Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 30, 2016

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi defeated Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan ‎to retain her post as the top elected Democrat in the House during a closed-door meeting Wednesday. The final vote was 134 to 63 for Pelosi. "I am proud that my bid for Democratic Leader pushed our members to have these tough family discussions about our future and how we win back the majority in 2018," Ryan said. Pelosi, showing confidence, declined to address the caucus before the vote, letting surrogates talk on her behalf. "My heart is broken that we didn't win the White House this time," she said. "We know how to win elections, we've done in in the past and will do it again."

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"She's a great fund raiser!" "She keeps everyone in line!" "She's got the experience!" Sound familiar? Hmmm?

#2 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-11-30 05:45 PM | Reply

New blood would be great, but I've never heard of Tim Ryan, so it's hard to think Nancy Pelosi needed to be tossed out at this time.

She is a good choice to hold the caucus together as much as possible to oppose Trump.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 06:07 PM | Reply

Lesson not learned.

#4 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-30 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

- She is a good choice to hold the caucus together

Why would anyone want to hold together a losing team?

#6 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-30 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Lesson not learned.

Then tell us who should be the House Minority Leader and why, since this lesson is so obvious.

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 06:18 PM | Reply

I have no problems with Pelosi being house minority leader. I can't stand her whiney voice but meg on her being house minority leaderIt's the Democratic party leaders who need an extreme facelift especially the DNC.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-30 06:27 PM | Reply

#7 They need new leadership and vision; a complete overhaul is the only solution.
If Pelosi represents the future of the party, they'll continue to suffer. Maybe that needs to happen?

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-30 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Then tell us who should be the House Minority Leader and why, since this lesson is so obvious.
#7 | POSTED BY RCADE

Now you understand the Democrats problem.....

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-30 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Democrats and their elitist owners are on the losing side of national politics even if they don't know it yet. They are no longer the average working man's Party. They are now the Party of media elitism, propaganda, academia and political correctness, as measured by the skewed demographic bigotry of those who claim those economic categories.

Nancy Pelosi, the multi millionaire botox bxxxx representing sanctuary cities, more for illegal immigrants, more for dreamers, more for refugees from Somalia, and much less for most Americans. She favors mostly anti-American policies (at least for most working Americans)and those who don't have the pedigree or money of Schumer or a $2M walk-up in urban America, always greases the skids to Harvard, Wall St, and the Fed.

#11 | Posted by Robson at 2016-11-30 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Then tell us who should be the House Minority Leader and why, since this lesson is so obvious.

#7 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 06:18 PM

Tulsi Gabbard-she is young, smart, a vet and former Vice Chair of the DNC...much better choice then the Gerontocracy that is Pelosi (76) Hoyer (77) and Clyburn (76).

That is, of course, if she isn't put on Trump's cabinet as the MSM has been speculating over the past couple of weeks.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-30 06:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

What great news.

This is the best news I have heard since Trump was elected.

#14 | Posted by sawdust at 2016-11-30 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Wow democrats still dont understand America. America really hates this woman.

#15 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-11-30 07:06 PM | Reply

Wow the Dems continue to reward failure. After getting their butts kicked the last few election cycles they refuse to look at themselves and realize Americans don't want what they offer. I am afraid Pelosi will be in there till she is 90 and the Dems will continue to be the minority party.

#16 | Posted by byrdman at 2016-11-30 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I truly think she represents the Democratic
Party in every way, shape and form.

#17 | Posted by hobart at 2016-11-30 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They need new leadership and vision ...

So name these new leaders. You're in favor of replaceing Pelosi with nobody.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 07:46 PM | Reply

Disappointing and stupid. Nancy Pelosi did a good job in the past, but it is time for a change, for new blood, for leadership that represents working class people in OH instead of a SF liberal.

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 07:47 PM | Reply

So name these new leaders.

See 13.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-30 07:55 PM | Reply

Tulsi Gabbard-she is young, smart, a vet and former Vice Chair of the DNC...

Those are great qualities, but she's missing the most important one: Desire to run for the job.

#21 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 07:56 PM | Reply

You're in favor of replaceing Pelosi with nobody.

Do the math. 0 > any negative.

And yes, for the record I am in favor of keeping Pelosi right where she is. The Democrats have learned NOTHING in the last 3 election cycles. May as well as make it a perfect quadfecta and keep the majority and minority leader that oversaw the Democratic loss of the HoR, Senate, and WH. It makes perfect sense (if you are a Democrat).

#22 | Posted by goatman at 2016-11-30 07:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've seen Tim Ryan in interviews, and he comes across as being down to earth. He's smart, but he talks like a normal person more than a politician. He reminds me of his fellow Ohioan Sherrod Brown in that regard. I don't know if he has working class roots, but he talks like someone who talks to and understands them.

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 07:57 PM | Reply

It makes perfect sense (if you are a Democrat).

Like you're capable of speaking for Democrats.

#24 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 08:00 PM | Reply

"I am proud that my bid for Democratic Leader pushed our members to have these tough family discussions about our future and how we win back the majority in 2018," Ryan said. Pelosi, showing confidence, declined to address the caucus before the vote, letting surrogates talk on her behalf. "My heart is broken that we didn't win the White House this time," she said. "We know how to win elections, we've done in in the past and will do it again."

Pelosi didn't even bother to address the caucus. Wow. I called my Congressman last week and asked him to vote for Ryan. I hope he did, but since it was a secret ballot, I'll never know.

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 08:04 PM | Reply

Democrats and their elitist owners are on the losing side of national politics even if they don't know it yet. They are no longer the average working man's Party.

And they could not have made this (that they no longer support the poor and downtrodden) any more plain than with their constant cries of "Only a backwoods, uneducated imbecile would vote for Trump". Smooth move, guys.

Oh well. 'Tis humorous if nothing else, in a Keystone Cops kind of way.

#26 | Posted by goatman at 2016-11-30 08:04 PM | Reply

Like you're capable of speaking for Democrats.

#24 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 08:00 PM

Obviously I'm not. I said they needed to change their tune after they lost the HoR. I said it after they lost the Senate. I said it after they lost the WH. And now I'm saying it again when they had the chance to dump Pelosi.

You are absolutely correct, Rcade in your own sarcastic way of saying so. I am 100% incapable of speaking for Democrats it would seem. Good observation.

#27 | Posted by goatman at 2016-11-30 08:07 PM | Reply

"Democrats and their elitist owners are on the losing side of national politics even if they don't know it yet. They are no longer the average working man's Party."

I wouldn't throw a GOP (and their elitist owners) working man's party just yet. Or rather, yeah, go ahead. LOL

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 08:08 PM | Reply

I wouldn't throw a GOP (and their elitist owners) working man's party just yet. Or rather, yeah, go ahead. LOL

#28 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

He wasn't throwing a GOP working man's party, Gal. He simply said that the Dems are no longer the party of the working man. (and Robson is right about that) Nowhere did he suggest the GOP could step up to that plate. My take on that post is that the Dems threw the working man under the bus in favor of their corporate masters.

#29 | Posted by goatman at 2016-11-30 08:17 PM | Reply

#7 They need new leadership and vision; a complete overhaul is the only solution.
If Pelosi represents the future of the party, they'll continue to suffer. Maybe that needs to happen?

#9 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2016-11-30 06:32 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2



What would have happened if just 1 out of every 100 voters shifted from Trump to Clinton? That would have produced a net shift of 2 percentage points in Clinton's direction. And instead of the map you see above, we'd have wound up with this result in the Electoral College instead:

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida flip back to Clinton, giving her a total of 307 electoral votes. And she'd have won the popular vote by 3 to 4 percentage points, right where the final national polls had the race and in line with Obama's margin of victory in 2012. If this had happened, the interpretation of the outcome would have been very different

#30 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-30 08:31 PM | Reply

"He simply said that the Dems are no longer the party of the working man. (and Robson is right about that) Nowhere did he suggest the GOP could step up to that plate. My take on that post is that the Dems threw the working man under the bus in favor of their corporate masters."

Trump is filling his cabinet with said corporate masters. In 4 to 8 years, let's see how much the working man's plight has been improved and how much income inequality has been reduced.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 08:34 PM | Reply

What would have happened if...

Who cares? It didn't happen.

Here is an "if" Democratics should care about, though: If you don't get your ---- together, you aren't going to gain anything in the midterms coming up in two years.

Or keep "iffing" about the past. Hope that works out for y'all.

#32 | Posted by goatman at 2016-11-30 08:40 PM | Reply

I truly think she represents the Democratic
Party in every way, shape and form.
#17 | POSTED BY HOBART

Yep... an upper-class senior citizen white woman living in a gated community in a majority-liberal state.

#33 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 09:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#32 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

It seems as if the Dems want to quadruple-down on everything. It has worked so well over the past 6 years...why change?

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-30 09:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It seems as if the Dems want to quadruple-down on everything. It has worked so well over the past 6 years...why change?"

Maybe they're still in shock and not thinking clearly.

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 09:09 PM | Reply

No on here seems to understand that both the leaders of the House and Senate aren't normally elected because of their public political profile or their ability to excite the base. They are selected because they have the intelligence and experience to control largely ignorant modern political representatives through the arcane maze of Congressional rules and parliamentary procedures we call Congress and legislation.

Look at who the past leaders have been and you don't find many Presidents or pretty boys within their ranks. Yes, some run for President, but they never seem to win the White House. Top Congressional leadership isn't usually a stepping stone, it's the pinnacle for our most effective leaders and by that I mean the people who efficiently and purposely lead their party's and the nation's agenda and actually get things done when they have the power to. As perverse as I found the agenda, it took a great deal of acumen and political maneuvering for Mitch McConnell to actually pull off all of the obstruction the GOP was able to for the last 8 years without any appreciable political blowback. In fact, his party was rewarded instead of punished.

There is a reason seniority is one of the most valued qualities in top Congressional leadership. It takes years to understand how to make Congress work and to understand how best to repeatedly marshal your forces towards your goals when the other side often mounts an opposing force against you.

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 09:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look at who the past leaders have been and you don't find many Presidents or pretty boys within their ranks. Yes, some run for President, but they never seem to win the White House. Top Congressional leadership isn't usually a stepping stone, it's the pinnacle for our most effective leaders and by that I mean the people who efficiently and purposely lead their party's and the nation's agenda...

Well said and a good perspective on why the DNC went with the tried and true party leader rather than a change.

As for House/Senate leaders becoming leaders in the WH, seems like LBJ is the most recent success story.

Henry Clay would probably get a participation trophy nowadays for most repeated attempts at going from legislative leader to the WH.

#37 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 09:25 PM | Reply

#36 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

By all means, keep Pelosi.

I hope your party nominates Keith Ellison to replace DWS as well.

It's awesome! Totally awesome!!!

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-30 09:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Well said and a good perspective on why the DNC went with the tried and true party leader rather than a change.

As for House/Senate leaders becoming leaders in the WH, seems like LBJ is the most recent success story.

Don't forget, every single piece of legislation or procedure that went through the House got through because of Nancy Pelosi's help or blessing. Few Congresses were as productive as her's from 09-10. I know the right loathes much that was done, but she held together a disparate herd of snarling, bickering cats to get things done.

Contrast that to today where Paul Ryan has trouble getting enough Republicans together on legislation that he often depends on Democrats to pass needed bills.

Congressional leaders matter for the agenda and demonstrated efficacy, not just for the partisan politics and red-meat polemics.

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 09:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#38 Yep. I like Ellison but think he is the wrong choice at this time. Bernie supports him though, and it would send a message of minority inclusiveness, which isn't a bad thing, but the white working class feels like the Democratic party has sold them out in favor of identity politics and picking a Muslim member of Congress to head the DNC isn't going to reassure them this isn't the case.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39 The problem with Pelosi, Tony, is that there isn't any real enthusiasm for her leadership or coming from her leadership. This wasn't always the case, but it is now after years of her holding a leadership position.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 09:42 PM | Reply

The fact that Pelosi didn't even bother to give a speech but let others speak on her behalf tells me she doesn't have much enthusiasm for the position and is taking it for granted:

"My heart is broken that we didn't win the White House this time," she said. "We know how to win elections, we've done in in the past and will do it again."

Yeah, that's reassuring.

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 09:49 PM | Reply

#41

Understand, but with Trump and his crew coming on board and Ryan chomping at the bit to erase 70 years of social progress, we need our best and right now, she's (and her leadership team - This cannot be mentioned enough - It's not just her) it. That doesn't mean new talent isn't being groomed, but no one is ready. That's why she won. For all the bombast of the right, Democrats are largely pragmatists trying to do the people's business as best they can, not stand athwart any progress that they disagree with solely for political calculus, as often do Republicans.

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 09:54 PM | Reply

I hope your party nominates Keith Ellison to replace DWS as well.

It's awesome! Totally awesome!!!

#38 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

This is exactly what GOPers were saying after the 2006 elections about a young senator named Barack Hussein Obama when the possibility of him running for President against the juggernaut named Hillary Clinton was first floated, along with uncontrolled laughter. (see Mike Murphy)

People looked past his ability to bring folks of different backgrounds together as a matter of his personal strengths as is Ellison's. Even in the age of Trump, go ahead and use that same narrow-minded logic again and see where it gets you.

#44 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-12-01 06:51 AM | Reply

"It seems as if the Dems want to quadruple-down on everything. It has worked so well over the past 6 years...why change?"
Maybe they're still in shock and not thinking clearly.

#35 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2016-11-30 09:09 PM | FLAG:

It's much more simple than that. Moderate Democrats lost. They are gone. The ones left are all like Pelosi, statists that self-describe as liberal. It's an easy win if the voices of moderation don't exist.

#45 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-01 08:03 AM | Reply

Pelosi is back, I love it, politic as usual, the Dem Party civil war is under way with this move....

#46 | Posted by scooter28054 at 2016-12-01 08:20 AM | Reply

The fact that Pelosi didn't even bother to give a speech but let others speak on her behalf tells me she doesn't have much enthusiasm for the position and is taking it for granted ...

I don't think that's what it meant. It was a power move to show she wasn't seriously under threat.

These things are generally decided before the first vote is cast. Both sides were whipping the vote and knew where they stood.

Pelosi was doing a "you come at the queen you best not miss."

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2016-12-01 09:14 AM | Reply

Happy here that she has retained her position of power [reason why I just posted on the Nooner]. Pelosi, just keep on with what you do best! ;)

#48 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-12-01 12:37 PM | Reply

"I don't think that's what it meant. It was a power move to show she wasn't seriously under threat."

With one third of the caucus voting against her, hopefully she got the message that she needs to step up her game.

#49 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-12-01 02:33 PM | Reply

People looked past his ability to bring folks of different backgrounds together as a matter of his personal strengths as is Ellison's."

What are Ellison's personal strengths that make him more qualified than anyone else in the Democratic party to run the DNC?

#50 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-12-01 02:36 PM | Reply

Pelosi was doing a "you come at the queen you best not miss."

BTW, to me that's part of the problem: she thinks she's the queen.

#51 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-12-01 02:37 PM | Reply

"What are Ellison's personal strengths that make him more qualified than anyone else in the Democratic party to run the DNC?"

Close friend with Farrakhan? Relationships with CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood? Every bit as far left as Obama and Clinton? Perfect match with Pelosi? Hell, I can think of a dozen reasons Democrats should appoin him.

#52 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-12-01 02:46 PM | Reply

Pelosi might be knowledgeable, but she's a pretty dull choice.

Trump won the presidency for two reasons: his outsider status and the force of his personality.

The voters obviously were not dissuaded by the fact that he is a rich, old white guy who has lived a life of entitlement, possessed of a neanderthal view of women, a distaste for diversity, a hair-trigger temper, a bully's obsession with vengeance, a soft spot for tyrants, and the kind of paper-thin depth of knowledge of world affairs that one would expect from a reality-show celebrity.

Instead, they liked his willingness to speak his mind and say what he (and they) were thinking, hateful or not. They liked that he was rich enough to supposedly not be beholden to monied interests. They liked that he had no experience in Washington, or any other political arena, for that matter.

For many voters, Trump was a rejection of same ol' same ol'. Unemployed/underemployed factory workers, coal miners, call-center workers and many others saw both Democrats and old-line Republicans as being weighed down with interest groups that seem to always get special treatment while their standard of living has stayed flat or declined. They were willing to try just about anyone other than Hillary Clinton, who sounded like same ol' same ol' once again. So while some of Trump's supporters are the lunatic fringe, most are just regular people who are tired of feeling neglected.

#53 | Posted by cbob at 2016-12-01 03:43 PM | Reply

[Part 2]
In my heart of hearts, I believe those regular people are deluded. Trump is no more interested in average Americans than the man in the moon. And he's not as fresh as advertised. In a Trump administration, I see an M.O. that promises more of the tired trickle-down mindset that the GOP has promoted for decades.

What gets too little attention is the fact that manufacturing jobs have vanished in large part because of automation and other efficiencies, along with competition from lower labor costs in Mexico, China and other developing (or exploitive) nations. Automation is only going to intensify, and Trump can't erase that. And the most effective way to compete against lower-wage countries for industrial jobs is to accelerate the drive – already well underway – to lower wages here. Blue-collar America is not going to be excited about making $15 an hour when they used to make $27 an hour. And eliminating the ACA, flawed though it is, is not going to help the working class move forward, either.

Trump scored a lot of points by making broad pledges to somehow fix very difficult problems, in the process blaming most of our nation's ills on minorities, immigrants, Muslims and other soft targets. It's an easy sell when your constituency feels underpaid and unloved, and Trump is a master of the soundbite. But platitudes and insults only take you so far. He risks a big backlash when the buyer's remorse kicks in big-time.

But who knows how long that will be.

In the meantime, the Democrats need some new blood. Pelosi is the safe pick for minority leader, and yes, her experience is valuable in that role. But it sure is hard to get excited about her. The DNC had better start looking for fresh leadership, and work hard to reframe the message, because what they have now is lacking.

Obama actually benefitted from being new blood himself. He has a forceful personality and – ironically – was frequently derided for having little political experience. Of course, his personality is quite different from Trump's. Obama proved you can win by staying positive and without being a bombastic authoritarian.

I also think he kept the economy from going off the cliff. Still, it hasn't rebounded to the degree that it once was – say, before the tech and real-estate bubbles popped. Maybe it never will. Bubbles aren't a good thing, after all. I guess nobody wins elections by standing up and saying, "Working-class America, you are toast. The world economy has changed, and those high-paying manual jobs were a one-time blip in our history. You'd better upgrade your education and skills or else scale back your dreams and learn how to start farming." Sounds like "eat your broccoli." So the message is going to be a challenge. While I sure as hell don't want the Dems to pander to fear and anger the way team Trump has done, they have to show they are the party of the big tent, working to get things done.

#54 | Posted by cbob at 2016-12-01 03:43 PM | Reply

I'd like to see Tim Walz of Minnesota. From reading his bio and reading local writings about him, I could support him.

The only thing worse the Pelosi would be Hastings. How a convicted and removed judge should be sitting in the House is crazy.

#55 | Posted by Petrous at 2016-12-02 01:22 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort