I hate being a Democrat (version 182863633):
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mathematical grip on political power is getting slippery.
With House Democrats already bracing for steep losses in the midterm elections, at least five of Pelosi’s colleagues have announced in the past two weeks that they would not support her remaining as speaker, should Democrats retain the majority. More than a dozen others have told local and national media that they would consider backing a different Democrat.
Pelosi refuses to discuss any outcome next month other than Democrats staying in power and her still wielding the speaker’s gavel. “Would anybody ever go up to somebody during a game and say, ‘What are you going to do if you lose?’ We’re in a fight. We don’t even think about losing. We just have our eye on the ball, which is victory,” she said Wednesday in a radio interview on the “Gayle King Show.”
Looking back at the last two years, if there was one portion of the government that acted pretty much EXACTLY the way you would think Democrats would want it to act, passing great legislation in a timely manner and really advancing the ball on issues important to Democrats, it would be Nancy Pelosi’s House. She’s pretty much been the glue that that has kept the entire party together, as was evident during the HCR saga.
So of course, it would make complete sense if Democrats would stab her in the back. If there is anyone in DC right now who I trust almost completely, it is Pelosi. She gets shit done.
Kryptik
And that’s precisely why she needs to go, John. The Blue Dogs need Dems to be a minority to exert as much influence as they can, as well as continue pushing that ‘The US is conservative and really despises all you goddamn hippies’ bullshit.
Sad as it is, they might win in pushing Pelosi out. And guess who’d be next in line?
Steny Hoyer. Mr. “Let me completely contradict our Speaker for a moment to say what the REAL Democrats think, unlike those goddamn hippie liberals” Steny Hoyer. He’s undermined Pelosi in the house from the start…and he’ll get rewarded with the House Minority Leader job. Just as planned.
Nazgul35
Imagine a Speaker Hoyer run House…because that’s what you’ll get if they hold onto enough seats.
Bullsmith
I agree. Pelosi herded the House masterfully and passed an amazing amount of very solid legislation. Then the Senate either ignored it or demanded it be massively Republicanized.
Pelosi’s been a true hero, politically. The fact she’s being demonized is a credit to her, and proof of the good she’s managed to do. In fact seeing who lines up behind her and who campaigns against her is an easy way separate politicos into “good” and “bad”, regardless of what letter they put after their name.
Violet
NANCY SMASH!
She’s the best damn Speaker in my lifetime. If they try to get rid of her, I’m going to be well pissed off.
Hunter Gathers
I wonder how many of Pelosi’s ‘colleagues’ who don’t want her as Speaker happen to be of the male persuasion? Nothing gives Villagers or Teabaggers more of stiffy than a white male Democrat essentially saying ‘fuck that bitch’.
Rommie
The getting shit done and getting stabbed in the back aren’t independent events. In this case though, it’s getting clocked in the back of the head with that NANCY SMASH gavel.
Never underestimate the power of the hurt fee-fee.
WyldPirate
Her colleagues can’t stand her because she has bigger balls than they do and she is able to dick whip ’em to get things done even though she lacks a dick.
Translation–it’s the men who are going to stab her in the back because she is more effective than they are.
Kryptik
@Rommie:
Or the power of stupid Dems internalizing the ‘We Wuz 2 Libral!’ meme.
Violet
The way this is phrased it sounds like it could just be election-year blather. Pelosi is a lightning rod for the right. Whoever these people are, they could be hedging their bets to make themselves seem a little less “left wing soshulist liberal” or whatever. And when the time to vote arrives they’ll vote for her.
danimal
Et tu, Steny?
Steve
Are you talking about Miss “Impeachment is off the table”? She is useless and just as guilty of war crimes as the people she refused to impeach.
debbie
Pelosi must be one tough cookie to withstand the demonizing from the right. Seriously, I think they think she’s worse than OBL.
Kryptik
@Steve:
Yes, her. And she’s still the best Dem we’ve had, despite that.
Kind of shows you what kind of situation the left is in, huh?
Steve
The other day Ahn Cao (R-LA) gave an equivocal answer when he was asked whether he would support Boehner or Pelosi as Speaker. So it can and sometimes does work both ways.
If someone votes with Pelosi 95% of the time, I honestly don’t care if they feel they have to distance themselves from her to win reelection. I’m not sure she cares, either.
feebog
Oh for DOG’s sake, this is a non-story. Pelosi will get the support of the entire caucus, should the Dems be lucky enough to retain control. What these guys are saying now is a desperate attempt to retain their seats.
WereBear
Pelosi has been awesome in her role as Speaker, and I do love the way she just says What It Is.
Way too early to get all worked up about what might happen.
Short Bus Bully
NANCY FUCKING SMASH!!
Yeah, that works.
That woman has my eternal respect. She’s up there all by herself getting all that flak and hatred from all around her with allies as spineless as you can possibly get and she still drops bombs. She is the modern Margaret Thatcher. Sully should be in love but unfortunately he’s too busy worrying about how hard the rich have to work.
singfoom
She’s been pretty effective, given the environment she’s been working with the last 2 years. Hopefully we’ll keep enough seats to keep her there.
I hope without reason that if we keep the house that she’ll be even harder on the Blue Dogs and other members in order to get shit done.
Of course, this hope exists to be dashed, dashed upon the rocks of partisan obstruction and massive demagoguery.
Sue
She gets shit done.
Yes, but she’s hurt so many feelings! We can’t have that.
Should the Dems retain the house, they must look for someone as close as possible in outlook and personality to Harry Reid. That’ll solve the problem.
lacp
Sounds like some congresscritters didn’t get their earmarks approved.
mds
Yeah, I suppose it sounds like Rahm conspiracy-mongering, but I also see the clammy hand of Steny Hoyer in this. He’s repeatedly, publicly undercut Speaker Pelosi, and would obviously rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
But a lot of the Blue Dogs who think the problem is Pelosi’s too-liberal agenda? Of course they won’t be supporting her for Speaker, because they won’t be in Congress any more. And good riddance, because if we’re even crossing “a vote for Pelosi as Speaker” off the list, there really is no good reason for them to be there with a “D” after their names.
thomas Levenson
Pelosi will be the next speaker if the Dems rule. This is pre-election b.s. She has to win the Democratic Caucus in order to become Speaker. Not voting for her doesn’t mean voting for Boehner; it means supporting a challenger in the caucus election. I doubt Hoyer would even try. He’d get small but valuable (to him) parts of his anatomy handed to him….
That’s pure spec on my part; I don’t know any Reps., and all that. But this seems to me to be classic pre-balloting nonsense.
LanceThruster
I think “shit” got done *despite* Pelosi, not because of her. I donated $$$ to Cindy Sheehan’s campaign to try to oust her. Still, I would have held back this sort of talk till after the election.
apostropher
If the Dems retain the house, the vote will be among DEMS, not the entire house.
Guess again.
August J. Pollak
This entire article is classic filler bullshit.
If the Democrats keep the House (which I don’t find likely making this whole thing moot anyway) the bulk of the lost seats will be the Blue Dogs would would have been the only ones stupid enough to try going against Pelosi.
Pelosi will stay as the Democrats’ leader regardless of minority leader or speaker. And she won’t be challenged, at least not by anyone with a chance. If you want to convince me otherwise you’ll have to do better than telling me that “some say” they will “consider” it.
Sentient Puddle
@Steve: Oh god. What would impeachment have accomplished? Maybe 50 senators voting for conviction? Replacing Bush with Cheney?
Bulworth
Hopefully some of these cowards will lose their seats in November. Eff em.
Nancy Smash!
fasteddie9318
She’s out either way. If they lose the majority she’ll be expected to fall on her sword and thereby lend credence to the beltway wisdom that the Democrats lost because they were tooooooooo lieberul, and if they win she’ll get voted out anyway since the beltway wisdom will be that the Democrats only won because the voters want them to stop being sooooooo lieberul.
There’s some part of me that would then like to see the House liberals split from the party and refuse to vote for Hoyer as leader. That’s actually easier to do if they’re in the minority since Boehner would already be Speaker regardless of what the Democrats do. Of course they won’t, because being a good liberal means shutting the fuck up and going along when the sensible “moderates” want something.
Joseph Nobles
THANK YOU.
Pelosi is not the problem. The quislings under her and the tyranny of the Senate are the problems.
Jeff
OT, but BJ should devote some attention to the apparently-burgeoning Dump Obama “movement” happening on the usual sites. It’s very funny and deserving of all the mockey it gets (not least of all for invoking comparisons to 1968).
Jeff
OT, but BJ should devote some attention to the apparently-burgeoning Dump Obama “movement” happening on the usual sites. It’s very funny and deserving of all the mockery it gets (not least of all for invoking comparisons to 1968).
LanceThruster
@Steve:
X2
Dr.BDH
Dave Obey, who’s not a bad Democrat himself (I wish he weren’t retiring), says the only reason we have a health care bill is Nancy Pelosi.
suzanne
I have been so friggin’ thrilled by Nancy Pelosi. That woman works her ass off, gets shit DONE, all while being called every sexist, offensive name in the book. If I could vote for her, I’d vote for her twice.
Not surprising that she scares people who thought they could just get elected and be taken out to fancy dinners and go to ceremonial ribbon-cuttings and shit. Anyone who lines up against Pelosi is on my shitlist.
LanceThruster
@Sentient Puddle:
Sometimes you take action because it is the right thing to do, not because you can be assured you will be successful.
Persia
@Hunter Gathers: That was my thought. Burn the witch!
liberal
I don’t think Pelosi is awesome, but she’s pretty good, especially considering the circumstances. And of the triumvirate—her, Reid, and Obama, IMHO she comes off the best.
And look at the actual names mentioned in the article:
ADA scores:
Altmire: 70%
Bright: 20% (!)
Marshall: 50%
McIntyre: 50%
Taylor: 35% (!)
nice strategy
OTOH, Harry Reid would do his election chances, and the country a big favor by announcing that if elected, he will serve just one more term, and not as majority leader, because he wants to focus on doing right by Nevada or some such nonsense. Of course, he could do more for Nevada as majority leader than not, but right now he needs the support of some low information voters to get over the top. Besides, he’s been an atrocious majority leader.
Steve
Am I the only one who still marvels regularly at John’s evolution from “John Kerry shot himself, the traitor” to “Nancy Pelosi is the only person I trust in Washington”? It still amazes me!
curious
why would an improbably revived democratic majority vote out their speaker? pelosi or boehner are really their only two choices. either way, enjoy sitting on the house committee on sewage and sewage-related activities.
cleek
are any of those clowns likely to be re-elected ?
liberal
@Sentient Puddle:
Huh? Yes, Bush wouldn’t have been convicted by the Senate, but so what? The value would have been all the subpoenas.
Punchy
Pelosi is referenced in EVERY SINGLE GOP commercial in my area. Even those running for Senate! Easily the most vilified Congressperson currently employed….because she gets shit done and Repubs hate that.
The Republic of Stupidity
I find this last 2 yr cycle in Congress to be kinda painful… as many here have already opined… we’ve got ‘What actually happened…’, which would include the hundreds of bills Nancy got passed in the House, and then we’ve got the Republican/Teatard/endless rightwing spin cycle, which has succeeded in portraying these same two years as one of the darkest periods in the history of the country, repleat w/ a Mooooooooslim foreigner defiling the virginally-pure WH and godless liberals, like Nancy, plotting not just the downfall of the country and but sacred capitalism itself, whilst cackling in glee…
I’m seriously thinking it might be time to quit paying attention…
gbear
@Steve:
Sometimes people actually wake up from their delusions and take a new, more realistic path.
liberal
@Steve:
My guess is that JC was a Republican because he was raised in a Republican family, and he finally came to his senses, based on the goodness of his heart, common sense, and intelligence. Not that I have anything against his family—they raised JC after all.
Both my parents had conservative parents yet became liberal, and I have a lot of respect for them for that. My path was a lot easier.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
As apostropher pointed out, she is Speaker of the House, not Speaker of the Democrats. She is elected by the full House.
liberal
@cleek:
Good question, given the article posits this scenario:
daveNYC
I can understand House members being pissed because they passed some good bills only to see them watered down into crap or just plain old die in the Senate, but the problem isn’t with the Speaker getting the bills passed, the problem is with the Senate.
If there’s a government shutdown I’d like to see, it’s one where the House Democrats refuse to pass a budget until the Senate gets its shit together.
cleek
@Punchy:
there are a couple of huge hand-painted wingnut signs in my area, all referencing the evil Pelosi and demanding that we TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!
it’s like these people live in some kind of parallel bizarro universe.
John - A Motley Moose
What utter nonsense. This is another example of the media trying to gin up controversy to attract eyeballs. A handful of anonymous sources and another dozen anonymous sources add up to a whole 6.67% who ‘might’ be for someone else. Wow, I bet Nancy is shaking in her boots. You know, those boots that were made for walking.
Marc
John: Amen.
(This is coming from someone who lives in Hoyer’s district. Primary challenge, anyone?)
Bulworth
Hopefully these no-talent assclowns will have the decency to lose their elections before deciding to switch parties on November 3.
Mnemosyne
@Steve:
Because trading President Bush for President Cheney would have solved all of our problems. You do realize that Cheney would have automatically become president if Bush had been successfully impeached, right?
I realize that we on the left tend to be deficient in strategy and thinking things through, but Jesus fuck, what is wrong with you?
Corner Stone
@Punchy:
Sentient Puddle
@liberal: And then what? What were we supposed to do with whatever we might have gained from the subpoenas (of which I still doubt much would have come of because the administration would’ve made epic attempts to stonewall and cover up)? Validate our beliefs?
This shit sounds like some weird concoction to get back at an ex. Might sound like it makes perfect sense at the time, but really accomplishes jack all for anyone.
cleek
@Mnemosyne:
if something was big enough to bring Bush down, it would likely be enough to bring Cheney down too.
as long as we’re playing What If…
Hunter Gathers
@Punchy:
The only thing better than kicking black people around is kicking women around. With their male-unfriendly opinions, wanting to control their own bodies and not being gracious enough to submit to their husbands. We would have a libertarian paradise if those hags just shut their mouths and knew their roles, like good, god-fearing conservative women like Pat Nixon.
LanceThruster
@suzanne:
I remember seeing her on C-SPAN plugging her “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” book, and was disgusted the whole interview as she kept talking about doing the right thing and making hard choices regardless of consequences or outcome because it was right. This was at the same time she said “impeachment was off the table.”
She’s given us more of the same, and I for one think we (and the Dems) can do better.
Lev
@cleek: Bright and Marshall are almost certainly gone, and won’t be missed. Bright even voted against Lily Leadbetter, the creep. Of course, I’d still be happy if he won, ’cause beggars can’t be choosers, but it won’t be a big loss.
The others, maybe, maybe not.
Steve
@liberal: It’s not that no one ever changes their political views. I guess it’s just that John has a blog, so it’s all laid out in public, and he tends to have strong opinions. It’s funny-haha, not funny-strange.
liberal
@Jeff:
I don’t know what you/they mean by “dump,” but a primary challenge is exactly the way Democrats who want to replace Obama with someone more liberal should go about it.
Given the silliness of a first-past-the-post system, the most rational way to protest and yet not split the vote is via the primary. (This assumes the people who vote for the challenger then vote for the winner in the general, of course.)
And I don’t see how it could hurt Obama. In 2006 or 2008 there was something about this, and some political science studies showed that, contrary to expectations, competitive races actually tended to enhance the electability of the winner, IIRC.
liberal
@Punchy:
I don’t think she’s that effective, and she’s hardly intimidating (though see my overall positive comment above). Which makes Rethuglican attempts to demonize her amusing. What a bunch of scum they are.
LGRooney
@Steve: Don’t embarrass your host.
JC, B-b-b-but, she’s not perfect! She’s not pure! She must go.
liberal
@Steve:
Yeah.
IIRC I started reading this blog regularly only after he had his epiphany. It would have been interesting to track the change in the readership around that time. ‘Course, I could go back to the archived comments, but to busy for that…
Citizen Alan
@Steve:
What about the fuckers who only vote with her 5% of the time? I saw that quote by Travis Childers and nearly choked on my breakfast burrito!
Seriously, I’m conflicted right now about whether to vote for Childers or not! What is better going forward into the future? The Dems retaining the House under Steny Hoyer or them losing the House but keeping Pelosi? Because I think that’s the choice everyone must make now if you’re presently represented by a Blue Dog.
funluvn
I don’t think that Ren and Steny Hoyer could beat Pelosi as Majority Leader if the Dem’s do manage to hold on to the House majority (not that it’s going to happen in reality). He doesn’t have the balls to take on the lioness of the House.
morzer
Pelosi get stuff done. If the Dems dump her because the right-wing fucknutters hate her, it will be a remarkable display of cowardice and stupidity at the same time.
liberal
@Sentient Puddle:
No, get data about Bush administration criminality into the public record.
If you don’t see the value in that, I don’t have much to say to you on this topic.
Sasha
Does any more really need to be said about Speaker Pelosi?
nancydarling
If the Dems keep the House and don’t keep Pelosi as speaker, I’m going to be really pissed. From my vantage point, the only people in DC who have totally had Obama’s back are Nancy and Hillary (possibly Barney Frank—not sure). Those two women could fly wing for me anytime. I wish I could say that for the rest of the Dems in Congress.
Mike
Pelosi stabbed liberals in the back by not investigating Bush administration high crimes and misdemeanors when the Democrats took control of the House.
When will Democrats learn that you can’t answer gutter ball GOP tactics with pusillanimous calls for civility?
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Sue:
Fixited.
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah. The Dems haven’t needed much help as far as strategic blundering goes, unfortunately.
singfoom
@Mnemosyne:
Mnemosyne,
I’m torn. I agree with the other poster in that I really wish we had gone after the Bush Administration while in office or afterwards, but I completely see your point. It wouldn’t have made any tactical difference.
I think for me and a lot of people who care about civil liberties strongly (alright, maybe just me), the point of either impeaching Bush during his term or investigating the high level executive branch about torture would have been an example of the rule of law.
That example of the Executive Branch not being above the law serves for all those who might break the law, even if they are high up in our political system.
Is it naive? Yes. Would it have thrown the country into chaos and further exacerbated the partisan divide that existed then and now? Yes.
So, yes, it would have had seriously bad consequences, but at least the forms of the law of our land (the whole basis of the existence of this nation) would have been followed.
And before anyone bashes me, I don’t want a pony. I want/ed the rule of law.
I get the arguments against having done something and I realize now that it was politically impossible, but I still think it should have been attempted, at the very least to send the message. But I’m a DFH and I want a pony/unicorn, right?
Just Some Fuckhead
In my CD, both the Democrat and the Republican are running against Nancy Pelosi. Not hard to figure out who will win that one.
LanceThruster
@Mike:
X2
Sentient Puddle
@liberal: That’s not something you need an impeachment for. All that stuff comes out eventually (assuming documents weren’t destroyed, but again, you’re working with that same assumption for impeachment). Was it information that absolutely positively 100% needed to come out immediately right fucking now?
ChrisNYC
Bobby Bright and Jim Marshall aren’t likely to win anyway. The DCCC pulled ad money from Marshall last week, throwing in towel. Altmire looks like he’ll hold his seat.
The other two are in very close races in red districts — McIntyre’s is R+5 and Taylor’s is R+20(!) — and probably need to distance Pelosi for now in order to win.
Mnemosyne
@liberal:
Nope, sorry, I’m another one who doesn’t see the value in getting information “into the public record” that you’re not actually going to do anything with.
I am also amused by your assumption that it’s easy-peasy to get information that the executive branch claims is vital to national security “into the public record” and we wouldn’t have spent the entire time fruitlessly trying to get access until the Supreme Court ruled against Congress.
GregB
I also find it odd that there are never any fawning comments from the twitteratti about how Speaker Pelosi is a mother and a grandmother and is the one woman in America who rose to the most powerful political position in US history.
Funny that.
NonyNony
@Bulworth:
This.
The guys who are making the noise about “not voting for Nancy Pelosi” are the guys whose seats are endangered. Nancy’s “base” in the House isn’t in danger this year – it’s the Blue Dog and New Democrat types who are in danger (because when the choice is between a Democrat who acts like a Republican and a Real Republican, and there isn’t a corruption issue involved, the Real Republican will win the seat every goddamn single time. That’s just how politics has worked in this country since, oh, at least FDR.
So Nancy isn’t in much danger if the Dems keep the House. If the Dems lose the House she’ll probably have to fall on her sword and Steny Hoyer will finally get that dream job of minority leader. Unless, of course, enough Blue Dogs wipe out that the Blue Dog and liberal caucuses have to find a face-saving compromise leader because the liberal caucus refuses to vote for Hoyer.
LanceThruster
@Sasha:
Yes, that the rhetorical bravado and the bill delivered do not match. It was sold out to special interests, in part, with Pelosi’s help. President Obama needs to be held to account on this as well.
Nerull
The only thing impeachment would have accomplished is President McCain
gbear
@LanceThruster:
Just to be short about this: You are completely and totally full of shit.
LanceThruster
@GregB:
Hooray for women.
Give me a Cindy Sheehan in that position and there’d be some REAL action.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@singfoom:
If she/they had, then nothing would have gotten done. No health care reform, no dealing with all the economic shit, nothing.
Not saying that it’s “right” or that “justice was never served” but impeachment proceedings are political animals, nothing more. And I’m sure the Dems looked at the political calculus of impeachment and saw, in this case accurately (broken clock is right twice a day an all that), the pointlessness of such a route.
Not that they or the President have done a good job actually selling the legislative accomplishments of the last two years to people. Of course if you’ve been unemployed for the last two years, that pretty much drowns out any other message you might be getting.
LanceThruster
@gbear:
I obviously have a different view of the matter. Thank you for your input though.
Citizen_X
Not only do they hate her for a) being female, and b) getting shit done, but she’s also from…San Francisco! The barest mention of that town automatically activates forty-year-old stereotype sensors in the wingnut brain. Witness the idiotic ad from, hey, the very same Jim Marshall of Georgia! Which starts with said old stereotypes, and where, like the people fellow Citizen Alan points out, he brags (!) about voting with the Republicans 65% of the time.
It’s culture-war crap, on top of the misogyny and hate for governing while liberal.
beergoggles
Hopefully those are the
blueyellow dogs that have been sabotaging shit from the very beginning. Fuck em, with Pelosi’s gavel.. sideways.Mnemosyne
@singfoom:
Here’s the thing, though — there is zero chance that Bush would actually have been convicted by the Senate. So we would have demonstrated once again that the rule of law only applies to the little people, and the rich and powerful can do anything they want — literally anything — and the law will give them a free pass.
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes, so I’d rather keep the evidence safe and prosecute when Bush and Cheney are out of office than turn it into a political football that makes them into martyrs and gives them a double jeopardy pass that means they could not be tried for those crimes a second time.
Svensker
@danimal:
I hate that guy.
Citizen Alan
I know that realistically we could never have impeached Bush. Of course, the Repukes knew they couldn’t impeach Bill back in 1998, but that didn’t stop them. The reason I wanted Bush impeached was the book. You know. The book that would have contained the complete findings of the special prosecutor assigned to Bush’s criminal investigation, like the Starr Report contained all of Ken Starr’s findings. The book that would have become a national bestseller just like the Starr Report was. Because I truly believe (call me a dreamer, I know) that if the full scope of Bush’s criminality were fully revealed, in cold, clinical detail, the American people would turn away from the GOP so completely that it would mean the end of the party.
gbear
@LanceThruster:
Earth round? Views vary. You are too cute.
Hunter Gathers
@LanceThruster:
I take it that you agree with Sheehan and think that 9/11 was an inside job.
WereBear
Gosh, I must have been still in single digits in age the first time Pat Nixon scared the whee outa me.
I didn’t see the like of “so much misery held in check by a single human face” until Laura Bush’s Thorazined countenance intruded upon our airwaves. And even then, poor Pat still holds the thorny crown.
Wannabe Speechwriter
Three Beatles references in a period of less than 24 hours?
Okay, the 2nd is a stretch. Still, I wonder if you could have a day where every title for a post was a lyric in a Beatles song. Silly idea I know, but less silly than defending Juan Williams.
Corner Stone
@Sentient Puddle:
I look back to the 2000 SCOTUS Bush v Gore decision, with no real pushback or backlash. Then I see the “impeachment is off the table” and “look forward, not backward” policy decision for the Bush Administration even though it’s pretty clear to any rational person that crimes were committed. Now I see that the Obama Administration is going to implement a “look forward” attitude regarding mortgage banksters and servicers.
So yes. I would argue that information should have 100% come out immediately right fucking now.
Reestablishing the rule of law after 8 years of lawlessness could have been a positive thing for our society.
Otherwise all we’re doing is telling them to collect their spoils as long as they can keep the plates spinning, and when they start crashing we’ll sweep the debris under the rug and pick up the tab while they hop into their limo.
singfoom
@Mnemosyne:
Fair enough. Though, I’m not sure who is more naive (not being a jerk), me for wanting impeachment/investigation back in the day, or you for thinking that said war crimes will ever be investigated or filed.
I think this has/will be demonstrated by the lack of those charges ever being filed, but I hear you. At the end of the day, we both want justice.
But justice is for little people, not rich or powerful people.
Nerull
@Citizen Alan:
And how did that go for them? They lost seats in both the house and senate next election.
daveNYC
Obvious concern troll is obvious.
Jeff
@liberal
Yes, if you were going to challenge Obama, obviously a primary challenge is the right way to go about it.
My point–and I don’t want to sound fatalist about it, but it just seems too obvious for anyone to think otherwise–is that an attempt at primarying Obama either ends in an Obama win or a Republican win. So I’m not sure what the point would be. Clearly it can’t be to “push Obama further to the left,” since anyone entertaining a primary to Obama at this point thinks that he’s the scourge of the earth. And I think nearly everyone knows this.
This is all a roundabout way of saying that, in this way, while FDL et. al. routinely disparage Obama for not taking liberals as seriously as they would like him to, it’s hard to fault him for doing so. At the end of the day, the only political question is whether you’re going to vote to reelect him. And after two years’ worth of calling Obama the best Republican president we’ve ever had, am I really supposed to believe that Jon Walker is going to be voting for someone else? Hamsher? Please.
You can already see the crawling back at FDL. If you want to tie together how Obama is the devil incarnate but WE NEED SCOTT MCADAMS TO WIN into something coherent–well, be my guest.
Svensker
@LanceThruster:
???
IOW, yo, wut?
Short Bus Bully
@liberal: Thank you Michelle Bachmann…
Nerull
In what la-la fantasy world does the house elect Cindy Sheehan as speaker?
Even if you did manage to primary Pelosi, you wouldn’t get House Speaker Cindy Sheehan, ready to whip the house into all those things you want.
You’d get House Speaker Steny Hoyer. Good luck with that.
Sentient Puddle
@Corner Stone: …and re-establishing the rule of law, as you put it, would have required 67 senators, which puts us right back to where we started. Which is to say, until you can show how you could convince 16 Republican senators plus Lieberman to convict, all this handwavery would accomplish fuck all.
Everybody here would have been all for it if it was possible. But some of us have come to grips with what is and isn’t possible, and have moved on to more important things.
Sloegin
It’s important to dump Pelosi, because whomever we ended up with instead wouldn’t be demonized by the GOP/TP, libtards, birchers, FNN, wingnuts, firebaggers, and the Glenns.
That person would only see flowers, candy, kisses, and rainbows.
/snark
Steve
@GregB: The only fawning comments about Pelosi that matter are the ones I tell to my daughter. The woman is a hero.
And if I ever hear my precious little girl say, “But Daddy? Why did she take impeachment off the table?” I swear I am taking a flamethrower to this comment section.
lol
You can’t compare Pelosi to Reid honestly.
Pelosi gets to work in the House where she needs a simple majority and tell a good portion of her caucus to pound sand.
Reid gets to work in the Senate where he not only has to kiss the ass of every single member of his caucus but also has to pull in a prima donna Republican to boot.
Pelosi’s fantastic but Reid deserves some credit too.
geg6
@cleek:
I have few doubts asshat Jason Altmire will win. Though I won’t cry if he doesn’t (unless it’s what turns the House) because he’s not any better than that horrible Rothfus idiot running against him.
Jesse Ewiak
Yeah. Who exactly in the House caucus is ‘better’ than Pelosi? And could win the support of 218 House members? Anyone? Bueller?
lol
Also, anyone who thinks simply replacing Reid with “someone with spine” (insert Durbin, Schumer, Franken, Feingold, etc) is going to change things if the Senate rules don’t get fixed is deluding themselves and clearly doesn’t remember 8 years ago when Reid was that “someone with spine” who was going to fix everything that Daschle did wrong.
geg6
@LanceThruster:
Anyone who can say that without some obvious snark or irony is someone whose opinion isn’t really worth listening to, IMHO.
Cindy Sheehan? Oy.
Corner Stone
@Sentient Puddle: Yes. More important things.
Nora Carrington
Pelosi was interviewed by Charlie Rose last night. Or rather, Charlie Rose talked to himself while Nancy Pelosi sat in the other chair. There’s no other way to put it: he was rude. I usually enjoy his show with tech people, and theater people, and book people, but last night was a train wreck of rudeness. I’ve written him a letter of complaint/objection.
Despite her beauty (artificial in large part, admittedly), she’s playing the social role of The Hag: a powerful older woman who has the number on all she surveys. The thin-blooded can’t take it, so they do the modern political equivalent of calling her a Witch. I’m waiting for the ad that calls for her to be waterboarded (dunking) so she will confess her crimes against the State.
lol
@LanceThruster:
You already had a Cindy Sheehan in Congress: Her name was Cynthia McKinney and she didn’t get jack shit done.
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
Obama, by not dealing with the torture, according to Geneva Convention rules, is now just as guilty as Bush/Cheney.
jfxgillis
John:
Don’t worry about it.
As I just pointed out on the TPM thread devoted to this story, it’s stupid Beltway stupid horserace stupidity.
Most of those Dems threatening Pelosi will be literally the first to lose their seats anyway. What kind of outcome leaves the Blue Dawgs as strong as ever yet loses the Dems thirty-something seats?
Using the British elections analogy, these guys running “against Pelosi” are all “top targets” of the Republicans. And if the Repubs can’t take down all or all but one of their top targets, they can’t win thirty seats let alone the forty they need.
LanceThruster
@lol:
Maybe because the Dems stood silent as outside interests funded her opposition because she said things that made Israel-firsters cry.
I’ll take some honest priciples instead of this agonizing over every move by how it might be received rather than if it is the correct action.
Find out what whiskey he drinks and send all of my generals a case, if it will get the same results. ~ Abraham Lincoln – in reply to comments about General Grant’s drinking problems
LanceThruster
@lol:
Yeah. This is the party of Joe Lieberman, so I can see how actual principles might run into problems.
I’m not saying I’m right about any of this, but too much lionizing of Madame Speaker Pelosi makes my gag reflex kick in.
That’s just an honest reaction.
TooManyJens
@Jeff:
Because BJ doesn’t devote enough attention already to the usual sites?
NR
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah, keep waiting for those prosecutions, I’m sure they’ll come really soon now.
Anniecat45
I am so bloody sick to death of thd Democrats’ circular firing squad. Maybe some of those folks who complain about Blue Dogs and Dems not being liberal enough could go out into the ELECTORATE THAT SUPPORTS THE BLUE DOGS and do some grassroots outreach about these issues. I am NOT talking about supporting specific candidates, not yet. I am talking about changing people’s view so that next cycle they would support more liberal candidates.
It’s useless to howl about the Blue Dogs when they have the support of their constituents, and the brutal reality is that a lot of them do have that.
But of course this kind of grassroots stuff is very hard and not nearly so much fun as howling in the blogosphere.
LanceThruster
@NR:
Yeah. Gotta get those ducks in a row first.
It’s like how the Dems collapse at the mere threat of a filibuster, rather than actually keeping goppers honest and having them actually go through with one.
LanceThruster
@geg6:
Who’s forcing you to?
I look at Nancy Pelosi’s face and see a rictus grin from too much plastic surgery. I look at Cindy Sheehan’s face and see worry lines that are a result of actually caring about what’s right.
Citizen Alan
@Nerull:
Two points:
1. The Starr Report came out and basically showed that after untold millions and several years of investigation, the only thing Bill did wrong was to lie under oath about Lewinsky. Polls reflected that the nation overwhelmingly believed that Bill’s conduct did not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, and they punished the Republicans for engaging in a years-long fishing expedition instead of tending to the nation’s business.
I personally believe that if an independent prosecutor’s report came out in 2007 describing in detail how the Bush Administration lied its way into Iraq and then engaged in the systematic torture of suspected terrorists and insurgents, a great many of whom were completely innocent of any wrongdoing, through means which included illegal interrogation techniques up to and including the systematic rape of prisoners as a way of coercing them to confess, then the American people would be so shocked and revolted that they would demand impeachment and even a war crimes commission. YMMV.
2. Wasn’t it just two days ago that there was a lengthy debate over whether the impeachment helped Bush win in 2000? Or does the answer to that question change depending on who’s asking it? (Not blaming you Nerull — to my knowledge, you weren’t in that catfight.)
LanceThruster
@daveNYC:
Concern troll has concern for the party he’s forced to vote for.
Simple as that.
They get my vote even when they piss me off so the least I can do is air my views.
You gotta problem with that?
Citizen Alan
@lol:
Who thought Harry Reid was going to be an improvement over Daschle?!? I certainly didn’t! I remember distinctly cursing a blue streak at the idiocy of appointing yet another ultra-moderate accommodationist from a deeply red state as leader of the Senate Democrats because it would mean that the caucus would continue its rightward drift begun under Daschle until Reid finally lost to some conservative blowhard, thus embarrassing the party. And let’s face it — even if we hold the Senate, having the Majority Leader lose to Sharia Angle is going to be embarrassing!
LanceThruster
@Svensker:
I’m not saying a Sheehan win would have given her the speaker’s position, just that there are situations that a noble loss is preferable to a sell-out win.
The Dems apparently cannot imagine making choices based on principles because it’s been so long since they’ve tried.
Their calculations and 2nd guessing bites them in the ass time after time so obviously what they need to do is the same as what they’ve been doing…but this time *expect* different results!
Citizen Alan
@Anniecat45:
Except that many of them don’t have the support of their constituents, they were just lucky recipients of the last two Democratic wave elections who would have run as Republicans had there not been an entrenched Republican already in place.
A lot of the other Blue Dogs (like the loathsome Gene Taylor) have always been hyperconservative but for some quirk of demographics and/or personal cowardice, didn’t have the balls to switch to the Republicans during the Reagan era or the 1994 Republican wave.
LanceThruster
@Nerull:
The desire was for Pelosi to be replaced by Sheehan as Congressional Rep., not so much inserting her into the speaker’s chair. If that were the case though, I’d still trust Sheehan over Pelosi, win or lose.
Who knows what carrot or stick Pelosi promises? Sheehan would operate from an entirely different stance. Could that be successful? It has to be tried first. A continuation of the current disfunction seems the very definition of insanity.
Cain
@Corner Stone:
I wonder though what that would do for the southern states. Would they start talking about cessation? I mean it could be possible that they would see this as the ultimate witch hunt and want out of the union. Just speculating… those guys in the south seem like they are ready to ditch at any time. If we pursued impeachment that might have an effect on the integrity of the nation.
cain
Cain
@LanceThruster:
You seem to be a single issue voter. You can’t just go through all that like a bull in a china shop. It’s not going to work that way. Plus there are other issues as well that she would be unlikely to push through. Can you imagine her trying to push health care? I think not.
cain
Oscar Leroy
Someone has to take the blame. It should be Obama, but too many Democrats wouldn’t accept that. And Reid will probably lose, so it won’t be him.
Mnemosyne
@Citizen Alan:
I personally believe there wouldn’t have been a publicly published independent prosecutor’s report in the first place because the whole thing would have been redacted due to “national security” claims and those claims would have been upheld by the Roberts court, so none of the evidence would ever have seen the light of day. YMMV, too.
Mnemosyne
@LanceThruster:
Funny, the people who keep saying that always turn out to be the same ones who are enraged that the DADT repeal failed because Harry Reid refused to compromise with the Republicans.
Parrotlover77
I just don’t get it. other than refusing to impeach chimpy (in hindsight, a politically good, if morally dubious position) what has she done to piss off anybody in the whinocrat party? sure, she causes fits of rage and jowel flapping spittel from our hard working white overweight galtian overlords and the glenn beck’s tears cure cancer party, but that’s a feature, not a bug.
LanceThruster
@Cain:
My single issue would mostly be about who puts Israeli interests over US ones. That pretty much covers a majority of the Congress. When I vote, I spend a lot of time holding my nose selecting the lesser of two evils.
LanceThruster
@Parrotlover77:
Anyone complicit in rattling the sabers against Iran is part of the problem.
see: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/07/20/protesting-hcr-362-at-nancy-pelosis-house/
Corner Stone
@Mnemosyne:
Any example/s?
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
Maybe, but not me. The prez could have corrected that and let the courts catch up. Now it will be the other way round.
Mnemosyne
@Corner Stone:
celticdragonchick, Joe Beese, Oscar Leroy.
LanceThruster
@Cain:
Let them secede then.
Mnemosyne
@LanceThruster:
No, he couldn’t have, because it is AGAINST THE LAW for gay people to serve in the military. All DADT does is try to make it harder for the military to investigate people for being gay, but nothing except changing the law in Congress (or having it overturned by the courts) will make it legal for gay people to serve in the military.
And before you bring it up, no, this isn’t like Truman desegregating the armed forces because the Supreme Court decided in a case after that action that the president cannot use Executive Orders to nullify laws passed by Congress, and it has been decided the same way several more times after that. That avenue is no longer open.
Nick
But she took impeachment off the table!!!!! SELLOUTWORSTTHANBUSHERHASTERT!!!
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
You’re bringing up a lot of stuff based on “before I bring it up” assertions. How about you just wait until I bring it up?
I don’t like Pelosi, or Hoyer, or Rahm.
There. I brought it up.
Mnemosyne
@LanceThruster:
Nobody said you have to. I’m just pointing out that at least some of your objections to Pelosi don’t seem to be grounded in facts. If not, that’s fine — I know plenty of people who don’t like Pelosi because they think she has a screechy voice, and we’ve had people in this very thread criticize her plastic surgery.
If you dislike her personally, then you dislike her, and that’s not going to change. It’s your claims that Cindy Sheehan would have been a much better legislator than Pelosi is that I’m challenging. Sheehan would have been a nice figurehead to give pretty speeches, but I don’t think you would have seen nearly as much great legislation passed through the House if Pelosi had not been in charge.
Mnemosyne
@LanceThruster:
Also, I apologize for the “before you bring it up” thing, but I didn’t want to get back into the exact same dialogue once again where I have to patiently explain, that, no, Obama can’t just sign an executive order overturning the ban on gays in the military because it was decided over 50 years ago that the president can’t overturn laws using an EO and it’s against the law for gay people to serve in the military. I’ve had to point that out about 600 bajillion times this year, so I cut to the chase.
gil mann
@LanceThruster:
“I’m a phrenologist, and I vote”
LanceThruster
@gil mann:
No, but I’ve seen folks argue against Sheehan because she is supposedly “ugly”. Pelosi’s mug is almost entirely self-inficted.
You don’t need a phrenologist to know which way the wind blows.
Just sayin’.
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
I see what could have been “great” legislation watered down to be “passable” legislation (literally and figuratively).
Had Dems any amount of horse trading sense in them, they would have proposed above and beyond what they wanted, and worked back from there.
As to your apology in the next post, I appreciate both your, and anyone else’s, critques of my blather. I do not live in a “what if” world, and yet I will still guage my overall impression of someone by the standard of what I felt they could have accomplished over what I thought they actually did.
There’s things I do not like about Pelosi that I’m sure the opposition fixates on as well. In another thread here where I defended Sheehan, the details of her style and mannerisms were focused on while I talked about content (though I added that Pelosi’s style and mannerisms could also be seen as annoying).
Anyone who rejects a candidate because they do not mirror their own views 100% should run for office themselves (or find a candidate who more closely reflects their views on issues most important to them – which is what I do).
gil mann
@LanceThruster:
Okay, well, those people are scumbags, and I’m not crazy about adopting the rhetorical tactics of scumbags, but hey, knock yourself out.
And y’know, I’m vehemently opposed to cosmetic surgery, but why is it that the one person in public life who catches hell for getting work done is also the one person who doesn’t invite comparisons to Katherine Helmond in Brazil? I mean, so totally not the point, but she looks slammin’.
Shit, she was on Charlie Rose last night (or the night before? I was drunk on both occasions), and never mind riding herd on 400 gun-shy jagoffs all day long–she busts her ass just giving an interview. She can get antennae and a Groucho Marx schnoz for all I care; that broad’s the real deal.
No way I’m gettin’ on the Cindy hate-train–she is and has done more good than I am/will ever do, but talk about about throwing your vote away. Christ.
LanceThruster
@gil mann:
I didn’t throw any vote away. I don’t reside in Pelosi’s district. I just gave $$$ to Cindy’s campaign (as I did to Obama’s, and the Dem who ran against Jane Harman – Marcy Winograd – I’m not in her district either).
What I bitch and moan about before elections is not the same way I vote. I supported Edwards (mistake), and then Obama (verdict’s out), and rejected Clinton (not a mistake), and have no time for PUMA’s.
I try to support who I really want to win until it comes crunch time and do the same sort of triangulation that others do. It’s my right, and how you cast your vote is yours. To convince me to cast my vote elsewhere requires that you try to make a case that registers with me. I might go toe to toe with you here but still listen to what you have to say and the argument you put forth. I don’t even have to like your logic to agree with it.
Pelosi is my green eggs and ham. I do not like her, Sam gil mann.
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
I stand corrected then.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
I don’t understand why anyone thinks that President “Look Forward” Obama wouldn’t do everything within his meager powers as President and as head of the Democratic Party to ensure Ms. “Off the Table” Pelosi retains her control of the radically progressive Democratic agenda.
rikyrah
Pelosi rocks. she has 10x the balls of 90% of the male Democrats . she gets shyt done.
Tim Ellis
Fucking hell. Pelosi is the best part of our government right now.
Naturally, she has to go.
LanceThruster
@rikyrah:
I would think that effectiveness is not contingent on the testosterone produced by the testicles of the male, but I could be mistaken.
I see Speaker Pelosi in the same light as I do Sen. Barbara Boxer (who I will be seeing in a rally with President Obama in a few hours) in that so much of what I like about them is negated by positions I view as anathema to the progressive cause.
For Sen. Boxer, it is her stance on Israel (see: The dam is breaking? for a HuffPo essay by Prof. Stephen Zunes). Pelosi has much of the same baggage as far as I’m concerned.