So "our" Dem O'CONNOR's first utterance is to *trash* PELOSI

[UTUSN]

I'm a Boomer all in favor of generational turnover, but am irked for a good Dem/PELOSI to be trashed by somebody sounding like a minor version of SHITLER. Next step, I won't be surpised if he takes his seat and votes against impeaching SHITLER.

*****************QUOTE*******

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/danny-oconnor-no-i-wont-support-nancy-pelosi-for-house-speaker/

Ohio Democrat Danny O’Connor on Whether He’ll Support Pelosi For House Speaker: ‘No I Won’t

.... ...Scarborough asked him to explain how to reach voters in rural areas who seem to trust President Trump more than Pelosi and her fellow Democrats. ....

...This turned into a conversation about O’Conner’s aversion to the house minority leader... ....

“We really need new leadership because what we’ve seen in Washington — and I think this was demonstrated last night – its that the same old politics aren’t working. The desire to fight things out in the partisan nature instead of being pragmatic and finding solutions isn’t getting the job done for working families. That’s why we’re having so much success here and convincing so many people to support our new version of leadership. People recognize that we need to have change in Washington. They recognize that I’m someone who wants to get the job done for their family.”

**********UNQUOTE********

[Freethinker65]

1. 🛑

[honest.abe]

2. Good grief.

Why must the newbies insist on attacking good Democrats?

[brush]

39. Yeah, I thought he was smarter than that. He's gonna need the party to back him in Nov.

[SunSeeker]

55. The Dems he needs to win in KS-03 aren't generally Pelosi fans.

And Pelosi can handle that. Relax.

[xmas74]

58. He isn't in KS-3.

That's Sharice Davids.

I plan to play hooky one day from volunteering in MO-4 and sneak across the state lines just to hear her speak-and maybe a handshake, if I am lucky.

[SunSeeker]

102. Yes, he's OH-12. I guess I have Sharice on my mind. So excited by her victory!

[brush]

61. Still, don't get baited by gotcha quesitions. There's a better way to phrase an answer to that.

[SunSeeker]

69. He did come within less than a point of winning in a very red district.

So we should give him some credit for being in touch with what statements work in his district...even if they don't work with you.

[brush]

74. I give him credit and I backed him. No need to fall bait to gotcha questions.

Run against the opponent not Pelosi. Many things he could've said about his opponent's gaffe of the day before.

[SunSeeker]

85. What you call "falling bait" he would probably say was being nonevasive and appealing to his voters.

And he did go after his opponent.

[brush]

90. You see it one way, I see it another. I'm not in favor of Dems going after Dems...

especially ones that haven't gotten in office yet.

[SunSeeker]

94. Right. Which is why are you going after this Dem.

Oh the irony...

[brush]

97. I supported him. I don't support him going after Pelosi. Clear?

[SunSeeker]

101. I don't support him going after Pelosi either. Good thing he didn't. Clear? nt

[brush]

105. Oh, now you're saying he didn't respond to the reporter's question...

about the Democratic Minority Leader negatively?

Why should one-the-fence voters vote for a Democrat who says he doesn't support Pelosi when they can go with the real deal repug who they know doesn't support her and won't just say it to get their votes.

Gotta be smarter when they try to trip you up.

[SunSeeker]

109. No, I just don't agree with your spin of his response.

He is plenty smart. He came within 1 point of winning.

But your concern is duly noted.

[brush]

112. My "spin", as you call it, is don't fall into traps to dis other Dems.

We had enough of that in 2016.

And now I'm done with it.

[SunSeeker]

123. Then you should be done dissing O'Connor. nt

[sheshe2]

110. It is for me.

Thanks.

[tblue37]

121. She actually said earlier this year that she is fine with Dem candidates saying what

they need to say about her in order to get elected.

[SunSeeker]

122. Exactly. nt

[tparrett62]

3. Trump is running against Pelosi

He really can't run against Hillary anymore, and Pelosi is his boogieman du jour. If you distance yourself from Pelosi, you take one arrow out of Trump's quiver

[hueymahl]

79. This. Smart politics by a smart politician

C'mon people. Let's realize he is doing what he has to do to win.

[lame54]

99. But, he didn't win

[sheshe2]

111. All votes have not been counted.

They will be by August 22.

[SunSeeker]

124. But, he didn't lose

He'll have another shot in a November rematch, when students will be back on campus at Ohio State University and turnout is expected to be higher.

O'Connor fought this to basically a tie in a deep red district, representing a 36-point swing for Democrats.
The last Republican to represent the district won it by 36 percentage points less than two years ago. And, aside from one two-year term in early 1980s, it's been held by Republicans since 1939. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-are-losing-race-they-re-thrilled-about-it-n898861

That is a win for Democrats.

[ramblin_dave]

4. We're in a fight to save the country. Any Democrat is better than a Republican. Don't be so picky.

🛑

[UTUSN]

9. "Any Democrat" - the same can be said for MANCHIN, Blue Dogs, (attacks on ) "Centrists"

But any and all of the different stripes of Dems might be over the line when the chips are down. Besides, my point is about attacking *GOOD DEMS* - not needed coming from "any Democrat".

[Tiggeroshii]

15. He does not have a chance of winning this seat in November if he said "yes"

Do you want a Dem majority ir speaker Pelosi? You might not be able to have both. Choose wisely!

[SCantiGOP]

22. Right

I happen to agree with what O’Connor said. Not to disrespect Pelosi or diminish her accomplishments, but I think having her as Speaker-in-waiting makes it much more difficult for the Dems to win enough seats to take back the House.

[Tiggeroshii]

24. Agreed.

If his district doesnt support her, neither can he.

[UTUSN]

27. Why do all these similar posts ignore that generational turnover is fine ( agreeing with change)

but not needing to trash the person (GOOD DEMOCRAT) proposed to be replaced?

[brush]

46. Come on. That sounds like a repug talking point. Fu_k what they think.

People are sick of trump and the repugs. Connor should've lost that race by double digits and it was that close.

We're going to take back the House in Nov. with a huge, blue wave.

Don't be left behind repeating right wing media spews and repug utterances.

[Hortensis]

42. Peculiar virtue: Some repeatedly prefer loss to Republicans

over acceptance of these maneuvers, even as they claim liberal principles. Don't mistake it for hypocrisy, condemn them for depraved indifference to the welfare of others, or assume they must be slow learners: they just march to a moral drumbeat that most can't hear.

Still. Nothing the Republicans have done since 2016, none of the atrocities and tragedies, has changed this behavior in some.

Longtime wife of combat veteran, mother of two deported to Mexico
Alejandra Juarez, wife of a combat veteran and mother of two U.S. citizen-children, was deported to Mexico on Friday after losing her battle to remain in the United States.

?crop=4499,2536,x0,y0&width=3200&height=1680&fit=bounds

[Fullduplexxx]

35. Whataboutism

[lapfog_1]

5. the republicans want to make this election about Pelosi

conceding that the next congress will be Democratic.

You have to reject the premise of the question.

So when conservative Joe Scar asks if you will vote for Pelosi... you say "So, does that mean that Republicans only argument for returning them to power in the House is that someone they don't like might be the new Speaker? That seems like a very weak argument to me. I would think that this election should be about the issues that affect everyday working Americans like health care, education, trade policies, and immigration."

[DrDan]

56. yes - why let the repubs define the battleground - and why alienate the Pelosi-supporting Dems?

[Squinch]

6. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Our party is the worst party, except for all the others.

I really, really wish we would learn to aim that gun somewhere other than at our feet.

[UTUSN]

20. "aim that gun somewhere other" - thanks.

[Squinch]

91. You know I meant he should be aiming the gun somewhere other than at Pelosi, right?

I just realized that could be read the other way.

[UTUSN]

106. I read it the way you're restating it now. I'm not a snarky type except for Flamers,

and I know you're not one of those. When I say "thanks" I mean it!1 And actually, I'm not even snarky with Flamers, just keep it on a level with them of pointing out their demonstrated traits without responding in kind to their personal attacks, their projections, their distortions, their animus, their ignoring reasonable replies in favor of their repeated (all of the preceding). Repeating, you are not one of those. I have liked all of your posts that I have seen!1

[mikeysnot]

7. Pelosi "Impeachment Off the Table"

is one of the reasons we have trump. If lying us to war wasn't an impeachable offense and wasn't high crimes and misdemeanors then yeah, we need fresh young blood in leadership. I have the same feeling about Chuck also.

I think Rep Pelosi was a great house leader and her record speaks volumes but like Hillary she is a target for the haters. No matter what they do or have done.

[EffieBlack]

16. Wow

Trump is Nancy Pelosi's fault?

No.

One of the reasons we have Trump is because too many Democrats based their vote - or nonvote - on ridiculous premises like this.

Like Hillary, Pelosi is "a target for haters" because she is female, she is effective, she's a badass and haters gonna hate and haters especially hate on badass, effective women. The dumbest thing Democrats can do is prune our leaders down to only those whom Republican haters ain't gonna hate. That would leave us with nobody.

But, by all means, lets get rid of our most effective leaders because Republicans don't like them and see how that works out for you. Or, on second thought, let's not because that's really stupid.

[UTUSN]

21. Well said, thanks.

[mikeysnot]

25. Wow, she didn't call the bush admin

on their lies and now it is the norm from the republicans.

And I said ONE of the reasons not THE reason.

[LanternWaste]

76. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

"she didn't call the bush admin on their lies and now it is the norm from the republicans..."

Logic 1301 (Been awhile-- 1985 when I took the course-- but rational thought, not being a slave to the common and the popular, rarely changes its course).

It's a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."

Like you just did.

And will attempt to rationalize as something else, I'm guessing.

[mikeysnot]

78. Not even close

[Iliyah]

83. Ditto

[MagickMuffin]

18. Aaaaa, Nancy Pelosi is not a Senator

[mikeysnot]

29. fixed

thanks...

[Squinch]

26. When she said that, there was no possible way the numbers could have added up

to the support needed to impeach. So "Impeachment is off the table" was simply a factual matter of numbers.

[mikeysnot]

31. you know this how?

Did not stop the republicans from impeaching President Clinton over not exactly being forthcoming about an mutual sexual tryst.

[Squinch]

33. Maybe you should look up how impeachment is done. You need numbers. We didn't have them.

Perhaps in the fall we will get them.

[mikeysnot]

49. So you are going to indirectly call me stupid

instead of defending your weak non existent point.

110th Congress 2007:

Dem 233
Rep 202

We have to make the republicans atone for their crimes and stop playing nice...

Granted removal in the Senate would have been hard but putting the r's on defense is best way to call them out on their shit policies.

[Squinch]

59. Sigh. Have a nice day

[mikeysnot]

73. right back

at yah.

[mythology]

38. Wait, basic math requires fact checking, but you freely assert

That Bush not being impeached is part of why we have Trump with no supporting evidence?

[mikeysnot]

51. WTF!

[EffieBlack]

63. Math?

Yeah. Math.

[mikeysnot]

77. And numbers

D 233
R 202

The r's that had voted to impeach President Clinton would have to defend themselves if they had voted not to impeach bush.

Biggest blunder by the D party I believe was not holding bush, cheney, rumsfeld, powell, rice and the republican enablers accountable for a trillion dollar war, exploded deficit and war profiteering during shrubs term.

How many flag wavers would still be r's if this was exposed.

Does anyone think for a second that if the shoes were on the other foot the r's would take it off the table?

[EffieBlack]

88. And reality

At least a quarter of the 233 Dems would probably have voted against impeachment.

Speaker Pelosi can count - she's probably the best head counter in Congressional history. And she knows her caucus. She took impeachment off the table because she knew she didn't have the votes.

If we want Congress to do certain things, we need to do the work necessary to send the right people there to do it. But it's ridiculous to get mad at the Speaker of the House because she can't force her caucus members to do what their own constituents can't or won't make them do.

[mikeysnot]

89. You know this how?

I want the Democratic party to go on OFFENSE.

Yes, let's play nice and just gloss over lying us to war for profit.

How many lives were destroyed, families ruined, limbs lost, children left parent-less fighting bush's wars for profit.

How many flag waivers could we have brought to the D fold if we exposed the r's for the fraud they were/are. It was not about getting JUST the votes but to get the truth out there.

Would 2010 been a wipe out? Would Nancy lost the gavel in the house?

Would the R's get to redraw all the gerrymandered districts in red states that still plague us today in 2011?

Would there been a tea bagger party to intimidate President Obama?

Would we have trump as president if the republicans were a disgraced political party?

Offense.... not Defense.

[EffieBlack]

92. 2010 was a wipeout because too many Democrats acted like spoiled toddlers

throwing tantrums and decided to 'teach a lesson" to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi by voting third party or not voting at all. Your suggestion that every electoral setback we've had since then is Nancy Pelosi's fault because she didn't push for impeachment in 2007 is not only revisionist, but it's downright laughable.

[mikeysnot]

129. No as laughable as this comment

"2010 was a wipeout because too many Democrats acted like spoiled toddlers throwing tantrums and decided to 'teach a lesson" to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi by voting third party or not voting at all.

They didn't show up to vote or were not allowed to vote.

Fact:

Republicans broke the law, got us into a war, exploded the deficit, profited off of war and were never held accountable.

If you have a link or inside info that you can substantiate the claim that the numbers were not there.

And I have stated in other post it was to get the facts on record, hold the republicans accountable not removal.

A strong leader would do that. And before you go there in desperation this has nothing to do with gender.

[irisblue]

47. Mikey, that is a long draw there. A lot of things have changed since 2006.

"I think Sen Pelosi was a great house leader and her record speaks volumes but like Hillary she is a target for the haters. No matter what they do or have done."

I totally agree with you in this comment.

However, there are many more events & trends& traits that account for trump & the trumpers.

[honest.abe]

50. But why is she a "target for the haters"?

Because she's effective and aggressive and in their face. Those are good qualities in my opinion.

[JI7]

126. HAHHAHA, so White People Voted For Trump because Democrats didn't Impeach Bush who most of those

White People voted for ???????????????

[mikeysnot]

130. WTF!

dude.

Th republican party was not held accountable for 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan wars... The republican party always portrays the d's as weak, we had the cards, did not play them, Pelosi folded.

In her defense I know we had a lot on our plate at the time but the corruption we have today would have been exposed in an investigation an open hearings... not sure where you were in the 2000's but bush was not good for america.

I want to play offense, not defense.

[SunSeeker]

8. Saying he wants new leadership is not an "attack."

And Nancy can handle it, regardless.

When asked about other Democratic candidates who try to distance themselves from her, her response was "just win baby!"

This is all a red state dance and I am fine with it. Just win, baby.

[UTUSN]

14. O.K., am changing "attack" to "trash" - better?!1

[SunSeeker]

19. No. He didn't trash either. Change it to "calls for new Democratic House leadership."

If you want to be accurate.

[UTUSN]

23. If you want to be accurate you would credit my having said I'm for generational turnover.

And it can be done without stomping on the outgoing person with phrases Bolded in his quoted words.

[SunSeeker]

54. Nothing you bolded amounts to "trashing" or "stomping." nt

[UTUSN]

60. I can hear "Trump's voice" (thanks to other poster for the phrase) saying all the bolded words

And, no, I nowhere accused him of sharing SHITLER's "platform", not to mention that SHITLER doesn't even know what "platform" is his except for pulling stunts to get daily attention.

[brush]

53. I backed him but if he wants to change leadership, fu_king win first.

Can't get anymore ridiculous than to allow himself to be baited by a gotcha question by a reporter when you just lost.

Get smarter O'Connor. You're gonna need Democrats if you want to win against this same guy you just lost to in Nov.

[EffieBlack]

64. Interesting that the people who insist we "need new leadership" never tell us exactly what they are

looking for in this new leadership, who precisely they have in mind to take over as new leaders and what they bring to the table that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have.

Until they tell us specifically why Pelosi - one of the most effective Speakers in modern history - needs to go (besides "she took impeachment off the table" or "we need new faces&quot - their arguments are just shallow whining and fall flat.

[brush]

67. IMO some of them unconsciously absorb repug talking points and unfortunately...

start believing them.

Others are just ambitious and want Pelosi's job.

It is what it is but now is not the time. We need to concentrate on winning at least the House to blunt trump's kowtowing to Russia.

[G_j]

95. Well darn

that just happens to be what he actually said.

[The Blue Flower]

10. She'll be replaced by a Democrat

He's entitled to an opinion that is shared by other Dems. Relax.

[emulatorloo]

11. Get a grip. I don't give a shit what he says about Pelosi, and I am a huge supporter of Pelosi

Comparing him to Trump? There is not a damn thing in O’Connor’s platform that is anything like Trump’s. I can’t say the same thing about his Republican opponent.

We need control of the House so Pelosi or her successor can set the agenda re what bills get brought to the floor. Not to mention control of the House so that we control of committees and subpoena power.

[lapucelle]

12. Taking Pelosi off the table in Ohio is a savvy move.

Shit-stirring Republican Joe got played.

"Aversion" was such an odd word for the Mediaite writer to choose. It sounds agenda-driven.

[greymattermom]

40. I agree with you.

In Georgia 6, Karen Handel ran against Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is a symbol of the urban elite, and you'd think that wealthy Atlanta suburbs would side with her, but not so much. Now Karen Handel will be running against Lucy McBath. Let gun control be the issue, not Nancy Pelosi.

[DinahMoeHum]

71. Concur as well.

All our candidates have to say when asked is that:

1) Pelosi is not a priority with them or their would-be constituents.

2) Impeachment is that proverbial bridge to be crossed IF AND WHEN they get to it, and not before January 2019.

3) Focus on local issues that the constituents are truly concerned about, ie. healthcare

[NCTraveler]

13. Not the best time to make the comment.

I have zero issue with he or other Democrats making it a part of their campaign. It is not O'Connors first time saying it.

[Kaleva]

17. Oh good! Another thread meant to divide. Either intentionally or not.

[Botany]

28. Why post crap like this?

R you trying to divide us.

[BannonsLiver]

30. He must have missed the part where he LOST

I know it's "too close to call" but in all probability, he's not going to come out ahead this time. We'll see about November.

[Blue_true]

96. Someone posted that there were 8400 votes to be counted.

If that is the case, even if the republican is ahead by 2000 vote (which last I checked, he wasn't), O'Connor can still win, it depends on the makeup of the outstanding vote, if it is from highly educated people and students, O'Connor could end up taking a large amount of it.

[Recursion]

32. It's awesome. Our candidates get to run on both sides of Pelosi for free

You make the speech your constituents want to hear. In this case, that was it.

[UTUSN]

37. Well, if in private with her he voices respect to her, with her being big enough to bless him, fine.

[herding cats]

34. It's a political maneuver and I'm willing to bet Pelosi is fine with it.

It's a Republican District and it was gerrymandered to keep it that way. He's fighting an extremely difficult fight there and this was a smart move for him.

He's in a very similar situation to Conor Lamb's. Who also publicly has been anti Pelosi due to the constituency he represents.

[dalton99a]

44. Yep.

[WhiteTara]

36. how do I contact this POS?

Did he win? Or is it still close? I want to have a few words with him.

[Blue_true]

100. Chill. He is doing what he has to do to win his district.

My guess if he wins the uncounted votes big and win, or he wins in November, his vote likely won't stop Nancy from being party leader. The important thing is that we get a Dem to vote with us most of the time instead of against us 100% of the time.

[Mc Mike]

41. I love Pelosi. Swallowed Conor Lamb's anti incumbentcy thoughts about her

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2018, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

and canvassed for him. He was wrong, but can change.

We all have one big fat orange enemy, and she's been very adept at dealing with the repugs, always. In the Majority or Minority.

Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, Dan. You haven't even been hired to toss out the bathwater yet.

[GemDigger]

45. The reason the R's hate her is the reason we should embrace her.

I wish they would give specific reasons on why she should go. The same old blah blah isn't working with me. When I heard this

" The desire to fight things out in the partisan nature instead of being pragmatic and finding solutions isn’t getting the job done for working families. That’s why we’re having so much success here and convincing so many people to support our new version of leadership.

I heard it in Trumps voice. I am the only one blah blah blah.

[UTUSN]

48. Thank you. "Trump's voice" - that's what I was saying, only to be accused of meaning "platform"

[lapucelle]

52. Danny O'Connor is smarter than Trump, Joe Scarborough, and Chris Matthews.

After saying for months he would not back Nancy Pelosi as the Democrats’ leader in the House, congressional candidate Danny O’Connor told a national television audience Tuesday night he would back whichever candidate the Democrats put forth.

Questioned repeatedly by MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews if he would support Pelosi if a Democratic speakership depended on his vote, he finally said: “I would support whoever the Democrat Party put foward.”

Previously, O’Connor several times gave the answer he has rendered on the campaign trail and in TV ads: Both parties in the House need new leadership, and “the old ways aren’t working.”

He's not going to let the Republicans, their enablers, or the MSM revenue-hungry shit stirrers frame his narrative.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180724/after-long-dissing-pelosi-oconnor-now-says-he-could-vote-for-her-as-speaker

[Maeve]

57. From what I know of the district and the recent fight, he's setting up for November

Being pragmatic and open to change are necessary traits here; rural Ohio is an unhappy place and Pelosi is a focal point for them.

[UTUSN]

62. So he can't say, "I'm a Democrat, meaning I hang with other Dems, including Good Dem PELOSI, but

I very well can support any of many Good Dems as the times call for" or somesuch instead of hanging Scarlet Letters on her?

[Maeve]

66. The Scarlet letter is already on her

And yeah, I'd rather he didn't step in that can of worms (to mix metaphors), but he has been attacked as flip-flopping on support for her and the race has been, well...deplorable

[UTUSN]

70. I like it when you said "I'd rather he didn't step in that can" but

"The Scarlet letter is already on her" makes me go, "Whaaa?!1"

[Maeve]

81. The GOP has labeled her so permanently

It might as well be a physical brand....the voters only see the distorted image that has been painted of her and have no idea who she really is. So in that sense...

[awesomerwb1]

65. Let him distance himself from Nancy

The republicans have very effectively ,and unfairly, made her a very toxic name.

Let him distance himself from her and when he wins, hopefully, the more senior Dems should have a talk with him.

[Thrill]

68. She's just the easy target for these conservative Dems

It’s weak. Just like Hilary. I’m not sure what republicans are going to use as the boggy man when those to are done with Politics

[backtoblue]

72. If my little red district votes in a democratic rep

Or if the race is even close in November, I would be so damned proud and excited.

O'Connor needs to win. We need to win. Democrats need to win. Pelosi, I love her, but she's already in office and is not facing a close election herself. The Democrats who disagree with her, or anyone else within our party...still must WIN against the GOP.

Bottom line: take back the house and try to fix the traitor's evil agenda.

Blue Wave! GOTV.

[UTUSN]

75. Absolutely *no* argument with your points, and thanks

for phrasing them the way I wish O'CONNOR would!1

[Blue_true]

104. Same here. I have the screwball Daniel Webster as my Congressperson.

Heck, I don't care if the Dem opposing him says she won't vote for Nancy as House Dem party leader, as long as the local Dem win and help us take the House. I live in a red district, repugs outnumber Dems almost 2:1, but if moderate repugs split from deplorables and vote for our candidate with the large numbers of indies, she can very well win, but she won't win by saying that she has every intention of voting for Nancy, that is political death wishing in these parts.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

80. Conor Lamb,

did the same thing?

[liberalnarb]

82. Relax everyone.

I love Nancy, but this is purely strategic. Think about it: every legislative election year, especially midterm years, Leader Pelosi appears in thousands of GOP ads. As ridiculous as it is, she has long been the go to boogey (wo)man for the gopers, most likely because she's a strong woman in a position of power. Up and coming Democrats disowning her in their bids for office is an attempt to disarm their opponents of one of their go-to weapons, as the Pelosi attack ad strategy is very effective in getting out the vote among the mouth-breathing, FOX/Talk radio-listening troglodytes that make up the right wing base.

[Roland99]

84. 3-D chess

[Blue_Tires]

86. Folks don't have Hillary Clinton for a convenient polarizing scapegoat anymore

and even certain "liberal" writers with $250 million media outlets at their command have failed horribly to paint Obama as some kind of evul centrist sellout who never did anything for us, so they've passed the albatross to Nancy Pelosi as the new poster girl symbolizing everything wrong with the Democratic party...

[stopbush]

87. All any D need say about Pelosi is that

she has been an extremely effective Speaker, advancing D policies that look to help middle-class Americans and the poor, and THAT is why she is constantly attacked by the Rs, ie: because she is effective.

Whether “new” leadership could do a better job remains to be seen...and may not be worth the risk to find out.

Period.

[Blue_true]

93. It's called politics my friend.

Even if he loses the coming tabulation of late votes, he put the fear of God into republicans yesterday. He wants to beat them in November. I love Nancy, but she is a lightning rod where Danny O'Connor is running, he is doing what is smart for him to pull in the several thousand votes that he did not get yesterday.

[Skidmore]

98. The RW & media

have succeeded in demonizing Pelosi and trying to establish her ouster in leadership as a litmus test for candidates. Some have been willing to play footsie with the likes of Scarborough and others to get people on record. This should not be a game we indulge them in. Win office and work on leadership later. We do not help anyone by letting them push Dems to destroy a good lifelong public servant.

[NurseJackie]

108. Agreed. I'm rather amazed...

We do not help anyone by letting them push Dems to destroy a good lifelong public servant.

Agreed. I'm rather amazed to see how many here (of all places) are willing and EAGER to smear Pelosi, insult her, or portray her negatively. In spite of her long history of dedicated public service, and in spite of ALL that she's accomplished, there remains a certain segment who feels she's "not pure enough" or "not liberal enough".

All I'm saying is that this type of thinking and these types of comments are divisive and only serve to create distrust and resentment. Ultimately, that weakens the Democratic party. And a weakened/divided Democratic party only benefits the Republicans... and that benefits RUSSIA.

It just makes no good sense for people to do or say things that benefit Russia, if you get my meaning.

[JHan]

114. ++

[lapucelle]

115. Joe Scarborough is no friend of Democrats.

He spins very dissembling narratives that work against our interests. And the much of the media lacks any sense of journalistic integrity. They need a soap opera story line to stoke ratings and revenue.

"Win office and work on leadership later"

should be a mantra going forward to November.

[brer cat]

116. THIS!!

Thanks, Skidmore. This demonization of Pelosi is rw crap and needs to stop.

[Gothmog]

117. Attacking Nancy Pelosi is a dumb move

[Cha]

119. Right, Skidmore.. it's all gaslighting, anyway..

has nothing to do with reality. Just how the rw with the M$$$M has manufactured and manipulated.

I do remember Nancy saying the last round of elections that she didn't care.. whatever it took.

[George II]

120. And they do that demonizing without a full understanding of what she does as Minority Leader.

She's doing a lot more behind the scenes to keep the caucus united than people give her credit for.

[EffieBlack]

125. Too many think the Minority Leader's is to be out in the field rallying the troops

They have no idea what a Minority Leader does or what makes an effective one.

[riversedge]

103. I think he has said this before (Conner Lamb has also said it a few times--makes a msm story)

[wonkwest]

107. If Pelosi doesn't mind, why should we?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall this same line of questioning coming up when Conor Lamb was running. Someone asked Pelosi about his distancing, and her respons was, more or less, "I don't care, as long as we win."

She's fine with this tactic.

If she, a seasoned politician who knows how the game is played, endorses the tactic, then why should we get our druthers up?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. I am in favor of a Democrat saying whatever he or she has to say to win.

This ain't beanbag.

[kstewart33]

118. Whatever works.

We need the seat. O'Connor can change his mind after he wins the seat, if he does.

[KPN]

127. BS. What he said was not trashing.

Perceiving that way only reflects a bias against criticism, or a preference for status quo.

[chillfactor]

128. be careful....

I recently posted the same ideas and had my post removed.