Well, I'm deeply sorry that I've failed to make a compelling case for Nancy Pelosi, but seeing as I'm not interested in making a compelling case for Nancy Pelosi -- a subject on which I said I'm ambivalent -- I expect I'll get over my deep regret.
I really wish Pelosi weren't going to be the Speaker.
- Thread starter DrHoops
- Start date
Pelosi's presser was night and day from Trump's. She was reasonable and articulate,discussing the principle of "e pluribus unum",the idea that we need to bring the country together,and how regulation and oversight were the OBLIGATION of the Legislative branch as enumerated in the Constitution.
No raising her voice,yelling at people to sit down,or expressions of petulance because reporters (doing their JOB) dared to ask her tough (read unfair) questions.
No attacking of other Dems or gloating over the idea that they lost because they refused her help.It was totally WE,she constantly talked about how wonderful the Dem candidates (both winners and losers) were. In short, Adult vs CHILD- fully on display.
I don't mind new leadership...but want people who are actually going to do at least as good a job. Looks like too that we are on the verge of a constitutional crisis as Trump prepares to fire Mueller so maybe we ought to be cautious about rushing into leadership changes.
Those aren't horrible thoughts, but this might not be the Congress to bring in fresh faces.
Trump just had a 90-minute press conference today where (among other things), he (1) continued attacking all Democrats anywhere and everywhere and even outlined his Congressional strategy for opposing them, (2) attacked Republicans by name who failed to get elected yesterday and blamed their non-election on what he called their failure to "embrace" Trump closely enough, and (3) continued to directly attack at least three reporters (look up the videos -- incredible). Also, he fired Sessions today.
The House of Representatives will be quite busy this coming year, and the Democrats will need an experienced tactician to negotiate with Trump's people and guide the various matters through the procedures. This might not be the time to bring in a rookie. Pelosi is good at strategy and rules. As speaker, she will not be any bigger a lightning rod than she already is, because Trump will use her name as a dog whistle anyway. Pavlov had nothing on Trump.
Well, that's certainly a weird comment.
All committees, appointments etc. in Congress seem to be controlled by seniority. For-e-ver, the chairs and other leaders of Congress (both Democrats and your blind-to-faults Republicans) have been older than the general membership of Congress. Griping about Pelosi's longevity as a Democrat, while ignoring McConnell's youthful and fresh viewpoints as a Republican just doesn't seem sensible.
You give a very good description of why democrats lose. It’s not the message. It’s not whoever “the face of the party” is? It’s because they’re afraid to attack and they’re afraid to use power. Republicans went from being all-out attack mode obstructionists to all-out attack mode jam-our-agenda-through. Now that dems have the house, republicans will be on tv every seven minutes from now til 2020 saying something along the lines of “these partisan democrats investigating blah blah blah” over and over and over and over. It will be “Pelosi this”, “Pelosi that” unless they make someone else SotH at which point it will be “and now they have so-and-so up there who’s even worse than Pelosi” over and over and over.
I agree.
And the Democrat members of the House should do what Trump does in his "negotiations", i.e. find some hook (for Trump those would be tariffs and executive orders for which he has definite authority), and press these advantages to the max to, ahem, encourage the other guy to, ahem, negotiate.
Trump's tactics are so obnoxious that many have declined to use them in reverse against Trump. But Trump was a raging firestorm today, and I don't think the Democrats should keep using the Marquis of Queensberry Rules when Trump is willing to fight according to the dirty rules of the street (or of the nebulous pseudo-ethics of a New York real estate developer).
And here I thought the thread was titled, "I really wish Pelosi weren't going to be the Speaker" and people were talking about that.
I guess you've got no response to the rest of the post, so...cool. Nice chatting with you.
You make an interesting point, but where is Pelosi's demonstrated tactical success in countering President Trump? I'm not a big fan of her for Speaker precisely because I haven't seen the kind of strategic acumen that you outline as important. I have no problem with the tough employment of power. I just haven't seen Nancy Pelosi excel at it. So, I get your concerns and I share them. I'm just skeptical (as is patently obvious to everyone.)
There may be other and better options than Pelosi I haven't heard of, but I was responding to the suggestion that the Democrats needed a "fresh face" for reason that, well, the poster thought the Democrats needed a "fresh face." Trump's going to whine about Pelosi no matter what.
You want to discuss only who can make a "compelling" case for Pelosi to remain in her position.* I don't know why your narrow sense of the question is the only thing anyone is allowed to mention in this thread. My post questions the way you (and many other Democrats) seem to be approaching this question. Why isn't that relevant to The Pelosi Question?And here I thought the thread was titled, "I really wish Pelosi weren't going to be the Speaker" and people were talking about that.
I guess you've got no response to the rest of the post, so...cool. Nice chatting with you.
In any event, you seem to have a particular interest in The Pelosi Question. Perhaps you could help the rest of us understand why we must all view that vitally important question from your perspective. Coming from California (as I understand you do), it may be that you have a perspective that could benefit all of us. Why aren't you sharing?
______________________________________________
*What's with this "compelling case" thing? You seem to be introducing some legalistic burden of proof argument. Why must anyone's case for or against Pelosi be "compelling"?
wherein lies the rub, and how the Dems lost control of something they had previously controlled for decades.
Dems controlled the house for decades other than some brief stints, and the senate as well much of that time, till Clinton came along.
the Dems didn't lose control of congress, they sold it, when they sold out the working class for money.
much of Trump's support is racially/ethnically based.
but much of it, the white working class who aren't racists, was sold off for money and they haven't forgotten.
and what did that money get the Dems?
absolutely nothing, other than money.
they picked up zero votes in that sale, and lost millions and millions.
You seem particularly vexed about me asking people complaining about opposition to Nancy Pelosi to make an argument for Nancy Pelosi rather than just complain about it. I'm sorry about that and that you don't like the word compelling. My intention is seek someone to make a case that might cause someone else to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. If "make a compelling base" bugs you, please feel free to insert your own language that might get you or someone else to reach towards that end. Or don't.
Regardless, I don't think you understand the way I'm approaching that question and I don't agree with your strategic approach to it. I'm not demanding anyone agree with my perspective. I'm just disagreeing with yours and Zeke's. That's why I I responded to your post (which is something I'm now obviously regretting doing.) It's interesting to be attacked for expressing my opinion and be pressed why I'm not offering my opinion in the same post. Regardless, I think there's plenty in this thread for somebody who is sincerely interested in my opinion on why Democrats might be better of with someone other than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.
I made one post in response to someone else where I doubted the effectiveness of sacrificing prominent Democratic hostages to the horde of Republican demagoguery. This ensnared me in your blizzard of demands that someone make a compelling case for Pelosi -- which as I said in the post you responded to without apparently reading closely, I'm ambivalent about. Admittedly, that's a little vexing.
I mean, don't get me wrong. If I thought ditching Pelosi would help Democrats win in 2020, I'd kick her to the curb. That's probably a shitty way to think, and it isn't fair to Pelosi, but 2020 is a bigger deal than that for me. So yeah, by all means show me that makes sense. I doubt the logic of it for all the reasons I laid out, but what do I know? I'm not a political operative.
I think Pelosi has done a good job, and I don't like sacrificing her to placate people who won't be placated. You say she hasn't done a good job. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. If someone can do better, I'm all for it. My purpose isn't to support Pelosi but to defeat Republicans. It's just a lot less clear to me than it is to some how Democrats would best do that from a defensive crouch. That obviously isn't how Republicans did it.
You're funny, Rock. I responded to three specific things in your post and offhandedly threw in that I didn't think there was a good case for Pelosi as Speaker because no seems to be offering one and that's ensnaring you "in your blizzard of demands". And you complain about Republicans getting too easily triggered.
But, your post did clearly underline that you don't understand my opinion if you think it's from a defensive crouch. It's from a "we can play much better offense than I've seen from Nancy Pelosi over the last 10 years" crouch. Keeping her because she's been around strikes me as the kind of thing a centry-centrist would do. So unlike you.
We seem to be talking past each other, because we're spending all our time talking about what we're talking about.You're funny, Rock. I responded to three specific things in your post and offhandedly threw in that I didn't think there was a good case for Pelosi as Speaker because no seems to be offering one and that's ensnaring you "in your blizzard of demands". And you complain about Republicans getting too easily triggered.
But, your post did clearly underline that you don't understand my opinion if you think it's from a defensive crouch. It's from a "we can play much better offense than I've seen from Nancy Pelosi over the last 10 years" crouch. Keeping her because she's been around strikes me as the kind of thing a centry-centrist would do. So unlike you.
I'll just reiterate that (1) I'm agnostic on The Pelosi Question (which is why I'm not making a compelling case for Pelosi); but (2) I'm dubious that ditching Pelosi would appease or attract Republicans.
If there's someone else who'd be better at the blocking and tackling of Speakership, then I'm all ears. If there's actually reason to believe that Democrats could win in 2020 by doing something as simple as ditching Pelosi, then I'd help kick her to the curb. But I'd like to hear why my specific reasons for skepticism about that are misplaced. And I remain curious why you're so intently focused on The Pelosi Question.
Jonathon Allen, political reporter on Pelosi: She remains the highest ranking woman in the history of American government. There is a strong argument to be made that she’s the most efficient legislator of her time.
Hey...somebody should make that argument!
I'd love to hear some details that back up Allen's assertion. I'd be more interested in "effective" or "dynamic", but I'd be up for "efficient", too.
I’ll attempt to make a case. I’m from Northern California, Pelosi Country. I respect her as a person and politician. She’s done good by the Democratic Party, but it’s time for her to step aside. Maybe not initially, but if she’s around a year from now, it’ll be a real head scratcher.
Yes, the Republican Party will attempt to demonize whoever replaces her, but only if that person allows it. We need new, young leadership at all levels. Trump is a street fighter, and his base actually thinks he’s tough. He’s a bitch, but politically effective with his mentally challenged base.
Tim Ryan wants the speakership. He’s the congressman that represents a working class district in Northern Ohio. He’s a 6-4 former football player, that would laugh at Trump’s insults to his face. That’s what this party needs, not another post election feel good story about how we came close to winning elections in red states who’s demographics are changing for the betterment of the Democratic Party. **** that. That’s in the future, but our country is in crisis mode now.
The Democratic Party needs to wake the **** up, and have a Midwesterner with working class bonefides on the presidential ticket, or leading the congressional caucus, in order to avoid a complete disaster.
I’m often accused of being a coastal elite, and I have nothing but respect for Pelosi, Gillibrand, Schumer, et al, but damn, it’s a simple political process to get the country back on track through the political process of the Democratic Party, if we get our head out of the sand.
I am tired of reading predictable stories of how the Democrats did great in losing close elections in red states, and how people like O’Rourke, Gillum, etc., did so well in losing. I agree, and believe the demographics are changing in favor of the Democrats. It’s not there yet, so I would love for the Democrats to stop floating ideas of running these losing candidates as POTUS candidates. Run Sherrod Brown or O’Malley at the top, with an exciting person, such as Harris on the ticket, and watch the landslide happen.
Don’t chase demographics prematurely by focusing on expanding the map with Georgia, Arizona, Texas, etc. That’s what Clinton did to her detriment in 2016. I would support whoever the Dems nominate for President, but there is no need to nominate someone the Republicans claim they could vote for, without in fact, doing so.
The Dems need to get in the street brawl, and all they need to do is flip Wis, Mich, and Pa. That should be easy. Go after Ohio, which is also attainable. **** Florida. It’s a weird ass political state, and not worth spending the resources and time, although I wouldn’t write it off completely. The road back to the WH goes through the Midwest. Pair a credible candidate from the rust belt region, with a coastal or additional Midwestern technocrat/intellectual, and we bury the Republican Party for a generation. I’m gonna have another now.
Don’t chase demographics prematurely by focusing on expanding the map with Georgia, Arizona, Texas, etc. That’s what Clinton did to her detriment in 2016. I would support whoever the Dems nominate for President, but there is no need to nominate someone the Republicans claim they could vote for, without in fact, doing so.
The Dems need to get in the street brawl, and all they need to do is flip Wis, Mich, and Pa. That should be easy. Go after Ohio, which is also attainable. **** Florida. It’s a weird ass political state, and not worth spending the resources and time, although I wouldn’t write it off completely. The road back to the WH goes through the Midwest. Pair a credible candidate from the rust belt region, with a coastal or additional Midwestern technocrat/intellectual, and we bury the Republican Party for a generation. I’m gonna have another now.
Seniority has some advantages. McConnell had been around long enough to remember the Biden Rule.......
Well it's according to whether they want bills to pass or are just trying to make the senate look bad. If the goal is to make the senate look bad then all they will do is pass bills that they know the Republicans won't accept.
