I received a email and got a link to this Daily Kos campaign to support Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's campaign to be House Minority Leader next term:
As you read this, Pelosi is mulling over whether to run for House Minority Leader. The basic process involves counting her supporters. If she is going to run, she needs to hear from her supporters ASAP that they still in her corner.
You can make her voice heard by signing this petition of support. I will do my best to deliver the petition to her personally before she makes her decision. She will hear your voice.
The Blue Dogs want her out. So, we are now in a fight for control for the party. We have to win it, and signing this petition helps us win it.
This isn't a petition pleading with powerful people to do the right thing. This is an immediate show of support that is critical to whether or not she runs.
Admittedly, anything the Blue Dog Democrats are for is probably worth opposing.
the Cat Food the Peterson Foundation the Social Security commission?
Shouldn't we wait to see if, during the lame duck session, she manages to prevent Social Security from being whacked?
Or we can just let ourselves get rolled.
Update: Pelosi is making the right noises about preventing a rollback of Social Security. Still, let's see how that pans out.
Interesting viewpoint. I, myself am torn on this. A conservative co-contributor of mine wrote the following, figured I'd share it with you for a look at how the other side is thinking about this - at least some of the reasonable ones:
I'd be more on your side if I didn't think Nancy Pelosi was (a) just what we need and (b) disagreeable to Republicans.
And I'm not even a Democrat, I'm a Socialist.
Just to clarity, I didn't write the piece I linked. I think Pelosi did an amazing job, not only passing the bills that became law, but the ones that didn't get acted on by the Senate. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a newer face, which is why as I mentioned in the comments, I'd like Debbie Wasserman Schultz to get some consideration for the post.
From the conservative link:
"Itâs a knee-jerk reaction to counter the Republicansâ âParty of Noâ playbook with more of the same. Democrats would be in a better position going into 2012 by electing a more moderate Minority Leader and by trying to find bipartisan solutions to the economic and domestic woes that cost them the majority."
That sounds reasonable, and it is the kind of position I would normally take. However, given the success that Republican stubbornness has shown, I would not call taking a play from the Rep playbook kneejerk. From the looks of things, the economy is going to tank again. How can the Dems blame the Reps in two years if they have not been opposing them all the way?
Good question, Min. I'll share it with the author of the post and see what she has to say
Shouldn't the Democrats, even the Kossacks, aspire to a leadership which has a table big enough to hold a copy of the Constitution?
Pelosi demonstrated quite conclusively in '07 & '08 that expedience means more to her than anything else, including high crimes, misdemeanors, or what happens to the United States or the world.
If by "expedience" you mean "legislation", then you are correct. Having the courage to self-immolate is not actually a trait I admire in a person determining public policy.
Particularly with your update, is it worth pointing out how incredibly reactionary you are being? Kind of like "I've been kicked so many times, please please don't kick me?" Now, I'm sure as hell gonna support anyone trying to get Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the leadership, petition be damned, but you know that's not going to happen. The alternatives are Pelosi, or a really real Corporatist, like Stenny Hoyer.
Yeah, a table big enough to hold a copy of the Constitution.
And you read it your way, and I read it mine.
"Pelosi demonstrated quite conclusively in '07 & '08 that expedience means more to her than anything else, including high crimes, misdemeanors, or what happens to the United States or the world."
Ideally she should have led impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney which would hopefully eventually lead to removal and subsequent criminal convictions for the bastards. Sadly, in her view this was not 'politically viable'. I assume that is what you meant Mr. Butler.
But is that likely, gocart? Had being hopeful been enough, I'm sure Rove and at least a handful of others (certainly everyone at PNAC) would have joined Bush & Cheney in irons. Sadly, in the view of anyone rational, the impeachment would have failed ("misleading the American people" not actually being as much a "high crime" as Mr. Butler seems to think) and Democrats would have been decimated, entirely sidelined for being behind a political witch-hunt. Would that assessment have corresponded in any way to reality? Since when has it mattered?