The Argument about Nancy Pelosi is Destructive.

[MineralMan]

It is simply divisive. It has no function, since we do not elect a Speaker. IF, and I stress that word, we win back a majority of seats in the House, the elected members will choose a Speaker. The Speaker's position is not a public election issue.

I see the entire thing as a deliberately divisive thing. We should reject it altogether prior to the November election. Candidates can say whatever they wish about it, and the voters will decided whether a candidate is elected or not. Beyond that, it should not be an issue at all. We will have no input into the decision of the members when the new congress is seated. The choice of Speaker is purely an internal issue in the House of Representatives.

I will not participate in arguments about this. They serve only to divide Democrats prior to the election. Such divisiveness is harmful to the election of a majority in the House. We should not be doing this. Period.

Introducing divisions among Democrats is how we lose elections. Let the voters in each district choose their member. Then, if we gain a majority, those members will select a Speaker. Right now, that question is not even relevant.

Please, folks, lets elect Democrats to the House. We can worry about the Speaker if we manage to win a majority. Until then, we should have only one goal!

[Wellstone ruled]

1. So damn true.

[MineralMan]

4. Yup. If we lose in November, it won't matter, because

we won't have a Democrat as Speaker. If we do win and regain the majority, there will be a Democratic Speaker, whether it is Pelosi or someone else. That won't matter so much, either.

We really need to stop fighting about crap we don't get to decide, and who will be the Speaker is one of those things.

Unity is what we need in November. Anything divisive gets in the way of winning back control of the House. Nothing else matters one bit if we don't do that.

So, let's do that. Just vote for Democrats in your own district, and help others get to the polls to vote. That's what will win this election for Democrats.

[Wellstone ruled]

17. Just happen to be back in state

for a bit of a vaca. Getting caught up on The Family DFL delegate's experiences during the last couple of years. Wow,the intrigue is interesting.

And as far as Pelosi as speaker,she earned it and hope fully our people get out to vote. Otherwise,forget about it,we become a Dictatorship.

Noticed this anti Pelosi speak came from a Russian Bot and re-puked by a certain number of ticked off 2016 voters who love to bitch without getting their hands dirty by getting out there to help get our Candidates elected.

[MineralMan]

21. Well, there will be a few new House members elected

who were supported by Sanders and his Our Revolution folks. A few. Most primary winners, though, are more traditional Democrats. They need everyone's support, too. For me it's simple. In November, I vote for the Democratic candidate. Every time. I've done that since my first election in 1966. Every time.

That's because electing majorities in state and federal legislatures is crucial. Nothing else matters as much.

[Power 2 the People]

38. I'm with you 100%

Vote TRUE BLUE!

[Wellstone ruled]

55. Oh yes,been

doing that since 1960 in Wisconsin,Minnesota,Utah and now Nevada. Like the Penguin said,it's the only way to fly.

Every time a third Party gets to a ballot,we Dems get it right in the butt.

People have ti oat attention.

[Hortensis]

62. Or productive? "It's Pelosi, not Kavanaugh, libtards."

Someone's winning here, and it's not us.

[calimary]

51. So damn true!

I wondered about that, just this morning.

Say we do win in November and flip the House. Then comes the vote for Speaker.

Are we REALLY gonna dissolve into internal bickering and divisiveness quibbling over who should be Speaker?

Are we REALLY gonna tarnish that win we will just have worked so hard to earn?

Are we REALLY gonna mess up the narrative, that badly? So badly that the media and the opposition both take that up and run with it -about how all Democrats can do is fight among themselves and won't get anything done and they've thus turned a big victory into a bigger and colossally embarrassing world-class public relations blunder?

Are we REALLY gonna voluntarily make ourselves look like jerks? And just keep on feeding the narrative that Democrats are famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT, Brothers and Sisters!

[randr]

2. Very true

Anti Pelosi bullshit is from the Repugs and is intended to split us.
Democratic candidates running on the "I won't vote for Nancy issue" are trying to appease moderate Repugs who will never vote for them in any case.
Strong unity must be our standard in this battle.

[MineralMan]

6. I have no problem with a Democratic primary winner who doesn't

support Pelosi. I'd vote for that Democrat. I vote for Democrats. It's not an issue in my district, but it is in some. It is the ELECTED House members from the majority party who elect the Speaker, not us.

We have representatives to elect. I suggest we get on with the business of doing that.

[old guy]

3. Well said.

At least there are two here that won't participate.

[bronxiteforever]

5. Agree +10000

[MineralMan]

8. Thank you!

I haven't asked my House member who she supports as Speaker. It's not an issue for me, and she hasn't mentioned it. She'll be on the November ballot and will get my vote. Then, she can vote for whomever she wants as Speaker, with my blessing.

[tritsofme]

7. I agree this is a discussion that ought to be delayed until after the election, but it's absurd

to argue that only House members need concern themselves with who becomes speaker.

[MineralMan]

10. What does concern about who will be speaker accomplish?

Can you answer that? I can't see that it accomplishes anything. It will depend on elected Democrats, assuming we win back the majority. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter right now.

[tritsofme]

14. Choosing the person who sits two heartbeats from the presidency

Is surely a matter of great public concern, I feel like your dismissal of this essential discussion is rather obtuse.

[MineralMan]

15. What role do you play in selecting the next Speaker?

Do you elect more than one House member? Nope. Do you control the vote of even that one?

Yes, the Speaker is important. But you don't choose the speaker and neither do I. You get to choose one house member, if your district can elect a Democrat in the first place. If your representative votes for someone other than Pelosi, there's a strong chance she'll win, anyhow. What then?

Right now, it's not important. The only thing that's important is electing a majority of Democrats. Let's do that, shall we?

So, who IS your House representative. Who will the Democratic candidate be in your district in November? What are you doing to make sure he or she wins?

[tritsofme]

19. Members don't operate in a vacuum, they are accountable to their stakeholders

They pay attention to opinion leaders and the pulse of the party.

I already said in my first post that this is a discussion that can wait until after the election, but then it will be one we cannot avoid.

[MineralMan]

22. Based on who is winning primaries, it looks to me like

Nancy Pelosi will win the Speaker's position in a walk-away. There are only a few who are speaking against her who actually have a chance to be elected to the House.

The argument is a waste of everyone's time. Especially now.

[tritsofme]

24. As I've repeatedly said, happy to wait until after November.

[shanny]

25. just an fwiw, there are two votes

The first is for House party leader and that happens in November...so regardless of whatever change in direction may be reflected in the election this fall, the change will not impact that crucial vote.

The second is for Speaker, and that happens on the first day of the new session, and new members can vote. But yes, that is generally unanimous.

[tritsofme]

27. That's actually incorrect. Incoming members vote in leadership elections, outgoing members do not.

[shanny]

31. citation please

[tritsofme]

34. I'm not going to do your homework.

It is something I know to be 100% correct, I’m more curious what it is that gave you the false impression that incoming members do not get a say in leadership elections?

[shanny]

65. You just know? well OK then

I'm not doing your homework either.

[tritsofme]

68. Whatever. You are wrong. You have access to google, this is a silly discussion.

And rather amusing.

[oasis]

9. Hannity, Rush, Trump are not allowed to dictate who leads OUR party. nt

[MineralMan]

11. Exactly. They keep trying, though.

Why we're letting them define the issues, I have no idea. We should be paying zero attention to their opinions about Democrats. They hate all Democrats.

[certainot]

26. they've been doing it for years and we let them because liberals believe the rw myths

about talk radio - it needs to be ignored, fox is more important, the internet is more important, it's a 20 - 1 monopoly because liberals don't listen to talk radio, it's just a bunch of guys on the radio with different political opinions enjoying their free speech rights, etc

so liberals ignore it, while the koch and now putin think tanks use those 1500 coordinated radio stations to manage US buzz all day long, deciding clintons are the most corrupt politicians on the planet and nancy pelosi needs to retire.......

[Bernardo de La Paz]

71. Period.... . . . no text

[Uncle Joe]

12. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread MineralMan

[gopiscrap]

13. I agree

[still_one]

16. Yo're darn right it is MM. This can be done AFTER the midterms. Right now we need to stay on

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2018, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

message and go after trump and the republicans.

[MineralMan]

18. Some of the Democratic House candidates who say they won't

vote for Pelosi will end up doing just that, I'm sure. If a majority of House members wants Pelosi, AND we get a majority, then Nancy will be back in that job. And, as usually happens, House members will end up making it unanimous. So, what someone says today may well not be what they actually do when push comes to shove anyhow.

That's why it doesn't really matter at this point.

[still_one]

42. Sure, but bringing it up now maes no sense

[spanone]

20. You are 100% correct MM

[MineralMan]

23. Thanks! And

GOTV!

[spanone]

33. ALWAYS!!!!!👍🏼

[lutherj]

28. Agreed. This is the right trying to scare their base into

the polling booth by reminding them who will become speaker if they lose the house. The Republican patriarchal mindset dislikes Pelosi for the same reasons they dislike Hillary. Pelosi is one of the most effective speakers in history. And her age has no bearing on younger voters. Ask someone under 35 who the current speaker is. Maybe one in twenty would be able to answer.

[lsewpershad]

29. Win the damn elections

then decide who will be speaker
Don't let the republicons decide even before the elections.

[DinahMoeHum]

30. Concur. Candidates should simply say she's not a priority. . .

. . .with them or their constituents, and put the matter aside.

[BigmanPigman]

32. Bill Maher asked one of his guests, a Dem congressman,

how he feels about Pelosi and it pissed me off. Shut up Bill, and stop adding fuel to the fire!

[spanone]

43. the right sets up this entire discussion...they demonize their targets for years, Pelosi, Hillary...

it's the old 'have you stopped beating your wife' inquiry

it's bullshit.

[RiverStone]

35. Agree! Does an OP focus on winning in November?

That should be our only prime directive. Crushing tRump wingnuts with a big blue wave!!!

[NoMoreRepugs]

36. The Speakers position is by it's very nature one that

normally selects the person most able to deliver a consensus amongst individuals elected by us..... I have no problem with whomever the Democratic Congress, should they be in that position, determines who their speaker should be. I'm not so sure my opinion matters to be honest.

[JonLP24]

37. That's why I said it's not my call

[OnDoutside]

39. Completely agree. And there should be follow up by other Dems in support of what Nancy said

about NBC setting an agenda of creating divisiveness about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker aka deliberately shit-stirring.

[Iggo]

40. You are correct, sir.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

41. One thing has nothing to do with the other

I'm going to vote for every Democrat on the ballot in November. My opinion on the speakership or the minority/majority leadership doesn't impact that.

I don't see why you find this divisive. If I'm fortunate to be represented by a Democrat after the midterms, I plan to let her know I want a new face for Speaker and Majority Leader. I want Nancy Pelosi voted out of the House leadership (majority or minority). So at that level, it is relevant. Her time has passed, and the time for newer, younger leaders has arrived.

[dlk]

44. Divisiveness & Destruction is the Point

Anyone who falls for it is just like Charlie Brown expecting Lucy not to yank away the football.

[MineralMan]

46. Yup.

[LiberalLovinLug]

45. And starting yet another OP that encourages the pro and con arguing is NOT destructive?

"I will not participate in arguments about this." You just set the table, I see. lol

[heaven05]

48. true

these arguments serve no functional purpose. Won't get rid of dumptrump. Let's argue about ways of getting rid of that jackass...

[Trust Buster]

49. Utter nonsense. We have been debating this issue since the 2016 election.

To claim the we must be censored because a few Republicans have spoken out against Pelosi is tantamount to allowing the Republicans to censor our thoughts. No one has argued about the Speaker of the House position. The Democrats will have a leader in the House regardless of if they are the majority party or not. Pelosi is evidence of this fact herself. She has been the leader for the Democrats in the House for 15 years (2003 - present). I do not believe it is healthy for any organization to assign someone “leader for life”. This isn’t the Supreme Court !! I will not stand for pro-Pelosi elements of DU in their efforts to censor us on such a lame and disingenuous basis. PERIOD.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. You are blaming Pelosi for tRump. "certain people have led us to this". Welcome to DU?

Your first day.

Your concern is noted.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

70. Odd that you don't refute that you blame Pelosi for tRump.

All POC are going to be late arrivals to the party, why do you need to highlight it.

I haven't mentioned "People of Color" once in this thread. Why are you introducing another divisive issue that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread? And making ridiculous orthogonal suggestions that have not happened and are not facts.

Either you don’t like this status who changing with all the coloreds OR you’ve just got nothing significant to contribute do need to fall back on you post count.

I'm not holding my breath for the translation of that sentence into English.

this status who changing with all the coloreds

What does that mean? And what's with the reference to "coloreds"? Are you pretending to be a "person of color"? Generally people of color don't refer to "coloreds". It is very odd when someone does so. Are you using a foreign language dictionary of American jargon? Как погода в Санкт-Петербурге?

got nothing significant to contribute do need to fall back on you post count.

"do need"? What does that mean?

I said nothing about my post count.

Either way its pathetic.

You have raised a straw man and demolished it. That is what's pathetic.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. NOT censoring. It's about adult self-control to focus on priorities. Time & place for everything

The time is after the November 2018 elections. Plenty of time then. Loads of time until the new Congress is seated. And after it is seated.

We have been debating this issue since before the 2016 election, but the roughly three month period as major elections near is an appropriate time to postpone divisive issues.

There is no need for the discussion now. There is need and time later. There are anti-Pelosi elements who also advise self-restraint to avoid divisiveness now when it is not needed.

Having the discussion now is encouraged by Republicons who are reveling in the divisive effects. tRump has officially endorsed the discussion of Pelosi at this time. That is not the main reason for not arguing about it now, but arguing about it now would advance his and his party's disruptive efforts.

Democrats can exercise self-control and focus.

[Trust Buster]

63. That is just your opinion. I believe being the leader of the Democrats in the House for 15 years

Is long enough. I have held this position since the 2016 elections. I don’t give a damn what the Republicans are saying. I can think for myself thank you. These issues must have proper planning. As we saw the last time Pelosi was chosen, she controls the levers of power regarding such elections in the House. Waiting is acceding. I could not disagree with you more.

[MineralMan]

72. I agree. As voters, we play virtually no role in selecting

House Speakers or other Congressional leaders. That's the job of those who are elected. So, it makes little sense for us to waste time arguing about that. Once the new Congress is seated, its members will elect their own leaders. With hard work, we can have a Democratic majority again, and our representatives will be able to elect a Speaker of the House. If we don't work hard, it will be the Republicans electing the Speaker.

So, we need to elect more Democrats, regardless of who they prefer as Speaker.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

74. Voters can pressure Representatives choice of Speaker, but now is not the time.

Now is the time to elect Representatives. Democratic Representatives. As soon as a primary closes, there is only one task: elect the Democratic candidate. (But we agree on that )

[MineralMan]

75. We do agree. Sadly, a few will refuse to vote for the Democratic

nominee unless that nominee agrees with them on this issue. In close races, that can cost Democrats the election. That is what I hope will not happen, and why I think Nancy Pelosi, who will win her district, should not be an issue at this time.

[Gothmog]

50. Agreed

Link to tweet

[wryter2000]

52. Hear, hear!

I have to worry about the motives of the anti-Pelosi crowd.

[JaneQPublic]

54. How do you stop the press from asking...

...each Dem House candidate if she/he will vote for Pelosi as Speaker?

How do you stop them from asking Pelosi herself if she really ought to run?

It simply IS an issue in the political media, regardless of whether it's helpful to the Democratic Party. And it certainly will continue to be an issue regardless of whether a bunch if us political nobodies discuss it here on DU.

[MineralMan]

73. If I were such a candidate, I would respond by saying,

"If we succeed in regaining majority status, then the Democrats will be able to choose a speaker. I'll address that after we win back the majority of seats. Until then, I'm working on getting elected so we'll have that choice. Next question, please."

[JaneQPublic]

76. The reality is Dem candidates ARE answering the question now

And the media ARE reporting on it.




But I'm sure a DU blackout on the topic will make all the difference.

[MineralMan]

77. Yes. I am aware of that, which is why I started this thread.

[JaneQPublic]

78. You're greatly overestimating DU's influence on politics at large...

...and underestimating the natural inclination of DU members to be divisive on any topic raised, no matter how non-controversial. (Even posts on registering to vote or announcing upcoming Resistance events draws opposing/negative responses.)

Banning a topic on DU won't stop it being debated among pols and talking heads and certainly won't stop DU members from being generally divisive, before or after an election.

[TryLogic]

56. Absolutely! It is deliberately divisive.

[Lunabell]

59. At this point in history,

I'm not going to criticize any Democrats unless they're acting like a republican. Nancy Pelosi isn't. Our democracy is at stake. We MUST unite against trump.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. The Argument about Pelosi IS needed

Just not now. It is needed, after the election of Nov 2018.

Excellent OP, MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

69. Thank you.

Time is limited. We must focus on achievable outcomes.

[MontanaMama]

64. Exactly.

Don't buy into this RW argument. They hate Nancy Pelosi because they FEAR her. Don't do their work for them.

[Pluvious]

79. I'm with you MineralMan, the moles and trolls are beginning to make their play...

Time's running out, and there's only a few issues they can work to sow and flame division.

This one you mention is prolly on their top five list.

I just hope our backend IT team can keep DU healthy and humming this November

May Zeus give them strength and stamina !

[ecstatic]

80. CNN & MSNBC are once again doing the GOP's work

It's disgusting, and I agree that we should not continue to let them set the narrative...especially not when the GOP is being lead by traitors.