I vocally supported Tim Ryan’s challenge to Nancy Pelosi on this forum two years ago after a fourth consecutive election where the Democrats under her leadership failed to take back the House. I vocally support returning the gavel to her today. Nancy Pelosi is an excellent fundraiser, vote counter, whip, and policy architect. She successfully torpedoed George W Bush’s social security privatization scheme in 2005 from the Minority. She marshaled ACA through a far more conservative Democratic house caucus in 2009. Pelosi has her flaws. She is a lousy campaigner, party spokesperson, and grassroots leader.
In 2018 she showed remarkable confidence in her strengths and avoided her weaknesses. She largely avoided public appearances by staying in DC and focusing on what she could do from behind the scenes to win the majority. She has made it very clear that electorally unpalatable ideas like impeachment are off the table, but bipartisan infrastructure bills, immigration reform, health care cost controls, and expanding Medicare and Social Security are on the table. At this time of intense polarization, it is essential to unite behind the leader and send a proven GOP fighter back to the table to lead the Democrats in resisting Trump and nudging him on issues like infrastructure and prescription drugs where he could do the right thing.
Pelosi should appoint younger and more diverse members of the caucus to leadership. She should welcome constructive criticism from the likes of Tim Ryan and Conor Lamb who have their pulse on the parts of the country the party lost-and just took back-from the clutches of Trumpism. She should listen to Joe Kennedy and Seth Moulton about what needs to be done to create an inspiring governing agenda that unites the country behind a spirit of service leadership in the tradition of Jack and Bobby Kennedy. She should make it far clearer when she intends to exit stage left and let someone succeed her. Only after the work of blocking the Trump agenda and electing a Democrat to replace him is complete. As Trump himself conceded in a rare show of bipartisan humility, she earned this victory and deserves to be Speaker. No Democrat should stand in her way.
I said for a while that if we win she should get another shot but had we lost time for someone else, but I disagree that she is a bad spokesperson or campaigner. That impression is just the result of the GOP targeting her.
Speaker-Elect Pelosi is a TIGER! Hear the tiger roar as she champions and fights in the arena for ‘We the People’ against the fascist Trump and his gutless, sycophantic enablers.
I’m just overwhelmed with her flaws. The best I can say about her is she is a great legislative leader that can pass legislation.
And I’m done counting the ability to raise money as a top qualification. Why perpetrate the very poison that is wrecking democracy: money in politics. Beto raised $70 million from small donors. We need to make the transition from billionaire donors to people donors and Pelosi doesn’t have a clue to start the transition.
The fact that Pelosi makes a great piñata for the GOP has little to do with my opposition to her.
It’s that she is the epitome of Washington insiders who don’t have a clue. I will never forget this interview with Jon Stewart, as I was so embarrassed to call myself a Democrat after watching it. After rematching, I get the same feeling. The good stuff starts at 3 minutes and the most embarrassing is at the 7 minute mark.
I’m sorry, I really don’t see your point.
I watched the link. I’m not sure what you’re objecting to. Do you really expect the Speaker of the House to give a concrete and informed explanation for why an enormous enterprise-scale information system didn’t work (that’s the exchange at the 3 minute mark)? What I saw at the 7 minute mark was an executive expressing impatience that one government system can’t communicate with another. What is it that you find “embarrassing” about that? Do you think Sam Rayburn or Tip O’Neill would have been able to give better answers?
It frankly appears to me as though, like so many attackers of other prominent women, you start with your hostility and then seek clips to rationalize it.
Nothing in that clip has anything at all to do with making a transition from large donors to small donors. You say that Ms. Pelosi is “the epitome of Washington insiders who don’t have a clue”. I read your comment as the epitome of baseless attacks on powerful women. It reminds me of the attacks on Ms. Clinton for her “corrupt” handling of her family foundation coming from supporters of Donald Trump, who is being investigated and prosecuted for felony fraud for HIS role.
I think, frankly, that a great legislative leader who can pass legislation is perhaps the single most important qualification for ANY candidate for Speaker. What other qualification do you think is more important? I know dozens of men and women who could give very detailed answers about why a given system failed — none of them would be REMOTELY suitable for Speaker of the House. Marissa Mayer is recognized as a savvy technology professional even by her detractors. Do you suggest that our next Speaker needs to be more like Ms. Mayer?
The plain truth is that enterprise-scale systems like we’re talking about are enormously difficult to successfully launch. The ones I worked on at IBM typically took at least 36 months and cost at least $100M each, and that was in the mid-1990s. Surely you’re not one of those who simultaneously want our taxes to be low and our government to be able to roll out such systems flawlessly (and of course with no “revolving doors” between industry and government). In order to avoid the appearance of a “revolving door”, the government must hire people who don’t have experience in doing such things (because people with that experience are VERY well paid). People with no experience in building enterprise-scale systems VERY unlikely to be successful.
The premise that we should exclude “great legislative leaders who can pass legislation” because they are “Washington insiders” strikes me as suicidal. Requiring that they also be able to answer detailed technical questions about huge information systems strikes me as a prescription for ensuring that nobody can ever pass the test.
In short, I reject your attack on Ms. Pelosi.
Thanks for telling me what and how I think. Ok you weren’t embarrassed by that. I was when I first saw it in 2014. Apparently you don’t object to the optics of our political leaders saying, “I have no idea how the Obamacare Exchanged screwed up, someone should look into it”. (paraphrasing). I see it as a symbol of a clueless political and the party she belongs to. (Do I fee that way, no, but it is the optics that many, many people see.) So don’t give me the “I made my decision and then found my evidence”. For me, I saw that interview in 2014 and made up my mind. (You think I hunted the internet to find anything bad about her and came up this this…instead I simply searched for “Pelosi and Stewart” and there it was, just like it was 2014). Given your false assertion that I hunted for this video to support my hatred of Pelosi, I just ignore the rest of you attack on my motives based on sexism.
I saw the interview in 2014. I’m not accusing you of searching the internet for a critical link. I’m observing that your reaction in 2014 was just as inappropriate as your reaction now. You said that her answer about the incompatibility between the VA system and defense department computers was the “most embarrassing” part. I think that’s absurd — her answer is pretty much the party line of every executive I’ve ever worked with (“This is unacceptable and I expect us to do something about it”). I don’t think you would have accepted anything she said.
I think you’re holding Ms. Pelosi to a standard that no legislative leader met in the past, no legislative leader will meet in the future, and that most private executives can’t meet. If it was easy to design and roll out huge systems like this, those systems would not be so expensive and would be replaced more often.
I’m not suggesting that you “hunted for this video to support [your] hatred of Pelosi”. I’m instead suggesting when you “made up your mind” in 2014, you were already hostile to Ms. Pelosi.
I expect the Speaker of the House to be a great legislative leader who can pass great legislation. I do not expect them to be technology giants.
So Pogo, who would be better than Nancy Pelosi, in your view? What real person, I mean, not imaginary construct.
At this point in time (like we need this settled in 30-60 days) Pelosi is the default. But I really do hope they dye has been caste for a one term (two if we are all lucky) for her to give it to the Tim Ryan’s and Moulton’s of the world.
I agree there. I think she should stay until we have a Democratic President and then hand it over when the majority is still safe to a younger member. I’m a fan of Cheri Bustos or Hakeem Jeffries myself.
Prefer not Moulton. He’s too much of an iconoclast for me.
The two honorable gentlemen are significantly to the the Minority Leader’s right. And lack her experience and acumen.
What’s so great about them in your eyes? That they are prettier?
O’Rourke raised a massive amount from small donors. Beto O’Rourke raised $32M from small donors. $38M from big donors.
The best you can say is that she is a great legislative leader who can pass legislation – isn’t that EXACTLY the point of being Speaker of the House?
Thank you James Conway for an eloquent explication of the many contributions and continuing abilities of Nancy Pelosi.
It was great to read – until the end.
“As Trump himself conceded in a rare show of bipartisan humility, she earned this victory and deserves to be Speaker”
You can go ahead and naively believe that this statement by Trump was “a rare show of bipartisan humility”. I certainly do not.
Everything that comes out the man’s mouth is reflexively calculated to be mendacious propaganda. That statement was no different.
All politics is local. Pelosi was friendly enough with a local landlord that she was quoted in the man’s obituary a couple of weeks ago. (As was Bill Clinton ).
Could Pelosi even name any of the projects this landlord controlled? Could she name the union that he busted?
When people say the Democrats are out of touch, this is the type of thing they mean. And that’s just my own personal experience. Multiply what I said by as many times as there are who have had similar experiences and you will get some idea of how much the fundraisers have corrupted this party.
You start with “All politics is local” — then continue with an attack on a woman who represents a district on the other side of the country. Ms. Pelosi was elected by the residents of California’s 5th district in 1986, followed by the 8th district in 1992, and the 12th district in 2012. Can you even name a town or school in the district while you flame about “local”? There’s nothing “local” about your attack. You sound like Rush Limbaugh.
When people talk about Democratic circular firing squads, this comment is the type of thing they mean.
While you’re complaining about “how much the fundraisers have corrupted this party”, Ms. Pelosi will lead the way as our party begins the task of cleaning up the rubble and raw sewage after eight years of GOP control of the House.
What “personal experience” are you talking about? I ask because the personal experience I’m talking about is the wreckage of what used to be a first-world nation all around us. While you’re ranting your rants, I’m looking forward to a Congress that will be working to repair rather than destroy our health care system, our transportation system, our tax system, and perhaps even our utterly, shamelessly, and transparently corrupt executive branch.
We’ve finally won a majority in the House. You’re already attacking our Speaker before we’ve even finished counting the votes. Shame on you.
I take with a grain of salt any advice from you about “rants”.
You make my point. Pelosi is from San Francisco. She knows donors here and nobody else. She is not the only one in the party whose relationship with donors skews their relationship to the country.
That’s a problem that the Democrats need to address. If you have a way of addressing it and leaving the current leadership in place I’m all ears.
It’s great that we do such an excellent job of making each other’s argument.
If you’re so concerned about local politics, then Ms. Pelosi’s relationship to the country doesn’t mean spit. If you are concerned about Ms. Pelosi’s relationship to the country, then it makes no sense to talk about local politics. It is ironic that Ms. Pelosi’s critics claim to desire “generational change” and then advocate for Mr. Clyburn, also 78. It appears to me that once again the color of her skin (and perhaps her gender) is a larger factor than “who is best able to lead the House”.
The primary problem that Democrats need to address is the devastation that eight years of GOP control has done to each and every one of us. If the current leadership is able to rebuild America and American democracy, that’s good enough for me.
I think Pogo and Bob Gardner bring up some fair criticisms regarding the relationship between big donors and the party. I think the leadership is embracing the Sanders/O’Rourke model going forward. Small donors outpaced the corporate and wealthy ones for the first time on our side of the aisle. Additionally, all of the lead 2020 candidates including former corporate darlings like Gillibrand and Booker are refusing PAC dollars.
My main response to the optics criticism is that Pelosi has retreated from being a spokesperson and she will likely be ceding the spotlight to the 2020 candidates. The attack ads against her obviously did not work and/or swing voters loath the President far more and voted against him more than they voted against her.
That’s my point.
The move towards small-money donors is great if it works. It’s not a reason to attack an incumbent who is “a great legislative leader that can pass legislation”.
Whatever is happening with big- vs small-money donors is happening anyway. It’s as if some of us can’t take “yes” for an answer.
‘fair criticisms’ is something wholly apart from ‘no way, no how.’
Their isn’t a politician whoever lived not subject to ‘fair criticisms.’ But that is wholly apart from wholly disqualifying: And that’s the tenor of Bob and Pogo…
Which is it? Nancy Pelosi, while not perfect, is acceptable? Or she is wholly unacceptable? You have to choose one. You can’t split this difference…
It’s naive to think that there will be a shift to small donors, as long as raising money from big donors is not a political liability. It’s a huge problem for the country. It warps the way the country is governed.
Decades ago, we had racists and segregationists who also were progressives. Things did not improve until good progressives were embarrassed to have been racists. Until we make it embarrassing for someone to claim to be a progressive and still raise money in the corrupting way we do now , we’ll get more of the same.
It’s not inevitable. The same landlord I wrote about above, was on a (long ) list of egregious landlords and condo converters in the 1980’s, and nobody running then dared to take money from people on that list.
If you agree with Tom S. that you can just wish for change and expect it, maybe politics isn’t for you.
You don’t think it is embarrassing currently for people for take big donors? For Booker, Gillibrand, and Harris to eschew corporate and PAC dollars just a cycle after Hillary Clinton justifies relying on them seems very significant to me. Bernie matched her dollar for dollar in the primary campaign with small donors. Beto outraised Koch favorite Ted Cruz by about 3-1. I share your disdain for corporate dollars corrupting the Democratic Party, I just have a glass is half full perspective since the trend seems to be going in the right direction. I won’t support any candidate in the primary who takes PAC money, I do not think I’m alone in that litmus rest.
@jconway:
I think the values, priorities, and attributes of the candidate are far more important than what legal contributors the candidate accepts legal donations from.
If we care about outcomes, then we’d better stay laser-focused on those outcomes. I think those who attack a candidate for accepting money from George Soros or Thomas Steyer are doing the work of the GOP, no matter how loudly they proclaim their “progressive” beliefs.
There is no way to read an attack on George Soros as anything other than an anti-semitic dog whistle. It is truly tragic it took Pittsburgh and someone mailing a bomb to his door for the folks on the fringe left and fringe right who attacked him to finally stop. He is no left wing Koch brother. The man survived fascism and communism and is committed to preserving liberal democracy in the 21st century.
Tom Steyer is a better example for why the wealthy should not have an outsize political influence. His heart is undoubtedly in the right place and he has donated a massive amount to the right causes, but his focus on forcing fringe purity tests on climate and impeachment into the mainstream have hurt the electoral viability of the party. I do not welcome his likely entry to the presidential race.
The Democratic Party needs BIG donors and BIG cash war chests if it has a small message for the working class.
It was quite a while ago, but I used to run an advertising agency, Clients would ask me how much of budget they would need to promote something.
The simple answer is: the weaker the product, the more has to be spent to promote it.
@ shift to small donors:
See stomv’s comment upthread (emphasis mine):
I guess bob-gardner is ashamed of Beto O’Rourke because he raised more money from big donors than small. I guess Mr. O’Rourke is not sufficiently progressive enough to suit bob-gardner.
Raising money from big donors is unlikely to be a political liability so long as Citizens United keeps big money donors a majority shareholder of each and every elected official. I invite bob-gardner to offer even one racist segregationist Democrat who was also “progressive”.
I’ll tell you what’s “naive”. What’s naive is to disarm yourself as soldier on the front line of a shooting war. In the world bob-gardner lives in, apparently the noble candidate who scrupulously avoids any of that awful dirty big money goes to Washington just like Jimmy Stewart.
In the world I live in, men and women who passionately work for progressive values accept legal contributions from every donor, big and small, who shares those values.
” I invite bob-gardner to offer even one racist segregationist Democrat who was also “progressive”.”
Seriously, Tom, are you that ignorant? Everyone from Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Bilbo, Harry Truman, Hugo Black, Robert Byrd, Claude Pepper, FDR . . . Every one of these and countless others were some combination of progressive and racist segregationist. Many of them grew beyond racist associations and views.
Anyone who has ever read even one book on American history could come up with an equal or better list.. Have you ever read anything, Tom? Anything at all?
In the spirit of your challenge to me, Tom, I defy you to name even one sub shop in Somerville. Even one.
Stupid as your challenge was, at least it was coherent. The rest of your argument isn’t. Are you saying that big money in politics is an evil that will go away by itself? Or are you saying that it is something to be proud of? Which is it?
Seriously, Bob, you’re full of spit. I’m done with you.
Gentlemen, you can’t fight here. This is the War Room.
You concede that “legal” donations are corrupt because the SCOTUS has kept corruption legal, but keep stressing that “legal” donations are OK and good.
I applaud and support every candidate that holds themselves and the country to a higher standard than what this SCOTUS seems to insist is not corruption.
On a more technical note though, I don’t know what not taking “PAC money” means and I don’t think it means as much as we ascribe to it. It’s kind of like “organic”. It says nothing, for instance, about “independent” SuperPAC spending.
I fully support getting big-money donors out of our system. I also fully support living in the real world.
“Campaign finance reform” has been demanded by progressive activists for as long as I’ve been a voter (since 1970). A public funding campaign check-off box was added to the front page of every Federal 1040 form by congress in 1972 because of GOP abuses during Watergate (campaign finance was a major factor in the Watergate scandal).
That measure, like pretty much every effort to reform campaign finance since then, has been utterly meaningless.
Are you really going to attack Beto O’Rourke because he accepted more financing from big-money donors than small? Do you seriously think that Tom Steyer and George Soros are toxic and corrupt donors who should be forever blocked from making contributions to progressive candidates?
I hope not — that’s Rush Limbaugh territory.
I like your “organic” analogy, although I think “natural” is a better fit — there are at least SOME standards about what can be called “organic”, while “Natural” is whatever the producer wants it to be.
Here are some key indicators of when campaign finance reform will have been accomplished:
– Citizens United is reversed
– GOP candidates are publicly funded
– Fox News runs as many pro-Democratic spots as pro GOP spots.
I think disarming in the heat of a shooting war is delusional and suicidal.
There is a distinction between big donors and corporate donors that I think is being lost here. Beto raised ZERO dollars from corporate interests or super PACs. His pledge has inspired similar pledges from many 2020 frontrunners, including people like Booker and Gillibrand who used to be addicted to soft money.
I am not as concerned about big donors if they are individuals and we can track their donations. In many cases, these wealthy donors are donating against their economic self interest in backing progressive causes and candidates. I have no qualms with that so long as candidates disclose and have a viable strategy to attract small donors as well.
This is vastly different from Goldman Sachs dumping money into both sides and hoping the winner owes them a favor. That is a practice that must stop. I am tired of Democrats who rely on money from corporate donors and CEO’s and I expect our next nominee to avoid that kind of conflict of interest.
I don’t think there is anyone better at getting the votes on legislation. She’s certainly leagues better than Schumer, who should be replaced as a Senator in 2022 and replaced as minority leader as soon as there is a vote.
Tim Ryan ain’t it. Moulton definitely ain’t it.
Of the options, she is the best choice.
I’m scared of her leadership on some fundamental things, though.
Pelosi said on election night that she wanted to embrace the “bipartisan marketplace of ideas.” I can’t think of too many phrases that are dumber and scarier than that. Embracing that will literally ensure that millions more die from climate carnage in the next few decades. Hopefully she was just giving some lip service to the idea of bipartisanship that people love to claim they care about but really don’t care about at all.
Pelosi has also promised that Democrats will return to PAYGO, another awful idea. Nothing will solidify the idea of Tax and Spend liberals more than that, and it will also be very bad economics. Republicans long ago stopped asking themselves “how will we pay for it?” and Democrats would be smart to do the same.
No she shouldn’t. She should listen to some of the 123 members who have come around on the very very popular idea of Medicare for All, who don’t have views on things like cannabis that are straight from the 1950s, and who don’t regularly vote to scale back consumer protections that will help us repeat a financial crisis. New House voices like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley represent a much more inspiring governing agenda.
I think those are also fair criticisms and I suspect the addition of AOC and AP to the caucus will be a substantial pressure point to keep Pelosi’s agends progressive.
I will also add that it’s likely Barbara Lee, the lone voice against the open ended War on Terror resolution back in 2001 is now about to be in the room where it happens as Caucus Chair.
I am very excited about Barbara Lee. Has anyone taken a braver vote than hers in our lifetime?
I also like Katherine Clark’s higher profile. She is fantastic. I’d like to see others with a higher profile, like Pramila Jayapal. Let’s have fewer Steny Hoyers.
If Pelosi were smart, she would redirect the anti-Pelosi caucus to elect one of their own as a Hoyer replacement. He will never be speaker, and his brand of DLC centrism is long past its sell by date. Short of clumsily muscling progressive candidates our of competitive primaries, I have no idea what this guy brings to the table in 2018. Clyburn is similarly useless, but the optics of replacing him with a younger candidate would have to be carefully managed. That seems like a good landing spot for Hakeem Jeffries. A Pelosi, Bustos, Jeffries team would be a lot more dynamic and make it clear the order of succession. She would be wise to consider that.
While I’m in favor of a new speaker (at least that’s how I’d vote if was in Congress), I recognize that any Democratic speaker is going to be presented as the devil by the right. The plus side of Pelosi there is that she’s been the whipping girl so long, it’s become a tired line. I don’t think old Pelosi diss tracks are going to play well with people who’ve got real issues they need the government to address. A lot of people are likely to react with – “That’s all you got?”
Whether Pelosi turns out to be a good choice will depend on her ability to get the House to pass an agenda that’s in stark contrast to what Trump and McConnell put forth. They can pass prescription drug coverage reform, affordable childcare, free college, infrastructure upgrades and immigration reform. It will all die in the Senate, but they can put the marker down for 2020. Also, Trump likes signing things. If the Dems can get bills through the House, Trump very well could turn on McConnell for shutting everything down. Mitch is all about the art of the no deal.
I think they need to pass a lot of very simple, very easy to understand bills with good names so that they constantly hammer individual Senators and Trump for killing things most people really want. Make it clear that it is the Democrat agenda they are pushing, not overtures at bipartisanship. If Trump is given an inch to claim something as his own, he will own 1000% of it.
I think the fascinating part of passing a bunch of bills like that through the House is Trump will want to pounce on them and claim them as his own, but McConnell will drown them all. I think there’s a real chance a competent House can cause the Republicans to rupture.
Forgot to mention, pass a bill which secures Social Security and Medicare well into the future, then watch the Senate squirm.
Impressive chorus of support for Pelosi
Interesting she has a lot of support from outside the caucus. I think a bigger issue is that the opposition will be divided between people that want a more left leaning leader like AP and AOC, and those that want a more centrist leader like Moulton, Ryan, and the Conor Lambs of the world who said they would not vote for her.
Is there a challenger that can mollify swing state moderates while simultaneously appealing to hardcore progressives? I do not see it. I think if she had lost this election and demanded to stick around, a challenge would not only be viable but necessary. We will see. It’s an early test of how united this caucus can be compared to the 2006-2010 bunch.
I guess like any public election they can support different candidates in the caucus like we would a primary, but they should all support the Dem nominee during the floor vote as they should in a general.
It certainly seems to be the case that there isn’t any realistic alternative contender.
But strikes me as a quite damning indictment of the Democrats in Congress under this leadership. The leadership structure has been essentially static for nearly 20 years. Pelosi is now 78, and Hoyer is now 79,and there just isn’t any next group of leaders waiting in the wings. When these guys finally go, Democrats have not much in the way of experienced leadership. I am pessimistic.
My expectation is that we will get what we have gotten for the past 20 years: some sideways skating for two years (because you don’t have the Senate or the executive), followed by a yet another new and energized Republican majority in 2020.
Politico lays out a good case for decapitating Hoyer. The Atlantic shows why the House cannot retain younger leaders. Adopting term limits on committee chairs and allowing committees to elect their own chairs, as the GOP currently does, would make a big dent in giving younger members a say.
The seniority system within the Democratic caucus is a holdover from the Tip O’Neil era when members served for five decade careers in the House. The GOP under Gingrich liberalized its committee and leadership structures which has led to more dynamism on their side. Younger leaders like Ryan emerging as Speaker at the age of 45. I agree with CMD that there is a real risk this leadership tries to avoid risk and ends up losing its power. The gerontocracy on Washington is a big driver behind the drain the swamp narrative and the push for inexperienced outsiders to take on the system. Progressives should embrace term limits as a way of ensuring more Ayannas and Alexandrias without divisive primary challenges. It is also a great way of ensuring the legislative leadership of the party is not in the hands of five people over 70, four of them white millionaires.
I do think there should be internal term limits, but we all seem to be forgetting that this is all academic for those of us who are not House members. Did it ever occur to people that the members of the Dem caucus LIKE their leadership, and it is their call rather than ours?
In my view, the GOP House since Gingrich has been a disaster. In the past eight years, the GOP has accomplished zero (fortunately).
A stronger argument than emulating the post-Gingrich GOP is needed to convince me of things like term limits. With all due respect, the “gerontocracy” of the Democratic House has accomplished orders of magnitude more than their GOP counterparts. Which is easy because anything is orders of magnitude larger than zero.
I suggest that it is WAY too early to ensure that we have “more Ayannas and Alexandrias”. Successful leadership requires more than inexperience, youth, and poverty. Let’s please see how the cohort of incoming Representatives perform before choosing favorites to emulate.
Guess who was the outgoing speaker when Nancy Pelosi first entered the House of Representatives in 1987. Yeah, that’s right, Tip O’Neill.
There’s something to be said for patience. I believe that if Barack Obama had more patience, we may have had 8 years of Hillary Clinton and Obama’d be President now… and he’d be a much much better president for it. If you watch his 2016 speech at the convention you’ll note an undertone of regret at the hard-won wisdom he can no longer employ as President. Beto O’Rourke might just be the next President and he’s going to suck at it: there’s more to the Presidency than perfecting the running for it… Not to mention that the Mitch McConnell has been learning how to obstruct things since even before Nancy Pelosi started, that is to say 1985.
Those ‘young leaders’ aren’t really leaders if they don’t have any patience and aren’t willing to learn from those who lead. Walking away from that out of some impatience is walking further and further away from being a real leader….
‘Politics’ is not a real job. Legislator is a real job that requires different skills that can be learned over years and with diligence. Just because you are naturally good at politics doesn’t mean you’re going to be any good at all with legislating… The last time Nancy Pelosi was speaker, even for just the one term, was one of the more productive terms in recent memory: certainly much more productive than all the last 8 years of Republican control.