Nancy Pelosi has been an extremely effective leader

[Tom Rinaldo]

The House of Representatives is, by design, a pretty unruly place - the "People's House" with hundreds of raging egos who face a constant need to grandstand for the folks back home due to having to run for reelection every two years. The Republicans have made a total mess of running their own caucus for a long time, whether in the majority or minority. Not so with our Nancy.

Anyone who doesn't think that there are fracture cracks inside our Democratic coalition clearly hasn't been reading DU. Yet Nancy Pelosi has almost always held her caucus tightly together whenever it was essential. That's how Obamacare got passed, and Obama's stimulus package before that. In the minority if anything she has been more effective - as House Democrats have continually held firm without breaking ranks forcing the Republicans to find elusive majorities for noxious measures entirely on their own - often failing in the process which greatly strengthes the Democratic message.

Pelosi is not a barn burner orator - so what, she speaks clearly to our Democratic values, never flusters, and always stands up to whatever bully the Republicans throw at her - including the current President of the United States, and she does so with wit, grit and grace.

In today's political climate Democrats can not have an effective Speaker or Minority Leader in the House who Republicans will not demonize, and attempt to turn into a two dimensional cardboard cutout of everything they deem evil in America. It's standard politics, and Democrats are not so different in how we relate to Paul Ryan (in his case however we all agree that Ryan does indeed represent all that is evil in America). The only reason why Democrats do not consistently prop up our version of Ryan as the negative face of the Republican Party is because there is a more obvious orange one that fits that bill better.

There no longer is a black Democratic President, nor a female Democratic candidate for President for Republicans to use as a punching bag, so instead they concentrate their fire on Nancy Pelosi. But she, unlike the current occupant of the White House, never makes the story about her. She doesn't go off message to constantly defend her honor - instead she organizes her caucus to make life for the Republican agenda Hell.

Yes the day is coming when Democrats will need a new generation of leadership. One could even say it is overdue. It will happen soon enough, and hopefully BEHIND THE SCENES Democrats are preparing for that day. But that time is not today, it is not NOW. As Democrats wage figurative hand to hand combat in the House of Representatives with Republicans who want to reverse generations of progress in America - we fortunately have strong experienced leadership in the House - we have Nancy Pelosi. Thank Goddess for that.

[JHan]

1. K & R.

well said.

[bigtree]

2. k&r

[Atman]

3. According to the rules of DU, I am not allowed to disagree.

So I accept your post, and will file it appropriately.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Yes, there is a danger zone on DU

But if you exercise restraint and caution it is possible to navigate across the mine field. I know there are some who seek to purge those with whom they disagree with here, but constructive criticism is allowed under DU rules. We should be at least as able to express concerns about Democratic Congressional leaders as can the Democratic members of Congress themselves. It is absurd for it to be otherwise.

I here am on the whole defending our Minority Leader, but FWIW I also defend your right to disagree about her. I've "taken sides" a lot on DU over the years but rarely have any alerts against me stood. No posts of mine have gotten hidden in years. Be sober about what you say, avoid cutting put downs, and stick to honest areas of disagreement without generalizing wildly, and hopefully any jury convened to look at your post will accept it as honest constructive debate. Good luck.

[ehrnst]

15. There's a difference between criticizing and bashing. Understand that, and you'll be fine. (nt)

[Atman]

38. I understand it completely. It makes no difference.

I received a warning recently after posting a comment about Corey Booker. Actually, I didn't even comment, I just posted a link questioning Booker. I received a warning that I would kicked off of DU because I've had two or more posts voted down by juries in "RECENT DAYS." I checked...the last one was three months ago. Hardly recent days. And my Booker post didn't even have a comment. Just a link, and a question. DU kinda going off the rails. But I may be alerted on for saying so.

[rdking647]

22. i had a couple of posts removed for saying nancy needs to go

not disparaging her,just saying she sineffective

As a result im pretty much done posting here

[lamp_shade]

4. Thank you.

[oasis]

5. I'll stand pat....with Pelosi.

[Bleacher Creature]

7. Well said. Thank you! NT

[Johnny2X2X]

8. Total Denial

She has been a disaster for the Democratic Party.

I personally love her, but she has been used against the party by the Reps as they turned huge Dem majorities in both houses of Congress into huge Republican majorities.

Are we so stupid as a party to look at the state of things where we have unprecedented deficits in the House, in State governments, are in the minority in the Senate, lost the White House, and the Supreme Court, that this just seems all A OK?

The Democratic Party has not had less power in this country in a hundred years. But we keep the same leaders that have been at the helm during this last decade of decline, why? Can we not accept that most of the country looks at Nancy Pelosi and sees the exact caricature the Republicans have been painting Libs as to win election after election.

Trump's awfulness will not be enough, especially at the state level. State governments draw district lines, Reps hold more power at the state level that they ever imagined.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. I respectfully disagree

We retook the House from Republicans under Bush with Nancy. We lost the House in 2010 because our Congressional leadership was so effective in passing the ACA and voters punished Democrats for that because of their Republican fanned fears of "socialized medicine". It can be argued that Democrats were ineffective at defending the ACA with voters, but if anything that falls on our President, who had the bully pulpit, not on Congressional leadership, to have done better at. Unfortunately that was census year and Congressional reapportionment fell into Republican hands as a result of that red tide vote. Thus regaining the House has been near impossible.

Any Democratic leader would be scorned by Republicans. New leadership may win us a year of relief until the attack lines set but right now it is extremely valuable to have experienced leadership that can hold our caucus together.

[ehrnst]

16. So if she's being villified, fight the villification, not her. (nt)

[bettyellen]

21. Because some liberals have accepted the RW framing? No- you need to stop and fight that crap.

Because it's coming down the pike for the next person.
Harris, Warren and Booker are all being targeted now too.
Fight it, stop buying into their bullshit.

[Johnny2X2X]

24. Blame everyone else

It's always someone else's fault. Pelosi's time as the #1 dem in the House has been historically bad for our party and it's not just because she hasn't been defended correctly. We have a Madman in the White House and the Reps control all levels of government completely. How much worse can it get for people to start looking at out leadership? We need a new face of the party because Nancy Pelosi is flat out hated by too many working people.

[ehrnst]

26. Obama was also flat out hated by many working people.

We called it their problem.

And can you tell me specifically what it is that Pelosi is supposed to have control over concerning gerrymandering and voter suppression?

What exactly did she do that created DT and the GOP congress - alternately what is it, specifically, she neglected to do that would have prevented it?

Seriously - I have no idea what those things are. If you do, please share.

[bettyellen]

37. Now Trump is her fault too?!? Do you even understand what her job is? It appears you don't.

This shit is ridiculous.

Hint: when you find yourself on the same side against Dems as Trump- wake up, you've been played.

[ehrnst]

42. THANK YOU! (nt)

[naturalizedtexan]

9. Beg to differ

Allow me to politely differ.

On January 21, 2009, there were 255 House Democrats and 179 House Republicans ; on January 3, 2011, there were 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats.

Today there are 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats in the US House of Representatives. Three election cycles and millions of dollars later, the Democratic Party has a net gain of ONE seat. And the prospects of a flip in 2018 aren't likely.

It's time to consider new leadership.

[fleabiscuit]

12. Someone agrees with you...

Donald J. Trump?Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Follow
More
I certainly hope the Democrats do not force Nancy P out. That would be very bad for the Republican Party - and please let Cryin' Chuck stay!

[ehrnst]

18. So how is this Pelosi's doing, exactly?

Does she have the power over time and space to reverse gerrymandering on the part of the GOP?

Please explain.

[naturalizedtexan]

30. Complacency & Inaction

In 2009, the Democratic Party held 28 Governors, 62 State legislative houses, control of both legislative houses in 27 states, and complete partisan control (Governorship + both legislative houses) in 17 states.

Today 16 Governors are Democrats, the Democratic Party holds the majority in 30 State legislative houses and control of both houses in only 13 states, and complete partisan control in 6 states. That partisan control in two states is by virtue of the tie-breaking vote of the Lt Governor, by the way.

The Republicans won on the ground, and we are living with the consequences of inaction and complacency by the national leadership. That includes Nancy Pelosi.

[ehrnst]

33. Not answering the question - what could she have done, that you think that she didn't?

You say, "complacency" but you have not stated what it is that she failed to actually do, in terms of action. What was she "complacent" about? What is it that she was supposed to be doing that would make her "not complacent?" What action was she "not taking" that defines your statement "inaction?"

How is she responsible for gerrymandering by the Republicans?

How is she responsible for Gubernatorial races?

Please clarify.

[naturalizedtexan]

39. Anticipate and plan ahead

First, I said "National Leadership," and that does include Nancy Pelosi. I am not singling her out, but she is one of the problems we need to address. She is part of the national leadership, and her failure to react and respond to Republican gains - they didn't take place all at once - is something that needs to be looked thoughtfully, without emotion, and with an eye to eventual victory.

Secondly, we need to quit knee-jerking "gerrymandering" to explain our losses. The major loss came in the election of 2010, before the census took place and well before districts were redrawn.

Third, we need to face up to our failure to communicate effectively, and quit blaming the media for not getting our message out.

Remember, the AHCA was passed without addressing the stated concerns of a majority of working Americans - of both parties. Nancy Pelosi was a big factor in passing ACA, and her statement, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy," provided Republics with 10 years worth of ammunition. Did she do anything to explain just why insurance premiums went up when she promised that ACA would bring them down?

Congresswoman Pelosi has succeeded in making herself unpopular (current disapproval 48.7%, approval 28.6% according to the latest Huffington Post) and the Republicans have hung and will continue to hang her like an albatross around the neck of every Democratic candidate running in a pink district. What has she done to counter this?

Fourth, quit ignoring reality and face the fact that we lost. Congresswoman Pelosi confidently predicted a sweep of the House in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Predicting a sweep and actually achieving it are two different things, and "Same old, same old" has NOT won any elections. Pelosi (and others) needs to quit getting mired in the national media circus and personally go out to boost local races. She's in a leadership position, which by definition is an active role.

An effective leader listens to dissent, and doesn't attempt to shut it down or ignore it. Congressman Ryan (Tim, not Paul) is a principled member of the Democratic party, and his opinions should at least be given polite consideration rather than approbation.

[ismnotwasm]

40. Say what?

"Remember, the AHCA was passed without addressing the stated concerns of a majority of working Americans - of both parties. Nancy Pelosi was a big factor in passing ACA, and her statement, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy," provided Republics with 10 years worth of ammunition. Did she do anything to explain just why insurance premiums went up when she promised that ACA would bring them down?"

This is how you remember the fight for the ACA?

[ehrnst]

41. You still haven't told us what she was supposed to DO.

What do you mean "anticipate?" What does that mean in terms of action? What would indicate that she had "anticipated?"

In what way was she supposed to "react" and "respond" to Republican gains? Tell us, since you know. What specific ACTIONS did she fail to take that somehow would have prevented the GOP gains? Lay down in the middle of the road? Threaten to set fire to herself if the GOP won? Do you even have any idea other than a vague impression that SHE is somehow incompetent and the source of any GOP success? Seriously - you sound like the teabaggers who couldn't tell you why Obama was "arrogant" and "incompetent" - just that he was "not being accountable" with no ability to frame their anger at him logically.

And yeah - Gerrymandering and voter suppression in red states is TOTALLY within her power to prevent... Yes, they make a huge difference. In case you missed it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html

And yeah, if she doesn't "predict a sweep" then we lose, then you blame her for not "rallying the troops." So you want to crucify her for not predicting correctly? And for somehow "causing it" or "letting it happen?" in ways you still have not explained...

"History sidenote: In 2009, when the shoe was on the other foot, there were special elections in the House to replace Obama appointees, and the GOP didn’t pick up any of those seats either. Yet in 2010, the GOP cleaned fucking house in the Teabagger midterms, so we guess those special elections weren’t an indication that the GOP brand was completely dead in 2009. But this is DIFFERENT! Because REASONS! And it definitely doesn’t have anything to do with SEXISM!"

"Guys? There’s an actual reason the GOP hates Nancy Pelosi, which is that she’s incredibly good at her job. Do you really believe Republicans would be terrified of a new Democratic leader without Pelosi’s decades of experience in keeping a caucus together? If so, READ A BOOK."

Read more at https://wonkette.com/619000/guys-shut-the-fuck-up-about-nancy-pelosi#xJgHYhRbzedbSUEG.99

And there were over 100 hearings on the ACA. And people here were yelling for her to get it through faster....

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. I don't consider her complacent

We are definitely still living with the consequences of 2010 being a gang busters electoral year for Republicans however. With control of new state legislatures across the country they were able to rewrite all of the districts after the census, both at the national and local levels. That led to elections where Democrats won the majority of votes nationally in Congressional elections but a minority of seats in Congress regardless. Plus with Republican control of state legislatures, they also changed voting laws in overt attempts at voter suppression. Plus with control of more Secretary of State offices they could mess around with the location and number of polling stations to disenfranchise minority voters further. Then the Republican Supreme Court gutted major parts of the Voter Protection Act, further tilting the scales against Democratic coalition voters in key states.

The Democratic leaders in Congress do not set the national public tone for the Democratic Party while there is an incumbent Democratic President. Messaging primarily falls to the White House where the acknowledged leader of the party sits. Below that it falls to the DNC to determine how the National Democratic Party prioritizes use of its organizing and organizational resources. Under a Democratic Presidency, Democratic leaders in Congress are tasked with shepherding action on legislation primarily - and to further both the message and the priorities emerging from the White House. It is more of an internal rather than external role - holding the Democratic legislative teams together and delivering their votes as needed. And doing so smoothly, unlike the negative drama and static that always surrounded Boehner and then Ryan on the Republican side in the House.

Between presidential elections numerous leading figures in a sense audition to grab a starring role in the Party. They move toward the microphones and cameras. But the Congressional leaders, more so on the House side, move into offices and conference room to wrangle the votes needed from the members of their caucuses. Some times there are showboat exceptions to that rule of thumb, like Newt Gingrich, but they usually flame out (like he did) making a lot of internal enemies in the process within their own parties.

Yes we need new leadership as a Party - new blood rising to take starring roles. Booker and Harris, whatever you think of their positions on issues, fit that bill, as does Adam Shiff, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, and many others. Tom Perez has been handed a messaging portfolio as well - he is still new on his job. But Nancy Pelosi has been taking care of nuts and bolts business for Democrats in the House with a high degree of competence - that's her job and she has excelled at it.

[SCantiGOP]

28. naturalizedtexan:

I agree with you, but that opinion is going to get trashed on this Board. I live in the media market of the SC 5th district, where the Democrat came within 3% of turning a solid red district, and did 18% better than Mulvaney did last time he ran for the seat. Practically every ad tied the Dem to Pelosi. I don't care how good she is as a Party leader she is toxic in a large number of districts that we need to flip in 2018 to take back the House.
For the good of the Party, I hope she will step aside.

[ehrnst]

34. Association with Obama was "toxic" in a lot of deep red areas.

Are we supposed to tell the Democrats who serve in the house who to pick as a leader, as if we are working with them every day?

Are we supposed to let the Republican voters who hate everyone with a D in front of their name decide who is our leader in the house - and do you think that anyone in that position wouldn't be "toxic" as far as red states are concerned?

Please explain.

[lostnfound]

11. A good leader MENTORS and MAKES WAY for the next generation

I said that six months ago. If she is doing her job right, she has already been fostering a succession plan and considering development of future leadership.

[ehrnst]

17. She was elected to the position by her peers, those who work with her every day.

I can't imagine that she's not mentoring - having the respect and confidence of the other Dems in leadership that she does.

EXPERIENCE is a GOOD thing, and we should remember that.

[bucolic_frolic]

13. She has such a nose for political winds

gained from a lifetime of experience

[Honeycombe8]

14. I think so, too. She's very smart, able to get votes for Dem bills, calm, mature..

and sticks to her guns, while speaking out. She's not a fire & brimstone person, and I like that.

If the other side hates her, that means she's effective.

[NastyRiffraff]

20. Exactly

And a big K&R to you!

[Bettie]

23. My only real issue with Pelosi

is the "impeachment is off the table" thing.

That's long past now.

I would hope that if our side prevails in the midterms, she doesn't say that about the current fraud roosting in the White House.

[stonecutter357]

25. K&R

[LVNVblue]

27. Couldn't agree more

I woke up this morning to the news that "democrats" were looking for her to step down. WTF I haven't had a chance to see who, exactly, was making that insane pronouncement. She is fearless, tireless and knows how to get things done--who the heck would we replace her with? Dang - This is a time when we need ALL hands on deck to oppose, not only the orange idiot in the WH, but the whole republican party. They want to rob from the poor to give to the rich, and we need to stop them wherever we can. Just listening to some of those moderate republican senators who express their dismay with the handling of Trumpcare in the Senate---yeah sure, they are all winged out over it, but they will fall in line and vote for this disaster. We need to be vigilant, and we need Pelosi right where she is.

[calguy]

29. As someone posted yesterday ................

Instead of arguing and bashing Nancy Pelosi, Democrats would be much better off making Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell the GOP bogeymen in the eyes of the voters we want to attract.
This discussion on whether or not Pelosi should step simply plays right into the hands of the GOPricks.

[niyad]

31. k and r

[L. Coyote]

32. Nancy Pelosi still is an extremely effective leader.

And will be as majority leader in 2019.

[KPN]

35. Well said.

[FSogol]

36. K & R. n/t