PDA

View Full Version : Defeated Dems plead: Please, Nancy, step aside!


operative
11-08-2010, 01:19 PM
From a House Democratic Source:

FOX has obtained a letter being penned by defeated House Democrats that implores House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to step aside.

The letter is now circulating Capitol Hill and has not yet been sent to the Speaker. FOX has obtained draft language of the letter.

In the draft of the letter, the members say that they were "victimized by a national wave of resentment toward Democrats, a wave that ensnared you along with us."

The letter goes on to say "Madam Speaker, fairly or unfairly, Republicans made you the face of the resentment and disagreement in our races. While we commend your years of service to our party and your leadership through many tough times, we respectfully ask that you step aside as the top Democrat in the House."

The letter says that the defeated members "fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing, they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership, in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting."

The lawmakers also say that "one mark of a strong leader is the ability to discern when it is time to pass the baton" and calls this a "dark hour."

The letter closes asking Pelosi to step aside.

Full text of the letter below. Unclear who exactly will sign it and when it will go to the Speaker.

Letter from Defeated Members:

Many of us want the chance to run again and reclaim the seats that we lost on Tuesday. With you as the leader of House Democrats, the hangover of 2010 stands no chance of subsiding. Many of us have run our last race but remain committed to our party; we want to help recruit successful candidates to run in our stead. Unfortunately, we fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting.

This is a difficult letter to write, because we admire your commitment, your drive, and your conviction. You have been an historic figure in our great nation, and for that we are all proud, as should you be. Nonetheless, we each experienced how Republican demonization of you and your leadership contributed to our defeat.

It is impossible not to judge the results of November 2nd as anything but a profound loss. We want to recover. Recovery of our majority in the House necessitates new leadership at the top of our party. We believe that you can and will play an extraordinary role in our party, and it is extremely unfortunate that Republicans have taken away your ability to lead as effectively as you are able. Nonetheless, one mark of a strong leader is the ability to discern when it is time to pass the baton. As defeated members, whose party needs to rebuild, we are counting on you to show the strength of your leadership in this dark hour. We ask that you step aside as leader of our party in the House.

With utmost respect, we are..



Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/08/fox-exclusive-defeated-democrats-pen-letter-implore-pelosi-step-aside#ixzz14iTVKTIX

So, will she step aside? Should she?s Will Hoyer get minority whip or will Clyburn? Etc.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 01:35 PM
From a House Democratic Source:

FOX has obtained a letter ...

Not much point in reading further than that. To your should question ...

So, will she step aside? Should she?s

... no. She did a great job as Majority Leader, it is not her fault that voters in a bad economy expressed their disgruntlement by voting out some of the majority party's representatives, and most importantly, the RWNM will demonize anyone who's in charge.

To see this last, consider that every major Democratic candidate for president, who came from Congress, has been labeled in mailers as "the most radical liberal member of Congress EVAR." Consider also the demonization of Harry Reid by the RWNM -- the only way to pass a lie detector test asserting he's a "radical liberal" is to be a full metal wingnut. Or to get all of your information from Fox, Rush, and Palin. But I repeat myself.

No matter who the Dems would chose as Minority Leader to replace her, I guarantee you we'd see the same things being said about him or her as have been said about Nancy Pelosi within a month of the start of the new Congress. This is how the RWNM works: they push their ideological goals and do their fundraising largely by picking the most prominent individual targets, and assigning to them every bugaboo that pushes their base's buttons.

So, for the Dems to do this, it would be seen as surrendering on something for which they should feel no need.

Of course, we are talking about the Democrats here, so as far as "will they" goes, I'd say it's six to five and pick 'em.

popcorn_karate
11-08-2010, 02:02 PM
N
To see this last, consider that every major Democratic candidate for president, who came from Congress, has been labeled in mailers as "the most radical liberal member of Congress EVAR." ...

No matter who the Dems would chose as Minority Leader to replace her, I guarantee you we'd see the same things being said about him or her as have been said about Nancy Pelosi within a month of the start of the new Congress. This is how the RWNM works: they push their ideological goals and do their fundraising largely by picking the most prominent individual targets, and assigning to them every bugaboo that pushes their base's buttons.

i tend to want to see her go. The repubs have spent 100s of millions on demonizing her. make them spend it again to demonize the next person. It'll be harder because that person won't have the same power that Pelosi had.

just on a basic politics level I think it would be the right move for dems. I'm surprised Pelosi isn't politically savvy enough to get out of the way - provided she could get another liberal as a replacement. It would NOT be worth it if we got a bluedog into leadership.

operative
11-08-2010, 02:17 PM
i tend to want to see her go. The repubs have spent 100s of millions on demonizing her. make them spend it again to demonize the next person. It'll be harder because that person won't have the same power that Pelosi had.

just on a basic politics level I think it would be the right move for dems. I'm surprised Pelosi isn't politically savvy enough to get out of the way - provided she could get another liberal as a replacement. It would NOT be worth it if we got a bluedog into leadership.

Eg Heath Shuler, who is making waves about running against her.

I hope, very strongly, that enough Dems share bjkeefe's outlook on Pelosi, because I think it's electoral suicide to keep her in charge. Nobody will run ads saying their opponent shares "Heath Shuler's agenda" etc.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 02:17 PM
i tend to want to see her go. The repubs have spent 100s of millions on demonizing her. make them spend it again to demonize the next person. It'll be harder because that person won't have the same power that Pelosi had.

I don't think it's meaningful to talk about their spending unless you also think about the money going in the other direction. I'm confident the RWNM makes more in donations than it spends in soliciting them.

This will continue to be true if they have a fresh target. I might even think that it would make their job easier. Sure, some conservatives never get tired of hearing about the terrifying prospect of San Francisco Values™, etc., but I have to think that if the Republicans, with their shiny new House majority, are associated with the same old non-stop Pelosi-bashing as they have spent the last four years doing, it would hurt them with people less enamored of sitting in the choir.

just on a basic politics level I think it would be the right move for dems.

Why? As I said earlier, I think it would look like nothing so much as additional surrendering, on something the Dems should have no reason to. I am unaware of serious disenchantment with her among Dems and libs (apart from some thinking she's not liberal enough, or compromised too much, or like that). Why let your enemy tell you which generals to pick?

I mean, really. If the past two ... hell, sixteen ... years have taught us anything, it is that the GOP has absolutely no interest in working with the Dems. None. Not one bit. It's their way or the highway, and the state of the union be damned. (I will grant that some people sincerely believe that the way to fix our nation's problems is to follow, say, Paul Ryan's thinking, but this doesn't change the reality that the attitude is one of no compromise and no cooperation.)

I'm surprised Pelosi isn't politically savvy enough to get out of the way ...

If there is one thing it is impossible to accuse Nancy Pelosi of, it's lack of political savvy. It's pretty weak sauce to say if she doesn't think she should step aside, then it must mean that she's dumb. Seems to me we want a fighter who doesn't back down to wingnut bullying -- the Dems have precious few of those as it is.

... - provided she could get another liberal as a replacement. It would NOT be worth it if we got a bluedog into leadership.

Glad you said that part, at least.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 02:21 PM
Eg Heath Shuler, who is making waves about running against her.

I hope, very strongly, that enough Dems share bjkeefe's outlook on Pelosi, because I think it's electoral suicide to keep her in charge. Nobody will run ads saying their opponent shares "Heath Shuler's agenda" etc.

Emph. added. Prediction noted for the record, just in case HS does get the job.

operative
11-08-2010, 02:34 PM
Emph. added. Prediction noted for the record, just in case HS does get the job.

Haha hey I'll take you up on that. They'll run ads about the Democrats' liberal agenda, but they won't be able to, nor will they exert much effort trying to, personalize it with Shuler, because Shuler simply has a far different presence than Pelosi. Being able to personalize things is a bread winner for parties, and Pelosi, with her 8% approval rating, was a godsend to the GOP in '10.

chiwhisoxx
11-08-2010, 02:38 PM
If I was a liberal I'd want her gone. It's not about punishing her for the midterm defeats. I probably think she had more to do with the midterms than most progressives do, but it's a very small part of the pie either way. I think the larger point is the value of Nancy Pelosi in a leadership position is that she's really good at twisting arms, and she won't be doing much of that in the next 2 years in the minority position. Instead, she'd stay in a visible role and continue to rile up the right, because like her or not, she absolutely mobilizes conservatives.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 02:49 PM
If I was a liberal I'd want her gone.

Yeah, well, if I were a conservative, I'd want Rush Limbaugh to get off the air.

See how much weight that carries?

operative
11-08-2010, 02:53 PM
Yeah, well, if I were a conservative, I'd want Rush Limbaugh to get off the air.

See how much weight that carries?

I'm a conservative and I'd like to see Rush off the air. Because like Nancy Pelosi, he does far more to hurt than help his own side. He and DeMint cost us a Senate seat in Delaware and hoisted the poison pill known as Christine O'Donnell on us.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 02:59 PM
... Pelosi, with her 8% approval rating, ...

I am not surprised to see you pulling berries from your bunghole once again, but I can't wait to see you document this claim.

Did you perhaps misread (or read a garbled account on some wingnut blog of) the "NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Oct. 22-25, 2009," where she scored 8% on "Very Positive (http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm#Pelosi)," and fail to notice the next option, "Somewhat Positive?"

Or perhaps you misread (or read a garbled account on some wingnut blog of) the Oct 2010 Gallup poll, where it was reported she had an 8% approval rating among Republicans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/143885/pelosi-favorable-rating-speaker-drops-new-low.aspx).

Basically, if you look at the aggregated results of responsible polling firms, her approval rating has been around where Congress's in general has over the same time period: the high twenties.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 03:03 PM
I'm a conservative and I'd like to see Rush off the air. Because like Nancy Pelosi, he does far more to hurt than help his own side. He and DeMint cost us a Senate seat in Delaware and hoisted the poison pill known as Christine O'Donnell on us.

Good to hear. Now if only there were more than one of you.

chiwhisoxx
11-08-2010, 03:05 PM
Good to hear. Now if only there were more than one of you.

There are two of us. And you took me out of context. If you read the whole thing, you'd realize I was saying I want her gone for pragmatic reasons going forward, not because she needs to be punished or something like that.

operative
11-08-2010, 03:05 PM
I am not surprised to see you pulling berries from your bunghole once again, but I can't wait to see you document this claim.

Well here it is back several months and at a robust 11%
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

And, "According to an NBC/WSJ poll that concluded on October 30th, Pelosi garnered an overall 24% positive rating and a 50% negative rating. The equivalent ratings from Independents tagged her at 8% positive and 61% negative."
http://www.huliq.com/10128/nancy-pelosi-will-run-pursue-house-democratic-minority-leader


Basically, if you look at the aggregated results of responsible polling firms, her approval rating has been around where Congress's in general has over the same time period: the high twenties.
Yes clearly she is a wonderful asset for the Dems and they should run promising to return her to the Speakership to continue her agenda. BJ, you and I are in full agreement.

operative
11-08-2010, 03:06 PM
Good to hear. Now if only there were more than one of you.

There are plenty more who would, actually, including many in leadership (eg Michael Steele) who are afraid to say so because he would reign fire down on them.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 03:10 PM
There are two of us.

Know hope.

And you took me out of context. If you read the whole thing, you'd realize I was saying I want her gone for pragmatic reasons going forward, not because she needs to be punished or something like that.

No I didn't. I quoted only that starting bit to illustrate how silly your "pragmatic" concerns are, given where you are coming from. As I said earlier, no one with any sense lets the enemy pick his generals.

operative
11-08-2010, 03:11 PM
Know hope.



No I didn't. I quoted only that starting bit to illustrate how silly your "pragmatic" concerns are, given where you are coming from. As I said earlier, no one with any sense lets the enemy pick his generals.

The GOP (including myself) are desperately hoping Nancy Pelosi is minority leader. If you think anything else, you are deluding yourself.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 03:12 PM
There are plenty more who would, actually, including many in leadership (eg Michael Steele) who are afraid to say so because he would reign fire down on them.

Thanks for reinforcing the gist of my original point.

I do not, actually, believe that Rush has a 100% or even a 99% approval rating among all who call themselves conservatives. Sorry intentional hyperbole for the purpose of ridiculing by counterexample is such a difficult concept to grasp.

operative
11-08-2010, 03:18 PM
Thanks for reinforcing the gist of my original point.

I do not, actually, believe that Rush has a 100% or even a 99% approval rating among all who call themselves conservatives. Sorry intentional hyperbole for the purpose of ridiculing by counterexample is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Sarcasm is better expressed with smilies or other such non-text aids in the absence of tonal inflection.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 03:34 PM
Sarcasm is better expressed with smilies or other such non-text aids in the absence of tonal inflection.

Yes. On the other hand, there gets to be a point where I feel like adding a winkie is the text-based equivalent of telling a joke while elbowing my listener in the ribs. This was such a case. Most regular readers here can tell when I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek, or using hyperbole for effect, or things of that nature without my having to make every last post look like a teenager's IM log. I apologize if I credited you with more ability to read for context than you would like to claim.

operative
11-08-2010, 03:38 PM
Yes. On the other hand, there gets to be a point where I feel like adding a winkie is the text-based equivalent of telling a joke while elbowing my listener in the ribs. This was such a case. Most regular readers here can tell when I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek, or using hyperbole for effect, or things of that nature without my having to make every last post look like a teenager's IM log.

:(


I apologize

Apology accepted.


if I credited you with more ability to read for context than you would like to claim.

Much better to end the statement the way I did and leave this series of prepositional phrases hanging somewhere in the nether regions of the net.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 03:51 PM
Well here it is back several months and at a robust 11%
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

Did you know that 8 is not equal to 11? Were you also able to see that in that same poll, 51% were either undecided or said they didn't have enough information to make a decision? And given that you have elsewhere claimed to be a regular reader of 538, why have you yet to learn the dubiousness of grabbing at one poll result, while ignoring a much larger data base of many polls checking on the same things?

And, "According to an NBC/WSJ poll that concluded on October 30th, Pelosi garnered an overall 24% positive rating and a 50% negative rating. The equivalent ratings from Independents tagged her at 8% positive and 61% negative."
http://www.huliq.com/10128/nancy-pelosi-will-run-pursue-house-democratic-minority-leader

Amazing. As predicted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187272&highlight=garbled#post187272), you linked to a source that did not provide a link for information they did not develop but claimed to have found elsewhere. I can't trust something from a site I've never heard of run by a company I've never heard of that's passing along third-hand information without a link to the original, or at least to a known credible source. If I did, I'd just believe whatever you type in your comments, you see what I'm saying?

And anyway, eight is not equal to twenty-four. Just so you know. I understand that you like to discard all Dems or all libs when you're making claims about what "everybody" wants, but once we move outside the boundary defined by your two ears, this is not operativeWorld.

operative
11-08-2010, 03:54 PM
[QUOTE=operative;187278]Well here it is back several months and at a robust 11%
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

Did you know that 8 is not equal to 11?

Yes, I mean, it's a gigantic, HUGE 3% bigger. Why, that is seismic!



Were you also able to see that in that same poll, 51% were either undecided or said they didn't have enough information to make a decision? And given that you have elsewhere claimed to be a regular reader of 538, why have you yet to learn the dubiousness of grabbing at one poll result, while ignoring a much larger data base of many polls checking on the same things?

'claimed to be.'

BJ being that you have elsewhere claimed to be a human being I would like proof that you are not in fact a giant talking octopus.



Amazing. As predicted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187272&highlight=garbled#post187272), you linked to a source that did not provide a link for information they did not develop but claimed to have found elsewhere. I can't trust something from a site I've never heard of run by a company I've never heard of that's passing along third-hand information without a link to the original, or at least to a known credible source. If I did, I'd just believe whatever you type in your comments, you see what I'm saying?

You're right, it might still be at 11%! Queen Nancy still reigns!

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 03:58 PM
[...]

I think you should spend more time thinking about what you're trying to say rather than just seeing how rapidly you can type in just anything. You might also read and think about what's been said to you beforehand, as well. You're just making yourself look worse than you did with your original claim.

And remember, I was one of the last people here (not ideologically allied with you) to credit you with at least some evidence of being reasonable.

Probably you don't care, though. This is typical for wingnuts.

operative
11-08-2010, 03:59 PM
I think you should spend more time thinking about what you're trying to say rather than just seeing how rapidly you can type in just anything. You might also read and think about what's been said to you beforehand, as well. You're just making yourself look worse than you did with your original claim.

Actually I'm mocking your assertion that a 3% difference in approval rating is material, and I would still be mocking it had I taken twenty minutes to think of a way to mock it than two minutes. Because it warrants mockery.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 04:02 PM
Actually I'm mocking your assertion that a 3% difference in approval rating is material, and I would still be mocking it had I taken twenty minutes to think of a way to mock it than two minutes. Because it warrants mockery.

You said "8%." When challenged to document that, you linked to two things that did not support that claim. Since then, you have been waving your hands, lunging at scraps, and ignoring the meat of my responses.

I will leave it to others to decide whose posts in this subthread merit more mockery. Last word here is all yours.

operative
11-08-2010, 04:07 PM
You said "8%." When challenged to document that, you linked to two things that did not support that claim.

No, I provided one that provided a poll showing support 3% higher, and one that you did not accept.

Hey, let's go with your accepted 11% figure. Clearly that makes Nancy Pelosi a very popular figure.

popcorn_karate
11-08-2010, 06:04 PM
I don't think it's meaningful to talk about their spending unless you also think about the money going in the other direction. I'm confident the RWNM makes more in donations than it spends in soliciting them.

This will continue to be true if they have a fresh target. I might even think that it would make their job easier. Sure, some conservatives never get tired of hearing about the terrifying prospect of San Francisco Values™, etc., but I have to think that if the Republicans, with their shiny new House majority, are associated with the same old non-stop Pelosi-bashing as they have spent the last four years doing, it would hurt them with people less enamored of sitting in the choir.

i think once something like this gets lodged in peoples minds its almost impossible to shake loose - confirmation bias. Among the "undecided voter" types, i think rehabbing Pelosi's image is a lost cause - and note that i think she has done quite well and i have no animus towards her.

Are you letting your urge not to let the R's have a "win" get the better of your political judgment?


Why? As I said earlier, I think it would look like nothing so much as additional surrendering, on something the Dems should have no reason to. I am unaware of serious disenchantment with her among Dems and libs (apart from some thinking she's not liberal enough, or compromised too much, or like that). Why let your enemy tell you which generals to pick?

depends on if you want to win elections or not. the moronic, uneducated, airheads that we call "the middle" or "undecided voters" or whatever are the people that need these little symbolic gestures to make them feel better. they are also people who in two years will remember "pelosi bad" but have no context for why that might have been, so the simple solution is needed for the simple people that decide our elections.


I mean, really. If the past two ... hell, sixteen ... years have taught us anything, it is that the GOP has absolutely no interest in working with the Dems. None. Not one bit. It's their way or the highway, and the state of the union be damned. (I will grant that some people sincerely believe that the way to fix our nation's problems is to follow, say, Paul Ryan's thinking, but this doesn't change the reality that the attitude is one of no compromise and no cooperation.)

exactly. so as long as we have a liberal in her place, its all good.


If there is one thing it is impossible to accuse Nancy Pelosi of, it's lack of political savvy. It's pretty weak sauce to say if she doesn't think she should step aside, then it must mean that she's dumb.

I don't think she's dumb. I do think she may be weighting the symbolism of an R "win" in getting rid of her too high, and not looking at the potential downside of her tarnished image among the wishy washy types we need to win elections.

"california liberal" and "san francisco liberal" etc. have a continued unfortunate resonance in some quarters.


Seems to me we want a fighter who doesn't back down to wingnut bullying -- the Dems have precious few of those as it is.

true. but i like to use subs and wear down the opposition tag-team style.

Glad you said that part, at least.

that is the top priority. Pelosi has a lot of baggage that is not her fault, but its there none the less. If we can get a committed liberal with her fiesty streak that doesn't have that baggage we would be better off.

I'm not up on the situation enough to know whether that person exists or not. If Pelosi really thinks anyone else that took her position would be a door mat, then she should soldier on.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 06:43 PM
i think once something like this gets lodged in peoples minds its almost impossible to shake loose - confirmation bias. Among the "undecided voter" types, i think rehabbing Pelosi's image is a lost cause - and note that i think she has done quite well and i have no animus towards her.

I suppose that would apply for some people, but I'd think only for a short time, and certainly far shorter (http://www.google.com/search?q=before+the+truth+can+get+its+pants+on)tha n an election cycle -- the RWNM can run a soup-to-nuts smear campaign in months, if not weeks, and they'll implant hard-to-dislodge beliefs about anyone who takes Pelosi's place as Minority Leader just as deeply as they have with her.

Are you letting your urge not to let the R's have a "win" get the better of your political judgment?

My urge is to prevent the Dems from compounding their loss when there is no upside that I can see, based on my observations of the circus for the past couple of decades. Or perhaps wish would be a better choice -- I am not going to invest much hope or effort in getting them to show spine, or pride in what they (ostensibly) stand for, or even to take credit for the good things they did manage to accomplish, based on the observations already noted.

depends on if you want to win elections or not.

False dichotomy of the week.

the moronic, uneducated, airheads that we call "the middle" or "undecided voters" or whatever are the people that need these little symbolic gestures to make them feel better. they are also people who in two years will remember "pelosi bad" but have no context for why that might have been, so the simple solution is needed for the simple people that decide our elections.

I'm not saying there is no such person who will match that description, but in terms of significant numbers, I'm not buying it. People who are "moronic, uneducated, airheads" do not generally remember small symbolic gestures made two years in the past. They remember, mostly, the last commercial or other shouting head they saw on the teevee, the last email they were forwarded by their Uncle Dave, or the most resonant slogan they heard over the past month. And somewhere in there, it is just as easy for the RWNM to implant "X bad" as "Pelosi bad." Not to mention with more reinforcement for the back-of-the-mind notion that the Dems never stand up for anything.

I would further add that it has been the conventional wisdom for far too long, among people who think they know how to make the Dems win elections, that whenever the Dems get in trouble, the thing to do is to move cringingly to the right. I think this is a mistake on the level of trying to win elections, since it makes the base angry or at least apathetic, and many fence-sitters voters think "Why vote for the Lite version when you can have the real thing?" I think it is an even more serious mistake for the good of the country. Say what you will about the emptiness of the Republican Party and Conservative Movement's program, or the idiocy of their policy proposals, or anything else, but one thing you do have to give them credit for is sticking to their guns, staying on message, and being proud to proclaim who they are and what they stand for. The long and short of this is that over the past thirty years, we have obtained two political parties, one representing the far right, one representing the center-right, and both of them representing Big Money. Half the eligible electorate can't be bothered to pay attention, because they're not being offered a real choice. Instead, they're being patronized by people trying to sell them a re-polished version of what they think they'll more easily swallow. I oversimplify, but not by much.

As to the rest, I think I can fairly summarize it by saying you seem convinced that her image is a problem that can't be fixed. I think that's wrong, that the economy is the problem and she is just being made the scapegoat by nervous nellies after having been made the demon by the RWNM, that whoever takes her place is going to get the same kind and amount of poo flung by the same howler monkeys, and the same subset of voters will think it smells just the same. So we lost some elections and control of the House. Let's not make it worse by panicking. Hanging tough is what we want to do.

So, I guess we'll just have to ATD.

popcorn_karate
11-08-2010, 07:10 PM
I would further add that it has been the conventional wisdom for far too long, among people who think they know how to make the Dems win elections, that whenever the Dems get in trouble, the thing to do is to move cringingly to the right...

just to be clear, that is the opposite of my position.

if you just wanted to go off on a riff, thats cool, but it had no applicability to our discussion.

popcorn_karate
11-08-2010, 07:30 PM
If we can get a committed liberal with her fiesty streak that doesn't have that baggage we would be better off.

I'm not up on the situation enough to know whether that person exists or not. If Pelosi really thinks anyone else that took her position would be a door mat, then she should soldier on.

ok, checked into it and the likely alternatives to Pelosi are not liberals and not fiesty.

good for Pelosi for going for it.

(i wonder if i could fit "for" into that sentence one more time... -4 style points)

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 07:31 PM
just to be clear, that is the opposite of my position.

if you just wanted to go off on a riff, thats cool, but it had no applicability to our discussion.

I am glad to hear you say the first part. To the second: I believe a hair-trigger instinct to get rid of Pelosi a week after the election does not accord well with that statement, since, basically, you are recommending a decision based on a supposed image problem dictated by the right.

JonIrenicus
11-08-2010, 07:49 PM
2012 with a TOP TIER lineup that generates warmth and support throughout the country.

Nancy Pelosi - House minority leader

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12519



Harry Reid - Senate Majority Leader


Joe Biden - Vice President of Gaffes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBHPvfAt5ow&feature=related



And of course President Obama, who ought to feel thrilled for having these titans of persuasion in his orbit.


All is not lost Democrats !!!!!

operative
11-08-2010, 07:50 PM
ok, checked into it and the likely alternatives to Pelosi are not liberals and not fiesty.


What, not wild about a Heath Shuler-led party?

I just love this harakiri mode democrat party. In 2012, when the GOP regains the presidency, 10 senate seats, and even more house seats, maybe a coalition of moderates (eg Mark Warner, Joe Manchin--if he doesn't flip sides, etc.) will grab the party back from the lefty activist base. That's the only way you guys are going to avoid being a regional party and a long-term minority presence.

uncle ebeneezer
11-08-2010, 09:16 PM
I love how one election suddenly means that the losing party must move to the center and elect more moderates. Guess that's why the GOP responded to the absolute route of 2008 with such sensible middle of the road Republicans in 2010.

operative
11-08-2010, 09:23 PM
I love how one election suddenly means that the losing party must move to the center and elect more moderates. Guess that's why the GOP responded to the absolute route of 2008 with such sensible middle of the road Republicans in 2010.

That was exactly what the Dems were saying about the GOP :p

The GOP has certainly not been putting forward a genuinely conservative platform--you don't hear Boehner championing Paul Ryan's Roadmap.

Don Zeko
11-08-2010, 10:14 PM
That was exactly what the Dems were saying about the GOP :p

The GOP has certainly not been putting forward a genuinely conservative platform--you don't hear Boehner championing Paul Ryan's Roadmap.

Nor do you hear Pelosi pushing Single Payer. The fact that you're less conservative than some platonic ideal of conservatism doesn't mean that you're not moving to the right.

operative
11-08-2010, 10:18 PM
Nor do you hear Pelosi pushing Single Payer. The fact that you're less conservative than some platonic ideal of conservatism doesn't mean that you're not moving to the right.

I see your point, but I also don't see where Boehner and McConnell are moving to the right. Especially if the rumored sweetheart deal they're trying to work for Manchin to flip is legit..

Don Zeko
11-08-2010, 10:26 PM
I see your point, but I also don't see where Boehner and McConnell are moving to the right. Especially if the rumored sweetheart deal they're trying to work for Manchin to flip is legit..

Eh, you might be right about there not being a conservative shift in the party; I guess that depends a bit upon how we're defining our terms. But I suspect you'll agree with me that the Republicans certainly didn't respond to their losses in 2006 and 2008 by becoming a more centrist party.

operative
11-08-2010, 10:27 PM
Eh, you might be right about there not being a conservative shift in the party; I guess that depends a bit upon how we're defining our terms. But I suspect you'll agree with me that the Republicans certainly didn't respond to their losses in 2006 and 2008 by becoming a more centrist party.

They certainly didn't go in the Olympia Snow/Susan Collins direction, for sure.

bjkeefe
11-08-2010, 10:42 PM
ok, checked into it and the likely alternatives to Pelosi are not liberals and not fiesty.

good for Pelosi for going for it.

Thanks for the update.

(i wonder if i could fit "for" into that sentence one more time... -4 style points)

Heh. No, don't be so harsh on yourself. If you said that sentence out loud, you'd hear them pronounced slightly differently from each other. Besides, prepositions are often, as in your sentence, so tightly bonded to the preceding or following word that the pair is practically atomic.

Roger Angell once wrote himself into a corner and ended up remarking parenthetically, "(which is arguably the only way to get arguably into a sentence three times)."

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 01:16 PM
ok, checked into it and the likely alternatives to Pelosi are not liberals and not fiesty.

good for Pelosi for going for it.

On a related note (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wake-tuesdays-shellacking-current-speaker-remain-congress-leadership/story?id=12060225&page=1) (via (http://wonkette.com/429487/unrelenting-nancy-pelosi-to-lead-house-democrats-forever)):

But the Blue Dog coalition was decimated on Tuesday; more than half of its members, 29, lost. Only 28 remain. For the most part, the Democrats who survived Tuesday are the more liberal members ...

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 03:48 PM
The best part about Agent Orange and the rest of the House GOP leadership patting Crazy Eyes on the head and telling her to run along now (http://www.salon.com/news/michele_bachmann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/05/bachmann_house_leadership) will be watching the GHEMRotRSTF try to sell it to the teabagosphere.

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 04:09 PM
The best part about Agent Orange and the rest of the House GOP leadership patting Crazy Eyes on the head and telling her to run along now (http://www.salon.com/news/michele_bachmann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/05/bachmann_house_leadership) will be watching the GHEMRotRSTF try to sell it to the teabagosphere.

Related: "The Tea Is Already Getting Weaker (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/tea-already-getting-weaker)."

Surprising only the suckers who take politicians at their word, both new Tea Party senators are now hedging on their revolutionary priorities and debt-slashing promises. Florida's Marco Rubio is making it clear (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/07/1914455/rubios-party-loyalty-is-clear.html) that he's a mainstream McConnell man, not a DeMint rebel, and Kentucky's Rand Paul wants to assure his state that he's "not that crazy (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026546.php)" that he'd, you know, actually keep his promise to end all earmarks.

operative
11-09-2010, 04:37 PM
The best part about Agent Orange and the rest of the House GOP leadership patting Crazy Eyes on the head and telling her to run along now (http://www.salon.com/news/michele_bachmann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/05/bachmann_house_leadership)

I'd say the best thing is just keeping her held back. It's a very good sign for the GOP and, tbh, it's strategically bad for your side. You should absolutely be clanging for Bachmann and co. to become the face of the House GOP (which blessedly will never happen). That'd be wonderful for the Dems.

Just as Nasty Nancy and crew is great for the GOP :o

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 04:44 PM
You should absolutely be clanging for Bachmann and co. to become the face of the House GOP (which blessedly will never happen). That'd be wonderful for the Dems.

There are times when my concern for my country outweighs my concerns for the fortunes of one political party or another.

bjkeefe
11-09-2010, 05:29 PM
The best part about Agent Orange and the rest of the House GOP leadership patting Crazy Eyes on the head and telling her to run along now (http://www.salon.com/news/michele_bachmann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/05/bachmann_house_leadership) will be watching the GHEMRotRSTF try to sell it to the teabagosphere.

Could be (http://gawker.com/5685545/will-hot-kristi-noem-be-the-gops-new-freshmen-leader) a more superficial reason in the minds of those men of the GOP, though!

bjkeefe
11-10-2010, 05:05 PM
Nancy Pelosi is a fighter

WASHINGTON — Even the most rightward- leaning Republican should be able to see something admirable in Nancy Pelosi’s approach to one of life’s more difficult experiences — a very public defeat. She has picked herself up, dusted herself off and walked resolutely back to the front lines of the political war zone, running for the post of House Minority Leader.

She embodies a lesson that parents try to teach their children, coaches teach players and preachers aim to reinforce with their parishioners: Life isn’t one success after another, so don’t give up. Keep trying.

Pelosi’s conduct during the bitter mid-term election season is especially relevant to women in political life: Despite venomous personal attacks, she didn’t complain about sexism. She didn’t whine that Republicans were mean, mendacious and condescending. (Are you listening, Sarah Palin?)

One GOP attack ad, drawing on imagery from “The Wizard of Oz,” cast her as the Wicked Witch of the West. Another compared her to the puppy-killing Cruella de Vil from “The Hundred and One Dalmatians.”

She took it all in stride, recognizing the venom for what it was — the price to be paid for her audacious leadership as the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. “If I hadn’t been effective, I wouldn’t have been the target,” she told me Tuesday, estimating that the GOP ran $65 million in political ads denouncing her.

The rest (http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/11/10/nancy-pelosi-is-a-fighter/). The last line might sound familiar.