Nancy Pelosi -- Should she maintain a leadership position for the dems?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

OK then perhaps you would enlighten us on the real cause for the Democrat setbacks across the board and in the House of Representatives in particular during the recent election.

Great job by the Republicans in riling up their base against the Dems, based partially on truth, partially on lies and and partially upon residual anger from the 2006 and 08 elections. The creation of a seemingly outside group (the so-called Tea Parties) by Freedomworks and the Koch brothers was a pretty masterful stroke too, as it allowed people to express their anger at government without accepting responsibility for the fact that the elected officials they supported were the ones who had primarily contributed to our current mess.

Quote:

Please don't base you argument on the obvious fact that in most instances the most left wing members of the Democrat caucus survived. They represent gerrymandered districts like Pelosi's own that will elect left wing Democrats forever. Political shifts (and control) in this country is usually determined by the choices of centrist and uncommitted voters, and in this election they soundly rejected Pelosi's views and actions.

Well, what does the exit polling from the election tell us, regarding Health Care Reform - the major subject under discussion?

- The number one issue driving dissatisfaction is the poor economy - not HCR or financial reform.

- This election had the highest percentage of Senior voters in forever - old, mostly white folks with computers and no jobs.

- On taxes, while there existed broad agreement that taxes on the Middle class should be kept, as many favored removing top-tier tax cuts as did keeping them; and 15% of voters (including myself) indicated that ALL the tax cuts should expire.

- On Health care, as many respondents believed it should be kept the same or expanded, as believed that it should be repealed. When respondents were asked about specific aspects of health care (such as pre-existing conditions or lifetime caps) support for repeal fell to 20%.

I'll provide a link to the article discussing the data if you like, but you don't seem to care about such things so I'm going to stop doing so in advance of your requests.

What about those results screams 'I hate the Dems' agenda?' Nothing at all. It certainly doesn't 'send a message' that Pelosi screwed things up, or that the people of the country didn't like the HCR bill.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Nancy says she's not going to go away quietly and is asking to be reelected to lead her party in the House. What say you? Should she maintain her party's leadership or step aside after failing to keep the majority?

Yes, Nancy Pelosi should run for the job, and House Democrats should reelect her. Pelosi, after all, is the only House Democrat with a consistent record of getting Democratic policies enacted into law. That's what the House Democrats' leader is supposed to do. It isn't the job of the House Democrats' leader to push policies Republicans like. That's Mr. Boehner's job.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think you made a few accurate points there, but most shaded in very favorable (to your point of view) light. I believe you left out a growing sense of mistrust in the practical competence and wisdom of the Administration (including the Democrat Congress) in choosing to pursue its narrow agenda under conditions that fairly clearly called for other priorities. Pelosi & House Democrats figured very prominently in that aspect of things - and they suffered in the elections as a result.

However, I'll not try to persuade you any differently; (1) because it probably won't work, and (2) because if you and yours persist in your self-serving focus, you will likely loose again in 2012.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

a growing sense of mistrust in the practical competence and wisdom of...

Not the administration, but of politics and politicians in general. The center is swinging wildly between the parties. Pelosi will lead the Dems further to the left. The Tea-folks will lead the Repubs further to the right. The middle will swing back and forth until it finally comes to the conclusion that the parties have left them behind and strike out on their own with a viable third party representing what used to be moderate Repubs and blue dog Dems. So says my crystal ball and my hopes.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think you made a few accurate points there, but most shaded in very favorable (to your point of view) light. I believe you left out a growing sense of mistrust in the practical competence and wisdom of the Administration (including the Democrat Congress) in choosing to pursue its narrow agenda under conditions that fairly clearly called for other priorities. Pelosi & House Democrats figured very prominently in that aspect of things - and they suffered in the elections as a result.

Well, I generally want to see evidence before I push my personal beliefs on to 'the country.' I haven't seen any evidence that there was a 'growing sense of mistrust in the practical competence and wisdom of the Administration (including the Democrat Congress).' There's no polling data that shows this to be the case. However, it does feature prominently in your opinion, so I understand why you include it. I'm sure you'll understand that, lacking further evidence to corroborate it, and as there exists evidence that seems to contradict it, I don't take your word as gospel.

Quote:

However, I'll not try to persuade you any differently; (1) because it probably won't work, and (2) because if you and yours persist in your self-serving focus, you will likely loose again in 2012.

Right on the first count, but I doubt it on the second one. Your side did a great job riling people up when they weren't responsible for producing anything productive. That combined with the upcoming Presidential election means there is likely to be little in common between the two cycles.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

Not the administration, but of politics and politicians in general.

Let us not pretend that this isn't a meme and GOAL of the right-wing: to engender ever-growing levels of distrust in government and the ability of Government to solve problems.

It isn't organic. It's orchestrated.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[Well, I generally want to see evidence before I push my personal beliefs on to 'the country.' I haven't seen any evidence that there was a 'growing sense of mistrust in the practical competence and wisdom of the Administration (including the Democrat Congress).' There's no polling data that shows this to be the case. However, it does feature prominently in your opinion, so I understand why you include it. I'm sure you'll understand that, lacking further evidence to corroborate it, and as there exists evidence that seems to contradict it, I don't take your word as gospel.

Cycloptichorn

None are so blind as those who will not see.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh, please. Where's the tin hat?

What no one who is partisan can seem understand is that independent folks are independent by nature, otherwise they'd be partisan and already in a party. The further apart the parties get, the more likely it is that the independents will wash their hands of the entire mess and venture out on their own.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Oh, please. Where's the tin hat?

What tin hat? The Republicans are famous, forever, for claiming that government doesn't work, can't work, and that we need to shrink it as much as possible. You don't see any connection whatsoever between that and your opinion? I think you need to open your eyes a little.

Quote:

What no one who is partisan can seem understand is that independent folks are independent by nature, otherwise they'd be partisan and already in a party. The further apart the parties get, the more likely it is that the independents will wash their hands of the entire mess and venture out on their own.

I've been hearing that drumbeat my entire life; it hasn't even begun to happen yet, and I suspect it never will. Nothing about the way our system is currently set up supports the idea that this will happen.

I hate the premise that 'independents' or 'moderates' are any better at deciding things or coming up with solutions than partisans. I sure as hell haven't seen a lick of evidence that this is true. Why do you believe that this will lead to any more of a workable system than our current one?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I don't know what there is to respond to here. I'm glad that you have an opinion, but the polling data doesn't show that it is a wide-spread one that the country supp0rts.

Not only that, but per your response in the other thread, you think that the Dems should do everything they possibly can to manipulate the rules and screw up the Republicans, take every advantage, marginalize them, cheat them if at all possible out of having any chance to push their policies. That this is the proper and moral thing to do. Why not put Pelosi in charge of that? She's clearly effective at motivating the Dems to hang together and that's what will be needed to block your bunch.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Both sides talk about "governing from the center" when the other guy is in charge. Governing from the center doesn't solve every problem-- nothing solves every problem -- but governing from the center covers most of the needs of most of the people. As we swing back and forth between governing from the extremes we end up in a ping pong battle between ineffective factions leaving most of the needs of most of the people unmet.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Both sides talk about "governing from the center" when the other guy is in charge. Governing from the center doesn't solve every problem-- nothing solves every problem -- but governing from the center covers most of the needs of most of the people. As we swing back and forth between governing from the extremes we end up in a ping pong battle between ineffective factions leaving most of the needs of most of the people unmet.

Really? Our last cycle didn't show that to be the case. The Dems managed to pass a comprehensive HC bill which very much meets the needs of the people, without bankrupting the currently existing industry. It was a compromise bill but it only passed because of partisan will to get SOME SORT of bill passed. A Congress full of moderates will do nothing to solve any problem at all, and elections would be a nightmare.

I just don't see any evidence that what you posit is true. It's a David Broder pipe dream, a fantasy of cooperation that simply doesn't exist. Is there some sort of compromise legislation that you can point to, a history of what you claim being successful? Generally you want to be able to look to past successes before recommending an action in the future.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Pelosi is a strong leader...she led a lot of Dems right out of office.

1 Reply

This is a fairly good description of the bus that hit the Dems. It is part of a piece in truthdig.com.

Our dispossessed working class and beleaguered middle class are vulnerable to this manipulation because they can no longer bear the chaos and uncertainty that come with impoverishment, hopelessness and loss of control. They have retreated into a world of illusion, one peddled by right-wing demagogues, which offers a reassuring emotional consistency. This consistency appears to protect them from the turmoil in which they have been forced to live.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

So it seems that Nancy's victories were rather illusory or Phyrric at best.

Pelosi did what Pelosi could. She's in charge of the house, and the house passed what she wanted to get passed. It's not her fault that Harry Reid is a lowly invertebrate who couldn't get anything passed even with 60 votes in the senate or that Obama dawdled for most of the first two years of his presidency, waiting for the GOP to offer compromises that never materialized. I can't see how their failures reflect on Pelosi. If the starting pitcher leaves the game in the seventh leading 10-0 and then the bullpen gives up 11 runs, it doesn't mean that the starter pitched a bad game.

1 Reply

@Brand WTF,

Brand WTF wrote:

Pelosi is a strong leader...she led a lot of Dems right out of office.

That needed to be repeated.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid have teamed up to rule their way without any regard
to normal democrats, the democrat party and how badly they damage them.

The democrat party is being torn apart by its top leadership, how long will the rest of the party put up with this?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Yes, Nancy Pelosi run for the job, and House Democrats should reelect her. Pelosi, after all, is the only House Democrat with a consistent record of getting Democratic policies enacted into law. That's what the House Democrats' leader is supposed to do. It isn't the job of the House Democrats' leader to push policies Republicans like. That's Mr. Boehner's job.

I agree.

Pelosi did an excellent job as Speaker, which is one reason the Republicans try to demonize her and a reason they'd like to see her gone from a leadership role--her very effectiveness is a threat to them.

The major dissatisfaction of voters is the state of the economy, and trying to whip people into a frenzy of anti-government or anti-Obama sentiment, as the Tea Partiers and the Republicans have tried to do, doesn't really result in improving the economic climate one bit, and it also doesn't obscure the factors and previous administration policies that brought the economy to a state of near collapse. It may take up to 10 years to recover the number of jobs that have been lost with this recession, and that may be a hard reality that everyone will have to live with. But other aspects of the economy have been improving, and, as the outlook continues to brighten, the Democrats will be able to claim more than a little credit for that. In two years, the mood of the electorate may be considerably less angry.

Meanwhile, the Democrats would be foolish to weaken their ability to get legislation through the House by electing a leader without the proven capability of Pelosi. They also can't abandon the base of their own party, many of whom are disappointed that Obama hasn't been liberal enough. Just as the Republican party is being pulled to the right by Conservative factions, the Democrats must also work to balance out and satisfy the various voter interests that contribute to their party's strength, and they've also got to give Obama as much of what he needs as possible. Pelosi may be the best person to help accomplish that. It's up to the Democrats in the House to decide that.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You appear to believe that, had he been more forceful or effective, Harry Reid could have led the Senate to pass something like the House version of the Health care Bill. I believe that is a very fanciful speculation that has very little in terms of factual argument to back it up. You also assert that President Obama was "waiting for GOP compromises that never materialized" - something that also doesn't square with the facts. My recollection is that it was concern within the Democrat Majority in the Senate over, among other things, the 10 year budget estimate ("scoring") of the health care package that led to the more complex Senate package (that also included massive transfers of program costs to state budgets to help achieve the same goal. In short this was a political calculation that arose within the Democrat Party. I suspect that some of the Democrat Senators were also worried about the administration's fixed focus on its left wing agenda in the face of more serious and immediately pressing issues in the economy - a concern that was rather clearly validated in both polling dfata and the election results.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

This is almost farcical in it's revisionism. You don't seem to recall a single bit of the actual legislative history of this bill in the Senate; which in large part consisted of Senators Snowe, Grassley and Collins stringing the Dems along for MONTHS in committee with promises of votes in exchange for compromises - votes which they then refused to provide once the compromises arrived.

But, you don't really give a **** about facts that don't meet the narrative, so why am I even wasting my time?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Doubling down on losing bets is often very risky. I believe a good case can be made for the proposition that it would be in the Democrats self-interest (and pasrticularly that of the President who needs a mid course correction ) to get a new face.

Actually I agree with that. Obama's and Reid's timidity was indeed a losing bet, and now that they've lost it, the Democrats would be well-advised to adopt an overall face that looks more like Kucinic's and Pelosi's and less like Obama's and Reid's.

At first I was a little suprised when you seemed to suggest that the Democrats show less audacity and more timidity, since you say yourself that doubling down on a losing bet is risky. But then it occurred to me that you're a Republican. Of course you'd want Democrats to adopt a losing strategy!

1 Reply

Nancy Pelosi -- Should she maintain a leadership position for the dems?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know