House Democrat Sanchez: 'I think it's time' for Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team to go'
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
A senior House Democrat said Thursday that it's time for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her leadership team to prepare to step down and make way for the next generation of lawmakers in her caucus.
The comments by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., who as vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus ranks fifth in the 194-member body, are the most explicit to date by a senior congressional Democrat and a member of the California congressional delegation about Pelosi's political future.
Pelosi, 77, has served in Congress since 1987 and has led House Democrats for 14 years. She served as House speaker from 2007 to 2011, and has remained atop her caucus ever since as minority leader. In recent weeks, she has emerged as an unlikely partner of President Donald Trump in debates over spending bills and the future of immigration policy.
Read more: http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Top-House-Democrat-I-think-it-s-time-for-Nancy-12255623.php&cmpid=twitter-premium
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)
still_one
(92,376 posts)TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)I can now consider one of the possible reasons for Sanchez's opposition to Pelosi as "sour grapes"...
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)Orange County. Delegates at the CDP state convention voted to endorse Harris.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,895 posts)I know that's a hideously unpopular opinion here, but there comes a time for change.
Not to mention, one thing the Republicans have been highly effective at doing is getting in new leadership.
Owl
(3,643 posts)
Catch2.2
(629 posts)Nancy Pelosi is very good at fundraising and getting votes, which is huge, but We need a new Leader, a new face of the party. The Dems have lost both the House and Senate, along with a majority of State Governors. That is reason enough there.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)even as we lose seats
haele
(12,674 posts)She keeps in mind what other Democrats face back home, and knows when she has the strength to push someone who's balking, and when to stop pushing when she doesn't have the votes. She's pissed off a lot of Californians because even though she is in general a great representative for her constituents and gets a lot done for progressives, she's not the 100% liberal icon people think party leadership should be.
Look, I'm unhappy that she took incitements of the table when President Obama was elected - however, if you look at everything she's done strategically, she honestly didn't have the votes.
Most people didn't see why she was trying to salvage some of the weak blue dog seats that were going to go red anyway because those locals loved them some faux-Xtian Bush and considered Obama a Kenyan-born usurper - but her tactics kept some other seats relatively blue when the tea party swept in with Koch and Alec money. Similarly, I've sometimes been befuddled why she has taken some public positions, but when I look at who's vulnerable, I see where she comes from and who/what she's trying to protect.
Pelosi cut her teeth in 1980's/90's California GOP politics - she knows that everyone has a different concern that needs to be addressed, and it's a slow slog to ensure everyone makes progress in a hostile environment. Two steps forward, one step back. One step forward, half a step back.
Politics are always local - which means if you've got a big tent party, you're going to have a wide range between liberal and conservative.
The Tim Ryans and Linda Sanchezes (who are equally concerned about raising funds for the party) but more concerned about their personal careers than the party as a whole don't like to think the hard work it takes to make and keep political coalitions.
As for her replacement - I wouldn't trust anyone who is calling for her ouster. That's a move made from politicians who want the Democratic party to be smaller and more controllable - by them.
Frankly, there are a few Democrats around who are ready to take up a coalition leadership position that will ensure we as Democrats all go forward instead of fracturing off into various regionally focused centerists twisting in the wind that will end up losing to the more lockstep nationally funded GOP'ers, but they're also willing work their way to that position - just as Pelosi did.
Just my long-time observation of Pelosi's record from here in California.
As for losing seats - we lose them because the media wants a "Good Guy" and "Bad Guy", and portrays coalitions as "weak tactics" in the current culture which portrays governance as corrupt, protests as whining, and the rugged individual bully who takes matters into "his own hands" as hero.
But the fact is if we don't treat the Democratic Party as a coalition - warts and all - we will be picked off by the Dominionists and the Oligarchs even quicker than we are now.
Haele
Rolls up her sleeves and gets the hard behind the scenes work done resulting in success for Dems.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If you did you'd know she did it well. It takes time to build trust and relationships. You know what doesn't build trust- going to the press and saying three leaders above you should retire becasue they're older than you. She sounds ambitious- and useless at negotiating.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)How does that work?
And who is the "we" who are "losing seats" because she is raising money?
Perhaps you're not aware it's the job of the DCCC to "keep seats," not the minority leader.
You seem to have a problem with Pelosi. What is it?
delisen
(6,044 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,895 posts)They've been destroyed to the point where they have both houses of Congress, the Presidency, 34 of 50 governorships, and in 32 states they control both houses in the state legislatures. Plus Nebraska, which has one chamber in their legislature.
Yep. If that's destroying them, I shudder to think what success would look like.
A Nancy Pelosi can stay in power in a very Democratic state like California, but she doesn't seem to be doing much of anything to get Democrats elected in other states so far as I can tell. And the number of Republican Governors, Senators, Representatives, and control of State legislatures says it all.
Hekate
(90,784 posts)...of the DCCC, the national Democratic Party? Why?
Nancy Pelosi is elected to Congress by one (1) district in California. Then her Democratic peers in the House elect her as their leader.
She has a specific job to do. She does it really well. She is not in charge of the Democratic Party over the entire country.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,895 posts)I will repeat myself, which was a response to a post that stated the new (Republican) leadership was destroying them.
So how exactly is the Republican party being destroyed? I seem to have missed something.
They've been destroyed to the point where they have both houses of Congress, the Presidency, 34 of 50 governorships, and in 32 states they control both houses in the state legislatures. Plus Nebraska, which has one chamber in their legislature.
Yep. If that's destroying them, I shudder to think what success would look like.
A Nancy Pelosi can stay in power in a very Democratic state like California, but she doesn't seem to be doing much of anything to get Democrats elected in other states so far as I can tell. And the number of Republican Governors, Senators, Representatives, and control of State legislatures says it all.
I understand that Nancy Pelosi is not in charge of the Democratic Party over the entire country. However, she is being held up here as if she is. There's a worship of her that I find beyond disturbing. I seem to recall that she was among the first to say that single payer was off the table back when the ACA was first proposed. And spare me the "she knew there weren't the votes for single payer" because she should have started with that as a negotiating point. Instead, she conceded ten miles of negotiating ground. And she continues to do so, as far as I can tell.
So again, remind me of how the Republican party is being destroyed? Because THAT was my question.
delisen
(6,044 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)When new leadership shows it can do the job, then their peers in the House will elect them accordingly.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)instead of making us look bad in the press... 
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)JFK said something about the torch being passed to a new generation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)strongest party member? the only one to think this would either be super ambitious, jealous or against advancing our democratic agenda.
New leadership will rise out of accomplishments and not out of the nee4d to push out the leader.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)The rethugs have the weighted end of state governance and three branches of the federal gambit. Our only hope is that this looney-bin presidunce gets indited or at least outed for his crimes. The wake of a sinking like that MIGHT turn some seats blue. The GOP might wince a bit when he gets to twittering, but they like having him in the people's house even if he IS a Moran.
And BTW, just where IS the outrage, where is the noise over Trump's trampling of the emoluments laws? Why is it there's NO pressure on him (and not that I would expect any such from the GOP!) to remove himself from the private interests that so brazenly funnel federal funds into his pockets??? Lessee - who might be a leader for such a call out? Hmmmmmmmmm......
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)that vaunted (D) next to their name!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You know what you are getting when someone has that "vaunted D" next to their name.
That's why people join when it benefits them to have the credibility and history of progressive accomplishments of the "vaunted D."
NJCher
(35,721 posts)there is no reason whatsoever to believe that a popular candidate will be treated fairly.
No one is going to run.
Nothing is going to change.
Those who are happy with the status quo should be very pleased.
Cher
Raine
(30,540 posts)the same old, same old goes on. 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Candidate for Minority leader?
Popular among their peers, who choose who leads them?
Why would House Democrats not choose someone who they know from experience is a good, effective leader, and will do the job well?
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,895 posts)Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and many others are simply blocking the way for anyone else. For pete's sake, Feinstein is 84 years old and is apparently planning to run for re-election next year. She's 84 years old. It really is time for her to step aside and allow someone younger to move into place.
So long as the aging leadership clings to power, yes, others are being stopped from stepping up. It's long past time for some of them to recognize that it is time for new people to move into place.
JHan
(10,173 posts)If Sanchez was serious she would be making her moves to win support from her colleagues, not whining to a reporter.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,895 posts)I don't see a lot of evidence that she's actually pushing a progressive agenda. I believe she was among the first to say that single payer was not going to be on the table back when the ACA was being worked on. Starting out by eliminating what most people want doesn't strike me as being in touch with what people actually want.
I recall being at a liberal conference in Washington DC in 2007 and she was booed by the genuine progressives there because she was far too willing to go along with the status quo.
I know that she's become something of a goddess here, but I think the worship of her is misplaced. And, at the risk of being a broken record, she's long past her prime.
I keep on getting back to the fact that Republicans have successfully brought along new, younger politicians. And the Democrats constantly go for the old ones. Especially here on DU. After Gore lost in 2000, for two or three years people here kept on pushing him for 2004. And then, after Kerry lost, he was enthusiastically pumped to be the candidate in 2008. Notice that when we got a new, young candidate he won. The biggest mistake the Democratic Party made was to reach back to Hillary Clinton last year. I kept on seeing here that she'd been "vetted" (a meaningless term if ever there was one), by which folks said all of her flaws had already been revealed and couldn't possibly hurt her this time around. Well, all of her old flaws were brought up and many new ones besides. Do NOT start in with the Russian thing. That's not really important. What matters is that she had an enormous amount of baggage that could not be overcome, Russians or no Russians.
Even now when people here start anticipating 2020 they gush over Hillary or Joe Biden. We need new people. The party needs new candidates. The Democratic Party is beginning to resemble a third world dictatorship which survives only as long as the original dictator is in power, because nothing is done to bring someone along to rule when the old dictator dies. And North Korea is an exception, mainly because they've managed to have three generations of the same family in power so far.
No, I'm not really comparing the current Democratic leadership to a third world dictatorship, but the lack of a plan of succession is striking.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Pelosi as speaker and minority leader would have to triangulate with dems along the entire spectrum. Her business is to get votes to pass legislation or keep Dems united against a harmful republican agenda.
I am also wary of this "true progressive " talk, democrats agree on general points in the main, but may disagree on how to get there. "True progressives" sounds like divisive sanctimoniousness.
"Goddess" "worship" - why even use those words? because no one can admire her for her work and political skills? Support for her must be blind admiration with no substance? Really?
I like Nancy but I do not worship her, and those who support her have solid reasons why they respect her political acumen.
Further, Pelosi is in place because her colleagues like her there.
I repeat: if Sanchez wants to make waves or knows someone who would be better, she needs to convince her colleagues instead of whining to reporters. Her argument seems to be "Nancy is too old, we gotta get someone new" - if that is the best she's got, I am not impressed.
lapucelle
(18,308 posts)the job of the House and Senate caucus leaders. There's a reason why Republicans demonize Rep. Pelosi: she's an effective leader. She holds her caucus together. We saw evidence of her skill all summer during the healthcare battles.
Pelosi had been mentoring Tim Ryan as a possible future caucus leader. His star, however, seems to be fading. Thankfully, he lost the leadership election to Nancy.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-democrats/ohio-congressman-ryan-challenges-pelosi-for-house-democratic-leader-idUSKBN13C2M3
http://thehill.com/video/lawmaker-interviews/348776-rising-dem-star-tim-ryan-splits-with-party-endorses-corporate-tax
JHan
(10,173 posts)Parliamentary leaders must be persuasive if they're to be effective, (I thought this would be obvious but maybe it needs to be said)
If Pelosi detractors can't remove a supposedly weak minority leader, how much faith can anyone have in their ability to lead democrats?
I could understand if they had a lot of Dems behind them, but they don't and them whinging to reporters ain't gonna change that.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)our most valuable people, using the radical tendency for unexamined hostility and aggressive dissension against them.
Well, Nancy will be too powerful for them and right-wing propagandists this time too -- because she has strong support from Democratic colleagues who choose their own house leader for themselves.
But they'll never take that lesson. As the left's hyper-righteous ones, they always know their defeats are due to the enormous corruption of the party itself.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They have decided she should be there, and she wants to be.
Me.
(35,454 posts)People want to step up and challenge her, they should go ahead. If they get the votes they win, not enough votes they lose, like Tim Ryan who said he was one thing and then turned out to be another. That's how it works in this country, even for 'genuine' progressives.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)She doesn't "simply stay." You expect her to resign without the majority of peers who elected her?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't know what age has to do with this.
Me.
(35,454 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Who is stopping anyone from stepping up?
Seriously - people challenged her for House leadership, and their peers chose Pelosi.
No one is "clinging to power."
Aging leadership.... everyone is "aging." But it only seems to be a bad thing if it's a woman in a position of influence.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Ageism alone isn't enough. Needs specific points about what could and should change with different leadership.
Also, the phrase "inlikley partner of ....Trump"--what the hell does that mean? Pelosi is being accused of abetting him? Doing a third way thing? Or what?
alp227
(32,047 posts)Remember when apparent Bernie backers were shouting down Pelosi at that news conference?
7962
(11,841 posts)Although I didn't like their interruption of her; then refusing to let her speak. Doing the stupid "mic check" shit that takes me back to 6th grade. I know a lot of people LOVE that "activism", but I think its counter productive
But I didn't see where they were proclaiming to be Bernie-backers
Unless you're talking about a different incident
lapucelle
(18,308 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Seems most who are would've supported that interruption. But her also being associated with Bernie Sanders means nothing about the rest of them. To me, they were biting off their nose to spite their face. I know others LOVE shit like this, but to me it usually ends up counter productive in public opinion.
lapucelle
(18,308 posts)what they think of the interruption, rather than to speak for "most of them".
Personally, I'm not sure why some would think that most Dreamers/undocumented immigrants would have supported the interruption of a Democratic congresswoman/ally who is working to transition DACA from policy into law.
7962
(11,841 posts)At the same time, I think her time has passed. Too many odd public moments recently on top of losing so many Dem seats over her tenure.
lapucelle
(18,308 posts)on record.
She never lost on any bill that she brought to the floor as majority leader. As minority leader, she is extremely successful in getting her caucus to speak with one voice. Her leadership strategies in the House and with the press were masterful in saving the ACA from repeal.
I'm not aware of any of the "odd moments" you reference. And while it is every Democrat's job to work to elect Democratic candidates, it is not the speaker's / minority leader's specific responsibility. Nancy Pelosi is, however, one of the most effective fund raisers and campaign surrogates in our party. She is certainly doing her part to elect Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/31/nancy-pelosis-fundraising-breaks-25-million-for-2017/?utm_term=.3310dcea8df4
7962
(11,841 posts)The "odd moments' I refer to are a few times where she forgets who or what she's talking about, or just stammers for a few moments. Like my mom does at times.
I'm just down as one who thinks "new blood" is needed to reverse the losses over the past 7 yrs. But I'm only one vote, and mine doesn't count regarding House leadership. It is what it is, and we'll see what the Dem House thinks
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)What site am I on again?
JHan
(10,173 posts)you know who hounds Democrats and edit videos of Democrats and post those edits on youtube claiming that a Dem either has Parkinson's , or Alheizmers, or a moment of stammering or using "Uh" ( Which btw is VERY common) more than usual, or loses their train of thought ... right? Republicans and/or Alt-Right ShitLords or your run of the mill POS with a youtube account, that's who.
I'm also down for new blood but that is not an argument in and of itself for anything... Pelosi detractors have to prove they possess the leadership skills to effectively lead the party by being persuasive. This is basic stuff.
So far they haven't persuaded their colleagues and if they think whinging to reporters is going to help their cause they're mistaken because that kind of stunt will be rightly ignored. Their stunts shouldn't be indulged by Democrats, it even smacks of laziness.
George II
(67,782 posts)...you may want to familiarize yourself with it:
Democrats gained 5 seats in the House
Democrats gained 2 seats in the Senate
The result in the presidential election is questionable at best, could (should?) have won the presidency too.
You want to reverse those results?
7962
(11,841 posts)But as I said, its not up to us anyway. The House picks its own leadership. We'll see how they feel soon enough I guess
George II
(67,782 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Obviously many differing opinions of what is best are here on Du. And I imagine in other forums as well. And likely the actual House Dem chamber.
George II
(67,782 posts)....to look to the future and build on what we accomplished just 10 months ago. That's how to regain the House and Senate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But more recently from the Left....
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
7962
(11,841 posts)There was MUCH talk about his age and competency form them.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)And plenty of Democratic sites questioned his age during the election as well. Especially after Palin was picked as VP. "If something happens to McCain, SHE would take over????"
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And was this separate from his health issues like cancer?
7962
(11,841 posts)McCain too old to be President?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/15/mccain.age/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/upshot/how-old-is-too-old-for-president-depends-whos-running.html
Clinton backer says McCain too old to be President
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/clinton-backer-says-mccain-is-too-old-for-oval-office/
How many DU links would you like? Just type it into the search bar and you'll see a list of 'em
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3270646
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3659614
Why do you think ageism is NEVER an issue with men/dems??
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And two posts on DU are indicative of ageism on DU?
Especially since John McCain, if elected would have been the oldest president elected for a first term - wasn't something that was in general discussion?
7962
(11,841 posts)Prominent Democrats openly talked about his age. Its out there if you care to see it.
The whole point is that criticism of Pelosi's age is not something that hasnt been brought up regarding others; both men and women. If you dont want to believe it, that doesnt make it false. And no, I dont think its ageism if its a legitimate issue for whoever the subject is.
And as soon as McCain picked Sarah Palin as his VP, it REALLY became a legitimate issue!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)as well as age. He was a cancer survivor, and as we saw, it wasn't his only battle.
I have never seen a discussion of a successful Democratic leader's age in terms of negatives, except in women.
The screaming here on DU and on the left about HRC's walking pneumonia, supposed dementia from her concussion, Pelosi's "hesitations"... Yet little to nothing about Sanders' age, as well as his melanoma, in terms of his fitness for office.
Even Schumer isn't hounded as such, except in terms of people wanting "new blood" in leadership. He's not vilified like Pelosi.
7962
(11,841 posts)FWIW, i thought sanders was too old. Actually, I thought all 3 of them were too old. But i guess i had been lulled by a late 40s Barack Obama.
The older I get, the younger these older ages seem!
Me.
(35,454 posts)What has she done/tried to do for the Dreamers
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I've posted this before on this topic but here it is again...These calls for new leadership in the Dems remind me of ancient Greece, Athens to be exact. After they lost a war they voted to execute their generals. Yes, they killed their military leadership for instant gratification. Guess how things went for them when the next military crisis happened and they had no experienced leadership.
Short sighted fools.
Podkayne K
(145 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 5, 2017, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)
The Democrats win the house.
After early January 2019, when they take over Dump and Pence are indicted and forced to resign.
Speaker of House becomes President.
Wonder if this has anything to do with current calls for change of Speaker?
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Postmark Odessa.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Loyd
(309 posts)Shut up, Linda.
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)Why isn't she behind Trump's impeachment?
Loyd
(309 posts)Trump is not going to be impeached until at least January of 2019. Pelosi is smart enough to avoid coming across as a bloodthirsty hyperpartisan, which would only supply ammo to the Republicans.
Response to Loyd (Reply #38)
Post removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and the smears suggesting that she lacks intelligence are unnecessary.
7962
(11,841 posts)The GOP blathered on and on about it. But the President would have never signed the bill. They looked stupid.
Pelosi going on and on about impeachment at this moment would be terrible optics for the party. And regardless of the GOP being in charge of the House right now, there aren't any actual CHARGES out there yet
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And at the time of this interview, there was not.
Is that clearer?
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Catch2.2
(629 posts)Dems have lost both houses and a majority of state governors. With Trump in office, the Dems should sweep back congress, unfortunately they will be lucky to take back one. That is unacceptable, the worst president in history and MAYBE the Dems will take back either the Senate or House. Nancy Pelosi is great at fundraising and getting votes, but its time for the party to have a new face.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)It's all Nancy Pelosi's fault.
ansible
(1,718 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)And, asking for "new" for the sake of "new" is not a winning strategy.
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Worse? How could it possibly get worse?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So what is the purpose of the DCCC?
I think you don't understand what the job of the House leader is...
The minority leader is the principal leader of the minority caucus. The minority leader is responsible for:
Developing the minority position
Negotiating with the majority party
Directing minority caucus activities on the chamber floor
Leading debate for the minority
ellie
(6,929 posts)
NBachers
(17,136 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
CBHagman
(16,987 posts)I hear nonstop whining that the older generation needs to get out, shut up, etc., etc., but that's not the same thing as leading. It doesn't get the job done.
If Linda Sanchez wants a change in the leadership, it's going to have to be accomplished by other means than ordering people out.
Willie Pep
(841 posts)I think older Democrats are being blamed for electoral losses but we need experienced people in leadership positions especially now that we are out of power. We need people who have built up relationships and can get things done or who can at least help to prevent the GOP from getting its agenda passed.
I think this is a case of trying to switch horses midstream. We should keep our experienced leaders while we are out of power.
truthisfreedom
(23,154 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)It doesn't matter WHO is the leader, they'll lambaste them.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And the state wants to shut down Moskowitz's cash cow casino:
State wants to revoke gaming license of Hawaiian Gardens casino after federal probe
http://www.presstelegram.com/2017/01/04/state-wants-to-revoke-gaming-license-of-hawaiian-gardens-casino-after-federal-probe/
Whether Moskowitz has crossed swords with Pelosi I don't know but I imagine he'd like to see a more business friendly California delegation. A lot of well-off Californians would.
delisen
(6,044 posts)the other players quit by telling them they are too old to be playing or that it is unfair for them to play and not give you a chance. If that doesn't work go to the fans and ask them to help you make the other players quit.
Nothing is preventing Sanchez from promoting herself and her leadership capabilities-so fr it seems the Democratic representatives prefer Pelosi.
hamsterjill
(15,223 posts)They need to get off Nany's ass. She's doing a good job and until they can tell me more than "she's too old", they simply look like underservimg underlings trying to bolster their own career.
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Don't give your opponents ammunition or sound bites
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Pelosi does not lack for leadership and foresight. She is an underappreciated Democrat.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)We've already been down that road and it got US drumpf.
samnsara
(17,635 posts)..in this time of dire consequences we need ppl of experience.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)lapucelle
(18,308 posts)aligning with the opposition on corporate tax cuts and Nancy so masterfully pwned the Republican majority leadership this summer, I'm not quite sure why Linda Sánchez is so concerned, but she can't be blamed for coveting the position.
"Sánchez said she didn't know whether Pelosi could survive another challenge to her leadership position and didn't know who might seek to serve as the next Democratic leader. But, she said, 'I think I'm well placed to help make that transition to a new generation of leadership.'"
StevieM
(10,500 posts)
Skittles
(153,185 posts)I am sick of the same old, same old.