I think the Democratic party has to send a strong message of, “We’re turning this thing around,” and a change of leadership will do a lot to underline that message.
Sometimes after a few bad seasons you have to fire the coach. Even if it wasn’t really the coach’s fault.
…he said, as he spun smoke smoke and deflected.
But you shouldn’t fire your coach because the opposing team says it’s a good idea.
Speaking as a Democrat, I’ve been saying for a while now that we need to replace the Septuagenarian leadership with a younger generation.
No, of course not.
I said, “Sometimes after a few bad seasons you have to fire the coach. Even if it wasn’t really the coach’s fault.” There isn’t even a hint of giving a shit about what the opposing team says in there.
Do I read this correctly, that DSYoungEsq has been accused in this thread of being both a Republican and a liberal?
Congresswoman Kathleen Rice (D-NY) says, “If you were talking about a company that was posting losing numbers, if you were talking about any sports team that was losing time and time again, changes would be made, right? The CEO out. The coach would be out and there would be a new strategy put in place.”
Dare I ask what idiocy you think rule #1 is? Will I be saddened for humanity with your response?
Rule #1 is: Don’t talk about rule #1!
But you shouldn’t keep you coach just because the opposing team says you should fire her, either.
You should fire your coach when your team is losing a lot of games, regardless of who is saying what.
Not me. I just shrivel.
Oh my, how quickly we forget. Dick Gephardt was Minority Leader from 1995 to 2002, during which time the Republicans were in control of the House, and during some of which George W. Bush was the President. Please, try again. :dubious:
You just have to love it. I guess I’m Libpubtard. 
Here is an article that talks about the current rumblings in the Democratic Party’s House membership about Pelosi. Democratic congressman: Our ‘toxic’ brand under Pelosi makes it hard to win
And CNN:
Alternate thought: since we all agree Pelosi is unfairly vilified, aren’t Democrats better than this? Shouldn’t they support Pelosi in the face of this unfair onslaught? Stand by her?
She might be unfairly vilified, but that doesn’t mean she’s the best person for the job. See post #90.
Do you live in SF? Just asking 'cause that’s not been my experience. I know cities half the size of the City that have more violent and aggressive homeless people. SF is arguably one of the safest big cities in the US and arguably safer than most shitholes a quarter of its size in gun-toting Dixie. I say this as someone who’s lived in the South and in the Bay Area.
I think it’s really fucked up how Democrats are again taking the wife-beating bait from Republicans and flushing strong females down the toilet - so much for being the “progressive” party I reckon. But whatever. It’s clear that Pelosi’s time has come and gone and she’s no longer an effective spokesperson for progressive causes. For the good of the party, perhaps she ought to negotiate a passing of the torch to someone else.
But this does go back to that all important question: just who the hell are democrats anyway? What is their identity?
But a coach is not part of a caring, supporting framework in which vulnerable performers are assisted; the sporting analogy is a form of social Darwinism that should not track with Democratic values. Right?
(Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek)
ETA: or maybe not.
Scary on so many levels
Not really arguable. Click on “violent crime” and you’ll see SF is about in the middle, with about as many southern cities above it as below. Perhaps you were thinking of San Jose. Much, much safer.
Anyway, Pelosi has nothing to do with how violent SF is or isn’t, so it’s a silly argument to engage in.