Pelosi Warns Against Ousting a Woman

[DonViejo]

November 13, 2018 at 6:10 am EST By Taegan Goddard

“Nancy Pelosi is making gender a central part of her bid to reclaim the speaker’s gavel — leaning hard into the pitch that Democrats cannot oust the only woman at their leadership table following a historic election for women,” Politico reports.

“In addition to arguing she’s the best qualified for the job, the California Democrat and her allies are also framing a Pelosi victory as a matter of protecting political progress for women at a critical moment. Push her out, and men may take over the party at a time when more than 100 women are heading to Capitol Hill and after women voters have been thoroughly alienated by President Donald Trump. Embrace her, and she’ll prioritize legislation empowering women from equal pay to anti-harassment legislation.”

###

https://politicalwire.com/2018/11/13/pelosi-warns-against-ousting-a-woman/

[Vinca]

1. I really don't care who is the Speaker, but I strongly dislike playing the "woman card."

It's not a mystery how this position has become such a hot button issue. The GOP has spent years ginning up the anti-Pelosi meme and it's spread to some Democrats like a case of the flu. Pelosi did a stellar job when she was in the position before and Democrats shouldn't give 2 shits about what the GOP thinks about any Democrat.

[In It to Win It]

3. I agree. I think that's low for Nancy

[jberryhill]

8. What, specifically, did Pelosi say which is a "new low" for her?

[In It to Win It]

9. Didn't say a "new low"

I think Nancy should be speaker. Nancy using the “woman card” is beneath her.

I’m saying playing the “woman card” shouldn’t be apart of the pitch for the Speakership.

[jberryhill]

11. I'm asking what it is she said

Just quote from the article what she said.

[In It to Win It]

12. The article doesn't have a quote from her

...and playing the woman card shouldn’t be in the pitch for Speakership. If that’s in her pitch, it is beneath her.

[jberryhill]

13. Because it is putting words in her mouth

Obviously inflammatory piece in “politicalwire” is inflammatory. You are being manipulated.

How often do you read that website?

[Hortensis]

16. Bingo! InIt, you fell for a hit piece. Btw, do you know that

for all the talk of displacing her, THERE IS NO CANDIDATE, much less formation of support around one?

Not yet. Speakers are elected, so no doubt some people will end up stepping forward, most of them as a way to get attention, and probably several dozen among over 200 will vote for one of those, for some as a relatively harmless statement (knowing Pelosi will be the speaker allows voting for a poor candidate), and for some also to get attention. But right now no one can even name even one person who will challenge her and, to put it mildly, this is not powerful opposition.

Also, Pelosi's famous for her ability to count her caucus. When she says she'll be reelected speaker, you should strongly suspect she's probably just telling it like it is.

Something else: Among Democrats, going low is a dangerous tactic used by people who are in danger of losing, NOT by those who expect to win. That alone should have alerted you that this article's probably a hit piece.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Yep! There are no other names.

[Hortensis]

30. ALSO, out of some 88 in the house progressive group,

only 4 haven't been taking big donations. Many represent lower-income constituencies that can't/don't support them through small donations, including a lot of POC reps. They can't -- yet -- take the pledge.

That's context for the reality that Nancy Pelosi is BY FAR the biggest fundraiser in the house. Just as she was huge in getting the ACA passed over great difficulty, she's also played a very big role in getting many in that faction and the rest elected in the first place.

Think about it, In It and others.

Also, btw, Pelosi has "democracy reform," including campaign finance reform, as a top priority for Democrats. Also election laws, ethics laws, special interest policy, and accountability overhauls. She asked MD's Rep. John Sarbanes to lead the Democracy Reform Task Force for House Democrats, and he has a huge bill ready to introduce first thing as a declaration of intent to the nation.

We won't be able to accomplish all these huge goals this term, of course, but Democrats are committed to them and they have overwhelming support among the public.

Give us the gavel in the Senate in 2020 and we’ll pass it in the Senate…Give us a pen in the Oval Office and we’ll sign those kinds of reforms into law. - John Sarbanes

Washington Monthly: Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, summed up the issues the Democratic majority in the House will tackle with their first bill.

We have a system of campaign finance that takes us back to the Gilded Age and the robber baron era, a voting system that takes us back to the poll tax and voter suppression era and a redistricting system that allows representatives to choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives…The very health of our democracy is at stake in this fight to repair our political system for all Americans.

Today Democrats confirmed that their first act in January will be to take up a bill that addresses those concerns. Here are the particulars:

The proposed voting rights reforms include reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, with constitutional language to restore federal preclearance (stripped by the Supreme Court’s Shelby v. Holder decision) for changes to voting laws in some jurisdictions. The bill would also institute automatic voter registration across the country and provide funding and expanded oversight power to the Election Assistance Commission. And the measure would require that nonpartisan commissions redraw congressional district maps.

Ethics reforms in the proposed bill would cover the executive and legislative branches. The measure would include extending the cooling-off period before a government official may become a lobbyist, expanding conflict-of-interest laws to cover the president and vice president, give more compliance and oversight power to the executive branch’s Office of Government Ethics and bar lawmakers from sitting on corporate boards.

The planned legislation would create a public financing system for congressional elections and provide matching funds for small-dollar donations raised by participating candidates…Additional reforms would include increasing disclosure for dark money and digital advertising, strengthening laws prohibiting coordination between candidates and super PACs and barring lobbyists from bundling campaign contributions.

[LiberalFighter]

45. Democrats have better ideas.

[Hortensis]

46. :) Yes. Nothing we didn't always want to do. But now,

after rampant Republican corruption that we couldn't stop in a conservative-dominated era has been amply demonstrated to the nation, the electorate will hopefully give us the further power needed for such huge changes. They've been increasingly needed ever since Reagan's election transferred power to anti-government destroyers.

[DonViejo]

28. You do realize Political Wire is excerpting from an article from Politico, yes?

A link to that Politico article is the second last word is in the first paragraph, above. If you had bothered to read the Politico article you would have learned two things:

1. The headline of the Political Wire article is the exact same as the Politico article.

2. Here's a quote from Nancy Pelosi:

In a Sunday interview with CBS‘ “Face the Nation,” Pelosi suggested that the current male-dominated congressional structure — and Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 — was a primary reason she sought to extend her time in the House. When she came to Washington, Democrats had only 12 women in the chamber; now they have about 90.

“If Hillary had won, I could go home,” Pelosi told host Margaret Brennan, adding that if a woman were president she could have ensured “there’s a woman at the table.”

“You cannot have the four leaders of Congress [and] the president of the United States, these five people, and not have the voice of women,” Pelosi continued. “Especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers in campaigns, and now part of this glorious victory.”

[jberryhill]

34. "warns against ousting a woman"

Is that what that says?

[DonViejo]

35. Yes, Political Wire is using the headline from Politico...

And that's exactly what she is saying in the quotes you were unable to go to Politico and pick up for yourself but, I did.

And before you start down the next Complaint Highway, I totally agree with Minority Leader and soon to be Speaker of the House Pelosi.

[hlthe2b]

14. Exactly... It is POLITICO's characterization of her. Hardly a Dem or Pelosi-friendly publication

Don't be suckered by their smears.

[In It to Win It]

15. This didn't change my opinion. Nancy still has my support. She should be speaker.

[DonViejo]

36. You don't consider this to be a warning?...

From the full Politico article:

In a Sunday interview with CBS‘ “Face the Nation,” Pelosi suggested that the current male-dominated congressional structure — and Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 — was a primary reason she sought to extend her time in the House. When she came to Washington, Democrats had only 12 women in the chamber; now they have about 90.

“If Hillary had won, I could go home,” Pelosi told host Margaret Brennan, adding that if a woman were president she could have ensured “there’s a woman at the table.”

“You cannot have the four leaders of Congress [and] the president of the United States, these five people, and not have the voice of women,” Pelosi continued. “Especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers in campaigns, and now part of this glorious victory.”

[hlthe2b]

37. I consider it the truth--not the characterization that some want to portray

that she is somehow a misandrist playing the "woman's card" for personal gain. Ugly, ugly misogyny.

[DonViejo]

38. Speaking the "truth" in this instance is a very appropriate warning. I don't see it as her playing

the "woman's card" at all, just plain old political truth; "defeat me and you'll be sending a very terrible political message, do Democrats want to do that?"

[hlthe2b]

39. I can agree with that interpretation... n/t

[Hortensis]

42. Yes, except the verb tense, "you WOULD be..., WOULD Democrats want..."

All members of the house ultimately vote for who will be speaker, but this virtually always follows party lines, so that all our 230+ members would normally vote Democrat.

The minority Republicans would, of course, dearly love an ineffectual Democratic speaker. Nancy could be ousted if enough Democrats voted with the Republicans for a weaker candidate.

[WhiteTara]

17. many people don't discern the difference

between being talked about and making statements. Someone said that, so Nancy is culpable.

[MrGrieves]

24. I strongly dislike the term "The Woman Card"

[hlthe2b]

40. YUP...

[Hortensis]

43. Yes, that's Trump thought. He has no morals, no ideology,

no principles, just "I want"s. So to him everything's a card of varying usefulnesses. He doesn't understand anything else, but all of us should.

Btw, ability to cause vicious harm to children is a card Trump's planning to play again.

[hlthe2b]

2. Her foes may not like it, but she has a point...

There, I said it. I'm sick and tired of the misogyny vis-a-vis Pelosi. She will bring on the next generation in party leadership (as well she SHOULD), but it seems a few want to throw out the experience--the experience & competence that got us Obama Care against the odds as one major example--just because the R's don't like her?!

Sick and tired of the misogyny and AGEISM.

[NurseJackie]

4. " I'm sick and tired of the misogyny vis-a-vis Pelosi." --- You and me both!!

I'm sick and tired of the misogyny vis-a-vis Pelosi.

You and me both!! I'm also sick of people trying to justify it (and disguise it) with ageism and cries of wanting new blood and "giving someone else a chance". (Yeah, right... like INEXPERIENCE is what's called for right now... sheesh!)

[LiberalFighter]

21. Someone that stands up to the jerk and is not easy to bamboozle.

And I'm sorry but seniority should count for something. Anyone that is elected to Congress needs to learn a few of the ropes first before trying for a leadership position. And it wouldn't look good if the next Speaker gets defeated at home.

The women that got elected for the first time need to support Pelosi. If they don't and Pelosi becomes Speaker again they risk getting legislation blocked or funding for their next campaign back home. Do they really want to make it an all male top leadership? Better to have a woman at the position when we have the current President in office.

I don't see anyone, especially a woman trying for Speaker other than Nancy. I would consider anyone that can't come out right now to announce they will run for position to be low on the totem in support. Leaders rise. They don't hide.

[Guilded Lilly]

5. Ditto this! Then say it again. Louder. n/t

[vi5]

6. I get why Pelosi wants to keep the job...

..but I really do wonder how much of people digging in their heels over keeping her in the job is just GOP-like spite, designed more to piss off the rubes than it is anything else.

I'm honestly agnostic on the issue. As I've said elsewhere I think she's a better leader in the house than Schumer is in the Senate and I'd rather see him gone as leader than Pelosi. That being said, it's not like there's zero case to be made for a change in leadership. Everyone giving her credit for this massive victory last week are also conveniently not mentioning the numerous defeats we've had over the past 8 years, that by the same logic she would deserve blame for. It can't be both things. Personally I don't think she had anything to do with either the victory or the defeats since she's already in office.

Bottom line is I hope everyone looking at this is basing it on how good a job she actually does as House leader (minority or majority) and basing it on that, and not on whether she deserves credit for our recent victories, or whether she's a woman or her age or whatever else.

[In It to Win It]

7. Pissing off the rubes is just a plus

[LiberalFighter]

22. No matter who is the Democratic leader

the Republicans will use it against any Democratic campaign.

[vi5]

26. Agreed, 100%....

....which is why we should be focused on who is the best for the job, and who gets our side fired up. I'm not entirely sure Nancy is that person. I'm against doing things just to spite or attempt to soothe the other side. I'm more about who fires up potential voters. Who carries a big stick when needing to get unity among our caucus. Who is going to bring things to votes even if they won't necessarily pass, just so we can make it crystal clear where we stand.

My issue with our leaders in both the Senate and the House is that both of them are just too fond of saying "Well, it's not going to pass anyway/it's not going to go through/whatever.....so let's not bother or waste our time." Part of this game is optics and letting the people who we need to inspire to get out and vote, that we are on their side. And yeah, sometimes that involves doing things just for the visuals of it. Just to take a stand and get everyone on record. I want leaders who are not just going to shrug their shoulders and only do things when they are absolutely guaranteed 100% success.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Lame

IOW, why do Rice, Sanchez, Pressley, Tlaib, AOC et al hate women?

[MiniMe]

19. Have to say, Nancy is good at her job and gets things done, BUT

She needs to bring in the next generation and train them. So far, I haven't seen her doing that. It seems to be all Pelosi and Hoyer. Pelosi is a target of tRump, just like Hillary and Elizabeth Warren are. Of course, it doesn't matter who is the Dem speaker, they will be a target or tRump.

[NurseJackie]

23. There's always a "but" in these anti-Pelosi posts.

"I like Pelosi, BUT..."
"She's great, BUT..."
"Not saying she's too-old, BUT..."
"I know she has experience, BUT..."
"Don't get me wrong, BUT..."
"Nothing personal, BUT..."
"No offense intended, BUT..."

Good grief!

Such statements are almost ALWAYS followed by lame reasons and justifications of why the writer DOESN'T like Pelosi... or why they think she's "not all that great"... or why the writer DOES believe she's "too-old" or is "incompetent" or "out of touch".

It's infuriating. I'm SICK OF IT!! Stop it!

[LiberalFighter]

33. What is bad are the reporters that think they know it all.

They lack experience and knowledge. I may be wrong but I think in the past reporters just reported what happened in the past. At least that is what it reads like when I read old newspapers.

[LiberalFighter]

29. You know that how?

And before you can bring in the next generation to train you need to get them elected. Then when they get elected you can't train all of them to prepare for leadership positions. They have to take the initiative and establish themselves. Some of that is by establishing an agenda of what they support and making the right alignments. Also, showing how they respond under pressure and under the lights. They will get those opportunities on the committees they serve on and how they handle themselves when they are back in their district.

Nancy didn't get where she is because she is a woman. It was hard work, dedication and service to her district.

By the way, as far as I know not all races have been decided. They just started the orientation process for new members.

[MrsCoffee]

20. I guess people just can't help but fall for shitty headlines.

Nancy is the most qualified person for the job. Just like Hillary was. Period. End of story.

The rest is bullshit to get you to fight over yourselves.

It certainly does highlight the misogyny though. Again.

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. This

[KPN]

32. Bingo!

[Guilded Lilly]

44. Hear her! Misogyny is not exclusively Republican.

[KPN]

27. I think she makes a good point about this.

She has done an admiral job as leader despite whatever differences I or others have had with particular positions she has taken. The R voters despise her exactly because she is a strong, effective woman who happens to be a Democratic Party Leader. It’s a hatred that has been deliberately whipped up by GOP leadership for decades now and applies equally to Hillary. It’s basis is pure misogyny.

Pelosi’s camp is right. The optics of replacing her with a male stink and they could even harm the party’s overall voter strength.

At the same time, challenging senior leadership is natural and useful, and will only strengthen the party in the end. I don’t believe the challenges to Pelosi will prevail, though Steny and/or other leadership positions may see a shake-up.

[LiberalFighter]

31. Yep! Replacing her because she is a woman could harm the Party.

Women are keeping an eye on what is happening and if they think the stink about Nancy is because she is a women that won't be good for the Democrats come election time.

[Adrahil]

41. It bothers me that she is making this about her....

She is a skilled leader. No doubt. But it cannot be just about her.

I like her, but she cannot hang on to power so hard that she herself becomes the issue.

[Hotler]

47. I don't care which Dem is our speaker as long as..

they don't play nice with those f__kers across the isle.

[Gothmog]

48. I support Nancy Pelosi for speaker