Why must Pelosi be jettisoned because she's a "lightning rod" who antagonizes & mobilizes the GOP

[EffieBlack]

but when she says we should table impeachment talk for now because it will only antagonize and mobilize the GOP, she's a "sellout?"

Are we trying to diminish distractions, or not? Are we worried about pissing off Republicans, or aren't we? Are we trying to avoid lightning rods, or not?

Which is it?

[Nitram]

1. They are still using Clinton and Obama, who no longer hold office, to inspire their voters.

if Pelosi stepped down they'd still be using her. We need her values, experience, determination, and savvy.

[GWC58]

16. Personally I like the sound of

Speaker Pelosi. Has a nice, soothing ring to it, don’t you think? 🤔

[Hortensis]

89. Reassuring, the sound of America back on track.

[TheBlackAdder]

25. Yep. The GOP will still campaign as though she's around. FOX won't inform their stupid rubes.

[treestar]

76. This is true. Why replacing her

would do anything other than create a new target in the new minority leader.

[Nitram]

84. Even conservatives must be tired of hearing that Pelosi is the Mother of all Evil

when they have the majority in both houses and Pelosi has had a much lower profile. A new face might energize a few of the dimwits who love Trump.

[Afromania]

2. Typical wishy washy nonsense from the league leaders in wishy washy nonsense.

[Reader Rabbit]

3. Women are either virgins or whores, dontcha know?

There's none of this in-betweenery, shades-of-gray mumbo jumbo when the person in question has ovaries!

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. We need her now more than ever

Assuming Democrats take the House in the fall, it will be time to start grooming the next generation of leadership, but we need Nancy at the helm in the next Congress. A big part of politics is tactics, ans she is a skilled tactician. One main reason why she is a lightning rod for Republicans is because she is an effective leader. The fact that Republicans may also think that attacking a woman will help them with their "base" is no excuse to cave in to their misogyny.

[NCTraveler]

5. The lightening rod part has nothing to do with my thoughts.

I was certain she wouldn’t seek re-election and the whole argument wouldn’t be necessary. For now I am planting my flag in her corner as I don’t want the bro’s to swing through promoting a conservative white male for the position.

That said, I will look at who is running for the position when the time comes. That sounds like it makes sense.

[EffieBlack]

6. It's interesting that people keep insisting she step aside "for new ideas" but they never seem able

to tell anyone what those new ideas are and who will bring them forward.

[NCTraveler]

8. I think she is and has been solid.

I will never find my perfect match, few of us ever will, but she has been very good. I'm always skeptical of leadership, even on our side, so saying that she excellent means something to me.

The last "new idea" guy was a white male well to the right of Pelosi. He was promoted by the "left".

[EffieBlack]

9. And that guy went around beating up on Pelosi and Hillary for being "ineffective" as proven by Trump

winning his district in Ohio.

Excuse me? Trump won YOUR district and it's PELOSI'S fault? That's YOUR F*CKING DISTRICT! Where the hell were YOU?!

Jeez!

[NCTraveler]

10. It was a pathetic moment for the revolution. Really showed who they were....

At a point when many still weren't aware.

[Me.]

52. THat's Who I Was Thinking It Is Too

Mr. Corporation with the 'who me' look on his face. But there's also the New Yorker white male who thinks he's just what Dems need.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

7. Besides, f()ck the GOP, every damn one of them and every damn one of their supporters.

The more they whine about any Democrat, the more we should be determined to defend that Democrat.

Does the name Al Franken ring a bell with anyone? He was genius at tearing apart republican't lies. They whined every day about him. Then, over some phony claims, Democrats got behind running him off instead of demanding a fair hearing.

It is very sad that Democrats give a f()ck what any republican't whines about.

[TheSmarterDog]

11. Any Democrat in any position of power will be a lightning rod for manufactured RW outrage.

If we jettison every Dem leader the GOP whines about, we would never have any leaders. Lets not start with the most experienced & most successful ones we have.

[DFW]

12. Anything causing disunity now is a distraction that only helps the Republicans

You only get to nominate and elect the Speaker of the House IF your party wins a majority.

Until we have done that, any talk of pro- or anti-Pelosi factions are unwanted and unnecessary side shows.

[workinclasszero]

13. Because strong intelligent female leaders

scare some people on the left as well as the right would be my guess. Plus some think we have to have GOP approved leadership for some idiotic reason. SMH

Nancy Pelosi: The Most Effective Speaker of the House in History

As Nancy Pelosi hands off the Speaker’s gavel to John Boehner today, she also hands him a tough act to follow. Despite insistent attempts to malign her during her four years as Speaker of the House, the California congresswoman turns out to have been arguably the most effective person in that post in U.S. history. And it’s not just rah-rah Democrats saying so.

“We’re looking at an extraordinary set of accomplishments over a brief period of time,” said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “She ranks with the most consequential speakers, certainly in the last 75 years.”

https://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/425315/nancy_pelosi%3A_the_most_effective_speaker_of_the_house_in_history

[MicaelS]

14. I disagree profoundly with any Democratic leader...

Who states we should table impeachment talk. But I sure am not going to kick them to the curb because of my disagreement.

[workinclasszero]

15. I think Dump should be impeached too

But Nancy Pelosi is too good of a leader to kick to the curb in a dem house IMO and she may come around in the end, who knows?

[EffieBlack]

22. She hasn't said he shouldn't be impeached

She’s saying we should keep our powder dry and not telegraph every move in advance - especially since we can’t do anything about until after the election - and it’s premature to be talking about impeachment at this point, especially since making a big deal of it now will only galvanize Republicans.

[workinclasszero]

83. Keep our powder dry

for the time being may have been good advise at the time.

But Shitler is already weeping to his deplorables that the dems will impeach him if we get control of the House so I don't know if it matters now.

[treestar]

77. That's a good point. Everyone wants it NOW when

it may be best to say no for now and see what happens or have a longer term strategy.

[EffieBlack]

18. I understand your sentiment

But I think it odd that many of the same people (not you) who attack her because she thinks we shouldn’t do a particular thing because it might galvanize Republicans, turn around and say we should get rid of her because she galvanizes Republicans.

The inconsistency makes no sense.

[MicaelS]

24. The Republicans have been complaining about her for as ...

Long as she has been Speaker. That just means she is good at her job.

[Nitram]

21. If the suggestion is to table impeachment talk until the evidence is all in, I agree with that.

Why jump the gun before Mueller's crack team has explored every avenue and nailed every single crime these guys committed?

[Lonestarblue]

34. We shouldn't run on impeachment.

We don’t know what Muelker has on Trump, so it’s premature to say he should be impeached. I despise the man, but we have great policies to help people. If Trump needs to be impeached, that can happen, but I think the smarter play is simply saying that Mueller needs to finish his investigation so the DOJ and Congress can decide whether there is cause for impeachment. Plus, I actually think Pence would be equally as bad as Trump. The difference is that he would be quiet and sneaky about everything, but the relative calm after the Trump chaos could convince Republicans and Independents on the fence that things are not so bad, jeopardizing our chances for 2020.

[mcar]

17. It never ends

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Dedicated, capable people are provocative to Uglicans ... therefore we must purge them.

That's where the argument is leading, if you follow it where it's pointing.

[WhiteTara]

20. She's a damn uppity woman and she needs to be silenced

White men must retain all power and she needs to shut up and take a walk in the woods

[Nonhlanhla]

23. Women are only to be tolerated (barely) when they're young

As soon as they get older, the are to be jettisoned, don'tcha know?

[EffieBlack]

41. Tolerated, but not respected - and constantly accused of not being "seasoned" enough

And as soon as they get just the right seasoning, they're too establishment and too old.

Never fails.

[applegrove]

26. If the GOP attack her it is because they are afraid of her. Go Pelosi!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

79. I want the GOP to attack her, it shows her strength, it isnt the GOP that is the problem

and can do the damage.

I cant say who is doing that, but we all know.

[TeamPooka]

27. To make Republicans happy we should dump Pelosi, Warren, Duckworth, Kamala Harris....

and they still won't be happy so fuck all you people thinking we should listen to Republicans and give them what they want.

[roamer65]

91. We need to run Elizabeth Warren for president in 2020.

[Gothmog]

28. I think that Nancy Pelosi is a very effective leader and the party needs her

The concept of abandoning Nancy Pelosi just because the GOP hates her is a not a good idea

[PaulX2]

29. Fire Nancy To Appease Rabid Republican Racist Deplorable Scum? No.

She is their "demon" to attack. Who cares.

She is the one that helped make it possible for their daughters to see doctors without going bankrupt.

Remind them.

[redstatebluegirl]

30. Agreed, Trump and Ryan antagonize and mobilize us but they aren't throwing them off the ship.

[Hekate]

31. Because the stupidity runs deep in some alleged Dems, & they will not stand up for our own...

...especially strong effective women.

Sorry for the bitterness, but once again I have wasted my time trying to explain the nature of RW propaganda to people who think DEMS need "to clean house from top to bottom" and "elect all new young faces," while they repeat RW talking points about our leaders.

[Eliot Rosewater]

80. ...

[William Seger]

32. Screw 'em -- you're not gonna convert the people she antagonizes anyway. GOTV

[Wounded Bear]

33. Funny, but I agree with Nancy...

I think impeachment is a bad thing to run on, in general. It may play in a few districts, but all politics is local. Candidates should run on what will get them elected, within the bounds of progressive policies for the most part. Plus, I'd avoid much "single issue" bullshit.

Sure, we need to keep our base in the game, but we also need to attract enough "indies" and casual voters to win. I don't think impeachment is going to do that in most districts.

[Retrograde]

50. I want to see Trump stay in office

after the Democrats take back Congress so he'll have to deal with the results of his actions and decisions. Impeachment often sounds like a good idea, but unless Mueller unearths a BMSG (a Big MFing Smoking Gun) there's little chance of getting the 67 votes needed in the Senate to remove him from office.

[pecosbob]

35. I used to think it was a mistake for Clinton to have run for President with her negativity ratings

but I've come to the opinion that they would hack Jesus Christ's twitter account if he ran as a Democrat. If Ronald Reagan held office today some Tea Party type would be primarying him. They will slander, defame, hack, and commit fraud (voter, electoral and general) to get what they want. They will re-write election laws to maintain power. They are doing this now...see Pennsylvania. When courts try to check them they will call for the judges' removal. As long as they are allowed to continue diminishing the electoral strength of their opponents through their systemic subversion of democracy, they will remain in power. They are the Party Without Principle. The Republicans supported Roy Moore...the Democrats asked Al Franken to leave.

Trying to pick candidates for leadership that the Wing-nuts don't hate is a losing position at best.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

36. Hows about we all ignore repubs.?

Who cares what they say? dt needs to be impeached. I'm not sure how Nancy came to that conclusion, but, toning down our platform to appease repubs...isn't a winning strategy imho.

[EffieBlack]

42. I think she's right about this

She's not saying we should not pursue impeachment. She's saying DON'T TALK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.

It's strategy.

We can't do anything about it now, anyway. Nothing can happen, so why telegraph our intentions in ways that allow them to seize on it and use it to run against us. This isn't a matter of "toning down our platform"- it's just not running around like little kids telling everyone what our next move is so they can try to undermine our ability to do it.

[Hekate]

57. So true, and it beats me why mature people cannot see this. nt

[EffieBlack]

62. We get too caught up in trying to make a point that we don't think strategically

But a Pyrrhic victory means little if we actually end up worse off in the long run.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

82. If you're referring to me...I'm capable of seeing this. I'm a Pelosi fan.

The President has to be impeached though. It was unacceptable jan 2016...and 100 times so right now. Nobel peace prize? What a laugh. Korea needs help cleaning up the nuke research base right now. That's it in a nutshell. Jongs trip to China made this happen. And S Korea is pandering to dt. He hasn't done squat except tweet ugliness. Bad precedent.

[Eliot Rosewater]

81. Nothing to do with repubilcans. Nancy knows what she is doing, the party knows what

helps in elections and what doesnt.

Removing the traitor is meaningless if we dont have the power to then control the results of that. Once we have that kind of power in both houses, then yes.

[dameatball]

37. The simplest answer is "we" are a lightening rod. Liberals. It will not change.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. "because she's a "lightning rod" who antagonizes & mobilizes the GOP"

You answered your own question.

And it has nothing to do with not calling for impeachment. I agree that it should not be talked about now. It is the boogey monster the right has successfully created out of her. It does no good to stamp your feet and whine that its all so unfair, and dammit, we're going with her anyways!

The capitulation on the Fairness Doctrine was just one thing that Democrats did to ensure that Hillary lost in 2016. And its the reason Pelosi must also step aside now. Their propaganda catapult, made famous in a George W speech, is well oiled and working in overdrive. Now with the Sinclair empire on board too.

[JohnnyRingo]

39. I'm sure republicans will respect her replacement.

There's no way they'd go after her successor as a liberal loon because that's just not how they are.

hahahahahahahahahaha - hah

[EffieBlack]

43. If we just get someone in who's less progressive, less - I don't know - all I am Woman Hear Me Roar

The Republicans will support her and stop picking on us and all will be right with the world.

[HenryWallace]

40. No need to jettison....

…. as long as she is more important than accomplishing the objectives of the party.


She is right to set aside impeachment; only a fool would interrupt the opposition when they have made a mistake of this magnitude!

___________________

No, the time and issues have just passed her by. The public face of the Corporate Democrats. Unable to acknowledge the limitations of the market… A skilled fundraiser at a time when a majority of citizens see money in politics as a fundamental problem.

[EffieBlack]

44. "The public face of the Corporate Democrats" Really?

So who do YOU suggest we replace her with?

Please name some names. Actual names of real people.

[HenryWallace]

46. When you have lost Crooks & Liars.....

[link:https://crooksandliars.com/2018/04/next-house-speaker-should-be-real|]

Check out the comment section..... We are witnessing a shift (and whether you want to admit it, for the better).

[EffieBlack]

47. I didn't ask you about Crooks and Liars - I asked you a specific question

Who do YOU suggest we replace her with?

Please name some names. Actual names of real people.

[HenryWallace]

48. OK...

Linking to an article proposing Ted Lieu might have been considered an answer…

If you want to simply signal a new day and underline the party’s willingness to forgo “business as usual,” elevating any of the following current Democratic leadership team members would be an step in the right direction:

Cheri Bustos
Hakeen Jeffries
Linda Sanchez
Ben Ray Lujan

[EffieBlack]

49. Thanks

What skills do you think each of these would bring to being Speaker?

[HenryWallace]

70. Well, we are just about back to where we started.

Speaker Pelosi has earned the right to lead the House due to a lifetime faithful service. This is difficult to argue with, despite:
• Her long-term and consistently high unfavordability ratings,
• Her inability to repudiate the failed small government/market based approaches to governance of
the 1990s, and
• The fact that her absence would give every Democratic congressional candidate an instant boost.

Such is life…

[EffieBlack]

72. Actually we aren't back to where we started - you haven't answere my question

You listed several people you think would make good Speakers. I asked you what skills you think each of these would bring to being Speaker. Y

It’s a simple question, but not one that can be answered by again listing all of the thing she you think are wrong with Nancy Pelosi.

So, I ask you again: What skills do you think each of these would bring to being Speaker?

[HenryWallace]

74. I need some help here....

In addition to the article I posted above here is a nice piece about the people I mentioned, and others:

[link:http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/nancy-pelosi-successors-democrats|]

My opinion is that the Party will be better served, both short-term and long-term, by a leadership change. And that this alone should be the compelling argument.

Your contention, if I understand it correctly, is one of classical conservatism: we should resist change for change's sake. Or possibly an argument for elitism: no other Democrat could possibly match the skill acquired by Speaker Pelosi.

Let's just agree to disagree here.

[EffieBlack]

85. We're not disagreeing. I'm asking you a simple question that you, for some reason, refuse to answer

You gave me a list of four people whom you think would be good Speakers. I asked you what would make them good Speakers, but you won’t say. Linking to an article that sets out their doesn’t even come close to explaining why they’d be good Speakers and it certainly doesn’t tell me anything about why YOU think they’d be better Speakers than Nancy Pelosi.

And trying to deflect the discussion with suggestions that I’m engaged in “classical conservatism” or arguing for “elitism” won’t work on me. I asked you a very simple, respectful question that gave you an opportunity to try share your thinking. Either you can intelligently justify your opinion or you can’t.

[HenryWallace]

86. I can't help you...

If linking to an article that clearly states the answer to your question (and certainly does a better job at articulation than I would) isn't enough, then I think we are done here.

I could paraphrase or "copy & paste" but that is a waste of both of our times.

[EffieBlack]

87. Help me out here

Notwithstanding that no one should have to muddle through articles to get an answer on what YOU think about something, I read the article and see absolutely nothing that says why these four people would make good Speakers.

Maybe I missed it. If so, would you please copy and paste the portions of the article that tells me why these four people would be good Speakers?

Thanks.

[ProudLib72]

45. Well, you see, Effie, what we need is a happy medium

Then we can all be unhappy about that... especially if it's a woman.... doubly especially if she's a POC.

I think a lot of these purity tests we've come up with in the last year and a half have centered on Pelosi's views. Her statements about abortion and impeachment seem to be the only things people remember about her. Amidst the cacophony generated by these rants on purity, it's easy for her many accomplishments to be drowned out.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. 1. Whoever takes her place becomes "lightning rod"; 2. We don't let GOP dictate our leadership. . nt

[EffieBlack]

55. 1. If they don't, they suck and don't need to be in that job. 2. Not a lie at all

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. (edit) mistook your OP.

It was subtle and wasn't actually arguing to replace Pelosi. Sorry, it confused me, which is on me, I think.

[Retrograde]

53. Let me count the ways

- She's good at her job
- She's from that bastion of liberalism (excuse me, Lie-beralism) San Francisco
- She knows how to count votes and keep the Democrats focused
- She's a woman with a mind and opinions of her own
- She can get legislation passed (unlike certain GOP speakers I could mention)
- She's shrill
- She a capable politician
- She's a woman

[zipplewrath]

54. Two different groups

We are not a homogeneous group of people. You are conflating the positions of two different folks I suspect. There are those that want to run on impeachment, and those that fear the power of her as a campaign weapon, and I am dubious there is much of an intersection between those two groups. For one thing, I suspect that those that don't want a lightning rod are also those that want to take impeachment off the table. They probably tend to be conservative (as in cautious) in their politics, maybe even leaning to pragmatism. Conversely, I suspect those that want impeachment to be an issue, probably also think she isn't "liberal" enough, stemming from their tendency towards aggressiveness in their politics.

[LisaM]

56. Go Nancy, go!

Look how scared they were of Hillary. Now they're trying to gaslight us re Pelosi; well, I'm not having it.

[haele]

58. It's about distractions.

"New Blood" wants to take power without going through the actual shit work of legislating and learning how to politick - without paying their dues on committees and being the "whip" first.

Because way too many people think that House and Senate politics is about appeasing lobbyists and voters, rather than actually working as legislators and in the bureaucracy that is required to legislate. It really is a full time balancing act between local and national interests when done right.

Most of the Dems who want Pelosi to go ignore the actual legislative and political grunt work, vote considerations and tough decisions she makes because they're blinded by the glittering center stage position and "perks" of the position of Speaker of the House - and that both Boehner and Ryan did crap when it came to actual work because they skated and let the lobbyists and committee chairs do their work for them.

The GOP fears Pelosi and will throw all sorts of shit her way because as both a Speaker of the House and Minority leader, she's been amazingly effective on Democratic legislation, on setting up political environments in which Democratic legislation can eventually pass or the worst of GOP legislation would fail, and has been able to keep the Democratic side of the house relatively conflict free despite the personalities over the years. When she talks in advance about how many votes legislation will get just based on House math, she's very rarely wrong.
That's because she worked her ass off to get where she is and learned from some of the best horse traders and whips in House history. Her replacement will be another hard worker/deal maker behind the scenes - not some pretty-boy/pretty-girl populist, because speechifying and taking a "bright line" position is not what gets legislation done in a large, diverse political environment with competing values and needs.

Haele

[EffieBlack]

65. Excellent analysis!

Let me add that the pretenders also are trying to convince people that the Speaker is supposed to be grassroots organizer with the lead responsibility for election wins and losses when that’s not her job at all.

Interesting that these folks will blame Pelosi for a candidate’s loss out in their district, without putting any respnsibility on the DCCC, DNC, State Party, local Coordinated Campaigns and - her’s a wacky idea - the CANDIDATES themselves.

As I noted upthread, one of these guys actually blamed Pelosi for Hillary losing his district. As if he himself had no role to play in delivering his own damned district for the party.

The good thing is that Nancy is infinitely smarter and more savvy than all of them put together, and considering, as you said, they’re not nesting any time or effort to learn a fraction of what she knows, she’s probably not losing any sleep over their “Nancy Must Go” rebellion.

[Hekate]

67. Great post

[Me.]

69. The Main Culprits Seeking To Disrupt

Joseph Crowley/NY 14
Kathleen Rice/NY 4
Tim Ryan /Ohio 13

[Progressive dog]

60. The answer is that some

just want Pelosi to go and the reasons are just what they think will work. Propaganda does not require consistency.

[TNLib]

61. I like Pelosi just don't agree with her stance on impeachment but she has strong political instincts

so maybe I'm wrong.

As far as her being a lightening rod for the GOP, who cares, the next leader will be a lightening rod also. If it's the one thing the GOP is good, making lightening rods out of Dems.

[nolabels]

64. I think its a good thing

The more irrational the republicans behave, the better our positions become. Are we tired of the battle?

Really the idea of dishing back twice of what has been given is a way to go. Medicare for all, a standard minimum wage of $23 an hour, an end of a social cap payments, a tiered stock market trading tax. There are hundreds of government policies that could be put in place that would make vast differences of how government is and perceived.

What persons we choose to scapegoat accomplishes what was always intended for us to do. The best and most effective parts of movements is of them having no hierarchy (it's also another reason I like to hang out here).

[denbot]

66. If you move against the king..

Do not fail. Mrs Pelosi is just being sensible, so is Mueller, and this is a good thing

[CrispyQ]

68. Antagonizes the GOP - I actually think that's a good reason to keep her.

She's also an accomplished politician. As for impeachment of W, did we have the votes in the Senate? I don't recall, but I don't think so.

[Gothmog]

71. I stand with Nancy Pelosi

[padfun]

78. Agree!!

She knows how to get things done.

I know that some Dems think she will divide us but in truth, she always gets the other Dems to vote in lockstep.

Another Californian who does what is right for our country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Does anyone worry about "antagonizing or mobilizing" the GOP, these days?

It makes them sound like some benign, sleepy but powerful group. Has anyone really seen them like that during the last, say, 25 years, since Gingrich proclaimed them explicitly as bomb-throwers? They're hyperactive evil nutjobs. At the slightest sign of calming down, some entity (Koch brothers, religious right, those wishing to destroy social security, neocons looking for a war ...) pours money into turning the GOP's insanity to their own advantage.

[treestar]

75. She knows when impeachment is not viable

whereas it is a pipe dream you can dream when you would not have to actually do it.

It did not work out well for the Rs either.

I think there is no point unless you have a Senate that might convict. And we know the Rs put party over country.

[Hortensis]

90. GOP hopes to use threats of impeachment to defeat us.

It may well be their strongest weapon, 2018's version of "crooked Hillary."

Nixon was impeached when there was bipartisan support for it. For 2 years, talk of impeachment MOBILIZED the right to fight for Nixon, just as it is now for Trump. When events and investigations finally brought everything to a head, Republican support for Nixon crashed and immediately after that impeachment proceedings began.

We all know Trump is dreadfully unfit for office and has to be removed. That will happen after we get control of congress AND the Mueller investigation is concluded and presented to the senate that will preside over Trump's trial. It's also all too likely that some Trump-made disaster will help create that bipartisan agreement.

Irresponsible yammering for impeachment when it's not possible could kill our blue wave, though. Even billionaire Tom Steyer is backpeddling hard on his impeachment campaign in the face of that horrible possibility.

People need to stick their heads out of DU and cable TV and look around. Polls show it's not popular with even most Democrats right now; most know we CAN'T yet.

While Fox agitators are telling viewers to get ready to take to the streets to protect Trump.

[Gothmog]

88. Here is the real reason why the GOP hates Nancy Pelosi

Link to tweet

Link to tweet