Pelosi, rebels discussing term limits for party leaders

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a group of House Democratic rebels are discussing a proposal to impose term limits on both party leaders and committee chairs, according to four Democratic sources.

Pelosi has been in private talks with a group of rank-and-file House Democrats, who have publicly opposed her bid to return to the speaker’s chair in the next Congress. Pelosi is looking to peel off a handful of those rebels, and allowing a term-limits proposal to move forward could be the price she pays for any such deal, the sources said.

The deal, if accepted, would be a “compromise” between rebel demands that Pelosi put an end date on her leadership and the California Democrat’s insistence that she won’t make herself a lame duck speaker.

A spokesman for Pelosi’s office declined to comment.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/pelosi-party-leader-term-limits-1054789

[awesomerwb1]

1. In this day and age

when we just all need to be united behind an experienced speaker of the House, this is LAME.

I will be happy to support other good candidates in two years who are running against the "rebels" (what a name).

[George II]

2. I agree 100%. Just who are these "rebels" and who do they think they are?

[Efilroft Sul]

3. I don't like this idea.

For one, the Republicans will never go along with it. Two, even if the GOP leaders did go along with it, they'd toss this deal out the window the first chance after they become the majority in the House again. Three, you don't take your big guns off the table, the leaders who know how the sausage is made and have the greatest amount of institutional knowledge.

Screw this compromise. It's not being offered in good faith by the so-called rebels, and there are bigger and better things to tackle than this counterproductive navel-gazing. The world's burning, FFS.

[LisaM]

4. I'm not a fan of imposed term limits, for the most part.

It's done almost irreparable harm to the Michigan state government, among other things. Would we term limit other professions? Would you want to have a great doctor, and have someone different in the doctor's office one day, saying, sorry, we retired your guy because he's served long enough?

I get that people can get entrenched, and I do understand some of the arguments for term limits, but overall, I'm against them. As long as elections are fair, term limits are in the hands of the voters anyway.

And, as happened with George Nethercutt in Washington State, who got voters to buy the argument that Tom Foley, the Speaker of the House, should be tossed and that he, George Nethercutt would only serve two terms, people backtrack on the idea once it's their term limits. After two terms, Nethercutt ran again "I didn't get everything I wanted to accomplished" - and in the meantime, Eastern Washington was hoodwinked into losing a very effective Speaker. Are all these Brand New Congress people going to hand over their seats after two or four years? And, do we want a governing body that turns over every two years?

[StevieM]

5. I seem to remember that Nethercut said he would only serve 3 terms, not that he would

limit it to two. Either way, the point is the same.

And I also remember being shocked at the time that he was running. He had been the face of the term limits movement.

[LisaM]

7. You're correct. I mis-remembered. But he did run again even after that....

he ran for a fourth term.

I was just shocked at the time that they'd unseat Tom Foley, who was a real advocate for the state of Washington.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Personally, I'm opposed to all but 'life time' term limits.

[msongs]

8. republicans and their allies will do anything to weaken the democrats' majority power nt

[BeyondGeography]

9. Pelosi favored this back in the day

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/term-limits-nancy-pelosi-democrats-house.html

Then and now the CBC stands in the way.

Many Democratic staffers were shocked to read that Pelosi would put this on the table. It’s a topic she’s kept her distance from since she tried and failed to introduce term limits in 2007. Though House Republicans have maintained a three-term chairmanship limit in their rules since the 1990s, Democrats have not. Minority caucuses among House Democrats, especially the Congressional Black Caucus, have been strongly opposed to the idea. They argue that black members have historically been overlooked in favor of white members for leadership positions, so committee chairmanships have been the main way for black members—especially black women—to accrue power within the caucus. The order for chairmanships is determined by seniority, which advantages many black members representing safe districts.

[Efilroft Sul]

10. Term limits also strengthen special interests like ALEC.

You get rid of the people who know how to chair a committee and write legislation and replace them with noobs who are in charge solely because it's now "their turn," and the noobs will fall under the greater influence of ALEC and other groups in all aspects of governance.

[BeyondGeography]

11. That's just silly

Take a look at who sits behind the ranking members before you say stuff like that. Is Jerry Nadler, with 26 years in the caucus before he became ranking member a noob? He's only judiciary chair because Conyers got nailed on harassment. Otherwise, with our current rules, we'd have to talk a nonagenarian who was known to show up for meetings in his underwear out of leading impeachment hearings.

[Efilroft Sul]

12. No, it's not.

Term limits can fast track demagogues from either party into leadership positions. What happens when one such representative with, say, four terms of experience has his or her faction of the party, let's say the crazies, sweep into power during a midterm or general election and his or her fellow nutters leapfrog into leadership positions over more reasonable representatives who served 8, 9, or 10 terms? What if this happens across the board and we get a complete loon as a House Speaker? Sure, this is a hypothetical, but the last several years have seen the unthinkable happen. The Republicans and their special interest allies will find a way to twist and turn normal processes to their advantage and against us all to our detriment. Thinking ahead to such a possibility should not be taken off the table.

And who are these so-called rebels anyway? Let's find out what and who is motivating them.

[DeminPennswoods]

13. After listening to Tim Ryan stutter and stumble his way

through a tough interview from Kornacki yesterday, I'd be laughing at these "rebels", not negotiating with them.

Ryan admitted that only 35 members voted against Pelosi in the caucus meeting. Let Tim Ryan stand up and announce on the House floor when the vote for Speaker happens that he's voting for himself.

[Fullduplexxx]

14. Yay! Let's throw out experience for hubris in an arbitrary manor