Is Nancy Pelosi an effective Speaker?

[DiAnna]

That about sums up Pelosi's efforts to hold Trump accountable.

I dunno, leading a successful impeachment was a fairly strong measure of holding Trump accountable, lol.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Pelosi wisely waited until there was an impeachable offense that the public could understand and get behind. Obviously impeachment was never going to get past the Senate, and if you thought it stood a chance then you either ignored or didn't understand everything that preceded that point.

The result of the impeachment is multi-fold, of course, but one of the consequences...and this is directly attributable to Pelosi's choice on which the Democrats should fight on...the blame for impeachment failure has been laid on the shoulders of Senate Republicans rather than contrarian Democrats.

No, flatly wrong. Pelosi did not strategically play a weak hand. She bungled a strong hand by limiting the scope of the impeachment inquiry.

Pelosi wants narrow inquiry as caucus debates scope of impeachment resolution - CNNPolitics

Jesus Christ. The only reason she even launched the inquiry was because it was an assault on Joe Biden.

She also bragged about not holding Bush accountable when he was dead-to-rights caught lying about the pretense for the Iraq Invasion. Utterly feckless.

Anyways, I'm off to watch CNN try to desperately rehabilitate Rudy Giuliani because 9/11. Wheeeeee.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I dunno, leading a successful impeachment was a fairly strong measure of holding Trump accountable, lol.

You mean she was dragged kicking and screaming, and limited the scope of the investigation so that it was doomed to fail. That way she could say, 'There! It did it. Happy?'

 

[trixare4kids]

The motivation behind the Trump impeachment were purely partisan, and political, therefore failing, IMO, in every way.

If Trump wins the election, I can safely say I am correct about this, if not... I'll suck it up to another time I was wrong. I have no problem admitting I was wrong. Hell, I even bet money that Hillary would win the election. Lol!

 

[DiAnna]

You mean she was dragged kicking and screaming, and limited the scope of the investigation so that it was doomed to fail. That way she could say, 'There! It did it. Happy?'

Since you've successfully copied Trump's alternative reality of alternative facts to a T, I can see why you like him so much, lol.

Bye.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Since you've successfully copied Trump's alternative reality of alternative facts to a T, I can see why you like him so much, lol.

Bye.

Wow, you really have my number. I'm such a Trump supporter.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The fact is that due to multi-institutional failure far beyond Pelosi's control, the mechanism for accountability ultimately rests with you and me this November. Nobody's asking you to like it, but that's just how it is.

Amazing how Republicans can turn Bengazi and an email server investigation into a four years of Trump (and all that entails), yet Pelosi lands a straight-flush and folds her hand because the Republicans have two-pair.

 

[grip]

I sure think Pelosi is more on point about another stimulus relief bill. Trump is an elitist jerk.

 

[Cardinal]

No, flatly wrong. Pelosi did not strategically play a weak hand. She bungled a strong hand by limiting the scope of the impeachment inquiry.

Pelosi wants narrow inquiry as caucus debates scope of impeachment resolution - CNNPolitics

Jesus Christ. The only reason she even launched the inquiry was because it was an assault on Joe Biden.

She also bragged about not holding Bush accountable when he was dead-to-rights caught lying about the pretense for the Iraq Invasion. Utterly feckless.

Anyways, I'm off to watch CNN try to desperately rehabilitate Rudy Giuliani because 9/11. Wheeeeee.

The articles of impeachment were deliberately narrowed to which ones couldn't be debated on the legalities, i.e. whether or not extortion qualified under the legal definition. At that point the impeachment debate would be mired in minutiae. By narrowing the charge to the specific acts, they couldn't be debated into minutiae. Consider the description under the first article of impeachment, abuse of power:

"Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation."

Focus on the fact that all of the points are non-debatable. These are things known to have happened. By focusing on a simple and specific narrative, it was one the public could also understand and support.

A common misperception is that if a defendant has committed a crime, the prosecutor throws every single charge at him, and that's actually not how it works at all. Rather, a prosecutor will push the charges that are easiest for a jury to understand and therefore the charges they're most likely to convict on. Article 2 is similarly simple.

Regardless, the premise of your position is that there was an article of impeachment on earth that could have compelled Senate Republicans to convict. If you believe that, then you have ignored or failed to understand everything before that point and everything after it.

The President was just caught on tape saying that he was lying to the American public about a pandemic that has killed 200,000 people. Not one Senate Republican has condemned him. So if that didn't do it, why you do hold on to this idea that anything Pelosi said would have done it?

 

[Cardinal]

Amazing how Republicans can turn Bengazi and an email server investigation into a four years of Trump (and all that entails), yet Pelosi lands a straight-flush and folds her hand because the Republicans have two-pair.

The Obama Administration wasn't a lawless institution.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why doesn't she debate her primary challenger if her record is so strong?

She got 75% of the vote in the jungle primary. Her record is strong. She's the most effective legislator either party has had in decades.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The Obama Administration wasn't a lawless institution.

No, but Republicans turned a non-scandal into something that wasn't there. Do you think there's anything 'there' with Trump's finances and how they relate to his presidency? Follow the money, Lebowski.

Are Democrats capable of any fight whatsoever?

 

[Dans La Lune]

She got 75% of the vote in the jungle primary. Her record is strong. She's the most effective legislator either party has had in decades.

Why doesn't she debate her primary challenger if her record is so strong? Has she even had a debate in my lifetime?

 

[Greenbeard]

Why doesn't she debate her primary challenger if her record is so strong? Has she even had a debate in my lifetime?

Because her constituents overwhelmingly support her. Because her record is so strong.

 

[Cardinal]

No, but Republicans turned a non-scandal into something that wasn't there. Do you think there's anything 'there' with Trump's finances and how they relate to his presidency? Follow the money, Lebowski.

Are Democrats capable of any fight whatsoever?

What kind of powers do you think Pelosi has?

 

[Dans La Lune]

What kind of powers do you think Pelosi has?

The power to launch congressional investigations, specifically during impeachment. Also the power to get Trump's taxes.

 

[Greenbeard]

The power to launch congressional investigations, specifically during impeachment. Also the power to get Trump's taxes.

The fight over the House’s power has been raging in the courts. It’s not going well.

D.C. Circuit panel guts House subpoena power

A divided federal appeals court panel dealt a severe blow to the U.S. House of Representatives’ investigative power Monday, ruling that the House can’t go to court to enforce subpoenas because there is no statute giving that chamber the authority to do so.

If the decision stands, it could cripple the House’s ability to demand information from sources unwilling to give it up readily. That would upend decades of congressional oversight and investigations and could snuff out several legal fights pending in Washington over House subpoenas, including one involving Trump’s financial records and another involving a demand for records about the administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The fight over the House’s power has been raging in the courts. It’s not going well.

D.C. Circuit panel guts House subpoena power

So I guess now that the courts have failed, Pelosi and Neal will simply get Trump's state taxes, which they could have gotten six months ago. Right?

I wonder if maybe the fact that Neal is one of the most bought politicians in American politics has anything to do with it.

By the way, do you agree with Pelosi's efforts to oust progressives? Democratic leadership was definitely behind the primary challenges against the Squad, and more broadly against Markey who co-sponsored AOC's agenda.

This is also what I'm talking about by Pelosi being ineffective. She's trying to sabotage the progressive wing of her party, the REAL threat to Republicans and Trumpism, in favor of do-nothing milquetoast centrism which facilitated the rise of Trump in the first place.

 

[rickc]

Pelosi is very effective

And righties hate her for it

 

[TheParser]

OTHER.

She will soon be gone.

So it doesn't matter whether she is effective or not effective.

President Biden will allow her to remain Speaker for one more term.

But then -- pressured by the young Dem radical House members -- he will gently ease her out and install a lady of color. (It is now accepted that the Dem Speaker must always be a lady, and it will soon be the rule that the Dem lady must be someone of color.)

 

[Greenbeard]

By the way, do you agree with Pelosi's efforts to oust progressives? Democratic leadership was definitely behind the primary challenges against the Squad, and more broadly against Markey who co-sponsored AOC's agenda.

Pelosi is the reason the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming existed, she's the reason Markey chaired it, and she's the reason Waxman-Markey passed the House--that is, she's the major reason you ever even heard of Markey.

This is also what I'm talking about by Pelosi being ineffective. She's trying to sabotage the progressive wing of her party, the REAL threat to Republicans and Trumpism, in favor of do-nothing milquetoast centrism which facilitated the rise of Trump in the first place.

Go back to her successfully whipping a majority of the House Dem caucus to oppose the authorization to use force in Iraq back in 2002, at a time when the Dem Leader Gephardt was supporting it (as were many moderate Dems, like Markey).

Back to her saving Social Security (despite unified GOP control of government!) in 2005.

Back to building the Dem agenda on which the Dems finally retook the majority in 2007 (and ultimately the presidency in 2009).

Back to virtually single-handedly rescuing the economy in 2008.

Back to leading one of the most productive--and yes, progressive--sessions of Congress in a half century in 2009. Pelosi more than anyone else is the reason 20+ million people gained health coverage after that session.

Back to her time in the wilderness leading a unified caucus against the worst excesses of the Boehner-Ryan-Trump era. (She's a major reason they fell on their faces so many times and looked so inept.)

To the tour de force of the current session.

Regardless of whether you think she's nice enough to your favored member(s) of Congress, Pelosi is easily the most effective Speaker either party has had in a half century. And not just by comparison, she is in absolute terms an extremely effective Speaker. Absurd that anyone is even pretending to question this.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Pelosi is the reason the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming existed, she's the reason Markey chaired it, and she's the reason Waxman-Markey passed the House--that is, she's the major reason you ever even heard of Markey.

The major reason I've heard of Markey is because of AOC, and because Pelosi endorsed Kennedy against him. Pelosi hated Markey for this endorsing the Green New Deal and Medicare For All, and wanted to unseat him and get another corporate Dem to tow the line. Pelosi hates progressives. They are more of a threat to her than Trump ever was. Hell, Pelosi raises money off Trump.

Go back to her successfully whipping a majority of the House Dem caucus to oppose the authorization to use force in Iraq back in 2002, at a time when the Dem Leader Gephardt was supporting it (as were many moderate Dems, like Markey).

Pelosi is so strong on the Iraq War that she didn't even try to hold the Bush Admin accountable, bragged that she didn't hold him accountable, when she knew they lied and initiated a war under false pretenses.

Back to her saving Social Security (despite unified GOP control of government!) in 2005.

Isn't that like the bare minimum we expect from a Democrat? I never said she was Margaret Thatcher.

Back to building the Dem agenda on which the Dems finally retook the majority in 2007 (and ultimately the presidency in 2009).

What did she do -- what did Democrats do -- with super-majorities in the House and Senate? Pass Republican-inspired healthcare reform, and... and...?

Back to virtually single-handedly rescuing the economy in 2008.

She did an amazing job of bailing out Wall Street.

Back to leading one of the most productive--and yes, progressive--sessions of Congress in a half century in 2009. Pelosi more than anyone else is the reason 20+ million people gained health coverage after that session.

Super majorities and they passed Republican healthcare. The Bob Dole plan of the 1990s. Republicans were laughing because they got what they wanted and STILL demonized Dems for it.

Back to her time in the wilderness leading a unified caucus against the worst excesses of the Boehner-Ryan-Trump era. (She's a major reason they fell on their faces so many times and looked so inept.)

Who fell on whose face? Republicans swept the House and Senate in 2010, making Obama a virtual lame duck half way through his presidency, because Democrats offered almost nothing worth supporting in the mid-terms. Dems keep slow walking progress after HUGE wins, after running on a progressive platform, then Republicans take back power and obliterate all of their accomplishments (meager that they are) and derail Democrats for generations. Again, who is falling on what face here? Republicans have taken Democrats to the CLEANERS on how much they blocked them and managed to pass their agenda. Again, Republicans get two-pair and they get Democrats to fold after they land a Royal Flush. It's embarrassing.

Regardless of whether you think she's nice enough to your favored member(s) of Congress, Pelosi is easily the most effective Speaker either party has had in a half century. And not just by comparison, she is in absolute terms an extremely effective Speaker. Absurd that anyone is even pretending to question this.

Pelosi's resistance to Trump is all sizzle, no steak. She golf claps him and tears up his speeches. That's it. Enough to get the media to gush over her and boost her Q-rating.

 

[Surrealistik]

The major reason I've heard of Markey is because of AOC, and because Pelosi endorsed Kennedy against him. Pelosi hated Markey for this endorsing the Green New Deal and Medicare For All, and wanted to unseat him and get another corporate Dem to tow the line. Pelosi hates progressives. They are more of a threat to her than Trump ever was. Hell, Pelosi raises money off Trump...

Just want to say I'm glad I'm not the only prog on this forum that can and will out Greenbeard for his knowingly disingenuous bull****.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Check this out if you're still a Pelosi fan and are opening to a challenge to her.

 

[Surrealistik]

Check this out if you're still a Pelosi fan and are opening to a challenge to her.

Saw that; great segment.

It defies belief that anyone can think of Pelosi as anything more than token resistance; remember when she gave the Republicans more than what they wanted in terms of military spending, including funds for Trump's ridiculous 'Space Force' and removing limits on Donnie's war powers in exchange for 12 weeks paid maternal leave for government employees? Total joke. Honestly they're either grossly ignorant or actively exercising doublethink:

The Democrats Keep Capitulating on Defense Spending - The Atlantic

House Passes $738 Billion Military Bill With Space Force and Parental Leave - The New York Times

The Senate is expected to take up the compromise bill and send it to the president’s desk as early as next week.

But the compromise left some liberal Democrats seething.

While it does not authorize any money to replenish military construction funds Mr. Trump diverted to pay for his wall on the southern border, it also does not contain a measure backed by Democrats to prevent him from raiding the fund in the future. Stronger language that would have forced the cleanup of a dangerous class of chemicals, known as PFAS, was dropped. And the final version jettisoned several other provisions passed by House Democrats: to ban new detainees from being placed at the military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; to prohibit the sale of certain types of munitions to Saudi Arabia; and to require Mr. Trump to seek congressional approval before taking any military action against Iran.

Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, said in a statement that she would not support the bill even though it contained some amendments she sponsored. “This bill commits the U.S. to endless involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, continues funding for endless war” under a 2001 military authorization and “does nothing to prevent the administration from launching a disastrous war with Iran,” she said.

But Democratic leaders trumpeted the bill for what it did contain: a White House-approved measure that would extend 12 weeks of paid parental leave to civilian federal employees, a 3 percent pay raise for troops and the end to a Defense Department policy known as the widow’s tax, which prevents the surviving family members of military personnel from receiving their full benefits.

Lol, 'compromise' bill? More like total capitulation; what an absolute tour de farce. That they would tout 12 weeks paid maternal as any kind of real concession won is beyond laughable.

Cont...