-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Ocasio-Cortez Currently Backs Pelosi, ‘Most Progressive Candidate,’ For Speaker
- Thread starter Pet
- Start date
Pelosi is the most liberal/progressive option for the speaker position. People like Jimmy Dore need to STFU because they rather allow the GOP to dominate politics for decades until they find the "perfect" candidate.
She has already thrown her support for Pelosi and is running for a different leadership position.
I'm a leftist that believes in harm reduction.
We have got to stop shitting on Pelosi.
Schumer must go. He is a terrible majority leader that is out of touch with the party.
Pelosi is like bizzaro Schumer.
We have got to stop shitting on Pelosi.
Schumer must go. He is a terrible majority leader that is out of touch with the party.
Pelosi is like bizzaro Schumer.
There was not only a feeble attempt to twist arms to get it to happen, but you don't need to do that if you remove the filibuster rule. Republicans stalled Obama's judicial nominees, killed the filibuster for judicial appointments now that they have power, and then Schumer said he'd bring it back if Dems won the Senate.
No, kill the filibuster then for the long-term gain of a public option or force Republicans to actually filibuster.
If a self described socialist is endorsing her I think it's fair to say she is the best option we have for now.
I'd love a big leap too, but it's just not in the cards untill we get more power.
Yup. They just want to shut down any criticism of any Democrat from the left with that shit and it's shitty as fuck.
Nah, we can. But we should shut on all Democrats in general even the ones we like.
Also she voted for the Patriot Act (she did eventually vote against reaurhorizinf it) and her only contention with Trumps Syria strike is that he didn't come to congress for permission. She also whipped a bunch of democrats to vote against an amendment that would curtail some of the NSAs surveillance.
Pelosi is one of the most progressive members of the House. There is no candidate for Speaker who is better than her in terms of ideals, experience, or ability - even one of those three. She is a progressive woman who will be succeeding an ultra-conservative man.
There is a valid critique to make from the left here, but there is no doubt that a lot anti-Pelosi sentiment comes from a more malicious place. For all the talk of Overton windows, the general perception of Pelosi is colored by both sexism and a reflexive inclination towards centrism. Fox News and its ilk have done a fantastic job of painting her as this shrill, dangerous woman, and making the more "reasonable," more "moderate" position an anti-Pelosi one. Weak Democratic knees haven't helped, of course.
Saying something like "I love Pelosi, she's great!" is subversive in most of America.
All that said, we will need new leadership sooner rather than later. Boosting the next generation should be a focus of Pelosi's upcoming speakership, for sure.
There is a valid critique to make from the left here, but there is no doubt that a lot anti-Pelosi sentiment comes from a more malicious place. For all the talk of Overton windows, the general perception of Pelosi is colored by both sexism and a reflexive inclination towards centrism. Fox News and its ilk have done a fantastic job of painting her as this shrill, dangerous woman, and making the more "reasonable," more "moderate" position an anti-Pelosi one. Weak Democratic knees haven't helped, of course.
Saying something like "I love Pelosi, she's great!" is subversive in most of America.
All that said, we will need new leadership sooner rather than later. Boosting the next generation should be a focus of Pelosi's upcoming speakership, for sure.
Yup. The number of people who engage in those tactics here is really depressing, and they do it because they know they can get away with it.
There's plenty of doubt in progressive circles. A progressive's dislike for Democratic leadership is going to be different than Republican's, who will dislike anyone the Dems choose.
I'm aware that conservatives wanted to make her the liberal bogeywoman in the 2000s; I was pretty in tune for the 2006 elections. Bringing it up in this thread doesn't mean anything; most progressives I know think for themselves and are able to make up their own opinions.
I feel either many here don't actually talk with a lot of progressives (not Democrats, but progressives), or if they do, they haven't paid attention to the past 30 years of politics. Progressives felt betrayed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Progressives supported Dean as the best choice (not necessarily the ideal one) due to his anti-war stance and were cut off by the more conservative DLC who liked the other Iraq War voting Dems. They wanted to debate from true progressive ideals since they had such a big majority in 2009 and 2010. Somehow, though, despite disliking Clinton or having Kerry as the top choice, sexism is thrown around when talking about Pelosi.
In other quarters, I find myself defending the ACA for helping to change the conversation on health care. Here, I feel people don't really understand progressives. I don't know who you are, so I won't make an assumption about you, but for the board in general, I feel some people are more Democratic than progressive and aren't really understanding what progressives are arguing for if they think people here are agreeing with the "alt-right" (which now apparently refers to anybody on the right), colored by sexism, or whatever other way people want to dismiss progressives' concerns.
Through your whole post, you generally come off in agreement with people who don't want Pelosi as speaker. It should be a lot easier, then, to understand what the other side is arguing.
When Nancy Pelosi is talking about "compromise" or bipartisanship. I hope you realize this is a formality and she's not actually being serious.
I'm an outsider so take this with a pinch of salt and feel free to educate me, but can you truly be a progressive politician when you take millions of dollars from corporations and industries such as pharmaceutical companies? What incentive do you have to support your voters in that instance? If you take the big bucks from health insurance companies isn't it obvious why she won't support medicare for all?
The resistance to Pelosi has come off like angry, impotent flailing more than anything else. It would be one thing if they had rallied around a demonstrably better alternarive, but they simply haven't fielded one.
A vague desire to "shake things up" isn't good enough.
A vague desire to "shake things up" isn't good enough.
I think at some point we should probably acknowledge a majority of democrats want Pelosi to be replaced and that all of her potential challengers have been more conservative. Does that not seem like a problem to you?
Worthy of consideration, i think. I'd like to see a movement where voters scrutinize where pac money comes from and want to talk about it.
She is EXTREMELY progressive. One of the most left congress people we have.
What's in the world would be "truly leftist"?
I wouldn't call her extremely progressive when she supports a fascist state and opposes BDS.
It's pretty clear that a lot of these folks are arguing out of tribal, partisan loyalty to the Democratic Party and are actively disinterested in understanding the nuances of people who don't share that loyalty.
Anyone should be free to be criticize and us not doing enough if anything is the reason why politics is where it is today. Praise where they do a good job and quit sugar coating anything shitty.
Most progressives wants someone like Barbara Lee, a minority women up there in age, so it's funny when people like Whoopi and lots of folks here say the criticism in Pelosi is rooted in sexism and ageism.
Most progressives wants someone like Barbara Lee, a minority women up there in age, so it's funny when people like Whoopi and lots of folks here say the criticism in Pelosi is rooted in sexism and ageism.
Or Pelosi is by far the most left and liberal choice possible for the house speaker position.
If you support a hard left liberal agenda Pelosi is who you want.
I agree that no one to her left is running and that she's therefore the best available choice for the left wing of the party. Doesn't mean that all criticism of her is invalid.
As long as it's to cultivate a transition to the next generation I'm fine with it.
Wish she did this 10 years ago when Democrats had all the power, but here we are.
Wish she did this 10 years ago when Democrats had all the power, but here we are.
Is there no liberal under the age of 60 who wants the job? I agree that a lot of the Pelosi hate is ridiculous, but we're also LONG overdue for a generational change within the Democratic Party's leadership. The party of today isn't the party of even ten years ago, so I'm a bit frustrated at how unwilling we are to consider switching things up.
Its amazing that people just constantly tout out Barbara Lee as if naming a progressive is enough to replace Pelosi.
Newsflash, Barbara Lee supports Pelosi and doesn't want to run for Speaker, she is running for a different position.
The conservative party of Britain came out for universal health care in the mid 20th century, IIRC. The Labour Party, which tilted more free market late 20th century, supports universal health care. Pelosi is talking about Medicare-for-All being "considered."
The underlying issue is the two parties are far-right vs. center to center-right by first world metrics, and progressives want the Democrats to really be more progressive and not argue based on what a far-right party considers extreme. Pelosi isn't extremely progressive. If she's one of the most liberal members of the House, then that's a good example as to what the issue is.
AOC is correct, I think, that Pelosi is the "most progressive" of the bunch, and I think she's being pretty matter-of-fact about that. She'd prefer a Gillum, an Abrams, a Sanders, or many of the others most likely but recognizes that her challengers are even more conservative. That doesn't make Pelosi extremely progressive, which is the underlying issue progressives keep trying to make and have made for decades about much of the Democratic leadership.
What he said.
People want someone like Barbara Lee, that doesn't mean they don't understand that she isn't actually running. Unless we're about to get into accusing progressives of only supporting her because they know she actually isn't in the running and if she did they'd turn on her for being a minority woman, which I wouldn't put past some people in this thread.
I agree with all the contents of this post. And i dont think these are uncommon positions.
People tout Lee because that's the one we want however we know we also know that she isn't running.
So I just want to start by saying I'm completely sympathetic to the broader argument that Democrats should push for what they want rather than a predetermined compromise.
I also don't really think Obama pushing for a public option over further-left solutions to universal healthcare (like single-payer) is necessarily that because they're fundamentally different systems. You can't really go "I want single-payer and you don't, meet in the middle, public option" because
1) The public option isn't an inherent middleground between single-payer and... whatever we had before the ACA. Obama clearly still envisioned a mostly private, but heavily regulated and subsidized system, with the public option as another check on the excesses of private industry. I know some people have envisioned the public option as a backdoor to single-payer but I don't think that was an intended goal of the writers of the bill.
If you disagree with that, that's an ideological difference, not a matter of weak-willed Democrats not knowing how to negotiate. I think that's an important distinction because the latter seems to be the entire perception of the Democratic Party, and I don't think that's true.
2) It presumes that the conservative Democrats or Republicans who Obama would have been bartering with had as much incentive as he did to come to an agreement. Republicans who said no to everything and gummed up the works as much as they could made out like bandits in 2010. Obama can't force them to do the right thing.
I like using the minimum wage because since you're dealing with straight-up numbers, it's simpler - plenty of progressives would argue against Obama and Clinton adopting the $12 minimum wage because according to them, if they set the fight at $15, they could at least compromise to $12. Great in theory, except the people they'd be negotiating with (Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell) have absolutely no desire to increase the minimum wage at all. And Obama (or whoever) has no official power to compel them to vote on it. Let me clue you in on how that negotiation would have gone:
Obama: "I want a $15 minimum wage"
Ryan: "no"
Obama: "How about $12"
Ryan: "no"
Obama: "7.26"
Ryan: "lol"
There's this weird catch-22 with certain progressives that Republicans are repulsive, horrible people who can't be reasoned with... but also the President can use the bully pulpit to make them do whatever they want, no matter what party they're from or what they're pushing for. Hell, Trump is from the same party as McConnell and Ryan, tries to use the bully pulpit all the time and neither of them do shit for him, especially McConnell who will still be in power. When you talk about progressive/liberal naivete, this is what comes to mind more than anything else. The conservatives in power are not rational actors who can be reasoned with to do the right thing, and even the ones who are are held captive by their base who will crucify them if they so much as make a token gesture towards bipartisanship. The only way we win is by... well, winning. And you don't do that by pouting and sitting out. Disaffected progressives (largely) should have been mad at Republicans for obstructing everything Obama wanted to do, instead they got mad at Obama for not strong-arming them into doing everything he wanted to do (after said progressives sat out of previous elections and forced him to contend with a GOP Congress in the first place!).
Nah and she would have been someone I would have wanted but she said on a podcast recently she's behind Pelosi for house speaker. Glad she's getting love tho.
I think that is exactly why I struggle to see Pelosi as in any way progressive. The UK is far more central-left even with the Conservatives in power. Someone like Corbyn is far more left-leaning than someone like Bernie Sanders but when you are conditioned to living in a more socialist country, you can't appreciate why any American would see someone like Pelosi as anything like truly progressive. She seems like a corporate democrat to me.
Well, that settles it, if no one on the left is running except Pelosi, then I'll back Pelosi.
The Democratic Party and Pelosi support UHC.
Single Payer is not the only wqy of achieving that. Plenty of countries have done so with hybrid systems. Insisting that the only "real" UHC is a complete government takeover is beyond ridiculous, as is the assertion a few posts above that she's a "Corporate Democrat".
It's good to remember that Pelosi endorsed the blue dogs who are now trying to make sure she isn't speaker.
Yeah, lol. I swear, this headline delivered the goods, I knew it would.
Endorsing primary challenges against people who survive them is a good way to ensure you arent speaker.
And it's funny that despite that, that blue dog is still challenging her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Lipinski, one of the literal DINOs who likely got reelected on the back of GOP crossover votes in the primary, didn't sign it. And now Moulton is getting angry town halls, Fudge is facing a super ugly situation being unearthed, while they all clearly triaged the letter in order to make sure they wouldn't force Pelosi to get GOP votes to become speaker.
Sometimes you just make the safe play because you know you hold the better hand.
I think you're pretty willfully misconstruing the left critique of Obama at this point. I don't know any leftists who think that Obama could have gotten the GOP to negotiate in good faith with him; if anything, Obama's faith in bipartisanship is at the very heart of said critique.
Obama didn't even strong-arm his own party into doing much of what he said he wanted to do during the campaign. Forget the GOP.
I would give anything for the constant hounding on Pelosi to move on to the actual dumpster fire of a mess that's in charge at the Senate. I don't get progressives so defensively fixated on hating Pelosi when you got that sac of shit in the other house.
This is where the eating into right-wing propaganda and misogyny claims come in. You may have legitimate problems with Pelosi (although more often then not, completely misguided and fantastical), but without a doubt the conversation exists because the right's relentless campaigning against her. They and the Democrats to Pelosi's right are not trying to push for a more progressive replacement, at some point you have to assess if this is the fire you want to add fuel to, and if all the toxic elements involved are something you wish to validate. Particularly as you have much more dire positions to bring the fight to instead.
This is where the eating into right-wing propaganda and misogyny claims come in. You may have legitimate problems with Pelosi (although more often then not, completely misguided and fantastical), but without a doubt the conversation exists because the right's relentless campaigning against her. They and the Democrats to Pelosi's right are not trying to push for a more progressive replacement, at some point you have to assess if this is the fire you want to add fuel to, and if all the toxic elements involved are something you wish to validate. Particularly as you have much more dire positions to bring the fight to instead.
There isn't even a point in engaging with people who think the American Speaker of the House should be dedicated to "dismantling capitalism." That wouldn't even fly in any of the "socialist" countries these people wish they could emigrate to, since I'm assuming Sweden or Canada would be higher up on the list than Venezuela.
It's the left-wing version of social media echo chamber syndrome.
It's the left-wing version of social media echo chamber syndrome.
There's a sharp divide between progressives that criticize her because she's symptomatic of a larger, country-wide problem but would still vote for her versus progressives who are using gut feelings and republican talking points and want her replaced without an actual alternative.