Democrats should replace Pelosi

[Cancel7]

Ford would have been a level-headed, moderate choice. Which of course means that people like you would feel obligated to oppose him.

"Wiretapping, renewal of the Patriot Act, continued funding of the war. The only thing even a progressive could possibly see as an accomplishment was increasing the minimum wage."

Which one of those would have the LESS liberal than Pelosi, Ford, changed???

 

[Epicurus]

"Wiretapping, renewal of the Patriot Act, continued funding of the war. The only thing even a progressive could possibly see as an accomplishment was increasing the minimum wage."

Which one of those would have the LESS liberal than Pelosi, Ford, changed???

I don't know and neither do you.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ford would have been a level-headed, moderate choice. Which of course means that people like you would feel obligated to oppose him.

People like me? You mean Democrats? God forbid members of the party have an actual opinion about who should be the leader of their party.

Harold Ford is a conservative Democrat from a conservative district. You can call that moderate if you like and maybe his selection would appeal to you. But as a leader of the Democratic party, he was a poor choice. He is currently chairman of the DLC, where he belongs, leading the right-most wing of the party, not the party as a whole.

 

[Bonestorm]

I have no problem w/ a moderate as Speaker of the House. I can't remember the last time that was the case. I'm sick of one party positioning for political victories, whether the legislation wins or loses, rather than forging real coalitions & getting more accomplished....

I'm sick of Democrats always being asked to concede ground. I'm glad they didn't.

 

[Epicurus]

I've got problems with Ford too. But since Pelosi has been pretty inarguably ineffective, it's hard not to wonder how things could have worked out differently.

 

[Cancel7]

I don't know and neither do you.

I know, and so do you.

 

[Epicurus]

People like me? You mean Democrats? God forbid members of the party have an actual opinion about who should be the leader of their party.

Activist Democrats like you.

Your counterparts on the right are what gave us Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, and Bill Frist.

Activists on both sides are more likely to be extremists than the rank and file of their party, and wield disproportionate influence over their party's decisions. That's basic PSC 101.

 

[Epicurus]

I know, and so do you.

Probably none of them, but since Pelosi has set the bar pretty low it wouldn't be hard to do better.

Realistically, we would definitely still be in Iraq. No change on that. Ford even went so far as to tell Congressional Democrats that they should be more supportive of the War. Wiretapping and the Patriot Act are more debatable but probably no significant change from Pelosi there either.

 

[Cancel7]

I have no problem w/ a moderate as Speaker of the House. I can't remember the last time that was the case. I'm sick of one party positioning for political victories, whether the legislation wins or loses, rather than forging real coalitions & getting more accomplished....

Well, I do. You have a republican party that is the most right wing in decades. In negotiations with them, you would be starting out from a center-right position with a Ford, most especially on economic issues. There is only one way to go in negotiating with a far right party, and that is to the right. You are already center right…where are you going?

No, I want to start from the center-left, and maybe if we are lucky, we get an actual centrist policy. If we are lucky.

 

[Bonestorm]

I've got problems with Ford too. But since Pelosi has been pretty inarguably ineffective, it's hard not to wonder how things could have worked out differently.

How has she been ineffective? Please explain this one to me.

 

[Onceler]

Well, I do. You have a republican party that is the most right wing in decades. In negotiations with them, you would be starting out from a center-right position with a Ford, most especially on economic issues. There is only one way to go in negotiating with a far right party, and that is to the right. You are already center right…where are you going?

No, I want to start from the center-left, and maybe if we are lucky, we get an actual centrist policy. If we are lucky.

I disagree. There are plenty of moderate members of both parties, which is what I meant about forging coalitions. You don't have to start from a position of needing to "compromise" with the most extreme righties.

Honestly, it's about the only way any meaningful thing gets done. You want to go way left in the leadership & negotiations, you give power to the far right on the other side, and everyone digs their heels in depending on what letter comes after their name. That's how we get "moral" victories, but no practical change in our country.

Maybe the other school of thought will get lucky, and get an even bigger majority in Congress this fall with a Dem President, so they can just ram whatever they want through for 2 years. They'll only get 2 years that way, though. I'm interested in something more constructive, because fight club politics doesn't work, and never has.

 

[Epicurus]

How has she been ineffective? Please explain this one to me.

I literally just went through this in this very thread. But if you want to play dumb as though you are oblivious to their ineffectiveness, then feel free to puruse this at your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

Their notable accomplishments include passing the Protect America Act (FISA), passing the equally worthless Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, and failing repeatedly to force any kind of time table on Iraq.

Even as a progressive, the only thing I could see you being happy about is the increase in the minimum wage. The only bipartisan measure of any worth that I see is implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. And that's just not a whole lot to show for 2 years of power.

 

[Cancel7]

I disagree. There are plenty of moderate members of both parties, which is what I meant about forging coalitions. You don't have to start from a position of needing to "compromise" with the most extreme righties.

Honestly, it's about the only way any meaningful thing gets done. You want to go way left in the leadership & negotiations, you give power to the far right on the other side, and everyone digs their heels in depending on what letter comes after their name. That's how we get "moral" victories, but no practical change in our country.

Maybe the other school of thought will get lucky, and get an even bigger majority in Congress this fall with a Dem President, so they can just ram whatever they want through for 2 years. They'll only get 2 years that way, though. I'm interested in something more constructive, because fight club politics doesn't work, and never has.

Yeah we view this in two very different ways. We’ve had 8 years of right wing reactionary politics and ideology. You might think you’re going to change the damage that’s done, with four or even eight years of DLC type policies, I strongly disagree.

And the radical left agenda you are dismissing, is so radical that it’s often supported by a super majority of Americans. Government guaranteed health insurance, raises in the minimum wage, and greener environmental policies, all enjoy big majority support in this country. They all also enjoy, vehement opposition from big money. And there’s one way to get those kind of policies passed against big money which own the R party, and which owns many democrats – and that’s with real liberals.

 

[Epicurus]

Honestly, it's about the only way any meaningful thing gets done. You want to go way left in the leadership & negotiations, you give power to the far right on the other side, and everyone digs their heels in depending on what letter comes after their name. That's how we get "moral" victories, but no practical change in our country.

I definitely agree with this.

 

[Bonestorm]

I literally just went through this in this very thread. But if you want to play dumb as though you are oblivious to their ineffectiveness, then feel free to puruse this at your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

Their notable accomplishments include passing the Protect America Act (FISA), passing the equally worthless Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, and failing repeatedly to force any kind of time table on Iraq.

Even as a progressive, the only thing I could see you being happy about is the increase in the minimum wage. The only bipartisan measure of any worth that I see is implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. And that's just not a whole lot to show for 2 years of power.

You're focusing only on bills that passed the House, the Senate and were signed by the President. If you include the House passed that foundered in the Senate or that were vetoed by the President you get a more realistic view of what the House was able to accomplish.

You basically want to blame Pelosi for not being dictator.

 

[Cancel7]

I literally just went through this in this very thread. But if you want to play dumb as though you are oblivious to their ineffectiveness, then feel free to puruse this at your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

Their notable accomplishments include passing the Protect America Act (FISA), passing the equally worthless Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, and failing repeatedly to force any kind of time table on Iraq.

Even as a progressive, the only thing I could see you being happy about is the increase in the minimum wage. The only bipartisan measure of any worth that I see is implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. And that's just not a whole lot to show for 2 years of power.

They have no veto proof majority, a right wing that sticks together and holds their line, and too many democrats like Harold Ford. The answer isn’t more of Harold Ford, the answer is more of Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Onceler]

Yeah we view this in two very different ways. We’ve had 8 years of right wing reactionary politics and ideology. You might think you’re going to change the damage that’s done, with four or even eight years of DLC type policies, I strongly disagree.

And the radical left agenda you are dismissing, is so radical that it’s often supported by a super majority of Americans. Government guaranteed health insurance, raises in the minimum wage, and greener environmental policies, all enjoy big majority support in this country. They all also enjoy, vehement opposition from big money. And there’s one way to get those kind of policies passed against big money which own the R party, and which owns many democrats – and that’s with real liberals.

I'm not dismissing the agenda, and support much of it, which is why I hate to see it squandered for "moral victories."

Yes, Americans agree with much of that, but they wouldn't agree with an entirely left-wing approach to those ideas, without bipartisanship. Health care won't make it without bipartisan support; they will not pass a piece of legislation like that along party lines.

It's not practical; I know you think it's the best way, but ultimately, it will lead to us being here in 20 years still talking about the failures of healthcare & education & the rest.

 

[Cancel7]

I definitely agree with this.

Of course you agree with it. You’re a Libertarian who wants to pursue a right wing economic agenda. You should either join the Republican party and vote for your leader there, or expand the Libertarian party, but you’re not picking the leader of the liberal party in this country.

 

[Bonestorm]

They have no veto proof majority, a right wing that sticks together and holds their line, and too many democrats like Harold Ford. The answer isn’t more of Harold Ford, the answer is more of Nancy Pelosi.

Exactly.

As for the idea that "working with Republicans" is the only way to get things done. It doesn't work, particularly in the House. They are raving lunatics. The ones that aren't have been voting with the Democrats on most important legislation (there are about 30 of them).

 

[Epicurus]

You're focusing only on bills that passed the House, the Senate and were signed by the President. If you include the House passed that foundered in the Senate or that were vetoed by the President you get a more realistic view of what the House was able to accomplish.

You basically want to blame Pelosi for not being dictator.

Okay let's approach this a different way.

Dungheap, in what ways have the Democratic House been effective since 2006?