Should Nancy Pelosi be LEADing the House of Representatives?

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501814.html

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but isn't it the House Leadership's job to unite the party to stand strong with one unified voice? How hard is it to take a stand against the war these days? Why can't they stand together in real support of the troops? If there really is debate within the party, why not hold a meeting where the FACTS are presented and discussed, after which all members should have a better understanding of how things are going in Iraq...

THe problem is that every representative has different ideas and different constituencies they need to please. It's hard to get them to walk in a straight line; but Pelosi doesn't seem to be the best at it, I'll admit.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

She's done an amazing job pulling Democrats together in the house.

Sometimes, when there's a variety of positions, that means there's a need for real, substantive debate and negotiation. That's something that's not likely to happen with the GOP in charge. Nonetheless, the Democrats don't need to have one, unified stance on absolutely every issue, every time.

Of course that means no one can know what that position is beforehand. Wouldn't want to be in a position where everybody knew what we stood for, what would the republicans have to call us on then? We like being the "party of no ideas".

How many issues have we seen the republicans skirt and be vague and pull the "asking me to have a hypothetical position before I actually have to make a decision is a dirty trick and unfair, blah blah blah" and have it work to their advantage. The way they've been able to full the american people is by never having to articulate a position or stand on anything PRIOR to being elected or confirmed or whatever. From Bush never answering a straight question on abortion or any number of issues, to any of his appointees not being asked to articulate a stand on anything prior to being confirmed or elected. It sucks but sadly, it works.

To pretend that we do would be hypocritical.

The CLEAR MAJORITY are now against the war in Iraq and want to bring the troops home ASAP. I don't give a shit about their individual views(which IMO must be out of fear of Bush, not the voters)... their job is to represent WE THE PEOPLE and to uphold the constitution.

They are failing miserably. The only reason Bush even came within reach of stealing the election is because Kerry didn't take a strong stand against ending the war. The American people are against this war based on lies! At this point, it is a no-brainer to take a stand. And Nancy, as the leader, should be helping to solidify a real position before the 2006 'election'.

sinful war.

But the fact that Democrats do not "Toe the Party Line" is what makes the Democrat party great.

Republicans believe that they see the light and that they are ordained to lead the sheep. They believe that there is one right path and it is their duty to enforce it. Republicans have lots of Profits. They know all.

Democrats believe in individual choice, open debate and a government of the people and for the people. It's only natural that Democrats would widely disagree with each other. Americans do.

I support Nancy's view.

The end of the first paragraph says it well...

"...calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party."

...to invade Iraq." And if we say that, the Republicans will respond (and do) with "Okay, so what is your plan?" And that is where our unity collapses under the weight of an endless different ideas, strategies, objectives, etc.

Now, we (Democrats) should be abole to respond to that by saying,

"Look, this is Bush's baby. Many of us were vehemently opposed to this whole thing from the get-go and while others of us may have voted to authorize Bush to use force in the event certain conditions were left unmet and certain things his intelligence community claimed to be true were true, it was not a vote as to whether TO declare war and to invade, we still left that decision clearly on the shoulders of the executive branch. Now Bush that Bush took the plunge into Iraq and created a world of hurt, of course Democrats are going to have a whole diverse set of opinions and strategies on how to reach a solution. The issue is a broad and complex one and since the Democrats are a party of ideas, we are not going to pretend that all those who have congregated beneath our tent will be of one mind on how to pick up the pieces of the Bush's mess. Now that is not to say we are not working feverishly to solve the problem, we are. But with such a diversity of opinion on Iraq, we cannot and will not pretend we can speak with one voice as to what we believe to be the best solution."

that there should be no democratic position. As far as what she's done of late, yes she has earned her stay as minority leader.

The leader cannot force over one third of her party's members to vote different than they feel they must vote.

Each congressperson answers to the constituency for each hot button issue. You don't force congresspeeps to vote other than the way they have to vote to satisfy their constituency on a hot button issue. They won't do it, anyway.

This issue divides Dems. Some want immediate withdrawal, some want staged withdrawal, and some want something closer to Bush. We can't have a Dem position if they can't get more agreement. We're splintered.

To set an 2006 agenda and not have a policy on Iraq sends a message that any position is O.K.

It gives the GOP sound bits pitting dueling positions on every cable news outlet every night.

That is not leadership. Pelosi needs to grow a set.

This party might take the position that the idea of pre-emptive war is ok.

Pro-War Arguments Don’t Hold Water- A comprehensive shredding of the Rep/Dem reasons to continue the war
http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/12/08/pro_war_arguments/

Maybe I should send this to Nancy??

In fact, you need to start a thread that is about the graph, so it gets maximum exposure here. Ask others to spread it. This graph needs to be painted on poster board and used in Congressional speeches and press conferences.

If you'll start it, I'll help you drive home the point.

It is a great graph, pretty much says it all. Kucinich should hold it up while he is giving one of his floor speeches.

graph of troop deaths in Iraq- We are NOT making progress!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5619811

Maybe we can get people to look at it.

she can get. They live in their little insular world in DC and need us to give them the information that repukes are hiding.

Having Steny Whore as a leader would be much, much worse. Sometimes I don't even know which team he's really playing for.