Pelosi: 'I am running for Dem leader'

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
I wasn't commenting on her effect on the democratic party, but on the reason "many people do not like her".

Of course the democrats should find a new speaker, because people will never stop talking about how bad she is. The problem is nobody has ever said why. It was just accepted as fact. Most people who do not like her have no reason why they don't like her.

This is a woman who believes that continuing unemployment checks after benefits have completely run out is a key to sustaining the economy and that it somehow leads to job growth.

"Calif borrows $40M a day to pay unemployment"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/07/state/n100503S24.DTL

This is on top of her "Shove down their throats" approach to legislation (e.g. health care bill). She couldn't be more wrong on important issues that face this nation and so that is reason enough to dislike her completely.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Pelosi is part of the Democrats Problems. She is not a solution. She had her chance to lead and she failed. Common Sense says it is time to kick her to the curb.

I guess you cant remember her going to a tea party with a giant mallet?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I hope she stays, it will help the republicans tremendously if they can keep showing her picture and hammering all local democrat candidates with it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This is a woman who believes that continuing unemployment checks after benefits have completely run out is a key to sustaining the economy

It is a big help to sustaining the economy.

and that it somehow leads to job growth.

It does support jobs.


And the impact of not having unemployment would be expensive, too. It's a relatively small expense compared to the benefit for citizens and the economy.

This is on top of her "Shove down their throats" approach to legislation (e.g. health care bill). She couldn't be more wrong on important issues that face this nation and so that is reason enough to dislike her completely.

And yet, you have no posts when the Republicans actually DO 'shove down the throats' legislation they want, that's not for the public good, but for the few rich.

When they reward their top donor industry, big pharma, by throwing away hundreds of billions of tax dollars to pay NON-NEGOTIATED drug prices - required in the law not to negotiate them to save the taxpayer money - and when the bill fails as the corrupt disaster that provision makes it - they do something unprecedented, just refusing to end the vote when scheduled, keeping it open for hours all night while they walk the floor threatening members with their kid not getting any support for their own election, with offers of financial backing for their kid's campaign if the vote is reversed - all led by the Republican coordinator to get this passed for big pharma, who weeks after it passes resigns from Congress to a waiting reward of a $2 million/year job heading big pharma lobbying - we don't see you here fighting against it.

Only when it's something good for the public, when it is fighting against Republican obstructionism not because it's a bad bill, but to try to deny Democrats any wins.

You call her wrong on big issues facing the nation - with the alternative being the Republicans who actually are wrong on big issues facing the nation, who you support.

This is watching the fruit of the decades-long propaganda campaign to get gullible voters to support the anti-public right-wing agenda, hating those who represent their interests.

Tell me again all the great things without forcing anything down anyone's throat the Republicans did mostly controlling all branches 2001-2006.

You are supporting the destruction of the middle class while being too ignorant about it to know that's what you're supporting.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
It is a big help to sustaining the economy.

So let's give everyone unlimited unemployment.

It does support jobs.

Wrong, idiot.

And the impact of not having unemployment would be expensive, too. It's a relatively small expense compared to the benefit for citizens and the economy.

So you think that since a little bit is ok, a lot must be better.

This is watching the fruit of the decades-long propaganda campaign to get gullible voters to support the anti-public right-wing agenda, hating those who represent their interests.

Glad we have gullible people like you to fall for the left-wing anti-private
propaganda. There must be balance!

Tell me again all the great things without forcing anything down anyone's throat the Republicans did mostly controlling all branches 2001-2006.

Quoted to prove that Craig admits that the Democrats have controlled all branches of government since 2006.

You are supporting the destruction of the middle class while being too ignorant about it to know that's what you're supporting.

And this is quoted so Merriam-Webster can change the definition of "irony" as well as "spineless political hack" when they get around to it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Pardon me if I make this observation, its the R's on this forum who are most opposed to Pelosi. And as you R's and you GOP fan clubbers don't get any right or votes to choose democratic leadership.

As for the dems, many think Pelosi is far too conservative, and the now diminished blue dogs and dinos may have thought her too liberal, but her main virtue was a a mediator between various flavors of democrats.

But you GOP fan clubbers should start worrying about Boehner, who is likely to become even more hated than Pelosi by the bulk of US voters. Boehner has never really had a majority leadership role in his entire life, and I doubt he has the intellect and policies needed to lead.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Extended unemployment is bad for the economy if it dissuades people who would otherwise work from getting jobs. Currently there are way way way more applicants than available jobs, so this is not an issue. In the current situation, economists overwhelmingly back extended unemployment as some of the most effective stimulus possible. But hey, who are they to compete with people on the internet?
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
As for the dems, many think Pelosi is far too conservative,

Make a video of yourself saying that with a straight face, otherwise shens.

But you GOP fan clubbers should start worrying about Boehner, who is likely to become even more hated than Pelosi by the bulk of US voters. Boehner has never really had a majority leadership role in his entire life, and I doubt he has the intellect and policies needed to lead.

Experience didn't matter in 2008, why does it matter now?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Pardon me if I make this observation, its the R's on this forum who are most opposed to Pelosi. And as you R's and you GOP fan clubbers don't get any right or votes to choose democratic leadership.

Hey numskull, nobody said republicans should get to choose. The discussion is about if it's a good thing or bad thing for the dims nationally. Personally I'd love to see hear further sink the dim ship as she's already proven a valuable commodity to republicans.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
let the in-fighting commence.

James Clyburn: 'No interest' in backing down

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), battling with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for the minority whip position in the next Congress, has “no interest” in “stepping down” to a lower leadership post.

Clyburn also believes there are as many as 50 Democrats who remain undecided on whether to support him or Hoyer, meaning that the race is still wide open.

Clyburn, the senior African-American leader in Congress, also said his race has “become a mission” for the Congressional Black Caucus. The South Carolina Democrat said CBC members are telling him “that your race is our race.”

The veteran lawmaker suggested other Democratic leaders took CBC support for granted during tough legislative fights, and he said that fellow black lawmakers want to make sure that no longer happens.

“Every time there’s to be a deal, the short end of the stick ends up with the CBC,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn was also adamant that he will not accept any deal to keep himself inside the leadership that results in Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) being removed from the Democratic hierarchy.

Becerra, who has publicly endorsed Clyburn’s bid for whip, is the highest ranking Hispanic lawmaker in the House. Some Democrats have privately floated a proposal to “bump down” every current member of the leadership team, a move necessary because the minority party has one less leadership spot than the majority side.

Under this plan, Pelosi would shift from speaker to minority leader, Hoyer would move from majority leader to minority whip, Clyburn would go from majority whip to Democratic Caucus chairman, and Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, the current caucus chairman, would become vice chairman, leaving Becerra out of the leadership.

“I would not do that under any circumstances,” Clyburn said Tuesday, signaling view that Becerra must remain at the leadership table. “I would say the pathway to the majority runs through our minority caucuses and communities.”

“My position is very clear,” Clyburn added. “I have no interest in this suggestion of stepping back a notch or whatever it is.”

The 70-year-old Clyburn said he was not interested in becoming Democratic Caucus chairman with Becerra as vice chairman, a move that would drop Larson from leadership. Larson and Becerra have announced they are running for the caucus chairman and vice chairman posts, respectively, in the next Congress.

“I don’t think so,” Clyburn said of that scenario. “John Larson has been a good [Democratic Caucus] chairman.”

Clyburn said he would not consider any Pelosi-brokered agreement to end the whip race with Hoyer until it is clear that he can’t win. Clyburn didn’t entirely shut the door on such a possibility but left no doubt that he has not reached a point where — in his view — such discussions are even necessary.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44898.html
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
See if we followed Craigs initial assertion (which he kept up for quite a few posts until called on it), the Repubs would have had a say.

Now that we are looking at the Minority leader; the Repubs have no offical input.
However, the Dems have to decide will Pelosi be able to lead them back to the promised land.

Also, the Dem leader will have to work with both the Speaker of the House (Repub) and the Rep Majority leader. Thererfore, input from such may be worth listening to.

The Repubs have not stated that the Dems will be ignored (ala '08) , at this point, so we will see what both sides will do toward working together.

They may even set an example for the Senate and Obama.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
As for the dems, many think Pelosi is far too conservative...

Lest anyone challenge your point, a good example are the comments on Commondreams to an article by Karen Dolan saying it was good news progressive Democrats won.

She pointed out that while all the noise was about the non-existent 'tea party', something like 80 of 82 progressive Democrats were re-elected.

The response seemed to be nothing but hostility, pointing out that the 'progressives' are too conservative. Here are three good sample comments.

Karen Dolan:

I have read this and your previous article on CD about 3 days ago. You are repeating this mantra that at there is a solid block of 80 progressives in Congress who retained their seats with losses of 5%, unlike blue-dog dems whose ranks were trimmed by 50%. In the previous article, you had not provided the names of any of the major progressives. In the current article you do - - Nancy Pelosi. I am very surprised you include NP in the ranks of progressives, because then your understanding of what a true progressive is and that of many others on CD including mine is, to say the least, orthogonal of not polar opposite.

Nevertheless here are some points I would like you to respond to, because what you say will let me know whether you understand progressivism or politics or only know and feel good about its slogans.

1. IF there are any progressives in Congress who know exactly the self destructive path the two parties and their plutocrat masters have chosen for 30 years now, then it behooves them to WALK OUT ENMASSE from the Democratic party and form the NECESSARY 3rd Party with the necessary vision and action plan. Even if they are threatened with concentration camp incarcerations and assasination by this evil administration and its goons. The Party can then recruit as a standard bearer a vociferous progressive such as Alan Grayson, one of the few Congmen with balls to come repeatedly on air on MSNBC and blast the nefarious activity of the PTB. He lost and what a shame.

2. I really believe that this is the PERFECT time for a political 3rd party with strength to emerge from the rotting corpse of the Dim Party. Just look at the propitious signs all about you. About 15 million - - YES, 15 MILLION - - young and motivated voters between 18-30 who voted in droves in 2008 for the first time in US history for a concept, though it was articulated by the consummate conman Obama, but who stayed out this time (can't fool me twice and all that you know)are STILL available. I am the father of two such young people. They tell me that on college campuses and in knowledge based work places the young voters were excited by somebody talking about securing their future by investing in education, sciences, technology; in a green economy with its large scale new technology and infrastructure that is economically very productive and yet environmentally friendly; that somebody was talking their language of inclusivness of live and let live on gays, lesbians, muslims, hindus, pagans, atheists, mother earth followers;and for looking after the poor and the sick. This constituency is still around and all there for the taking in 2012 when a lot of the white old idiots from down south and the "heartlands" would become even more doddering and more evidently crazy. Karen, do your 80 progressives have a clue about all this and the fantastic opportunity staring them in the face?

3. With 80 members of congress forming a legislative block; with the old stalwarts like Nader joining in; with the Green Party, plus the Black Caucus if it is not already in, Latinos, LBGT,and city dwellers in the big cities that went overwhelmingly liberal; with the 20 million strong spirited young constituency (which is 60% white) which will hold the reins of power in 10-20 years; with most intellectuals and scientists with any reasoning ability; and with most clear headed economists - - hey, all this constitutes a solid 40% - 60% of America today. That amounts to 120million people at least, and 180 million if what the polls say is true about the aspirations of most people, including the ablest minds and the most energetic group - - the young and educated.

So why have we not heard a peep from the so called progressive caucus, who should have all this calculus at their finger tips and their leaders, if any, should be able to drive a tough no compromise bargain with Obama or they quit enmasse. Karen, please address these issues. Otherwise you sound so far as Kumbaya liberal in wonderland.

There is little proof that many of the members of the Progressive Caucus, are in fact progressives. Worse, the caucus has proved to be timid and ineffective (they simply collapsed on single payer -- and even the public option), are generally pro-Zionist, have been relatively silent on the multiple wars of US occupation, have not challnged US war crimes and have attempted to redefine progressivism as "liberal" Democratic Party politics.

Heck, even the erstwhile Bernie Sanders who used to proudly bill himself as a socialist became an "independent" about the time he voted for three strikes legislation, surrendered to the NRA on gun control issues and collaborated in sending Vermont nuclear waste to an Indian reservation in New Mexico.

Yes, we would be much worse off without them

Thank you Ms. Dolan for enlightening us poor unworthy dumb-asses down here. I am so glad that the Democratic Party takes no secret money and is not swayed in the least by corporate lobbyists, take no money from private interests. They have ceased all spending on the imperial occupations, slashed MIC budgets to the bone, radically increased social and education programs, and have enacted sweeping New Deal-like legislation that have put millions back to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

And they have engaged in the world's most comprehensive green energy legislation and have imposed a huge windfall tax on BigOil and the Banksters. Oh yeah, like you said Ms. Dolan, they really cracked down on those Banksters. I am just overjoyed.

And I almost forgot, they put Single Payer on the table and made no compromises with the insurance parasites which brought the US health care system in line with the rest of the so-called developed world.

I am eternally grateful for the benevolence the Democratic Party bestows upon us poor peons, we are not worthy of such treatment.

After all, it would be much worse without them.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Two Democrats call for delay in Nancy Pelosi vote

A pair of disaffected Democratic survivors are calling on the party&#8217;s top brass to postpone House leadership elections until December &#8212; a move that could give potential challengers to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants more time to gather their forces.
&#8220;Following the loss of our majority, we should fully understand the causes of our historic losses before we begin the process of rebuilding. If we do not to learn from our losses we will remain in the minority until we do learn,&#8221; Reps. Marcy Katpur of Ohio and Peter DeFazio of Oregon wrote to colleagues. &#8220;We are not endorsing or opposing any leadership candidate with this letter, but we are seeking more time for a more thoughtful discussion with everyone in the same room. Please join us by signing the letter by close of business Friday.&#8221;

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44903.html
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
She pointed out that while all the noise was about the non-existent 'tea party', something like 80 of 82 progressive Democrats were re-elected.

Duurrrrrr... you don't suppose it might be that those crazies are from districts that are inhabited by a bunch of leftist crazies as well do ya? Of course they would fare better than the moderates, they represent districts where a normal person could never win.
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,777
18
81
Pelosi has been an outstanding speaker, period. She should remain the leader.

The House has passed all kinds of good things, and was the strongest branch of Democrats out of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

The fact she is attacked by the right, and some Americans fall for that, isn't a reason to remove her. The right doesn't get to pick the Democrats' leaders.
Agreed 100% the right is attacking her because is a powerful fund raiser and tough cookie, she knows the unemployment numbers and the economy gave the republicans the seats in the house.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Agreed 100% the right is attacking her because is a powerful fund raiser and tough cookie, she knows the unemployment numbers and the economy gave the republicans the seats in the house.

Riiiiiiight. Except for one slight problem. Her negative image is in no small part attributable to her own stupid statements, not someone else's smear. She might be a good fundraiser (I don't know one way or the other), but she's pretty much the face of failure at this point. More and more dems are coming out and saying they won't support her, looks like it's going to be Hoyer or Clyburn replacing her as the party leader in the house. Seems like a smart move to me, replacing a big liability with someone else.....
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I suppose if you believe that the 2008 elections were a wholesale endorsement of progressive policies, Minority Leader Pelosi makes sense.

personally, though, I saw 2008 as a rejection of Bush -- just about any democrat would have won. but Bush is in the rearview mirror now, and Dems are going to need to actually court the middle if they want to regain the house and keep the presidency.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I find my self in opposition with Craig234, a poster I really respect, over the question of if Pelosi should go or not.

But in all due respects to Craig, my problem with Pelosi has been her over willingness to compromise with blue dog democrats and dino's. Now that blue dog democrats and dino's pandering to republicans has proved to foolish for the now decimated blue dogs and dino's, its a no brainier, the now minority democrats in the house now need a stronger and a harder hard liner than Pesosi.

If the dems get even more pandering leadership, then Pelosi is preferable to a Hoyer. The dems need a Sam Rayburn, and not pandering to the GOP leadership like Pelosi.

All the republirats won in the election of 201o is in winning the blame game, and now 5the republirats will have to do what they can't do, namely deliver the results. To paraphrase General Sheriman, the democrats have to give the Republirats every reason to howl. Because 2012, the stronger the democrats are, the stronger the the democratic comeback will be come 11/2012.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
Duurrrrrr... you don't suppose it might be that those crazies are from districts that are inhabited by a bunch of leftist crazies as well do ya? Of course they would fare better than the moderates, they represent districts where a normal person could never win.

Yep, only the Republicans are allowed to be idealogue purists. Democrats must always compromise their principles to seem sane to Republicans. Couldn't possibly be that they are the ones with the distorted view of the world.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
<snip>
All the republirats won in the election of 2010 is in winning the blame game, and now the republirats will have to do what they can't do, namely deliver the results. To paraphrase General Sheriman, the democrats have to give the Republirats every reason to howl. Because 2012, the stronger the democrats are, the stronger the the democratic comeback will be come 11/2012.

The House while being led by the Republicans will be able to be shielded for a serious backlash. Anything that is departs that chamber must still be filtered/aproved by the Senate (still Democratic controlled) and the WH (still Dem controlled).

While Craig may like to excuse the Senate of having blue dogs that prevent a "pure" Dem agenda; to the public there are moer than 50 Dems that are elected to the Senate chamber - that wil mean that they are responsbile.

The public has some notion on how governmetn works and wehre the responsibility lies. Presently for the next 2 yers, the Dems are on the hook to provide leadership. They were given a warning shot to wakeup,
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Pardon me if I make this observation, its the R's on this forum who are most opposed to Pelosi. And as you R's and you GOP fan clubbers don't get any right or votes to choose democratic leadership.

-snip-

No, no they don't. Nor would I expect their (Repubs) opinion about Minority Leader to much matter, they will be voting for Repub candidates regardless.

However, I would suggest the Dems give consideration to the opinions of the independant/swing voters in choosing the Minority Leader. The Dems lost those independant/swing voters and therefor the election. Choosing a leader who is popular among the independant/swing voters could be helpful in the 2012 elections.

Fern