Do we need a new Speaker of the House?

[rateyes]

Poll question: Do we need a new Speaker of the House?

I am on a campaign to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House--if not in this Congress, at least in the next. If the Democrats retain control of Congress in January of '09, would you be in favor of retaining or replacing Nancy Pelosi?

[LynneSin]

1. You would get the same exact thing

Seriously - the roll of the leadership is the compromise position. Trust me - the repukes have bitched about folks like Hassert, Brownback, Lott etc for ages. Why do you think Gingrich ultimately was forced out?

The Majority/Minority leadership is the one that tries to broker the deals with the otherside and throughout history they come out looking like they're the bad guys.

[rateyes]

5. Lynne, I usually agree with you on just about everything...

but, I don't see this the same way. The role of the leadership is to lead, not to be led by the minority party's criticism. It takes thick skin to do the right thing. Nancy, IMO, doesn't have it.

[LynneSin]

9. Then you know nothing about this position

And as I replied to you in another post - where are your complaints about John Conyer's job? Nancy isn't the one that will start impeachment process - that's the House Judiciary chair.

So you see - basically we tend to blame everything on Nancy. She is not the only brains of the party - if Conyers wants an impeachment he can start one right now.

(btw, I adore Conyers wouldn't want anyone else in that position)

[rateyes]

16. Do a search for rateyes and Conyers...

you'll see I've complained about his lack of bringing impeachment hearings, too. Nancy, though, is in the chair. The buck stops with her.

[LynneSin]

18. Fair enough

but every member of congress can act independantly of Nancy. It's just easier to blame the ills of the party on the person in the limelight then to complain about individuals not living up to the positions they have been given.

[Tyler Durden]

34. It is not the job of a "Frosh" congressperson to BUCK THE PARTY.

And it is the job of the party leadership to keep the "little ones" in line. This is the time to present a united front.

Ask yourself this: would the Republican Party allow its Freshman to behave this way? And if they did, how fast would they get slapped down?

That's one of Pelosi and Bohner's JOBS: keep the Freshman IN LINE.

[MADem]

19. Oh, stop making sense and describing how the system actually WORKS!!!

Doncha know Nancy is supposed to stand there in Condi Rice Stilleto Heels and a WHIP, and ORDER those blue dogs to get on their KNEES and vote the way she tells them to? Doncha, huh, doncha???

I cannot believe the level of political naivete here sometimes. It's evident, based on the way this foolish poll is running, that way too many people here simply don't get how it works...

I'm a fan of Conyers, myself. Helluvafellah...

[rateyes]

26. I understand exactly how it works,

having worked it for many many years myself. Nancy CONTROLS THE FUCKING AGENDA, donchaknow? The progressives are the majority of the Democratic party---not the DLCers. She can twist a lot of arms. So, why is just twisting progressive arms?

[MADem]

46. Controlling the AGENDA does not mean controlling the votes.

And if you did work on the Hill, you'd know that. There's give and take between caucuses, and guess what--the progressive end of the party doesn't hold sway. Add up those DLCers, those Blue Dogs, and the other interest groups--ya know, sometimes the Black caucus doesn't agree with the Kucinich crowd. The progressive end is no more monolithic than the conservative groupings. All politics is local, see?

And the party as a whole doesn't hold an absolute majority.

Yet you want her to pull shit out of her ass with what? Blunt force?

[rateyes]

51. Controlling the agenda allows her to keep stupid legislation

"blank checks" come to mind...off the floor. I expect her to LEAD.

[MADem]

56. I expect her to lead, too. And that IS what she's doing.

You might not like it, but then, it's not up to you.

[Tyler Durden]

43. You know something? THAT is EXACTLY the job of the Majority Leadership.

It's WHY Delay was so successful. He KEPT THEM IN LINE. That he was a pig is beside the point.

The job of LEADERSHIP in a TWO PARTY SYSTEM is to deliver PARTY SOLIDARITY.

They have NO OTHER REAL FUNCTION.

[MADem]

45. No it isn't. Delay ABUSED his power, yet because he did, you say that's OK?

How would you like it if Pelosi told YOUR rep to vote the way YOU didn't want--that rep that YOU elected to represent YOU, not her?

Grow up. It's called DEMOCRACY, not SOCIALISTIC DICTATORSHIP. And here's the bottom line--we don't HAVE an absolute majority, a veto proofed one, and that ISN'T her fault. Though you want to blame her for it.

If you don't know the "other functions" of the Speaker, I'm not about to school you. You're already confusing the encouragement of consensus with the mandating of it, so it would be a pointless exercise.

[Tyler Durden]

49. No, I NEVER said WHAT Delay STOOD FOR was good.

And as far as supporting the PARTY in a CRISIS, I would be an idiot if I didn't DEMAND that the party leadership stand firm.

Oh, and as a Socialist may I say FUCK YOU and your "...SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP..." You display your ignorance of political systems. I've been studying them since 1964. Go ye and do likewise.

[MADem]

53. But you are angry at Pelosi for NOT doing what he did??? Well, what am I missing, here?

Not much, save a very youthfully immature personal insult (from someone who avers to have been studying for so many decades) and a crummy thought process, apparently.

Say, Tyler, you can take that charming sentiment and do to yourself what you suggested to me. While you're at it, too,take a good look in the mirror if you want to see someone with the level of knowledge you assert that I have--if you've been 'studying since 64,' pal, you've either forgotten what you've learnt or you've REALLY wasted your time in the first place. You should demand a refund--you're plainly entitled; whatever classes you took, you were ripped off.

You're firing for effect, but you're not hitting shit--your arguments are poor, disorganized, and make no sense. In democracies, you see, there IS no dictatorship--Nancy cannot 'dictate' to the caucus that they vote for the 'socialist' solution, and that, in essence, is what you want her to do, just as DeLay forced his caucus to vote for the wingnut solution.

You just griped about it upthread, and then you have the stones to childishly get pissed at me for pointing out this bit of dissonance...but hey, whatever.

Supporting the PARTY in a CRISIS, eh? That's your 'exception that proves the rule?' Kinda like that assclown on the Faux 24 show who has to torture the location of the suitcase bomb outta the Muslim (always Muslim) 'terrist?' Hmmmmm? Even though democracies don't torture, that's kinda 'justified'...because it's a 'CRISIS,' eh?

Suspending the democratic process in the House --that's "OK" with you? Letting Nancy take away a Rep's right to vote, and substitute her own?

Because it's a CRISIS?

THAT kind of EXCEPTION to the Democratic process???

That's called a dictatorship, pal. We Democrats don't DO that.

:eyes:

And do give those rules a good read, why doncha there, pal? You know, those DU rules? You'll find the link at the bottom of the page.

[Tyler Durden]

60. Obviously, you have not read them yourself.

Since you feel free to make your own ad hominem attacks.

Again, we have someone here who has no idea how party politics works: PARTY LINE in support of PARTY MEMBERS. You make absolutely no argument as to how you understand this, instead continuing your lack of understanding of political systems with your scatalogical reference to "...the 'socialist' solution..." as if you were referring to Communism. This demonstrates your lack of understanding even further.

Since you participate in logical fallacies rapid fire, I'm not feeling compelled to further reply to you. You were uncivil, therefore you got incivility in return.

Ring me up when you stop making testosterone laden rants, and want a lesson in how the modern Two Party System functions to support Legislations. Understand me: I don't LIKE it, but it's the current method, and when one team plays by the "rules" while another decides that all its members can write their own, the organized team usually wins in the long run.

[MADem]

61. Tyler, give it up. You just said, above, that you wanted Pelosi to be our DeLay

Then you try to obfuscate what you actually said with huffy horseshit and classic but irrelevant 'discussion group' refutations.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's obvious.

And all of your "ad hominem attack" and "logical fallacies" arguments (not true, but hey--you go on and knock yourself out) may make you feel better, but they're in aid of absolutely nothing save a salve to your ego. My favorite though, was the 'testosterone laden rant'accusation--again, look in the mirror there, Spiffy--weren't you the one who tossed the F bomb at me when your weak argument failed? Why yes, I believe it WAS you! Take Mark McGwire's advice--Lay off the Clear, there.

I won't ring you up. You can't discuss anything in a civil manner, and you just said that don't have a problem with a bully in the leadership, so long as it's 'our bully'--so, even if I did have your phone number, which I don't, it would be a waste of time. I like democracy, not dictatorship, so you wouldn't enjoy a conversation, and neither would I.

[Tyler Durden]

64. I SAID that I wanted PELOSI to act the way the SPEAKER does in a two party system.

With a BIAS toward the Majority.

When you attack my philosphy (Democratic Socialism) with the epithet DICTATORSHIP, thereby casting the first stone, what you get is what you asked for. I won't bother to list your fallacies, because you are too hot under the collar to listen anyway. You never addressed the argument, so response is usless as well. Leave it to say you might as well have thrown pork at a Muslim or Orthodox Jew. "...Not True..." isn't an argument, it's a rejoiner and solves nothing.

I leave you with THIS: The Republicans enjoyed their successes because they all stood on the SAME SIDE of the aisle, as we should be doing NOW. When you do not do this in a Two Party System (which we are stuck with at the moment) then you end up with bad redistricting, a partisan Justice Branch, a phony Supreme Court. The Party Leadership, whether you like it or not, is stuck with the job of Leading the Party, not bowing to the braying of a group of 4 rogue Freshman Congressmen. They should have been told to shut up and soldier: you do not side with the opposition to censure your own. I would have thought Pelosi and Hoyer would have learned that by now: to do otherwise simply shows the opposition the weakling you are. They don't refer to "herding cats" when talking about our party for no good reason.

Delay was a monster. Gingrich was a con artist. But they did their job of holding the party together and delivering the votes with the strokes of a master. This game has rules, and the time to buck the rules is when you hold a solid majority, and not before.

Now, if you want to calm down, we can talk. If not, fine too. I'm not mad anymore, and neither should you be unless you enjoy being mad. It gives me heartburn and migraines.

[MADem]

65. No you didn't. Go back and read what you wrote.

A bit late to backpedal and try to mitigate and reshape what you originally said.

But hey, two points for use of the internet favorite: fallacies!

I'm not "hot under the collar." I'm calm as a quiet pond, and I'm not mad, either. You're the one burning up your keyboard, there, pal--projecting?

And didn't I tell you that I didn't want to ring you up? So why would I want to "talk?"

You're idea of "talking" is to lecture like a hectoring scold, and then get mad when your bullying doesn't produce agreement. Life's too short for that kind of crap.

:eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

66. This will be the last response:

This is a Wiki article, but it's fairly accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader

In U.S. politics, the majority leader is a partisan position in a legislative body. If the presiding officer of the body is not elected by the body itself, the majority leader is the floor leader of the majority caucus; otherwise, the majority leader is the second-most senior member of the majority caucus, while the floor leader becomes the presiding officer. Given the two-party nature of the U.S. system, the majority leader is almost inevitably either a Republican or a Democrat.

The majority leader is often assisted in his/her role by whips, whose job is to enforce party discipline on votes deemed to be crucial by the party leadership and to ensure that members do not vote in a way not approved of by the party. Some votes are deemed to be so crucial as to lead to punitive measures (such as demotion from choice committee assignments) if the party line is violated; decisions such as these are often made by the majority leader in conjunction with other senior party leaders.

(That's HOYER)


This is the PARTISAN portion of the Role of the Speaker of the House:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Partisan role

The Constitution does not spell out the political role of the Speaker. As the office has developed historically, however, it has taken on a clearly partisan cast, very different from the speakership of the British House of Commons, which is scrupulously non-partisan. The Speaker in the United States is, by tradition, the head of the majority party in the House of Representatives, outranking the Majority Leader. The Speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the Speaker may utilize his or her power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. He or she also chairs the majority party's House steering committee. While the Speaker is the functioning head of the House majority party, the same is not true of the President pro tempore of the Senate, whose office is primarily ceremonial and honorary.

When the Speaker and the President belong to the same party, the Speaker normally plays a less prominent role as the leader of the majority party.—For example, Speaker Dennis Hastert played a very low-key role during the presidency of fellow Republican George W. Bush. On the other hand, when the Speaker and the President belong to opposite parties, the public role and influence of the Speaker tend to increase. The Speaker is the highest-ranking member of the opposition party and is normally the chief public opponent of the President's agenda. Recent examples include Tip O'Neill—who was a vocal opponent of President Ronald Reagan's domestic and defense policies—and Newt Gingrich—who fought a bitter battle with President Bill Clinton for control of domestic policy.

(That's PELOSI)

Hoyer and Pelosi did not do their jobs as Senior Democratic Party Leaders.

I will not respond further: You continue to be rude, but if you wish to be civil, we can talk.

[MADem]

68. Well, referencing your subject line, that's a relief. NT

[atreides1]

22. Hypothetical Question

Suppose Mr. Conyers is waiting for the go ahead from Mrs. Pelosi? Yes, Mr. Conyers can put it into motion, but perhaps he wants to make sure that she's on board, and that she won't slam him like she did to Stark!

If the Speaker isn't involved in the process and hasn't joined, then Mr. Conyers can have all the hearings he wants, but without her endorsement it won't go any further then his committee.

[atreides1]

11. I disagree

The role of leadership is not to compromise your principles, the role of leadership also requires that you back up those that support you, not throw them to the dogs because you want to make a deal, the role of leadership means that you're willing to make hard decisions for the right reasons, right for all, not just yourself or your chosen few.

Mrs. Pelosi isn't a leader, not by any definition of the word!

As for Newt, he was forced out because he pissed in everyone's Wheaties!!!!

[LynneSin]

17. So basically Nancy is the soul functioning brain and everyone else in the party

can't do anything unless she says so.

That's a pretty bad summary.

This is why we have committee leaders - some of which are more appropriate for starting impeachment instead of Nancy.

[frylock]

23. ask pete stark

[Didereaux]

67. Lynn read up on Sam rayburn, LBJ, Everett Dirksen...even O;Neill...

then come back and tell us that Pelosi is doing the job right, and that would be done the same way with anyone else. And NO the powers of the Congressional leadership have not changed over the years...except maybe to increase.

[AzDar]

2. The way I'm feeling today, you need a 'fuck, YES' option.

[rateyes]

7. Sorry, I should've thought of that! nt

[rateyes]

3. Wow. It's worse than I thought, already 10 to 1...

It seems that a lot of people are as ticked as I am over her non-leadership.

[paulk]

4. are you running for office ?

or does pissing and moaning on an anomymous internet discussion board constitute "campaigning" toward replacing the Speaker of the House in your world?

[rateyes]

6. I'm working on campaigns...

and, I'm using this internet discussion board for the purpose for which it is designed.

How about you? You running for office?

[paulk]

47. no, I'm not running for office...

how is that question, on your part, relevant? I'm not the one campaigning to replace Pelosi, and the only way you get a say in that is if you're a member of the House.

If the purpose of DU is come on here and endlessly rant and rave... then I agree - you are using it for the purpose for which it was designed.

I've always thought the purpose was a little higher minded than that - that DU provided a forum where different segments of the left could come together and discuss ways to defeat Republicans - I do realize, however, after almost six years here - that those goals have kind of fallen by the wayside in favor of trashing the Democrat du jour....

[LynneSin]

12. Exactly

It's real easy to bitch about Nancy and the job she's doing when I see alot of people confused about what exactly she's suppose to be doing.

I don't care who the speaker of the house is - whoever gets the position will be the one who gets all the blame for anything perceived as going wrong

[rateyes]

20. Lynne, it was Nancy who said "no more blank checks"

and then wrote one. She didn't have to allow any bill without a timeline to even get to the floor for a vote. It was Nancy who said, "Impeachment is off the table," and who has kept HR 333 from getting a hearing and a vote on the floor.

Nancy is the most powerful woman in the government right now. She's not using her power wisely.

[Tyler Durden]

27. UNLESS they stand up and support the rank and file.

She may be SPEAKER, but She is essentially the RANKING DEMOCRAT.

Stark was HUMILIATED, and so was the entire party because PELOSI and BOHNER PERMITTED IT.

They should have taken the Democratic Party turncoats "behind the woodshed" and wailed the tar out of them.

THAT is the way you keep party unity.

[Lobster Martini]

8. YES! YES!! YES!!!

Replace her with a bunch of grapes, a halibut, a pair of bowling shoes. Doesn't matter. Her Magic Eight-ball apparently alternates between "situation murky" and "you will be ineffective and powerless today."

Hmmm...perhaps that was a bit cruel. Guess I'll apologize, cry and become as insignificant as I should be.

Regards,

Pete Stark

[rateyes]

13. If I had been Stark, after that vote today, when I WASN'T

censured, I would have gone to the well, used my whole hour and talked about the reason why I spoke the truth, and why I wasn't there to apologize. Damn the leadership for doing that to him.

[MADem]

10. The only votes that count are those of the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives

And they voted her in, overwhelmingly. See, they LIKE her leadership.

They're the ones who voted her in, they're the ones who can vote her out. Not anyone here.

It's an idiotic campaign you're running, frankly. Speaker Pelosi doesn't appear on any ballot that will find its way into your hands, or the hands of anyone here, unless we find ourselves with a seat in the House.

In which case, we'd be way too busy to post shit on an anonymous message board...!

[rateyes]

30. Who elects those who elect her?

I liked the idea of her leadership, too. But, now, she has shown herself to be a piss-poor leader. My bet is, there are a lot of her colleagues who feel the same way. Come January 2009, we might be having this conversation again over a NEW speaker.

[MADem]

48. The Democratic caucus, of course.

But it IS up to them. Now, you can try to remove those representatives for that reason, and that reason alone, but you will not be successful. Why? Most people ADORE their own congressperson. It's only those OTHERS that suck.

She isn't a piss poor leader. You don't understand that leadership without an absolute majority is as difficult, if not more so, than leadership from the minority.

We'll have this conversation again only under two circumstances--the Speaker takes ill and resigns, or the Republicans regain the majority. I hope the first doesn't happen, and the second is unlikely in the extreme.

She has the support of the caucus. They see the big picture and they take the long view.

[rateyes]

52. Well, my Congressman is DINO Jim Marshall, and I will NOT

pull the lever for him ever again. Adore him, I don't.

[MADem]

55. You might not have to--the cretin wants to run against Chambliss.

That's what I've heard, anyway. They leadership is trying to dissuade him, because they want to keep his DINO ass in the seat--because he will keep that seat, even if you don't vote for him, but if he vacates, it could be a tough slog, depending on who runs as the GOP candidate.

To guage his popularity, all you need to do is look at his margins in 06. I'm guessing in his district, with that demographic, they'll stay pretty much the same, and maybe even get larger as more disaffected Republicans look both ways and pull the lever for him.

[Va Lefty]

14. Not just a Yes

HELL YES

[marmar]

15. A different Speaker and a different Senate Majority Leader....

.... and I had such high hopes last November. :cry:

[Tyler Durden]

21. Gingrich or Hastert would submit to CASTRATION before they tolerated a censure...

...like what was planned for Stark.

You can say what you want about those pig Republicans: They Stand by THE PARTY and they stand by EACH OTHER.

THAT is why they win.

[Virginia Dare]

25. That's something I would have paid to see..n/t

[Tyler Durden]

29. The castration, or Pelosi and Bohner showing they actually had a pair to cut off?

Now THAT is something I'd have paid for.

[rateyes]

31. That is the truth. nt

[mondo joe]

38. Sorry, but I just have to ask -

When you write this: "You can say what you want about those pig Republicans: They Stand by THE PARTY and they stand by EACH OTHER" - do you mean for it to apply to eleced Democrats or us as well?

[Tyler Durden]

41. That is how a two party system WORKS.

You stand together as a BLOCK in opposition to the other party.

Yes. The Party should stand by its members and vice versa. Of course, it predicates that we have a leadership that would do so. I think Pete Stark would not support that statement.

[mondo joe]

44. I understand that, but that's not an answer to my question.

It's hard to see a demand that THOSE members of the party should stand together when DU is so overwhelmingly unsupportive of the idea for itself.

[Tyler Durden]

50. I never said we were a particularly politically savvy group as a whole.

Most people have no idea how the government actually WORKS, for better or for worse.

AND they are deluded to think that they will CHANGE IT with one election.

How do you fight that kind of ignorance? Well, you don't. I'm just trying to hang on, and I'm glad I don't live near the coast.

[Bluerthanblue]

24. other- we need a new house.

[Virginia Dare]

28. Prove to me that somebody else could do better...n/t

[rateyes]

32. Well, not many could do worse. nt

[Virginia Dare]

35. And you know that, how?...n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

54. Wow .... what an insightful reason. Why not float that .......

.... to all our elected reps so they have benefit of that pearl of wisdom when they next vote for Speaker?

[Tyler Durden]

33. She didn't have to do BETTER....

She just had to do HER JOB, and so did Bohner.

It's THEIR JOB to keep the rank and file IN LINE. HOW DARE a couple of little "Frosh" congresscritters pull this bullshit? WHO CARES what someone that low in the ranks thinks?

It is the job of the Party Leadership in Congress to LEAD THE PARTY, and keep these people IN LINE. This is a two party system, and they needed to be reminded in no uncertain terms what party they belong to.

[Virginia Dare]

37. Frankly, I'm glad that she apparently doesn't stoop to the tactics..

that Delay and Hastert did. They definitely poisoned the well, and their party is paying for it. I'd like to think we're better than that.

[Tyler Durden]

39. Do you know what the call the Party our of power in a two party system?

POWERLESS.

It's far past time we were flexing our political muscles. Every day the war goes on is one more day we ARE NOT "...better than that..." , we are merely co-conspirators.

GINGRICH and Hastert DID THEIR JOBS. They SUPPORTED their party and the party members. That they were all PIGS is not the point. Pete Stark spoke TRUTH and our leadership hung him out to dry. The Democratic Freshmen Congress Members who supported this idiotic THEATER of censure are the ones who should be made insignificant.

This is NOT the way you take back the government.

[Virginia Dare]

40. I can't argue with that..

if Pelosi truly supported Stark's statements, and these were broken arrows, then she should make them pay. Perhaps she will.

As you say though, this is all theater, and words mean very little.

[Tyler Durden]

42. The problem is, the SHOW is everything at this moment.

Do you think THE PIG BUSH AND HIS MINIONS have one iota of fear or respect for the power supposedly held by the Democratic Majority?

Are you kidding? They look at us and our party as fractured weaklings who will not support our own, so why should they fear or respect US?

This bit of THEATER did NOTHING but HURT US, BADLY. It made us look like craven cowards.

[mondo joe]

36. I guess it depends on who her successor would be. NT

[stirlingsliver]

57. Pete Stark For Speaker

Pete Stark should be made Speaker of the House.

Truth would then be spoken to Power.

Without Fear.

Without Retribution.

Without Censure.

[Stinky The Clown]

59. Yeah ... and last week it was the Dem Darling du jour ..... and the week before that .....

... and the week before that ........

[Bucky]

58. This would be a more serious suggestion if the thread mentioned Olive Garden

How does a private citizen replace a Speaker of the House?

Can we please be a little less naive about how our government works?

[mondo joe]

62. I'm still waiting to hear who her successor is supposed to be, anyway.

It won't happen - but we might as well see how deep in fantasy land people are.

[MADem]

63. Why no, we can't!!! It would spoil all the fun for the members of the

Society of the Perpetually Angry Liberal, doncha know!!!!!

And they're out in FORCE on this thread!

Rules? They don't need no steeeenkin' rules!!!!

Laws? They don't need to know no steenkin' laws!!!!

All they need to do is get a head o'STEAM up....and be near a keyboard!

Pass the bread sticks....

:rofl: