*THIS* is why Pelosi was the absolutely correct choice for speaker....

[scheming daemons]

Eventually, we will need fresh blood in leadership positions. But not now. Now is when a proven warrior like Pelosi is necessary.

Great read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/why-nancy-pelosi-wont-compromise-border-wall/580516/?utm_term=2019-01-16T11%3A30%3A09&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo

[Roland99]

1. Headline and snippet...

Nancy Pelosi’s Winning Strategy
She beat George W. Bush on Social Security privatization, and she’ll beat Trump on the wall.

Pelosi’s strategy resembles the one she employed to debilitate another Republican president: George W. Bush. Bush returned to Washington after his 2004 reelection victory determined to partially privatize Social Security. “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital,” he told the press, “and I intend to spend it.” Bush’s plan contained two main elements. The first was convincing the public that there was a crisis. Social Security, he declared in his 2005 State of the Union address, “is headed toward bankruptcy.” The second was persuading Democrats to offer their own proposals for changing it.

As Matthew Yglesias pointed out not long ago, a fallacy underlay Bush’s argument. Even if you believed Social Security was going bankrupt, diverting some of the tax money that funds it into private accounts wouldn’t solve the problem. It would make the problem worse. To mask that glitch, Bush needed to lure Democrats into offering proposals that actually shored up Social Security’s finances—by cutting benefits, raising taxes, or cutting other spending—but were highly unpopular. Americans would presumably prefer Bush’s cotton candy to the Democrats’ broccoli, and thus empower Bush to fulfill the decades-old conservative goal of ending Social Security as a program of social insurance.

Aiding Bush’s effort was the fact that prominent Democrats had proposed tinkering with Social Security in the past. In his State of the Union address, Bush observed, “During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former [Democratic] Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late [Democratic] Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated.” Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman had even toyed with private accounts.

But Pelosi, then House minority leader, wouldn’t take the bait. She denied that Social Security was in crisis. And she refused to offer a plan for changing it. When a member of Congress asked when Democrats would offer their own proposals, she replied, “Never. Is never good enough for you?”

[zipplewrath]

7. The difference

W didn't shut down the government trying to get his SS changes. We could "wait them out" until they just quit trying and quietly went away. With Trump, he and the GOP are unlikely to unilaterally quit. They are going to need their fig leaf. It's too soon right now. They have to come and ask for it. But sooner or later McConnell is going to come to Schumer and layout, quietly, what it will take.

The only other way out for them that I see will be a natural disaster, or a war. And I don't really wanna hope for such things.

[Demsrule86]

11. No fucking fig leaf. The GOP has been doing this for nine years now. I am over it. Stand firm and

make them pay.

[zipplewrath]

12. At some point

If one doesn't bend, one may break. The GOP could insist on a joint conference of the House and Senate to consider border security. We'd look stupid of we said no.

[Demsrule86]

14. I don't agree...it is a waste of time. It would take months so should be a nonstarter.

[zipplewrath]

16. Not if it opens the government

Similar proposals have already been offered to Trump. Open the government for 6 weeks or so and negotiate for a wall. He can always rinse and repeat if it falls through. The Senate GOP could offer something similar which would be a budget for some period of time and a commitment to negotiating a common position between the House and Senate that would be assured a vote (not whether it would pass). Then they open the government, have their months of meetings, have their votes, and move on.

[Demsrule86]

25. He turned them down... Lindsey essentially wanted this.

[SunSeeker]

27. Then we win. We have always said we'd talk if they open the government while we're talking. nt

[NurseJackie]

15. No we wouldn't.

We'd look stupid of we said no.

No we wouldn't.

[zipplewrath]

17. We would if it seemed trivial

If it doesn't commit the Democrats to a wall, and is merely an agreement to discuss or otherwise kick the can down the road, the mood of the country could shift away from the GOP towards the Democrats.

[SunSeeker]

28. Refusing to commit to a wall is not being "trivial."

[zipplewrath]

49. Refusing to have a committee would

Refusing to reopen the government while a joint committee of congress writes legislation that would be given a vote in both houses would appear trivial.

[SunSeeker]

54. There is already a committee. We just refuse to be used as a photo op for Shitler.

And it's Shitler who is refusing to reopen government during negotiations, not us. We are the ones saying government should be open while we work things out. Get your facts straight.

[zipplewrath]

56. My facts are fine

I'm not suggesting that we'll get anything out of Trump. I'm saying that the path to opening the government goes through the GOP controlled Senate and it will take about 11 or so republicans to agree to bring this to an end. That will take them requesting something that doesn't make it look like the democrats held out unnecessarily, and lets both houses look like they are "finally" coming together. Trump in some ways will unknowningly help since he'll probably pitch a fit, thereby making the minority of republican senators look "brave" while making Nancy and the democrats looking "steadfast and cooperative".

[Demsrule86]

26. No this has to end. We give no fig leaf to the Russian scum bag traitor president...he needs to have

his snout rubbed in the shit he started.

[zipplewrath]

29. It won't be to him

I suspect the only way this ends is if a Senate GOP minority decides to override his veto. They'll need to be given some cover for doing so. Trump won't be able to give much significant in the way of concessions at this point.

[ancianita]

37. We'll never look as stupid as we'd be if we accepted a stupid, stupid wall. It's a non-starter.

[zipplewrath]

38. But something else

The issue isn't the wall, it is when some small minority of GOP senators are looking for a way out of this mess and willing to override a veto, they'll want SOMETHING for doing so. I'm dubious they'll just roll over.

[ancianita]

43. So what do we do.

I see no way out of this except for the GOP to do an override. It's McConnell who's holding up the open of government. It's him we've got to work on.

If he doesn't budge, then what. Write a fine print amendment that stipulates conditions by which we could legally "take it back" after 45 reluctantly signs it?

I've got nothing. We just can't support a stupid wall under any conditions.

[zipplewrath]

45. Several Options

The GOP is going to have to craft one. I suspect it will be something that reopens the government while a compromise is worked. Maybe something like giving a joint committee 3 months to craft legislation that will then be given an up or down vote in both houses.

[ancianita]

46. If they make the effort, knowing it's all on them, I'm all for it. Thanks.

I seriously distrust them doing this, though.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

52. The R's could have done whatever they wanted re: border security

for the first 2 years of the Trump fiasco. Why should we think there is anything to negotiate now? After they drop this charade and stop insisting on $ for a wall, maybe then we can talk about real solutions...…..

[zipplewrath]

55. "Talk about real solutions"

I suspect that will be the context, some cooling off period for congress to discuss a path forward.

[ancianita]

34. +1

[WhiteTara]

47. She is also teaching Chuck his job and how to do it.

He's finally coming up with ways to thwart the Turtle and I am certain it is Nancy helping him out.

[BumRushDaShow]

53. THIS

Although he has been in there a long time, he doesn't have the background of his predecessor in terms of the obscure but powerful Senate rules.

[malaise]

2. Should have 500 recs

Get thee to the greatest page

[MaryMagdaline]

3. Nancy's always got her eye on the ball

[KitSileya]

4. Absolutely. She's playing tough, and she will win.

Congresswomen like her and Maxine Waters are indispensable because they are able to read the situation like nobody else, and they don't have to think about a future Presidential run. They know that unlike their male peers, any possible Presidential ambitions of theirs would be killed in its infancy by everyone else, and so they are freer than anyone else. This despite the fact that they, like Hillary Clinton, are head and shoulders above anyone else who could be nominated because they know how to GET STUFF DONE! As we can see as Pelosi is getting stuff done right now, playing Trump like a virtuoso.

[ehrnst]

21. Indeed. There's a reason they're still there, and it's not "corporatism"

which is a phrase thrown a lot by those who think that older women are "The establishment."

[Cracklin Charlie]

5. Agree.

And, who better to teach the new Congress how to be a leader?

There’s no one better. Nancy Pelosi.

[WhiteTara]

48. She's teaching Chuck too.

[NurseJackie]

6. Experience we can trust! NANCY PELOSI ROCKS!!!

Amazing to think about how some wanted to choose someone else to be Speaker. So much hand-wringing about wanting "new blood" or "someone younger" ... basically they wanted change for the sake of change. What a short-sighted mistake that would have been! Especially NOW.

I suspect that much of this type of thinking was based largely on the myopic Sarandonesque or Uygurian philosophy of "destroy to rebuild" ... also promoted by other questionable groups like "Justice Democrats" and "Brand New Congress".

[Demsrule86]

13. HI Nurse! [phone]

I despise justice Democrats ...never heard of brand new congress.

[ehrnst]

22. Personally, I want an experienced pilot during a horrific storm, not a rookie who thinks that

"establishment" pilots need to step aside for the young turks who will make flying more appealing to millenials.

Give me a Sullenberger, because I want to fucking survive a river landing while our engines are failing.

[Cha]

58. +Millions!

[GoCubsGo]

8. Hoperfully, the "fresh blood" are taking notes.

Please watch and learn, Congresspeople.

[IronLionZion]

9. The "fresh blood" should learn from the battle hardened experienced leader.

She's the leader we need during this difficult time. We can replace Schumer before Pelosi.

When Dems have safe majorities in both houses, the courts, and the white house, then we can see about newer younger folks with bold ideas.

[dalton99a]

10. +1

[brush]

31. And actually all these "newer, younger folks" may have overlooked...

all the mid-career, experienced committee chairs who are next in line for top leadership—Shiff, Nadler, etc.

Youth will be served, but when the time is right and they've studied under the master, Speaker Pelosi.

[IronLionZion]

35. Youth might bring us sensible gun laws and single payer healthcare eventually

just not now

[brush]

40. We're all counting on their votes for those bills when they come up.

[ehrnst]

18. You don't put a rookie sailor at the wheel during a deadly storm

because one thinks we need "new faces" up in the wheelhouse, and the rookies want to show their stuff.

Our nation is in that storm right now, and the captain may be "old" but we need that expertise.

[flibbitygiblets]

19. Lol, crickets from those who questioned Pelosi

Just a few weeks ago, many questioned whether she was too old or too tarnished from years of being demonized.

Very happy that nonsense is over!

[ehrnst]

20. Or said that her being reviled and targeted by the GOP was a "problem." (nt)

[flibbitygiblets]

23. True. Like GOP has a problem finding new targets

I see they've set their sights on OAC...

[left_of_center]

32. She is shining now!

We need professionals who know what they are doing to lead this party. We also need the influence and passion of the new and up-coming. The generations will need to work together if we as a party are going to reach our potential.

[athena]

51. They said she was "weak".

A word that is almost never used to describe a male politician.

[fishwax]

24. I trust her to lead

I haven't always agreed with every decision, but I do trust her judgment and leadership.

[SunSeeker]

30. Great Atlantic piece. They correctly give her credit for saving SS under Bush. nt

[calimary]

33. Yep. Fresh new blood - soon enough. But NOT NOW!!!

What we need NOW is demonstrably what (and who) we now HAVE. Our own “Iron Maiden” - who has LOTS of experience on many fronts, who stands up to trump on ALL of our behalf.

Was there really ANY doubt? Talkin’ to YOU DINOs who yowled and whined about “change” - merely for the sake of some whispy veiled imagined fanciful “change”. We need to remember one REALLY critically important thing. They offered precisely NO alternatives to Nancy Pelosi. Not ONE of these renegades stepped forward to offer leadership, or another choice. Not one! And it’s not as though they didn’t have time to come up with a candidate for Speaker of their own. Not ONE.

If one fancies oneself a disrupter, or agent of “change”, then one really oughta have a concrete idea, or a workable solution, or a practical, DOABLE option to present as an alternative.

[dlk]

36. Pelosi is Arguably the Most Successful Politician in DC History & a Woman-Thus She is Villified

During the Bush presidency, Nancy Pelosi prevented the Republican privatization of Social Security. As Speaker during the Obama presidency, she kept her caucus together so all of the Democrats voted for the stimulus package, securing its passage and saving the American economy. She did the same for the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), saving tens of thousands of American lives. In addition, she is a fund raising juggernaut for Democrats. If she were a man, her successes would be shouted from the rooftops and she would have been at the top of the list for presidential candidates for the past many years. These facts may give some to perspective the petty sniping by the media and other politicians. We are very lucky to have her on the Democratic team!

[Toorich]

39. It's an easy lesson to learn ...

... but sometimes difficult to execute. It's the lesson usually learned on grade school
playgrounds. A bully hits or threatens to hit and you have a clear-cut choice. You find courage
and stand up to the threat and fight back or you give in to fear.
I took some ass whippings, but usually only once from the same guy, because he knew he'd been in
a scrap and didn't want anymore from me.
Of course, nowadays the children are expected to take a beating and then go to the teacher and report the incident.
I've tried to figure out when it got decided that we surrendered the lawful and natural right of self-defense.
As for me and mine the rule was "Don't start a fight but finish it."
It's a simple lesson that just requires a little courage.
As the adage says, " The hero dies but once, the coward dies a thousand times."

[dchill]

41. K&R.

Pelosi has guts and brains. Trump is down by two already.

[gademocrat7]

42. K&R!

[LisaM]

44. She is so on her game!

It's a beautiful thing to watch.

[athena]

50. This is why Russians and Republicans

tried to sow discord among liberals. They didn’t want Pelosi and tried to get us to hate her the way they got too many of us to hate HRC. Too many liberals fell for it once again. People never learn. DUers will have to be very skeptical of all attacks against Democratic leaders in the future. I fear that too many people, male or female, just love to heap hate on a woman and will gladly give us another four years of Trump in 2020 if the nominee happens to be a woman.

[Scurrilous]

57. K&R