We Need New Democratic Leadership in the House. Pelosi Should Go.

[20score]

Her vote against the Iraq War in 2002 was courageous and admirable. But, as the new Speaker when she said about Bush, “I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” it was terrible news for those who wanted justice for the administration’s numerous crimes. (And also wanted the accountability that would have reined in future administrations.) Now Nancy Pelosi has voted to let the NSA continue the massive spying, completely unrestrained. That is antithesis of what a free country does. And it is inexcusable.

What that vote guarantees: Total, massive surveillance of all citizens. More mixing of Corporations and State. A preemptive squashing of any Occupy-type movements in the future. The likelihood of serious labor movements being watched and suppressed. And on and on.

There has been a definite downward trend in her voting pattern over the last decade. We need Democrats that stand up for democratic principles. With Harry Reid folding on every issue that comes up in the Senate, we need other leaders that lead in the right direction.

http://americablog.com/2013/07/amash-conyers-anti-nsa-amendment-lost-by-12-votes-205-217.html

And for where this is spying is headed. A judge says Big Energy should have your metadata, too:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130722/16172623890/court-give-chevron-access-to-nine-years-americans-email-metadata.shtml

Defend that, please.

[DURHAM D]

1. No.

[Dawgs]

2. Fuck NO. n/t

[Ken Burch]

29. You need to say "and HERE's fucking why".

Nancy has done some good things, but why should she be considered irreplaceable?

Why not, say, have Barbara Lee as leader? Why does the leader have to be bland and "safe"?

When Nancy was first elected, she was the most conservative candidate that could possibly have won a Dem primary in her district...and she really hasn't changed much since then. Worst of all, she has let the demonization of progressive activists in her own district, people she should have felt a moral obligation to defend as her constituents, go completely unchallenged, with no good results for the party overall.

[MADem]

35. "Here's fucking why"--it's not up to US. We have ZERO say in who the leadership in Congress will be.

That is an elected position, the Speaker/Minority Leader, you see, but the election is held in the HOUSE. The Democratic caucus votes on the people THEY feel are the best wheeler-dealers, the best arm twisters, the best bullies to ram legislation through.

It's not up to us, it never will be up to us, and we don't have a damn thing to say about it.

Leaders are chosen for their skills at networking and their ability to achieve consensus within the group. It's not about who might be popular or pleasing to the American people--this is all "Insider" stuff, and we have nothing to do with it. The Congress organizes themselves as THEY see fit, and the caucuses vote for the people they think will do the job best.

[Ken Burch]

39. You're saying we have no right to even express an opinion about this?

What harm does it do for people to make their views known on the matter? We did ELECT these congresscritters, after all.
By your logic, we shouldn't even ask them to vote any particular way on anything.

[MADem]

45. You can yammer on all you'd like, but if you have never been up in Congress and seen how the sausage

is made, you will not realize how ineffectual your complaining is. They don't give a shit what your opinion is--you know NOTHING about how a particular whip does his job, how a leader pushes, prods and shoves behind the scenes, and--apparently, how the whole kerfluffle works.

Do you seriously think that the leadership gets re-elected in unanimous or near unanimous balloting because everyone in the House or Senate on our team "hates" them? I mean, come on--take the HINT. There's more going on than you're seeing. These leaders are effective BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. That's why they gain, and keep, their leadership roles.

We send people to Congress to represent us. That's where the obligation ends. They have every right to organize themselves in the most efficient and effective way that THEY see fit, in order to pass the most legislation possible favorable for their team.

It's not up to you -- it's up to them. They are there to pass laws on your behalf, and they have every right to organize themselves to do that task as THEY--not YOU--see fit.

And you really don't understand how the place works, at ALL, if you come to the conclusion that you came to in your last sentence.

Next up to bat, if Pelosi decides to leave? Steny Hoyer.

Seniority means a lot, too.

FYI, FWIW.

[Ken Burch]

46. Your tone here is getting really unpleasant.

Again, I understand that they don't have to listen to what people outside Congress have to say. But why snap people's heads off for TRYING?

Does it do any harm to discuss this? Why does this bother you so much? Why are you acting as the very idea of even expressing an opinion about this matter is something that is somehow offensive?

Your anger seems really inappropriate, and I don't understand why you don't just stop participating in the thread if you feel the discussion is pointless rather than berating the premise and the posters.

[MADem]

49. Look who's talking! Now I have an "unpleasant tone!"

And here's the "angry" card again!!

Every time you don't like what I have to say, you toss a personal insult at me. You characterize me in an unflattering way with language that is entirely inaccurate as to my mood or attitude.

This is a poor substitute for discussion, to fling shit at me and tell me I'm "angry" because I'm saying things you do not want to hear.

I'd say someone has an "unpleasant tone," but it ain't me.

I don't have any problem "discussing" this. I do have a problem when you snidely call me names and then whine that I am being mean to you for stating simple facts.

If you do not like how Congress organizes themselves, you are quite free to complain to them about it. I'm quite sure you'll give the intern who opens your email a good yuck if you do. It won't change anything, but go ahead--knock yourself out.

It is an entrenched system, it has undergone modernizations in the last half century, but it retains many of the traditions that go back centuries. There's a bit more mobility than there used to be, but seniority still counts. Bucking the leadership can work occasionally, but get on the wrong side of anyone on the leadership team, and a legislator can end up screwed in terms of their effectiveness.

You don't have to believe what I am telling you, do your own research. You'll see I am not being "angry" or mean to you, and I'm not making this stuff up. It's how the joint is run.

[Ken Burch]

51. I didn't mean anything as name-calling.

What bothered me was that you seemed to be saying that this thread shouldn't even have been started and that nobody should even be expressing an opinion on who our party should choose as its Congressional leaders.

If you had left it at just saying that they probably wouldn't listen, that would have been enough. I think people here understand that anyway. It was when it sounded like you were saying that it was stupid to say anything about this and that nobody outside Congress can possibly understand what sort of people are needed to run it.

Maybe they won't listen, but it's not cool to tell people they have no right to even express an opinion. Everyone ALWAYS has the right to express an opinion.

OK?

[MADem]

53. You continue to falsely characterize me.

Obviously, if I were bent on shutting you up, I haven't done a very good job of it, now, have I? You keep griping that I am saying that you don't have a "right to express an opinion" but YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE SAYING THAT. Stop saying it. It's not true.

No one is telling you that you can't speak. I can tell you that your ideas are poorly conceived and bear little to no relation to reality, and I do have a leg to stand on. I spent a little time up on the Hill, and I have a slight idea how things work up there.

Being a "popular" legislator with "We The People" does not necessarily make a person a good Speaker, leader, whip, etc. Having seniority and administrative/leadership skills is what makes a person an asset to the leadership team.

I think I have been very clear about how the process works. You just don't like what I'm saying, so you characterize me as "angry" and "trying to shut you up" when that's just BS. Not cool.

[Ken Burch]

58. BTW, the post I originally responded to was from a different poster.

And, at the time, the only idea I had actually expressed was that, if THAT poster was going to say "Fuck, NO!" he was obligated to say why. I wasn't even talking to you at that point. You just jumped in to that, for some reason.

And it would have been fine for you to explain how, as you see it the leadership works...if you had left it at that.

[MADem]

62. That is how discussion boards work--people hop in at a point that interests them.

That's what I did. You responded. That's called discussion. If you didn't want to speak with me, you had a choice to not reply.

Again, it's not "how I see it." It's how it is. There's no opinion involved.

If you are really interested in this topic, I suggest you do some reading on how the leadership is structured and how it actually works on a day to day basis.

Start here: http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_leadershippositions.htm

[Ken Burch]

98. You're talking down to everyone on this thread, and nobody here deserves that.

Can you just give it a rest already?

[MADem]

102. No, I am not--and there YOU go--mischaracterizing me again.

Look, you can't get away with telling everyone whose opinion you don't like that they are "angry" and "dismissive" and "talking down to everyone."

I am presenting FACTS. You are presenting FEELINGS. I'm telling you how it is. You're proposing an unworkable, unrealistic scenario that will never happen, and you would realize this if you bothered to learn how the leadership works and does business.

I'm sorry if it "offends" you, but facts trump feelings and they always have. I have offered you a link to assist you in your understanding of how these "facts" play out, and all you do is deride me for so doing.

It's not my problem that you are unable to take the information I offer in the spirit in which I offer it.

If I were talking down to you, I wouldn't be speaking in a civil tone, which I am endeavoring to maintain despite your repeated disparaging characterizations of me.

[Ken Burch]

108. What unworkable scenario have I proposed?

I simply suggested a couple of possible alternate candidates for the leadership. That is all I did, and that is all anybody else here has done.

And I've taken the information you offered. Can't you just accept that?

[MADem]

110. You are proposing candidates with zero administrative, leadership,

legislative and parliamentary experience to do a job that absolutely requires these skills.

It's like asking your postman to take out your appendix because he is a nice guy.

[GoneFishin]

126. Ken Burch you are on target. I question the motives of anyone who tries to shut you up for

pointing out problems with the current system. If they really believe it will do no good then it is no skin off their nose to let you vent. Their desperate need to shut you up and get in the last word is telling.

[elehhhhna]

89. okay how's this

your tone and message is very condescending and dismissive and if that isn't your intent, some editing may be in order.

By the above logic once we vote we should stfu. oR PERHAPS YOU pREFER THE PHRASE "KEEP OUR POWDER DRY"...? IMO Pelosi doesn't get shit done and Oops, caps, sorry about them.

[MADem]

92. Neither my tone nor message are "condescending."

If you insist the sky is green and the sun rises in the west, and I tell you that no, the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east, is that also "condescending?"

Facts are facts. They're immutable. We do not choose the legislative leaders--the legislators do. That's the bottom line.

And if you think "Pelosi didn't get shit done" you are notoriously ill-informed.

[Ken Burch]

97. I didn't say that we choose the legislative leaders.

What I said was that we had a right to express an opinion about who should be chosen as legislative leaders. There's a difference.

[MADem]

104. No one is stopping you from expressing that opinion.

Why do you keep pretending that this is the case, when it is not?

[Ken Burch]

107. You keep calling people stupid and uninformed

And I'm not the only person who has noted the aggressiveness of your tone here.

You're not treating this thread with respect. Why do you even keep posting in it?
(other than to respond to this particular post, obviously).

[MADem]

131. I'd say you aren't treating me with respect.

You have been characterizing me falsely with terms that do not reflect my attitude towards this topic. I have to wonder why you would do that? Is your goal to try to goad or bait me?

That doesn't work with me.

And why do you keep replying to me if I'm so doggone awful? I've given you facts, links and details that describe, in decent detail, how the leadership system actually works. And for that, you excoriate me.

It's very curious.

[treestar]

75. It is like trying to tell a doctor how to operate

Or telling a lawyer how to work (everyone believes they are a lawyer due to TV shows) - some people are total know it alls and truly believe they can do things better than those educated and experienced in a field.

[MADem]

99. Precisely. Getting legislation through the process is not a

function of idealistic world-view. It's a function of spending years working for the leadership, learning parliamentary procedure, learning how to work the system to get your stuff voted on while the other team is out on the golf course getting drunk, and things of that nature. It also can involve arm twisting and horse trading.

Just getting shit out of committee takes a Herculean effort.

[Ken Burch]

109. And progressives are just as capable of learning and doing all those things as "centrists" are.

You can't just assume that only a passionless hack can get things done.

[MADem]

112. They are, and they do. But they don't start out as

"Speaker of the House."

They get legislative assignments from the "Speaker of the House." 20 years later, if they survive reelections, they might get a shot at "Dem whip."

And it's not like there aren't any Progressives in leadership--there is a Progresive Caucus in the House, http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71 you know, just like there's a Black caucus, a Blue Dog caucus, etc. etc. and so forth. Each of these has their own leaders, whips, etc. Some legislators belong to more than one group. Any one of those people COULD move up--but it's not going to happen because of voter musing. It's going to happen because those caucus members themselves in positions of leadership decide that they WANT to seek out a leadership opportunity, and then they do the hard work (and it IS hard work) to get there.

Funny, once upon a time, Nancy P was viewed as a "progressive" from San Francisco. Now, to people who aren't from San Francisco (because they keep voting for her, even if others disapprove), she's the devil incarnate.

[Ken Burch]

115. Barbara Lee(who I just offered up as a possibility)

has been in the House for fifteen years now. She's not a newbie, and you don't last that long without getting at least some administrative experience.

And I didn't say that there weren't ANY progressives in the leadership.

BTW, Nancy Pelosi had six years LESS seniority in the House than Hoyer did when she won the leadership election...so seniority isn't everything.

[MADem]

121. Hoyer challenged her, you know--but Nancy had done more homework, AND

she had more friends. Hoyer was late to the gate in doing his "assignments" from leadership--do a little reading on the subject, it's interesting history. You do have to put in the time.


Barbara Lee needed to do HER assignments, too--you can't just sit on your ass as a member of this caucus or that, you have to serve in leadership in those caucuses, and do the jobs of rounding up votes as directed by your leaders--either in the caucus or in the House, proper. THAT is how you move up, not by sitting on your behind. And Barbara Lee, to use your example, HAS been doing her assignments, and she already IS a senior member of leadership (along with the additional value-added benefit of having Appropriations experience, which is very helpful)... so she is well positioned to move up as vacancies occur, should she so desire and can get the backing of other legislators who would vote for her for the position she desires.

Her resume includes: http://lee.house.gov/about-me/committees-and-caucuses

Caucus Membership and Leadership Positions

Senior Democratic Whip

Chair, Social Work Caucus

Vice-Chair, LGBT Equality Caucus

Whip, Congressional Progressive Caucus

Co-Chair, Out-of-Poverty Caucus

Co-Chair, Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus

Co-Chair, Congressional Sudan Caucus

Co-Chair, Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus

Co-Chair, Congressional Sudan Caucus

Co-Chair, Health Care Task Force Chair, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus

Co-Chair, Peace and Security Task Force, Congressional Progressive Caucus

Democratic Caucus
Democratic taskforces:

Health & Medicare
Livable Communities
Safe Neighborhoods
Education and Job Training
(Former Co-Chair) Congressional Progressive Caucus
Adoption Caucus
Addiction Treatment and Recovery Caucus
Arts Caucus
Bicameral Global AIDS Emergency Taskforce
Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change
Bike Caucus
Brain Injury Task Force
CAPAC: Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
Caribbean Caucus
Caucus on India and Indian Americans
CBC Global AIDS Taskforce
Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues
Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys
Congressional Caucus on Korea
Congressional Caucus on Parkinson's Disease
Cycstic Fibrosis Caucus
Democratic Immigration Task Force
Disability Caucus
Ethiopia Caucus
Food Safety Caucus
Foster Youth Caucus
Global Climate Change Caucus
Global Health Caucus
Goods Movement Caucus
Gun Violence Prevention Task Force
Hispanic Working Group (run with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Democratic Leadership)
Historic Preservation Caucus
Higher Education Caucus
House Oceans Caucus
Human Rights Caucus
Hunger Caucus
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus
International Conservation Caucus
Kidney Caucus
Law Enforcement Caucus
Lupus Caucus
Malaysia Trade, Security, and Economic Cooperation Caucus
Mental Health Caucus
Multiple Sclerosis Caucus
Native American Caucus
Neurosciences Caucus
Nursing Caucus
Organic Caucus
Poor People’s Caucus
Port Security Caucus
Pro-Choice Caucus
Public Broadcasting Caucus
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus
Rock & Roll Caucus
Science and National Lab Caucus
Sustainable Development Caucus
Sustainable Energy and Environments Coalition
Task Force on Tobacco and Health
The Young Voter's Project
Universal Health Care Caucus
Urban Caucus
Vision Caucus
Wine Caucus
Women’s Caucus

[sabrina 1]

95. You have made the case of the OP with this:

You can yammer on all you'd like, but if you have never been up in Congress and seen how the sausage is made, you will not realize how ineffectual your complaining is.

Thanks, we are fully aware of this, and that is what must change. That is the source of the growing anger in this country. How dare they, elected by the people to do the work of the people, adapt such an attitude??

Thanks, we've been far too apathetic while they, as you so kindly point out, have forgotten who they represent. It's way past time for the people to start looking closely at their employees in DC and let them know how unhappy they are with the job they hired them to do.

I appreciate your clear assessment of the problem.

[MADem]

96. No, I haven't--and we can meet here in ten years, and the system will still be the same.

Congressional leaders are not--and will not--be chosen for their progressive bona fides.

You might not like that, but they will continue to be chosen for their leadership, consensus-building, administrative and legislative skills.

That's just how it is. See, they know--better than you--that in order get legislation through the process, there needs to be people in charge who know the rules of the House (or Senate), and how best to exploit them. "Mister Smith" is not gonna go to Washington and be a dewy-eyed idealist-leader. The ones who know every rule, every game, every legislative trick, every parliamentary procedure, and where all the bodies are buried, are the ones who will get those jobs. And even the uber-progressives will vote for them. Why? Because they want their stuff passed, TOO.

And good thing, too--otherwise, we'd never get ANYTHING passed, even if we had the Speakership.

[sabrina 1]

105. We haven't gotten much passed that benefited the people. Sure, they got lots of things

passed that benefit their benefactors.

But thanks again for proving my point. The sheer disdain for the people is simply stunning, the arrogant notion that these politicians are somehow superior to the people they are there to represent, is simply sickening.

I know third graders with more intelligence and thinking skills than a large portion of those claiming to 'know better than the people' in the bubble that is DC.

All you have credited them with, whether you realize it or not, is that they have 'learned to play the game'. A game that has devastated this country for millions of people.

Of course they have done well for Wall St, which appears to be how they view their jobs these days.

A correction is needed when things reach the point YOU YOURSELF have described. If it doesn't happen, in ten years people will be fleeing this country for a brighter future elsewhere. They already are.

[MADem]

106. We haven't gotten anything passed since "we" gave the House to

Boehner back in 2010.

But hey, whatever--let's blame Obama for that, too.

And don't slam the door on your way out of this "terrible" country, which is only awful if you don't compare it to most others...

[sabrina 1]

111. 'We', that means Democrats, did not give Boehner the leadership in 2010. How many

more times is this false claim going to be made here on DU? Democrats voted as they always do, and due to that we managed to keep the Senate, and many Progressive Dems in Congress.

The Party lost the Independent vote and the youth vote due to disillusionment, suffered also by many Dems who nevertheless went out to vote, with the policies of the party they voted for in 2008.

The failure of the party to take the lesson they should have learned from 2010 and instead try to 'blame liberals', an old right wing tactic, falsely, when the stats are easily available, may cost them the next election also.

Let me ask you since you seem to share the party leadership's view of the Progressive Wing of the party, 'do you think Dems would have a chance if Progressives finally had had enough with the trashing of the Leadership of the Dem Party'?

I ask, because many Dems are finally wondering why they belong to a party that appears to despise them, as we see here on DU.

[MADem]

118. No. "We" didn't GOTV. The youth vote just didn't show up.

Neither did middle aged or old people. No one is "blaming liberals." People across the spectrum were complacent. The young could give a shit about local elections, we have alway known that--they don't yet realize that All Politics Is Local. And that isn't an opinion: http://www.whytuesday.org/2010/11/07/2010-turnout-not-good/

Young voters stayed at home in greater numbers than in recent elections, and an entire third of voters who came out in 2008 didn’t show on Tuesday.

- See more at: http://www.whytuesday.org/2010/11/07/2010-turnout-not-good/#sthash.1r2xNhQB.dpuf

I do believe that many people here do seem to despise Democrats, but the people doing the despising are the ones who say they won't vote for this Dem or that, and will stay home if HRC is nominated, for example.

To my mind, they aren't Democrats. They may say they are, but if they hate the Democrats in office, and say they won't vote for them, and call them nasty names and say that they suck, and eagerly jump on any excuse to find the worst possible explanation for anything and everything involving the Democratic Party, then maybe, just maybe, they aren't Democrats.

The Democrats I drive to the polls every election--to include local ones--vote for Democrats. They support them, if they take issue, they criticize constructively--not call them "apologists," or "enablers" or "torturers" or other asinine, loaded language, and they have as a goal a perspective to make the party stronger, not carp, nitpick and hate on legislators because they don't do enough to suit their particular agenda.

In real life, I've never met "Democrats" like some of the negative, hating, downer ones I see here on DU. If I used this site as a reflection of the party, I'd have a very warped view of the outfit.

I don't really understand what you are asking. In my neck of the woods, we elect progressives, like Ted Kennedy. We also elect pragmatist crusaders who have a mix of moderate and progresive viewpoints, like John Kerry and Liz Warren and Deval Patrick. We choose legislators based on issues that are important to us. That's why we picked Markey and not Gomez.

By the same token, people in other parts of the country vote for guys like Tester, who reflect their views and their priorities and their agenda. Some people here actually have the nerve to call those voters "bad Democrats" because Tester isn't liberal enough to suit them. Well, he's not representing the complainers, he's representing HIS constituents--many of whom are Democrats, just not sufficiently so for some.

People who don't want to get obstructionist or negative reputations shouldn't use cruel and intemperate language. It tends to resonate. An occasional attempt to work towards consensus instead of defaulting to the kneejerk "So and So SUX!" would not go amiss. But that's a big piece of what I see here.

[sabrina 1]

120. I don't disagree with the use of insults etc to make a point, I have not done so ever,

and find it easy enough to make points without the use of insults. But calling out people who in no way reflect Democratic values, is what Democrats are required to do, IF they care about their Party. Blind support for wrong policies damages the party, as the 2010 election demonstrated.

And you are incorrect, Democrats worked very hard, despite their own disappointment to GOTV across the country.

But this is the problem, the constant attacks on Democrats from within their own party, the false claims such as this one, that they did not work hard enough to GOTV, despite the fact that had they not done so, Republicans would have swept that election.

Young people DO care, now more than ever, another misconception which shows how out of touch the party is with the voters. They care more than anyone, considering it is THEY who are the most affected by the policies being implemented right now in Congress.

As a Democrat, I will not support Republican ideas no matter who is pushing them, Republican ideas are bad for this country and should be fought constantly by the Dem Party.

I also don't support Republicans being appointed to a Dem Administration in critically important powerful positions. We have Democrats who are perfectly qualified for those positions. It plays into the Republican meme that Dems are 'weak on security and on economics'.

Right now, this is what right wingers are using to further promote the 'Dems are weak on Security/Economics' mantra. ' Even your Liberal President couldn't find a Democrat he could trust with our security'. This is BS and I don't get why we have so many Republicans in this administration.

[Ken Burch]

127. Why is it so important to you to use terms like "yammering" anyway? n/t.

[MADem]

130. I invite your attention to your posts, directed at me, that preceded mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3357662

Start with that one, where you falsely insist that I am telling you to shut up.

Then go to this one, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023355188#post44 where you haul out my "anger and contempt."

Earlier, you demanded that I "Give it a rest." Why don't you?

[Enthusiast]

63. I don't see your remarks as "yammering", Ken.

Thank you for your insight on this issue.

Nancy was in full support for Chained CPI against the wishes of a huge majority of both the American people and the Democratic Party faithful. She took impeachment off the table. She has demonstrated that she is no longer trustworthy.

[MADem]

86. And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with how a Speaker or Leader is chosen. nt

[KharmaTrain]

3. You'll Probably Get Your Wish In 2015...

...there have been reports that Speaker Pelosi...who, by the way, serves because she's been elected by a majority of House Democrats, will probably retire from being Majority Leader following the 2014 elections and may even step down from the House altogether. So...ok...who do you suggest replace her? Someone who will need to get a majority of the votes of the Democratic caucus...I'm betting who ever they will select won't pass the DU purity test...

[20score]

5. There are almost 200 other democrats to choose from.

How about any that voted against the NSA? Doesn't that kind of vote mean anything to you?

[MADem]

36. How people vote is largely irrelevant. Leaders are chosen for their skills.

How well they can negotiate, how well they compromise while giving less than they get, how well they can "count votes," how well they can whip a caucus into shape and get all of them on the same page, how well they can ensure that enough people vote the "right" way so that a Congressman from a conservative state can safely vote "against" and the vote still passes.

It's all about getting "wins" for the Dem team. That's how the leadership is chosen. If someone doesn't like the leader, the whip, or whomever, they can challenge them, campaign for the job within Congress, and submit themselves to the voting process. And the only people who vote are the sitting legislators--no one else.

Congress isn't going to take counsel from "America" on this, though--it's about how well arms are twisted, how well paper is pushed... it is much less about ideological pedigree. They know who has clout, and who doesn't. Much of America hasn't a clue.

[Ken Burch]

40. Sounds like you're pretty much saying "shut up and know your place, peasants".

I doubt we'd ever have seen any civil rights legislation pass through Congress if everyone had taken your "stay out of the way and let the grownups do it" tone. Congress had to be FORCED to vote to end Jim Crow by mass pressure from below, and that was the only way we got Congress to begin to vote against continued funding for the war in Vietnam, for the nuclear freeze, and against Reagan's state-funded terrorism in Central America.

Change never comes from shutting up.

[MADem]

43. Not at all--I'm saying Learn How Congress Works.

When you can show me a ballot that says "Speaker of the House--Vote For One" then we can talk.

The job of choosing Congressional leaders is the job of CONGRESS, not the American people.

That's how it is. Smooth move, yelling at me for daring to state a commonly known fact.

It has nothing to do with "change" or "shutting up." It has to do with how the place is run. You don't get a vote--neither do I. The people in that body choose their leaders, and they do it in their own way.


And guess what? When Jim Crow laws were being overturned, when Vietnam and nuclear freeze votes were being taken, Americans STILL had no say in how Congressional leadership was chosen.

The people who go to Congress elect their own leadership from within their own caucus--and too bad if you don't like that, that's how it works.

[Ken Burch]

44. OK, we don't get a direct vote in this, granted.

But why shouldn't we express our views on this? It sounds as though you think we're getting notions "above our station" or something in simply saying what we'd like to see happen here. And it sounds like you sort of like the image of members of Congress being dismissive of Democratic activists' views on the question of who should lead the party in the House. Given that the choice of who leads has a lot to do with what the party tries to get done and whether it gets that done at all, I can't see what the problem is with people starting threads like this one.

It's just hard to understand why you seem to be expressing anger and contempt here . Maybe Congress don't have to listen to us, but does it harm anything to try to influence their choice here? Is there a reason that the people who do the hard work of ELECTING Democratic Congressmembers shouldn't be able to at least try to get those Congressmembers listen to us about this?

[MADem]

47. Look, you keep slamming me for stating facts, and then you have the nerve to

characterize my simple recitations as "dismissive" and "anger and contempt." That's the mark of a failed argument right there--getting personal and characterizing me instead of focusing on the facts I presented.

I am neither angry or contemptuous, I am simply astounded at how Americans don't know their own system of government very well.

It has nothing to do with "above our station"-- as I have explained to you repeatedly here, but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge the points I have made.

Look, if you are a carpenter, and if I tell you to build me a shed, I tell you how big and where to put it. I don't stand over your shoulder telling you where to place each nail, and how many times to bang it with the hammer.

Same deal with Congress--we send them to represent us, but we don't tell them how they must organize themselves in order to do that representing. Our relationship with them has to do with the bills they craft and the laws they pass--not how they organize themselves, their staffs or those sorts of particulars.

Leaders are elected because they are powerful, they can push people around, they can count votes and twist arms and MAKE people change their votes, and they can get legislation passed (or, in Boehner's case, killed). They are sausage makers. Their personal ideology doesn't make them good at that kind of work--their seniority, their relationship with others in government, and their ability to enforce their will is what makes them good at those positions. And when they are good, legislators LIKE that, because when their bill comes up for a vote, it has a better chance of passing if a competent leader - bully will force people, with carrot and stick, to vote for it. And that includes those "progressive" legislators--they may have to hold their nose and vote for something they don't love every now and again, but the trade-off is that their piece of legislation gets pushed through on the next go-round. People who play ball and understand the push/pull of the process will get faster consideration than the ideologues who shake their fists and make a big scene, but in the end accomplish nothing legislatively.

This isn't going to change, this system. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Ken Burch]

48. I wasn't "slamming" you at all.

I know there are lots of compromises and that the members of Congress don't HAVE to listen to us about who they should choose to lead them(although, these days, hardly anybody gets progressive legislation passed later by giving their votes to non-progressive stuff first. That just doesn't happen anymore. If you're a progressive member of Congress, you're not going to get votes for a healthcare bill by casting YOUR vote to expand the death penalty, for example. And it's a real question of whether, say, getting some more votes for Head Start is worth casting YOUR vote for drones, or for funding a future war against Iran.)

What I don't understand is why it seems to be so important to you to try to get people NOT to express their views about who should be our Congressional leadership. Yes, they don't have to care what we think. But we still have a right to say what we think. And what harm, exactly, comes from saying it?

You have the right to express your view. But that doesn't entitle you to tell other people not to express theirs.

[MADem]

52. Yes, you were.

Every time I said something you didn't like, you called me "angry" or "dismissive" or some other term designed to convey that I am some kind of pissed-off Wet Hen. And the only reason you did that is because I don't agree with your naive view that we need new leaders who are "progressive" in the Congress.

Leaders are picked for the leadership skills. Seniority plays a role. That's the bottom line. They can be liberal, conservative, or something in-between, but what they have to be is pragmatic. And hard-nosed, even ruthless.

Stop falsely insisting that it is "important" to me "to try to get people NOT to express their views...blah blah blah." It's not "important" at all. I was trying to spare you some embarrassment by apprising you of how things are done on the Hill, but since you're doubling down and calling me names, go to town and knock yourself out--indulge in fanboy fantasies of Grayson as Speaker--maybe we can bring Kucinich back and make him a whip?

That's all they are, though, is fantasies. If you want to be a leader in Congress, you have to start early, work hard, do extra assignments that are doled out by the leadership, and do them WITHOUT COMPLAINT and COMPETENTLY. That's how you move up. Not by being "progressive."

Don't believe me if you'd like. Toss another insult, too, while you're at it. Names will never hurt me!

[Ken Burch]

59. I called you angry and dismissive because you sounded that way.

You sounded as if you felt that nobody outside of Congress has any business(if not any right)to be expressing opinions about this. That's what I was responding to.

It had nothing to do with WHAT you said about the way Congress, in your view, works-only the way you said it.

Yes, Congress doesn't have to listen to us. Fine. Understood. But why couldn't you let it go at just saying that?

[MADem]

61. You took it that way. All I was doing was stating facts.

If you want to have a fantasy session, fine. You should warn off anyone who wants to contribute facts and reality to the conversation.

It's not "my view." I am not giving you opinion. I'm telling you how the Congress conducts themselves.

Don't believe me--go do your own homework. You will see that what I am telling you is completely accurate.

[20score]

84. You were polite and well reasoned. Your opponent on the other hand was rude - as usual -

and treats politics as sacrosanct. That's very big problem today. Emotions take the place of reasoned debate. Too bad.

Thanks for your input.

[MADem]

87. I am not an "opponent." I am a Democrat.

Too many people regard this board as a contact sport--and I don't appreciate being characterized, and when it happens I mention it. But thank YOU for your "input," too.

You have a nice day, now.

[Enthusiast]

64. Your posts were well reasoned and gentle in tone. No slamming to be found anywhere. nt

[Puglover]

79. Yes.

I don't believe Ken lead off by using charming terms like "yammering".

[MADem]

88. No he led off with "angry" and "contemptuous" and "dismissive." nt

[treestar]

78. No, it's saying don't micromanage

when you are not in possession of the knowledge it takes to make a good decision.

If a doctor tells you to take antibiotics because that will clear up the infection, you'd tell him you don't like those, he does not know what he is talking about. You're just being a know it all.

At some point recognize that another's expertise might be worth something and that it might be better to listen to those who know than to just talk about what you want because it sounds good to you.

[Ken Burch]

100. Why do you equate the expression of an opinion with "micromanagement"?

We all KNOW that Congress selects its leaders itself. We all get that. That isn't the point here. And it doesn't mean that nobody outside of Congress has a right to express an opinion as to who should be in the congressional leadership.

And it doesn't harm the party for people to make critical comments about our current leadership. Democrats have ALWAYS done that. It's just part of...democracy.

[treestar]

76. It is not based on political position on one issue.

Why should that be used to determine who is speaker/minority leader?

[Cooley Hurd]

6. Alan Grayson.

[think]

8. Wouldn't that shake things up....

[20score]

4. If you're going to say, 'No!' At least say why. I'm open to good arguments.

I laid out my case, if you still like her, explain why. And also why this vote doesn't matter to you.

[bigwillq]

7. Pelosi and Reid both need to go

Away.
Don't think either one has been very good lately.
We need new leadership.

[20score]

9. Agreed.

[adirondacker]

23. They are both too softspoken to be leading in these times. nt

[Catherina]

10. Not just Pelosi but the entire Gang of Eight

Whistleblower after whistleblower, for over 10 years, has pointed their fingers at this committee for obstructing justice and covering for the surveillance program.

They need to go and, very importantly, need to NOT be involved in any hearings on surveillance. We need a whole new panel of untainted politicians for these.

Question:
User avatar for AhBrightWings
AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm

My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

Answer:

I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the ***Gang of Eight***, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King , the better off we all are"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023033003

[hr]
The Gang of Eight

Background

The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, under 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2), the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.[not verified in body]
...
The individuals are sworn to secrecy and there is no vote process

The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.[1]

Members of the Gang of Eight (intelligence)

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

Mike Rogers (R): (Chair)
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D): (Ranking member)

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Dianne Feinstein (D): (Chair)
Saxby Chambliss (R): (Ranking member)

Leadership in theUnited States House of Representatives:

John Boehner (R): (Speaker of the House)
Nancy Pelosi (D): (Minority leader)

Leadership in the United States Senate:

Harry Reid (D): (Majority leader)
Mitch McConnell (R): (Minority leader)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_%28intelligence%29

[20score]

11. Great reply! Thanks!

[jazzimov]

12. I think you mean "Boehner should go". nt

[20score]

13. Read the post. I know what i meant.

Boehner doesn't represent me. If you have a case for.her to stay, state it.

[Mojorabbit]

24. She was very effective in getting legislation through

It takes a certain kind of talent which one can easily see Boehner lacks.

[Ken Burch]

41. You know perfectly well we all mean that too.

Nobody here has ever given El Naranja Grande a pass.

[n2doc]

14. Pelosi was told, and signed off on, torture and spying

She did not raise the alarm when told of Bushco's crimes. She is now a part of them, and can't do anything because she would be a co-conspirator at this point. Reid as well, and the rest of the Dem leadership.

Good luck getting rid of her, she is as entrenched as any pol in Congress. She has a very safe district and huge amounts to spend in any primary if she so desires. And a lot of defenders, as you have seen.

[20score]

15. Forgot about the torture. (As for her defenders, they don't seem to have a case for keeping her.)

At least I haven't seen one yet.

[suede1]

16. Of course she should go. She works for us and this means she sucks at

her job.

[20score]

17. I knew there would be people who objected. Was hoping that someone would have a

cogent argument in her favor. So far, nothing.

[bluestate10]

19. Few people react to 9 year old information that has a single issue tilt.

A person can choose any issue from a universe of issues and claim that it is the most important issue ever. But those people are usually called single minded idiots. The fact is Pelosi was huge is getting historic legislation passed from 2006 through the end of 2010. She stands among the best House leaders in the history of the institution and stands head and shoulders above her ineffectual successor.

[Hekate]

27. Says the newbie gratuituously

[MADem]

37. + 1000----Damn you and your pesky facts eh? | nt

[20score]

67. Leave it to a reactionary to be wrong and be rude about it.

Her vote on the NSA is not even nine days old. Plus, i have never been close to a single issue person. But the NSA issue is huge, even if you don't understand its implications.

You should ask yourself why you treat politics like a religious fundamentalist does religion.

Goes for a few others in this thread as well.

[suede1]

21. Sorry 20score. I alerted on a response and the people judging it thought it was you.

Never alerted before! (One of them was a real jerk about it.)

[20score]

68. Well thanks for admitting it. Hopefully the jerk will see it.

[hrmjustin]

22. I like her but I would not be upset if she retired after next years election.

I think if we don't win the house back she should retire.

[limpyhobbler]

25. Revolt!! I'm all for it. Grayson it is then. Glad that's settled.

[RudynJack]

33. Seriously...

what makes Grayson qualified to be Speaker?

[MADem]

38. The entire Democratic caucus regards him as a tough leader who can push people around?

No? Not that?

He has a reputation for compromise when needed to save key legislation?
No? He's not a pragmatic dealmaker?

He has a track record of working across the aisle when needs must?
No? Not that, either?

He has the respect of senior leadership, and they'll back him if he comes up with a plan of action?
Nope? He's not sitting at their knee, gaining favor to gain power?

He has the ear of the President and key players in the executive and judicial branches?
No, not hooked up there, either?

He's starting to sound like a good guy to organize the Christmas...errrrr, Winter Holiday Party--not be Speaker.

[RudynJack]

42. thanks

That's exactly my point. Being ideologically inline with progressives doesn't qualify him to be Speaker. And he's in his second non-consecutive term - hardly a plus to lead the House.

I like the guy. A lot. But it just amazes me that people find someone they agree with and want them in the highest position possible. Grayson for speaker, Warren for President, etc. It just shows zero understanding of political realities.

[limpyhobbler]

72. Track record of bold progressive leadership. nt

[RudynJack]

80. Yes he does.

But how does that qualify him to be speaker? Just agreeing with him isn't the criterion.

He's never even held any leadership position in the caucus - you think they'd elect him Speaker?

[limpyhobbler]

83. That qualifies him more than enough .

[Hekate]

26. No.

[Ken Burch]

30. Why not? What does she bring to the table that nobody else could offer?

Why not Grayson? Or Barbara Lee?

[NuclearDem]

28. After "impeachment is off the table", this shouldn't have even been a question

No matter their job performance after 2006, any Democratic politician who signed onto "no impeachment" needs to go. Call me a single-minded idiot if you want, but that stand denied countless thousands of American and Iraqi lives justice by letting their murderers walk free.

[RudynJack]

32. She said that BEFORE she became speaker

and she was right. Bush would never have been convicted. Impeaching him would've been a huge waste.

[Maximumnegro]

31. That's just dumb.

2014 and 2016 will be a referendem on women and minorities. Sorry but the NSA/Sureveillance blah blah that has a bunch of people in a huff will have to wait. Get in the goddamn line like everyone else. I'd like some voting rights. some folks need jobs and then there's healthcare which is still being choked even though ACA is essentially a republican plan.

The NSA crowd needs to suck it up and let those who are actually f*cked right now to get our voices heard. It's not that it's not important but like I said get in line. Pelosi has been a HUGE advocate for women and she has done a LOT for Dems. YOu can dream of Grayson or whoever but right now if she goes you're looking at Steny Hoyer. LOL, good luck with that chucklehead.

I mean there's a war on goddamn VAGINAS in 2013 and some frothing Democrats expect the country to get all revolutionary about someone watching their emails and facebook.

Get your priorities straight by 2014 PLEASE.

[cali]

34. well, this is silly. It's up to the people of her district whether to re-elect her

and it's up to the dem caucus to choose their leadership. We have no input into that process

[Buns_of_Fire]

50. I'm even colder about it. All 535 need to go.

But I'm not totally unreasonable. Pick a dozen or so who should stay. Any dozen. All Democrat, all republican, all men, all women, all black, all white, all blue-eyed, or any mix. It doesn't really matter.

The Kochs, the Blankfeins, the GEs, and the Monsantos all have plenty of money to keep cycling them through until we're all dead and buried five times over.

(I'm sorry. I'm not usually THIS pessimistic.)

[cali]

57. I can pick 3 dozen who should stay. How sad is that?

[Buns_of_Fire]

113. It proves that you're a nicer, less vindictive person than I am.

And for that, I salute you. Seriously.

[napoleon_in_rags]

54. Good thread. I agree in a lot of ways.

I don't want to knock Pelosi. I've seen her take courageous moral stances against great odds, I think she's really an incredible person. I would love to shake her hand and thank her, to say how much I admire her.

But another part of me calls me to want a person who can see the different possibilities, and act on them. That same part of me tells me Pelosi has seen too much dark stuff, and perhaps underestimates what is possible, even with all this opposition at this point. We need congressional leaders who stand up with their vision no matter how absurd it seems in the eyes of the status quo. We desperately need these people at this point to remind us that we are free, and that we alone decide our own destiny. Come what may. We've had a congress for too long that seems a slave to special interests, and seems divorced from the people. At this point, any shake up, whether for good or ill, would wake up the people to the fact that they are responsible for what's going on, and do a world of good in this country. The worst form of oppression that can be inflicted on the people is the idea that their actions don't matter.

PEace.

[David__77]

55. I fear the alternative would something far worse, like Steny Hoyer.

You would need a general house-cleaning.

[MADem]

56. He's next in line. If he wants it, he's got it.

He has the rank-and-file backing.

I don't know how he's doing lately. I know he was working a lot after his wife died.

He's not young, but most of our speakers haven't been. It's historically been a senior statesman (or woman) gig.

[David__77]

90. And so: "Go Pelosi!"

People fail to see she represent the progressive Democrats as best she can.

[MADem]

91. Her job, as Speaker, is not to represent one segment of the Party.

Her job, as Speaker, is to represent the entire caucus and push through legislation that benefits our agenda and supports the planks of our platform.

As minority leader, she can do far, far less--Boehner holds the reins, and Boehner sets the legislative agenda.

Pretty much all she can do against that is to say "Look at what that orange asshole is doing--again."

It's why we need to take back the House and hold the Senate. Nothing will get done until we do.

[David__77]

94. Yes, pro forma, her role is to represent all Democrats.

Even those future turncoats among the right-wing fringes of the party. But, in reality, her job is no such thing. It is to exercise leadership and impose party discipline through benefits and punishments. And I have been pleased that she is effectively leading from the left, albeit in the context of a right-wing mass.

[cantbeserious]

60. Agreed - It Is Time For Her To Go

eom

[cali]

65. be that as it may, it's up to the dem house caucus and voters in her district

there's jackshit that anyone else can do about it.

[cantbeserious]

71. Agreed - That Does Not Change The Fact That She Is Supporting The Debasement Of The Constitution

eom

[bigtree]

66. not going to happen. Not going to get a more progressive speaker, anyway

. . . not out of the makeup of this Democratic membership in Congress.

Sounds righteous and bold, but it's just not going to happen unless there's some sudden influx of a majority of progressives who take over the House. More likely that any takeover will reflect the current coalition of Democrats which includes not a few 'moderates' and conservatives in our ranks.

[Laelth]

69. I disagree.

Nancy Pelosi was very effective as speaker.

-Laelth

[DCBob]

70. Picking a single issue you disagree with and throw her under the bus for that?

Thats really dumb when it comes to politics. You will never find a politician you totally agree with. Its always a balance. Nancy is a good progressive who knows how to get things done. She passed quite a bit of good legislation in the House but got blocked in the Senate. I doubt we will find anyone better.

[20score]

73. It's not a single issue. It's torture, Chained CPI, spying,

letting Bush and cronies go and other issues. All pretty damned important.

Is a line ever supposed to be drawn?

[DCBob]

77. All of those issues are complex and debatable.

I actually agree, as do many Democrats, with her on most of that.

[20score]

82. You're good with torture? With cutting SS? With Total Information Awareness? Damn!

[Ken Burch]

114. TORTURE is complex?

[DCBob]

123. Of course not.. I was referring to the issues in the OP and Nancy Pelosi's view of them.

[Ken Burch]

124. Just wanted to clarify. n/t.

[treestar]

74. It is up to the Democrats in the House

Good luck trying to convince them. I suspect you'll need petitions to each of them and supporters in each district that elected them.

[JoePhilly]

81. No.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

85. So she should go because of one statement and one vote

After years of excellent service as Speaker from 2007 to 2011?

You're unhinged.

[PufPuf23]

93. I would like to see Ms. Pelosi replaced with a fresher liberal house member from San Francisco.

I was greatly disappointed with, "Impeachment is off the table" as IMO a cabal deserved criminal prosecution for war and financial crimes.

I would prefer Ms. Pelosi be replaced with an individual less politically connected, less rich, smarter, more idealistic, younger, etc.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

101. The only thing that should change for Pelosi is making her SOTH again. nt

[LittleBlue]

103. She's mediocre

Nothing special, really. Lots of rah rah in her early days as speaker that faded and now she's your typical party mandarin. Won't be bothered if she goes.

[gulliver]

116. Pelosi is probably the best Speaker in my lifetime.

Gutsy, smart, tough, funny. She needs to stay.

[Scurrilous]

117. Pffffffffffft.

Yeah, she's the problem.

[briankdinnj16]

119. I lost a lot of respect for her several years ago, over the issue of Bush's impeachment

The way she let Bush off the hook for his horrific crimes was simply inexcusable. And she continues to give Bush and other GOP politicians a pass regarding their criminal activities.

[LWolf]

122. That's when she lost my support.

When she took impeachment off the table.

I'll give her credit for some positive words and actions, but anybody who excuses a criminal president is no leader.

[madrchsod]

125. ahhh do you realize she is the minority party in the house?

do you realize that no matter who would replace her they would face the same republican leadership?

now....the leader of senate is an entirely different issue--

[steelmania75]

128. Pelosi and Reid have always been weak and ineffective leaders.

We need Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders, respectively.

[GoneFishin]

129. Pelosi and Reid are pathetic excuses for leaders, but they are darlings of some lobby group(s).

They would fire up the smear machine pronto if Alan Grayson or Bernie Sanders were to make serious in-roads toward leadership positions.