Democrats in Congress evidently think they’ve been doing everything just right for the last few years, based on this:
House Democrats on Tuesday elected Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her top four lieutenants to remain atop the party in the 114th Congress.
The move was hardly a surprise, as none of the current leaders — including Pelosi, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), Assistant Leader Jim Clyburn (S.C.), Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.) and Vice Chairman Joe Crowley (N.Y.) — faced challengers in their bids to lead the party for the next two years.
But the leadership votes came amid some grumbling from rank-and-file members that the Democrats need a new direction after failing to take the House majority in three straight election cycles. In two of those cycles, 2010 and 2014, they were clobbered.
Pelosi and Hoyer have been in the top spots since 2003, fueling anxiety among a younger crop of Democrats who aren’t able to move up….
I can certainly understand the grumbling.
Meanwhile, down on the ground level, a couple of party operatives reminded us of what parties are all about. I liked this take on it, from Ed Rogers:
A leaked e-mail thread started by two Hillary Clinton operatives, Robby Mook and Marlon Marshal, has drawn some ire from Republicans who take offense at their message. Highlights include operatives calling themselves “Deacon” and “Reverend,” and threats to “smite Republicans mafia-style” and “punish those voters.”…
Can you imagine if these e-mails had been sent by a Republican –- say, Karl Rove? I can picture the New York Times and the other usual suspects swooning in faux shock, weeping and gnashing of teeth, their eyes rolling back in their head, struggling to maintain consciousness while pounding out another tired piece about how the Republican Party has destroyed politics and debased our political discourse with their cynical hate speech or whatever. Gasp!…
What does the Democratic Party stand for today if not just grabbing power, holding power, government for government’s sake and offering and maintaining dependence in exchange for votes? The Democratic brand and what it means to be a Democrat should get a hard look after the party’s six years in power. These recent incidents are not isolated -– they are indicative of a party that is moribund and needs a new reason to justify its existence.
And yet today, they just decided to continue on their merry way, doing what they’ve been doing…
Related Posts
In Pelosi’s defense, I don’t see any logical successor to her as the leader in the House for the Democrats. She can still raise money very well, and she is the former Speaker. But the point is certainly valid. The Democrats now have the fewest seats in the House since WWII. Obviously, something isn’t connecting for them.
I’m not sure that Obama’s “in your face” style of addressing immigration is going to help matters, looking forward. Normally, you would think a President would be somewhat conciliatory when his party loses an election like it just did. You would think that the President would approach Congress with stance of attempting to get a few things passed just to demonstrate to the American public that the branches of government can get something, anything done. But apparently, he’s decided to just go all-in on confrontation, first thing. I’m really not sure what his calculation is, but it’s sure a long way from candidate Obama in 2008. Where’s that guy?
Another example; Now that Sen. Landrieu has 60 votes in the Senate to approve Keystone XL, Obama still looks like he’s going to veto it. Again, I’m not sure what his calculus is – purely from a tactical standpoint.
I understand that he can justify both the executive order on immigration and the veto of Keystone, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Anyone can make an argument. I’m not sure why he’s decided to make these arguments. Maybe he’s just banking on Congress continuing to be supine. He’s not going to be impeached, the GOP isn’t going to shut down the government, so what’s left? Maybe he’s just convinced that the opposition party really can’t oppose him in any substantive way. Maybe he’s right about that.
Ultimately, I don’t really blame Pelosi for the loss of the seats in this election, and I’m not really sure that anyone else does. I really don’t think anyone went out and voted because they were upset with anything Nancy Pelosi did. There’s one person who is the face of the Democratic party and sets the agenda for the party – he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Obviously what isn’t connecting for the Democrats is the gerrymandered districts they are forced to run in…
Maybe that’s a reason on the House side. I haven’t drilled down and looked at the seats that changed hands in the house. Presumably if a seat changed hands from a Democrat to a Republican, then it might not have been a safely gerrymandered seat. So I’m not sure if that’s a factor or not.
But your point is well taken, and I’m with you on the gerrymandering. It’s awful.
But gerrymandering sure doesn’t explain the Senate losses.
Yeah, but Montana and SC having the same number of Senators as California and New York does.
?? I honestly don’t understand that comment.
Nor do I. The House is about numbers of people; the Senate is about states. That’s intentional. It’s not an example of anything being wrong…
Now, if only we could go back to senators being chosen by legislatures, the world would resume the shape that the Framers intended. I think all this excessive direct democracy would have horrified them, republicans that they were…
Perhaps not wrong, but not representative. The way it plays out in a polarized environment becomes a recipe for strangeness, especially when a party wants to claim a mandate from an election with turnout of about 35%.
Montana and South Carolina have 4 Senators representing just under 6 million people combined. California and New York have 4 Senators representing just under 59 million people. There are 15 heavily conservative states, and in a polarized society, no Democrat is ever likely to be among the 30 Senators representing the approximately 73 million people in those states. There are eight states that are predominately liberal with 16 Senators representing about 94 million. Democrats and other non-conservative candidates have to pretty much kick butt in the remaining 27 states to even achieve a 50/50 split in the Senate, needing to gain 34 of the 54 Senators from those states (63%).
So basically, you’re just not really that big a fan of the whole bicameral legislature idea?
Several points…
In answer to Bryan’s 2nd graf in his initial comment… I sense there’s an argument going on in the West Wing between a wannabe Josh Lyman and a wannabe Toby Zeigler. “Josh” wants to keep the door open to working with the new GOP majorities, and is resisting the executive order, and probably the Keystone veto as well. Meanwhile, “Toby” figures nothing is left but to turn guerrilla, so why not go ahead and do what they really believe in?
To Bryan’s last graf in the same comment… You’re right, people in SC and Tennessee and Ohio, etc., didn’t vote their feelings regarding Ms. Pelosi. But I would take it further and say they weren’t expressing themselves regarding POTUS, either. Oh, some of them were, among other things. Enough to shift the 3 or 4 percent who decide elections. But these monolithic explanations (It was about the president, or It was a rejection of all Democrats stand for) ignore the complexity of reasons why people vote as they do.
Couple of things about Kathryn’s comment… First, they’re not “forced to run in” those districts in states where Democrats controlled the legislature. They got what they asked for. Second, if they’re in Congress and able to vote for Pelosi again, then gerrymandering worked wonderfully for them — they got re-elected, probably without significant general election opposition. And that’s true whether Democrats drew the lines, or they’re in districts into which Republicans crammed Democrats so as to have safer GOP districts around them, as they do for Clyburn in SC.
Bryan,
Would you be good enough to share why you seem to dismiss Steny Hoyer as a logical successor to Pelosi?
Sure.
1. His first name is “Steny”. What’s up with that? (With apologies to Billy Crystal) Steny is the name of a guy who can get you a good deal on a washer/dryer combo at Sears, Steny is not the House Minority Leader. If you need a dryer, Steny’s your man, but being a Minority Leader isn’t Steny’s thing.
2. He’s a lawyer. Do we really need another one of those people in charge?
For those of you new to this television program, I am joking. 🙂
Seriously, though: Steny is 75. He’s been in the US House of Representatives since May of 1981, when I was four months old. Our ol’ pal Steny doesn’t qualify as a “young up-and-comer”.
But he still knows how to party…
Bryan, Nancy Pelosi (also 74 years old now), first assumed office during the mid 1980s, also.
I am not believing those factors really matter to you, either. There must be more… but you turned off our television program!
So she’s 74.. what does that have to do with matters? With age comes experience and wisdom.
And dementia, stubbornness, and an inability to comprehend or embrace new ideas.
This happens to far too many people – at ages far too young.
This is what moron Pelosi is doing today:
“A meeting of House Democrats flared up on Tuesday over the increasingly thorny issue of whether a pregnant member should be allowed to vote from afar in the party’s leadership elections this week.
Democratic leaders, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), have denied a request from Rep. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), who lost both of her legs in the Iraq War, to waive the Democratic rule barring proxy votes. Duckworth, 46, is in the last stages of a pregnancy and her doctor won’t allow her to travel back to Washington to vote in person.”
Some would say that it takes one to know one, but I’ll be a little more diplomatic. You may want to check the rules of the US House of Representatives relative to proxy votes. Both Republicans and Democratics have adopted and apply this proxy voting rule in their caucuses also.
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:”
“To a Louse” Robert Burns 1785
Sticks and stones, sticks and stones… oh ye of little backbone.
But I understand your reluctance to attach your name to your opinions. I wouldn’t want anyone to know I supported a corrupt hack like Pelosi either.
Why don’t you address the facts brother. For one who doesn’t know the .. names and .. faces in public places classic observation, you may want to be a little more reserved and thoughtful in your bombastic posts. Do they teach that manner of blog posting at Purdue?
Keep trolling, o. I’m sure you can Google even more dead poets to steal from.
Not sure what your Purdue comment means. I don’t have any connection to Purdue.
Now, now, gentlemen — enough…
And there are many democrats who are calling foul on Pelosi’s political gamesmanship to help out her supporters in the committee votes.
Ageists should be pleased at how the Democrat field is shaping up for 2016. Hillary may be the youngest in the crowd.
Grandmother Hillary Clinton, 67, is vying to become one of the oldest world leaders in history. In order to achieve that goal, however, she may have to defeat a slate of Democratic challengers who are even older than she is.
That sounds hard to believe, but it’s true. In addition to Clinton, the 2016 Democratic field could include: California governor Jerry Brown, Vice President Joe Biden (the presumed frontrunner), and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.
In such a scenario, Brown would be the oldest Democrat in the race; he’ll be 78 in 2016. Biden will be 73. Sanders will be 75. Hillary, who will be 69 on Election Day, would be younger by comparison. If Elizabeth Warren decides to run, she would be the youngest Democrat, thought not by much. Warren will be 67 in 2016.
None of those names will be in contention come 2016.
Not even Joe? Say it ain’t so!
For his part, Clyburn is thrilled:
Of course he is-and he should be. Dem House leadership got crushed and he, nor any of his friends, have to pay any price for it. He has it made and knows he can do whatever he wants to do.
Nice work if you can get it…
I’m glad that Rep. Clyburn’s happy, pleased as punch that Rep. Pelosi was re-installed as the leader of her party in the House, and grateful for the installation tips I got form Steny for that Maytag fridge he got me the deal on at Sears last week.
As a Groucho Marxist I refuse to join to any organization, or even disorganization as our two main parties seem to be, that would have me as a member. Yet I generally vote for Republicans because I’m conservative.
With that in mind, I think that the Democrats need to:
– develop some centralizing principle other than “take from them that’s got and give to them that don’t, and anybody who disagrees is racist.”
– groom some of the younger House members for leadership positions.
I understand that the Dems have a much bigger problem than the GOP does in terms of talent. While folks fuss about the “radical” Tea-Partiers, they ignore the radical leftists who’ve pushed the moderate Dems out of the House. Folks with such radical views will fail to win elective office at the national level.
Do they sell Maytag at Sears? You sure it wasn’t a Kenmore?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Quo Vadis Republicans? Libertarians have apparently been shut out in GOP voting for chairmanships in the House. The Hawks are back in charge!
Defense-oriented conservatives won out in races for the chairmanships of key House panels, and in at least one case, a member’s perceived weakness on defense issues may have scuttled his bid to lead an influential bloc of House conservatives.
Tuesday’s leadership elections, which will determine some of the most influential lawmakers of the 114th Congress, could prove another setback for what was once perceived as a rising tide of libertarianism in the GOP and an accompanying aversion to military intervention and defense spending.
That sort of noninterventionist position contributed to the defeat of Rep. Mick Mulvaney’s (R., S.C.) bid to lead the Republican Study Committee, a 173-member bloc of the party’s most conservative members.
RSC elected Rep. Bill Flores (R., Texas) as chairman on Tuesday. He took 84 votes to Mulvaney’s 57 in the second round of voting.
I like Mick Mulvaney, but am a believer in a strong defense, and a strong response to aggression. He isn’t.
Of course, the president isn’t either. Kill a US Ambassador? Just you wait, we’ll indict you! My choice would be indictment delivered quickly by a flock of A-10s or an AC-130H. But hey, I’m an antique aircraft buff…
Puff the Magic Dragon!
I looks like we are gonna have PLENTY to argue about come Friday.
https://twitter.com/vplus/status/535123719371636736
You know what would be great? If Obama also announced that he was going to curtail enforcement of all federal drug laws. If you’re going to go rogue, why not do this as well? Think of all the resources that could be redirected to more useful activities at the judicial, penal, and enforcement level!
It’s just sad. So many people seem to be able to quite easily cast the rule of law aside in order to reach a preferred policy goal. And none of y’all better start in with any of that “prosecutorial discretion” nonsense unless you can tell me what the limiting factor is.
The limiting factors with respect to potential executive orders in other areas are:
1) lack of precedence, 2) lack of court approval and 3) lack of legislative acquiescence/inaction.
Call’em the Big Three of Constitutional order.
Well, we’ve had a lot of buildup to this, and it’s been portrayed as this huge constitutional standoff. But I was just listening to a discussion, on NPR, about what POTUS is talking about doing, and it’s fairly limited.
The interesting thing is, it’s limited by the fact that it IS executive action, and the next president could reverse it. So basically, Obama’s not going to take permanent actions — such as award someone citizenship or even a green card.
What it SOUNDS like is rather he’s simply not taking certain actions which could always be taken later — such as proceeding with deportations in certain situations.
And while that number of immigrants potentially affected was used — 5 million — the huge question is, how many people will step forward to take advantage of the situation when it means sticking their heads up and saying, “Here I am and I’m illegal” — knowing that the next president could just round them all up and deport them all that much more easily because of this.
That doesn’t mean the president’s political adversaries won’t go totally ape over this… but I wonder just how big an effect he can have on reality…
“the huge question is, how many people will step forward to take advantage of the situation when it means sticking their heads up and saying, “Here I am and I’m illegal” ”
This is the problem with any immigration reform. What is the incentive to come forward? Does that mean the housekeeper who is currently being paid $100 a day under the table is going to start paying taxes? Will unscrupulous employers who use cheap labor keep those people on if it means paying FICA, Medicare, unemployment taxes ? If the legislation includes paying a fine, will those who are already living in poverty do that?
What should be done is make it much harder for illegal immigrants to enjoy the benefits of living illegally in the U.S. Rather than go after individuals, the government should ramp up enforcement against employers who hire illegals. We saw what happened to the illegal population during the economic downturn. There also should be no access to public schools or any public assistance unless legal status can be proven.
I don’t care how many people want to immigrate legally to the U.S. Raise the quotas or eliminate them. But until that happens, breaking the law should not be rewarded with any benefit paid for by tax dollars. If charities and churches want to help those who have entered or remain in the U.S., I don’t have a problem with that.
I’m seeing reports that this new amnesty will apply to
illegal aliensundocumented immigrants who have been here for five or more years.I’m just a crazy winger, so maybe someone smarter than me can explain the process for verifying how long a person who has been living here, if, by definition, that person has been living in the shadows and off the grid?
For instance, what’s to stop a guy in Mexico from coming over the border today and then telling INS that he’s been here for five years?
I don’t believe in the politically correct term of “undocumented immigrants”. That phrase would suggest that there is a document available that would change the person’s status. There isn’t. They are here illegally thus they are illegal immigrants.
As for proving how long you’ve been here, you are correct. There is no way to prove it without implicating an employer. This is why the ideas like paying fines and paying back taxes to gain a pathway to citizenship are a farce as well. Is Joe The Immigrant going to have any records of income that can be validated?
But… the thing that makes them “illegal” is that they don’t have the documents…