Her name was Effie. The dearest woman,ever in my life.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)would be better at it, why are you insisting that she step aside for a younger person?
And if you think she hasn’t accomplished anything since the ACA was passed, you haven’t been paying attention.
That said, that’s very sweet about your grandmother. She sounds lovely, and so do you.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)The Speakers job needs to be fresh ideas on how to win.
There are many younger members that have the experience to fill the Speakers job. They know much more about the real world and how we need to focus on those ideas.
Pelosi is really out of touch with what voters want today. She has always lived in the lap of luxury.
I appreciate what she accomplished in the past. Her time is over. We need to quit losing.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But the job has specific duties that require specific experience and skills. Being young and having new ideas qualified anyone to be Speaker any more than being young and having new ideas qualifies anyone to perform surgery.
But we’ll just need to agree to disagree.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)In many years now. She turned the gavel over to John Boehner years ago!
She has been Minority Leader for years. Now,we have to suffer under the Weasley Ayn Rand admirer! You can only survive on past glories for so long. That time is gone!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The Speakers’ and Leaders’ primary jobs are not to come up with new ideas.
You can keep saying new ideas, new ideas over and over, but unless you come up with something more, you’re not providing any rational basis for replacing Pelosi.
lapucelle
(18,245 posts)When she was Speaker, she never lost a vote on the floor. She held House Democrats together last summer during the ACA repeal debacle. She's excellent at what she does. Republicans demonize her because they fear her efficacy.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)And are you telling me that Bustos, Jeffries, Lujan, Tim Ryan, and Sanchez are just talentless noobs?
Come on.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And they haven’t seemed interested in doing the hard, unsexy grunt work necessary to acquire it. They just want to leapfrog into the top job.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)Let's just look at the women I mentioned so I don't get more "sexism" charges.
Bustos: in charge of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. Significant contributions to the Transportation and Agriculture committees.
Sanchez: Headed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Was vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. She's a labor lawyer.
Yeah, those are two women that don't seem to want to do the unsexy grunt work and are just looking to leapfrog into the job.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)My description doesn't apply to all of those you listed. I was referring to certain Members who have been running around the country insisting that Pelosi must go and they should take her place while having done none of the long hard slog to build their experience.
Bastos and Sanchez don't fit that category. They've been putting in their time, earning their chops and moving up through leadership with Pelosi's support and guidance. They also haven't tried to oust Pelosi so they can take her place.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)Because I would LOVE to see Sanchez as the Speaker if we actually take back the House this fall. And Booker if we get the Senate.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)He wants to be president - and the last thing we want in that job is a Leader with his eyes on a different prize.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Schumer has been competent at holding Democrats together, but that vote on weakening the rules on Wall Street does not go down well. We lived through one catastrophe.
As for Pelosi she was great in the past, but we need the Majority. She should gracefully retire and give us a chance to start fresh. All the Leaders are old.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But haven’t said what new ideas or what a young person would bring to the job besides new ideas.
Until you come up with something more concrete than “we need new ideas,” it’s hard to take seriously your insistence that Pelosi step aside and let some unnamed younger person become Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the line of succession to the presidency because they might have some new ideas.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Or do you think they don't know what the job entails, and who has the stuff to get the job done?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What is the precise and relevant definition of "new blood?"
I consistently see that bumper sticker here, but other than throwing it at the wall, no one will offer its inherent advantage over "old blood" supported by objective evidence. Seems little more than a t-shirt slogan... which I guess is good enough for youth, but we (the aged) desire evidence over commercial branding.
Thanks!
"Or we can continue to do the same old and get the same old results." A rather simple but clever way of rationalizing the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy as a form of insight or wisdom, eh?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Understanding of the hateful country we now live in.
Those young people marching yesterday were my best hope in a long time.
They are tired of a do nothing Congress, sick of living with fear they might be next.
It is time for a generalitional change. Long over due in fact.
Obama was a start, but we allowed the hateful old men in Congress to stop him in everything he tried to do.
I knew when it was time for me to retire. I expect Congress to do the same.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And who "allowed" the GOP obstruct him?
Can you clarify?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Seems to be a lost nugget of wisdom.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Labeling those of us who want Hope & Change at the top with "Ageism & Sexism" is right out of the GOP play-scum-bag.
Labels label labels! Fearful narrow-minded idiocy.
We need new faces from the lower left-wing ranks, meaning NOT Tim Ryan - that's a ridiculous example.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that they don't know what they are doing, and don't know who is best for the job.
Good luck with that. Let us know how it goes.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Nice try.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You are complaining bitterly that she is Minority Leader.
Is that clearer?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Is that clearer, now?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)people when they make points that don't support your view on a topic.
You said:
The people who choose the "new faces" are the people in the House. Her colleagues. So that's exactly who you were complaining about. Is that clearer?
I understand that you're mad, and want people to validate your anger at Pelosi, and taking it out on people who try to explain why she's still there really isn't helping the credibility of your rants against her.
George II
(67,782 posts)True Blue American
(17,984 posts)pandr32
(11,578 posts)Getting "new blood" is how we wound up with the Tea Party. That new blood thing was what everyone was saying we all needed to shake things up. It did and we are trying to rid ourselves of these people now.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)As we have seen.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)She would have said she was too old, but then she was a Republican. Doubt she would be one today! She had a strong sense of right and wrong.
peggysue2
(10,828 posts)Pelosi has proven herself more than capable in her skill and experienced leadership. She gets results, can raise huge amounts of money and has merely assumed the #1 position on the GOP's Demon list now that Hillary is no longer the primary focus.
I for one hate the idea of Republicans dictating who we choose to fill leadership positions, particularly in turbulent waters where a steady, skilled hand will be crucial once we win in November.
Whatever drag Nancy Pelosi might create, the Trumpster's drag is x 1000. He is the gargantuan albatross. As for age? Well, it was old man Biden that came out stumping for Conor Lamb in Pa. The results, the enthusiasm and the numbers of those who voted in a Red Hot district tells the story.
Mineral Man and Eliot are right. It's about the numbers, the math, the accumulative rear ends we manage to seat in November, everyone with a big, fat 'D' tattooed to their tushies.
Nancy Pelosi spoke to this before: I'm worth the trouble.
Love that!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Should we let the GOP determine out leadership by their disdain? Effectiveness is the only real measure we should consider. How effective will she be IN THE FUTURE?
Oh, and by the way, during her leadership, the Party has wound up in its worse position since reconstruction. The "blue wave" is coming because there's no where to go but up.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the GOP has the house, senate and WH?
Can you specify what it was that she did? Other than get the ACA through, of course...
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Many assert that passing the ACA is why we lost all three. I'm a bit dubious.
It's not what Nancy did, it's what she did not do. What she did not do was to build up the party.
She had help of course. But the captains of those Navy ships lost their jobs, and one of them wasn't even on the bridge at the time.
It goes beyond congress by the way. It goes to state houses as well.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And it's called Obamacare, not Pelosicare.
And the statehouses have NOTHING whatsoever to do with gerrymandering, but Pelosi was to blame?
So the DCCC had no responsibility whatsoever in anything having to do with votes?
It's all Nancy's doing?
I never heard any such responsibility put on Harry Reid.
Why is that?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Obama won because he got a tremendous AA turnout.
How long were his coat tails?
She runs the DCCC.
Harry was MORE responsible for the ACA problem, and you'll note he's not there anymore.
So, what you are suggesting is that one can be a significant leader in the Democratic party for the better part of two decades, but has no responsibility what so ever for the current condition of the party. It's all someone else's fault.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Perhaps you should start with some research...
https://dccc.org/about/
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Ray reports to her. He has his job because of her. He can lose his job because of her. He can lose ALOT of jobs because of her.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So he bears no actual responsibility for the job that he was appointed to do?
That's an interesting way to look at responsibility.... Why even appoint someone if they aren't tasked with being responsible for it?
"DCCC: the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way to victory"
"The Speaker of the House's duties as presiding officer of the House, include administering the oath of office to Members, calling the House to order, preserving order and decorum within the House chamber and galleries, recognizing members to speak on the House floor, and making rulings about House procedures."
"The minority leader serves as floor leader of the "loyal opposition," and is the minority counterpart to the Speaker. Although many of the basic leadership responsibilities of the minority and majority leaders are similar, the minority leader speaks for minority party and its policies and works to protect the minority's rights."
- Not seeing responsibility for Democratic House elections in either of those descriptions.... But Nancy sure did make it rain:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/smashing-a-record-house-democrats-fundraising-exceeded-100-million-in-2017/2018/01/21/1df45512-ff11-11e7-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He's the CEO. He reports to her.
This isn't a surprise to anyone:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/14/democrats-likely-to-disavow-pelosi-lamb-pennsylvania-417425
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Yes, Nancy "oversees" the DCCC, she doesn't Chair it. It's right there in your exerpt....
If you want to take your metaphor further, the Board does not do the duties of the CEO. That's why they are the Board, and not the CEO.
Why have a DCCC chair if they don't do anything independently of her, or have duties that she doesn't? And is the DCCC - or as you say - Nancy - also to blame for GOP gerrymandering? Please explain.
No one said this about Reid, Gephart or O'Neill.
But they weren't women, were they?
And she has put forth the idea that others elect the chair of the DCCC, so she's hardly power hungry in that way:
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/dccc-pelosi-decentralized-power
So why do you think that her peers keep on electing her every two years? What do you know about the job that they don't?
Please share.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You really want to have a semantic discussion or a substantive one.
She's in charge. How she chooses to exercise that authority is her business. The point is accomplishment. She's been in senior leadership for nearly 20 years and we are in the worst shape since reconstruction. Does she bear NO responsibility for this?
Reid is gone. Gephart lost the majority and was gone. O'Neill regularly was "challenged" (by fools, he was very powerful).
I'm not actually one that is particularly hard over about this. As you suggest, it's really about her peers. I just continue to point out that we are in the worst shape we've been in since reconstruction, we've been out of the congressional majority in the House since 2012. The DNC was basically broke going into the last presidential election.
But somehow our leadership isn't to be held accountable AT ALL.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And I have never stated that leadership isn't to be held accountable at all. That is a straw man.
Ray Ben Lujan was elected to be the chair of the DCCC by his colleagues. I hold him accountable for his job performance.
Yes, I hold leadership accountable for what they are responsible for. And if they aren't photogenic enough, or crank out FB memes with their quotes, I guess that doesn't help with the "Party image." I want my reps to be on the freaking job.
And Obama didn't do what he could have for fundraising. That hurt us in the elections.
And as I've said before Pelosi brought it in. Not only did she break a record for a fillibuster - in heels - she brought in the money. In that way, she did more for the party than Obama did.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/31/nancy-pelosis-fundraising-breaks-25-million-for-2017/
I have yet to see real discussion here on DU of Obama not doing what he could have to build the party:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/16/obama-built-a-policy-legacy-but-didnt-do-enough-to-build-the-democratic-party/
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)For the last 8 years, the PRIMARY responsibility was Obama's and he let us down in terms of party building and in terms of building for the future. All one has to do is see the condition the DNC was in 2016 and compare that to the condition that OFA was. There's a long list of actions he didn't do and we will pay the price for a few years to come.
Beat the hell out of the current occupant however.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Funny how we don’t see anyone giving her full credit for his victory.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)We got people for that.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Along with alot of other people. It's how one wins congressional elections and maintains majorities, which is a BIG part of her job. Which of course is why she runs around helping to raise money for individual candidates, and the party in general, not to mention the DCCC. It was one of the job responsibilities that the current speaker most resisted when he was asked to take over.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)an effort and being responsible for it.
Every Member of Congress is expected to support party-building efforts. The leadership is expected to do more than the rank and file and the Speaker/Leader, by virtue of their position, profile, experience and contacts plays an even larger role. That is NOT the same as being responsible for the entire operation. She’s involved, she’s an adviser, she’s a go-to, but other people are responsible for devising and implementing the national campaign strategy and how it will be carried out. They determine where best to plug in the Speaker/Leader and others, who needs her fundraising support, where she should go to campaign, etc. Her time is very limited and very valuable - because despite the sniping on DU, she is a rockstar in high demand - so the DNC and DCCC are very strategic about where and how she’s used.
I’m not making this up. I’ve been directly involved in these efforts at the highest levels for years and know firsthand exactly how this works.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)She's part of the team. And when she was speaker, she was a very high ranking member of the team. She has a powerful voice within the party in general. And she is DIRECTLY responsible for getting members elected, and re-elected. You seem to want to suggest that she has no responsibility what so ever for the current state of the party. Past speakers haven't enjoyed that kind of immunity and I can't see that she should either.
As long as the members want her she'll have her job. But there are already rumblings. I suspect if this "wave" truly materializes, she may be okay for a couple of cycles. But it is not uncommon that when a large wave of new members comes in, they want change, and they want it immediately.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)and from “she runs the DCCC” to “she’s part of the team.”
That’s progress.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)But she is not alone. That does not absolve her of her role either. She is neither solely to blame nor blameless. She is one of the senior leadership though and so should be held to a high standard of accomplishment. The wide receiver doesn't throw the ball, but he is suppose to catch it, even "bad" passes.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)See ya !!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is that clearer?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)My point fits the entire argument perfectly.
Isn't it obvious that a younger person is need at Speaker ?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Changing the argument when someone provides an example that doesn't support your claim. I pointed out where being villified by the GOP didn't stop us from nominating him. And you got defensive about that. So it's her AGE that's the problem.
Got it.
What is the cutoff age for being "too old?"
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)House Dems lost the majority in 2010 and could still not get it back in 2012, 2014 and 2016 while Obama got re-elected in 2014.
Would Dems still support such a Speaker?
Would that really the smart thing to do?
No.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You seem to forget that one of the reasons Democrats lost the House in 2010 is because Pelosi was so effective in dragging legislation over the finish line and these successes on behalf of a black President gave rise to the Tea Party.
That and the fact that too many progressives refused to vote in the mid-term because they had butthurt from Obama's failure to give them a pretty new pony and they vowed to teach him a lesson.
But it's interesting how you and some others blame on Nancy Pelosi for lost House races - yet don't even mention, much less blame, the Members themselves (mostly men) who lost those races.
Response to EffieBlack (Reply #169)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)While Pelosi was Leader.
Just like in 2008, when she was Speaker.
And yes, Dems supporter her as both.
You seem very, very upset.
I suggest that you take some time off before you implode.
deurbano
(2,894 posts)than Clinton.... and there was this great optimism that he would be ushering in a post-partisan age. (Which is why I voted for Clinton in the primary since I knew full well that was a dangerous pipe dream; I preferred someone who had already been through the wringer with the RW attack machine and wouldn't harbor such illusions.)
I'm not sure what "new ideas" candidate Obama was proposing (in contrast to Clinton)... but yes, the "young," "new," "fresh face" parts were major factors of his appeal. But Clinton would have won that general election, too. Another aspect some (like Josh Marshall, I think) mentioned was that Obama didn't have the same "baggage" in terms of being on the RW attack radar for so long. Again, I thought that was actually an advantage for Clinton. But I think Josh and others actually believed Obama could avoid becoming the same kind of target (even then, many seemed to assume it was Clinton's fault that she was targeted... as opposed to that they saw her as an effective threat and wanted to neutralize her)... but of course, they just traded in virulent sexism for virulent racism... or in the case of Michelle Obama, both.
This is not meant to disrespect President Obama (and god do I wish he were still president), just to say his young, new, fresh face did not keep the hounds at bay for long. Once someone is perceived as a threat-- and especially if that someone is not white and/or not male and/or not straight (etc.), since then even that person's very existence is considered a threat-- they WILL be targeted... and the more effective a threat they are, the worse it will be.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)It's pretty simple, really.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)it's in spite of her being at the helm.
Doublespeak.
What is it exactly that is the source of your rage about Nancy Pelosi?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2018, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)
Here’s the deal:
Pelosi was Minority Leader when the Dems took back the House in 2006 - Pelosi was only the Minority Leader, so she had nothing to do with it. It was DNC Chair Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy that made it happen.
Pelosi was Speaker of the House when Obama won - he won on his own. Because he was so awesome. The Speaker had nothing to do with it.
Pelosi was Minority Leader when Obama was re-elected - So?
Pelosi was Minority Leader when Hillary lost - All Pelosi’s fault. Well, not all, because Hillary, you know ...
Joel Osoff loses in Georgia - Pelosi was the Minority Leader so it’s her fault he lost. The losing candidate, DNC and DCCC had nothing to do with it because she’s in charge of everything. Proof that she needs to go.
Conor Lamb wins in a Pennsylvania - he’s a great candidate who won despite Pelosi being Minority Leader. Further proof that she needs to go.
Got it now?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) deurbano
(2,894 posts)What happened the very night President Obama was inaugurated? ('Young Guns') The Tea Party was formed that first year. (It's now clear just how very much they care about deficits.) And what happened in the 2010 midterms?
Of course, you don't HAVE to be black and/or a woman to be targeted. The same guy that helped get one of the Young Guns (McCarthy) elected, also saw the low turnout in a California gubernatorial election and just 12 DAYS after that election cooked up a plan to recall the newly re-elected Gray Davis in order to eventually install Schwarzenegger. (Who was not conservative enough to make it through a CA Republican primary.) Gray Davis was a white guy, with no "baggage" and little drama... whereas the guy installed had quite a bit of those latter two qualities, not unlike that thing occupying the White House. (Which is to say, baggage only matters to them when supposedly carried by Democrats.) Davis had been damaged by rising electricity prices (thanks, Enron)... but basically Abernathy, a Republican political operative, and another Republican, Costa, just saw that they COULD overturn the election since the number of signatures needed for a recall would be a percentage of the low number that turned out for the election. They decided to do this before Davis had even been sworn in again. It was just shameless political maneuvering. Power is all they care about and they will do anything to get it. We can't pick our leaders based on how much they hate them. They hate anyone from the "Democrat Party"... and the more effective/successful our leaders are, the more they are hated.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)to a 3rd term if that was legal.. House Dems in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 with Nancy at the helm? Not so much.
That's the reality.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He won. That's the reality.
How do you explain that if Nancy is the cause of our problems?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)the majority beyond.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Do you have your election years right now?
So why did Obama win two times with Nancy "at the helm"?
You still haven't explained that. According to you, all losses are her doing.
And all gains are in spite of her. Like the ACA.
Why do her colleagues still select her again and again? What do you know that they don't?
GWC58
(2,678 posts)Nancy Pelosi was, and hopefully “is,” the finest House Speakers in House history. I mean look at how much was accomplished during her tenure. More than the last three Rethuglican Speakers, one of which is a child predator. I rest my case. Stop, please stop, all this silly talk of replacing Nancy.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)That train has left the station. Doesn't mean you're totally wrong, but in the near-term (like, how do I fucking win RIGHT NOW?), sticking up for Pelosi as Speaker is political malpractice in a lot of contested races. If we take the House because a lot of new members ran against her (which is the only way we will take the House), she will be replaced.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If she is replaced do you think the new speaker is likely to be more liberal or more conservative compared to Pelosi?
Bryant
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)It takes time to build that up, which the Republicans have successfully done. They start over again with a new Speaker and he or she will eventually pay the price as she has. Meantime, we get the House. Fair tradeoff if you ask me.
We don't know who succeeds her, but that is somewhat besides the point, unless you believe that the only people who are possibly capable of doing the job are coming up on their 80th birthday.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If the argument against Pelosi is built around her age than it doesn't matter; she's going to be old either way. If the argument against her is that she is too liberal or seen as too liberal, than it strikes me that whoever replaces her will probably be less liberal or act in a less liberal manner.
Bryant
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)So the logical choice for them is to call for a new Speaker. Political problem solved. She could be 35 years old and it wouldn't matter.
When people promise to replace you as part of their platform, they have to follow through. Combine that with the built-in frustration that many current House Democrats feel about all leadership positions being seniority-based and you have a recipe for upheaval. Which is good. Why should 60-somethings like Jerrold Nadler and Zoe Lofgren sit behind an 88-year-old guy on Judiciary who may or may not show up wearing only his underwear for meetings just because he has been there forever? Pelosi is a defender of the status quo, that's a problem for many incumbents and for people trying to win elections. She will have to go.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Because if they pay the price because she supports liberal polocies and this is a "center right country" - well that's a reason to support her (as I am center left).
Bryant
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The ACA?
Gun safety laws?
Planned Parenthood?
Please share.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)Forget ageism, try human nature. Why should talented people wait forever for people to retire in order to move forward in their careers? That is what we have on the committee chair level, where our seniority rules, which Pelosi has defended tooth and nail, are about a quarter of a century out of date. Republicans term limit their chairs, we don't. This has been discussed ad infinitum here.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)seeking her mentorship, so when Nancy's colleagues and she decide it's time for a change, they will be ready.
And there is a reason Seniority is a thing - those people have institutional knowlege, and their constiuents are happy enough with them to keep them in office.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)This should not be a life time job. Times change, so should the Congress!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And why should the choice of who Dems choose for a leader be restricted by an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with qualifications? They have voted her in again and again for the job that they know the qualifications for. I would think that experience counts for something.
Do you have a greater understanding that the Dems actually serving in congress don't about who should be their leader?
Do share.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)As to the argument from the Repubs. Don't fucking care why they don't like her.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)So Republicans in PA ran attacks attacking Lamb for his supposed connections to Pelosi - he quickly distanced himself from her and made it clear that he wouldn't support her nomination for house leadership. He felt that being seen as supporting Pelosi would lead to him losing the election so he did the opposite and distanced himself from her, by suggesting she's had her chance to fix things in Washington and hasn't succeeded.
If someone is trying to emulate Lamb's success it seems like they would want to be sure they are on the right of Pelosi - they want to paint her or allow her to be painted as an out of touch Liberal, while they are willing to work with Republicans to see success.
Bryant
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)I fully realize that the Republicans use her as a lightening rod in a lot of regards.
But it seems like the general trend here is to say that those that are Dems that want to see her replaced are just pushing the Republican agenda or are being dupped. I'm just trying to say that there are Dems that want her replaced for actual reasons that are legitimate for the Dem cause.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And I guess experience and deep knowledge of the enemy is no use to us at this time in history?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)We are simply saying it is far past time for a new Leader.
When you keep losing as we have for years it is time for a new plan.
She has not been Speaker for many years now.
She has been Minority Leader,first to Boehner, now Ryan, one of the worst.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why do her Democratic colleagues keep electing her their leader? In what way is she "the worst?"
And you say "we keep losing" - can you specify what "losing" you are referring to?
And then tell us why Pelosi, and no other previous Speaker/Minority leaders has been held responsible for that?
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)It might just be because she's from San Francisco, which to people in flyover land is the land of fruits and nuts.
BannonsLiver
(16,369 posts)It's amazing to me so many here lack the street smarts to see that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)She's effective, so they keep choosing her.
Sticking up for Pelosi is "Political malpractice?"
Can you name the other candidates that "are winning" by coming out against Pelosi?
I hardly think that's an issue pressing Democratic voters...
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's hard to retort to that stellar source.
But the only ones who will make that decision are Nancy and her colleagues.
We shall see.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But in the vast majority of races, no one gives a shit about who’s going to be Speaker of the House.
But Republicans have convinced a whole lot of Democrats that it matters so much that we should push out one of our own - who happens to be a woman who proved to be the most effective Speaker in decades.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)except for the right and Russia, of course? Surely, truly idealistic capital-P progressives learned a hard but very important lesson in 2016? So why is this RT-pstyle propaganda being posted here in DU, and, again, where is it originating? And for what purpose?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And not just online. Various journalists seem to have gotten the talking points and, over the past few days, have been obsessively asking their guests about whether Pelosi should go.
For example, hilariously, yesterday, Chuck Todd reported on the Pennsylvania victory and noted (paraphrasing) "But the Democrats also have a problem because Conor Lamb says that he's going to vote against her." Like the Democrats are staying awake nights worrying about whether a freshman Congressman-elect is going to vote for Nancy Pelosi.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Someone was hyperventilating on another thread at a Politico report of a terrible "disaster" threatening all of California because 2 conservative districts out of 53 wouldn't have Democrats on the ballot (none achieved the two top vote counts).
Apparently right now it seems to be coming mostly our own right wing and their not-so-clandestine allies in the anti-Democratic left. I checked RT but just saw a hit on Hillary's tripping twice on some stairs and their usual demotivating themes, but didn't find mention of Pelosi.
Btw, I've been admiring your very impressive battles standing up for our party and fighting off these pernicious attacks, Effie. Thanks.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)If and when Pelosi is replaced, the Republicans will demonize the next Democratic leader.....and the next one.....and the next one..... All of them will suddenly become the "most liberal" and "most evil" person in the universe and will be used to help rally their deranged base. Are we going to keep replacing our leaders every time Republicans say, "Boo"?
I'm sure that there might be some rational and reasonable reasons to replace her in the future but, at least so far, nobody has presented themselves as a credible alternative and/or given Democratic members enough of a reason to replace her right now.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts) Zambero
(8,964 posts)Should Congressional leadership once attained be a career-long position? Nancy Pelosi is certainly good at what she does, although another question might be whether there is a sense of entitlement over that. My own observation is that a political party is better-served by rotating leadership after a while. Term-limiting a leadership role to, say 8 years, would enable the party to focus on agenda issues first and foremost, and less so in protecting a long-held position of power.
Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts)I am not opposed out of hand to term limits. They have upsides and downsides. Term limits would get rid of Mitch McConnell AND (the likes of) Ted Kennedy (RIP).
As to replacing a hugely effectively leader just because of age or tenure seems counterproductive. Term limits already exist. It is called "Voting".
Zambero
(8,964 posts)Once in Congress, those members determine who occupies leadership positions and for how long, not rank-and-file voters from their districts or states. I doubt that voters in SF would ever support a right-wing Republican over Pelosi on the basis of precluding her continuation in leadership. So term limits in the context of leadership would need to be instituted by members of Congress, aside from constituents exercising the option of re-electing or rejecting incumbent representatives.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Greybnk48
(10,167 posts)She is NOT a drag on our party and never has been.
The RepubliCONS try to bully or trick us into self-annihilating the BEST of the BEST in our party. Put another way, they are trying to trick us into "pulling a FRANKEN" on Nancy Pelosi. Fuck anyone who falls for this at this late date. They should be aware by now.
And Franken needs to run to get his seat back. Let HIS people decide if he's what the CON's portrayed him as (hint: he's not).
betsuni
(25,456 posts)
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Every Democrat is going to be a bit different, and imperfect, because we are all human.
But, instead of focusing on Pelosi's perceived faults, we'd be much better served by focusing on getting more Dems in office come November. We need to ride in on a giant blue wave, and sweep these crazies who just want to tear everything down out of office and back under their rocks.
Louis Gohmert comes to mind. I mean, yeah, Pelosi might have some human flaws, but Gohmert is so stupid, I honestly don't know how he manages to get his pants on every morning. He's got a giant rectal-cranial thing going on.
Same with Ken Buck.
In fact, the whole worthless 'freedom-caucus.'
Out the fucking door.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)common working family as one can get in the democratic party...same with Chuck Schumer. He remains me of a college professor always lecturing and not leading...
The question should be do we have better leaders in the house and the senate that can stand AND sound strong in the face of the opposition. I dare say we probably do.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,916 posts)You're going to get some flack for that, though.
Greybnk48
(10,167 posts)She outsmarts their stupid asses ALL THE TIME! I can't wait until she's back!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Do they not know what the job entails? Do they not know what will get the job done?
And when has the job of the Caucus leader been to "be someone that common working family must personally identify with?" outside their own district?
Was that a requirement when Dick Gephart or Tip O'Neill held the position?
"The minority leader is often assisted in his/her role by one or more whips, whose job is to enforce party discipline on votes deemed to be crucial by the party leadership and to ensure that members do not vote against the position of the party leaders."
When did that new duty suddenly get added?
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Have plenty of good leaders in both houses. And we need them badly..
Schumer is a friend of Trump and Banks.
jes06c
(114 posts)I was talking with a friend of mine. He's a moderate Democrat, and I'm a liberal Democrat. I asked him why he thought conservatives hated Obama and Clinton so much. After all, they're pretty moderate Democrats, much closer to the center than say McGovern, or Dukkakis. Wouldn't you think that Republicans would have more hatred for more liberal responses?
His guess was that the difference was, Obama and Clinton won, while McGovern and Dukkakis lost. In other words, they'll hate any Democrat who wins. Made sense to me.
Your point is excellent and spot on - and likely to get lost in this huge thread
They just want to WIN, and they hate the Democrats who do
I hope you'll keep posting about it
kydo
(2,679 posts)But that's because they are scared of her.
They need boogy people to scare their base to vote. Let's see, there is Hillary, wait, what am I saying, I meant anything with the Clinton name, Obama, Soros, Chuck and Nancy. When scared and desperate any one of those people or all, are often tossed about like the swedish chef tossing pasta, until it sticks to something. It's time to break out the olive oil and stop this shit, well that or moving pasta.
and just for more muppet fun.....
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)local elections....
she is their caricature of a wild eye liberal coming to take your guns, your money and make america a welfare state
kydo
(2,679 posts)They will do the same to Pelosi when she finally retires. Some how they make a giant twister board that shows Pelosi controlling everything from her grave.
Greybnk48
(10,167 posts)That's why I love her!
People are wising up. A handful of bitter, old, stupid white guys will fall for the Pelosi kabuki, but it's getting really, really old, just like they are.
Cha
(297,136 posts)and rwingers vilify Nancy. And the next Dem Speaker will be vilified, too.
Also, I notice those who think Nancy's too old.. are not saying the same about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who turns 85 today
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts) Cha
(297,136 posts)Ruthie. Happy Birthday to you! 
Captain_New_York
(161 posts)I might be hyper sensitive ( the benefit of being raised by a strong women, two strong sisters and married to a strong women) but isn’t telling that the repugs love to attack strong women. Nancy, Hillary , Elizabeth etc. is it a pattern?
BTW Please don’t welcome me to DU been around since the first administration of Bush the lesser when I followed a link from Bartcop, Requiescat in pace. Just not a big poster
BannonsLiver
(16,369 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They have nothing to deploy on Pelosi but misogyny.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)dalton99a
(81,444 posts)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I wonder what is so different about Nancy?
debsy
(530 posts)Even if we disagree with her on certain issues, it doesn't mean we shouldn't support her. As a politician, she is supposed to represent the ENTIRE Democratic party, not just one faction of it. And, as you point out, the bigger the lightning rod, the more threat that person poses to the opposing party.
eppur_se_muova
(36,258 posts)Before you use the metaphor, consider what it *originally* referred to.
(That's a rhetorical "you", not referring to the poster.)
SpankMe
(2,957 posts)You are 100% correct. I agree.
But, if a Dem in a right-leaning district can capture more votes by withholding support for Pelosi, then that should be acceptable to all of us, as long as it means getting Democratic numbers up in the house with an eye toward control.
If we take control and Pelosi still gets elected as speaker, at least these guys can go on record as not voting for her and possibly keep their district the next time around.
It's a game of calculation.
flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)Thanks for saying what I've been thinking for some time: If the R's hate her, she should definitely stay. (PS, What do we want, someone they'll LIKE?)
The only people who want to get rid of her (besides R's) are the PURISTS. "She's not _______ enough for me." Well fuck you, purists. Purism is what got us Trump and a congress full of batshit crazy lunatics. Let's focus on unity.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Rs are generally lazy, stupid or both. Most won’t know if Pelosi has been replaced, so they can continue to attack her as if she wasn’t replaced.
Hell, Rs still attack Jimmy Carter.
dalton99a
(81,444 posts)They're attacking Hillary every day - what position does she have?
still_one
(92,130 posts)the Democratic leader in the House
billh58
(6,635 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts)Its stupid noise. And it only comes from the overly ambitious or the ill informed.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts) ffr
(22,669 posts)
getagrip_already
(14,708 posts)and there will always be a boogeyman or woman in their sites. Especially the strong woman.
We do it qalso, focussing on the turtle and the munster boy.
I support pelosi, and resent the gop from being able to tell us who our leaders should be.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)getagrip_already
(14,708 posts)for a lot more reasons than harry reid. Obama was a big contributor. By pandering to the gop, and expecting them to deal, he left the base uninspired and unexcited.
He was constantly negotiating against himself. He didn't take any stands to energize the base. And he wouldn't lead the congress towards any goals that excited anyone.
Even healthcare was pablum in the end because obama wouldn't lead.
Look, I like the guy, but he was not a very good president for the dems.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Blame the Members and Senators who refused to vote for a stronger bill and forced Obama and Pelosi to have to cobble together the best bill they could with the votes they could get - and STILL have to break their necks to drag it over the finish line.
Pelosi and other progressive Dems worked their asses off - day and night - to get that bill through. They got the absolutely best bill they could and then got blamed for not getting more when more was impossible. Nothing more frustrating than sweating and bleeding and straining to get a rock up the hill while people who are supposed to be our allies, lay around on the hillside, drinking wine and munching on cold fried chicken yelling, “You’re doing it WRONG! Roll it FASTER!”
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)I well remember Grassley, Lieberman and Baucus holding the bill up in the Senate.
We would have had Single Payer,except for the 3 who almost killed the whole bill.
getagrip_already
(14,708 posts)during the initial phases, when the bill was being formed, and during debate. He basically sat on his hands until the senate managed what bill they could. It's not a bad bill, but it only addressed insurance reforms and accessability. It did nothing for actual health safety.
If he had gotten behind his version of a bill up front, and spent some political capital, then we might have had a better bill. Yes, the blue dogs were a problem, but they could have been persuaded if obama had lobbied their constituents. He never did; he only waited until a bill was on the floor to push for it's passage.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)especially given how all the many successes previous presidents had over the debpcades in getting healthcare reform bills passed showed just how easy it was for him to get near perfect comprehensive legislation through.
mcar
(42,300 posts)In what way?
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2018, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Harry also changed the rules in the Senate allowing Mitch to do anything he wants now.
But at least Harry knew when it was time to go home.
Now,it is Nancy’s turn.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The Republicans would NEVER have changed the rules for their benefit when they got the majority.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I thought that was their job.
Has it changed?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Unless the candidate wins. Then she had nothing to do with it.
Got it now?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
pandr32
(11,578 posts) billh58
(6,635 posts)are hard at work on this, and other threads.
The bottom line? Vote Democratic because we desperately need to stem the right-wing march to fascism.
Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts)BadgerMom
(2,770 posts)
Dorn
(523 posts)hueymahl
(2,495 posts)And that brand is wielded by the RNC to great effect.
They will try to brand anyone who takes her place.
I don't know the right answer, but I do know her brand is currently a political liability for many candidates. So much so that Lamb had to basically disown her. Not all candidates will have to do that, and certainly not the ones in liberal districts, but I guarantee you that every candidate in a conservative district is already STRONGLY considering employing Lamb's tactics.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"Socialist!!!!!!"
Remember that?
And we didn't let that stop us from backing him.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)It's healthy to have the discussion, and Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress will decide when and how she leaves her position.
The discussion is healthy. We need disagreements like this in a democracy.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)to a 3rd term if that was legal.. House Dems in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 with Nancy at the helm? Not so much.
That's the reality.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2018, 09:20 AM - Edit history (1)
Obama got elected because he ran to the left of Hillary. Whomever we nominated that year was gonna win because GWB was so bad.
Obama got re-elected because of a tremendous AA turnout, and because his opponent was Mitt Romney. It always helps to be an incumbent as well.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think you meant to say "Obama," and I think you meant to say "nominated."
In what way did he run to her left? Curious to know what you think she was "to the right" on.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Can't start a post with a pronoun. I've fixed it in an edit.
His primary lefty position was on Iraq. Beat her up endlessly on that vote. I thought he talked more "pacifist" on Afghanistan as well, although that's not how he actually executed once in office. And he was far more willing to talk in lofty terms about classic democratic goals, where as she tended to be more policy oriented and speak in terms of limits of the office and of governing in general.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Odd that he picked someone who voted for the Iraq War resolution to be his running mate, isn't it?
And no one seemed to really beat him up over that.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Looking back, I've often thought we picked the wrong candidate. Much of what she asserted during the campaign came true during his administration. She tried to warn him that the GOP wouldn't work with him, he never listened. And I suspect she would have taken a different tact on health care. Probably a more incremental approach (which strangely Rahm also recommended) and not created the whole campaign slogan for the GOP for 8 years.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)which was touted as an asset, because there wasn't as much of a history to use against him, would limit his ability or stomach to reach under the table to twist a few when need be - which I think would not have been a problem for Hillary. He was a professor, a community organizer going into a cage match. And he could not even APPEAR to be angry, because he would be working against the "angry aggressive black man" trope from day one. He was going to be the measure by which future candidate of color would be judged, and he knew it. Like Jackie Robinson, he could never express anger at what he experienced, because so much was on the line. History had its eyes on him.
I think that's why he had Rahmbo working closeby, to do the strong arming. But that didn't really work out.
Yes, in 2008 Hillary had a comprehensive health reform plan that included a public option. She had been in that crucible before. The Kaiser Family Foundation had a forum where they invited the candidates in 2008 to present their health care reform plans, then answer questions from a panel of experts over the course of an hour. Obama didn't have one to present. Part of McCain's was to tax employer subsidies for premiums as taxable income. (shudder)
One of the things that HRC said she learned from 1993 was that they kept saying, "We're going to cover the uninsured, we're going to cover the uninsured" without addressing adequately the fears of those (the majority of voters) who had coverage and were afraid of what impact reform would have on them. She also stated that they used policy analyst language, because it's a very complicated system in this country, and they should have come up with a set of simplified bulleted talking points.
I think that is what led Obama to the gaffe, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." When the correct, but much longer more complicated reply was, "In the system we have now, no one is guaranteed to keep their doctor. Your employer might switch your plan to one where your doctor isn't in your plan network. Your doctor might decide to drop out of your plan network. Your plan may be one of the low premium, very high deductible, catastrophic plans that will not be allowed any more. But your employer will still continue to be the likely place that you will get your insurance. Small (> 50) employers may be able to determine that you will be able to get better plans on the marketplace that each state will have." His simple, reassuring answer backfired when people couldn't keep their doctor, for whatever reason, and they were able to accuse him of "lying."
The problem is, health care reform is way too complicated for a simple solution, let alone a simple answer. Analysts pretty much all say that an incremental approach is the only realistic way, politically, financially, and in terms of mitigating disruption to health care delivery, to achieve universal health care coverage. The ACA is the furthest that we've come, even with the setbacks. Obama knew that they had only two years to get people to get on it and want to keep it, because the party that takes the WH generally takes a hit in the next mid-term. His complexion was being used to convince scared white people that he was a "socialist" who wanted to take everything from white people and give it to "his people." He knew he wasn't going to have any GOP support whatsoever.
But history is history. He got the nomination, and I supported him enthusiastically. I did the same with Hillary in 2016.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)And forget that we nominated them. As I say, I was concerned going in that Obama was not going to understand just how aggressive the GOP would be. It took me a long time, but I have slowly come around to what Andrew Young said way back in 2008. Barack Obama will be a great presidential candidate... in 2016. We probably should have put in Hillary then. But hindsight is 20/20. I do think we do not value executive branch experience enough in our nomination process. The most effective people are the ones that know how that branch works in the details, and how it relates to congress.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I said Obama was elected in 2012 - because you said he was elected in 2014.
She was "at the helm" which means she was our party leader in the House.
Do you understand what the minority leader is?
Perhaps you should google it before you say "duh" to someone who has their facts straight.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)Not stop completely, but diminish to the point of meaningless.
I don't see how we can dismiss the fact that right wingers despise women in position of power. I think it was David Brock who pointed out in his "Blinded..." book that right wing magazines in the '90s soared in sales whenever a woman was mocked on the cover.
If we had a charismatic white male leading the House I'm convinced our upside is higher, at least in terms of the national vote. As a gambler I'm always trying to steal another percent of half percent. Same principal here.
Whether that male would be as effective in office as Pelosi...I have no idea and that is a reasonable counter variable.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Care what Republicans think of anything. I care about us having new ideas related to today’s world.
Barbara Boxer was energetic, showing up on TV lately. Dianne Feinstein went all giggly when Trump led about including her ideas in the gun bill. Trump lied, Dianne believed him. Time for her to go,too.
mcar
(42,300 posts)Anyone who thinks that is naive at best.
dlk
(11,548 posts)If nothing changes, nothing changes.
Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts)dalton99a
(81,444 posts) 
maxrandb
(15,319 posts)I personally think Nancy Pelosi is great. I wish there would be more pushback about these relentless attacks against her. Most of America only knows Pelosi by how the Retrumplicans have defined her.
That being said; I watched her recently on a couple of occasions in various interviews. I'm not bashing her, but she doesn't communicate very well. Not in what she is saying, but in how she is saying it. She stutters and hunts for words, she has a staccato way of talking. She seems to get flustered easily.
Again, some of us just aren't good public speakers, and I don't think that she is. My wife said it's like trying to listen to Katherine Hepburn...and I love Katherine Hepburn.
What is wrong with term limits on Party Leadership? What's wrong with looking for a fresh voice. What's wrong with mixing things up a bit?
I don't think that she deserves to be removed, but I would have no problem with her stepping into the background and letting someone else take the reigns.
Just my $0.02
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Even John Boehner knew when his time was up.
Much better to retire gracefully than to be voted out.
Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts). . . . the tea baggers weren't elected. Boner leaving and incompetent Ryan in is EXACTLY what we need to avoid.
True Blue American
(17,984 posts)Benn Minority Leader for how many years now? Harry quit when he lost the Senate.
How long do we keep a loser?
Stinky The Clown
(67,786 posts)We're done.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Is there a someone who replaces Pelosi I hope they want to impeach. Pelosi has said impeachment is not on the table.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)When the HELL are democrats going to grow a damn spine like our hero FDR and tell the @#$%^&* damn republicans to GO TO HELL!!?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)These attacks are all about sucking up to the white male republican base IMO.
They demonize our leaders and some democrats just can't wait to take them out.
The deplorables will never be on our side, ever.
LBM20
(1,580 posts)betsuni
(25,456 posts)Good human leadership doesn't need to be fresh, aged is sometimes better, like wine or cheese.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts) 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)dchill
(38,471 posts)That's a reason to support her, not dump her.
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)I also like this article http://theweek.com/articles/761142/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-care-hate
Okay, that may be an exaggeration. But when the Republican Party spends so much of its time talking about her, you'd think she'd be a bit more perturbed. And there's no sign she is.
She has good reason. We just saw yet another election in which Republicans tried everything they could do to tie the Democratic candidate to Pelosi, and he won anyway. Conor Lamb, the victor in that Pennsylvania special election, said at the campaign's outset that he wouldn't be voting for Pelosi for speaker in 2019 if he were elected, since he thought the time had come for a new generation to take control (Pelosi, who's 77, has been in Congress for over 30 years). That might not have made Pelosi feel good, but she's as hard-headed as they come, and if it helped win a seat for Democrats, she wasn't going to complain.
But we don't know whether it actually did help. Perhaps Lamb's stance defused the attack (though it certainly didn't stop Republicans from making it), or perhaps when people are voting for their member of Congress, they don't much care who the party's leader is.
That sounds like a radical thing to say, but the truth is that we have zero evidence that it actually changes any votes when every Republican candidate shouts "My opponent is just a puppet of San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi!" There's no question that Republican voters dislike her, but that's very different from her actually having an effect on the outcome of any race. But we've been seeing those ads for so long we just assume they must make a difference