Pelosi vows to become U.S. House speaker despite opposition

[webfact]

Pelosi vows to become U.S. House speaker despite opposition

By Susan Cornwell

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reacts to the results of the U.S. midterm elections at a Democratic election night rally and party in Washington, U.S. Nov. 6, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Nancy Pelosi vowed on Thursday to retake the speakership of the U.S. House of Representatives even as a string of critics within her party have said they will oppose her bid.

 

"I intend to win the speakership with Democratic votes. ... I have overwhelming support in my caucus to be speaker of the House," Pelosi, a liberal from San Francisco, said at a news conference. "I happen to think that at this point, I'm the best person for that."

 

Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in congressional elections on Nov. 6, while Republicans held their majority in the Senate.

 

Pelosi, who has led Democrats in the House for 16 years, wants to reclaim the top job of speaker she held from 2007 to 2011, when she was the first woman in that post. The House speaker is next in the line of presidential succession after the vice president.

 

A small but vocal group of Democrats has argued that the 78-year-old Pelosi should step aside and allow change, saying she has not encouraged a younger generation of Democrats to move into leadership positions.

 

Pelosi is unpopular with many voters and has become a punching bag for Republicans.

 

Some Democratic candidates who won swing districts this month made campaign pledges to oppose Pelosi as speaker. Pelosi's critics say such pledges opened the door to victory.

 

Pelosi's backers say the former speaker has the experience needed to challenge President Donald Trump and has offered a legislative agenda that includes Democratic goals such as raising the federal minimum wage and investing in climate-friendly infrastructure.

 

She is also a prodigious fundraiser, a tireless campaigner and has a record that includes passage of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, when she was last speaker. Protecting that law from repeated attacks by Republicans was a top issue for Democrats in their successful campaign for the House.

 

While Pelosi still has more support as leader than anyone else inside the Democratic caucus, which will pick its candidate for speaker on Nov. 28, she might not have enough to get the 218 votes she would need when the full House, including Republicans, votes on Jan. 3.

 

DESIRE FOR CHANGE

Seventeen Democrats have signed a letter pledging not to back Pelosi during the House floor vote, Democratic aides said. Asked about the letter, Pelosi told reporters they should ask the signatories, 14 of whom she said were men, what their motivations were.

 

No challenger has emerged to Pelosi, although Representative Marcia Fudge, a former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, has told some media outlets she is considering a bid. Fudge, 66, a liberal from northeastern Ohio, supported Representative Tim Ryan's failed bid in 2016 to unseat Pelosi as Democratic leader.

 

Fudge told the HuffPost on Thursday that some people oppose Pelosi because they see her as an elitist, "and I think to some degree she is."

 

Representative Kathleen Rice of New York, another Pelosi critic, told reporters that Pelosi's opposition in the Democratic caucus was "north of 25" people and "once we are able to show the leader cannot get to 218 votes, whether it's Marcia (Fudge) or others, (people) are going to throw their hat in the ring."

 

Even some of Pelosi's supporters acknowledged a bottled-up desire for change among Democrats after many years with Pelosi at the helm.

 

"I'm supporting Nancy because no one is more skilled and has earned it," said Representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia. "Having said that, there's a huge desire that's quite understandable for change."

 

Others asked how the party could turn on Pelosi after last week's House wins. "We just won more victories than at any point since Watergate with Nancy Pelosi as our leader," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist and former spokesman for Hillary Clinton.

 

Doug Heye, a Republican strategist who launched a “Fire Pelosi” campaign in 2010 when he was with the Republican National Committee, said pent-up frustration among Democratic members for a path to party leadership was legitimate – but that it would be “foolish” for them to oust Pelosi in the speaker’s race.

 

"When I was at the RNC we didn’t launch a "Fire Pelosi" campaign because she was ineffective. It was because she was effective," Heye said in an interview.

 

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell; Additional reporting by Richard Cowan, Ginger Gibson, Amanda Becker and David Morgan; Editing by Kieran Murray and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-16

[mikebike]

So much to unpack in that article. Interested to see how this thread goes...

 

I will say her fundraising skills do provide her with a giant megaphone. Hopefully others will be heard and the election process is transparent.

[Nyezhov]

The Speaker number is 218 votes. There are 229 Democtats +/- which means she has a margin of 11.

 

That means:

a. She needs the entire Democratic majority to vote for her, from the most radical to the most conservative (and there are still a few classic Blue Dogs left). Seems like she wont make it...or

b. She need Republicans...

 

I can only imagine the Horse trading going on behind the scenes...

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

The Speaker number is 218 votes. There are 229 Democtats +/- which means she has a margin of 11.

 

That means:

a. She needs the entire Democratic majority to vote for her, from the most radical to the most conservative (and there are still a few classic Blue Dogs left). Seems like she wont make it...or

b. She need Republicans...

 

I can only imagine the Horse trading going on behind the scenes...

You completely ignore her past record.

 

She’s the best candidate for the job and only has five minor democrats opposing her, non of whom are themselves willing to put their own name forward.

 

Their opposition to Pelosi is purely related to their own re-election chances in the narrow margin States they represent 

[guest879]

'Pelosi told reporters they should ask the signatories, 14 of whom she said were men, what their motivations were.'

Because any criticism of a woman by men should be assumed to be sexism.  she is a kook and the democrats should be cultivating a new leader who will tackle real issues and not just  cry racism or sexism at every turn. Dems are like a headless chicken so desperate to find a head they may have to run Hillary again. Cant see that going well for them. don't think I could handle years of excuses from her if she lost again.

[mikebike]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You completely ignore her past record.

 

She’s the best candidate for the job and only has five minor democrats opposing her, non of whom are themselves willing to put their own name forward.

 

Their opposition to Pelosi is purely related to their own re-election chances in the narrow margin States they represent 

Past record means very little in today's political landscape. In fact it could well be her downfall.

 

There are more than 5 minor Dems opposing her.

 

In addition to those worried about their own re-election chances, virtually everyone to the left of P. (a large and ever-broadening group including young Dems, progressive Dems, and anti-corruption Dems) oppose her as well.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

I can only imagine the Horse trading going on behind the scenes

Already begun:

Rep. Tom] Reed, co-chairman of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said the growing frustration with gridlock, polarization and a top-heavy leadership approach in Congress are the reasons why several members in his party are willing to supply Pelosi with some Speaker votes in exchange for extracting an overhaul of the House rules. (my underline)

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25135465/nancy-pelosi-speaker-race-problem-solvers-caucus/

[lannarebirth]

12 hours ago, mikebike said:

Past record means very little in today's political landscape. In fact it could well be her downfall.

 

There are more than 5 minor Dems opposing her.

 

In addition to those worried about their own re-election chances, virtually everyone to the left of P. (a large and ever-broadening group including young Dems, progressive Dems, and anti-corruption Dems) oppose her as well.

 

You're responding to someone who is "confused" by every single <deleted> post he reads. Don't waste your breath.

[Nyezhov]

40 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Already begun:

Rep. Tom] Reed, co-chairman of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said the growing frustration with gridlock, polarization and a top-heavy leadership approach in Congress are the reasons why several members in his party are willing to supply Pelosi with some Speaker votes in exchange for extracting an overhaul of the House rules. (my underline)

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25135465/nancy-pelosi-speaker-race-problem-solvers-caucus/

Dont you love the word bipartisan? Problem solvers? Here is a secret for the Dems...you CAN compromise with President Trump on certain issues because:

 

His base is going to love him no matter what ????

 

Now mind you that that doesnt mean things like AWBs or raising taxes but take a look at criminal justice reform?

[rgraham]

I would not be surprised if the wack-a-doodle dems choose her again, why not she is typical of the democrat individual.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, guest879 said:

'Pelosi told reporters they should ask the signatories, 14 of whom she said were men, what their motivations were.'

Because any criticism of a woman by men should be assumed to be sexism.  she is a kook and the democrats should be cultivating a new leader who will tackle real issues and not just  cry racism or sexism at every turn. Dems are like a headless chicken so desperate to find a head they may have to run Hillary again. Cant see that going well for them. don't think I could handle years of excuses from her if she lost again.

another post by a Hillary Clinton obsessive

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, rgraham said:

I would not be surprised if the wack-a-doodle dems choose her again, why not she is typical of the democrat individual.

Don't know about Pelosi, but the level of your argument, if that's the right word to dignify it, seems all too typical of your side.

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

The Speaker number is 218 votes. There are 229 Democtats +/- which means she has a margin of 11.

 

That means:

a. She needs the entire Democratic majority to vote for her, from the most radical to the most conservative (and there are still a few classic Blue Dogs left). Seems like she wont make it...or

b. She need Republicans...

 

I can only imagine the Horse trading going on behind the scenes...

229 +/- ??? Possibly less than 229? That is impossible.  You really are having a hard time accepting reality, aren't you?   Most likely by the time the votes are all tallied it will be at least 234 democrats, maybe as many as 236. 

[Tug]

I think she and her (team) would do a fine job 

[Bangkok Herps]

12 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

The Speaker number is 218 votes. There are 229 Democtats +/- which means she has a margin of 11.

 

That means:

a. She needs the entire Democratic majority to vote for her, from the most radical to the most conservative (and there are still a few classic Blue Dogs left). Seems like she wont make it...or

b. She need Republicans...

 

I can only imagine the Horse trading going on behind the scenes...

 

No way it is only 229, where do you come up with that?

They've already got a confirmed 232 right now and 4 more seats are still TBD.

 

 

That being said, I hope for the Dems sake they get some fresh blood in there.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Bangkok Herps said:

 

No way it is only 229, where do you come up with that?

They've already got a confirmed 231 right now and 6 more seats are still TBD.

I don't think he's been able to bring himself to look at the results since Nov 6.

[Nyezhov]

20 minutes ago, Bangkok Herps said:

 

No way it is only 229, where do you come up with that?

They've already got a confirmed 232 right now and 4 more seats are still TBD.

 

 

That being said, I hope for the Dems sake they get some fresh blood in there.

I said, if you read again 229 +/-. 

[sirineou]

First let me say that I am an independent voter having voted for both Democrats ,Republicans and independent candidates. At present I find my interests best represented by the democrats.

I said best, but far from perfectly.

Aside from disagreeing with Pelosi's politics because of  political orientation not compatible with democratic policy, I don't see what is wrong with Pelosi, other that she has being demonised by the right.

 She certainly has the connections and experience to deal with these politically challenging times . The republicans will love to see some inexperienced idiotic newby much in the way  Putin loved to see Trump in the white house as opposed Hillary Clinton who would had tore him a new A-hole instead of blowing him at every opportunity. 

  We don't need to be changing horses mid river, the river we were in the waters are rough.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

I said, if you read again 229 +/-. 

How could it be  229 +/- when the total at the time you wrote that was at least 234 if not 235? How do you get to 234 by going in a negative direction. Had you written 234 or 235  instead of 229 you might have a point. But clearly you haven't been able to bring yourself to look at the tallies for quite some time now. 

[Cryingdick]

Sounds like 17 Democrats have said they adamantly oppose Pelosi. Let's use the 232 number and give one of the other seats making it 233 for arguments sake. 

 

233

-17

-----

216

 

That means they need Republicans. If not it's damn close to being the case. 

 

 

[canuckamuck]

I'm in favor of Pelosi displaying her brand of crazy for a few years. It will do wonders for the 2020 reelection campaign.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I'm in favor of Pelosi displaying her brand of crazy for a few years. It will do wonders for the 2020 reelection campaign.

She becomes a foil. Unless she moves to the center to protect the party and minimize the damage that could be caused by the left flank. 

[connda]

If Democrats are ever going to redefine themselves they need to bring in the newer generation.  If they keep backing the old war horses that need to be set up to pasture, nothing's going to change.  Heck, Trump even endorses Polosi.  And when Republicans start endorsing Polosi as speaker and Hillery Clinton for a President in 2020 - think about it.  ????  That should say everything.  They need leaders in the party who are neither geriatrics nor have age related health problems.  But part of the party wants to simply keep banging the same drum, others want socialism/communism while believing money must grow on trees.  Then there are a few Democratic legislators out there acting on issues that have long been the floor of the Democratic agenda.  But it seems the party is hell bent on ripping itself up from within and they'll lose moderate democrats and independents who swing based on substantive issues such as myself.  I don't vote for parties, or candidates, I vote for issues. 

 

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, connda said:

If Democrats are ever going to redefine themselves they need to bring in the newer generation.  If they keep backing the old war horses that need to be set up to pasture, nothing's going to change.  Heck, Trump even endorses Polosi.  That should say everything.  They need leaders in the party who are neither geriatrics nor have health problems.  But it seems the party is going to rip itself up from within and they'll lose moderate democrats and independents who swing based on substantive issues.

 

You mean substantive issues like health care?

Like the minimum wage?

Like taxation?

What substantive issues are you referring to?

[connda]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean substantive issues like health care?

Like the minimum wage?

Like taxation?

What substantive issues are you referring to?

Exactly.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, connda said:

Exactly.

You think the Republicans have the edge on those questions?

[Nyezhov]

31 minutes ago, connda said:

I don't vote for parties, or candidates, I vote for issues. 

Exactly. And you can never have it all, so you look at the candidate/party who bests fulfills your desires as to issues. I break them down into three areas: Social/Economic/Foreign Policy.

[bristolboy]

47 minutes ago, connda said:

If Democrats are ever going to redefine themselves they need to bring in the newer generation.  If they keep backing the old war horses that need to be set up to pasture, nothing's going to change.  Heck, Trump even endorses Polosi.  And when Republicans start endorsing Polosi as speaker and Hillery Clinton for a President in 2020 - think about it.  ????  That should say everything.  They need leaders in the party who are neither geriatrics nor have age related health problems.  But part of the party wants to simply keep banging the same drum, others want socialism/communism while believing money must grow on trees.  Then there are a few Democratic legislators out there acting on issues that have long been the floor of the Democratic agenda.  But it seems the party is hell bent on ripping itself up from within and they'll lose moderate democrats and independents who swing based on substantive issues such as myself.  I don't vote for parties, or candidates, I vote for issues. 

 

So Pelosi is old at 78 but Trump who will be 74 in 2020 is young? How do you think Trump is doing among younger people? How will the Republcans redefine themselves with Trump at the helm?

And on the substantive issues, Democrats are far more popular on most than are Republcans.

 

[mikebike]

14 hours ago, sirineou said:

We don't need to be changing horses mid river, the river we were in the waters are rough.

Really? You feel it would be best to go with the horse which presided over the biggest Dem losses, nationally and at the state level, that the party has ever seen? Good call.

5 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

She becomes a foil. Unless she moves to the center to protect the party and minimize the damage that could be caused by the left flank. 

Moves to the center? She is barley “left” on social issues and is further “right” economically than a classic Reagan republican to begin with.

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, mikebike said:

Really? You feel it would be best to go with the horse which presided over the biggest Dem losses, nationally and at the state level, that the party has ever seen? Good call.

Moves to the center? She is barley “left” on social issues and is further “right” economically than a classic Reagan republican to begin with.

I blame Obama and not pelosi, and will attempt to explain why below.

I have no love lost for the Democrats, I simply see them as closer aligned to my interests but by no stretch of the imagination perfectly aligned.

 At this point they are the lesser evil and only choice.

I am afraid you are giving Pelosi more credit than she deserves, tough she  had her part to play in losing the house, she certainly did not preside over the state, senate, or executive, There is a lot of blame to go around, and if she is to be blamed for losing the house then should she not be credited for winning it back?

IMO we are where we are because of Obama's deal with the devil.

When Obama gained the Democratic nomination, to win the presidency he made a deal with the Clintons, Hillary was made Secretary of state State to build up her resumate , and was promised her turn at the presidency eight years later.

 During the Democratic primary elections for the nomination there were a lot of threads running on TVF with many supporting Hillary, I supported Sanders with my actions and my gold  and was consistent in stating what the Republicans will do with all Hillary's baggage.

Which is exactly what happened. In addition, americans do not like a coronation. Hillary dragged down the rest of the tiket.

 Though there is a lot of blame to go around, I Blame Obama and not Pelosi.