Who would do a better job than Pelosi

and why? I've been wracking my brain trying to think who would be a better speaker for liberals and those who want the war to end now, not years from now, and I can't come up with anyone. I have some sympathy for Pelosi. If, for example, she kept the upcoming Suppelmental from coming to the floor, her tenure as Speaker would last about another 24 hours. In my opinion, Dennis Kucinich would not only not be an effective Speaker- in the real world his odds of getting elected to the Speakership, are zero to none.

So who do you suggest, operating in real world terms and not fantasy Congress terms?

I'm teaching him to say "No More Funding!!" and "Impeach!" and "Bad Chimpy, no banana!"


So much better than Nancy's "We don't have the votes!" squawking.

She can REALLY howl and bite when necessary

and I suspect that's all this OP will get.

time. Cynthia McKinney might have been another good choice ... but they (georgia republican voters and diebold machines) removed her from congress ... and conyers has been speaking with a lot of hot air lately but no real blasting pressure. so yea, fantasy Congress is just about what is left to us.

He is the one of the few up on the hill who have the courage of his convictions, and would make a great Democratic leader. The trouble is that he shows up the corporately corrupt Dems at every turn, and thus can't be allowed to lead.

and being a leader is not just about having the right values and ideas. It's about leading, and effectively legislating, and much as I admire many of Dennis' ideas, he has not been an effective legislator. And it's not just the corporately corrupt dems who wouldn't support him, it's plenty of progressive dems as well.

And those who are not corporately controlled to the Speakership. A sad commentary on our government, but you're probably right. No wonder we have a Congress that refuses to do anything meaningful to reign in Bushco. The two party/same corporate master system of government in action.

more liberal Congress, there's no way that anyone MORE liberal than Pelosi will be Speaker.

Both are leaders of the progressive caucus. It would show the Democrats' commitment to their base of voters to elect a true progressive to the post.

I like both their voting records, but I don't know much about their legislative successes or their organizing and leadership abilities.

Really, I'm just trying to make a point. I know you realize that not only dems vote for the speaker, and someone like Lee or Woolsey wouldn't be able to get the votes. If either ran for that position, we'd end up with the oddest of things; a dem majority and repuke Speaker.

Just like Pelosi. These things are decided before the "real" vote ever takes place.

But Lee and Woolsey are true leaders. With Maxine Waters, they've been the heads of the Progressive Caucus since Bernie went to the Senate. They have a lot of respect among their colleagues.

I realize he's made some very controversial statements, which probably do have an element of truth, but get too close to the nerves.

In reality though, we're at a political impasse right now and NOBODY, not even the sainted Sheehan or Kucinich would be able to break through it. I wish they would implement Kucinich's plan just to show everybody it's a non-starter though. It SOUNDS good, but not reality based. That's my believe anyway.

the Speaker's job, and it seems no one has bothered to compare Pelosi's performance with past Speakers. Does anyone doing all this complaining remember who was Speaker during Reagan's terms? Nixon's? Just because Shrub is the worst President in history doesn't mean the Speaker can wave a magic wand and make everything all right.

She's got a rogue White House, a divided Democratic Party, and a bunch of Republicans now out of power who hate her to contend with. Under the circumstances, she's doing a fine job.

But, hey, Shrub hasn't been impeached and we're still in Iraq, so we'll just blame it on Pelosi and put more threads slamming her on the Greatest page. We'll show her!

That sums it up nicely, although I don't think her performance has been as strong as you do.

:)

You mean the HouseMajority leader is actually the next in line to the Speaker? Wow.

turn the leadership of the House over to the GOP if you put Rahm in charge. Sorry, no. Dems need Dem leadership, not GOP leadership.

:shrug:

He worked hard to get people elected that he could control and who would support his GOP leaning agenda.

BTW, like the GOP, most of his (and the DLC's) candidates lost in 2006. Their issues didn't reflect the values of voters.

I don't think you'd see the current dissatisfaction among Democrats if he'd been speaker.

I'd be happy to support him for speaker, right now, today, and leave the presidency to one of the other non-Clinton/Obama nominees, if I thought there was a way to make that happen.

Think of all the issues that would be "on the table" with Kucinich as speaker!

Most House dems wouldn't think of voting for him for Speaker. I doubt more than 25 would ever support him.

because he'd put them in the position of having to take strong positions, and action, on issues. Risky.

Once in the position, though, I think he'd be great.

"People have to stand up and say whether or not they support the Constitution any more." Today from Ed Schulz.

If House Democrats don't want to stand up, that's not a reflection on Kucinich, but on themselves.

With him leading, they'd no longer be able to procrastinate, prevaricate, pontificate, patronize, side-step, duck and weave, and circumvent their duties.

:-)