Plan B Forum

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:27 am**

Another Democratic congresswoman takes aim at Nancy Pelosi: 'We need new leadership'

Eric Ting

SFGATE
Nov. 16, 2020
Updated: Nov. 16, 2020 10:57 a.m.

ERIN SCHAFF/NYT
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to take fire from members of her own caucus, as Michigan Rep. Elissa Slotkin is now stating she will not vote for the San Francisco Democrat in Pelosi's bid for another team as Speaker of the House.

“I will not be voting for Nancy Pelosi,” Slotkin told Politico. “I have no idea if people are gonna run against her, or who might run against her. And I will of course have this conversation directly with her. But I believe we need new leadership. I would love to see more Midwesterners, because if you look across the leadership. … I respect these people, but it’s New York and California.”

Slotkin, who flipped the red district that encompasses Lansing in 2018 and won re-election in 2020, sharply criticized her party's messaging ahead of the 2020 election. She stated that the party's lack of a central message left House incumbents vulnerable to Republican attacks on "defund the police" and "socialism."

“The brand of the national Democratic Party is mushy," she said. "People don’t know what we stand for, what we’re about. So, every two years when the new flavor of attack comes out, it’s easy to convince a portion of the population that those attacks are true, because they still don’t know our brand."

Last week, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia stated that she almost lost her race due to the activist-driven push to "defund the police" after the death of George Floyd.

"The number one concern that people brought to me in my race that I barely re-won was defunding the police," Spanberger said on a heated caucus conference call last week. "And I've heard from colleagues who say, 'Oh it's the language of the streets, we should respect that.' We're in Congress. We are professionals. We are supposed to talk about things in the way where we mean what we are talking about. If we don't mean we should defund the police, we shouldn't say that."

Spanberger warned that her party "will get f—ing torn apart in 2022" if they accept Pelosi's assessment that 2020 was a good year for congressional Democrats. Pelosi reportedly spoke on the call right after and said she "disagrees" with Spanberger's description of the race, stating that the Democrats (narrowly) held the House and won the presidency.

Even though Pelosi has taken public criticism from both the moderate and progressive wings of her caucus, no one has announced a formal challenge to her speakership. After the 2016 election, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan ran against Pelosi for House Minority Leader, but she defeated him by a vote of 134–63.

Regardless of what happens with Pelosi, Slotkin believes that California and New York liberalism — which generally emphasizes social and cultural issues over economic policy — is electorally toxic just about everywhere else in the country.

“I remember, long before, literally, Donald Trump was even a twinkle in our eye, the way that people in my life here couldn’t stand political correctness," she said. "And I think [this is] the same kind of sentiment. Because the political correctness is thinking you’re better than somebody else—it’s correcting someone. Now, I happen to believe that we live in a different era, and that we have to be better than we were in previous eras. … But people do feel looked down upon.”

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:02 am**

I had been uneasily on board with Pelosi until she tore up her copy of Trumps speech during the State of the union. Sure it played to her base but it was also childish and petty. You can’t take the high road and take cheap shots it doesn’t work that way.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:13 am**

dales wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:27 am

Eric Ting; SFGATE; Nov. 16, 2020 wrote:
Last week, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia stated that she almost lost her race due to the activist-driven push to "defund the police" after the death of George Floyd.

"The number one concern that people brought to me in my race that I barely re-won was defunding the police," Spanberger said on a heated caucus conference call last week. "And I've heard from colleagues who say, 'Oh it's the language of the streets, we should respect that.' We're in Congress. We are professionals. We are supposed to talk about things in the way where we mean what we are talking about. If we don't mean we should defund the police, we shouldn't say that."

In a way, she's right. No one in any real authority was calling for 'defunding the police' — as in 'eliminating them from the municipal budget', and when I DID hear the phrase used anywhere other than in the middle of the riots/protests, it seemed to refer to 'defunding the military aspect of the police' — a point with which I somewhat agree. There is no reason for police to be monitoring a rally or public protest — protests that are protected by the US Constitution, by the way, right there in the First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

— dressed in more body armor than an Imperial Storm Trooper and with more offensive weapons than we gave to the US troops who landed on Normandy on D-Day.

Should they have them available if they become necessary? Of course they do — no one in their right mind, not even liberty (where the jury is still out on that), thinks that we should expect the forces of Law'n Order to stand out there completely unprotected like so many little ducks in a shooting gallery. But neither do you need to turn up in full battle rattle to monitor a group of people marching down the street chanting, singing songs, and carrying flags (that's the definition of a parade, by the way). After all, you don't show up for a family discussion — at least, not in my family, anyway — and open the proceedings by setting a locked and loaded AR-15 on the dining room table. That kind of changes the whole tenor of the discussion even before the first word has been uttered.

-"BB"-

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:08 am**

All correct. Pelosi caved to the left when she allowed the impossible impeachment to go ahead, even though she knew it was too weak a case, the wrong battlefield and utterly useless. The Democratic party handed Trump more victories than the sycophant Reps ever did.

The radical left with that stupid "defund" thing, BLM's (later amended) "we aim to destroy the nuclear family and let's have everyone be a pervert" website, the burning buildings, the unruly children "occupying" public space like vagrants - vagrants occupying public space such as San Francisco and your local library. And there's more.

70,000,000+ Americans are utterly fed up with the denigration (there I said it) of America and their standards (oh and I know "their" standards are as hypocritical as any others, including mine). And yes, they WILL rise up if the next Trump-wannabe has anything like normal intelligence and decent displays of concern and character.

I am thankful that Trump was SUCH and is SUCH a disgusting human that over 50% of the voters rejected him. If he hadn't been an asshole, he'd be there for four more and I fear what will come after him.

Because I might have to vote for him or her* and I don't like the idea.

*Yeah, not really "her" because that's not going to happen on that side.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:39 pm**

Meade, you're getting too old, you're turning into my father. I recall many of the same sentiments coming out of his mouth in the 60s and 70s--children occupying public spaces, vagrants, denigrating America, perverts... Come on, were the good old days so good that they couldn't stand a little shaking up and, gasp, improvement? I'm sure my dad would have answered yes, for the most part (although his hatred of the evil "socialism" diddn't affect his accepting medicare and even medicaid in his later years); but I don't really think you would.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:55 pm**

Shorter Meade: There are fringe elements with scary slogans and unpleasant tactics, which the Democratic Party leadership has expressly disavowed, but they are Leftists! So I have to vote for the party actively undermining democracy with authoritarianism that embraces and encourages actual Nazis, white supremacists and armed militias literally looking to start a civil war! You see how I was forced to do this!

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:58 pm**

Politics is a game of compromise; and game is the right word here.

There is no question in my mind that Trump's Ukraine adventure was impeachment-worthy but I'm not sure that it stood out from the crowd among his other transgressions. And, to continue Meade's point, there is no possibility that impeachent would have succeeded. In the same way that Mueller's report was a typical prosecutor effort (you gotta have beyond all reasonable doubt - and Trump is smart enough, having played the game in NYC throughout his developer life to understand that all he needs is that 5% of doubt) where he knew that he would not get a jury to convict.

Rest assured that the Rs will be looking for anything to hang an investigation on. There may well be other shoes to drop from the Hunter Biden thing which, even if all above board, looks very tawdry. Did he have the skill set for his position at Burisma or did his last name help? (And yes, I am well aware of the apparent cachet of the Trump name.) Biden's first couple of years in office will be tough and I don't doubt that Iran, North Korea and the Republican Trumpite wing will all do their best to sabotage any move he makes.

Defunding the police was always a stupid name for a sensible approach to law enforcement. In the same way that we have made some attempt to reduce medical costs by having LPNs do stuff which heretofore only doctors could do, it made sense to reduce costs and lower temperature by having non-cops - social workers, traffic wardens / parking enforcement officers, etc - do some jobs police were once routinely called to.

I am thankful that Trump was SUCH and is SUCH a disgusting human that over 50% of the voters rejected him. If he hadn't been an asshole, he'd be there for four more and I fear what will come after him.

I fear you are right. Tucker Carlson does not appear to have the same level of personal low grade assholeness that Trump has. I'm not saying he's a great guy but AFAIK he is not on record promoting pussy grabbing or denigrating Gold Star families. He possibly has a three digit IQ. If he can suck up all the Trumpites and 5% of the Bidenistas then he's a shoo-in for 2024.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:12 pm**

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:58 pm
Tucker Carlson does not appear to have the same level of personal low grade assholeness that Trump has. I'm not saying he's a great guy but AFAIK he is not on record promoting pussy grabbing or denigrating Gold Star families. He possibly has a three digit IQ. If he can suck up all the Trumpites and 5% of the Bidenistas then he's a shoo-in for 2024.

Because an heir-to-a-fortune TV "personality" of minimal personal accomplishment and no experience in government is the person best equipped for doing the actual job of governing the US and A.

This country is fucked.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:39 pm**

Sue U wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:12 pm

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:58 pm
Tucker Carlson does not appear to have the same level of personal low grade assholeness that Trump has. I'm not saying he's a great guy but AFAIK he is not on record promoting pussy grabbing or denigrating Gold Star families. He possibly has a three digit IQ. If he can suck up all the Trumpites and 5% of the Bidenistas then he's a shoo-in for 2024.
Because an heir-to-a-fortune TV "personality" of minimal personal accomplishment and no experience in government is the person best equipped for doing the actual job of governing the US and A.

This country is fucked.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:51 pm**

Sue--sadly that seems to be the case; even on both sides. I recall a couple of years ago some people seriously promoting Oprah Winfrey as a democratic candidate for 2020. Experience in government appears to be a drawback to a candidate.

I recall a book I read after the 68 election that described this movement away from issues and experience to Madison avenue packaging, and it appears to be bearing fruit. I recall watching parts of the democratic convention and being bored to ears by the succession of infomercials and quick cuts of people and the candidates saying little to nothing, but having a driving background music. The ad men appear to know what they are doing.

Hell, here was a democratic congressional candidate from Staten Island who ran number of Trump style sound clip commercials ("I'd never defund the police", "When you kill one of us, we kill you", and attacking his opponent)[ I actually thought he was the republican candidate and he was leading the polls. He later started to focus on issues more and winded up losing.

This trend sucks, but it seems many, if not most, people can absorb more than a sound bite, so we get what we deserve.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:28 pm**

At least Oprah actually did earn her position and her fortune by working her way up from nothing, but even so, no one was seriously promoting her as a presidential candidate; that was just entertainment industry blather for a week or two after she speechified at the Golden Globes.

But you're right, this whole cult of personality thing is very much what is wrong with the way politics works in practice -- not just here, and not just now. To the extent that politics is theater, there is always a danger that the star will be bigger than the show and will believe his/her playing the role to be more important than the script. There should be systemic safeguards designed to reduce the chances of that happening, and I think a parliamentary system with proportional representation would do that -- generally making policy-driven coalitions more important than individual politicians. And while nothing is perfect, there are much better ways to choose national leadership than what we're doing now.

Also, eddieq:

eddieq wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:39 pm

Ima use that one myself!

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:12 pm**

Interesting and worth considering, but I do wonder how the head of state would be chosen; would those powers be vested in a prime minister or some appointed or elected CEO. Personally I think our presidents have far too much power, but designing a more workable system would be interesting.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:48 pm**

Ranked-choice voting might be a good start.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:34 am**

Having the head of state and the head of government embodied in one person seems like too much to me. Having a constitutional monarchy seems to work well in some places and I'm sure Her Maj could be talked into it.

Seriously though - I'm not a fan of monarchy but it does have the one advantage of being apolitical in theory.

I think that the US Presidency as practiced is a long way from that envisaged in the Constitution. It seems to me that the FFS wanted the Administration to administrate: the legislative branch sets out policy and goals and the Administration gets on with it. So the President would be akin to head of the civil service. Putting him (and of course it was always a him in their eyes) in charge of foreign relations may have been seen as a small matter in those days. Who in Delaware gave a shit about what was going on in Paris or Moscow in 1787?

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:29 pm**

Sue U wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:55 pm
Shorter Meade: There are fringe elements with scary slogans and unpleasant tactics, which the Democratic Party leadership has expressly disavowed, but they are Leftists! So I have to vote for the party actively undermining democracy with authoritarianism that embraces and encourages actual Nazis, white supremacists and armed militias literally looking to start a civil war! You see how I was forced to do this!

You should add “my religion/moral code required me to vote for the amoral asshole.”

Meade, if you truly cared about the items you claim you promote: housing, fair pay, equality, etc, then why the dilemma? Oh right, “religion.”

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:37 pm**

I recently attended a lecture/forum presented by the Princeton Seminary on Zoom. The stated purpose was to inform christian ministers to enable them to provide spiritual support to all their members, even as the membership's political views might be tearing the group apart. The data came mostly from the Pew institute, a recognized reliable source of this kind of data.

Many graphs and tables of statistic about the trends of separation between liberals and conservatives. The final graph in this series was most interesting. The y-axis was total numbers and the x-axis was degree of extreme belief. The median for each group was rather close 30 years ago. The conservative extremest were trending down, but the liberals had there extremist way up and the most numerous.

Wow. I am a liberal. I think JS Mill and his philosophical direction has done much more to make life pleasant for more people than the conservative Hobbs and Calvin. But this nearly fanatical liberalism is real. I always took the complaints about pointy headed,volvo driving, birkenstock wearing, elitist as just rhetoric. But maybe the dems need to change more than the GOP.

snailgate

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:40 pm**

Guinevere wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:29 pm
Meade, if you truly cared about the items you claim you promote: housing, fair pay, equality, etc, then why the dilemma? Oh right, “religion.”

It isn't a dilemma - yet. Those things above (and more) are what I believe true conservatism should be about. I could add gun control there too. (That's a situation where times and conditions have changed and what was once reasonable is no longer so).

That you and I have some different moral values is hardly surprising. I am sure we agree on many more. We both believe our worldview is correct and therefore that (some at least of) the other person's worldview is not correct. It is all merely a question of who gets the votes to impose their worldview on the people who disagree with it.

Thus far, the more allegedly "liberal" viewpoint has been rammed down the throat of all citizens who, if they disagree with the approved agenda in any respect are to be mocked, silenced and ignored (all three at once - some trick eh?

). Yes, I very much disapprove of the deterioration of civil society, exemplified in so many ways by entertainment industries, Trump supporters and other scum.

There is a seismic shift going on and the Democrat party had better realize it if it wants to be an effective loyal opposition and/or ruling party. These things happen in cycles. Eventually, all will revert to "your" side of things, so don't worry too much.

And I don't think I'll be voting for *ucker Carlson either

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:03 pm**

Thus far, the more allegedly "liberal" viewpoint has been rammed down the throat of all citizens who, if they disagree with the approved agenda in any respect are to be mocked, silenced and ignored (all three at once - some trick eh? ).

You honestly believe that? From abortion, to the mandate to teach creationism (or intelligent design or whatever the new euphemism is), or gay rights, or ..., it appears the right (and associated land associated religious groups) try to do the same over and over again. There is a strong desire to control the behavior of others in humans, and those on the right seem to try not only to shove their viewpoint down the throats of those they disagree with, but try to legislate to control that behavior (e.g., no one on the left is insisting that someone who doesn't want to must marriage, but many on the right seek to pass laws prohibiting others who choose to do so from being able to).

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:30 pm**

Back to the original point of the thread - Nancy Pelosi is reelected speaker

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... 9dffaadc73

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:34 pm**

Big RR wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:03 pm
You honestly believe that? From abortion, to the mandate to teach creationism (or intelligent design or whatever the new euphemism is), or gay rights, or ..., it appears the right (and associated land associated religious groups) try to do the same over and over again. There is a strong desire to control the behavior of others in humans, and those on the right seem to try not only to shove their viewpoint down the throats of those they disagree with, but try to legislate to control that behavior (e.g., no one on the left is insisting that someone who doesn't want to must marriage, but many on the right seek to pass laws prohibiting others who choose to do so from being able to).

I made no statement about abortion, creationism (rubbish that is), or homosexual rights. You have done neither more nor less than agree with my central point - that those in power impose their "rules" on society; a self-evident proposition. However, those doing the imposing always invoke a higher power to justify enshrining their views in law. That may be god, God, what some dead dudes wrote in the 1700s or "I think up the morals on my own". But it's the same thing. Your right to decide what's legal and what's not is no different than my own, subject to the votes of society at large and various courts up to the SCOTUS.

I notice you didn't cite forbidding a baker to decide what cake to decorate as an example of "control (of) the behavior of other human beings". And you can come up with all kinds of legal reasons why that's a reasonable thing to do - your viewpoint is correct and others are wrong. Unless others obtain the superior numbers perhaps. Then, you become wrong. For a while.

Plan B Forum

The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

Re: The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes