Can anyone point out any substantive criticism of Pelosi?

[Bucky]

I'm just appalled that over a dozen members of the House are vowing not to support Nancy Pelosi for speaker this January. She's had a number of against the odds legislative successes as opposition leader, and when she was speaker before she ran a fair House.

Is there any reason at all given by critics other than a vague mention of "change"? I'm not saying only post criticisms you personally endorse. But is there any mention at all of any issues of politics or political management to justify replacing her?

Or is this just a Will Rogers moment? Does the Cat Party just automatically resist shows of herding like what the Party of Lemmings does?

[OnDoutside]

1. To be fair, they've been even extremely helpful in pointing out who should be

primaried in 2020.

[Bucky]

2. Nah, I don't go for that circular firing squad vibe

Let the Republicans play the game of shoot the dissenters. As a liberal, I find excessive party discipline to be a little creepy.

My guess is that after they fizzle out in the caucus vote, they'll all vote for Pelosi on the floor

[OnDoutside]

3. It would be like pruning....or raking the forest

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. Nope, Teflon Don says they must rake CA; GRAPHIC WARNING

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211453263

[Bucky]

14. I never before thought I ever wanted to see Trump's O face

And now that I have, I'm certain I was right.

Damn you to hell

[olegramps]

60. The call for change got us Trump. How is that working out?

It seems to me these new comers have not sited one issue to which they object. I am not for blind party loyalty that the Republicans impose, however, I am not for blind calls for change without specifics either. It appears to me that they have swallowed the Republicans hate machine propaganda in which they employ their favorite weapon, moral assassination without a shred o evidence. Anyone here remember their attack on Kerry? This is more to the same treatment they gave to both Clintons that was lead by the most disgusting creatures who have ever to sat in congress.

[Doitnow]

72. When people advocate change, you gotta ask them---to what? And then check their RECORD.

And tell them most people are unqualified to start at the top----for good reasons.

[onit2day]

62. You can both support a person and be critical of actions you disagree with.

I support Pelosi as speaker because she is so efficient and productive. An excellent fund raiser. But...and it's a big but...her refusal to explore impeachment proceedings against Bush for lying us into a war and torture etc. was led by what she says today..."We should look forward ..." as she ignored the protests and marches of the base and many others angered them to the point they stayed home on election day and we lost the House. I hope she remembers it is the responsibility of the House to hold those in power accountable. We cannot move forward without cutting the dead weight of hypocrisy and criminal behavior of our nation's leaders. She ignored it with Bush and now we have Trump not being held accountable. Yes it "detracts from legislating" but she is duty bound to hold our leaders accountable. Our standing in the world and domestically depends on being responsible which demands accountability. Pelosi told Trump when he asked for a 7% increase in defense spending, already a bloated budget, she stated she would work really hard to get him the money he is asking for. So even though I support Pelosi I don't support some of the things she recommends. It's the issues not the personalities.

[LiberalLovinLug]

69. The voice of reason thank you.

I don't know why some can't understand that opposition to her is not because of her "establishment" status. Or her gender. Its completely based on looking at her history as speaker of looking the other way on past Republican crimes, and that that is like putting a bandaid on what should be open heart surgery. That getting a consession or two on overall destructive Republican bills is not what we need right now. We need a scorched earth strategy. We need someone that is not afraid to lose the shy moderate small r voters that might be put off by going for the throat. Who realizes that there are even more potential votes to be had by those that are aching for Democrats to be more aggressive against these Republican traitors.

I'm willing to give her another chance. Don't have much choice, as I think she'll be a shoo in. I just pray she has learned a few lessons and will listen to her core, and understands the consequences of "moving forward" ....again.

[certainot]

70. the most important thing she could do is to suggest to progressives to do

something about talk radio so the right couldn't keep using it to create made to order constituencies and 'popular opinion' to beat the crap out of red state dems so they wouldn't be whining to her she couldn't go after bush crime family, for instance.

so progressive dems would stop letting a few hundred assholes on 1500 radio stations take free potshots at dem reps and liberal ideals all day

if she learns anything it should be to stop ignoring rw radio, so the left would get off it's ass, do something about talk radio, and stop blaming symptoms - like dems not getting anything done, losing, not getting single payer, campaign finance reform, media reform, etc

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. Bill putting in the final nails in the 'fairness doctrine' was one of his worst mistakes

The so called "neo-liberal" strategy of appealing to the open market and that the market will sort itself out. That naturally, a balance will happen because of demand. What he didn't count on was a monopoly of media by Republican owners in Clear Channel, and the Sinclair Group, who will even take a hit and forgo any advertising money they could make if they hosted liberal talk radio shows, in order to keep on pro-Republican voices that support the kinds of deregulations that make it possible for their monopolization, as well as a lower corporate tax burden for them.

I have a good suggestion. But it would take a bit of 'wink wink, nudge nudge' on the part of Democrats who seem to loathe using out of the box strategies. Although they'd have to wait until Democrats controlled all three branches again. That is to present a new 'fairness doctrine' that couches it in a way to say..."this new bill will finally put to rest what our colleagues to the right have complained bout for decades, that the media are mostly liberal and Democrat biased. This new bill will assure that all the excessive liberal programming on radio is balanced with conservative voices."

[certainot]

80. they're dumb and they might fall for it, believing their own BS about a 20-1 monopoly

being an expression of free speech

easier and quicker is for liberals to start using artificial intelligence-enhanced transcription to digitize talk radio and letting the ad agencies know anyone who advertises on those stations can now be associated directly with content so they can be asked repeatedly if they agree with the global warming denial, racism, lies, trump/putin love, etc.

it won't last.

that can be as easy as doing some press releases to let the ad agencies and advertisers know it's inevitable and they'll head for the hills

but with dems ignoring talk radio it's going to come down to mueller finding out putin's been using talk radio for years

ps bill fucked up but dems were ignoring talk radio while it kicked his ass with bullshit the same way emails are still the big talk radio-created disaster we have today

[Richard D]

106. I was appalled by that "move forward" thing.

One of the bigger mistakes ever made.

[yellowdogintexas]

105. I saw the List of 16 and one is from Texas

so I sat down and fired off a postcard to his Brownsville office and one to his Alice office telling what I think about this ridiculous attempt to weaken our caucus. I used my generic GOTV cards with Vote For Pelosi etc.

I think everyone should do this to any of those people who are in their states.

LOL I also told him that since I had no representation because I live in TX 12 and Kay Granger is my House Rep I was writing to him.

[milestogo]

4. "substitutive" criticism?

I think you mean substantive.

[Bucky]

5. Yes. My voice to text doesn't understand me

Neither do my friends, but that's for different reasons

[True Dough]

19. They might know you better as

Bucky with an F.




Carry on, good sir!

[True Blue American]

27. Even my

Typing does not understand me. Forget about tapotalk.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Pretty much that Rogers moment, but a lot of us remember...

Dixiecrats, Huey Long, Tammany Hall...

Kinda leads me to the question-- "What are they getting out of it?"

[Bucky]

8. 16 dissenters, probably 16 different motives

I don't know any of these people. It could be ego, it could be they've seen polling that shows negative numbers for Pelosi and they're in swing districts, it could be some have been passed over for leadership positions.

One thing I love about the Democratic party is how messy we are. Democracy is supposed to be messy. Republicans marching in lockstep has always represented the creepy face of American conformity. I don't want to belong to a highly disciplined party, and this is the price we pay for that.

In the end, when Pelosi wins, she won't be weakened a bit by this. I hope she's a uniter enough do not indulge in political reprisals. That would be a sign of weakness

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Pelosi's been doing this stuff since she was a kid following her father around...

and she's damn good at it. I have little doubt she's already piled up carrots and sticks for the Young Turks out there to try to stop them from being the nightmare that the the Tea Party was to the Republicans.

And, yeah, democracy is messy. As annoying as it gets, the alternatives are worse. Far worse.

[JonLP24]

12. 17

This is Marcia Fudge

Rep. Marcia Fudge Calls Out Nancy Pelosi: There Is an ‘Undertone of Racism...in Our Caucus’

Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge joined the ever-rising chorus of people calling for California Rep. Nancy Pelosi to step down as speaker of the House, saying it’s time for new leadership for the Democratic Party.

In an interview with HuffPost, Fudge called out what she considered Pelosi’s dismal support of black candidates, saying the Congressional Black Caucus—which she used to chair—hasn’t been “feeling the love” from the former House speaker.

“I don’t have a pitch because at this point I’ve not decided I’m going to run,” Fudge told the Post, referring to her own potential candidacy for House speaker. “But I would say this: My concern about the caucus is the same concern I have about the country. Just as there is this undertone of racism in the country, there’s also that in our caucus.”

From HuffPost:

Fudge pointed to Pelosi’s refusal to endorse in the race for majority whip, a contest between the current No. 3 Democrat—and CBC stalwart—Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“But she wants our endorsements?” Fudge said of Pelosi. “Who has she endorsed?”

(Snip)

As CNN reports, Fudge was among 17 signees who pledged not to vote for Pelosi come January, when the House speaker vote will be held (the signees were a mix of incumbents and newly elected reps). Like many progressives, Fudge feels it’s high time for a House speaker who better reflects the black and brown voters who fueled the party’s gains in recent years.

https://www.theroot.com/rep-marcia-fudge-calls-out-nancy-pelosi-there-is-an-1830546754

This is my favorite comment

There are moderate republicans all over the place. Democrats just haven’t tried hard enough to reach them yet. They need to ignore the minorities and progressives of the party (they’re going to vote democrat no matter what, so it’s safe to ignore them), and really stick to status quo policy like increasing military spending, cutting social programs, and making sure corporations are profitable as possible.

Then come 2020, watch all these republicans come vote for democrats.

[Bucky]

15. Thank you

This gives good insight. I'm glad Clyburn is going to win his race. I keep seeing his name in association with good causes over the years.

Steny Hoyer I could live without. If the leadership brought in any new blood, he seems the most replaceable. But that's how it is when you're number two

[JonLP24]

16. If you asked Conor Lamb why he opposes Pelosi you'd get a very different answer

You're right lots of different motives.

[Bucky]

17. It reminds me a little bit of when I teach about Anti-Federalists in my government class

The Federalist faction at the Philadelphia Convention formed a pretty strong coalition. The Anti-Federalists were an odd combination those wanting a much stronger (like George Mason and Edmund Randolph) and those wanting a much weaker (like Luther Martin, Patrick Henry, and Elbridge Gerry) central government.

The only thing they really had in common was they weren't on the inside with the coalition building

[Squinch]

32. Who said the "there are moderate republicans all over the place" quote? I don't

see it in the article and couldn't disagree with it more. Is it yours? Espouse republican wastefulness and cruelty in the wake of a historic Democratic victory to try to woo republicans?

Its quite ridiculous, really.

[JonLP24]

35. Read the comment section below the article

It was sarcasm in response to "there are moderate Republicans?"

11/19/18 8:22pm
It just has to work eventually. I don’t care how many dozens of Congresses it takes.

14
Reply

Justin
Not Enough Day Drinking
11/19/18 8:57pm
There are moderate Republicans left in Congress?

5
Reply

Not Enough Day Drinking
Justin
11/19/18 9:51pm
There are moderate republicans all over the place. Democrats just haven’t tried hard enough to reach them yet. They need to ignore the minorities and progressives of the party (they’re going to vote democrat no matter what, so it’s safe to ignore them), and really stick to status quo policy like increasing military spending, cutting social programs, and making sure corporations are profitable as possible.

Then come 2020, watch all these republicans come vote for democrats.

6
Reply

k1ddkanuck
Heroine Sheik
11/19/18 10:06pm
This (I hope) is good kinja.

1
Reply

Waffle Saadiq
Not Enough Day Drinking
11/19/18 10:59pm
I won’t lie your sarcasm almost went over my head.

[sagetea]

102. Oh! I so agree with you!!!

That quote screamed at me too!!! I'm thinking the LAST thing the party should do is ignore those LOYAL to it!

I've a feeling the republican 'anti-trumpers' are going to latch on to the Dems win and the vibes we are having and suck it dry...like the parasites they are!

I'm ALL for progression, even if I wasn't, it would happen anyway, but, to take one of our finest warriors out when they (the repubs) are so afraid of her, is so so ridiculous!



sage

[JonLP24]

110. The quote was sarcasm

Making the same points as you.

[sharedvalues]

38. So why are the anti-Pelosi folks a bunch of white men?

[JonLP24]

39. They probably have different reasons for opposing her than Marcia Fudge

[onit2day]

64. They represent big money. The corporate dems. Lobbyists

[still_one]

52. That report is false. Fudge did not sign the pledge not to vote for Pelosi. She is undecided

[True Blue American]

29. 14 men

2 women.
Tim and Seth,leader of the pack.

[demsocialist]

9. Just an observation...

I have a Trump loving family; and a couple of them are really off the deep end. If there is a woman that they hate more than Hillary; it's Nancy. It is gonna happen but it will be divisive. Much worse than it is now. I am just saying....

[Bucky]

13. I'm sorry about your trumpy family. That can't be fun.

I admire Clinton for her years of service to the country, but she couldn't have provided herself as a better punching bag for the misogynistic right-wing smear machine.

She has a talent for saying snarky or sarcastic things at the wrong moment. She's not a compelling politician. And Republicans have spent a quarter of a century trashing her. Clinton is a excellent administrator, but a piss poor politician. She simply doesn't have the natural talent for persuasion or the charisma or the ethos that Nancy Pelosi brings to the table.

Pelosi suffers mostly from spillover misogyny targeted at Clinton, and the fact that she's from San Francisco. But when you see her speak, she's sincere, direct, and compelling. She won't be the same Bette Noire that Clinton presented.

[MrsCoffee]

26. Oh good lord.....the continued bullshit talking points on Clinton.

It’s fucking bullshit.

Sick to death of reading them here.

[Bucky]

47. "Talking points" makes it sound like it's not my view points

I can assure you I'm expressing exclusively my own opinion. I give her credit where it's due. I can be fairly accused of many things, but parroting other people's viewpoints and going along with the crowd is not something anyone who knows me thinks.

I know a lot of younger progressives who were really turned off by her. I was shocked 3 years ago when my girlfriend at the time in our first political discussion Express strong anti-hillary feelings. I'm sorry if that bothers you. It bothered me too, but it also woke me up. It's not like I didn't vote for her. In fact I phone banked for Hillary Clinton 2 years ago.

But if you don't believe that Clinton was not a strong public speaker, then you obviously weren't listening to her own self assessment. Because that's something that she herself said on more than one occasion.

[Pope George Ringo II]

101. It doesn't help that she's married to one of the great retail politicians.

Like the rest of us, she's going to compare herself to Bill on a lot of things, and that's something he's just phenomenally good at. There are things she compares well on, but that's not one of them.

[Squinch]

34. You talk about her talent for saying sarcastic things at the wrong

moment while we gave trump as president and present that as why people didn't like Clinton? Might you be missing the real reason people didn't vote for her.

[Bucky]

48. Oh good heavens

I am basing my comment on personal experience in talking with younger progressives during the 2016 election. We should always remember two things about Hillary Clinton in discussing "why she lost":

1. She got 3 million more votes than bone spurs got. She didn't lose lose. The EC was rigged

2. She's been subjected to a quarter of a century of Lies, smears, distortions, and personal attacks I don't think anyone could stand up to. That shapes a person.

So yes, as unfair as it is, a lot of younger voters who've never heard anything but mendacius smears against her are going to receive her in the morn negative light. Add to it that she's been at the top of the Heap in Washington for a long time and was running in a party that always gets turned on by talk of change, and you get a recipe for under-performance. And in just a few critical swing states, under performance is exactly what happened.

In an Ideal World, politicians would run exclusively on their ideas and merits. We do not live in that world.

[JHan]

57. frankly that's the narrative some tell themselves about Clinton.

I disagree with your assessment, I do find her compelling as a politician.

So there.

And actually, people say the same about Pelosi and her communication skills or lack thereof.

I think there's an ism which explains this and our bullshit narratives about "authenticity" when it comes to women in general.

I can think of male politicians who get away with sarcasm and getting a rise out of people and are loved for it.

[ismnotwasm]

66. She's was a decent SOS, a decent Senator

What is your definition of a “great politician”?

She was punished because women aren’t supposed to be say anything in response to absolute bullshit. Fuck that. I loved her more for it and she trailblazed for women the last several decades.

Talked to a lot of anti-Hilary Democratic leaning people. Heard everything from they didn’t like her hair to they didn’t like her voice and “she cried when she lost” to “she’s too hawkish” Not to meantion a lot of just crap.

I’m not going to take up space pointing her accomplishments and causes. But a “piss-poor” politician during the rise of populism from the left and right is the one of the most disingenuous descriptions I’ve ever heard

[brush]

77. The election was stolen. Clinton won by 3m votes. Are you forgetting...

Comey, Putin et al?

[MrsCoffee]

25. Like things with Trumpers aren't already divisive? They don't get to dictate who our leaders are

and people should quit letting them.

It can’t get any worse than it is now. That’s a ridiculous boogeyman.

The OP asked for substantive criticism.

[sharedvalues]

40. GOP media smears Pelosi because she is effective.

Same reason they smear Elizabeth Warren.

I, for one, am done with the GOP and the rightwing media taking out good Democrats one at a time.

I stand with Nancy and Elizabeth. (And Hillary.)

[ancianita]

107. +1

[ProfessorGAC]

46. Much Worse Than It Is Now?

Tell me you're not serious.

You say you have issues within your own family. Who would the dems pick for speaker that they would find ok? Would that make them vote for someone other than Trump in 2020?

I say let them be mad if Pelosi is the speaker.

[Recursion]

63. They'll hate whoever the GOP tells them to hate

It's not like there's some magic Democrat out there that Republicans won't villify.

[onit2day]

84. If they start with "Lock her up" u can ask who Ivanka or Hillary or Trump

[KayF]

11. I agree about Pelosi, but...

but disagree about the comparisons to the GOP. The democrats to me seem to be much more united behind the leadership than the republicans.

[duforsure]

18. Those apposing her are doing nothing but,

Weakening their party. She IS the best person to hold that position now, and they're only dividing their party now by doing this. They should be the targeted ones if this continues.

[Mike Nelson]

20. I've heard...

… she's too "moderate"... and she has "baggage" - both stuff they said about Hillary Clinton. Not buying these arguments. Both women are "moderate" in that they know how to govern. Both have been very successful, despite attacks. And, the right-wing will "demonize" any replacement, very quickly. One thing I've noticed about Pelosi is that she has an odd way of speaking... watching her press conferences on C-SPAN, I've noticed she doesn't always seem focused. In my opinion, she's speaking at a higher level, and I'm able to process different fragments she insets... but, I can see how people might not follow her thoughts. Still, she's not running for President and she's proved herself very bright and successful. I say, let someone challenge her if the want... have a vote... and move on!

[sharedvalues]

42. Yup

Link to tweet

[rainy]

21. Five white guys with big money funding:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/whos-really-leading-the-democratic-rebellion-against-pelosi/

[murielm99]

24. This is a very illuminating article.

You should post it as an OP. I would be glad to see some discussion of each of the Five White Guys and some of the other opposition figures.

Thanks for the article.

[Arkansas Granny]

22. Has anyone come up with a better candidate? Who could do a better job?

Right now her experience and knowledge are priceless, IMHO. If there is someone who could do a better job, let's hear some names.

[BeyondGeography]

23. This is about the House being a graveyard for talented young Democrats as much as anything else

Strict seniority rules make the House an unattractive place for younger Dems to work. Many of the best ones leave. Then we end up in a situation where leadership is a trio of soon-to-be octogenarians and people ask who can possibly replace Pelosi, WHO?!

It’s an absurd, unhealthy situation, and you can’t say Pelosi has done anything to change it.

Beto O’Rourke sums it up pretty well:

But Pelosi’s caucus also grew restive during its years in the minority. Younger members impatient to distinguish themselves in a body of 435 saw little hope of achieving committee chairmanships; Pelosi, unlike her Republican counterparts, maintained the tradition of allotting them based on seniority. She did this out of deference to the Congressional Black Caucus, according to several former staff members, because African-American members have historically not been granted high party standing except through longevity. But between the unavailability of chairman posts and a leadership pipeline clogged with 70-somethings — Pelosi; Hoyer, the minority whip; and James Clyburn, the assistant minority leader — younger House Democrats have been left to ponder other opportunities.

“You have some of the institutional members say, ‘Who are these upstarts?’ ” one of these younger Democrats, Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, who was elected in 2012, told me in 2015. “One member of Congress compared us to spoiled kids, like teenagers who want a car on their 16th birthday. But you look at my class: Tulsi Gabbard, she’s not going to stay in the House for long — she’ll run for governor. Joe Kennedy, the same. Pat Murphy, the same. And they’re all talented, ambitious and good fund-raisers. I’ve just got to think that when you see that 20-year road to be in a position of consequence, other options look a lot more attractive.” O’Rourke, of course, left this year to pursue those other options, following his fellow erstwhile rising House stars Xavier Becerra (who was appointed attorney general of California in 2017) and Kyrsten Sinema (whom Arizona elected to the Senate this month).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/magazine/nancy-pelosi-house-democrats.html

[watoos]

37. I think people should read the Times article you linked,

it says a lot more than the one section you chose to copy, it is a good article.

[Bucky]

50. Thanks. This is enlightening

Thanks. This is enlightening. If I take a job looking to make changes, and then in the first week on the job discover I'm looking at a 20-year pipeline, I'm going to find a separate route too.

This is all about gerrymandering, and a lack of rotation in office like what the founding fathers expected.

In 20 years ago I would give strong arguments against term limitations. Now I'm somewhat in favor of them.

[brush]

79. A false narrative. There are 20-some ranking members of committees who...

will soon become chairs of those committees. Many are in mid-career and very capable to step into even higher leadership positions when the time comes.

Maybe you've heard of some of them—Schiff, Cummings, Lowey, Smith. Oh, I know they're not the newly-minted, in-the-spotlight reps we all keep hearing about but they've done effective push back in public hearings against Gowdy (Cummings) and Nunes (Schiff) to name a couple of them.

We need to stop repeating inaccurate info designed as an attack against Pelosi's alleged neglect in grooming new leaders.

She's the one who appointed them as ranking members where they've gained invaluable experience and are soon to become chairpersons.

[BeyondGeography]

81. When three soon-to-be octogenarians are at the top

and two of them have been there for 15 years there’s an obvious problem, at least to those people who aren’t looking at things through rose-colored glasses. Frustration levels will rise, but the frustrated have no one to blame but themselves. Everyone is behaving so well! For now.

Anyway, if you think I’m pushing a false narrative, so is Beto O’Rourke.

[brush]

83. I said there are many mid-career soon-to-be committee chairs ready to...

Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2018, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

assume higher leadership when the time comes. Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn have helped us tremendously in getting back the House and will transition the Party into the new Congress.

They know they won't be there forever, but at this time with trump and McConnell to battle there is no one more capable to be speaker than someone who has done it effectively before (see Pres. Obama's remarks on Pelosi's stalwart work in getting his intitiatives through Congress, especially Obamacare twice).

I know many don't want to hear this but why in the world would Democrats, just because all those repugs ran against Pelosi, fall for that hype and let them dictate who our speaker should be?

And another thing, once leadership does change, it'll be one of our experienced and deserving, mid-career committee chairs and not one of the spotlight-seeking newbies of which many are so enamored.

[watoos]

28. Republicans have demonized the name Pelosi,

they hate her with a passion because she is one of the best Speakers that Democrats have ever had.

This move to the right crowd reminds me of Democrats who ran to the right in 2016, who ran against Obamacare. How did that work out? In 2018 Democrats embraced Obamacare and look what happened.

Hey gang of 16 or how ever many you are, it isn't good enough to just say "we need new blood," we need some reasons. Jim Clyburn is going to get reelected Whip if that's your worry.

Years ago Democrats should have elected Jack Murtha over Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader, IMO. It turns out it didn't matter, they killed Murtha, nicked an artery during a routine gall bladder operation. I like Steny but if it's new blood we need, here's a good spot, put someone new in as Majority Leader.

Think about this people. Republicans demonized Obamacare because they knew eventually it would catch on and become popular. It became so popular that it was one of the main talking points for our blue wave. Remember this, Nancy Pelosi passed Obamacare with a public option in it, imagine if Joe Lieberman had not sabotaged the public option in the Senate where we would be with Obamacare.

Republicans have demonized the name Nancy Pelosi just like they demonized Obamacare. People, especially Democrats, ignore them, there is no good reason to turn on Nancy just like there was no good reason to turn away from Obamacare, Republicans hate Nancy Pelosi because she is good at her job.

Go Nancy.

[Hortensis]

30. No. NO true substantive issue related to her job performance.

Last edited Tue Nov 20, 2018, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)

That doesn't mean these people don't have real issues with her.

Misogyny of course. Nancy represents loss of male privilege yes, but also female. Making a good marriage is no longer all a woman needs to do to be considered a success, plus many women resent other women in authority every bit as much as men. Nancy's still at the forefront of the struggle for women's equality.

With misogyny providing enmity and opportunism a head start to build on, she's also a lightning rod for dissenting factions who piggyback on the enmity of those who oppose equality. Those few of these women entering congress in "the year of the woman" who focus their opposition on the woman under attack should be deeply ashamed of what they are part of.

That she also (of course!!!) is a person of tremendous ability and achievement, and by far our best candidate for speaker, is merely reason to REALLY dislike her. The reality of Nancy reveals their own bad behavior and must be denied.

Bottom line for these is that NOT ONE SIGNATOR opposes her for the only legitimate reason: support of a different, viable candidate. Contemptible.

[Demsrule86]

45. Pure misogyny. I absolutely agree with you . +1000

[Me.]

76. To Your Point

"Ohio Republicans declare motherhood "necessary," want to make it mandatory"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211459605

You know, keep 'em barefoot and in the kitchen or they might get ideas

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. Why do people who simply prefer she step aside

get browbeaten here? Last poll I saw showed Democrats equally divided on the topic. Just part of the democratic process.

[Demsrule86]

44. If we pushed Nancy out after she won an important midterm, there is no one capable of replacing her

which is what the Republicans and some right leaning Democrats want. We can not allow the other side to continue to demonetize our leaders. Further more she can raise enormous amounts of money as speaker for 20, a critical race. Tim Ryan who lives in my kid's district (I used to live there) and Marcia Fudge who represents me better watch it...I feel a primary is in their future if they continue this sort of behavior. I would point out that the demonetization of Nancy didn't work...we still have a great victory despite a terrible gerrymander still in place in many states.

[Iggo]

82. If they had a good explanation of why they simply prefer it, I'd be more inclined to give a shit.

So far, they don't.

[IronLionZion]

33. Some folks ran on moderate or independent-minded campaigns in competitive red/purple districts

Her job is to herd people who don't want to be herded, there's always going to be a few who oppose that. So their opposition to Pelosi could largely be to convince their red state constituents to believe they are mavericks.

She's got the liberals. Her opposition is mostly from the right.

[LBM20]

71. Please stop saying some Democrats are on the "right." Yes, some are moderate, but that sure as hell

is not "the right."

And ReSCUMlickCons are not "conservative." THEY are radical right wingers.

[pwb]

36. I don't watch Fox or listen to Limpballs so no she is great.

[Demsrule86]

41. They want a more right wing speaker and a man...mostly white men.

As a woman, I am pissed and Marcia, I live in your district and can vote against you in a primary.

[brooklynite]

43. For the sake of discussion, I'll offer some...

Absent a Presidential nominee, the House Speaker will be seen as the voice of the Democratic Party.

I've heard Pelosi speak, on TV and in person. She is politically very savvy, but she is not a good public speaker.

[Bucky]

53. That's fair.

I'll bet she can go toe-to-toe with GI bone spurs though. I'm looking forward to a couple of years of that.

She's not a rabble-rouser, but I think she does okay, meaning better than Paul Ryan, as a public speaker

[Wintryjade]

54. But she is documented as effective. Regardless of her speaking ability it does not get in her way.

The only reason to state that her speaking abilities is a hindrance is if it actually hindered and it has not stopped her from being effective. It makes no sense to use that as a reason to pile on to oust her in her role, when it does nothing to stop her from being successful.

That is like saying, the person is good, but ugly. So?

[Small-Axe]

86. In the spirt of discussion...

have we ever judged a House Speaker on *his* oratorical skills?

I can't think of Speakers of either party in my 60 years on earth who have been very good public speakers. The nod might go to Newt Gingrich, who'd also go down as one of the very worst and least effective Speakers.

Tip O'Neil was far more effective than Newt as a deal maker and had political gifts. Still, was he the best poster-boy for the party?

I think Nany Pelosi actually stacks up very well in comparison with those who preceded her.

And what a great deal maker (as I know we agree is true).

[PDittie]

49. Maybe someone could answer a few questions for me, Buck

-- Why did she take impeachment off the table in 2006? Why did she do so a second time on Election Night 2018?

Practical whip count realities aside, it seems to me that as strong and powerful a leader as her supporters claim Pelosi to be would not be one to unilaterally disarm so quickly. Just the potential threat of impeachment would be enough to scare some Republicans into more conducive behavior on a host of other issues. (Republicans, as we all know, are motivated almost entirely by fear alone.)

-- Why can't she and the other nearly-octogenarian leaders of the House Democratic Caucus support MfA (which more than half of all Americans now favor) instead of pay-go, which is "economically illiterate and politically insane"?

Could it be because she received more than $200,000 in donations from the healthcare sector in the 2017-18 cycle?

Dozens of Democrats across the country won their races campaigning on single payer or Medicare for All. What are they supposed to tell their constituents if -- by supporting Pelosi for speaker -- they do not keep their promise?

-- Why do people accuse her opponents of sexism when the foremost opposition candidate is a black woman, Marcia Fudge?

-- Why has Trump endorsed her for Speaker?

-- Why do so many in this forum attack progressives, like AOC, for opposing her when in fact Pelosi has their stated support?

This is not/should not be another proxy for the 2016 primary.

I have more but I'll pause and see what kind of responses these draw.

[BlueWI]

56. This should be an OP.

Any leadership transition benefits from multiple perspectives. While I don't think there are viable alternative candidates for speaker, it would be great to hear more about the anticipated legislative agenda, including a plan for climate action and the preferred approach to hold President Trump accountable for any collusion with foreign powers in the 2016 election.

The midterms were a collective win for Democrats all over the country, including in purple states, and it is really the grassroots resistance that deserves the most props for bringing back the majority. I hope the leadership question does not continue to overshadow the profiles of new House Democrats and the legislative challenges to come.

[PDittie]

59. It's already aged out of relevance

Rep. Fudge has announced her support.

Employing Ralph Waldo Emerson's "When you strike at a king you must kill him" (switch the gender of the monarch in peril, but please don't call me a sexist for doing so) produced no one brave enough to step up and take a swing. All of the backbenchers who signed the poison pen letter were unable to summon any extra courage, among them or outside of them.

Meh.

Pelosi might promote some younger Caucus leaders (Cheri Bustos has been mentioned) as the most obvious symbol that -- to extend the Camelot/JFK analogy to its breaking point-- the torch has been passed to a new generation.

[BlueWI]

61. The speaker election is over. The real job is not.

What will be the legislative agenda? How will the Democratic House leadership provide moral leadership in an age where so-called allies are murdering journalists with impunity, along with the long war in Yemen, a warming planet, a corrupt presidency? Will Pelosi's leadership, along with the contributions of new and returning members, meet these challenges, with 2020 around the corner?

This is why I don't care for the cult of personality surrounding one individual. The issues are too big - what's the plan for now, and what comes next? Hopefully there are energetic discussions of policy options happening as new leadership teams take shape.

[Hortensis]

68. Courage?! Is that an intentional put-down? Or do you

believe that #FiveWhiteGuys jerk who said we have plenty of women who could do the job?

There is so far no one whose colleagues would replace her with. Steny Hoyer waited for years, studying, planning for the position but seems to have aged out of it. They're not electing the president of a photography club here, you know. They need someone whose ability will strike dread into the hearts of Republicans nearly as much as reelecting Nancy.

Here's Obama telling people what he knows, which should be very eye-opening to those whose notions about her have been filtered through hostile figures and media.

Verbatim from the part I heard:

"I think Nancy Pelosi, when the history is written, will go down as one of the most effective legislative leaders that this country's ever seen. And Nancy is not always the best on a cable show or with a quick soundbite or what have you, but her skill, tenacity, toughness, vision, is remarkable. Her stamina, her ability to see around corners, her ability to stand her ground and do hard things and to suffer unpopularity to get the right thing done I think stands up against any person that I've observed or worked directly with in Washington during my lifetime."

More of this interview as summarized in Politico:

Obama said instead of "performance art," what's most important are the "nuts and bolts" of governance -- "the blocking and tackling involved in actually getting things across the finish line. And my experience has been that Nancy Pelosi knows how to do that, and she was an extraordinary partner for me throughout my presidency," Obama said.

One thing Obama didn't mention is that Nancy raised half the money the DNCC spent to get good candidates elected this year, several hundred million. Did you know that in 2016 only 4 of about 88 members of our Progressive Caucus were able to sign the pledge not to take big donor money? Most couldn't and get elected because their constituents' lower incomes won't match the huge money poured in by the right's dark-money donors. The same goes for many in the Black Caucus and others. Speaking of courage, or more accurately of lacking the guts to take on a truly enormous job, until we establish public funding, which is very much on our agenda, whoever replaces her has to do that, constantly, on top of an already killer, stress-filled schedule.

Something else you might not know is that, though major legislative achievements are normally named for the current president, America's first-ever national healthcare plan, finally passed after 70 years of struggle against extreme intense opposition, could deservedly be called Pelosicare, though she might have preferred Demscare because a whole lot of people in both houses and many NGOs also worked ferociously to make it happen.

[JI7]

67. nobody supported impeachment. bernie sanders opposed impeachment

but we didn't hear any complaints about that when it came to him.

and impeachment doesn't just start in itself. there are investigations and committees for that.

[PBass]

90. She didn't support impeachment because she can count, and because she's not into failure.

OMG I can't believe that in 2018 there are people who are still trying to litigate the IDIOTIC "why didn't Pelosi want to impeach Bush" argument. It was stupid back then, and doubly stupid now. Because it shows you haven't learned a thing, and don't have an aptitude for politics. Politics is "the art of the possible".

I bet Pelosi would have loved to impeach Bush IF IT WAS POSSIBLE. But it wasn't. Meaningless gestures are not a political agenda for a party who wants to lead the country.

Instead of a failed attempt at impeachment, we got the ACA, and Pelosi's version which she shepherded through the House, was much more progressive than the final bill (the Senate stripped a lot of progressive reforms from the bill). Including a provision for a Public Option.

[betsuni]

93. +1!

[CrispyQ]

51. The corporate wing of the party (& their corporate contributors)

don't want a Speaker who has proven experience passing progressive legislation. Interesting that most of the opposing signatures are white men. Where is the call for new minority leadership in the Senate?

[GETPLANING]

55. She says she wants to find common ground with a political opposition

that only wants to destroy her and her party.

[JHan]

58. Except no. That's your spin. What she said is the typical boilerplate utterance..

said by prospective congressional leaders.

Mitch McConnell said the same about Obama didn't he? And how did that turn out.

There's a difference between politispeak and serious intent.

Why did you buy it at face value?

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. No.

There is no valid criticism of Nancy Pelosi. She is obviously perfect in every way.

[Honeycombe8]

74. I don't know why everyone is so worked up over this. Not everyone loves the person that others love.

It's no mystery, really.

But there is no one else who would come close to having the votes, so it doesn't really matter.

It's not a bad thing for a leader to recognize that she or he may have to work to gain the loyalty and trust of everyone. I'm not so sure this was wise of those who signed that letter, unless they promised their constituents it would. I've also heard that it was a ploy to get committee assignments. I wouldn't think this was the way to do that, tho.

This wasn't a coup. This was a small group of people who wanted a change in leadership. That's a very common thing. (They should have known that the timing is terrible. If there ever was a time we needed to hit the ground running, this is it. Which makes me think this group doesn't have a handle on what is at stake.)

[warmfeet]

75. No, not at all.

She will make a wonderful Speaker of the House, once again.

In fact, I would not mind, at all, if she were President of the United States.

[jcgoldie]

78. Pretty similar to HRC

Years and years in the limelight and bearing the brunt of attacks from the other side. Abandoned by both ends of the spectrum in their own party... and yet completely unbowed... literally nothing has stuck...

Gee I wonder what they have in common that makes them a lightening rod for the opposition and for weakness within?

[Eric J in MN]

85. Pelosi is the unofficial head of the DCCC

..which interferes in primaries for the less progressive candidate.

The DCCC should be neutral in primaries.

[redixdoragon]

87. Some here may do.

[link:https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary/nancy-pelosi?cid=N00007360&cycle=2018&type=C|]

[link:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-donors-nancy-pelosi-speaker_us_5bf41f2de4b0376c9e68ffce|]

We aren't the kind of people that can make these donations, so it isn't us she gets phone calls from, or the party gets letters from. It's people who could throw around a whole year's rent on a whim.

We aren't the people she'll likely represent, thus this is my substance to criticize her, and anyone else, taking this kind of money.

[Retrograde]

88. She's from San Francisco

and *you* know what kind of people live there. And she's a woman. And she knows how to play politics a lot better than Paul Ryan could ever aspire to. And she's old.

But mostly she's an excellent politician who knows how to count votes and get things she wants through the House: she knows to to get the cats to go the way she wants them to and think it's their choice. No wonder Trump is afraid of her.

BTW, her district re-elected her with 88% of the vote this month.

[PBass]

89. Her support of Pay Go is unbelievably stupid, and will block the progressive reforms we might make.

I don't care if there is a President Sanders and everyone in Congress is as progressive as AOC: Pay Go will prevent us from achieving progressive goals by tying our hands at the budgetary level.

All in all, I do like Pelosi a lot. But we do need younger and more progressive leadership in preparation for when Pelosi steps down.

[JHan]

92. You do realise that she repeatedly waived paygo in her previous stint as Speaker right?

She likes to use these rules to one-up Republicans when she can right?

Just to hash it out more: Since 2010, Paygo has been a statutory rule , if adopted as a House rule it won't stop Nancy waiving it as she tends to. Republicans have been using paygo as a "cutgo" , and like the proposed tax rule, I suspect this is politics from Nancy shut down claims of tax hikes on the most vulnerable ( all she'll need to do is point to the tax rebates in the 2008-10 period). When Nancy has the votes for progressive legislation that can actually be passed, she pushes through with it.

I'm actually stunned at the manufactured outrage over both paygo and the proposed tax rule she wants to implement which flips Ryan's own rule where you need a super majority for a tax hike on the rich. Pelosi's rule flips this on its head.

Just to be clear.. I don't particularly care for paygo personally but I see it as one of those political tools used strategically in weird ways. My point is I don't think it's really that much of a concern when it comes to Pelosi's use of it.

[PBass]

94. Thank you for your comment. This is an interesting perspective that I have not heard before.

I will look into this further...

[Algernon Moncrieff]

91. "I do not think that impeachment is a policy agenda"

Which brings me back to Pelosi. She has been crystal clear for the last several months that she believes talking about impeaching Trump is a major mistake for her party. "I do not think that impeachment is a policy agenda," she told CNN's Chris Cuomo back in May. Last month, after longtime Trump attorney and personal fixer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a number of charges including campaign finance violations, in which he suggested Trump was an active part of an effort to conceal hush payments to two women alleging affairs, Pelosi remained adamant that impeachment was not the right choice for the party. She called it "not a priority," adding: "Impeachment has to spring from something else."

As the new CNN poll shows, that stance puts Pelosi out-of-step with the overwhelming majority of her party's base. Which, politically speaking, is never a good place to be.

CNN

That's where she lost me. I want all new leadership.

[librechik]

95. vagina n/t

[Bucky]

96. oh noes!

I'll have you know Nancy Pelosi as a perfectly wonderful vagina... and don't let no one tell you no different, dammit!

[librechik]

97. ...that's why they fear her.

just kiddin around. She is historically effective and we need her institutional knowledge badly. Why screw up a good thing?

[jcgoldie]

99. ding ding ding

One word answer's all it takes.

[Nonhlanhla]

98. She's an old woman

And old women should go back to their knitting.

[WestCoastDem42]

100. Nope....

Not any more than was mentioned against Hillary. Anyone see a pattern?

[paleotn]

103. No.

[betsuni]

109. "She represents all the big $$$$ in the Dem party that has pushed it to be

Republican light rather than FDR, or Progressive."

[LudwigPastorius]

111. I think the Democratic House members who do not support her are...

looking at her latest favorability ratings.


https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_111418/ (paragraphs 11 & 12)