We Should Have Dumped Pelosi

William Galston November 18, 2010 | 12:00 am

On Thursday, the House Democratic caucus selected Nancy Pelosi as the minority leader. A few hours earlier, Quinnipiac University released its latest survey, which sheds some interesting light on that decision.

<SNIP>

Two points stand out:

1. The share of people who hadn’t heard enough about Pelosi to form an opinion declined by 25 points from February of 2007 until November 2010. During that period, the share with a favorable opinion remained constant at 25 percent, while those with an unfavorable opinion rose by 24 points, from 31 to 55 percent. In short, virtually everyone who received additional information about Pelosi over the past three and a half years reached a negative conclusion.

2. This is a long-term development and not principally the result of the advertising campaign waged against her during the peak of the midterm election. By the time of Obama’s election, her unfavorable rating had already risen by ten points; by March of this year—eight months ago, it had risen another Ten points. Between March and November, it rose by only four more points. The inescapable fact is that whatever her strengths as an inside player, Pelosi’s public presence has proved monumentally unappealing to all except a small core of supporters.

<SNIP>

This decision was the victory of inside baseball over common sense, and no amount of spin can change that.

Allen and Harris finish their piece with a section that begins, “There’s no one else.” Yes there was, and his decision not to challenge Pelosi is hardly a disqualification for party leadership. Why on earth should Steny Hoyer have mounted a kamikaze attack against colleagues who would rather be the majority in a minority party than do what’s necessary to regain the only majority that matters?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/79251/dump-pelosi-minority-leader-democrats

I feel that it will be very difficult for a Pelosi led caucus to ever regain the majority. I fear that President Obama will far outpace House Democrats in 2012 due in large part to the albatross of Nancy Pelosi.

That only makes me like her more.

But it is a concern how many other people don't like her, too.

And I stand by what I said. The fact that those who in their petty obstructionism would like to see our country in ruins because it makes the Democrat in the White House a failure in their eyes hate a person speaks volumes to that persons efficacy, and I will support anyone that brings out and/or shines a light on that ugliness in the GOTP.

I think she must be doing something right.

Well I guess that doing the right thing translates to being the minority then. That probably is the bigger picture of the situation...we would rather be ideologically pure than be the majority.

How come none of these people are asking Harry Reid to step down?

If polling was the basis for who leads this party, we'd be in trouble.

People hate Congress, and the electorate has been in an anti-incumbent mood since 2006. And the Rs waged a large and well-orchestrated media campaign against her. Nobody would have got through that unscathed. I agree that she has been effective at her job, so I'm glad she is sticking around.

Maybe they are all content to be in the minority? I really don't understand how retaining Nancy Pelosi gets us a realistic shot at the majorty in 2012.

And she won't have Rahm to do all the legwork this time either.

or any Democrat?

The Republicans retained Boehner after 2008, no one seemed to care.

No, IMHO.

Leading Democrats to their first majority in more than a decade.

One of, if not the most successful DCCC chairmen in history. So no, not kidding.

Pelosi's effectiveness is historic. She gets things done and is unafraid. That's what counts, nothing else matters. The people that have bought in to the Fox smear campaign against Pelosi are many of the same ones who also say that Michael Moore played fast and loose with facts, and then fail to back up the assertion. Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore are national treasures. Bluedogs be damned!

Dumping Pelosi would have been yet another spineless cave by Ds who are so afraid of their own shadows that they'll vote against their own interests, even when the only reason to do so is because some anonymous RW "they" said they should.

she could have done a better job raining in the blue dogs.

As for reigning the Blue Dogs in how would that have been done? They consisted of about 22% of the Democratic Party. They will be about 13% of the Democratic Party in 112th. If we can regain those seats or other seats without Blue Dogs winning their number will as part of the whole will be less than 11%. And no need to reign them in during the 112th or future if fewer Blue Dogs are elected.

:hi:

Raining them in is a bit harder - it requires cloud seeding.

At least it does for dogs in the act of mating.

1 : a strap fastened to a bit by which a rider or driver controls an animal
usu. used in pl. 2 a : a restraining influence : check b : controlling or
guiding power usu. used in pl. 3 : opportunity for unhampered activity or use

rain is that wet stuff that comes from the sky.

IIRC Pelosi always marshaled the votes required in the House.

Newt Gingrich was effective too.

House Democrats and House Democrats alone get to choose their leader. Everyone else can have an opinion.

Nancy Pelosi is one of the most accomplished Speakers in history. To hell with the noise.

That could act for or against an individual rep. Why do you think Obama was trying to turn Boehner into a bad guy?

If I had ever considered voting for a moderate Republican for the house (which I've never done yet) knowing I could possibly put someone like Newt Gingrich in as Speaker would have made me think twice.

Most of the people who supported Pelosi won, most of those who didn't, lost. Maybe that was their problem.

It's the same sort of calculation the GOP will have to make when they decide what to do with Sarah Palin. It's all about strategy and positioning.

House Democrats have made their decision. Move on.

So be it. If she hurts the party she always has the option to step down.

Can we leave the threats to Republicans?

These are the centrists and triangulators who made the Democrats a perennial GOP-lite. Why should the American people vote for us, when they can have the real thing?

we'd be stuck with some chicken-shit conservadem bluedog low-life weasel.

Are they kidding?

How does Steny Hoyer, who was in the leadership, qualify as a new face?

This is posted at TDS, and I agree with this response:


Some made the case for and Heath Shuler.

People need to stop the analyzing the ridiculous to come to even more ridiculous conclusions.

Both Pelosi and Obama were demonized. Will these pollsters next suggest President Obama decline to run in 2012. Nancy Pelosi is a fighter. That is just what this 'big tent' Democratic party needs.

Steny Hoyer would be a poor choice to replace Nancy Pelosi. He's close to the Blue Dogs and gets along well with Republicans.

Sixty-one (61) Republicans must run again in 2012 in districts Obama carried in '08. I like those odds and I like Nancy Pelosi leading the Dems in the House. She's from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party--which is more than you can say for the Blue Dog wing of the party--decimated as they were. Most of the Blue Dog losses were from McCain districts--36 out of 48.

More than enough reason to stick by her side. The House got its business done and had to wait around while the Senate Republicans blocked legislation after legislation after legislation using every method in the Senate rules book.



Don't fall for the corporate media's message.

:applause:

after she was elected leader by the overwhelming majority of her peers.

so they strategically leak talking points to the house reporters and insiders about discontent and low poll numbers...It will continue as long as they think there is a one percent chance Pelosi will be removed...

Ever notice in all these "Pelosi should quit" stories that none of the commentators or pundits have ANY suggestion on who should replace her? The moment a legit potential successor is revealed, then we'll know who has been trying to get cute...

Kind of amazing since she showed SPINE in standing up to the Tea Party and Blue Dogs who wanted her to go down and let RW Heath Schuyler take her place? Or, perhaps DLC'er Hoyer?

The Democratic Party should not allow the right-wing to dictate it's leadership. The Republicans don't want her as leader, because they don't want solid opposition.

I mean, the Republicans hate all three of them and spent most of the past two years trying to convince the country of the evils and dangers of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid "axis".

:eyes:

Maybe Bill Maher should issue a new "rule": If Republicans don't like you, you should resign (or refuse to run for re-election)

Nah.....:puke:

Of course, that's basically what we've been hearing from the Republicans and the corporate media since the midterm elections.

Nobody on the Republican side suggested Bush to step down "for the good of the country" when he DIDN'T win the election in 2000. Nobody on the Republican side suggested that he refuse to run for re-election in 2004 when he wasn't able to find the much ballyhooed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and all of those nasty photos came out of Abu Gharib (and the WH was found to be sanctioning torture, rendition, etc.). Nobody on the Republican side asked Boehner and Cantor to not run for their corollary (minority) leadership posts when the Republicans lost the House in 2006 and didn't win it back in 2008, right? :shrug:

So, WTF gives THEM (and their corporate media mouthpieces) the right and/or privilege to comment on what decisions OUR leaders make in regards to their political careers?
:wtf:

Oh and ... "albatross" ... really??

The woman who got the house to pass a huge number of bills is an "albatross"???

Here's an idea, why don't we just let the GOP's lobbyist write bills, and let Heath and the BlueDogs pass them.

I daresay that anybody who would think that she is:

a.) Doesn't live in her CD and doesn't really know who she is and/or what she really stands for.

AND/OR

b.) Knows of her primarily through the endless distortions, lies, and smears propagated by right-wing hate talk hosts and/or Fox News.

AND/OR

c.) Probably doesn't like Democrats (yes, even Blue Dogs) and believes that they are irredeemably *evil* and wouldn't even vote for any of them in the first place.

AND/OR

d.) Thinks the results of the midterm elections had something specifically to do with her and/or her leadership as Speaker of the House during the past two years, which, AFAIK is not currently indicated by the polling.

AND/OR

e.) Overly concerned about what people, most of whom likely fall into one of the above categories, *think* about Pelosi.

If Dems would act like Dems, they'd do better with the electorate.

- the good news is that we'll have someone to blame if 2012 is a repeat of 2010.

The problem with this argument is that it involves a fundamental misunderstanding of the job of the speaker of the house. The speaker of the house is not the president; she does not have to be popular with the public. Her job is to get her colleagues to vote the way she wants them to, and to get laws passed. By that measure, she has been extremely successful.

Think about it. Was Dennis Hastert popular with the general public? How about Newt Gingrich? Why should the standard for Pelosi be different?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050202769.html

:shrug:

in the 111th Congress. She stays.

Oh, and FYI, that's not why Hastert and Gingrich resigned. Do you honestly think either of them gave two shits about hurting their fellow Congresspeople in tight races?

Jesus fucking Christ. I swear to God--most of the chatter in this thread about dumping Pelosi is coming from DUers who will turn around and in the same breath say that Democrats should stick to their principles. You can't have it both ways.

Why doesn't TNR do a story about that instead?

weaken the house ??? What we need is a Nancy Pelosi documentary wayyy more to her than meets the eye. Pelosi the Move I'd go watch it. :popcorn:

and Pelosi was the poster child for attacks by the GOP.

Shuler would've been a good minority leader. Obama's going to have to work with the GoP after its gains and Pelosi is a terrible person to help make that happen. Pelosi was a big reason why the GoP gained as much ground as they did; she is flat-out disliked by the vast majority of Americans and is just as much to blame as anyone for the mess that was the last two years.

Hell, her record going back to '06 is pretty awful as far as getting things done. She's got the health care bill, which she was also responsible for gutting to a large degree.

His blue dog statis would make him the perfect choice...NOT.. I would' t vote for him if he ran for blue dog, dog catcher....

and you're delusional if you think otherwise. Shuler wants to suck Boehner off so desperately he's practically glowing the same shade of orange.

Probably the most popular politician in the country. Candidates in swing districts always request that she come to their districts to campaign for them. Candidates always appear in commercials touting her accomplishments. She is in no way a liability or a drag on the ticket.

and among Democrats in the House.

Heath Shuler is barely popular anywhere.

Who will probably be redistricted out of existence next year anyways. His bid was only symbolic.

I should hope Pelosi is popular in San Francisco, but that seems like a pretty low bar to me.

And don't confuse power with popularity, among the Democratic caucus. Nancy holds all the levers of power in the caucus, opposing her was fruitless and would only cause anger and the possibility of retribution.

This leadership election was a farce, not a choice.

Were you there? Who would you have chosen, one of the people you're insulting with your comment?

Because Washington is about power and self-preservation. Why risk it by supporting a doomed challenge?

are the 43 who didn't fall in line and vote for Pelosi?

Good to know.

By the time of the leadership election, Pelosi's victory was a fait accompli.

The 43 that actually cast votes against Pelosi were likely just spooked about casting any votes in her favor. After the election results a few weeks ago, I can't really blame them either.

The House chose her as leader; therefore, people not in the House can have their irrelevant opinion.

We Republicans to tell us who we pick as leaders.

And people advocate dumping Pelosi for a more conservative Dem as Minority Leader?One who will work
with Republicans. Yeah that will get Liberals and Minoritys to vote In 2012.

Thank God. We're going to be grateful for her in the coming months, I tell ya.

will hate anybody we put up anyways. Besides there's nobody else who can unite the caucus the way she does.

to shoot at? Heath presents no such easy target.

You think Heath is popular and not a target for Republicans? Are you kidding?

Also why would any Democrat want Shuler to be House Democratic leader?

He wasn't a serious candidate for the position. Legitimate challengers were successfully scared off.

Everyone got a pat on the back and got to keep their jobs. Despite presiding over a 60+ seat loss, aside from moving to smaller offices everything worked out just fine for the leadership.

Keep insulting people when you have no way of knowing the facts.

They had a vote to delay the election, it failed.

Heath Shuler's negatives are not even in the same ball park as Nancy's.
I am talking about ALL voters, not just democratic voters.

Heath Shuler is going to either be attacked by Republicans for standing up for all Democrats, which he will not, or not attacked for appeasing Republicans. For that reason, his ass belongs right where the House election left it.



edited for clarity

will be 10 times more than any other person I can think of.
The magnitude is just important as the direction.

I think Pelosi was chosen not because of pro-Pelosi sentiment but because no one else was willing to step up. Only Pelosi had the guts. Otherwise there would have been a battle over leadership.

To put truth on the the table?

I didn't see anyone in the leadership position to to do that

From Memphis....

them die in the senate under the mere threat of a filibuster. The feckless and ineffectual Harry Reid is the one who should have been dumped.

I see no reason to dump Pelosi.

The democratic members of the House and Senate are the problem. Not Pelosi. She has to deal with the people that she has.

notwithstanding her 'off the table' remarks. She's made sure the House passed a record number of bills. But who's counting or even paying attention when the GOP is talking.

Not standing our ground, etc. Doing what the Republicans said we should do would be described as "caving" wouldn't it?

Isn't it "spine" to go against what people want and risk not getting reelected over it? That seems to be the definition on DU.

the only thing that made her look bad was the constant spewing of bile by disgruntled R's.

Watch Boehner completely screw everything up, the R's have nothing and they know it, for the years Pelosi was Speaker, she helped get a lot done...everything, no, of course not, no speaker, Senate Majority Leader or president can get everything done, but 80% of the country didn't pay much mind to her until the RW smear machine took off. Opinions were formned under false pretenses, and I'm willing to bet that 95% of the people who voted strictly to., "get rid of Pelosi", never took the time to learn anything about her or her accomplishments.

She's a good D and she stuck to her word...where is the reasoning to get rid of her, because the RW screechmonkeys say so...not good enough for me...if D's would have gotten off their asses and voted we'd still have both houses rather than just the Senate. Only 22% of eligible D's voted in the mid-term, that's why we lost some big races, not because Pelosi is who she is.

It's worked so well so far!

The article makes it out like the attacks on her began in the run up to these mid terms.

However actually the assault has been steady since she became the leader after the 06 elections.

But really it doesn't matter who is in the leadership of the Dems they are going to be in the crosshairs.

Pelosi gets it a little harder because she's from California and a woman, just like Obama is getting it because he's a black guy, but remember the campaign against Tip O Neil?? Remember the car commercial???

The republicans are much better at personally attacking and demonizing the leaders of the dems than vice versa.

The dems are really stuck back in the late 70's early 80's as far as being civil and bipartisan. The sad part is if they don't play the GOP wins.

"The republicans are much better at personally attacking and demonizing the leaders of the dems than vice versa.

The dems are really stuck back in the late 70's early 80's as far as being civil and bipartisan. The sad part is if they don't play the GOP wins."


Bil Clinton practically made Newt Gingrich Dob Dole's running mate. It was hilarious because Newt and Dole hated one another. Newt called Dole "the tax collector for the welfare state".

Republicans held the House for five consecutive elections.

Thanks mostly to George Bush's 30% approval rating and the stellar management of the DCCC by Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi was able to serve as Speaker.

While in the leadership, Pelosi has seen Democrats win a minority of seats in three elections, and a majority in just two.

Please red my post and the post I responded to.

for both Minority Leader of House and Majority leader in the Senate. Our party needs to go in a different direction.

No matter if they would be a middle of the pack TeaPubliKlan they would be painted as more left then Mao, Marx, and all of Hollywood put together.

I have some issues with Pelosi but it has nothing to do with popularity and working with TeaPubliKlans. There is nothing for it, they have the votes and are dialed in ideologically.

This isn't the Senate, if you can hold your caucus and/or have a large enough majority then you can roll. We'll have to be fairly hardcore to ensure votes go through the normal process.

The TeaPubliKlans do not have any 30, 40, and certainly not 50 reddogs or whatever that extinct creature would be called.

Pelosi's been an outstanding leader and she should continue to do so.

And this is crap from The New Republic--can you honestly expect them to be objective?

What I can't deny, is the fact that this is the most productive congress (House) in my lifetime. I won't say that they came up with legislation that was always to my liking, but they steadfastly passed legislation that was acceptable. To suggest that Pelosi's prerogatives were somehow a hindrance to that process and outcome is laughable, even absurd. She did a fine job, and she'll do a fine job. Hoyer, on the other hand... Let's just say the Dems have capitulated enough to the Republicans, there's no reason to exacerbate the situation.

nothing to do with how the House members vote on their leadership. House Democrats wanted Pelosi in leadership positions before, wanted her as Speaker, and want her as minority leader now. They think she is effective as a leader.

So, just who the fuck are you or anyone else out here to think you can change things?

(BTW, some of us agree that she is an effective leader, even if we didn't get everything on our Christmas list.)

So, just who the fuck are you or anyone else out here to think you can change things?

lol

If they would have picked a Blue Dog Corpo-Dem instead of Pelosi or someone else in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and I would have left the Dem Party. No reason would remain to stay.