Nancy Pelosi Plans to Win Back Her Gavel and Then Hand It Over--But Not Before Banging It

[DonViejo]

If the Democrats retake the House, as anticipated, impeachment will be on the backburner and so will transferring power to a new generation, at least at first.

Eleanor Clift
11.06.18 5:06 AM ET

Never mind the dozens of Democratic House candidates pledging they will never vote for Nancy Pelosi. If Democrats retake the House, she’ll be the Speaker again.

“Everyone who said that is not going to win,” says a Democratic leadership aide, noting that the dissident voices are in red districts where decrying Pelosi is part of the package. “And if they win, we’ve probably got a wave, and that means we’ve got a big margin,” says the aide.

If Democrats fall short of the 23 seats needed for the majority, she and her lieutenants will be ousted. But the odds are that Pelosi is going to retake the gavel and then be a “transitional figure,” as she told the LA Times in October, adding that she would have stepped down from her party leadership role already if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election, confident the country was in the right hands.

Donald Trump’s victory changed that. She wasn’t going to abandon the only seat a woman has ever had at the pinnacle of power in Congress, and now, says the leadership aide, “She is signaling generational change is coming, and that she will be the bridge to that change.”

There is no set date for her departure. That would make her a lame duck. There is a growing recognition among Democrats that Pelosi’s institutional knowledge will help the party avoid the trap of impeachment and focus on a legislative agenda. “You really need to have somebody who has strapped on their holster before and gone to war here and will not be winging it,” says John Lawrence, creator of the DOMEocracy blog. “You don’t unilaterally disarm.” Lawrence was Pelosi’s chief of staff when she was first elected Speaker and fought back against Democrats who wanted to use their new power to impeach President Bush.

Pelosi is not a fan of impeachment. Without bipartisan support, impeachment is a dead end unless there are 67 votes in the senate to convict. The contentious process could boost Trump’s support as it did President Clinton’s in 1998 when a Republican Senate failed to convict him.

“Why not just torture them with constant and brutal oversight, which they deserve,” says a Democrat in a think tank who didn’t want to be named. “Let Jerry Nadler (ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary committee) and Adam Schiff (ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence committee) go after them hammer and tong.”

more
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nancy-pelosi-plans-to-win-back-her-gavel-and-then-hand-it-overbut-not-before-banging-it?ref=home

[sunonmars]

1. Hand the speakership to Hillary just to see Trumps head explode.....

[Volaris]

14. Yes yes yes.

If Nancy wants to run the day to day as a teaching tool for the next generation if just fine with that.

But I want what you want; it will put the fear of God into them.

[Renew Deal]

2. We can figure this out in around 15 hours

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

4. +1

[BeyondGeography]

3. At least there's one authentic quote in that puff piece

Last edited Tue Nov 6, 2018, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

The late Texas Democrat, Charlie Wilson, asked by a reporter on his way into a caucus vote, said, “I’m for all three, I just have to figure out which two I lied to.”

[Hortensis]

5. Yes, when the Republicans and Russia took Hillary out

in 2016, and with her all the congressional candidates riding her coattails, that required a major readjustment in Nancy's plans for how she would be spending these years. Of course if we get a house majority she has to become speaker and set the house on its new course. Steny Hoyer is no longer waiting, and no one else will be chosen by her colleagues.

This talk of impeachment is so exasperating -- and profoundly insulting to us.

Republicans are the unprincipled lowlifes who use it as an anti-democratic partisan maneuver.

WE ARE NOT. WE ARE THE PROTECTORS OF DEMOCRACY.

There has never been any question -- we will only impeach in order to remove and if removal is necessary, if removal of a president has bipartisan support, and if removal is possible.

[NurseJackie]

7. "This talk of impeachment is so exasperating, and profoundly insulting to us, though." -- YES!

This talk of impeachment is so exasperating -- and profoundly insulting to us, though.

YES! Agreed!

There has never been any question -- we will only impeach in order to remove and if removal is necessary, if removal of a president has bipartisan support, and if removal is possible.

Thank you! Clearly and well-stated. Sadly though, the wringing of hands, and the weeping and gnashing of teeth will likely continue regardless of the political realities.

[Hortensis]

9. Sadly's one of the words, all right. Media will continue

to milk fake controversy and continue their equalization meme of us with Republicans. The Repubs..., of course.

One step at a time. We're supposed to get an idea of how things are going to go from Virginia and Florida. Deep breath, release.

[NurseJackie]

10. I saw that too...

... I quickly skimmed through Rachel's show last night (watched the entire show in 20 minutes) but the interview that I watched entirely was the that explained how Virginia and Florida would be a reliable early bellwether indicator of how the rest of the night might go.

[Hortensis]

11. Proof that politics is national as well as local.

People are still regurgitating that old bromide occasionally about how all politics is local, but people who observe knew neither either-or was true and hadn't been for a very long time.

[lunatica]

12. Nancy Pelosi doesn't know how mad we really are yet.

She would know if she had been running for re-election. She will also know in a couple of months when the new Congress is sworn in.

Even if she is personally immune to pressure from her constituents the rest of the Democrats are not and they will have a true fight on their hands if they ignore their constituents this time. Plus the new blood to be sworn in are true believers. It won’t be business as usual for Pelosi.

I say all this even though I admire her a lot. She’s a strong leader who has proven she can round up the herd of cats that are the Democrats.

[Hortensis]

13. Well, you know her constituents always reelect her

by large margins, and inevitably a few of them are mad every election.

In spite of our drawing a majority of voters in most national elections, the big reason we're not winning is because the electoral system is heavily gerrymandered and otherwise rigged in favor of Republicans. Our elections do not effect the will of the people, are "rigged" "distorted and strange" as Ezra Klein said.

If we lose the house today even though outvoting Republicans around the nation, the media will call it a Democratic failure, not proof that a majority of voters were effectively disenfranchised. And some on both sides will of course leap to use the opportunity to blame Nancy for it.

We also know that, if all who claim to share our values and goals voted, we would overwhelm the gerrymandered Republican advantage by many millions of votes. But huge numbers won't, even pretend that's out of superior virtue (!). And if we don't win the house most of those will blame Nancy and other Democratic leaders for our losses -- and claim loss as validation of not voting!

This when their not voting in 2010 was what allowed intense gerrymandering in the first place. And could cause it to continue to 2032.

So you're right there's a lot of anger, believe me some right here; but most of it despicably misdirected to put it mildly. Unfortunately for Nancy, most of those with "distorted and strange" viewpoints do at least know Nancy's name and who to blame for it all.

[displacedtexan]

15. Nancy P. Was on the ballot I just filled out and was also on the ballot in 2016.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "She would know if she was running for re-election."

House members serve 2 year terms.

BTW, I walk my dogs down Nancy Pelosi Drive every morning.

[lunatica]

18. I may be wrong but she hasn't campaigned in years

aside from sending a few flyers to her constituents. The same goes for Diane Feinstein. They are quite comfortable.

I lived in california, in the Bay Area for almost 40 years. It’s a reliably Democratic Area.

[displacedtexan]

20. Nancy P. has raised $100 million for Dems and she & DiFi have campaigned like crazy for others.

They are both on the ballot today in CA. Idon't know where you're getting your info, but they are both wildly popular here.

[lunatica]

21. They are with me too

I always voted for them until I moved to NM this year.

I wasn’t being critical. But I do think the voters this time are not what they’ve been in the past.

[Hortensis]

22. They're both well regarded by majorities, Lunatica.

As proven. Of course Senator Feinstein has to appeal to and get elected by a wide range of California Democrats every 6 years, while Nancy is reelected by the people of her own district every 2 years.

You know, even if every one of our candidates is elected today, a hoard of "true believers" isn't going to be storming our Democratic caucuses. You can probably count the true believers on one hand, and it's the nature of most not to be very successful because they don't play well with others.

I-Sanders is an example; 25 years in congress and little that stands out in a record of supporting the decisions of others to show for it. He finally became known when he stepped forward, by himself because not one of his colleagues would endorse him, to continue what Senator Warren had started. There's a lesson there that most moving on national office from state and local don't actually need. Most of the winnowing's already been done.

So, in spite of campaign rhetoric, most of our new people will be earnestly eager to do well, and even those most eager to make a big difference know success will require developing good relationships with their colleagues. That's just part of being talented and competent, and the leaders of both caucuses will be identifying these promising people to bring along.

As for voter expectations and candidates who can promise the world when it's not contradicted by previous records, we always take a big chance putting those untested in power, don't we? No idea how they'll react to very different lives and their lures. If any don't measure up, it'll probably take several years at least for enough voters to realize to kick them out, but some can be in far longer if they're at all clever or don't decide to cash in their favors for cushy jobs in private industry.

[lunatica]

24. I Regard both of them highly as well

I support both of them as well as my ex Congesswoman Barbara Lee.

I moved away from California this year so they no longer represent me.

But I don’t think Diane or Nancy are quite ready for the new people coming in. I don’t think any longtimers are. Even we don’t know how things will change now, with so many first timers being voted in. We’re in for some surprises.

[Hortensis]

26. Sure. In a perfect world, all institutions would get a good

making over -- with good people -- every few years. And I trust some of these eager, wannabe iconoclasts will turn out to be the kind of good people who'll raise some well planned dust. Every 2 and 6 years we get new people in office, and some turn out to be winners.

But where those surprises occur, most of them will inevitably be for the newcomers, the rawer the more likely, because they all have an enormous amount to learn. Being good legislators is an entirely different set of skills from being able to excite a crowd with what they want to hear, and some of these exciting people will be starting from zero.

What I hope for them all is that they will be entering office as members of majority caucuses. It's very sad when people take office eager to make a difference and find they've signed up for 2 years of sitting on their fingers because a bunch of feckless schmucks didn't bother to vote them the power needed to make a difference.

[Garrett78]

23. An argument can be made for impeachment without conviction.

Especially if Mueller puts forth some really damaging information. Force Republicans to defend non-conviction.

[jmowreader]

25. On the other hand...

I really think the vast majority of Republicans are into Law and Order. These aren’t the small number of people who’d still support Trump if he grew a nose-width mustache. (I was going to put an “and” in there and list something else Adolf Hitler did to incite crowds...but he’s already done all those things.) If Mueller’s report is bad enough, there’s a strong possibility the GOP will decide they can get everything they need for the next two years from Pence and run him off themselves.

[Garrett78]

32. "Law and order" is nothing but a dog whistle for Republicans.

[vi5]

6. If we win, I do not want to hear the word " bipartisan". Not once....

I don't care if something is bipartisan. I don't care if it's going to pass or not. Did Republicans care when they voted on yet didn't pass countless bills that did nothing but let their base know that they were on their side?

At no point should "It's not going to pass" or "It's going to pass anyway" be any excuse for bad votes from Democrats or lack of bills being voted on.

Does she (or anyone else) actually believe that people will see nothing getting done or think or be compelled to vote again as "Well it's not going to pass anyway so why waste everyone's time. I appreciate that as a voter and will support this approach because it is wise, prudent, and bipartisan."? No. It will do nothing but reinforce the negative opinions that got us in the minority in the first place (weak, ineffective, feckless, etc.).

If nothing will get done due to gridlock, then make as much of a stink and a show of it as possible and let the base of voters we need to be engaged and enthused know that they are there for them.

[sunonmars]

8. Yup, nail the fuckers to the wall, screw this bipartisan shit until the cancer is removed.

[NYC Liberal]

17. We had nowhere near the level of support needed to remove him from office.

Removal requires at least 67 Senators; in 2007-2008, we had 49 seats plus Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. I doubt Lieberman would have voted to convict. So even if every Democrat had been on board, we would still have needed 17 Republicans to convict. I doubt a single one of them would have voted to do so.

[BlueStater]

19. Once his crimes and corruption were exposed via investigations, they would have come onboard.

I argued this back then and my opinion has not changed.

The political landscape ten years ago was far different than it is today. Bush was even less popular then than Trump is now and the few supporters he did have weren't radicalized or that enthusiastic about him. Certainly nothing along the lines of what you see with Trump and his brainwashed cult followers in the present.

The GOP got trounced in 2006 and they took a beating in 2008 as well, even in red states like Alaska and North Carolina. They paid the price for their support of Bush. They would have turned against him had they seen the writing on the wall.

But the Democrats didn't even try and they continued to cement this idea that began with Ford's pardon of Nixon that the president is this untouchable figure who can do whatever the fuck he wants and there will be zero repercussions for him for doing so.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

27. My hands are in the air in a big V...My eyes humbly down.

Please Gods. Please. We don't deserve the fate we've been handed for 2 years.

[samnsara]

28. i want Nancy as SOTH...nothing would make the repugs madder.. and to have her sit behind..

...trump will be priceless!!!!

[Qutzupalotl]

29. Correction: Impeachment is a dead end unless there WILL BE 67 votes to remove.

We haven’t seen the evidence yet, nor heard the charges. Too soon to throw in the towel to a fascist authoritarian regime, IMO.

[Me.]

30. Reports Of Her Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

and the agenda of those pushing it are apparently clear.

[gratuitous]

31. Eleanor Clift's concern is duly noted

As is the Daily Beast's.