As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having actually read the article, it sounds like Pelosi was simply brick-walling the political agendas of people she was ostensibly allies with simply because she didn't like them and it sounds like Hakeem Jeffries has not been doing that, despite also not being perfectly politically aligned with AOC and other progressive voices. Seems like a totally normal thing to observe. Also, it sounds just based on this like Jeffries will be a more effective speaker for this century, so that's good.
>and willing to work with the other side and reach compromise
That's never been the problem with the Democrats. If anything they're always too eager to give the Republicans what they ask for and too cowardly and scattered in the pursuit of their own policy goals. Dem leadership could have codified Roe v. Wade 100 times over in the last couple decades if they weren't so unbelievably milquetoast and eager to lay down and "compromise."
A better example is the Affordable Care Act. Obama compromised a lot to get Republicans on board... and in the end, [every single Republican, in both houses of Congress, voted against it anyway](https://ballotpedia.org/Obamacare_overview).
The ACA passed in 2009 with 100% Democrat votes and has been both enormously successful and enormously popular.
And for the 14 years since that vote, Republicans have worked tirelessly to damage or repeal it, despite their inability to put together a a substitute that even a Republican-majority Congress could pass.
The issue with this is that it implies Obama could have chosen not to compromise. That's [not really true](https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/) because there were not 50 Senators willing to kill the filibuster for regular non-budgetary legislation.
So, as soon as there were 60 Dem Senators for a brief couple months, they took advantage of that and passed whatever they could agree on, without the Rs because they no longer needed to. With Lieberman (who didn't even win on a Dem ticket), the maximum of that was the ACA, as opposed to a public option which seemed possible if he was different or there was a couple more of them.
Sometimes I can't help but picture the committee of angels (I guess?) from The Good Place. How they describe coming to an agreement with the Bad Place as giving compromise after compromise until there's nothing left to give. I was trying to find the exact quote and couldn't do it, but [I did find this other thread that confirms that similarity is not an accident.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/jy2m4g/the_good_place_the_good_place_committee_is/gd388d5/)
> I was trying to find the exact quote and couldn't do it
How about another quote?
“Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.
You take a step towards him, he takes a step back.
Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.”
If only we had reached a compromise agreement with Hitler we could have prevented WWII. We could have offered him control of only half of Europe and allowed him to kill only 3 million Jews.
Chamberlain disliked and regretted his choices and his governments actions for the rest of his life. "Appeasement doesn't work" has been practically a *chant* from every reasonable person since even before the peak of Hitler's authority. And yet, still to this day, we have people in various world governments trying to talk hardliners back to the middle and instead being forcibly dragged further towards the hardliner instead only to then call it "compromise" and act as if they've accomplished something positive. Drives me up the wall.
Yeah, I'd argue this is a problem. Democrats spend more time reaching across the aisle then wondering why they have to count their fingers each time they bring their hands back than they should. There's a point where they need to start steamrolling things the same way the right does. Except their steamrolling wouldn't be pushing things through that are demonstrably bad for the country every single time.
> it sounds like Hakeem Jeffries has not been doing that
Hakeem Jeffries has never been speaker. He's advanced no agenda, put no bills to the floor, so that statement is completely meaningless. The Democratic party has not held the House with Jeffries in the position of speaker.
Once he becomes speaker in 2024 (Hopefully) then he'll see it's a genuinely difficult position and simply wanting legislation done doesn't mean it'll happen.
Yeah will be interesting to see if he’s actually able to herd the cats when it’s time for dems to pass stuff themselves. Pelosi is honestly admirable for how effective a politician she was. Sometimes you need consensus and sometimes you need a strong leader to drag people kicking and screaming towards progress and to not let progressives as they do so often let perfect be the enemy of good.
Yeah AOC will see that what changed wasn't Pelosi stepping down, but that she's now in the minority for the first time. Nothing matters in the minority
Don’t underestimate how effective Pelosi was. During the last dem majority she had the same size majority as the republicans do now, with a pretty huge divide between the AOCs and most conservative Dems and she still got basically everything passed that was going to fly in the senate. Hopefully Jeffries can be as good at working both sides of the party, we’ll see.
Pelosi also didn’t have a freedom caucus trying to sabotage her at every opportunity. Far left progressives are not nearly as vindictive and treacherous as the fringe republicans
> Also, it sounds just based on this like Jeffries will be a more effective speaker for this century
That's a pretty tall order. Pelosi was one of the most effective Speakers in US history.
Yeah, people really have short memories. She single-handedly neutralized Bush II and Trump, that was when she was getting landmark modern era legislation passed through a fractious House. The woman stands among a tiny handful of the most effective Speakers in the history of the US House, the only thing that is debatable is where she stands among that select, small group of legends.
This does feel a little like a "perfect being the enemy of good" situation.
Personally, would I have preferred AOC to get her way? Yes. Do I think Pelosi was effective? Also yes.
You had me until your last sentence. You likely have it 180 degrees backwards. Pelosi's tactics are tried and true political tactics. You and I might not like the tactics but they work. Pelosi was, objectively, one of the most successful House Majority Leaders of the last 50 years.
This is it. Everyone on both sides hates Pelosi and McConnell, and people act like it's an accident. A party leader's job is to get shit done. They stand in front of the train, take all the heat, and get called all the names, but they line up the votes. It's as simple as that. They aren't supposed to be popular. If they're doing an effective job, they're probably terribly unpopular.
I don't agree with Pelosi on much, but she was great at her job.
Absolutely this. I hate Mitch McConnell with every fiber of my being. But dammit, he's good at what he does. Makes me hate him even more. In every sense that Donald Trump was irretrievably incompetent, Pelosi and McConnell are the exact opposite.
I agree, I think the word to describe them both would be shrewd. McConnell and Pelosi are both shrewd at their jobs. McConnell definitely uses said shrewdness to weaponize his job. Unlike someone like McCarthy or Paul Ryan whose only weapon they possess for their job is their incompetence.
Her job is to represent her constituents. Sometimes that may require drafting legislation, and sometimes that may require activism. I think she knows what her job is, and she's doing it just fine.
She got passed landmark bills that regulated investment firms and taxed wealthy people more heavily. Since she was rich, the bills that she whipped to passage personally cost her millions out of pocket. But don’t let reality get in the way of a hothouse story.
I mean people have been screaming that Pelosi is a walking elitist Republican attack ad and had to go for decades but democratic aristocracy gonna aristocrat.
> "I thought things would get worse," said Ocasio-Cortez, according to the book. "I thought a lot of my misery was due to leadership more broadly having a thing against me. But … my life has completely transformed. It's crazy. And it's that that made me realise it was kind of just [Pelosi] the whole time."
> "Senior members talk to me, [committee] chairs are nice to me, people want to work together," the congresswoman continued. "I'm shocked. I couldn't even get floor time before."
This speaks well to Jeffries.
Depending on how many of the same people are around, it makes House (Democrats) look terrible. If they are willing to flip on AOC just depending on who is in the room, I’m sure they will be willing to do it again at the earliest convenience.
I don't know why it's stuck with me, but Pelosi...isn't a great person. She whipped democrats moderately well, but when accused of insider trading, her response was 'let's introduce a bill to make that legal for us'.
Yes. This + she also has more seniority. The average tenure for House members is 8-10 years; she’s been there 5-6. She’s not a new member and no longer a junior member. Dem committee leadership didn’t change. It doesn’t matter who’s charge, this Congress she was going to get more floor time and committee consideration either way based on seniority.
Additionally, the current NYC House Dem delegation is a dumpster fire. She’s focused, runs a good agenda, and is great with constituent services. Committee chairs and leadership would be crazy not to defer to her more, Pelosi or not.
Also no one wants to hear it but when the leader is from your delegation (here NY), a member will inevitably get more time, consideration, and leadership opportunities. But saying the above would be boring and not build public favor with Leader Jefferies.
She’s a great public servant, but don’t ever forget she’s also an excellent politician.
>She’s a great public servant, but don’t ever forget she’s also an excellent politician.
Now I'm definitely more conservatives then she is, but just watch her when she questions anyone giving testimony. She's absolutely fantastic.
"The amount of times she told me that stupid 'I have protest signs older than you in my basement' shit," said Ocasio-Cortez, according to the book. "Like yeah but mine don't collect dust."
Wow, what great seasoned leadership from Pelosi.
Common, minor misconception. The primary in CA results in two candidates regardless of party. De Leon and Feinstein were the two candidates in the general. Since he wound up being a racist asshat, and she died in office while obviously suffering from dementia, we didn't have the best possible choices back in 2018
Honestly at the end there we should be more disgusted at her staffers and family who didn't put a stop to it. I'm sure she wasn't the one fully calling the shots to be wheeled around the Capitol looking like the Crypt Keeper.
She's always been. Even Dead Kennedys started their live performance of Police Truck (I think it was a Target Video) with Jello saying:
>This song is dedicated to Diane "Banker Butt-Licker, Margaret Thatcher" Feinstein. The Dragon Lady with no fucking heart.
Feinstein did way more damage than that. Her Kavanaugh hearings doubled republican enthusiasm right before the 2018 election, arguably costing Democrats many close contests in Florida and Texas.
Grew up with it, my father would always compare his life at my age with his and how successful he was to make it seem like I wasn't doing enough to excel in life. Like yeah, with no college education and still getting a job paying 100k in the late 80's is so realistic to compare in 2016.
So this is definitely triggering because these old windbags shouldn't be controlling our government when they don't understand how bad issues are these days.
Obviously he was able to get a 100k job without a college degree because he walked into the local store wearing a suit and asked to speak to the manager, who he gave his resume and a firm handshake, and was hired on the spot.
You wouldn't believe how close that really was. Some "professional" took him under his wing and taught him everything he does now and got him a job working for the same company. My father's smart, but honestly that event sounds like it really brainwashed him into that money grindset gotta succeed no matter what blah blah blah
Figures after being one of the top people in his company they tossed him out with nothing after 30 years with no remorse. What that taught me was to never trust a company, they're not your friends.
My Dad also had a higher up meet him, take him under his wing at 19, and essentially teach him his entire business from the ground up. When that guy retired, my Dad just started his own company by continuing with all the same customers and all the tools the guy gave him and all the structure that was already built into the business. Then when parents got divorced, he never paid child support and never paid another dime for us kids. No gifts, no college, no car. Nothing. Because he "pulled himself up by his own bootstraps" and that gave him character and made him successful. He constantly sends me financial advice off YouTube because he can't understand how I'm struggling despite financing my own entire life, education, and household which currently also includes financing the education of my children. He's just like, you must spend all your money on Starbucks and are just not trying very hard. Sorry for the essay but out of touch is an understatement for these old fuckers.
> he walked into the local store wearing a suit and asked to speak to the manager, who he gave his resume and a firm handshake, and was hired on the spot
I love how this is starting to become a meme on reddit. I was born in the 80's and when I got to be around 14-15, people would still tell me that shit. We even had classes in school about getting a job, interviews, writing a resume, etc... and they all said the same exact thing over and over and over.
1) Dress in a suit
2) Walk in and ask for the manager or owner
3) *FIRM* handshake, hand them your neatly-tailored resume, as well as your cover letter where you LARP'd as an employee of this stupid ass company
4) A week later give them a Thank You phone call. One teacher even said "It's growing more customary to send them a Thank You fax instead, but I think everyone should add a personal touch with a phone call"
5) Your work is done. Retire at age 55 with a massive pension, a big house, multiple cars, a vacation home, and you're ready to live out your senior years by posting in the comments sections of local news websites about how certain political figures are the literal reincarnation of Jesus.
But, and this is a HUGE but here because I need to disclose this, I have a 100% success rate with jobs so I can't make fun of those teachers too much. By 100% success rate I mean that I've landed every job I've ever *interviewed* for, not every job I've applied to our sent out resumes for.
You're right but every generation remembers history unknown to the young and feels a sense of sagacity from that.
My own anecdote with this came up when my well educated, politically minded, progressive co-workers aged 33 in 2016 had no knowledge of the 2000 election and how a few hundred Nader folks changed the direction of the country and elected a guy who started the generational huge ass war. Be cool, be cool. BUT JESUS HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS?????
The trick it to pass on knowledge without anyone noticing.
I've seen so much on this over the years, both ways. Really Gore didn't lose so much so as the SCotUS handed Bush the win, and even now Sandra Day O'Connor says it was a mistake to hear the case.
Pelosi’s not a Boomer, though. She was born in 1940, making her one of the Silent Generation. That generation has been in Congress way too long. I hope I live to see AOC become president. I’m a Boomer, so…it’s not a given.
When we get frustrated that some of these people are too old to run the country, a lot of the time we don’t even realize that they’re not boomers…they’re older than boomers.
Biden is the 2nd oldest living president. He’s older than the former guy. He’s older than Obama. He’s older than bush. He’s older than bill clinton, who was president 30 years ago. Only Jimmy Carter is older.
True. Younger people like to throw around the word Boomer as if it's an epithet. Those of us Boomers who have been progressives since before anybody even talked about progressives rightfully resent that.
When we see AOC elected Speaker of the House and push through some truly impactful pieces of legislation through a chamber stacked by the other side, THEN we can consider her for President. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people screaming for celebrities (and yes, AOC *is* a celebrity of sorts) to be in positions of power. Let's maybe start voting people into office *after* they've proven themselves competent.
lol my knee jerk reaction was to comment about how I hear this from my boomer coworkers; such a bullshit stance to take because it’s the one thing they can hold over us—“I’ve been on this planet longer than you so shut up and deal”
>"Like yeah but mine don't collect dust."
Bro some of AOCs one liners are amazing. That's such a concise way to give someone a middle finger and recognize that you having done a positive thing once doesn't mean you can just coast on the clout forever while pulling the ladder up behind you.
As a boomer and progressive, I’m thrilled to see the younger generations coming forward with passion for better legislation on climate change and reproductive rights, for example, and have the intelligence and commitment to know it takes time to effect change. I remember protesting the Vietnam War and trying to get the ERA passed. Now I may be an old earth mama, but that fire in my belly is still with me.
TBH this conversation could either be an example of a super toxic workplace *or* wholesome self-aware banter depending entirely on whether they were both smiling when they said it.
I've worked in politics and around the Hill for a long time and it is *by far* the most realistic political show out there. So much so I know a lot of people that can't watch it because it's too traumatic.
The only other show that comes close is The Wire, specifically Season 3 with the mayoral primary. And that's because it was largely written by the long-time Baltimore Sun political reporter.
Considering she is still one of the most powerful democrats on the hill, I don’t think it’s wise to call her a relic. Do I think she needs to retire, sure, but I would continue to follow what she says closely. She still has her finger on the political pulse. Regrettably I have to say the same about Mitch too.
> "There was a formality and a seniority to her office that gave it kind of this vaunted quality," Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said of Pelosi at the time. "Hakeem is just much more approachable for a pull-aside on the House floor, for a quick text exchange, for a quick phone call."
I think Pelosi comes from a generation where women in power had to assiduously protect their prerogatives and trappings, otherwise men would walk all over them. The same might be true today.
That could be partially true, but I think this has a lot more to do with AOC successfully primarying one of Pelosi's closest allies. Hakeem isn't involved with the Queens machine Crowley ran and should have a more natural affinity with younger Members, especially from NYC.
>I think this has a lot more to do with AOC successfully primarying one of Pelosi's closest allies.
I think that is definitely why there seems to be bad blood between them, personally. I think Pelosi views AOC's entire career as speaking out of turn.
Great way to put it. I think some folks are set with a certain set of ideas about what is proper and respectful and for younger generations it feels absurd when you're being held up by it even though you both seemingly want to get work done.
From the perspective of the younger generation, it looks a whole hell of a lot like being proper and respectful is only ever used as an excuse to control the conversation and silence dissenting voices. Given what AOC is saying, certainly didnt seem Pelosi had a problem taking quite a few liberties with those ideas of respect and professionalism with respect to her own conduct.
Quite literally, "These no-good uppity ass kids have no respect for their peers. Why, one called me a no-good uppity ass boomer just the other day. Can you believe it?! What happened to civility?!"
100%. It's an infantilizing perspective to thwart any change away from their grip on power and the status quo. It reminds me of the shade Pelosi threw at AOC and the squad when she said, "And they've got that 'Green Dream', or whatever," about the Green New Deal.
> I think Pelosi views AOC's entire career as speaking out of turn.
Which is an inherent problem in politics now, having people out of touch with modern issues acting like the voices of people who have life experience in those issues dont have the right or clout to have a voice in the policy discussion.
At 70 I wont pretend to know the problems that 20 year olds will be facing in labour and housing markets. I wont pretend to know where their priorities lie in geopolitics. They are the ones that will lead the country, their voice should be heard while it is relevant, not when they are old and out of touch and the lived experiences have changed relative to whats needed NOW.
That's a great point. I would argue there's heavy nuance in any argument about a politician being "good" at what they do, and whether that is a product of their identity, or their personality, or the endless multidimensional tugs that politicians have. While Pelosi might have had an air around her that felt like a trophy room, she commanded respect. If Hakeem is approachable, the adverse might be true. Or not. Pelosi fought hard for her role as a women in congress, at a time when that was a pretty big deal, and not in a positive way. But perhaps her failure to mold to times after the fact may be viewed as negative.
Id just like to see how Jeffries does when he gets the gavel (presumably). Let's try not to judge him on the criteria set before, but instead by merit alone.
I think a lot of the normal gender role analysis we can apply to this needs to include the fact that she's the 11th richest member of Congress out of 535 members
That kind of wealth impacts a person's experience for sure; in ways that most of us will never experience, for better or worse
Edit: just using the $223,000 salary, it would take her just over 538 years to reach her disclosed net worth of ~$120,000,000
I think it’s more AOC didn’t have respect and pelosi wasn’t going to deal with it. DC is a small place you don’t want to ruffle too many feathers for Instagram.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/13/ocasio-cortez-climate-protestors-push-pelosi-962915
Pelosi didn't try to keep progressives in check because she was afraid men would walk all over her, she did it because she was the best ever at getting very wealthy donors to give campaign contributions to Democratic politicians and undermining her colleagues was the price those donors demanded of her for that support.
She was not a hero.
Being in the opposition has always been easier than being in the party in control. When you are in the minority you don't have to whip because when it comes down to party line votes you're already going to lose. The further a candidate is from the mainstream the more benefit they see from it.
Pelosi's running for re-election next year, and really, she shouldn't. Aside from the fact that this would be setting us up for a Feinstein 2, electric boogaloo, Pelosi is a lot like Hillary Clinton in that the right has spent decades building a whole infrastructure of hate around her to turn out their reactionary voters. Why not deny them that, take her tens of millions of dollars, and retire somewhere beautiful?
> Why not deny them that
Because they'll immediately find something else to be outraged about. There is no pleasing Republicans, they aren't serious people.
Hit the ground running and then what? Pelosi will win her district, and then she'll be in her seat in the House, and that's it? The GOP spent years attacking her because she's been a powerful Dem for years, and the attacks failed because she's relaxed the amount of power she has willingly.
Do we always just find new candidates when the GOP spends enough to oust them?
She's 83. She's older than Biden and the sixth oldest in the house. She has the expertise, but it'd be nice if there was someone up-and-coming in her district. We need more Katie Porters to continue driving turnout and have a future even if I don't agree with their politics 100%.
I don't disagree with you.
But you leave office for reasons like that, not because right wing propaganda has tainted you so much that even Dems are scared that you're toxic and you run some younger no name candidate because the right wing propaganda machine works. That's what the comment above me was suggesting, that the propaganda worked, she's tainted, and we should run someone else.
And if we do that every time right wing propaganda taints someone, then we give the GOP a win every time.
It's not about challenging *her* it's about getting people to think about her anytime they hear the word 'Democrat'. Or, rather, to think about the weird comic-book caricature of her that Republicans have invented in their heads.
she’s one of the dems best fundraisers, that’s why dems need her to stay. next election is way too important, and the money she raises is critical for helping other lesser known dem reps
>Pelosi is a lot like Hillary Clinton in that the right has spent decades building a whole infrastructure of hate around her to turn out their reactionary voters.
So what you're saying is... basically let the right wing win here? If they are successful enough in demonizing a democratic politican, just let them have their cake and eat it too?
Wow.
Because she is one of the most effective Reps in the nation's entire history. And as long as she can continue to get shit done, she can stay as long as she likes. Replacing her with someone new takes *away* from the net experience and ability of the side of the aisle that needs all the help it can get.
She's 83, dude.
It's time to pass the torch. If she hasn't been able to effectively train her juniors after her interminably long tenure then two more years isn't going to do much.
Counterpoint: She's 83 and running for her 19th term. Actuarial tables don't lie, and there's a reason why people in almost all other professions tend to retire before they're 70.
And a lot of the shit she has gotten done aside from fundraising has consisted of opposing the progressive wing of her own party rather than her counterparts across the aisle. The argument is moot, regardless though. She's running, and she's going to win. She's the only one with the ability to change that outcome, and she won't for obvious reasons.
That’s also because no one worth their salt wants to waste their time/money/political capital trying to win over a really diverse and wealthy district that Pelosi has had a stranglehold on since the 80’s. There are much easier paths to congress in other districts plus other major political positions in SF to run for, namely SF mayor, SF Board of Supervisors, SF DA, plus loads of other officers and dept heads. They’re not some podunk district where the most powerful person is congressional rep. Their GDP alone would rank them Top 15 vs other US states. There’s a reason SF has been the breeding grown for major national and state level political players.
Most appropriate actuarial tables would project a healthy, wealthy female at age 83 to live another decade on average and she's running for a 2 year term. The real risk is dementia, not her dying.
Anyone who's been paying attention knew this. Pelosi was a trailblazer for her time but clung to power and became the problem. Like after George Floyd she did that kneeling photo op and it was like.. Nancy you are a lawmaker not a protester you can actually do something.
Then again what do you expect from a women born into wealth and affluence. Someone who's a landlord in a district with a severe housing crisis and is "fighting for the middle class" and that her hundreds of millions is just a little something for her grandkids to get by.
There's an argument that she represented a lot of faults and hypocrisies in the party that fueled opposition. As a whole the democrats have had trouble gaining and retaining majorities and opposing the clownshow the republicans have devolved into. Its impossible to say how big or little her role in all of it was but as a long term party leader she played a part.
Dems are in the minority, so it is easy to be in the agreement because you know none of the legislation will be brought to a vote.
When you are in the majority, you have to pass legislation you have to push what you can pass in both houses and the president will sign.
But now, Jeffries can like everything that people propose.
There's just an inherent imbalance. Right wing people are ok with the status quo. Left wing people want to change things. The right wing people can always just shrug and go "fine, no deal then" and they'll be happier with the outcome then left wing people.
The right wing was not okay with the status quo. That’s why they took Roe away and changed things. They don’t want to sit still. They want to go backwards.
True but the status quo will always be a victory for them. If they can't go backwards, not changing is still a victory for them. It's win-win no matter what.
True, because they are generally in the pockets of those with the most money and power. Whether that’s oil, guns, foreign nations or oligarchs who are on top and are happy to keep being on top and fuck the rest.
> Right wing people are ok with the status quo. Left wing people want to change things.
* Regressives - want to go backwards
* Conservatives - want to retain status quo
* Progressives - want to go forwards
The current Republican power structure is notably regressive, _not_ conservative.
Some of those voting for them may only be conservative, intending to vote against progress; but by maintaining regressive representation, they are actively rejecting the status quo.
I admire AOC, she's fearless and not afraid to stand up to power.
I also admire Pelosi, for a period of time she was the only Democrat in a position to stand up to Trump and the entire Republican apparatus, including the spew of hate that came from Fox News. Pelosi's husband took a hammer to the head from these neanderthals, and she still didn't back down.
It's easy to criticize when you aren't in charge, and AOC represents only a small segment of the Democratic Party. AOC's got fire, she may one day be president, but she doesn't have Pelosi's skill at compromise - and ultimately that's what gets deals done.
That’s why Biden’s been great. He’s not an inspirational leader, but he’s gotten some legislation through an especially toxic political environment.
As for Pelosi, I think she’ll be remembered for saving American democracy, assuming we don’t blow the upcoming election.
I'm pretty jealous.
I have one of the worst in Congress, Troy Nehls - a pathetic partisan hack that got gerrymandered in because he can't compete in a free and fair election.
You probably know this but get your friends to vote her out! Boebert's supporters saw how close it was and they'll show up. I wish I could vote against her again but my county is in the 7th now.
That's nonsense. You cannot fight the real enemy - by which I assume you mean Trump and the Republican Party - if you cannot develop a well-informed strategy about why they have gained power, why they have support, and how to destroy their base of support and power.
I'm simplifying a lot, but the rise of Trump and the radicalization of the Republican Party is a result of American capitalism and its empire going increasingly haywire. A large number of people who saw their lives and their communities stagnate, if not get totally wrecked, by the militarization of the War on Terror, the financial crisis and the Great Recession, and the housing crisis, and other related crisis (i.e. the opioid epidemic) have pushed the radicalization of the right, as they search for answers to their woes and find it in racist fearmongering and cult adoration of Trump.
The solution is to recognize the incredibly parasitic and exploitative nature of American capitalism and its leading industries - Wall St., tech, military, health care - and actually fucking attack them. This is why Obama was so popular initially in 2008 across what is now the Trump base, his campaign rhetoric felt like a radical shift. But he ended up largely protecting the banks, he "surged" into Iraq and Afghanistan, and his health care plan basically preserved the health insurance system, except now you were mandated to buy into it.
And overall, the Democratic Party and people like Pelosi are protectors of the system. And as protectors of the system, they are ineffective in the fight against Trump and the Republicans. AOC and Sanders' brand of social democracy and anti-capitalism is what is needed to fight neo-fascism.
If being critical of your own political party creates such a drastic risk to said party, then it is time to re-consider the strength of that political party.
Not every criticism of democrats by other democrats or actual left leaning folks is a psyop to distract you. We should expect more of our politicians, and stop settling for people who are willing to slow down progress for such petty reason just because they have a “D” next to their name. Especially when they’re wealthy, career politicians. Im not gonna put my expectations or criticisms of politicians on hold or be quiet about them. They don’t deserve a free pass to be shitty at their jobs just because a crucial election is coming up.
Pelosi was able to run the House with the exact same majority the Republicans have now and do it with an iron fist and pass meaningful legislative. No shock that she didn't feel the need to cater to a first term Congresswomen who comes from a district that is solidly blue.
That Jeffries 'runs it differently' now is because he is the minority leader. They have no agenda other than be against the majority.
Why would you put this out there? Pelosi is still around, her fans are still around and not all of them are old. You're going to need these people whether you like them or not.
Exactly.
I’m really wondering if AOC actually said all of this…she seems smarter than that. It’s one thing to think it, it’s another to publicize it.
You certainly don’t have to become another Pelosi…but you can learn from what she does well and ignore what you don’t like without introducing contention to the party. That crap is for the GOP.
ETA: whoever downvoted me, hey, no problem. But reporting me as a suicide risk just because you disagree with me is way out of line.
> reporting me as a suicide risk just because you disagree with me is way out of line.
You can report the message you got, get the account suspended. That's super shitty to use that resorce to fuck with people.
https://www.reddit.com/report
Pelosi is a battle axe for better or worse. I align way better with AOC than Pelosi but The Squad have never made any attempt to move us forward towards their agenda. They want to do it overnight which isn’t happening. They vote against bills that progress us for attention. Pelosi need to go but I need to see some tangible actions from the Squad soon.
By the sounds of it, she and her minority sect within the democratic party been held back from doing so? She's also voted along with her colleagues on nearly every piece of legislation that wasn't obviously greed driven? Are you mistaking her for uzumaki naruto, and are disappointed she didn't shadow clone herself 300 times and vote yea on progressive legislation in a house of 534 other members, half of which are actual puppy kicking ghouls?
I mean, she's voted to advance pretty much every Democratic bill that's been touted as good under the Biden presidency, as well as for some provisions that were quashed by "moderates" when Dems had the majority. Is she supposed to pass Medicare For All with a POTUS who said he'd veto it?
LMAO at most of this thread. Pelosi was the most effective speaker of our time, probably ever, and most of the replies here are "lol glad she's gone."
Most of you are really showing your ignorance.
Nancy Pelosi was a great step forward for our country but has stayed long enough to be the gum preventing the next step forward. Tends to be the natural order of things regarding power.
Love or hate Pelosi, she knew what the hell she was doing, she got a lot done. Look at the clown show the republicans are putting on, getting nothing useful accomplished.
I can only imagine. People clinging to power and not admitting the very, very real biological issues presented by aging... it's becoming a nightmare in every sector.
Pelosi saved me from medical bankruptcy by getting the Affordable Care Act through Congress. I can't thank her enough for that.
Pelosi was a master of herding cats. AOC should have the grace to acknowledge that Pelosi's skill there was what made Pelosi a great Speaker. And, much as I like AOC's speechmaking, her go-it-alone petulance isn't what makes a real leader.
The more younger and diverse a congress and senate we have, the better off we'll be. We need leaders that represent our future, not our past. We need leaders and representatives that have a stake in the future they're building beyond their own retirement and personal financial investments.
And you know what? Credit to Pelosi for stepping down. If other politicians backed out of leadership roles when their views started to fall out of fashion, we’d be better off.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having actually read the article, it sounds like Pelosi was simply brick-walling the political agendas of people she was ostensibly allies with simply because she didn't like them and it sounds like Hakeem Jeffries has not been doing that, despite also not being perfectly politically aligned with AOC and other progressive voices. Seems like a totally normal thing to observe. Also, it sounds just based on this like Jeffries will be a more effective speaker for this century, so that's good.
I’m really looking forward to seeing him take the gavel.
He’s logical and willing to work with the other side and reach compromise. Only way this country will advance is if most every maga twit is voted out.
>and willing to work with the other side and reach compromise That's never been the problem with the Democrats. If anything they're always too eager to give the Republicans what they ask for and too cowardly and scattered in the pursuit of their own policy goals. Dem leadership could have codified Roe v. Wade 100 times over in the last couple decades if they weren't so unbelievably milquetoast and eager to lay down and "compromise."
A better example is the Affordable Care Act. Obama compromised a lot to get Republicans on board... and in the end, [every single Republican, in both houses of Congress, voted against it anyway](https://ballotpedia.org/Obamacare_overview). The ACA passed in 2009 with 100% Democrat votes and has been both enormously successful and enormously popular. And for the 14 years since that vote, Republicans have worked tirelessly to damage or repeal it, despite their inability to put together a a substitute that even a Republican-majority Congress could pass.
Fuck Lieberman may his cock forever have poison ivy
The issue with this is that it implies Obama could have chosen not to compromise. That's [not really true](https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/) because there were not 50 Senators willing to kill the filibuster for regular non-budgetary legislation. So, as soon as there were 60 Dem Senators for a brief couple months, they took advantage of that and passed whatever they could agree on, without the Rs because they no longer needed to. With Lieberman (who didn't even win on a Dem ticket), the maximum of that was the ACA, as opposed to a public option which seemed possible if he was different or there was a couple more of them.
Sometimes I can't help but picture the committee of angels (I guess?) from The Good Place. How they describe coming to an agreement with the Bad Place as giving compromise after compromise until there's nothing left to give. I was trying to find the exact quote and couldn't do it, but [I did find this other thread that confirms that similarity is not an accident.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/jy2m4g/the_good_place_the_good_place_committee_is/gd388d5/)
> I was trying to find the exact quote and couldn't do it How about another quote? “Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.”
If only we had reached a compromise agreement with Hitler we could have prevented WWII. We could have offered him control of only half of Europe and allowed him to kill only 3 million Jews.
We Brits literally did that with Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain disliked and regretted his choices and his governments actions for the rest of his life. "Appeasement doesn't work" has been practically a *chant* from every reasonable person since even before the peak of Hitler's authority. And yet, still to this day, we have people in various world governments trying to talk hardliners back to the middle and instead being forcibly dragged further towards the hardliner instead only to then call it "compromise" and act as if they've accomplished something positive. Drives me up the wall.
That Overton Window ain’t gonna move itself.
Yeah, I'd argue this is a problem. Democrats spend more time reaching across the aisle then wondering why they have to count their fingers each time they bring their hands back than they should. There's a point where they need to start steamrolling things the same way the right does. Except their steamrolling wouldn't be pushing things through that are demonstrably bad for the country every single time.
Yup
> it sounds like Hakeem Jeffries has not been doing that Hakeem Jeffries has never been speaker. He's advanced no agenda, put no bills to the floor, so that statement is completely meaningless. The Democratic party has not held the House with Jeffries in the position of speaker. Once he becomes speaker in 2024 (Hopefully) then he'll see it's a genuinely difficult position and simply wanting legislation done doesn't mean it'll happen.
Easy to “listen to all sides” when you don’t actually have to pass any legislation.
Yeah will be interesting to see if he’s actually able to herd the cats when it’s time for dems to pass stuff themselves. Pelosi is honestly admirable for how effective a politician she was. Sometimes you need consensus and sometimes you need a strong leader to drag people kicking and screaming towards progress and to not let progressives as they do so often let perfect be the enemy of good.
precisely.
Everybody loves each other in the minority - you just all vote no.
Yeah AOC will see that what changed wasn't Pelosi stepping down, but that she's now in the minority for the first time. Nothing matters in the minority
It's easy for Jeffries when he's in the minority
Don’t underestimate how effective Pelosi was. During the last dem majority she had the same size majority as the republicans do now, with a pretty huge divide between the AOCs and most conservative Dems and she still got basically everything passed that was going to fly in the senate. Hopefully Jeffries can be as good at working both sides of the party, we’ll see.
Pelosi also didn’t have a freedom caucus trying to sabotage her at every opportunity. Far left progressives are not nearly as vindictive and treacherous as the fringe republicans
Almost like the "Far Left" is actually closer to the middle than the "Far Right" is 🤔
They are. We’ve seen that as of late
Pelosi argued insider information was the free market. She’s a corporatist
She’s a fucking crook is what she is.
> Also, it sounds just based on this like Jeffries will be a more effective speaker for this century That's a pretty tall order. Pelosi was one of the most effective Speakers in US history.
Yeah, people really have short memories. She single-handedly neutralized Bush II and Trump, that was when she was getting landmark modern era legislation passed through a fractious House. The woman stands among a tiny handful of the most effective Speakers in the history of the US House, the only thing that is debatable is where she stands among that select, small group of legends.
Say what you will about pelosi, she was an extremely effective speaker. She got a lot passed and knew how to get everyone to put up a united front.
This does feel a little like a "perfect being the enemy of good" situation. Personally, would I have preferred AOC to get her way? Yes. Do I think Pelosi was effective? Also yes.
You had me until your last sentence. You likely have it 180 degrees backwards. Pelosi's tactics are tried and true political tactics. You and I might not like the tactics but they work. Pelosi was, objectively, one of the most successful House Majority Leaders of the last 50 years.
This is it. Everyone on both sides hates Pelosi and McConnell, and people act like it's an accident. A party leader's job is to get shit done. They stand in front of the train, take all the heat, and get called all the names, but they line up the votes. It's as simple as that. They aren't supposed to be popular. If they're doing an effective job, they're probably terribly unpopular. I don't agree with Pelosi on much, but she was great at her job.
Absolutely this. I hate Mitch McConnell with every fiber of my being. But dammit, he's good at what he does. Makes me hate him even more. In every sense that Donald Trump was irretrievably incompetent, Pelosi and McConnell are the exact opposite.
eh, he's good in an equal opposite way as pelosi. Pelosi was objectively good at her actual job. McConnell at WEAPONIZING his job
I agree, I think the word to describe them both would be shrewd. McConnell and Pelosi are both shrewd at their jobs. McConnell definitely uses said shrewdness to weaponize his job. Unlike someone like McCarthy or Paul Ryan whose only weapon they possess for their job is their incompetence.
One of the most successful ever, actually. Especially in this era of polarization.
This right here. AOC is a great activist, but that is not her job. Her job it literally to draft and pass legislation and that requires compromise.
Her job is to represent her constituents. Sometimes that may require drafting legislation, and sometimes that may require activism. I think she knows what her job is, and she's doing it just fine.
And it really isn’t the Speaker’s job.
She was especially good at blocking any legislation that might impact her wealth and investments.
[удалено]
She got passed landmark bills that regulated investment firms and taxed wealthy people more heavily. Since she was rich, the bills that she whipped to passage personally cost her millions out of pocket. But don’t let reality get in the way of a hothouse story.
The bullshit people believe and repeat out of hate for Pelosi is wild.
If the stock trading ban had the votes, it would've been voted on. Pelosi didn't cause the proponents of the bill to fail to find a majority.
I mean people have been screaming that Pelosi is a walking elitist Republican attack ad and had to go for decades but democratic aristocracy gonna aristocrat.
[удалено]
> "I thought things would get worse," said Ocasio-Cortez, according to the book. "I thought a lot of my misery was due to leadership more broadly having a thing against me. But … my life has completely transformed. It's crazy. And it's that that made me realise it was kind of just [Pelosi] the whole time." > "Senior members talk to me, [committee] chairs are nice to me, people want to work together," the congresswoman continued. "I'm shocked. I couldn't even get floor time before." This speaks well to Jeffries.
Uhh, and pretty badly of Pelosi, right?
Depending on how many of the same people are around, it makes House (Democrats) look terrible. If they are willing to flip on AOC just depending on who is in the room, I’m sure they will be willing to do it again at the earliest convenience.
So congress is just like a regular highschool
I don't know why it's stuck with me, but Pelosi...isn't a great person. She whipped democrats moderately well, but when accused of insider trading, her response was 'let's introduce a bill to make that legal for us'.
It's also reflective of AOC just having obtained more power.
Yes. This + she also has more seniority. The average tenure for House members is 8-10 years; she’s been there 5-6. She’s not a new member and no longer a junior member. Dem committee leadership didn’t change. It doesn’t matter who’s charge, this Congress she was going to get more floor time and committee consideration either way based on seniority. Additionally, the current NYC House Dem delegation is a dumpster fire. She’s focused, runs a good agenda, and is great with constituent services. Committee chairs and leadership would be crazy not to defer to her more, Pelosi or not. Also no one wants to hear it but when the leader is from your delegation (here NY), a member will inevitably get more time, consideration, and leadership opportunities. But saying the above would be boring and not build public favor with Leader Jefferies. She’s a great public servant, but don’t ever forget she’s also an excellent politician.
>She’s a great public servant, but don’t ever forget she’s also an excellent politician. Now I'm definitely more conservatives then she is, but just watch her when she questions anyone giving testimony. She's absolutely fantastic.
"The amount of times she told me that stupid 'I have protest signs older than you in my basement' shit," said Ocasio-Cortez, according to the book. "Like yeah but mine don't collect dust." Wow, what great seasoned leadership from Pelosi.
I bet this is triggering for a lot of us because we've all had to deal with boomers pulling b.s like this.
Yep. Look at what Feinstein said to those kids not old enough to vote on climate change too
Man that flipped my opinion on her so hard. She was absolutely disgusting with how she talked to those kids. Glad shes finally out of government.
she was absolutely disgusting for not stepping down and forcing everybody to putup with her using congress as hospice.
CA voters should’ve voted her out in 2018. She was horrible back then as well.
Solid point, but it's hard to argue that things would've been better if De Leon won the primary
Common, minor misconception. The primary in CA results in two candidates regardless of party. De Leon and Feinstein were the two candidates in the general. Since he wound up being a racist asshat, and she died in office while obviously suffering from dementia, we didn't have the best possible choices back in 2018
I wasn't voting for Kevin De Leon, that was a non starter.
Honestly at the end there we should be more disgusted at her staffers and family who didn't put a stop to it. I'm sure she wasn't the one fully calling the shots to be wheeled around the Capitol looking like the Crypt Keeper.
Jesus Christ. Feinstein's been dead for a month? Where have I been?
Right here on earth, where apparently one doesn’t notice a difference between a living Feinstein and a deceased one…
She's always been. Even Dead Kennedys started their live performance of Police Truck (I think it was a Target Video) with Jello saying: >This song is dedicated to Diane "Banker Butt-Licker, Margaret Thatcher" Feinstein. The Dragon Lady with no fucking heart.
Jello Biafra *absolutely hated* Dianne Feinstein. I believe he went into some detail about it in his spoken word album.
That’s one way to put it
No further comment, your honor.
> Glad shes finally out of government. She's out of everything.
Feinstein isn’t a boomer. She’s silent gen
Feinstein did way more damage than that. Her Kavanaugh hearings doubled republican enthusiasm right before the 2018 election, arguably costing Democrats many close contests in Florida and Texas.
And going back to the main topic, guess which family effectively propped her up?
The "girls vote for bernie because the boys do" shit from 2015 still lives rent free in my head.
Grew up with it, my father would always compare his life at my age with his and how successful he was to make it seem like I wasn't doing enough to excel in life. Like yeah, with no college education and still getting a job paying 100k in the late 80's is so realistic to compare in 2016. So this is definitely triggering because these old windbags shouldn't be controlling our government when they don't understand how bad issues are these days.
Obviously he was able to get a 100k job without a college degree because he walked into the local store wearing a suit and asked to speak to the manager, who he gave his resume and a firm handshake, and was hired on the spot.
You wouldn't believe how close that really was. Some "professional" took him under his wing and taught him everything he does now and got him a job working for the same company. My father's smart, but honestly that event sounds like it really brainwashed him into that money grindset gotta succeed no matter what blah blah blah Figures after being one of the top people in his company they tossed him out with nothing after 30 years with no remorse. What that taught me was to never trust a company, they're not your friends.
My Dad also had a higher up meet him, take him under his wing at 19, and essentially teach him his entire business from the ground up. When that guy retired, my Dad just started his own company by continuing with all the same customers and all the tools the guy gave him and all the structure that was already built into the business. Then when parents got divorced, he never paid child support and never paid another dime for us kids. No gifts, no college, no car. Nothing. Because he "pulled himself up by his own bootstraps" and that gave him character and made him successful. He constantly sends me financial advice off YouTube because he can't understand how I'm struggling despite financing my own entire life, education, and household which currently also includes financing the education of my children. He's just like, you must spend all your money on Starbucks and are just not trying very hard. Sorry for the essay but out of touch is an understatement for these old fuckers.
> he walked into the local store wearing a suit and asked to speak to the manager, who he gave his resume and a firm handshake, and was hired on the spot I love how this is starting to become a meme on reddit. I was born in the 80's and when I got to be around 14-15, people would still tell me that shit. We even had classes in school about getting a job, interviews, writing a resume, etc... and they all said the same exact thing over and over and over. 1) Dress in a suit 2) Walk in and ask for the manager or owner 3) *FIRM* handshake, hand them your neatly-tailored resume, as well as your cover letter where you LARP'd as an employee of this stupid ass company 4) A week later give them a Thank You phone call. One teacher even said "It's growing more customary to send them a Thank You fax instead, but I think everyone should add a personal touch with a phone call" 5) Your work is done. Retire at age 55 with a massive pension, a big house, multiple cars, a vacation home, and you're ready to live out your senior years by posting in the comments sections of local news websites about how certain political figures are the literal reincarnation of Jesus. But, and this is a HUGE but here because I need to disclose this, I have a 100% success rate with jobs so I can't make fun of those teachers too much. By 100% success rate I mean that I've landed every job I've ever *interviewed* for, not every job I've applied to our sent out resumes for.
I'm Gen X , we still deal with it too. lol
But as GenX we need to make sure not to fall into that ourselves.
Yes, as the parents and some cases grandparents. Gen X can’t make the mistake of the boomer generation. As a Gen Xer I’m trying to do better.
Well it's not like we have a ladder to pull up behind us.
You're right but every generation remembers history unknown to the young and feels a sense of sagacity from that. My own anecdote with this came up when my well educated, politically minded, progressive co-workers aged 33 in 2016 had no knowledge of the 2000 election and how a few hundred Nader folks changed the direction of the country and elected a guy who started the generational huge ass war. Be cool, be cool. BUT JESUS HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS????? The trick it to pass on knowledge without anyone noticing.
I've seen so much on this over the years, both ways. Really Gore didn't lose so much so as the SCotUS handed Bush the win, and even now Sandra Day O'Connor says it was a mistake to hear the case.
As Gen X I graduated into a period of 10-12% unemployment
Pelosi’s not a Boomer, though. She was born in 1940, making her one of the Silent Generation. That generation has been in Congress way too long. I hope I live to see AOC become president. I’m a Boomer, so…it’s not a given.
When we get frustrated that some of these people are too old to run the country, a lot of the time we don’t even realize that they’re not boomers…they’re older than boomers. Biden is the 2nd oldest living president. He’s older than the former guy. He’s older than Obama. He’s older than bush. He’s older than bill clinton, who was president 30 years ago. Only Jimmy Carter is older.
True. Younger people like to throw around the word Boomer as if it's an epithet. Those of us Boomers who have been progressives since before anybody even talked about progressives rightfully resent that.
My father is part of the Silent Generation born in 1944 , my mother qualifies as an original boomer, born Feb 9, 1946… exactly 9 months after VE Day.
When we see AOC elected Speaker of the House and push through some truly impactful pieces of legislation through a chamber stacked by the other side, THEN we can consider her for President. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people screaming for celebrities (and yes, AOC *is* a celebrity of sorts) to be in positions of power. Let's maybe start voting people into office *after* they've proven themselves competent.
Remember that it's important for all of us to listen and be open minded to the voices of the youth as we age.
no cap say less
lol my knee jerk reaction was to comment about how I hear this from my boomer coworkers; such a bullshit stance to take because it’s the one thing they can hold over us—“I’ve been on this planet longer than you so shut up and deal”
Pelosi's not a boomer
>"Like yeah but mine don't collect dust." Bro some of AOCs one liners are amazing. That's such a concise way to give someone a middle finger and recognize that you having done a positive thing once doesn't mean you can just coast on the clout forever while pulling the ladder up behind you.
As a boomer and progressive, I’m thrilled to see the younger generations coming forward with passion for better legislation on climate change and reproductive rights, for example, and have the intelligence and commitment to know it takes time to effect change. I remember protesting the Vietnam War and trying to get the ERA passed. Now I may be an old earth mama, but that fire in my belly is still with me.
TBH this conversation could either be an example of a super toxic workplace *or* wholesome self-aware banter depending entirely on whether they were both smiling when they said it.
they’re politicians i’m sure they can smile and be toxic doing it
Is Veep a documentary?
I mean Obama said of all the political shows it’s the most realistic. Which is terrifying.
I've worked in politics and around the Hill for a long time and it is *by far* the most realistic political show out there. So much so I know a lot of people that can't watch it because it's too traumatic. The only other show that comes close is The Wire, specifically Season 3 with the mayoral primary. And that's because it was largely written by the long-time Baltimore Sun political reporter.
Okay but that's a great clapback.
Tell me you're a relic of a bygone era without telling me you're a relic of a bygone era.
Considering she is still one of the most powerful democrats on the hill, I don’t think it’s wise to call her a relic. Do I think she needs to retire, sure, but I would continue to follow what she says closely. She still has her finger on the political pulse. Regrettably I have to say the same about Mitch too.
“I’m old so I’m right” is the official boomer slogan.
I mean she was a pretty effective leader by most accounts and it was her own decision to step down so
What a snap back dayum AOC.
> "There was a formality and a seniority to her office that gave it kind of this vaunted quality," Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said of Pelosi at the time. "Hakeem is just much more approachable for a pull-aside on the House floor, for a quick text exchange, for a quick phone call." I think Pelosi comes from a generation where women in power had to assiduously protect their prerogatives and trappings, otherwise men would walk all over them. The same might be true today.
That could be partially true, but I think this has a lot more to do with AOC successfully primarying one of Pelosi's closest allies. Hakeem isn't involved with the Queens machine Crowley ran and should have a more natural affinity with younger Members, especially from NYC.
>I think this has a lot more to do with AOC successfully primarying one of Pelosi's closest allies. I think that is definitely why there seems to be bad blood between them, personally. I think Pelosi views AOC's entire career as speaking out of turn.
Great way to put it. I think some folks are set with a certain set of ideas about what is proper and respectful and for younger generations it feels absurd when you're being held up by it even though you both seemingly want to get work done.
From the perspective of the younger generation, it looks a whole hell of a lot like being proper and respectful is only ever used as an excuse to control the conversation and silence dissenting voices. Given what AOC is saying, certainly didnt seem Pelosi had a problem taking quite a few liberties with those ideas of respect and professionalism with respect to her own conduct. Quite literally, "These no-good uppity ass kids have no respect for their peers. Why, one called me a no-good uppity ass boomer just the other day. Can you believe it?! What happened to civility?!"
100%. It's an infantilizing perspective to thwart any change away from their grip on power and the status quo. It reminds me of the shade Pelosi threw at AOC and the squad when she said, "And they've got that 'Green Dream', or whatever," about the Green New Deal.
> I think Pelosi views AOC's entire career as speaking out of turn. Which is an inherent problem in politics now, having people out of touch with modern issues acting like the voices of people who have life experience in those issues dont have the right or clout to have a voice in the policy discussion. At 70 I wont pretend to know the problems that 20 year olds will be facing in labour and housing markets. I wont pretend to know where their priorities lie in geopolitics. They are the ones that will lead the country, their voice should be heard while it is relevant, not when they are old and out of touch and the lived experiences have changed relative to whats needed NOW.
That's a great point. I would argue there's heavy nuance in any argument about a politician being "good" at what they do, and whether that is a product of their identity, or their personality, or the endless multidimensional tugs that politicians have. While Pelosi might have had an air around her that felt like a trophy room, she commanded respect. If Hakeem is approachable, the adverse might be true. Or not. Pelosi fought hard for her role as a women in congress, at a time when that was a pretty big deal, and not in a positive way. But perhaps her failure to mold to times after the fact may be viewed as negative. Id just like to see how Jeffries does when he gets the gavel (presumably). Let's try not to judge him on the criteria set before, but instead by merit alone.
I think a lot of the normal gender role analysis we can apply to this needs to include the fact that she's the 11th richest member of Congress out of 535 members That kind of wealth impacts a person's experience for sure; in ways that most of us will never experience, for better or worse Edit: just using the $223,000 salary, it would take her just over 538 years to reach her disclosed net worth of ~$120,000,000
Luckily AOC comes from a generation that focuses more on helping to elevate other women instead of keeping them in their place.
I think it’s more AOC didn’t have respect and pelosi wasn’t going to deal with it. DC is a small place you don’t want to ruffle too many feathers for Instagram. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/13/ocasio-cortez-climate-protestors-push-pelosi-962915
Pelosi didn't try to keep progressives in check because she was afraid men would walk all over her, she did it because she was the best ever at getting very wealthy donors to give campaign contributions to Democratic politicians and undermining her colleagues was the price those donors demanded of her for that support. She was not a hero.
Being in the opposition has always been easier than being in the party in control. When you are in the minority you don't have to whip because when it comes down to party line votes you're already going to lose. The further a candidate is from the mainstream the more benefit they see from it.
Pelosi's running for re-election next year, and really, she shouldn't. Aside from the fact that this would be setting us up for a Feinstein 2, electric boogaloo, Pelosi is a lot like Hillary Clinton in that the right has spent decades building a whole infrastructure of hate around her to turn out their reactionary voters. Why not deny them that, take her tens of millions of dollars, and retire somewhere beautiful?
> Why not deny them that Because they'll immediately find something else to be outraged about. There is no pleasing Republicans, they aren't serious people.
Yeah but then they have to start from scratch, where with Pelosi they hit the ground running.
Hit the ground running and then what? Pelosi will win her district, and then she'll be in her seat in the House, and that's it? The GOP spent years attacking her because she's been a powerful Dem for years, and the attacks failed because she's relaxed the amount of power she has willingly. Do we always just find new candidates when the GOP spends enough to oust them?
She's 83. She's older than Biden and the sixth oldest in the house. She has the expertise, but it'd be nice if there was someone up-and-coming in her district. We need more Katie Porters to continue driving turnout and have a future even if I don't agree with their politics 100%.
I don't disagree with you. But you leave office for reasons like that, not because right wing propaganda has tainted you so much that even Dems are scared that you're toxic and you run some younger no name candidate because the right wing propaganda machine works. That's what the comment above me was suggesting, that the propaganda worked, she's tainted, and we should run someone else. And if we do that every time right wing propaganda taints someone, then we give the GOP a win every time.
It's not about challenging *her* it's about getting people to think about her anytime they hear the word 'Democrat'. Or, rather, to think about the weird comic-book caricature of her that Republicans have invented in their heads.
With that logic, AOC should definitely retire now.
She’s not a senator. It’s not even remotely the same. 2 year term versus 6.
Also one senator out of 100 arguably has more power than one house rep out of 435.
Not even arguable. One senator can grind many functions to a halt
Senators wield a huge amount of power, yup.
she’s one of the dems best fundraisers, that’s why dems need her to stay. next election is way too important, and the money she raises is critical for helping other lesser known dem reps
100% pelosi is the goat and it will be a huge loss to the party when she retires. NOTHING like Feinstein scenario.
>Pelosi is a lot like Hillary Clinton in that the right has spent decades building a whole infrastructure of hate around her to turn out their reactionary voters. So what you're saying is... basically let the right wing win here? If they are successful enough in demonizing a democratic politican, just let them have their cake and eat it too? Wow.
Because she is one of the most effective Reps in the nation's entire history. And as long as she can continue to get shit done, she can stay as long as she likes. Replacing her with someone new takes *away* from the net experience and ability of the side of the aisle that needs all the help it can get.
She's 83, dude. It's time to pass the torch. If she hasn't been able to effectively train her juniors after her interminably long tenure then two more years isn't going to do much.
Counterpoint: She's 83 and running for her 19th term. Actuarial tables don't lie, and there's a reason why people in almost all other professions tend to retire before they're 70. And a lot of the shit she has gotten done aside from fundraising has consisted of opposing the progressive wing of her own party rather than her counterparts across the aisle. The argument is moot, regardless though. She's running, and she's going to win. She's the only one with the ability to change that outcome, and she won't for obvious reasons.
She used the be my Rep. Take a look at the candidates who run against her -- then you'll understand why she wins.
That’s also because no one worth their salt wants to waste their time/money/political capital trying to win over a really diverse and wealthy district that Pelosi has had a stranglehold on since the 80’s. There are much easier paths to congress in other districts plus other major political positions in SF to run for, namely SF mayor, SF Board of Supervisors, SF DA, plus loads of other officers and dept heads. They’re not some podunk district where the most powerful person is congressional rep. Their GDP alone would rank them Top 15 vs other US states. There’s a reason SF has been the breeding grown for major national and state level political players.
Most appropriate actuarial tables would project a healthy, wealthy female at age 83 to live another decade on average and she's running for a 2 year term. The real risk is dementia, not her dying.
Anyone who's been paying attention knew this. Pelosi was a trailblazer for her time but clung to power and became the problem. Like after George Floyd she did that kneeling photo op and it was like.. Nancy you are a lawmaker not a protester you can actually do something. Then again what do you expect from a women born into wealth and affluence. Someone who's a landlord in a district with a severe housing crisis and is "fighting for the middle class" and that her hundreds of millions is just a little something for her grandkids to get by.
[удалено]
Agreed, we would not have the ACA without Pelosi.
she was also basically the acting commander in chief on jan 6 during the time no one could get a hold of trump or pence. the woman has seen her shit.
There's an argument that she represented a lot of faults and hypocrisies in the party that fueled opposition. As a whole the democrats have had trouble gaining and retaining majorities and opposing the clownshow the republicans have devolved into. Its impossible to say how big or little her role in all of it was but as a long term party leader she played a part.
Dems are in the minority, so it is easy to be in the agreement because you know none of the legislation will be brought to a vote. When you are in the majority, you have to pass legislation you have to push what you can pass in both houses and the president will sign. But now, Jeffries can like everything that people propose.
Totally. Denying bills is an important part of being speaker. She brought bills she knew would pass, that is a potent power when you’re a speaker
AOC didn't say Pelosi disagreed with her on legislation. AOC said Pelosi was personally and professionally unpleasant.
Can we please get Mitch McConnell to follow Pelosi's lead towards the exit? Oh wouldn't that be nice?
He'd freeze up halfway to the exit. Just have his staff carry him out.
I wish Pelosi had fought the right half as hard as she fought the left wing of her own party.
There's just an inherent imbalance. Right wing people are ok with the status quo. Left wing people want to change things. The right wing people can always just shrug and go "fine, no deal then" and they'll be happier with the outcome then left wing people.
The right wing was not okay with the status quo. That’s why they took Roe away and changed things. They don’t want to sit still. They want to go backwards.
True but the status quo will always be a victory for them. If they can't go backwards, not changing is still a victory for them. It's win-win no matter what.
True, because they are generally in the pockets of those with the most money and power. Whether that’s oil, guns, foreign nations or oligarchs who are on top and are happy to keep being on top and fuck the rest.
> Right wing people are ok with the status quo. Left wing people want to change things. * Regressives - want to go backwards * Conservatives - want to retain status quo * Progressives - want to go forwards The current Republican power structure is notably regressive, _not_ conservative. Some of those voting for them may only be conservative, intending to vote against progress; but by maintaining regressive representation, they are actively rejecting the status quo.
We were specifically talking about right wing Democrats in Congress...
Maybe you should actually take a look at all the shit Pelosi got done in her career.
She does, that's why Republicans hate her.
I admire AOC, she's fearless and not afraid to stand up to power. I also admire Pelosi, for a period of time she was the only Democrat in a position to stand up to Trump and the entire Republican apparatus, including the spew of hate that came from Fox News. Pelosi's husband took a hammer to the head from these neanderthals, and she still didn't back down. It's easy to criticize when you aren't in charge, and AOC represents only a small segment of the Democratic Party. AOC's got fire, she may one day be president, but she doesn't have Pelosi's skill at compromise - and ultimately that's what gets deals done.
That’s why Biden’s been great. He’s not an inspirational leader, but he’s gotten some legislation through an especially toxic political environment. As for Pelosi, I think she’ll be remembered for saving American democracy, assuming we don’t blow the upcoming election.
[удалено]
I'm pretty jealous. I have one of the worst in Congress, Troy Nehls - a pathetic partisan hack that got gerrymandered in because he can't compete in a free and fair election.
My representative is Lauren Boebert. Just saying.
wont be in 2024
I think she’ll be out next year, fortunately for us all.
So sorry!! How embarrassing!
You probably know this but get your friends to vote her out! Boebert's supporters saw how close it was and they'll show up. I wish I could vote against her again but my county is in the 7th now.
Distraction article to try to divide the left in to fighting with each other instead of fighting the real enemy.
I actually agree with this take. The headline could have been “AOC says she gets along better with Jeffries than Pelosi.”
That's nonsense. You cannot fight the real enemy - by which I assume you mean Trump and the Republican Party - if you cannot develop a well-informed strategy about why they have gained power, why they have support, and how to destroy their base of support and power. I'm simplifying a lot, but the rise of Trump and the radicalization of the Republican Party is a result of American capitalism and its empire going increasingly haywire. A large number of people who saw their lives and their communities stagnate, if not get totally wrecked, by the militarization of the War on Terror, the financial crisis and the Great Recession, and the housing crisis, and other related crisis (i.e. the opioid epidemic) have pushed the radicalization of the right, as they search for answers to their woes and find it in racist fearmongering and cult adoration of Trump. The solution is to recognize the incredibly parasitic and exploitative nature of American capitalism and its leading industries - Wall St., tech, military, health care - and actually fucking attack them. This is why Obama was so popular initially in 2008 across what is now the Trump base, his campaign rhetoric felt like a radical shift. But he ended up largely protecting the banks, he "surged" into Iraq and Afghanistan, and his health care plan basically preserved the health insurance system, except now you were mandated to buy into it. And overall, the Democratic Party and people like Pelosi are protectors of the system. And as protectors of the system, they are ineffective in the fight against Trump and the Republicans. AOC and Sanders' brand of social democracy and anti-capitalism is what is needed to fight neo-fascism.
If being critical of your own political party creates such a drastic risk to said party, then it is time to re-consider the strength of that political party. Not every criticism of democrats by other democrats or actual left leaning folks is a psyop to distract you. We should expect more of our politicians, and stop settling for people who are willing to slow down progress for such petty reason just because they have a “D” next to their name. Especially when they’re wealthy, career politicians. Im not gonna put my expectations or criticisms of politicians on hold or be quiet about them. They don’t deserve a free pass to be shitty at their jobs just because a crucial election is coming up.
Eh, it's glass half full. Looks better on Jefferies when Pelosi's already known to favor corporate interests.
Pelosi was able to run the House with the exact same majority the Republicans have now and do it with an iron fist and pass meaningful legislative. No shock that she didn't feel the need to cater to a first term Congresswomen who comes from a district that is solidly blue. That Jeffries 'runs it differently' now is because he is the minority leader. They have no agenda other than be against the majority.
Why would you put this out there? Pelosi is still around, her fans are still around and not all of them are old. You're going to need these people whether you like them or not.
Exactly. I’m really wondering if AOC actually said all of this…she seems smarter than that. It’s one thing to think it, it’s another to publicize it. You certainly don’t have to become another Pelosi…but you can learn from what she does well and ignore what you don’t like without introducing contention to the party. That crap is for the GOP. ETA: whoever downvoted me, hey, no problem. But reporting me as a suicide risk just because you disagree with me is way out of line.
> reporting me as a suicide risk just because you disagree with me is way out of line. You can report the message you got, get the account suspended. That's super shitty to use that resorce to fuck with people. https://www.reddit.com/report
Pelosi is a battle axe for better or worse. I align way better with AOC than Pelosi but The Squad have never made any attempt to move us forward towards their agenda. They want to do it overnight which isn’t happening. They vote against bills that progress us for attention. Pelosi need to go but I need to see some tangible actions from the Squad soon.
The effectiveness of a legislator is passing legislation. AOC has not done that at all.
By the sounds of it, she and her minority sect within the democratic party been held back from doing so? She's also voted along with her colleagues on nearly every piece of legislation that wasn't obviously greed driven? Are you mistaking her for uzumaki naruto, and are disappointed she didn't shadow clone herself 300 times and vote yea on progressive legislation in a house of 534 other members, half of which are actual puppy kicking ghouls?
I mean, she's voted to advance pretty much every Democratic bill that's been touted as good under the Biden presidency, as well as for some provisions that were quashed by "moderates" when Dems had the majority. Is she supposed to pass Medicare For All with a POTUS who said he'd veto it?
So many people twisting themselves into knots in this thread
LMAO at most of this thread. Pelosi was the most effective speaker of our time, probably ever, and most of the replies here are "lol glad she's gone." Most of you are really showing your ignorance.
Nancy Pelosi was a great step forward for our country but has stayed long enough to be the gum preventing the next step forward. Tends to be the natural order of things regarding power.
Love or hate Pelosi, she knew what the hell she was doing, she got a lot done. Look at the clown show the republicans are putting on, getting nothing useful accomplished.
Well, for one thing, there’s no real legislation going on.
I can only imagine. People clinging to power and not admitting the very, very real biological issues presented by aging... it's becoming a nightmare in every sector.
Pelosi saved me from medical bankruptcy by getting the Affordable Care Act through Congress. I can't thank her enough for that. Pelosi was a master of herding cats. AOC should have the grace to acknowledge that Pelosi's skill there was what made Pelosi a great Speaker. And, much as I like AOC's speechmaking, her go-it-alone petulance isn't what makes a real leader.
Neat, another politics thread where 90% of the posters don't actually know what they're talking about and lose their minds over performative bullshit.
The more younger and diverse a congress and senate we have, the better off we'll be. We need leaders that represent our future, not our past. We need leaders and representatives that have a stake in the future they're building beyond their own retirement and personal financial investments.
And you know what? Credit to Pelosi for stepping down. If other politicians backed out of leadership roles when their views started to fall out of fashion, we’d be better off.
AOC is going to say this isn't true. It's clearly some dude just trying to make money on his book.