Well, yeah, but Di Fei is running to re-up, and she is 7 years older. If she were to finish another full term, she would be over 90.
Yes, but it’s easier with a woman because there’s still a large percentage of R’s who are misogynists.
Yes because I’ve never pointed out on this board how I admire
Sen. Collins
Sen. Murkowski
Sen. Feinstein :dubious:
First Lady Hillary Clinton for how she handled her husband’s infidelity with strength and grace :eek:
And your point? In case you had not been aware, she didNOT get her party’s endorsement this time.
Likely Pelosi endures as the bench is not adequate, and I do not think her age per se disqualifies here. But the argument that the she is at age 77 not the person who will see the House into its next era, and that it may be time to consider someone who can, is not one to dismiss out of hand.
I do think that having not developed the bench is to some degree leadership malpractice.
My first thought was framing Pelosi as a first generation leader instead of at least second generation if not third generation. For terminology and packaging of leader development principles, it doesn’t seem to have much resonance outside the Army as far as I have seen. It’s way off the beaten track of the thread so I will just drop a drive-by intro since it came to mind. There can be some real systemic issues that make it hard to think past first generation leadership, where leaders aren’t focusing on what comes after they are gone. Hyperfocus on the quarterly earnings report or the next election cycle can interfere with thinking and acting with a focus on the long term.
There can be other systemic issues that make it hard even for those focused on future leader development. That led to my second thought that was at least a closer to the thread subject. 
It’s one of the systemic differences in how the two House caucuses manage the assignment of committee chair positions.
The GOP House caucus limits the committee chair position to 6 years. After that the chair has to step down from role. That gets more Reps important experience earlier in their time in Congress. The downside is that a lot choose to leave Congress after their commitee chair time instead of stepping down into a backbench role. We’ve seen it in some of the announcements for this election cycle but it’s not new. John Kasich left Congress, and for about a decade politics, after 18 years of service when his six years as the House Ways and Means chair expired. As a rule, the bench of qualified potential speakers is broader and regularly including new people. The downside is that it also causes more turnover as experienced people leave Congress.
Democrats still assign chair/ranking membership in a seniority driven system. That produces fewer Represenatives with that level experience. Those with that experience tend to have a lot of it, and be quite a bit older. It can also lead to more effective chairs since they tend to have much longer experience before assuming the role.
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Leader development isn’t the only area it affects. Pelosi is the caucus leade. Good leaders take the blame and fight to overcome systemic problems. That short bench of potential replacements is not just her, though. Developing new future Speakers is a harder problem for Democrats than it is for Republicans because of the rules Democrats chose to operate under.
Update: it won’t be Joe Crowley.
Crowley was admirably graceful in defeat. Gotta give him props for that.
Is Pelosi quietly happy that Crowley is now no longer going to be there? The lack of options other than her, of real next generation leadership, while horrible for the party, is her best job guarantee.
On the other hand, it may give members of the Democratic caucus more confidence to think outside the establishment box. Maybe we see someone truly unexpected throw their hat into the ring
Eliminating the ICE? Certainly outside the establishment box.
Regards,
Shodan
I have nothing against Crowley personally, but I’m happy to see him defeated, because it increases the chances that Pelosi will retain her position for the foreseeable future.
Speaking as a Republican, Pelosi is one of our best weapons.
Yes, and yet it is an idea that is beginning to grow in the Democratic Party. It’s not only taken root with challengers, but also with some incumbents.
Not sure what, exactly, they want to replace ICE with. Democrats weren’t exactly happy with INS back in the day, either.
Here is what she says on her web site:
It’s not really clear what her plan is, unless it’s to return to the status quo ante-2003.
When some Republicans say our country’s choices are either 1) imprisonment of children or 2) open borders, is it so surprising that some people choose the latter?
Personally, I’d like to see customs enforcement done by the Department of Commerce, and immigration enforcement by the State Department.
And, as for who the House leadership should be, any Democrat will be more zealous exercising Article I powers than the currently supine Republicans.
I’d like to see Homeland Security dismantled and its components returned to the departments that originally had them. Secret Service seemed to be much less scandal-prone when in Treasury, for example. That name sucks ass anyway, it sounds like it should be headed by the Reichmaster or something.
Man, I wish we could upvote. I agree with this a lot.
I’d just gently add that my particular the problem with Pelosi (and Schumer for that matter) is her continued insistence to not obstruct Republicans. The fact that this chick has decided to “turn the other cheek” after 8 years of Republicans declaring war on Obama and years of congressional hearings, that all is forgiven and government needs to be funded. The “establishment” Democrats are more-or-less collaborators with the Trump administration.
This all encapsulates the naiveness of white liberals. It’s like Lucy, Charlie, and the Football in the Peanuts comic strip.
Republicans: [holding a football] White liberals! Oh, White liberals!
White liberals: I can’t believe it. She must think we’re the most stupid people alive. We white liberals are committed; we will never sign on to keep the government funded without a bill for DACA recipients.
Republicans: Come on, white liberals. We promise. Sign to keep the government and promise to allow DACA recipients to stay in the country. Please? I’ll hold the ball and you kick it. [points to poll showing broad consensus between both parties] I promise. [Republicans smile]
White liberals: “Hold it”? Ha! We’ve been here before. You’ll pull it away and we’ll land flat on my back. Remember the Grand Bargain that fell through in 2012? Or how you shutdown the government in 2013? Or how you stole a Supreme Cou …
Republicans:[interrupts] Well, one of the greatest traditions we have as members of the great and esteemed legislative body is ensuring the government is well-funded and maintained. We have always believed that President’s success is everyone else’s success. We know we’ve lied and cheated in the past but that’s behind us now, and we’re sorry for that. We believe in country over party.
White liberals: [tears well up in his eyes] Is that right?
Republicans: Absolutely. Come on, white liberals. It’s a big honor for you.
White liberals: Well, if it’s that important, a person should never turn down a big honor. Maybe I should do it. Besides, she wouldn’t try to trick me after such a heartfelt apology. This time I’m gonna kick that football clear to the moon! [runs to kick the ball, but Republicans pulls it away] Aaauuugh! [falls flat on his back]
Republicans: [laughs heartily, slapping her knee] Isn’t it peculiar, how you just never learn?
Epilogue
Republicans are relaxing in the privacy of their home.
Republicans: [dials numbers on cell phone]
Hispanic Democrats: Hello
Republicans: That is sooo fucked up how white liberals abandoned you again, and again, and aga **. . . [voice trails off]
**Hispanic Democrats: [deep sigh] I know.
Republicans: Why do you put up with it? White liberals only want you for your votes. You’re nothing to them. Just on the “plantation”.
Hispanic Democrats: Should I join your party?
Republicans: Hell no. You’re not welcome here. In fact, if you come here, we’ll call the cops [points to #PermitPatty and #BBQBecky who have their cell phones brandished). We want our party as white as pearls. [voice deepens and darkens] We feast! We feast on the tears of children separated from their families for sustenance.
Hispanic Democrats: You feast on what?
Republicans: [a violent scream and commotion bleeds into a sibilant hissing] The transssformation has completed! Let usss feassst on the tearsss of brown children ssseparated from their familiesss. [screams echo through the phone before the line is cut]