The anti-Pelosi campaign in the House is coming from the Right not the liberal wing. Those being considered as her…

The anti-Pelosi campaign in the House is coming from the Right not the liberal wing. Those being considered as her replacement are anti-LBGT among other things.

Yes, the campaign to take down Nancy Pelosi is sexist – not to mention a terrible idea

There is nothing progressive about the push to stop Nancy Pelosi from regaining her seat as speaker of the House when Democrats regain the majority in the new Congress that will convene in January.

0
This entry was posted in Fighting Bigotry. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to The anti-Pelosi campaign in the House is coming from the Right not the liberal wing. Those being considered as her…

  1. This is all part of the 2016 propaganda that HRC wasn’t liberal enough (when her voting record rivalled Sanders for liberal positions on issues) and that the DNC had an “establishment” agenda.
    The effect really has been insidious.

    0
  2. Cindy Brown says:

    And I’m sure russian bots are fully in swing, if they didn’t nudge it to start 😛

    0
  3. John Wehrle says:

    As my wife pointed out, we rarely hear that we need “fresh blood” in the context of an old white man keeping his position.

    0
  4. Doug Senko says:

    Well, here we go again. The Libs shooting themselves in the foot, which only helps the RWNJ’s. So, who is it that has the chops to run the House like Pelosi can?

    0
  5. John Wehrle says:

    Doug Senko yup, that woman has brass ovaries.

    0
  6. Paul Hosking says:

    I’ll cop to not really liking Pelosi much (her appearance on Colbert left me cringing) and being, at the least, piqued by the notion of “new blood.” But the devil in these details is that one has to have a good alternative. And I’m not sure who that would be. The article is making a really good point here that given the alternatives being presented… well… I’d rather keep Pelosi’s flaws and her experience-won strengths than take what’s behind Door #2.

    0
  7. Cindy Brown says:

    And throw in that Pelosi promises to put in a lot of the frosh women into significant committees and now you have your fresh blood and she’s mentoring up the next gen.

    0
  8. Exactly what I thought when I saw her proposal for the committees – it also nudges the whole Democrat platform in a more liberal direction.

    0
  9. John Wehrle says:

    She’s actually more liberal than most of the Dem House Caucus. The part that irks people is the political maneuvering she does. Unfortunately, that’s part of the job and happily or frustratingly (depending on your POV) she’s very good at her job. Maybe the best since Tip O’Neill. It’s one of the strangest positions in our government.

    0
  10. Aaron Hamid says:

    Has everybody already forgotten how she stood up for and commandeered the passage of ACA? The woman deserves a fucking medal. When somebody proves more effective than her, then they can take her job, but not a moment sooner.

    0
  11. Cindy Brown says:

    And people voted two weeks ago to keep their healthcare. Yes.

    0
  12. People have short memories… but yes, without her there would be no ACA. The synergy between her and the White House created a formidable political machine.
    Politics is the hard graft of getting somewhere near (or nearer to) where you want to be.
    And she’s very good at it.

    0
  13. The very best thing that we can do is place Nancy Pelosi in a position of leadership. For heaven’s sake, Dems, we do NOT want to lose our momentum!

    0
  14. People who yell against democrats or republicans for being too centrist make me tired. The center is where more inter-agreement lives, and is where incremental change begins. You don’t really win when you get hugely progressive legislation passed; instead you get huge pushback and prompt regression when the balance changes back to the other side. But incremental change sticks better, and can be built on.

    0
  15. John Wehrle says:

    I think incremental change used to work better when the country and the parties were less polarized. Incremental change was built on consensuses that were approved by the moderates in both parties. This had pros and cons. The governance of the nation was far more stable but more radical ideas (radical to the mainstream of the time) and the rights of minorities were easily sacrificed for consensus.

    But as polarization has increased (maybe cable TV has something to do with this, or so I’ve heard) the moderates have died off. They are almost extinct and certainly have very little power. So now the political strategy de jure is scorched earth. You block while in the minority and ram through while in the majority.

    If the changes you make are actually popular (like the ACA) then it becomes a bit harder politically for opponents to erase it. If not enough people know or care then it’s gone.

    I don’t think we’ll see a change to this pattern until either voter participation increases dramatically or large segments of the population dramatically shift their political leanings. Like white suburban women becoming reliable Democratic voters or Latino Americans becoming a reliable Republican voting bloc. Or, at least 50% of young people reliably showing up to vote vs. their participation dropping back down to the 15 – 20% that is their historical norm.

    Things won’t actually tip persistently in one direction or the other until something foundational changes. Once such a tip really happens (as opposed to back and forth swings) then the losing party will change to be more attractive to the moderates of the winning party so as to stay alive politically.

    But for now, there just aren’t any Republican moderates to work with and there are far far fewer Democratic moderates than pop culture would have us believe. I would guess that there may be 5 – 7 Senators who qualify as moderates and probably 4 – 6 of them are Dems.

    0