Give, meet take. I think it is an encouraging sign.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of
the ****.

Seriously, this was ****: substance and process, imo.

Bernard +1

AOC responds to Pelosi.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/07...ding-bill/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
AOC responds to Pelosi.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/07...ding-bill/index.html

One thing's for sure, AOC is not going to back down, and rightfully so.

One rich note about the Pelosi interview in the NYTimes yesterday is this bit. Oh, the irony. Do you remember that, Nancy? When you defied your elders and acted on what you knew was right?

quote:

Many in the crowd were still grateful to Pelosi, now 79, that in her first moments on the floor of the House in 1987, as the plague decimating gay men raged, she defied the advice of Democratic elders and sang out that she had come to Washington to fight AIDS.

I read somewhere yesterday that AOC is of an age that means she never knew a gop that acted in good faith, that could compromise. Biden, Schumer, Pelosi are all acting as if that gop still exits.

The recent bill wasn't about whether the GOP was acting in good faith. In fact, it was explicitly otherwise.

McConnell refused to negotiate. Pelosi said that, out loud.

So she took the best bill she could get, because the bill that she could get was better than no bill at all.

This is what AOC and the others don't get ... pragmatism. Sometimes, you take what you can get and move on. You don't delude yourself that you can do better if you just act like a refusenik.

But then, this is the perpetual problem with the Sanders mafia.

"To actually remove him, two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote to convict him — meaning at least 20 Republican votes would be [URL=To actually remove him, two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote to convict him — meaning at least 20 Republican votes would be needed. "

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
The recent bill wasn't about whether the GOP was acting in good faith. In fact, it was explicitly otherwise.

McConnell refused to negotiate. Pelosi said that, out loud.

So she took the best bill she could get, because the bill that she could get was better than no bill at all.

This is what AOC and the others don't get ... pragmatism. Sometimes, you take what you can get and move on. You don't delude yourself that you can do better if you just act like a refusenik.

But then, this is the perpetual problem with the Sanders mafia.

102 Democrats voted against the bill. So much for Pelosi calling out 4 of them.

She called out the leaders of the backbiters.

Bernard, not sure that's a fair comparison. This 538 article is an interesting read about Pelosi's early career and contrasts with today's Dem newbies.

This article touches on the crux of the matter: Pelosi's dismissiveness. She needs to be laying out whatever plan she has (If she has one, I would add), and she's got to stop dismissing the progressives and those calling for impeachment proceedings. She will fracture the party if she doesn't. I'm almost to the point where I don't even care anymore, Trump will win 2020, nothing will ever have been done to hold him accountable, and life will go on leaving an ugly wake of inaction in it's path. Some day people will ask, "Why didn't they do anything."

Pelosi's Bad Strategy

paywall

Sometimes, your plan is more effective if you don't announce it publicly.

I don't know whether this is one of those times. But, either you trust her or you don't. Clearly, the majority of the House Democrats trust her more than anyone else. That makes her the presumptive leader of the decisionmaking process.

We have to dance with the ones we brung.

Thought experiment: if not Pelosi, then who?

I have never been a huge Pelosi fan, but I had to give her credit for how she's handled Trump thus far. Her job is to hold a diverse (in terms of views and approaches) party together. That's a different and more difficult job, in my opinion, than arguing against policies or approaches you don't like. The key thing, in my mind, is to ensure that the party doesn't fracture and result in people not going to the polls because they are mad about impeachment, or single payer, or whatever, thereby ensuring another 4 years of this disaster. This seems so basic to me, but clearly there are millions of people willing to sit it out. (Not accusing anyone here of that, but there are people who will do that and are vulnerable to arguments from key headline grabbers.)