It’s Not Pelosi

A member of the Democratic Party, Pelosi has represented the 8th Congressional District of California, which consists of four-fifths of the City and County of San Francisco, since 1987. She served as the House Minority Whip from 2002 to 2003, and was House Minority Leader from 2003 to 2007, holding the post during the 108th and 109th Congresses. Pelosi is the first woman, the first Californian and first Italian-American to lead a major party in Congress. - Wikipedia

With all of the haggling and debating going on among Democrats following their November embarrassment at the polls, it appears that Nancy Pelosi will be made the scapegoat for the historic losses. I am not one to wax sentimental over past victories and I recognize that now would be an opportune time to shake up the leadership in the party and maybe bring in some fresh blood. However, this is not what is being discussed in Democratic circles. What is being discussed is a push to the right from the same clowns who ran from the party during the mid-terms and lost. These are the folks who allowed their local races to become nationalized because they were too frightened to stand up to the wing-nuts. I understand that there is a difference between House and Senate races, but if anyone was suppose to be replaced this cycle it was Harry Reid. So how was he able to survive? He made the election a choice.

Now there will be volumes of political how-to’s from Senator Reid’s campaign and that is not the focus of this piece, but he didn’t run from himself. The problem with Democrats and governing is simply this: the Democrats do not have a set of core principles that they will defend at all costs. With the wing-nuts you can be sure of three core principles that to a person they will vote for en masse. They will always vote for tax-cuts, they will always vote for reducing regulation, and they will always vote for cutting entitlements. Given those three certainties you can craft a lot of policy and legislation to get their unanimous consent. What three core principles can you name for Democrats? Give me three core principles that all Democrats would vote and fight for. You can’t do it. Because you have Democrats who support tax-cuts, you have Democrats who support cutting regulation, and you most certainly have Democrats who would cut entitlements.

You see the wing-nuts understand how to govern. You either bring in those who are beholden to you or you co-op any renegades that happen to crash the gate-as they will do with the tea-baggers. When the American electorate voted for Democrats and gave them control of all branches they falsely assumed that they would govern like the Republicans. So when the wheels started falling off with their majority and they couldn’t get anything done not because of their majority but in spite of their majority the American voters became disenchanted. The voters want results. They don’t want to hear that Blue Dogs won’t support this or that. They see political parties as monolithic and if I give one group control then they will do what is necessary to get things done. With Democrats, that’s not how we do things. Prior to negotiating with Republicans we have to negotiate with ourselves. We give half the store away before we ever see the Republicans.

You are not going to keep a majority if you don’t have core principles that the people know you are going to fight for. And they can’t be core principles that some will fight for; it has to be everyone or no one.

Unfortunately we now live in the political sphere where half measures won’t do. The people are looking for champions, they are looking for super heroes who will defend them against corruption and sometimes from themselves. You can’t do that if you don’t stand for something. The Democrats need to use this opportunity to retool and decide on five core principles that they all can agree to and will vote for and present that to the American people. And when I say all; I mean all from San Francisco liberal to Midwestern Rust Belters, to the Bluest Dog-in for a penny in for a pound. And if you are not willing to support these principles then you cannot run under our flag. A perfect example was health-care. Is it a right or not?

A number of liberal Democrats, including three from California, have voiced their support for Pelosi. Rep. George Miller told the San Francisco Chronicle that Pelosi has been "attacked and vilified by the right wing because of her effectiveness. - Black Political Buzz

Speaker Pelosi was not the problem. If anything she was vilified because she was able to accomplish what many thought was impossible. Those who are crying the loudest for her head are the ones who could not and would not be able to past the core test. They were the ones who were running anti-Pelosi and anti-Obama ads to save their hides. At least they could have had some self-respect and dignity and ran on what they had done. Who is going to vote for someone who runs away from what they voted for? I think it would be a terrible mistake to replace Nancy Pelosi. You dance with the one who brought you. The wing-nuts hate her for a reason. She gets things done! Remember she was the one who stood tall when Rove and the wing-nuts were talking permanent majorities.

I will concede one point though and that is that the Democrats will have to come up with better messengers. The President cannot be the only voice in this wilderness. There has to emerge some cabinet member or some congressional figure who can take the fight to the wing-nuts. The wing-nuts have shown that there are no vacuums today. They will fill any empty space with nonsense if they have to but they will fill it with something.

And finally, the goal of the Congress and this President has to be jobs if they stand any chance of rebounding. The Republicans are going to provide ample opportunities for Dems to regain their majorities in two years because rather than focusing on solving problems they are going to focus on nonsense. I guarantee you we will have gotten no closer going forward to working on the major issues with Republicans than we have in the last two years. They will misread the electorate just like they always do. They see this as a referendum on their conservative agenda when the reality is it is a message to fix the jobs problem. It is not a message to throw gay people out of the military. It is not a message to give tax-cuts to the richest. It is not a message to shutdown the government.

There are many more wrong answers than right ones, and they are easier to find - Michael Friedlander

The Disputed Truth

Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Democrats, President Obama, Harry Reid, Republicans, Wing-nuts (all tags)

Comments

25 Comments

there's plenty...

To take issue with here (what else would be the disputed truth?) - but you yourself do a nice job of summing up why returning Nancy Pelosi to the leadership role is probably mistaken:

I am not one to wax sentimental over past victories and I recognize that now would be an opportune time to shake up the leadership in the party and maybe bring in some fresh blood.

That's pretty much the case against her in a nutshell. I'm not one for dismissing her past accomplishments; but that is past and the question we face is where to go from here. And "shake up the leadership" and "bring in some fresh blood" is about all that needs to be said.

And you said it, too.

by nycweboy1 2010-11-10 12:21PM | 0 recs
RE: there's plenty...

Bull.  It's BECAUSE of her past accomplishments.  She delivered the votes on the Energy Bill, the HCR bill, every bill she was asked to bring out of the House she did.

She did it through discipline, drive, determination, and hard work, and she kept her ladylike elegance and grace in the process.

The wingnuts' handlers, the corporate stooges, lobbyists, and zealots  fear her, and have dedicated a fortune to destroying her personally and professionally.  That's how they roll.

They fear her because she has taught us that a united, organized Liberal Democratic Party always wins.  The Right has managed to use the Senate for their own ends, and destroy Mme. Pelosi's momentum.  Harry Reid allowed it.  Had a Senator and Majority Leader Pelosi been in charge of the Senate, scum like Orrin Hatch and McConnell would still be wiping bloody noses, and we would have enjoyed a far, far different result in the past Elections.

I am just happy Nancy Pelosi is not a quitter, and she will grace our Party with her dedication to hard work, her drive, her legendary attention to detail, and her way of doing business: Take no prisoners.

Wish every Democrat out there could grow a set of big brass balls the size of Nancy Pelosi's, but leadership like hers comes few, and unfortunately for us, far between.

by Ed Talenti 2010-11-11 09:34AM | 0 recs
RE: there's plenty...

"They fear her because she has taught us that a united, organized Liberal Democratic Party always wins."

Um... except, apparently, when they lose 60+ House seats in a single election.

As I said, there's plenty to re-argue here: the mess that has been fobbed off as "healthcare reform" which, yes, she got passed with a bare majority, a bunch of ugly compromises, and continued mass disapproval. Or the financial regulations that even many lefties admit don't do much to rein in financial fims and clean up banking... or we would go on. But I think the point here, as I said before is more basic: change somehing. Do something differently. After a major loss, the best answer many Democrats seem to have is... let's change nothing and just stand here and wait for the worst to happen. That's not much of a plan, nor is it a set of policies to energize voters in upcoming elections. The things which are Nancy Pelosi strengths - which mostly have to do with fundraising and exercise of political power - are not the things we need, ultimately, to return Democrats to a majority psotiion. We need something different, something else. Does Steny Hoyer have it? No, at best he'd be a stopgap solution. But believing that a 70+ year old woman with over 20 years of working within the sme political machine, aided mostly by a byunch of other elderly, machine driven pols will get ius the change we need is a fantasy, a dangerous one, and one too many Democrats cling to for fear of changing what is seriously broken. We can, and we probably will, wind up going with Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader in the House - I think she's amassed too much personal power to be stopped (which is, itself another enormous problem no one wants to face). But doing so because liberals want to delude themselves into believing she's the best or only option we have... I remain unconvinced. We can, and should be willling to change, look to new people, and search, ambitiously, for new ideas. She's not going to get them for us.

by nycweboy1 2010-11-11 09:57AM | 0 recs
RE: there's plenty...

To lose 60+ blue dog seats that went over to the democratic party and pretty much gummed up the works, is not that surprising a thing to see.

 

In 2008, the Democrats - powered by progressives and the blogosphere - won 257 seats in the house. A huge landslide in favor of reform. The blue dogs that went into power from largely republican districts helped make things difficult - but congress made history in the total reforms they passed -

With 100% republican obstruction. A do-nothing republican house was replaced with a Norm-Abrams style get-back-to-work house that faced them down and won. Pelosi said she would 'drain the swamp' left by the Bush administration.

 

She did. She's got my vote.

 

I have problems with her on her leadership with the SBIR reauthorization, but ultimately - she stepped up to the plate and got that done as well.

So she's a good person.  The people who want to throw her out. Are to the last man, usually perfectly willing to defend the people who did nothing these past two years.

 

My message to the republicans is this: Get it right, or we'll throw you out on your asses.

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-11-11 10:22AM | 0 recs
RE: there's plenty...

Thats because the progressive candidate Bush/Nader screwed up the country for 8 years and blamed the GOP.  

All our troubles are from progressive actions and blowback.  But the progressives have managed to sell the blame as only belonging to the Bush half of the Bush/Nader coalition.  They got him elected and somehow claim ignorance.

Problem is now that there is no Bush to hide behind America can see what progressives are actually able to deliver.  And its more Bush like idiots.  Obama and Pelosi are just liberal versions of Bush.  Intelligence and the ability to plan and get results actually matter, Al Gore is far smarter than Bush.  If Al Gore was the same level of epic stupid he would have screwed up the country too.  

 

If you know anything about elections you understand we will lose 2012 Senate and likely the house too.  Thats progressive.  Senate because if its 50/50 we will lose due to having so many more of the seats on offer and the house because its hard to make up 60 seats if its 50/50.  And because we hold 2/3 of the power and the presidency we get all the blame.

 

But the progressive koolaid drinking coalition doesn't stop in 2012 with President Palin, no that wingnut is also a progressive result.  All the evil that occurs then is also on Pelosi's hands and everyone who votes for her.

 

No more shooting America with koolaid actions and then claiming it wasn't you.

If we had gone with Al Gore none of this would have happened.

If we had gone with Hillary this would have been far less.

But no progressives want to have teachable moments while they ruin our country.

Thanks for the memories Progressives.  Thanks for ruining America.

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 12:49PM | 0 recs
RE: there's plenty...

Exorcism?

Inquisition?

How to defeat Satan's minions?

This is senseless and stupid medieval idiocy.

donkeykong is a digital game.   You are a reactionary digital jackass.

Your efforts here are not going to save America from the menace your paranoia has conjured.

When you are interested in a rational and productive conversation, I will rejoice to engage it.  Then maybe would might accomplish something.

Until then, enjoy the sights up there with your head up your ass.

Unethical stupidity is far more destructive than fantasies of evil.

You are the evil you have been waiting for.

Hope you feel better VERY VERY soon.

by Strummerson 2010-11-11 01:04PM | 0 recs
RE: there's plenty...

Your belief system is evil.

Your actions cause evil to occur.

You know it.  Deep down you do.

Embrace all the causes of your actions.

Its not magic.

Its you.

Your belief system no matter how "pure" in intention is evil in application.

You are the GOP.

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 03:04PM | 0 recs
RE: there's plenty...

You don't know jack shit about what I know.  It's a common and arrogant fallacy to argue this.  I know that demonizing anyone who disagrees with you as EVIL is intellectually lazy and fundamentally unethical.

If I am evil, why are you responding to me or anyone else you decide is similarly evil?  Evil must be annihilated, not persuaded?  If I am Satan, or Hitler, or Stalin, or McCarthy, you should be trying to kill or imprison me.

Of course, I am not evil.  Neither are you.  You are either sick and disturbed or yo are fundamentally misguided.

Take your witch hunt to someone else Torquemada.  It's not doing anyone any good with me.

And until you figure out how to operate as an ethical interlocutor, I invite you to go fuck yourself.  Why?  Well, because I'm EVIL you ridiculous jackass.

by Strummerson 2010-11-11 04:02PM | 0 recs
Yes, but

that is not the conversation being had. The conversation being had is that Pelosi was too liberal and too much of a lightning rod. The losers don't want someone new they want someone more conservative. Here's the thing if you do not have a conherent strategy based on your governing principles then it won't matter who the leadershp is. What we have now is a bunch of disjointed and fragmented policies. To say we support the "middle-class" is not a principle.

by Forgiven 2010-11-10 02:09PM | 0 recs
RE: Yes, but

"the conversation being had" is the conversation we are having; it covers a lot of different reasons to consider replacing Nancy Pelosi, some of them silly, some of them hateful... and some of them reasonable and worth further discussion. The "fragmented and disjonted policies we have" are as much a result of Nancy Pelosi's relentless focus on power and winning as they are on perceptions that others are too willing to abandon important principles to get particular results (something, really, that Pelosi shown considerable willingness to do as well - despite the swillingness of many to ignore the deals like the Stupak comprmoise thatb were made to pass the health "reform" bill out of the House). One doesn't have to agree that Nancy Pelosi is "too liberal" or "too strident" or whatever to think that, calmly, it's just time to move on to new leadership and a fresh look at what our goals are and how best to achieve them. Nancy Pelosi is not bad, or terrible, or useless; she has doen a number of impressive remarkable during her time as a leader. At some point, though, the time comes to find new leadership. This, I continue to argue, is that time.

by nycweboy1 2010-11-11 10:04AM | 0 recs
I don't want someone more conservative

I want Pelosi.

 

I want you and yours to own this.

 

Come 2012 I will want more conservative leadership.  We will have lost the senate by then and the presidency.

 

When that happens can you agree in advance that you and yours will put down the koolaid?

 

I mean seriously losing the 3rd worst election in history and you keep your job?

 

Who are you people???????

by donkeykong 2010-11-10 02:28PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

While you are pursuing your obsessional tribalist grudges against "you and yours" and "you people" and rooting for GOP success as part of your fantasy of vindication, some of us are looking for the best possible progressive leadership.  

I'm pretty sure that Pelosi doesn't represent the best conceivable progressive leader.  I might go with Anthony Weiner if those were the criteria.  But if the two most likely candidates are Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, or some other blue dog, the choice seems obvious for anyone who is committed to progressive policy goals.

by Strummerson 2010-11-11 05:42AM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

Nader was the best possible progressive leadership.

Progressives have killed about 300,000 people that didn't need to die.

 

Put down the koolaid.  You are causing horrible horrible things to happen and saying it wasn't me when they happen.

 

We tell you this action you take now in hurting the democratic party will have consequences and you say "[While you are pursuing your obsessional tribalist grudges against "you and yours" and "you people" and rooting for GOP success as part of your fantasy of vindication, some of us are looking for the best possible progressive leadership.]"

 

Its your way of not listening to what people are telling you.

 

Your actions are hurting people.

Yours.

You.

Stop it.

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 05:53AM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

Nader wasn't possible.  He was never going to get elected.  Weiner is not a possible speaker candidate at this juncture.  Jane Hamsher is not a serious presidential alternative.  These are irresponsible delusions.

Stop with the cliches.            

Stop with the personal accusations.

Don't assume that disagreement represents a failure to listen.  It's absurdly arrogant.

Get over your pretense to moral purity and superiority and try a little substance and a little respect.

 

by Strummerson 2010-11-11 10:31AM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

your talking like its 2008.

Your team had the ball for 2 years and fumbled.

Its time for a new coach and new direction.

Failure to recognize this is compounding the problem.

The entire progressive/liberal machine including all individuals that pray to it have used up their allotment of respect.

Sorry but you are now the national problem.

You personally.

Together with the other wonder twins you make up what is wrong with America.

You are no different from the GOP because every time we go with you there is a super conservative backlash.  

 

You are Reagan when you support Carter.  

You are Bush the lesser when you support Nader.

You are Bush 2.0 when you support Pelosi/Obama

 

You personally.

Not some abstract hive mind.

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 12:22PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

This is unsupportable and unethical bullshit.  

Why would anyone take you seriously?

by Strummerson 2010-11-11 12:36PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

you are so right.

 

Supporting Nader didn't really elect Bush.  It was magic.

Or if it did it wasn't progressives/liberals who did it.

Carter and Carter 2.0 and their teachable moments and attempts to explain to people why voters just don't get it rather than doing what the majority wants were totally unrelated to the Reagan/Palin revolution.  It was magic.

 

And look at all those horrible things that happened when we let Clinton run the country.  Peace, Prosperity, we don't want that anymore.

 

Progressives spend half their time pissing on the democratic party and the other half complaining why voters want the piss free party.

 

Progressives ARE the GOP  but its not their fault.  Its magic.

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 12:56PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

Stop the idiotic tantrum.

No one is suggesting we support Nader.  How the hell do you know if I or anyone else voted for Nader?

Where did I suggest anything negative about Clinton?  In many ways, he was an excellent Pres.  Here's one that gets lost: No one ever seems to bring up what he accomplished in N. Ireland.  This was a world-historical accomplishment for which he deserves a good share of credit.  But Clinton isn't the issue.  You are just conjuring bogey-men so you can piss vinegar.

Grow the fuck up already.

And by the way, neither you nor I have a vote for speaker.

by Strummerson 2010-11-11 01:20PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

Progressives never suggest we do what they told us to do in the past.  That would involve taking responsibility for the evil they enable.

I like how  you aren't responsible for Pelosi who you were defending at the start of this conversation.

Are you sensing its not going to end well and are distancing yourself from it?  Why are progressives never responsible for their support?  Pelosi will cause us to lose, that outcome is evil.  Support for that outcome is evil.

Stop being evil.

Seriously.

Its your choice to stop enabling the GOP.

If you choose not to take it you are responsible for the evil you enable.

Not the hive mind.

You.

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 03:10PM | 0 recs
RE: I don't want someone more conservative

"Progressives never suggest we do what they told us to do in the past.  That would involve taking responsibility for the evil they enable."

Well, I don't speak for "Progressives" in general.  If you decide to argue with me based on bigoted generalizations, you're not arguing with me, but with paranoid delusions that may serve to simplify the world into an intelligible form for you, but it's really a crappy unethical move that will produce no agreement or even mutual understanding.  It's a useless rant.  So what every you have decided "progressives" do really doesn't concern me in the least.  It's just another sign of laziness.

"I like how  you aren't responsible for Pelosi who you were defending at the start of this conversation."

I was defending Pelosi?  No.  Until I gather more information, she seems to be the more progressive of the two strongest candidates for leadership.  I agree with her unequivocal response to the catfood commission, for instance.  I'd prefer Anthony Weiner.  He's not in the running.  If you want to make a case FOR Hoyer, as opposed to simply "anyone but Pelosi" I will read it with interest.  Maybe I'll change my mind.  But blaming me for shedding the blood of hundreds of thousands of people isn't an argument for Hoyer.  A preference based on current information isn't a defense.  But of course, if she is an evil witch with bloody hands, then we should certainly  burn her, no?

"Are you sensing its not going to end well and are distancing yourself from it?  Why are progressives never responsible for their support?  Pelosi will cause us to lose, that outcome is evil.  Support for that outcome is evil."

No.  I'm sensing that we face many challenges and trying to make the best decision based on current information. Why are X's always Y?  I don't know.  Why have you decided I am the same kind of X that you need me to be?  I'm unconvinced that anyone gives us a better chance to win?  Put forward an argument for a preferable alternative instead of these stupid accusatory bile soaked ravings.  

Drop the "evil" crap.  It's simply unethical idiocy.

Seriously.

I'm not enabling the GOP.  You are simply enabling your wounded ego with such ad hominem hysteria.  Give me an argument.  Unsupported accusations get you nowhere with me.

You are an annoying prick.  Not the hive mind.  You.  Stop.

by Strummerson 2010-11-11 04:30PM | 0 recs
Not third worst

This is not the third worst election loss or even near it.  Early elections were with a smaller House so a percentage change would be more accurate but just using raw numbers here are elections that are worse than this year's.

 

1894 D Was 218 Is 93 Change -125

1932 R Was 218 Is 117 Change -101

1874 R Was 199 Is 103 Change -96

1890 R Was 179 Is 86 Change -93

1938 D Was 334 Is 262 Change -82

1922 R Was 302 Is 225 Change -77

1948 R Was 246 Is 171 Change -75

1854 D Was 157 Is 83 Change -74

 

What unites most of these are bad economic times: The Panic of 1893, The Great Depression (1932), the famous recession within the Depression in 1937, the Panic of 1873.  Given the economic meltdown (mpst similar to the Panic of 1893), Pelosi actually did OK to keep losses to 65 or so. 

by David Kowalski 2010-11-11 04:49AM | 0 recs
RE: Not third worst? 9th worst? out of 111 elections??????

Presuming there aren't a bunch of losses between 60 and 74 that you missed I am heartened that this was ONLY the 9th worst out of 111 elections.

Wow start the party, it was only in the bottom 10 of all time not the bottom 3.

Lets give Pelosi a raise.

 

It was a mere 62 years ago that someone got beaten worse than us.  Woo hoo go team.

It was only the 4th worst Democratic performance of all time in the house not the 3rd.

 

The press and their wild stories.....

 

This wasn't historic at all.....

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 05:36AM | 0 recs
Here is my problem

DonkeyKong with your analysis, it is based on things happening in a vacuum. You view things as if the Dems were the only variable in the game so that all victories or losses are the fault of Dems or progressives. I am afraid you are losing sight of the larger picture there are a number of variables that make up a campaign or a policy and depending on how they line up determines the consequences. I am not naive enough to believe that everything is happenstance but I am also not so arrogant to believe that we control every detail.

What sank the Dems and progressives and what will continue to do so is their lack of a clear principled message and the policies that support it. Americans for the most part are simple people, they want simple answers to complex issues. The wing-nuts provide them with that, the Dems do not. For Republicans all problems can be boiled down to three things not enough tax-cuts, too much regulation, or too much spending on entitlements.

by Forgiven 2010-11-11 09:33AM | 0 recs
RE: Here is my problem

"What sank the Dems and progressives and what will continue to do so is their lack of a clear principled message and the policies that support it."

Yes, but we shoot ourselves in the foot. Two examples:

1) During the health care debate, Democrats could not bring themselves to tax health plans that exceeded $23K in value in order to permit people who made $23K in total to have health insurance.

2) On the same day that the Dems were losing 60 house seats, the San Francisco city council determined that toys should be banned from McDonalds Happy Meals.

If you want to be taken seriously, be serious!

 

 

 

by pat0704 2010-11-11 11:26AM | 0 recs
RE: Here is my problem

There is no vacuum.  You control your actions.  You choice actions that hurt America.  Please stop.

Progressives didn't want the Clinton team.  We have a massive recession and leadership that is learning on the job.  Its cause and effect not magic.  And the progressive faction putting down the koolaid would have fixed it.

 

Progressives literally are the only piece of this puzzzle that needs to change for the outcome to be much much brighter for America.  Pragmatics would run America better than liberals and better than wingnuts.  But liberals actually prefer to lose and think that they aren't the ones killing all those people in Iraq/Afghanistan.  Oh it wasn't us and our koolaid it was the bad bad bad Bush.  Nader is responsible for 100% of what Bush did.  Was Al Gore the anti-christ like he said?

 

Progressives think they are the 3rd way but they are the GOP.  Every thing they fight for is victories for the GOP and they won't listen to anyone or put down the koolaid long enough to stop hurting America.

 

If you want respect stop being evil.

If you don't stop being evil in your actions don't expect us to pretend this recession isn't a progressive recession.  If Al Gore had just finished an 8 year term we wouldn't be in this mess at all.  If Hillary was 2 years in it would be far far far less bad.

 

You broke it you own it.

by donkeykong 2010-11-11 12:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads