There is little question that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be elected to head the Democratic Caucus as Minority Leader by her Democratic colleagues. The reason is simple: She is absolutely the best choice to lead House Democrats through the tough two years that lie ahead.
Here's why:
Pelosi is one of the best strategists and organizers in modern American political history. She understands how to engage the self-interests of her colleagues and forge consensus. Far from being the divisive figure portrayed by her Republican opponents, she is the consummate coalition builder. She is a great listener. She pays close attention to what her Members say about their needs, their problems and their priorities. That's how she was able to construct majorities that could actually pass Health Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, and an energy bill which -- had it passed the Senate -- would have begun to create the clean energy jobs of the future.
In addition to these landmark pieces of legislation, Pelosi presided over passage of: the Lilly Ledbetter Act that guarantees equal pay for women; the Student Aide and Financial Responsibly Act that eliminated $87 billion in unnecessary subsidies to big banks and reinvested most of it back into making higher education affordable for students; expansion of the State Children's Health Care Program; passage of a new GI Bill for the veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars; and the list goes on.
In fact, as Speaker, Pelosi has presided over the most productive, pro-middle class session of Congress since the 1960's and she did it by knowing how to weld together the disparate elements of the disparate Democratic caucus and take action.
She is an electoral asset. I know, you're saying this guy must be on another planet. Her positive numbers are in the toilet.
The fact is that Nancy Pelosi's negatives had precious little to do with Democratic losses last week. The exit polls showed clearly that swing voters were not voting against "Pelosi" -- or for that matter for Republican policies. They were voting against the economy. Many of them just voted for change out of frustration. Others bought the snake oil that the other side was pedaling.
Mike Lux pointed out in a HuffPost blog on Friday, that:
"In 2008, Obama won the votes of people who said their personal economic situation had gotten worse by a 43 percent margin. In 2010, Democrats lost those voters by 29 percent. By the way, the number who said things were worse for them? Forty percent. That is an incredibly big swing in such a massive slice of the electorate, one on a scale that I don't remember in 25 years of looking at exit polls."
And in the end there was a major enthusiasm gap. The massive Get Out the Vote operations run by Democrats were in fact successful at increasing Democratic voting to levels at or above the level of 2006 -- when, let us recall, Democrats took back control of the House. The difference was the level of Republican turnout, which far exceeded their 2006 level.
Nancy Pelosi did not cause either the enthusiasm gap or the economic crisis. In fact, she pressed for greater levels of stimulus at the beginning of 2009 that was the single largest thing that could have been done to improve the economy and limit the political damage last week.
She got the House to pass the DISCLOSE Act that would have limited the power of the Chamber of Commerce and other Republican front groups to spend hundreds of millions of secret money -- some from foreign sources -- to spread massive amounts of mis-information about Democrats relentlessly for the last year-and-a-half. Senate Republicans stopped the Disclose Act using the filibuster.
More than that, she did more than anyone else to limit this election's damage to her caucus by tirelessly touring the country raising the tens of millions of dollars necessary to finance their defense. In fact, far from causing these losses, without her work, they would have been much more severe.
Let's also recall that her fundraising, organizing and political skill were the key reasons why Democrats took back the house in 2006 in the first place, and expanded their majorities in 2008.
Going forward, those same skills are critical to power the comeback of House Democrats and the Democratic campaigns in 2012 in general.
Some say that she is a bad "face" for the Democrats in the House. The only "face" of the Democratic Party until 2012 will be Barack Obama. This will not be an off-year election -- but a presidential year.
And she does have several other qualities that make her an important face for the party.
In order to win in 2012 Democrats have three critical tasks. We have to be successful achieving all of them:
As minority leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi is well suited to play a significant role in achieving each of these goals.
Far from being a "Chablis and brie" San Francisco liberal, this daughter of an Italian-American Baltimore mayor is better characterized as a Baltimore street-fighter. And that's just who we need as Minority Leader of the Democrats in the House over the next two years.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.
Seriously. You wrote: 9 reasons why the Dems will keep the House. And now you have a new set of reasons why Pelosi should stay in charge.
Well, she shouldn't because if she ever snaps out of whatever world she lives in and realizes that she lost the house, she should be smart enough enough to step down. not just from leadership but from being a Representative. Look at the disaster California is in. Aside from support from special interest groups like moveon and soros and unions, how? how? how? did she get reelected?
She has no good measures. none. Credit her for being the captain wanting to go down with the ship, i guess.
I have great respect for Nancy Pelosi. It's great help for this country that she decided to remain in politics. Why can't I have courage like hers?
•The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.
10) If you don't want her as minority leader then you're sexist.
9) If you don't want her as minority leader then you're racist.
8) She only lost 65 seats. That's not the worst.
7) She has a few more facelifts on schedule and there's no point in getting them done if she's not getting all that face time.
6) She only had 4 years to turn things around and won't say how long it will take until she becomes the minority leader
5) There are 435 seats in the house, she only lost 65 (yes, it's worth repeating)
4) People voted on the economy, not politics
3) She's been in too long to be rank and file
2) What? Shuler?
1) "Don't vote me out until I lose another 65 and then we'll reconsider!"
\
The latest Rasmussen Reports [Oct 2010] finds that 60% of Likely Voters have an unfavorable impression of Pelosi, including 52% who hold a Very Unfavorable opinion of her.
•The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.
They conduct a lot of polls and I cannot find any info on who funds them. Considering their results I wouldn't be surprised if their funding was from the far right but the fact that they are so wrong makes their data meaningless.
They've spent a lot of money demonizing her, she is disliked enough by Independents to get Republicans elected. Repubs have invested mucho in making Pelosi the face of the Dem Party.
\
Losing Pelosi would be as bad for Repubs as losing Sarah Palin would be for Dems. Whichever gets the most exposure gives the election to the other Party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/tea-party-house-transition-team_n_780365.html
Nancy Pelosi is a fighter.
Is there a way to say that more simply?
She led the House Democrats out of 12 years in the minority in 2006.
She set the stage for Barack Obama's 2008 election by standing up to George Bush during his last two miserable years in the White House, drawing contrasts that matter.
And after eight years of hyper conservative policies that nearly bankrupted our nation, Nancy Pelosi turned a progressive agenda into progressive laws over the last two years -- extraordinary progress on health care, clean energy, Wall Street reform, economic recovery, civil rights, and so much else.
Even if you don't think these achievements are perfect, it's really hard to say that the Republicans who are about to take back the driver's wheel in the House would have gotten George Bush's bank bailout money back, would have passed a law to guarantee women equal pay, or would have ensured that all kids with pre-existing medical conditions can get health insurance. That stuff just ain't on the GOP's to-do list.
Nancy Pelosi is going to return to temporary status as minority leader. The once and future Speaker will be back in 2012.
Democrats have got to stand up for what they stand for.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/key-republican-lawmakers-gop-agenda-new-congress
The American people want jobs and they're loosing their homes and this is the question that Chris Wallace wants answered? They're worried about Pelosi?