[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Why Nancy Pelosi Must Remain Speaker

by: Robert Cruickshank

Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 11:28:16 AM PDT


Here in California, what looked like a potentially disastrous election might not turn out so badly after all. Recent polling gives Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer a good chance of being re-elected, should the GOTV go well. Today's Field Poll shows Prop 23 trailing and Prop 25 leading, which is good, although Prop 19 is now trailing too, and nobody really knows what the fuck is happening with Prop 26.

There are still some downticket races that really matter, particularly the battle for Attorney General between Kamala Harris and the Karl Rove-backed right-winger Steve Cooley, a race Field yesterday found to be a dead heat.

But the most suspenseful race on Tuesday night will involve a member of Congress who will have no trouble getting re-elected from her district. Nancy Pelosi is the first Speaker of the House from California and the first female Speaker. But after just four years in the Speaker's office, only two of which came with a Democratic president, she faces the loss of her majority on Tuesday. Nate Silver at 538 projects Republicans will gain 53 seats, enough to give them about a 20 seat majority.

Seats here in California are in play. Democrats face close races in CA-11, where Jerry McNerney may just barely hold off David Harmer; in CA-20, where Jim Costa faces a tough fight against Andy Vidak, and in CA-47 where Loretta Sanchez might finally have met her match in Van Tran. On the other hand, Dems have a real pickup opportunity in CA-3 with Ami Bera challenging Dan Lungren, and could also win a number of Southern California seats: CA-44 (Bill Hedrick challenging Ken Calvert), CA-45 (Steve Pougnet challenging Mary Bono Mack) and CA-48 (Beth Krom challenging John Campbell).

But it's the worsening national picture that portends doom for Speaker Pelosi. Many of the seats won in 2006 and 2008 are poised to flip back to Republicans in states like Florida, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Combined with a nationwide enthusiasm gap (one that hasn't appeared on the West Coast), it might be enough to cost Democrats their House majority.

Even if Democrats keep the Senate, however, Republican control of the House will be catastrophic for California's future. Although Frank Rich believes a Republican House wouldn't act as radical as it talks, I'm not so sanguine. The teabagger majority will demand massive cuts to important federal programs such as health care, education, and mass transportation. They might not get the 40% cut in spending they demand, but they'll get quite a lot of the Hooverism they demand, and California will get the brunt of it.

Worse, new initiatives to create jobs will be stalled (not that the White House was doing much about it anyway) and unemployment will either remain steady or rise - as Robert Reich suggests, Republicans will want to keep unemployment as high as possible going into 2012 in order to defeat Obama. California, with 12% unemployment, will struggle to reduce it without federal help, worsening our already dire budget situation.

That's all bad enough. What is truly unjust about this situation is that Speaker Pelosi did everything right. Under her leadership the past two years, the House of Representatives passed some very strong legislation that mostly fulfilled a progressive agenda. Some of the highlights of Speaker Pelosi's accomplishments:

• Strong health care bill with a public option
• Cap-and-trade climate bill
• Blueprint for new transportation bill with $50 billion in high speed rail funding
• Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
• Decent (if not great) financial regulation bill

And Pelosi had been frequently calling for a second stimulus after it became apparent that the first one (itself stronger in the House than in the Senate) was failing to end the recession.

What happened to that ambitious agenda? It died in the US Senate, where Democrats like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln were enabled to sabotage and ultimately destroy the Democratic House majority by Harry Reid's failed leadership. The White House also spent plenty of time sabotaging the House's progressive agenda, either failing to stand up for its priorities in the Senate or by actively collaborating with the DINO bloc to undermine the House's accomplishments.

President Obama and the Senate Democrats failed their party, failed their base, and failed their country. Yet it is Speaker Pelosi who may pay the price. It's a monumental injustice, and a disaster that could derail this country for a generation.

If you live in a district where there is even a hint of an incumbent Democrat being in trouble, or even a possibility of a Democrat knocking off an incumbent Republican, we need you to get out there right now and help elect those Democrats. Speaker Pelosi deserves another 2 years to try and force the White House and the Senate to get things right - and the country deserves to be saved from the catastrophe that would be Speaker John Boehner.

Robert Cruickshank :: Why Nancy Pelosi Must Remain Speaker
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Senate (0.00 / 0)
What happened to that ambitious agenda? It died in the US Senate, where Democrats like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln were enabled to sabotage and ultimately destroy the Democratic House majority by Harry Reid's failed leadership.

 This is like blaming the Democrats for California budget/revenue problems.  The Senate requires 60 votes for
pretty much everything (not quite 2/3rd's, but close).  The
only good thing is that Democrats can veto changes in the health care bill with only 40 Senators (in case we have President Palin in 2013).


Not so sure (4.00 / 1)
I am not so sure that Democratic senators, as a group, will have the stones to stand up to the right-wingers.  I haven't seen it.  And now, after this year's debacle, they will all convince themselves that the country believes they went too far to the left.

And, too, the filibuster is a legitimate senate tool to require a 60 vote majority only when it is used by Republicans.  Whenever the Democrats even talk about using it, they are roundly condemned not only by Republicans and Village Pundits, but usually by a few Democratic senators as well.


[ Parent ]
Not buying it (4.00 / 1)
The Senate Dems could have ended the filibuster at any time. They chose not to. Their failure is their own fault. I have ZERO sympathy whatsoever for them.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
With you on that (4.00 / 1)
I'm with you on that, I have no sympathy for Democratic senators.  But I do have a great deal of sympathy for the people they purport to represent.

[ Parent ]
Pelosi took impeachment off the table (4.00 / 2)
I think it is emblematic of the Democratic Party's troubles that impeachment and/or indictment of Republican officials of the previous administration for War Crimes was pre-emptively taken off the table.  There was (and still is) a solid case for impeachment/indictment of Bush and many of his subordinates for War Crimes and related offenses.  Torture is perhaps the easiest of the War Crimes charges to comprehend and prove.  Starting a War of Aggression in Iraq is now rather simple to document.  

Democrats needed to be strong and impeach/indict Bush and his cabal for their War Crimes.  Failure to do so previously was weak and, frankly, unprincipled.  It was downhill from there.  Our present electoral disaster is proof of the pudding.

Many have documented the insults to the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party thrown out by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (and others) which split the Democratic Party into the "DFH" wing and the "Pro-appeasment of the Republicans" wing.

Why does anyone wonder why the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is dissatisfied?   Lack of enthusiasm is significantly responsible for the electoral disaster awaiting us in a few days.  


Sadam Hussein (1.00 / 1)
Confessed of His own Free Will after the US Army captured Him hiding in a hole in the ground, That He put out the word that He had WMD's, Why? To keep the Iranians out as He knew He could only count on the Republican Guard, IRAQ was a house of cards just waiting to fall, Bush and Company fell for It as Did the Brits and the UN, And that's hardly impeachable, That's just vindictive, Bush thought He was protecting the USA, He was doing His job as CIC and as President. Sure the war was wrong, But don't go blaming a President for doing His Job, That is just so wrong. Saddam did say that He'd gotten rid of It all, But that as soon as He could He would rearm and start on the Nuke Weapons research... So that's something that was prevented at least.

[ Parent ]
I've been critical of Pelosi (0.00 / 0)
And that was one of the reasons.

But I also think her stupid "impeachment off the table" comment is more than made up for by her excellent leadership over the last four years, especially the last two years, on a progressive agenda. Don't spite her because she wasn't perfect - support her because she did more to implement a progressive agenda than any other Democratic leader currently in Washington DC.

Besides, she's not the one who declared that "we're not going to look backward" as he implemented or continued Bush's core policies on national security and the war in Afghanistan. As I said here in the post, Obama fucked up, but Pelosi is going to pay the price.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
I support Pelosi for Minority Leader (0.00 / 0)
because, as you wrote, "she did more to implement a progressive agenda than any other Democratic leader currently in Washington DC".  However, there is an unaddressed elephant in the room:  War Crimes.  By not attempting to do something about it the Democratic Party leadership abdicated it's responsibility under US law and the Geneva Conventions to prosecute War Crimes by members of the prior administration.  Failure to prosecute those War Crimes is itself a crime.  The deaths of thousands of US troops, as well as approximately a million Iraqis who suffered premature deaths is an elephant of horrid dimensions.  It is sad indeed that there was not a large enough group in either the Senate or House to force the prosecution of those responsible for War Crimes.

[ Parent ]
Why?, indeed... (2.50 / 2)
"But the most suspenseful race on Tuesday night will involve a member of Congress who will have no trouble getting re-elected from her district."

You sure about that? If Reid's seat is on the line, she might not be much more safe than him.

"What is truly unjust about this situation is that Speaker Pelosi did everything right."

Yeah, except for impeaching Bush, ending the wars, giving us universal health care, or even a public option, and prosecuting banksters, she did it all.

"It died in the US Senate, where Democrats like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln were enabled to sabotage and ultimately destroy the Democratic House majority by Harry Reid's failed leadership."

It's nice to blame them, but it's her job to demand more, isn't it?

"The White House also spent plenty of time sabotaging the House's progressive agenda, either failing to stand up for its priorities in the Senate or by actively collaborating with the DINO bloc to undermine the House's accomplishments."

The White House was trying to get something passed because the members of the House and Senate had their thumbs up their asses.

"President Obama and the Senate Democrats failed their party, failed their base, and failed their country. Yet it is Speaker Pelosi who may pay the price. It's a monumental injustice,"

Why is it an injustice? She had four years to get it right, and yet she slacked off as badly as Bush during Katrina and 9/11. Newt was as unpopular as her by the end, and yet he actually got things done. And he didn't have a super-majority. Why the hell should she be rewarded for lacking as much spine as Reid?

"Besides, she's not the one who declared that "we're not going to look backward" as he implemented or continued Bush's core policies on national security and the war in Afghanistan."

Yes, but she could've still defunded the war.

Joker: Even if Saddam lied, every expert on the Bush team who wasn't bought by the military-industrial complex proved the WMD claim false. So the buck still stops with him.  


are you seriously comparing (0.00 / 0)
the state of nevada's electorate to california's 8th congressional district electorate? yikes.

[ Parent ]
DZ is wrong (4.00 / 1)
This is an incredibly stupid set of comments, point by point:

1. Pelosi represents a congressional district that includes the city of San Francisco. Reid represents the entire state of Nevada. They have OBVIOUSLY different demographic and political makeups.

2. You're making the perfect the enemy of the good. Pelosi did a lot that you're not giving her credit for.

3. She did.

4. This contradicts your point 2: Pelosi's positions were consistently more progressive than the White House's. You obviously haven't been paying attention.

5. Blatantly untrue on every count. You don't know what you're talking about.

6. No she couldn't have. There were never the votes for such an idea.

7. Okay, I'll give you this one.


[ Parent ]
Good Intelligence was lacking, (0.00 / 0)
IE nothing like eyes in the walls, Which We did not have anymore, Before the last Iraq War, We had bad intel as I've read, When did that happen? That I really don't know for sure, Maybe right after the end of the cold war is when It started, I think It may have been called the Peace Dividend, Bases were being closed, etc, etc. But until the truth was discovered in IRAQ, Bush was doing what He was elected to do, Defend this Country. Of course by then the damage was done and It could not be undone, Kind of like putting Humpty Dumpty together again. So We've made the best of a bad situation. I'm not apologizing for Bush, But war is hell, Those who come back alive, Don't always feel like they did when they left, Mom said Dad came back from WWII Europe a changed Man, He never talked about It either.

[ Parent ]
RE: Dissenters (0.00 / 0)
"the state of nevada's electorate to california's 8th congressional district electorate? yikes."

Well, they both enabled and became the victims to the housing crisis, so I'm not sure why they're that different.

"You're making the perfect the enemy of the good."

I'm gettin' tired of that cliche. How is being in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression and in endless war good?

"She did."

Really? She claimed we'd still have the public option.

"Pelosi's positions were consistently more progressive than the White House's."

Not really, because she was willing to do nothing if it meant not having to be on the offense, while the White House was at least willing to get through some legislation.  

"Blatantly untrue on every count."

What part of that is untrue? She had four years, and the only thing I recall her doing at all before the last year which was "progressive" was raising the minimum wage by a buck.

"No she couldn't have. There were never the votes for such an idea."

Never? What do you call last year? But even if she didn't have the votes to defund it, she had the support to vote against further funding.

"Bush was doing what He was elected to do, Defend this Country."

I thought Bush's platform was against "nation-building".

 


[ Parent ]
You're a fool (0.00 / 0)
"Well, they both enabled and became the victims to the housing crisis, so I'm not sure why they're that different."

California's 8th Congressional District (Pelosi's) has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+35, making it the 9th most Democratic congressional district in the nation. The state of Nevada has an index of D+1, making it the 22nd most Democratic state. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

"I'm gettin' tired of that cliche. How is being in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression and in endless war good?"

We're pulling out of the Recession, Obama has been pulling troops out of Iraq. Just because you're ignorant is no reason to blame leaders for their imagined shortcomings.

"Really? She claimed we'd still have the public option."

Considering that that the Health Care bill was considered dead after Scott Brown got elected, Pelosi is largely responsible for getting anything passed at all.

"Not really, because she was willing to do nothing if it meant not having to be on the offense, while the White House was at least willing to get through some legislation. "

This is just ignorant nonsense.

"What part of that is untrue? She had four years, and the only thing I recall her doing at all before the last year which was "progressive" was raising the minimum wage by a buck."

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Pelosi has Speaker passed bills cutting student loan interest rates, reforming the budgetary rules, ended oil subsidies, reformed how Medicare purchases drugs, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, and of course Health Care, Cap & Trade, Financial Regulation. It's not her fault if some of those failed in the Senate as a result of unprecedented Republican obstructionism. Quite simply, Pelosi has been a more effective progressive leader than either Obama or Reid, and if you're not aware of that, it's because you aren't paying attention.

"Never? What do you call last year? But even if she didn't have the votes to defund it, she had the support to vote against further funding."

For one thing, defunding is the same thing as 'voting against further funding.' For another, there are 54 members of the Blue Dog Caucus, who are unlikely to vote against this kind of military spending bill. So in short, she did not have support to defund either war.

"I thought Bush's platform was against "nation-building"."

This is just a snide comment that shows you aren't actually serious about having a discussion and are just interesting in venting and pretending to be smarter than you are.



[ Parent ]
*yawn* (1.00 / 1)
"You obviously don't know what you're talking about."

My point isn't how they vote, but that their constituents are directly impacted by policies which they oversaw.

"We're pulling out of the Recession, Obama has been pulling troops out of Iraq."

No, billionaire corporations are pulling out of the Recession. Everyone else is living in tent cities. And we're gonna be in Iraq forever via our illegal embassy.

"Considering that that the Health Care bill was considered dead after Scott Brown got elected, Pelosi is largely responsible for getting anything passed at all."

I don't really see what Scott Brown had to do with it. In fact, he's actually moderate enough to have voted on extending benefits. First it was Bush, then Brown, and now what? "Bi-partisan compromise deficit reduction"? They're just making this shit up as they go along.

"This is just ignorant nonsense."

Yes, she really showed her tough side when she declared impeachment off the table.

"Pelosi has Speaker passed bills cutting student loan interest rates, reforming the budgetary rules, ended oil subsidies, reformed how Medicare purchases drugs, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, and of course Health Care, Cap & Trade, Financial Regulation."

Like lower student loan interest rates are going to help students who can't afford to go to school in the first place. And she moved from oil subsidies to nuclear power subsidies. Plus, last time I checked, she reformed budgetary rules in a way which made it easier to continue funding endless war and TARP. I also don't see any action from her on ending DADT. It's more like she's sitting it out. Cap & Trade would be nice, if it didn't get kicked down the curb so it won't have any real impact when we need it, much like health care. And we're still not actually tackling real emission rules which comply with Kyoto. Furthermore, she basically let a crook like Dodd call the shots on financial "reform".  

"For one thing, defunding is the same thing as 'voting against further funding.'"

Not true. If she doesn't have the votes, she could still take a stand against the wars, by voting against 'em anyway. But instead, she's still funding 'em.

"For another, there are 54 members of the Blue Dog Caucus, who are unlikely to vote against this kind of military spending bill."

Who's running the House again?


[ Parent ]
I hope she survives but... (0.00 / 0)
will she hang on as minority leader? I think you made a good case that the deluge wasn't of her doing for the most part(I would question the cap and trade vote without some assurance it could at least make it to the floor of the Senate---a number of House Dems will go down Tuesday in part because of that vote). I wish she would have put more resources into the no on 20 campaign--Dems will a number of seats in the new reapportionment is 20 passes.
Had she given into the impeachment crowd in the middle of an economic meltdown it would be an electoral diaster of epic proportions. She deserves 2 more years as speaker or minority leader.

You should be hoping that Reid holds on Tuesday as well---Dems need to control one branch for the subpoena power, block on regressive legislative and fiscal ploys pushed by a GOP House and control committee hearings.  


Dems can hold the Senate without Reid (0.00 / 0)
To be clear, I'm not calling for Reid to lose. Sharron Angle shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the US Senate. But Reid doesn't deserve to be Majority Leader and hasn't deserved to for some time now.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Chuck Schumer (0.00 / 0)
Will Chuck Schumer be much better?

[ Parent ]
Who knows (0.00 / 0)
The next Majority Leader will be playing defense in 2011 and 2012 if Dems lose the House. If Dems keep the House, the #1 priority for a new majority leader will be ending the filibuster.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Maybe... (0.00 / 0)
but every seat counts and if its worse than we think we'll need the western states.

I agree that Reid should be replaced as majority leader. And Senate Democrats need to select their leaders from relatively safe states--Nevada and South Dakota voters prefer their Senators who will buck the Party leadership from time to time.   If not for Angle being a wingnut and Harry's seniority, he'd be down 20 points.


[ Parent ]
Prop 20 (0.00 / 0)
If Prop 20 wins (and I sincerely hope it does not!) then I think the next strategy should be an attempt to amend the redistricting commission to reflect the ratio of registered voters in the state.

While it is bad enough to have the districts decided by a body that is accountable to none, it is worse that it is established with a distorted balance of the electorate.


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox