I think we need a new Democratic Speaker of the House

A long time ago, a DUer whom I consider a friend and mentor pulled me aside and told me that the Eleventh Commandment for Democrats was "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Democrat." While I cannot say by any means that I have followed this dictum as well as some would like, I have tried to speak out in support of the Democratic Party as a whole.

That said, after what Nancy Pelosi said about Pete Stark on Friday, I think it's time we seriously consider the ned for a new Democratic Speaker of the House.

Here's what Rep. Pelosi said about Rep. Stark's remarks on the occupation of Iraq: "While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand - providing health care for America's children."

In case Speaker Pelosi missed her cue during November, the need to pull our troops out of Iraq was the driving factor in handing Congress back to the Democrats. Right behind that was the need to hold the Bush administration accountable for its actions.

And yet Pelosi still says impeachment is off the table. And she isn't able to muster Democrats into accomplishing anything on Capitol Hill. And when someone like Jim McDermott or Pete Stark interjects a little unvarnished truth into the political debate, she's all over them like that purple suit she wore on the first day of the 110th Congress.

Purple, Speaker Pelosi? What, were you suggesting bipartisanship with neo-fascism that still seek to unravel the very fabric of America? Is that why you left Stark on his own? How many deaths of innocent Iraqis is it going to take to sink into your head that children's health insurance is a fringe benefit, not the fire driving the steam engine that ensured your control of the House in 2006?

So yes, I think Nancy Pelosi has been weighted in the Democratic balances long enough - and she's still lacking.

I'm not saying that Cindy Sheehan should replace her in Congress. I'm just saying that some other Democrat needs to replace her in the Speaker's chair. Someone with no inclination to allow neo-fascists any wiggle room to influence the American dialogue any longer. Someone with a little bit of gumption.

American fascists and neo-fascists have been hard at work trying to destroy American from within since the Great Depression and the rise of Mussolini. Gen. Smedley Butler stood in their way. President Dwight Eisenhower warned of its remainfestation as the "military-industrial complex." Some say that John F. Kennedy paid with his life for keeping them in check. And now the perfect toadie for America's neo-fascists is sitting in the Oval Office, just waiting for his orders from the PNAC (via Dick Cheney) to launch airstrikes on Iran and tighten surveillance over his own fellow Americans.

They're not going to go away all by themselves. They're too deeply entrenched.

And that's the main reason we need a new Speaker of the House. One does not play footsie with neo-fascism; one kicks neo-fascism's worthless ass out the door. After that, you can have children's health insurance. You can have labor reform along with guaranteed pensions. But first, you take care of the task at hand.

And it just seems that Speaker Pelosi is no longer up to the task.

I've got the asbestos suit ready. Flame on...

and because I'm an independent, I can make that call w/o guilt of violating the 11th.

So I agree with you.

Don't feel bad if this takes you some time to research, as no one has been able to answer this question from current memory.

but thanks.

She took impeachment off the table, and it has simply gone down hill from there.

Historically speaking, for the most part, speakers of the house do their greatest jobs when the are of the same party as the president. While others have done their greatest jobs when they had enough votes in the house to override a presidential veto.

Seeing that Nancy has only held office for ten months, I believe she has already proven she is accomplished.

she's the best Speaker ever!!!!!1111!!!!1

Pelosi said if MoveOn had asked for her advice she would have told them not to run the ad. I seriously doubt if Moveon thinks this was bashing the crap out of them. Not hardly.

House Condemns MoveOn.org's Petraeus Ad
By ANDREW TAYLOR – Sep 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to condemn the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org for a recent advertisement attacking the top U.S. general in Iraq.

By a 341-79 vote, the House passed a resolution praising the patriotism Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5icjoZfw9cxthDHzemr2CBJn0hSQg


This is her official action as Speaker!!! Bring this crap to the floor while taking impeachment off the table!!!

Is she really a Democrat, I don't see it? What exactly would the Republicans do differently?

:puke:

Even limiting this to Democratic Speakers when the Republicans held the White House:

Tip O'Neil -- gummed up the works and slowed down the idiotic Reagan Revolution and held the bastards to account through a multitude of Congressional hearings and investigations.

Carl Albert -- The "Little Giant from Little Dixie," Speaker during the Nixon and Ford years. Before becoming Speaker, the liberal southerner had crafted Medicaid and Medicare and other Great Society programs. He forced Nixon and Ford to govern virtually as Democrats, passing environmental, civil rights, pension and other milestone legislation. As Speaker he presided over the vast array of investigations that held Nixon accountable leading ultimately to impeachment and even more wide ranging Congressional investigations, such as the House Select Committee on Assassinations. After Agnew resigned from office in disgrace, Albert then magnanimously rushed through the confirmation of Gerald Ford as vice president in order to prevent himself from becoming president should Nixon be forced out, and having the presidency shift from Republican to Democrat, which would have caused a backlash. Unfortunately tainted by the Korea gate scandal toward the end of his career in the House.

Tom Foley -- Even he was better than Pelosi, although he was considered weaker than O'Neil. He presided over various investigations of the various Bush-the-elder-scandals, and was a scathing, unflinching critic of Bush senior in the media (unlike Pelosi who seems to cringe at publicly criticizing the worst president in history). Foley eventually forced the spendthrift Bush to raise taxes in order to contain a bond market meltdown, leading to Bush senior's electoral defeat in 1992, when abandoned by fiscal conservative purist nutjobs at the polls.

When Tip O'Neil was speaker of the house democrats had substantial majorities in each house of Congress and control of the White House under Jimmy Carter.

Carl Albert did nothing to end the Vietnam War. Nothing!! And what did he do in the failure to impeach Richard Nixon? Both supposedly critical issues for the Pelosi bashers.

Tom Foley was evidently so unpopular he district did not even reelect him he was speaker.



on edit: corrected impeachment

Um, I hate to break this news to you: Richard Nixon resigned from office under threat of being impeached and removed from office, after the House Judiciary Committee voted on articles of impeachment.

In other words, the House leadership supported vigorous investigation of the Watergate scandal, and the uncovering of evidence that convinced more and more House and Senate members to support impeachment, unlike Speaker Pelosi who has written off the idea of impeachment hearings.

You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Articles_of_impeachment.2C_resignation.2C_and_convictions

Um, also, hate to break this to you but Tip O'Neil was Speaker for most of his term under Reagan (1980-1987) not Carter (1977-1980). I pointed out what he accomplished in the same position as Pelosi -- as Speaker of a Democratic majority when the White House was in GOP hands. (Maybe I should also point out that Reagan was a Republican, not a Democrat.)

In case you don't know anything about Tip, you can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_O'Neill

When we are in the same factual universe, then maybe we can have a rational discussion about the details. First though, you need to get on board with the reality of Nixon's resignation and the existence of the Reagan administration.

Nixon should have been impeached.

Ford should not have pardoned him.

The House leadership did not "allow him to resign." No one can force the president to remain president.

The House Speaker and leadership vigorously supported hearings into Watergate, and other crimes, then allowed Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings to proceed to a vote. When it was obvious the House was going to vote for impeachment, Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

So no, they did not give away their constitutional authority; they exercised it.

The presidential pardon for any involvement in Watergate was absolute and unconditional.

And besides, once Nixon had resigned, the House could not "bring charges." The House only brings impeachment against sitting officials. The Justice Department "brings charges."

Also, not all charges were dropped against Nixon. He faced tax charges, which were eventually dropped by the IRS for lack of evidence of criminal intent on Nixon's part.

(1) Presidential pardons do not impact "Cases of Impeachment" and ... (2) impeachments can be performed after a person leaves office.



(1)
The Constitution Voids Presidential Pardons For Criminal Convictions Or Indictments Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment" Where The Senate Has Voted To Convict.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/ConstitutionVoidsPardons_Impeachment.html

(2)
"...AND STAY OUT!": THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE FOR POST-PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonop3.htm



Why would and impeachment be needed after a person leaves office? Because an impeachment conviction doesn't just kick a person out of office, it also prevents them from holding any other office as in "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

An argument, btw, that has strayed far from the original point -- that Tip O'Neil and other Speakers who held office during Republican administrations have been far, far more effective and brave than Nancy Pelosi.

But to address the incredibly silly points: Impeachment is limited to "civil officers" of the United States -- not ex-officers. All you've cited is a somewhat wacko, tongue in cheek, letter to the editor by a junior law school professor musing about whether someone could be impeached after he leaves office, and even that musing says, there is nothing in the constitution on the issue.

You've completely misinterpreted the other article that just says, IF someone is impeached then they can't be pardoned after they leave office -- not that someone can be impeached after they leave office -- and the author describes even this far out scenario as a "constitutional void" about which there is zero precedent.

This is just getting silly.

You are wrong.

There was nothing the House could have done to Nixon in terms of impeachment or "charges" once he resigned.

And I don't view your latest post as an argument. You've restorted to childish name calling.



totalement alésant l'extrémité fini

She has the institutional skills of someone who has been in the minority way too long-- she seeks to get along, rather than to lead the opposition.

We are in need of a Speaker who is neither a tyrant nor a doormat. We just need a Speaker who is goning to speak, by God.

isn't working!

I surely echo your sentiment. Unfortunately, "we" have nothing at all to do with who is speaker and, barring some really cataclysmic event, Nancy is in until at least 2009.

edit to add: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3627199&mesg_id=3627283

Hell, I think Dennis Kucinich should try to unseat her when the 111th Congress convenes.

She had her chance and let it go. A big disappointment.

We didn't elect her - Congress did. But I wouldn't mind seeing a Speaker Kucinich in 2009.

when your president *sigh

There is a lot of disinformation floating around to the effect that a Speaker cannot be removed. Of course she can be removed.

The Speaker serves at the pleasure of the majority of House members. Because parties vote with strict party discipline, the majority party basically chooses the Speaker at the beginning of each Congressional term, usually by seniority.

But unpopular Speakers have been removed in recent memory. It usually involves a segment of the majority party revolting and getting cooperation from the minority party.

This is how Newt Gingrich, although in the Repug minority at the time, conspired with dissident Democrats to remove Jim Wright, making Democrat Tom Foley Speaker and Newt House minority leader.

Several years later, Newt got his commupence when a repug revolt, in the wake of the failed impeachment of Clinton, enabled dissident repugs and Democrats to force his resignation by showing him they had to votes to dethrone him.

So yes, if she pisses off enough Democrats in the House, Pelosi is toast.

A Speaker is elected, not crowned King or Queen.

I don't think there has been a case in which a speaker has actually been removed/replaced during his term of office. Gingrich might well have lost his attempt to be named speaker for another term, but resigned from Congress and did not run for speaker. Jim Wright stepped down under a cloud, again before it was necessary to remove him. His unpopularity arose not from the way he conducted himself as speaker but because of concerns about alleged improprieties.

There actually was one attempt to replace a speaker mid-term in the 20th Century: John McCormack.

In 1969, Mo Udall tried to unseat McCOrmack at the beginning of the new Congress, but failed. A year later, Congressman Waldie of California tried to get the party caucus to declare a lack of confidence in McCormack, but that effort also failed. HOwever, scandals and complaints about McCormack's age, did lead, a few months later, to McCormack's resignation.

I agree it's difficult, but I think you are misreading their "resignations." In both cases, the "insurgents" went to them and said we have the votes. They each resigned to avoid the indignity of being thrown to the curb in an actual vote.

The result is the same. They were effectively removed by a revolt of their own party in the House.

Interestingly, these plots have to be carried out with great secrecy, because if the Speaker finds out you are plotting to overthrow him/her, then you can expect to get a great assignment to the House Subcommittee on Commemorative Place Names in Alaskan Wildlife Parks.

My point was that it probably is a lot easier to orchestrate a revolt at the beginning of a term rather than in the middle. In Gingrich's case, he had become such a polarizing figure, the party had done historically badly in the mid term elections, that he faced a revolt in terms of naming him speaker. Wright would've been tossed mid-term, but again, it was because of scandal, not unhappiness with his speakership. McCormack was the one recent example of an attempt to dislodge a sitting speaker and the public effort failed, although it probably helped speed his decision to step down.

At the beginning of the term they have those usually formalistic, pre-ordained "elections" within the House, and that's the time to mount a challenge.

Also, thanks for the info about McCormack. I wasn't familiar with the story. It's amazing that Mo survived a losing challenge and had a successful career in the House.

Congress has its own equivalent of the old Soviet method of dealing with high ranking officials who challenge authority -- by "promoting" them to the crucial task of managing a power plant in Siberia.

What is the old saying? He who strikes at the king must kill him?

I have said this same thing. Playing nice with Fascists is a dead end proposition. It seems to me the Dems are too worried about what the repubs say and not what the people want. Pelosi is a big disappointment IMO.

:patriot:

I get the feeling he's a major part of the problem.

That was irony. Just trying to remind people that it's always a good idea to look before you leap.

I know he really wants to be President, but I get the feeling he wouldn't be too happy in the Oval Office. He appreciates the relative freedom of being in Congress, and he has proven himself as someone who stays active in Congress, someone who isn't inclined to push it with vacations and "personal days."

Speaker Kucinich. I like the sound of it. Neo-fascists would piss themselves over it.

Yeah, the Dennis Kucinich who has not been able to pass a single vote he's written since he joined Congress.


He'd make a fine speaker. All talk, no substance. Just what we need in a speaker.

With friends like these... :shrug:

I wont consider that. Other Reps pass legislation. Other reps didnt vote against S-CHIP. Other reps arent cynically pro choice.

Very experienced in Congress, led the Congressional Black Caucus, smart, outspoken, and would not knuckle under to Bush. In fact she is a co-sponsor of a resolution to impeach Cheney.

boot her so it's not going to happen. Most of them probably agree with her.
You can moan and groan about impeachment but it isn't going to happen either.. above everything else
she and the Democrats have to be practical and realistic. They have to actually do the job, not peck away on an internet discussion group.

I haven't seen shit out of Speaker Pelosi's efforts. She's not getting anything done. And that's the problem. Impeachment should be getting done. Denying funds to the Iraqi occupation should be getting done. Even S-CHIP should be getting done. But they're not.

At this rate, Rep. Pelosi as speaker of the 111th Congress is probably not gonna happen, either.

I'm wondering if you even believe the stuff you write, or if you just feel obliged to offer a defense?

I'm logical and pragmatic. Things sorely in short supply around here.
I also like to piss off the hotheads. How am I doin'?

I finally agree with derby378 on something......

:toast:

:bounce:

trying to get a bill passed on the children's health care.

A good point, but what's wrong with a little multitasking? Work on S-CHIP, yes, but not at the expense of what little credibility we still have on the Iraq issue.

Awful representative.

Pelosi's rating has dropped like a lead balloon & is still dropping as we speak.

I hear some pretty enraging things about Reid, but more than half of the outrage goes to Nancy... not saying I like either of them, but I wonder if the communal sense of proportion is out of whack here.

Democratic control of the Senate hangs by a thread - and that thread's name is Joseph Lieberman. When the Democratic majority increases in 2008 and Reid still acts paralyzed, let's have a similar thread for him as well.

a new speaker. Ain't gonna happen.

Eleventh Commandment, HA! ...should be, "Thou shalt call an 'ass' an ASS, if so disserved!!!"

:kick:&R

to vote Democratic. There are ways you know. The Republicans managed to get their team to play together. I suspect that Pelosi was a compromise candidate. She is a "nice" person, "tactful" and not "overbearing," in plain talk, she is a Woos. People on both sides of the Democratic Party could accept her. We really need to "out" some of the Democrats in Congress who get themselves elected as Democrats but who repeatedly vote Republican.

When Feinstein ran again here in California, she was viewed as such a strong candidate that no one ran against her. I did not want to vote for her. I voted with pride for Barbara Boxer, but voting for Feinstein is just a baby step better than voting for a Republican. Of course, since there was no other choice really, I voted for her anyway. Feinstein has done immeasurable harm in the Senate. And she has occupied a seat that could just as easily have been won by a real Democrat.

We not only need candidates in all districts in all states, but we need real Democratic candidates in all districts in all states. We need real Democrats who will vote for Democratic bills. To achieve that goal, we need real Democrats to run in all districts in all states every election. That way, real Democrats will at least have a chance to vote in a primary for a candidate who would represent them. Of course, sometimes the more conservative Democrat will win. Even so, the conservative Democrat will have been challenged and caused to think about how the real Democrats in his or her district feel and think about the issues.

Until the conservative Democrats are replaced by real Democrats in Congress, Nancy Pelosi types will continue to be chosen as Speaker. The same goes for Reid in the Senate of course. We need to get real Democrats elected to the Congress. Then the Pelosi types will either be out or represent us properly.

Cindy Sheehan was seriously considering a run against her until Barbara Boxer talked her out of it. Other than that, Feinstein faced an anti-war Democrat in the primary and trounced her with at least 80% of the primary vote.

from a high approval rating in the 60th percentile early this year.

As Dick Gephardt would say, Pelosi is a "miserable failure" as Speaker.

Her constituents need to put together a credible challenge against her in the Democratic primary.

Congress as a WHOLE is polling at 11%, not the "Democratic Congress". Congress polls so low mostly because of Republican obstruction, they won't even let the Dems bring votes to the floor.

That said I'm not happy with Pelosi either, but she's only responsible for the low numbers if you ignore the Republicans, which you seem more than willing to do. Why?

:eyes:

And on a personal level, Pelosi is fairly decent. And she loves her grandkids. But she is considered aloof and inaccessible by far too many Democrats, and she is unable to rally the necessary support from blue-dogs in order to get things done. I don't think we need a right-of-center Democrat as Speaker, just someone who is both responsible to other Representatives and also motivating enough to bring all of the Dems onboard for what needs to be done. Like S-CHIP. Or Iraq. Or global climate change, which will dwarf both other issues in the next decade, especially with the loss of almost a quarter of Arctic ice over the past two years.

are you kidding? Nancy Pelosi is hated at DU, people call for her resignation or assassination multiple times daily here.

Most experts stress it was, in fact, the corruption of the republicans that was the deciding factor in 2006.

We are not a defense/war based economy. That's they way the war profiteers want it because they lack
the ability to adapt. They got screwed before and won't let it happen again.

The solution: perpetual war.

So, don't kid yourself, we won't get any speaker who the offense/war industry fines anything
other than "easy to dance to."

But we do need a new one, a real kick ass speaker, not this slow motion implosion...of our country.

She is an enabler and an architect of a failed political strategy. Namely, let the president keeping making ever bigger, and BIGGER mistakes so dems look good by comparison. It is irresponsible to use our country to play chicken with the lunatic shrub and Cheney. He has an APPROVAL RATE OF 24%!!!

That's the sad part, the part that's so disturbing. Better by comparison simply translates into the lesser of TWO evils. Dems actually look weak and ineffectual.

I understand that the Dem power-brokers don't want to gamble on impeachment because they believe it would be detrimental to winning in 2008.

In my opinion, that is a steaming pile of hooey. Our democracy may not survive until 2008 under the current regime.

...and back up other Dems that actually have the stones to take it to the criminal junta running this country (into the ground) is simply unacceptable...

Time to step aside Mme Speaker...