Maureen Dowd defends Nancy Pelosi

[Trumpocalypse]

I don't usual read Maureen Dowd but she makes a lot of good points here. And posted most of the article due to the Times pay wall.

Scaling Wokeback Mountain

By Maureen Dowd
Opinion Columnist

WASHINGTON — I was feeling on edge. Writing a column that sparks an internecine fight among the highest-profile women in the Democratic Party is nerve wracking.

...

Pelosi told me, after the A.O.C. Squad voted against the House’s version of the border bill and trashed the moderates — the very people who provided the Democrats the majority — that the Squad was four people with four votes. She was talking about a legislative reality. If it was a knock, it was for abandoning the party.

That did not merit A.O.C.’s outrageous accusation that Pelosi was targeting “newly elected women of color.” She slimed the speaker, who has spent her life fighting for the downtrodden and who was instrumental in getting the first African-American president elected and passing his agenda against all odds, as a sexist and a racist.

A.O.C. should consider the possibility that people who disagree with her do not disagree with her color.

...


But Congress is not a place where you achieve radical progress — certainly not in divided government. It’s a place where you work at it and work at it and don’t get everything you want.

...

“We fought for years to create the majorities to get a Democratic president elected and re-elected, and they’re going to dither it away. They have not decided what’s more important: Do they want to beat Trump or do they want to clear the moderate and centrists out of the party? You really think weakening the speaker is the right strategy to try to get rid of Donald Trump and everything he stands for?”

In the age of Trump, there is no more stupid proposition than that Nancy Pelosi is the problem. If A.O.C. and her Pygmalions and acolytes decide that burning down the House is more important than deposing Trump, they will be left with a racist backward president and the emotional satisfaction of their own purity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/opinion/sunday/scaling-wokeback-mountain.html

[wryter2000]

1. Thanks for posting, but...

There are copyright issues with posting an entire article. Don't be surprised if this is locked.

[Trumpocalypse]

3. Thanks

I removed part of the article just in case

[Me.]

9. Also, Encase The Article In Quotes Before First Word & After The Last

otherwise, huge thanks

[Blue_true]

27. The post looked like snipets and the poster attributed the information at the start of the post. nt

[littlemissmartypants]

2. Bingo:

"In the age of Trump, there is no more stupid proposition than that Nancy Pelosi is the problem."

[mcar]

39. +1000!

[still_one]

5. This isn't the first time where Rep Ocasio-Cortez has over-reacted, nor do I doubt it will be the

last, seeing her Chief of Staff seems to want to declare war against the Democratic leadership, and any Congressional Democrats who do not agree with them by inferring they are racist

I don’t care for Dowd, but she is right on this, they are playing right into the republicans hands for 2020

[Thekaspervote]

13. Agree.. I don't care for Maureen either but she's sure right about this one

[dalton99a]

6. The tech bro should "move fast and break things" against Republicans, not Democrats

[BeyondGeography]

7. What a surprise

[emmaverybo]

8. Wow. Just wow. nt

[highplainsdem]

10. K&R

[Girard442]

11. It kills me to say it, but Pelosi has played a major role in normalizing Trumpism.

Solidarity is good, but solidarity in support of weak tea seems pointless.

[Me.]

12. Exactly How

Examples please

[Girard442]

22. Impeachment, for one.

Impeachment may not turn out to be the best path, but it was a giant mistake for top Dem leadership to pour cold water on the idea.

Me, I would have said that Pelosi should have stayed noncomittal while the firebrands like, well, AOC, should have carried the torch. Going negative on impeachment right out of the gate? Kind of says "business as usual."

[Me.]

28. Why Should She, Of All People Remain, Non Committal

she's the one in charge as per the obligation of her office. As for AOC carrying the torch, this may come as a surprise, but while she has a huge fan base I seriously doubt most of the other members of the Dem caucus would look upon her their leader and will follow her charge.

As for the cold water, there seems to be a difficulty understanding that so far, not even half of the DEm caucus is behind it right now. Speaker Pelosi has said, until she must be blue in the face, that when a majority of the country supports it, the process will go forward. You need that support in a time when you can't even get people to show up for subpoenas...so why would we think the witnesses (most of them Trump loyalists) will show up for an impeachment hearing. Things are moving at a snail's pace because that's how government and the process works.

[Blue_true]

29. Your claim seems hollow at best.

When democrats started Nixon impeachment hearings, they had hard evidence that he most likely was involved in a crime. All Speaker Pelosi has is a lukewarm Mueller report.

Once democrats were had one documented crime against Nixon, they opened impeachment hearings and uncovered more crimes until even republicans had to give in.

If Speaker Pelosi opens an impeachment inquiry against Trump because AOC and a handful of others want that, all she will likely do is help Trump politically, I seriously don't think that she remotely wants to do that.

[Trumpocalypse]

34. No one was negative on impeachment out of the gate.

They just weren’t hung ho, but were not negative either. This is the same tired purity argument yet again.

[Thekaspervote]

14. Yes, give us some links to support your claim

[melman]

15. Good point

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2019, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

[BeyondGeography]

16. They're more important to her

More votes than the squad, you know. It’s all about keeping the gavel and that’s her calculation. So we do things like slow-walk Trump investigations and pass a border security bill that pisses off most of the base. And mock those silly progs who just don’t get it to Maureen Dowd.

I’m sympathetic to her short-term personal reasoning but as a party this is demoralizing far more people than it energizes.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. Demoralizing to whom?

Keeping control of the House is demoralizing? Would losing the House be more energizing?

[BeyondGeography]

20. If you're jazzed about not holding Trump accountable

I’m happy for you.

[qazplm135]

25. I'm jazzed about not complete Republican control

of all parts of the government where all sorts of crazy shit could get passed.

It sure ain't perfect by a long stretch, but it's way better than Speaker Ryan.

[Trumpocalypse]

30. I'm jazzed about voting Trump out in 20

Which is the only was he will be removed from office.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

17. She never seems to have much to say about those to the right of her. Including

the ones who wanted her out. Same ones who vote with republican'ts when they feel like it. While these 4 "whatevers" had her back.

[Horizens]

37. You're Flat Out Wrong

How Pelosi Operates

Members who, without good reason, vote against major legislation, criticize her or other caucus members too publically and with too much zeal are disciplined in one or more of the following ways.
1.) Severely admonished behind closed doors
2.) Given the “cold shoulder – meaning your pet project and request for campaign funds won’t reach her ear.

In the instance you cited Pelosi went a step further and denied Rice and Brindisi committee assignments. No doubt, she did it 1.) because all Speakers want committee members and chairman who are committed to the legislative agenda. and 2.) to send a message to all members of the caucus.

Good for her.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

40. Yet she never trashes their rehashed bullshit ideas or ideology in public the same way

she talks all that shit about the left. In fact she even supported disloyal, anti choice obsolete ass Lipinski in IL. How does he repay her? By playing all "hard to get" when it came time to repay the support. She fears her right flank. Doesn't seem to give a shit about her left one.

[DonViejo]

21. Keep in mind, Weigel is a Republican and voted for...

Newt Gingrich in 2012.

[melman]

24. His Washington Post colleague Jennifer Rubin is cited here constantly

as are Ana Navarro, Bill Kristol etc etc. Please.



also, Trump hates him
__

President Trump on Saturday called for a Washington Post reporter to be fired over a misleading tweet about the size of the crowd at a rally for the president on Friday in Pensacola, Fla.

The reporter, Dave Weigel, posted a picture of an arena with many empty seats. He deleted the tweet after learning that the venue had not yet filled up.

On Saturday night, the president posted a screenshot of Mr. Weigel’s tweet and other photos that showed a crowded arena. “Demand apology & retraction from FAKE NEWS WaPo!” he wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/us/politics/trump-dave-weigel.html

[DonViejo]

31. Yeah, okay. You've provided us with a "keep in mind" about the

political beliefs of some columnists often posted here. In fact, I know I have posted Jennifer Rubin's, doubt I have the other two. I'll continue to post her column until she returns to the cuckoo's nest. Her criticism and attacks on the GOP, Trump, the Admin, McConnell, et al are perfect for using in discussions/arguments with disillusioned Trumpanzees and Republicans of conscience.

I don't care what Trump said about Dave, and I know he doesn't either. Yes, I know him and have known him for seven years at least.

Now, what the heck did I say causing you to charge off to do a research project? All I said was "keep in mind, he's a Republican and voted for Newt Gingrich in 2012". Nothing more, nothing less. It was not an attack upon Dave, or on you for posting his opinion. The comment was me passing along information, and reminding those already aware, of his roots.

Why you needed to shift into sarcasm and eye rolling mode is beyond me. But, hey, have a good time.

[melman]

32. "Why you needed to shift into sarcasm and eye rolling mode is beyond me''

I absolutely did not do this.

[DonViejo]

33. Reread the first and second sentence of your comment above

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2019, 08:47 PM - Edit history (2)

[qazplm135]

23. The problem solvers caucus

never called her a racist, so...

[OnDoutside]

26. Because they don't run their mouth as much, in public ?

[Scurrilous]

19. ...

"...they will be left with a racist backward president and the emotional satisfaction of their own purity."

Again.

[watoos]

35. One of the top 3 right wing objectives

is to take down AOC and her 3 friends.

How nice we are spreading their objective here, carry on, I'm not participating.

AOC is a young Nancy Pelosi. AOC is one of the few Democrats who Republicans fear because she can change the right wing narratives. I don't plan on helping Republicans in bringing down AOC, anyone else with me?

Anyone see Steny Hoyer?

Oh and Maureen Dowd, please, I'm still laughing at citing her for anything, especially politics.

[Nevermypresident]

36. I'm with you.

[Trumpocalypse]

38. No it's not

They can use her to fundraise the way use to with Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

What their real objective is to divide the Democratic Party because that’s how the win in 20.