General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPelosi has held the Democratic caucus together
Ensuring that they would not help Trump pass his agenda.
When the GOP house failed to pass its first attempt at ACA appeal, Republican lawmakers said that would never had happened if they had a leader as effective as Pelosi. She is known to be a highly effective leader, some say the most effective in several decades.
So why of all the Democratic leadership is she the one targeted? Her voting record is to the left of the great majority of Dems, and it is considerably to the left of those who have sought to replace her.
Calls for a "fresh face" would inevitably result in a less effective speaker, someone less adept at holding the caucus together. Also, such desires for fresh faces somehow don't extend to presidential candidates, with very senior politicians like Biden and Sanders being held up as picks for 2020.
If it were simply a question if who is used in GOP campaign ads, the. demands for removal would also extend to Sanders, who likewise appears in all of those ads with Pelosi. The two of them are targeted precisely because they are seen as the most liberal.
It therefore can't be based on policy or winning elections, so what is it about? Could this be what Jeet Heer recently wrote about in the Atlantic--dominance politics?
Chevy
(1,063 posts)but saying it would trigger some here.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My hope is for her to become Speaker again.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I've also seen countless comments about Biden and Sanders being too old from people saying they need to make room for fresh blood, so it seems like an equal opportunity bashfest when it comes to leaders and aging politicans. It's not a sexist thing, it's an ageist one.
That said it would be nice to see some younger folks in the race.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)votes on stuff like payday lending- has done way more damage to our brand than Pelosi ever could.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nothing gets out the vote like being condescending.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)When you do the math of how old they'd be by the end of first and second terms, it's too old. Same for Clinton. I do not want a president in their late 80s.
House minority leader is less demanding. It's also a two year position. There isn't an expectation that minority leader should be able to do the job for 8 years. The caucus can vote her out at anytime if she starts to diminish in capacity.
Human beings are mortal. They cannot continue forever at very high capacities, and there is nothing more demanding than being a competent president.
MaryLouisaWillis
(44 posts)If she were a highly effective male speaker, I doubt anyone would be calling for her to quit. Some people have an internal discomfort with powerful women. Often they don't realize it.
For example, many men I know on FB, have said Hillary shouldn't run again and she is too old. Yet they support men like Bidden and Sanders. What is the difference? Hillary gets a huge pop vote victory, Sanders loses to her by huge margins. Biden has run before and never gets close to the nomination. Is the fact that Hillary beats men all the time that makes men and some women judge her differently?
metroins
(2,550 posts)I'm not going to bash Democrats or Democratic figures, but you're way off the base.
It's mainly the charisma factor. Pelosi and Clinton do not have Charisma.
There are plenty of women who do and plenty of men who do not. I was a huge fan of Clinton and very excited to vote for her, but I do not want her to run again. The method she speaks in is not charismatic or inspiring and neither is Pelosi or Chuck Schumer.
People want to be inspired.
emulatorloo
(43,922 posts)She's fantastic at her job. She's not a reality tv show host or a TV evangelist.
MaryLouisaWillis
(44 posts)Clinton has tons of charisma. You don't beat bernie by almost million votes without charisma. Look at the faces of the people at her rallies when she is speaking. You just don't want to see it. Bernie lost to her for a reason.
BeyondGeography
(39,226 posts)How did the faces of our party become old, older and oldest? Why are our committee chairs and House leaders routinely 15-25 years (or, in the case of John Conyers, 30-plus years) older than their Republican counterparts? Because they limit ranking members to three consecutive terms and we don't.
Our party is not nearly as dynamic as it needs to be; it does next-to-nothing to facilitate the rise of talented people. And then people wonder why we have no bench...
Re. Pelosi, she has been Leader since Nov. 2002, and we wouldn't have the ACA without her. But that was seven years ago and we've declined as a Party ever since. A more responsive body would have seen the writing on the wall by 2014 or last November the latest, but we are dealing with serious institutional dysfunction here. Would that more people on this board realize it. And now, back to the distraction that is the supposed persecution of Nancy Pelosi.
JI7
(89,150 posts)anything to get younger voters . the republican party is heavily old white male and racist . that's all they are.
in fact it was that old ron paul who got more young people interested in the republican side in the past decade or so.
so lets stop pretending the issue is about age when there are many young democrats out there.
just look at jon ossoff . and then in his case i saw people talk about experience. so suddenly NOW experience mattered when just a few months ago last year it it didn't.
these people are looking for entertainment in politics.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)To the NY Times.
Not exactly cutting edge forward thinking.
JI7
(89,150 posts)if it was about the issues they would have brought those things up .
and instead they got some conspiracy theorist alex jones type to run against her and are even now sending him lots of money.
and what does she have to do with nancy pelosi ?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)A lot of people brought those things up, like right after she gave that interview.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/debbie-wasserman-schultz-thinks-young-women-are-complacent.html
http://extract.suntimes.com/extract-news/debbie-wasserman-schultz-opposes-marijuana-legalization-links-to-hard-drugs/
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/on-medical-marijuana-debbie-wasserman-schultz-sounds-like-a-republican-6544176
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/10/why-dont-people-debbie-wasserman-schultz-462819.html
http://theslot.jezebel.com/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-opinions-about-weed-are-baffl-1751420822
I can find more. Lots more. Want to see em?
Why bring her up? Because if we want to talk about who is and isnt good for our brand as a party, lets do that. Nancy Pelosi isnt the problem.
JI7
(89,150 posts)most of the attacks on her had nothing to do with this issue.
look at the guy running against her . do you support canova ?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JI7
(89,150 posts)so i wouldn't be surprised if they are the type in her district.
and there is no real liberal running against her. the one running against her is a right wing conspiracy theorist.
and why blame nancy pelosi for right wing states like florida ?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Line up both with where we should be morally and philosophically AND with the direction the country- particularly the Millennial generation- is actually headed.
Like I said, she's not the problem here. She's not one of the ones who have been damaging our brand.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)know about those comments as you imagine. Besides, her district is comprised of a lot of retirees.
She's not DNC Chair anymore. Can't you count that as a win and move on?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Jezebel, right? Newsweek?
These are fairly well-read outlets, blogs, whatever.
People want to talk about what is or isn't good for our brand, I think that's crucial to us moving forward as a party. I'm actually agreeing with your OP, I think Nancy Pelosi has done a bang-up job and as a bonus she has stood up and taken leadership positions that reflect well on us and simultaneously align with, like I said, where most of the country is headed. Particularly young people.
But that conversation also includes discussion of where we've gone wrong. Who has made mistakes that have damaged our brand. At least, for me it does.
As for DWS's district, that medical marijuana amendment she worked with Sheldon Adelson to try and defeat, ended up passing in FL by over 70%. It passed in Broward county with over 75% of the vote.
So maybe those retirees aren't as conservative on the matter as some people think.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)The largest percentage of Dem votes come from Broward. Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties are also Dem.
I think acknowledging where we've gone wrong extends to comments and decisions that alienate the base in an effort to appeal to people who do not and will note vote for Democrats, regardless of issues. That, however, is an ongoing problem rather than one already resolved.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So why the representative would align herself with Sheldon Adelson and against so clearly the wishes of her own party... confuses me.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)"I think acknowledging where we've gone wrong extends to comments and decisions that alienate the base in an effort to appeal to people who do not and will note vote for Democrats, regardless of issues."
Everything has been distilled through this process and continues to be to appease their versions of reality. It is not sustainable and definitely not regionally appropriate.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)was pretty stupid. For every Republican vote she picked up in an affluent suburb of the SF Bay Area, Southern California, Northern Virginia, Philadelphia, or the Gold Coast of Connecticut, Clinton lost two or three middle or even lower-income white voters in areas of the Midwest and even the Northeast in some cases (particularly white voters without degrees, of course - and I'd argue that these losses to Trump were more disturbing/alarming in the case of women, considering that the race was between the single most prominent icon of feminism in American politics vs. a crassly racist, pathologically narcissistic, and shamelessly mean-spirited billionaire heir and reality TV star who regularly indulges in the most outlandish of conspiracy theories and bragged about his ability to get away with sexually assaulting women).
Furthermore, note that many of those aforementioned areas of the country that swung so dramatically to Trump had voted for Democrats for decades. These were not necessarily lifelong Republican voters, by any means; indeed, some of the same voters that Trump picked up in those crucial swing states voted for Democrats down-ballot even as they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, Clinton's comparatively modest inroads into Republican suburbs did not help Democrats downballot; most of the voters that she picked up in those places continued to vote Republican for Congress as well as state and local offices. And much of the Obama coalition - including many voters belonging to ethnic and racial minority groups, younger voters (men and women) - either voted for third parties, wrote-in Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or whomever, or simply stayed home. This was obviously very disturbing as well.
Yes, racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, and Islamophobia were all major factors in this election.Hillary Clinton has been treated horribly since 1992 purely because she's a woman in politics - more specifically, a feminist woman in politics. And yes, the media - both the "mainstream media" and the "alt-right" as well as trolls and Fake News (which were often Russian-sponsored, as we are all now painfully aware) gave Hillary Clinton a raw deal in 2016 (and that of course came on top of the decade-long campaign against the very legitimacy of Barack Obama and the agenda of the entire Democratic Party). And yes, Bernie Sanders was marginalized or more often, utterly ignored by much of the media in favor of Donald Trump's billions of dollars of free air time where he could spout his insane bullshit for everyone to see (because crazy brings ratings, and with them, advertising revenue and so on). And yes, the Trump campaign, the broader Republican Party and right-wing troll pundits, the FBI, the media, WikiLeaks, etc. all blew up any hint of a scandal that could be connected to Hillary Clinton (as has been done by many of the same people for over two decades). And yes, the interference from Russia was unprecedented and scary. And yes, Republicans in many states' efforts at voter suppression seemed to pay off for Trump and others. I do not dispute any of these things. But that doesn't mean make the more credible criticisms of Clinton irrelevant (from my point of view and the point of view of many others as well). What happened last year had many causes and with many factors relevant to the outcome, and all of our voices here on this website matter in debating both what happened and how to move forward.
And just for the record, I voted for Clinton and straight-ticket Democratic in both the primaries and the general election, and encouraged others to do the same. And I don't regret any of that, in spite of my disappointment and to a certain extent, disillusionment, which I've clearly stated here in recent months. But I think it's clear that the Democratic Party has some major, arguably systemic problems right now, and I take no pleasure in any acknowledging in any of this.
I truly hope that this party and all of us who vote for it find a way to move forward that both solidifies our current coalition but just as importantly, expands it. Because at the end of the day, the Democratic Party only matters to the extent that it has the power to stand up for those who suffer, those who are marginalized by the economic, social, and political hierarchies embedded in the United States, and dare I say, the extent that the party has to flatten all of those hierarchies to create liberty, justice, and equality for all. That is my hope, at least.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)issues have nothing to do with it.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)My posting this OP asking why people are targeting Pelosi is a distraction, but spreading false headlines about her is not? My responsibility is to remain silent in the face of blatant falsehoods and just accept that expecting accuracy or truth is just a distraction?
And I'm supposed to remain silent in the face of efforts to replace a liberal with a conservative, anti-choice Democrat who can't even bring himself to denounce GOP efforts to repeal ACA, because why exactly? My daring to object to efforts to move the party away from equal rights, including my own, is a mere distraction?
If Pelosi isn't the issue and House and Senate rules are, why are all the attacks focused on Pelosi? And why don't they constitute a distraction? I suppose pointing out that head of the DCCC, not minority leader, oversees congressional campaigns would also be a distraction?
I don't really have a position on Democratic caucus rules, but then I'm not a member of the House. I suppose competence and knowledge of the chamber and its members may be reasons for the existing rules. House members can certainly vote to change the rules if they see fit, but they may not see GOP dysfunction as something to emulate. People are certainly within their rights to run for congress to try to change the rules--if they can manage to win elections. Considering we've seen so many people who claim to know exactly what wins, I'd think one of them could manage to win an election somewhere.
MaryLouisaWillis
(44 posts)Young ignorant and power hungry is your model. Last November, without the election fraud by the republicans etc... Hillary would be president and we picked up seats in both houses. What dysfunction? The MSM keeps talking about it, but you don't have to buy it.
BeyondGeography
(39,226 posts)JI7
(89,150 posts)they have republican friends they want to appear popular to.
and the rest are just sexist racist assholes.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)That is yet another devolution of our political culture that makes it possible for someone like Trump to be president.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)I never liked DWS and honestly, I don't think Hillary did either. I miss Hillary
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)My understanding is that Obama chose her because of her loyalty to Clinton.
Pelosi and DWS are very different in terms of issue positions and ability.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)including Hillary...
and Obama wanted desperately to replace her for a long time.
Now, a lot of people don't buy what that book is selling, personally I thought it was a good read.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)A lot of people had problems with her leadership, and not just because of PR.
Our former mayor, RT Rybak, dressed her down publicly.
MaryLouisaWillis
(44 posts)is crap. I am pretty sure people who actually worked on the election would dispute all of it.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)But I don't think the book was written with the intent of being truthful.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There was a massive amount of sturm und drang here around the book when it came out, from people who didn't bother to read it and frankly didn't seem to have much of a clue as to what it, actually, said.
I thought it was a fairly level-headed dispatch that seemed pretty believable, written from the POV of people who actually thought they were going to be reporting on what would turn out to be a victorious campaign.
Most of the principals came out looking fairly good; Hillary in particular, whose brains, intentions and heart were in the right place. Obama's primary fault seems to have been over-optimism. Bill Clinton made an unforced error meeting LL on the tarmac. Robby Mook was a little too focused on analytics and data, isolated from on-the-ground realities. Etc.
Nothing terribly scandalous or slamming, at least to my read.
The only two people who come out of that book looking like human train wrecks are Trump and DWS.
Now, whether that lines up with what people have heard from pretty much every other source, or not, I guess they can decide themselves.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Much like most alternative facts.
Progressive dog
(6,854 posts)as a Democratic leader.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)And it makes sense for Republcans. Not so much for everyone else.
Docreed2003
(16,793 posts)She is an incredibly strong leader who has a skill set that few have for keeping her caucus together. That set of skills is not something one is born with, it's a talent that is built over time and experience.
A question that I haven't seen posted, does she have a member of the caucus that she herself is grooming to be a future leader/speaker? I may be in the minority in this opinion but I would much prefer there to be someone waiting in the wings that has learned and gained experience under her tutelage whenever she ultimately steps down, rather than an upstart who is trying to pass themselves off as "not pelosi".
Tom Rinaldo
(22,910 posts)I have written of my support for Pelosi before and I am glad to REC your OP. Your point about a call for "new leadership" being inconsistent with entertaining either Biden or Sanders for president in 2020 is entirely valid. However your comment "the demands for removal would also extend to Sanders, who likewise appears in all of those ads with Pelosi" is off base. Yes Sanders gets targeted in that way, much as Ted Kennedy once was. The Republicans will always go after leading Liberals, if they can't use Sanders they will use Warren, or Schumer or whoever. They will always go after an effective Democratic leader in Congress, like Peosi, also.
But Sanders, like Kennedy and Warren (and all Senators) is chosen by the electorate of his State, as is Nancy Pelosi for her House seat. The "Democratic" calls to remove Pelosi are calls to remove her from her Minority Leader position (not her House seat) to which she is elected by House members. Sanders isn't targeted by the Right due to his minor role in the Democratic Leadership caucus team, he is targeted because of his high profile from his presidential campaign. No doubt they will smear him again if he becomes a leading candidate again in 2020, and will try to tie that smear to other Democrats. But no one would call for a leading member of the Democratic caucus to resign from Congress because Republicans oppose him or her.
MaryLouisaWillis
(44 posts)Will allow him to run as a Democrat again. His behavior last time around was IMO very divisive. The majority of us who voted for Hillary are not up for a replay of an independent who does nothing but attack the party, running in our primaries. I see your avatar so I know you won't agree, but I really feel the party would do a great deal of harm if they let him run again. They broke their own charter to let him run last time. So his run will be as an independent.
stonecutter357
(12,678 posts)BainsBane
(52,999 posts)and appears on the television several times a week.
Pelosi was elected leader by the Democratic caucus in the House. Sanders was appointed to his position.
The argument about "freshness" as in another OP created just this morning, doesn't concern itself with any aspects of the leadership position. Pelosi needs to go because she's not part of their tribe. They want power, and they can't win an election anywhere, so they make demands. Not only that, they specifically argue against competence as a reason for holding a leadership position.
The point of my OP was not Sanders, however. It was asking what underlies the particular vehemence toward her. I suspect it is much like their contempt for Clinton, which clearly had nothing to do with issues. In Pelosi's case, they can't even pretend she isn't progressive enough on the issues, so they resort to vapid demands for a "fresh face." After several months, they still can't manage to make a single substantive point.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)"establishment" to his wing, and anyone who doesn't conform to their versions of reality is treated to this type of attack. They want his versions of reality to be the platform for the Democrats. So she is in the way of that. Look how they are treating elected officials on all levels in California. It fits their pattern.
riversedge
(69,537 posts)mcar
(42,179 posts)and one of the best Minority Leaders.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)Pelosi has a 95% voting record for progressive causes. Her main opposition in the house is Tim Ryan who only has a 78% record. Steny Hoyer who would probably win has a 77% record. Not to mention Pelosi is great at her job, she's not an impediment to progress she's one of the only ones bucketing water of the ship.. Her only issue is we don't have power, and the republicans broke the system. Calls to remove her are highly suspect.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)enters into it.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)yardwork
(61,331 posts)R B Garr
(16,914 posts)article. The "bended knee" part is what they are still doing to the party. Elected Democrats are targeted simply to harass them with irrational tirades from 2015 that did not work or win in the long run. Their version of reality and their nomenclature is the goal, and good elected Democrats are expendable and smeared in that superficial and futile effort. It's truly absurd.
From the article: "mockery and derision to move the party left" -- yup, they are still doing that, but that still did not work or win in the long run.
Ironically, they are targeting Pelosi because they say that we haven't won, but they are the ones who have not won, ever. It's truly absurd all the way around. And, of course, divisive.
Gothmog
(143,631 posts)HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)Although you feel that it is a great thing that she is to the left of most Americans, and even most Democrats, her critics feel that this extreme left lean has limited the Democratic appeal to American voters and that her influence has contributed to an overall loss of Dem office-holders, while concentrating party influence in the most liberal states.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)They claim the party isn't left enough.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I know that that won't happen, and probably can't happen. But neither will Trump be impeached, and I don't see any viable Democratic challengers to him in 2020 at this point - in spite of how genuinely unpopular he and the Republicans in general are. Not much reason for optimism on that front.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)John Boehner and Mitch McConnell kept the Republicans in Congress unified under Obama, who was much more popular than Tr*mp ever has been or ever will be.
Pelosi does get mad credit for moving legislation through the House in 2007-2010.
Real question is whether the team of Pelosi/Hoyer/Clyburn are an asset or liability when it comes to persuading voters to give the party a second look. Because that's what we need to do to win the White House.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)BainsBane
(52,999 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 31, 2017, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Why am I not shocked. Not that most white voters outside of S Carolina even know who he is. I must have missed all the GOP ads featuring Clyburn.
And of course Kamala Harris is a target too. What's the excuse there? It can't be because she hurts the party. It's pretty clear to me that she is targeted because they fear she will be too popular.
And why not Sanders? Why is he not a liability, despite the fact the GOP tether to him every Democrat running for office? It makes zero sense to target Clyburn and Harris but give Bernie a pass if the concern is the party's image.
My view is that the voters and critics so anxious to appeal to the affluent white male vote and and drive away the base by targeting the handful of women and people of color who have achieved leadership positions stick with the the GOP rather than trying to remake the Democratic Party in its image.
There is no evidence to support any of these claims about winning. For one, those claiming absolute knowledge about how to win have never gotten a single one of their candidates elected, even in the bluest district. Clearly they don't know the first thing about winning. Additionally, If the critics cared about Democrats' winning, they won't vote for them. Yet they have publicly said they have not and will not. Despite that, you uphold their demands for power over a party and its voter they despise.
Yet again, we see voter suppression ignored in lieu of the quest for the affluent, white male reactionary voter who is troubled by seeing women and black faces in leadership position. That argument isn't based on data or fact. It shows flagrant disregard for evidence in order to advance an agenda that cannot be justified through evidence, reason, or appeals to what is just. It reveals a value system in which a few thousand white men of means are more valuable than millions of voters of color and women. There can be little more unjust.
If you dont realize what you're enabling, you better wake up fast.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BainsBane
(52,999 posts)qualify as a recipe for winning? Not one victory. Not one election won, even in the bluest districts. The anointed candidates have consistently under performed Clinton and the party as a whole. Yet despite that record of complete and utter failure, they demand that the party purge leaders, who just coincidentally happen to be women and people of color and reflect the part's actual voting base. Those demands for power are justified not through a history of success, because they have none, but because they say so.
And where exactly is your evidence that turning against the Democratic base will result in winning? What is logical about driving away loyal Democratic voters to cater to people who have no intention of ever voting for Democrats? Oh, but if only Democrats banished all women and people of color from public view, we might be able to win over the White Supremacist vote. Yet polling demonstrates that Trump's voters remain supportive of him. Therefore there is clearly a very different reason for advancing this agenda--one that has fuck all to do with winning.
Meanwhile, voter suppression is not only ignored but doubled down on through efforts to replace primaries with low turn-out caucuses.
You don't even try to make an argument. You don't even try to come up with evidence. You don't even think you should have to be logical or persuasive. Therefore you aren't.
I do find it fascinating how the pretense of the party's not being progressive enough on issues has evaporated. That was always a transparent ruse that depended on keeping voters uninformed and misinformed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)largely due to Blue Dogs.
Our base, by itself, isn't big enough to retake Congress.
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)At all. The Tea Party was in open revolt against him. They is another blatantly false claim.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)All of his troubles began when he became Speaker. Before then there were zero Rs elected as Tea Partiers
BainsBane
(52,999 posts)and its become increasingly clear to me that her ability to do so is one of the reaons she is being targeted.
Also your entire argument is based on the claim of winability. Pointing to a period when the Dems controlled congress and the White House undercuts those already spurious claims.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)candidates in R-leaning districts.
Also no secret that the party is deeply unpopular in areas it needs to win in order to retake Congress.
Given the above, litmus tests and doubling down on the 2016 approach with the same public faces of the congressional leadership seems unwise.
How many candidates in exurban Missouri would be eager to have Nancy Pelosi campaign on the stump for them?