General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy must Pelosi be jettisoned because she's a "lightning rod" who antagonizes & mobilizes the GOP
but when she says we should table impeachment talk for now because it will only antagonize and mobilize the GOP, she's a "sellout?"
Are we trying to diminish distractions, or not? Are we worried about pissing off Republicans, or aren't we? Are we trying to avoid lightning rods, or not?
Which is it?
Nitram
(22,671 posts)if Pelosi stepped down they'd still be using her. We need her values, experience, determination, and savvy.
GWC58
(2,678 posts)Speaker Pelosi. Has a nice, soothing ring to it, dont you think? 🤔
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)would do anything other than create a new target in the new minority leader.
Nitram
(22,671 posts)when they have the majority in both houses and Pelosi has had a much lower profile. A new face might energize a few of the dimwits who love Trump.
Afromania
(2,767 posts)Reader Rabbit
(2,621 posts)There's none of this in-betweenery, shades-of-gray mumbo jumbo when the person in question has ovaries!
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Assuming Democrats take the House in the fall, it will be time to start grooming the next generation of leadership, but we need Nancy at the helm in the next Congress. A big part of politics is tactics, ans she is a skilled tactician. One main reason why she is a lightning rod for Republicans is because she is an effective leader. The fact that Republicans may also think that attacking a woman will help them with their "base" is no excuse to cave in to their misogyny.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I was certain she wouldnt seek re-election and the whole argument wouldnt be necessary. For now I am planting my flag in her corner as I dont want the bros to swing through promoting a conservative white male for the position.
That said, I will look at who is running for the position when the time comes. That sounds like it makes sense.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)to tell anyone what those new ideas are and who will bring them forward.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I will never find my perfect match, few of us ever will, but she has been very good. I'm always skeptical of leadership, even on our side, so saying that she excellent means something to me.
The last "new idea" guy was a white male well to the right of Pelosi. He was promoted by the "left".
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)winning his district in Ohio.
Excuse me? Trump won YOUR district and it's PELOSI'S fault? That's YOUR F*CKING DISTRICT! Where the hell were YOU?!
Jeez!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)At a point when many still weren't aware.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Mr. Corporation with the 'who me' look on his face. But there's also the New Yorker white male who thinks he's just what Dems need.
S.E. TN Liberal
(508 posts)The more they whine about any Democrat, the more we should be determined to defend that Democrat.
Does the name Al Franken ring a bell with anyone? He was genius at tearing apart republican't lies. They whined every day about him. Then, over some phony claims, Democrats got behind running him off instead of demanding a fair hearing.
It is very sad that Democrats give a f()ck what any republican't whines about.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)If we jettison every Dem leader the GOP whines about, we would never have any leaders. Lets not start with the most experienced & most successful ones we have.
DFW
(54,055 posts)You only get to nominate and elect the Speaker of the House IF your party wins a majority.
Until we have done that, any talk of pro- or anti-Pelosi factions are unwanted and unnecessary side shows.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)scare some people on the left as well as the right would be my guess. Plus some think we have to have GOP approved leadership for some idiotic reason. SMH
Nancy Pelosi: The Most Effective Speaker of the House in History
As Nancy Pelosi hands off the Speakers gavel to John Boehner today, she also hands him a tough act to follow. Despite insistent attempts to malign her during her four years as Speaker of the House, the California congresswoman turns out to have been arguably the most effective person in that post in U.S. history. And its not just rah-rah Democrats saying so.
Were looking at an extraordinary set of accomplishments over a brief period of time, said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. She ranks with the most consequential speakers, certainly in the last 75 years.
https://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/425315/nancy_pelosi%3A_the_most_effective_speaker_of_the_house_in_history
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Who states we should table impeachment talk. But I sure am not going to kick them to the curb because of my disagreement.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But Nancy Pelosi is too good of a leader to kick to the curb in a dem house IMO and she may come around in the end, who knows?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Shes saying we should keep our powder dry and not telegraph every move in advance - especially since we cant do anything about until after the election - and its premature to be talking about impeachment at this point, especially since making a big deal of it now will only galvanize Republicans.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)for the time being may have been good advise at the time.
But Shitler is already weeping to his deplorables that the dems will impeach him if we get control of the House so I don't know if it matters now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it may be best to say no for now and see what happens or have a longer term strategy.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But I think it odd that many of the same people (not you) who attack her because she thinks we shouldnt do a particular thing because it might galvanize Republicans, turn around and say we should get rid of her because she galvanizes Republicans.
The inconsistency makes no sense.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Long as she has been Speaker. That just means she is good at her job.
Nitram
(22,671 posts)Why jump the gun before Mueller's crack team has explored every avenue and nailed every single crime these guys committed?
Lonestarblue
(9,880 posts)We dont know what Muelker has on Trump, so its premature to say he should be impeached. I despise the man, but we have great policies to help people. If Trump needs to be impeached, that can happen, but I think the smarter play is simply saying that Mueller needs to finish his investigation so the DOJ and Congress can decide whether there is cause for impeachment. Plus, I actually think Pence would be equally as bad as Trump. The difference is that he would be quiet and sneaky about everything, but the relative calm after the Trump chaos could convince Republicans and Independents on the fence that things are not so bad, jeopardizing our chances for 2020.
mcar
(42,210 posts)eppur_se_muova
(36,227 posts)That's where the argument is leading, if you follow it where it's pointing.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)White men must retain all power and she needs to shut up and take a walk in the woods
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)As soon as they get older, the are to be jettisoned, don'tcha know?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And as soon as they get just the right seasoning, they're too establishment and too old.
Never fails.
applegrove
(118,022 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)and can do the damage.
I cant say who is doing that, but we all know.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)and they still won't be happy so fuck all you people thinking we should listen to Republicans and give them what they want.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Gothmog
(144,005 posts)The concept of abandoning Nancy Pelosi just because the GOP hates her is a not a good idea
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)She is their "demon" to attack. Who cares.
She is the one that helped make it possible for their daughters to see doctors without going bankrupt.
Remind them.
redstatebluegirl
(12,264 posts)Hekate
(90,202 posts)...especially strong effective women.
Sorry for the bitterness, but once again I have wasted my time trying to explain the nature of RW propaganda to people who think DEMS need "to clean house from top to bottom" and "elect all new young faces," while they repeat RW talking points about our leaders.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)William Seger
(10,742 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)I think impeachment is a bad thing to run on, in general. It may play in a few districts, but all politics is local. Candidates should run on what will get them elected, within the bounds of progressive policies for the most part. Plus, I'd avoid much "single issue" bullshit.
Sure, we need to keep our base in the game, but we also need to attract enough "indies" and casual voters to win. I don't think impeachment is going to do that in most districts.
Retrograde
(10,073 posts)after the Democrats take back Congress so he'll have to deal with the results of his actions and decisions. Impeachment often sounds like a good idea, but unless Mueller unearths a BMSG (a Big MFing Smoking Gun) there's little chance of getting the 67 votes needed in the Senate to remove him from office.
pecosbob
(7,511 posts)but I've come to the opinion that they would hack Jesus Christ's twitter account if he ran as a Democrat. If Ronald Reagan held office today some Tea Party type would be primarying him. They will slander, defame, hack, and commit fraud (voter, electoral and general) to get what they want. They will re-write election laws to maintain power. They are doing this now...see Pennsylvania. When courts try to check them they will call for the judges' removal. As long as they are allowed to continue diminishing the electoral strength of their opponents through their systemic subversion of democracy, they will remain in power. They are the Party Without Principle. The Republicans supported Roy Moore...the Democrats asked Al Franken to leave.
Trying to pick candidates for leadership that the Wing-nuts don't hate is a losing position at best.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Who cares what they say? dt needs to be impeached. I'm not sure how Nancy came to that conclusion, but, toning down our platform to appease repubs...isn't a winning strategy imho.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)She's not saying we should not pursue impeachment. She's saying DON'T TALK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.
It's strategy.
We can't do anything about it now, anyway. Nothing can happen, so why telegraph our intentions in ways that allow them to seize on it and use it to run against us. This isn't a matter of "toning down our platform"- it's just not running around like little kids telling everyone what our next move is so they can try to undermine our ability to do it.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But a Pyrrhic victory means little if we actually end up worse off in the long run.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)The President has to be impeached though. It was unacceptable jan 2016...and 100 times so right now. Nobel peace prize? What a laugh. Korea needs help cleaning up the nuke research base right now. That's it in a nutshell. Jongs trip to China made this happen. And S Korea is pandering to dt. He hasn't done squat except tweet ugliness. Bad precedent.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)helps in elections and what doesnt.
Removing the traitor is meaningless if we dont have the power to then control the results of that. Once we have that kind of power in both houses, then yes.
dameatball
(7,380 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,154 posts)You answered your own question.
And it has nothing to do with not calling for impeachment. I agree that it should not be talked about now. It is the boogey monster the right has successfully created out of her. It does no good to stamp your feet and whine that its all so unfair, and dammit, we're going with her anyways!
The capitulation on the Fairness Doctrine was just one thing that Democrats did to ensure that Hillary lost in 2016. And its the reason Pelosi must also step aside now. Their propaganda catapult, made famous in a George W speech, is well oiled and working in overdrive. Now with the Sinclair empire on board too.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)There's no way they'd go after her successor as a liberal loon because that's just not how they are.
hahahahahahahahahaha - hah
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The Republicans will support her and stop picking on us and all will be right with the world.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)
. as long as she is more important than accomplishing the objectives of the party.
She is right to set aside impeachment; only a fool would interrupt the opposition when they have made a mistake of this magnitude!
___________________
No, the time and issues have just passed her by. The public face of the Corporate Democrats. Unable to acknowledge the limitations of the market
A skilled fundraiser at a time when a majority of citizens see money in politics as a fundamental problem.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)So who do YOU suggest we replace her with?
Please name some names. Actual names of real people.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)[link:https://crooksandliars.com/2018/04/next-house-speaker-should-be-real|]
Check out the comment section..... We are witnessing a shift (and whether you want to admit it, for the better).
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Who do YOU suggest we replace her with?
Please name some names. Actual names of real people.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)Linking to an article proposing Ted Lieu might have been considered an answer
If you want to simply signal a new day and underline the partys willingness to forgo business as usual, elevating any of the following current Democratic leadership team members would be an step in the right direction:
Cheri Bustos
Hakeen Jeffries
Linda Sanchez
Ben Ray Lujan
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)What skills do you think each of these would bring to being Speaker?
HenryWallace
(332 posts)Speaker Pelosi has earned the right to lead the House due to a lifetime faithful service. This is difficult to argue with, despite:
Her long-term and consistently high unfavordability ratings,
Her inability to repudiate the failed small government/market based approaches to governance of
the 1990s, and
The fact that her absence would give every Democratic congressional candidate an instant boost.
Such is life
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You listed several people you think would make good Speakers. I asked you what skills you think each of these would bring to being Speaker. Y
Its a simple question, but not one that can be answered by again listing all of the thing she you think are wrong with Nancy Pelosi.
So, I ask you again: What skills do you think each of these would bring to being Speaker?
HenryWallace
(332 posts)In addition to the article I posted above here is a nice piece about the people I mentioned, and others:
[link:http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/nancy-pelosi-successors-democrats|]
My opinion is that the Party will be better served, both short-term and long-term, by a leadership change. And that this alone should be the compelling argument.
Your contention, if I understand it correctly, is one of classical conservatism: we should resist change for change's sake. Or possibly an argument for elitism: no other Democrat could possibly match the skill acquired by Speaker Pelosi.
Let's just agree to disagree here.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You gave me a list of four people whom you think would be good Speakers. I asked you what would make them good Speakers, but you wont say. Linking to an article that sets out their doesnt even come close to explaining why theyd be good Speakers and it certainly doesnt tell me anything about why YOU think theyd be better Speakers than Nancy Pelosi.
And trying to deflect the discussion with suggestions that Im engaged in classical conservatism or arguing for elitism wont work on me. I asked you a very simple, respectful question that gave you an opportunity to try share your thinking. Either you can intelligently justify your opinion or you cant.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)If linking to an article that clearly states the answer to your question (and certainly does a better job at articulation than I would) isn't enough, then I think we are done here.
I could paraphrase or "copy & paste" but that is a waste of both of our times.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Notwithstanding that no one should have to muddle through articles to get an answer on what YOU think about something, I read the article and see absolutely nothing that says why these four people would make good Speakers.
Maybe I missed it. If so, would you please copy and paste the portions of the article that tells me why these four people would be good Speakers?
Thanks.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Then we can all be unhappy about that... especially if it's a woman.... doubly especially if she's a POC.
I think a lot of these purity tests we've come up with in the last year and a half have centered on Pelosi's views. Her statements about abortion and impeachment seem to be the only things people remember about her. Amidst the cacophony generated by these rants on purity, it's easy for her many accomplishments to be drowned out.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)It was subtle and wasn't actually arguing to replace Pelosi. Sorry, it confused me, which is on me, I think.
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #59)
EffieBlack This message was self-deleted by its author.
Retrograde
(10,073 posts)- She's good at her job
- She's from that bastion of liberalism (excuse me, Lie-beralism) San Francisco
- She knows how to count votes and keep the Democrats focused
- She's a woman with a mind and opinions of her own
- She can get legislation passed (unlike certain GOP speakers I could mention)
- She's shrill
- She a capable politician
- She's a woman
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)We are not a homogeneous group of people. You are conflating the positions of two different folks I suspect. There are those that want to run on impeachment, and those that fear the power of her as a campaign weapon, and I am dubious there is much of an intersection between those two groups. For one thing, I suspect that those that don't want a lightning rod are also those that want to take impeachment off the table. They probably tend to be conservative (as in cautious) in their politics, maybe even leaning to pragmatism. Conversely, I suspect those that want impeachment to be an issue, probably also think she isn't "liberal" enough, stemming from their tendency towards aggressiveness in their politics.
LisaM
(27,762 posts)Look how scared they were of Hillary. Now they're trying to gaslight us re Pelosi; well, I'm not having it.
haele
(12,581 posts)"New Blood" wants to take power without going through the actual shit work of legislating and learning how to politick - without paying their dues on committees and being the "whip" first.
Because way too many people think that House and Senate politics is about appeasing lobbyists and voters, rather than actually working as legislators and in the bureaucracy that is required to legislate. It really is a full time balancing act between local and national interests when done right.
Most of the Dems who want Pelosi to go ignore the actual legislative and political grunt work, vote considerations and tough decisions she makes because they're blinded by the glittering center stage position and "perks" of the position of Speaker of the House - and that both Boehner and Ryan did crap when it came to actual work because they skated and let the lobbyists and committee chairs do their work for them.
The GOP fears Pelosi and will throw all sorts of shit her way because as both a Speaker of the House and Minority leader, she's been amazingly effective on Democratic legislation, on setting up political environments in which Democratic legislation can eventually pass or the worst of GOP legislation would fail, and has been able to keep the Democratic side of the house relatively conflict free despite the personalities over the years. When she talks in advance about how many votes legislation will get just based on House math, she's very rarely wrong.
That's because she worked her ass off to get where she is and learned from some of the best horse traders and whips in House history. Her replacement will be another hard worker/deal maker behind the scenes - not some pretty-boy/pretty-girl populist, because speechifying and taking a "bright line" position is not what gets legislation done in a large, diverse political environment with competing values and needs.
Haele
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Let me add that the pretenders also are trying to convince people that the Speaker is supposed to be grassroots organizer with the lead responsibility for election wins and losses when thats not her job at all.
Interesting that these folks will blame Pelosi for a candidates loss out in their district, without putting any respnsibility on the DCCC, DNC, State Party, local Coordinated Campaigns and - hers a wacky idea - the CANDIDATES themselves.
As I noted upthread, one of these guys actually blamed Pelosi for Hillary losing his district. As if he himself had no role to play in delivering his own damned district for the party.
The good thing is that Nancy is infinitely smarter and more savvy than all of them put together, and considering, as you said, theyre not nesting any time or effort to learn a fraction of what she knows, shes probably not losing any sleep over their Nancy Must Go rebellion.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Joseph Crowley/NY 14
Kathleen Rice/NY 4
Tim Ryan /Ohio 13
Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)just want Pelosi to go and the reasons are just what they think will work. Propaganda does not require consistency.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)so maybe I'm wrong.
As far as her being a lightening rod for the GOP, who cares, the next leader will be a lightening rod also. If it's the one thing the GOP is good, making lightening rods out of Dems.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)The more irrational the republicans behave, the better our positions become. Are we tired of the battle?
Really the idea of dishing back twice of what has been given is a way to go. Medicare for all, a standard minimum wage of $23 an hour, an end of a social cap payments, a tiered stock market trading tax. There are hundreds of government policies that could be put in place that would make vast differences of how government is and perceived.
What persons we choose to scapegoat accomplishes what was always intended for us to do. The best and most effective parts of movements is of them having no hierarchy (it's also another reason I like to hang out here).
denbot
(9,894 posts)Do not fail. Mrs Pelosi is just being sensible, so is Mueller, and this is a good thing
CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)She's also an accomplished politician. As for impeachment of W, did we have the votes in the Senate? I don't recall, but I don't think so.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)She knows how to get things done.
I know that some Dems think she will divide us but in truth, she always gets the other Dems to vote in lockstep.
Another Californian who does what is right for our country.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)It makes them sound like some benign, sleepy but powerful group. Has anyone really seen them like that during the last, say, 25 years, since Gingrich proclaimed them explicitly as bomb-throwers? They're hyperactive evil nutjobs. At the slightest sign of calming down, some entity (Koch brothers, religious right, those wishing to destroy social security, neocons looking for a war ...) pours money into turning the GOP's insanity to their own advantage.
treestar
(82,383 posts)whereas it is a pipe dream you can dream when you would not have to actually do it.
It did not work out well for the Rs either.
I think there is no point unless you have a Senate that might convict. And we know the Rs put party over country.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)It may well be their strongest weapon, 2018's version of "crooked Hillary."
Nixon was impeached when there was bipartisan support for it. For 2 years, talk of impeachment MOBILIZED the right to fight for Nixon, just as it is now for Trump. When events and investigations finally brought everything to a head, Republican support for Nixon crashed and immediately after that impeachment proceedings began.
We all know Trump is dreadfully unfit for office and has to be removed. That will happen after we get control of congress AND the Mueller investigation is concluded and presented to the senate that will preside over Trump's trial. It's also all too likely that some Trump-made disaster will help create that bipartisan agreement.
Irresponsible yammering for impeachment when it's not possible could kill our blue wave, though. Even billionaire Tom Steyer is backpeddling hard on his impeachment campaign in the face of that horrible possibility.
People need to stick their heads out of DU and cable TV and look around. Polls show it's not popular with even most Democrats right now; most know we CAN'T yet.
While Fox agitators are telling viewers to get ready to take to the streets to protect Trump.