So who supports who for the Minority leader?
What is the feeling on Harold Ford Jr?

Looks like this might be a moot point (sorry for long paste -- don't have a link)

ROLL CALL DAILY

Following is the full text of Frost's letter to his colleagues announcing his decision:
8 November 2002

Dear Democratic Colleague: Nancy Pelosi and I have waged a quick and close race for Democratic Leader - one that has been hard fought on both sides. Over the past several days, I have talked extensively with virtually every Member of this Caucus. And I am gratified to have broad and deep support that reaches across ideological, regional and racial lines.

However, it is clear to me that Nancy Pelosi has the votes of a majority of the Caucus. In light of this fact, today I am releasing all of my commitments. I am deeply appreciative of all those who have supported me in this race, particularly those of you who have campaigned so strongly on my behalf.

Nancy Pelosi is a talented and capable party leader. I intend to support her for Democratic Leader in next week's election, and I will work with her to do everything I can to return Democrats to control of the House of Representatives. In doing so, I will continue to be an outspoken advocate for the mainstream, centrist views that will lead us to the Majority.

That is the goal that has driven me to work so hard and successfully to keep a Democratic Majority within reach. It is why I accepted the challenge of rebuilding the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee eight years ago after we lost the House. It is why I took on the task of ensuring a fair redistricting for Congressional Democrats after the 2000 Census. And it is why I entered this race for Democratic Leader.

As Democrats move forward to challenge the Republican leadership, it is critical that we bear in mind the unalterable political facts of life in the House of Representatives. No matter how eloquent our rhetoric or how sound our positions, we must have a realistic strategy to win a Majority. That is the only way Democrats will ever have the capacity to implement our ideas for helping the American people.

Given the extremist nature of the House Republican leadership, and their consistent refusal to compromise, we have no other choice. The Democratic principles that bind us together will never become a reality until we control the House of Representatives.

To do that, we must ensure that the public sees our party as the mainstream, aggressive advocate for the American people that it is. That requires maintaining centrist positions consistent with the majority view of the nation - and of the competitive battleground districts that determine the House Majority. Otherwise, we will continue to fall just short of control of the House.

I look forward to working with each of you to carry on the fight for a Democratic Majority. Together, we will go head-to-head with the Republican leadership, and build a Democratic House of Representatives.

Yours truly,
Martin Frost

Hmm...I had not seen the story when I asked my question.

I suspect you will probably see a few conservative House Democrats leave the party over this decision. And maybe Zell Miller? Or he might just resign and let Sonny Perdue name a replacement. We'll see . . .

Looks like it's a done deal. Nancy Pelosi will be elected as House minority leader. I think she's absolutely correct in her opinion that the Democrats must differentiate themselves from the Republicans with a consistent, concise positions in opposition to the hard-right agenda that will be imposed on us. It looks like the House Democrats will finally show some backbone, which is a good start.

That said, it is absolutely imperative for the Democrats to tread carefully & deliberately (but not passively) at this critical time. If the Democrats tack rightward, or if they had elected Martin Frost as minority leader, the progressives would abandon the party in droves (& I wouldn't fault them for doing so). On the other hand, I know that Republicans here in the South are already licking their chops at the prospect of a San Francisco liberal leading the House Democrats. There will be a collective gnashing of teeth among those remaining (white) southern Democrats, though they'll put up a united front for now. It's not out of the question that several of them might switch parties as a matter of political survival, which would basically finish off the Democratic Party in the South, except in the black-majority districts. The problem is that the liberals need the Democrats if they are to have any influence at all in politics, & the Democrats need at least some of the South if they are to ever win the White House or regain majority status in Congress, so they absolutely can't afford to alienate Frost & his backers. The hard reality is that blacks plus liberal whites do not amount to a majority in any southern state. Though I am happy to see the job go to Pelosi, I think the Democrats in the House should at least take a serious look at Harold Ford. I don't know much about him, except that he is relatively young (32), black, southern (Tennessee), liberal enough to have credibility with the Democratic rank-&-file, articulate & handsome. He might be able to reconnect the party with its African-American base, who stayed home en masse Tuesday.

The nightmare scenario for the American left would be the situation that has befallen the Canadian right: when Jean Chrétien came to power, it was such a thorough win that it basically wiped out the center-right Progressive Conservatives in the Commons. In their place rose the hard-right Reform Party/Canadian Alliance. Problem is that it basically has no hope of winning power and has no real base outside of Alberta & inland British Columbia. During the last election its base was energized but it crashed & burned at the polls. But it has succeeded in splitting the conservative vote, alienating moderate voters & thus assuring the Liberal Party of a permanent lock on power. This is what will happen to the American left if there is a mass defection to the Greens.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

Very good points. I think Harold Ford could be a bridge between the factions in the Democratic party. We really need some new blood.

He sounds good to me also.

One other thing . . . a change of leadership, however welcome, is only the beginning of what needs to be done. In addition to reconnecting with its base, the Democratic Party must formulate new tactics and strategies. It must stand up to W. & be willing to criticize him publicly, even if it means defeat in the short term. After all, the Democrats embraced him after 9/11 & he responded by backhanding them across the jaw. The results of the elections are a direct result of the Republicans' take-no-prisoners, scorched-earth politicking. I remain confident that the American people do not want more tax cuts for the rich, reactionary judges, endless war, environmental degradation, abrogation of international treaties, etc. The Republicans will undoubtedly try to implement a hard-right agenda; & the Democrats need to criticize it & obstruct it as much as they can, loudly & consistently.
Also, & I can't emphasize this enough, the Democrats MUST come to grips with, & develop a strategy for countering, the power of the right-wing press. I'm not sure that the Minnesota Democrat Farm-Labor Party has yet figured out what hit them.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

Billy, again great points. say what you will but the current admin really knows how to work the scene. Rove is a mastermind.
The other thing it is going to take is alot of grass roots work. There is no way else to overcome the way media is giving Bush a free pass.

Harold Ford, Jr. is young, sharp and handsome. But there is NO WAY the Democratic Party is going to let a 32-year-old Black man, wherever he's from, whatever his pedigree, be its House leader. Yet.

I think the Southern Democrats--at least those who aren't ultraconservative--will try to work with Pelosi, because they are in the most trouble right now, and no matter how much hay the conservative pundits make of her "liberalness" and being from California, if she comes up with a viable plan and is a unifier, it will benefit representatives overall. Also, running photos of Pelosi down South will hardly have the effect that shots of the Clintons would. Also don't forget that the Party suffered major defections and so forth in 1994, and it by this election was in striking distance of the Republicans.

The Democratic Party, even if it loses a few more elections, will benefit in the long run by having definable positions. Remember that the Republicans had their freeze-out period during the early 1960s. They even went so far as to nominate Goldwater--and by 1980, his wing of the party had become the dominant element. Rockefeller Republicans are exceedingly rare, especially at the national level. These things are cyclical.

As for national Democratic leaders, I say Ed Rendell for President, Bill Richardson for V.P.!!!

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Agreed, so what about Mr. Dean

Pelosi is my representative, so I'm certainly biased (but name someone without bias when talking politics). I think she's going to be a great leader for the party, because she has the politics to help the Democrats be Democrats again, not a sad attempt to be Republicans.

She also is politically savvy enough to know how to cut a deal. I think she'll do great. If only the corporate media was willing to move away from sensationalism to real reporting. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna happen...

One point I'll make about Nancy Pelosi and then I won't discuss it again for fear of giving out too much information about the vast right-wing conspiracy of which I am a member.

I'm a conservative/libertarian Republican. I have lots of Republican friends. All of them are absolutely ecstatic at the prospect of the San Francisco Democrat, uber-liberal NANCY PELOSI, as House Minority Leader and her new role spokesperson of the Democratic party.

You know the final scene in "It's a Wonderful Life," where they keep piling on the feel-good climaxes, one on top of the other? That's how this election felt. Republicans hold the House. Then they win the Senate. Then they hold their majority of governorships, avoiding big losses there. Then the UN vote on Saddam goes George W. Bush's way, 15-0. And ... Nancy Pelosi is elected the Democratic leader in the House. It's too much! Eyes soaking wet from too much good news.

You wanna know how to make Republicans even happier? The talk now among Democratic insiders is that their frontrunner for 2004 is ... a Massachusetts liberal! John Kerry! He's going to win the fundraising primary ... and that usually means winning the nomination for both parties. And don't tell me that it does matter that he's a Massachusetts liberal because he's a "war hero." Go tell that to Max Cleland.

As for Harold Ford, Jr., you haven't heard the last of him. He's got much bigger things in his future than a safe Memphis-based Congressional District. He's doing a great job of positioning himself for state-wide office in Tennessee. I think his futile run to the right of Nancy Pelosi (where he didn't even have the support of the Congressional Black Caucus) was simply about positioning himself for higher office, beyond Memphis. Establishing his bonafides as a centrist Dem. It certainly will be of no benefit to his House career.

Pelosi was on "Meet the Press" Sunday and good heavens she was awful. Her answers were rambling and somewhat incoherent. At one point she compared herself to a Thanksgiving turkey, an animal most political leaders should be savvy enough not to align themselves with. Also, some plastic surgeon somewhere has obviously made a fortune off of her. She has this Joker-from-Batman-type smile and a permanent look of shock in her eyes, like she just watched a Todd Solondz film. I say put her on TV as much as possible.

I hope Nancy Pelosi has a tough hide because she is about the get fed through the meatgrinder in the right-wing press. I am confident that she does, though. In the long run I think she is just what the Democratic Party needs, even if it results in losses in the short term. Her political savvy, organizing skills & experience should enable them to be a much more effective opposition, though there is relatively little that a minority party can do in the House as compared to the Senate.

Oops . . . double post.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

billy: agree with you. I think Pelosi is just what the Demos need. I think she will go along way in energizing the women Demos in America once again.

I think Pelosi will do just fine. She is very aware that gop/bush have the tired old "San Francisco liberal" mantra all ready to go.

What I think will actually be more interesting is how Tom DeLay does. I hope he lets it rip and shows his true personality, I have a feeling thought that the gop has their muzzle ready for him.

[quote] Go tell that to Max Cleland.

---

If anything, this should serve as notice to Democrats that they need to stand up and fight. After all, what happened in Georgia demonstrates beyond any doubt the willingness of the Bush administration to use war to gain political advantage, and to attack anyone who opposes ANY aspect of his proposals as unpatriotic. If Saxby Chambliss, who ducked service in Vietnam, can attack Max Cleland like this & see it pay off, then I have to conclude that patriotism in this day has nothing to do with self-sacrifice & is all about falling in line behind the Shrub without question. I think the Samuel Johnson line about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel is appropriate here.

For What It's Worth:

Max Cleland and the Birth of a Political Urban Legend

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
If Saxby Chambliss, who ducked service in Vietnam, can attack Max Cleland like this & see it pay off, then I have to conclude that patriotism in this day has nothing to do with self-sacrifice & is all about falling in line behind the Shrub without question.

---

Seems to me, not knowing much detail about Georgia or this race, that Max Cleland perhaps did not respond very well to these attacks. I think a reply could've gone something like this, whether in a debate or a campaign ad: Cleland saying, with an indignant tone, "Mr. Chambliss, LOOK AT ME. I'm missing both legs and an arm. You DARE to challenge my patriotism? HOW DARE YOU?" And if in an ad, run it a lot over and over to let the message sink in.

Am I looking at this too simplistically? Seems to me that such a response would've helped a lot.

Cleland won in 1996 against a weak Republican candidate. The state has grown progressively more conservative (huh-huh) since then.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
For What It's Worth:

Max Cleland and the Birth of a Political Urban Legend

---

Chambliss *was* demogoguing on this issue; the Wall Street Journal doesn't deny that, it simply spins the discussion according to W.'s line. A Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, first proposed this bloated agency with its creepily redolent (homeland, yecch) name. W. was against it. Yet he finally came along and then seized the idea as if it were his own. However Cleland and other Democrats had already developed a plan to consolidate the agencies that would constitute the department; they also wanted to protect the civil service workers. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, agreed with a compromise worked out by moderate senators, including Breaux and Landrieu, which was again put forward just last week.

Chambliss, who skipped out on the war with his "sore knee," did misportray Cleland's votes and even compared him visually to Osama bin Laden. This was vicious, cowardly and utterly inappropriate. No, Cleland did not lap up after W. like Miller did and does. He DID however support the original Homeland Security proposal as well as the one that was prepared in committee. His main problem was that he was too honorable, to the point of being weak, in responding to Chambliss.

The media continue to discuss the entire process as if it were as simplistic as W. has presented it, which is reprehensible, but given the right-wing tilt of most stations and pundits, etc., and the namby-pamby response of the supposedly left representatives, like Stephanopoulos, what can we expect? So now Chambliss replaces a real hero. America, America....

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Pelosi was on "Meet the Press" Sunday and good heavens she was awful. Her answers were rambling and somewhat incoherent. At one point she compared herself to a Thanksgiving turkey, an animal most political leaders should be savvy enough not to align themselves with. Also, some plastic surgeon somewhere has obviously made a fortune off of her. She has this Joker-from-Batman-type smile and a permanent look of shock in her eyes, like she just watched a Todd Solondz film. I say put her on TV as much as possible.

---

Speaking of frights, what about the pressed hair bouffant and deranged rictus of Tom DeLay? The media have been strangely muted about this freakazoid taking over control in the House--well, perhaps because he was IN control for some time. Armey just ambled and rambled, and Hastert I think spends most of his time either agreeing to whatever DeLay or W. put forward, or diving into a doughnut box.

DeLay actually looks even scarier than he did before--like the fumigator who somehow won the lottery but has become possessed by the evil spirits of a deceased rival! Please, William, tell the Republican men that they don't have to outdo the women (like Liddy Dole and Kay Bailey Hutchinson) in the plasticene coiffure department. Even Poppy Bush allows his hair to breathe....

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Actually the media did comment on Tom DeLay saying he had his teeth capped and started to blow dry his hair to "present a fresh image" in his new position. Whatever. I say if he wants to do that fine. If Pelosi wants to have a facelift fine. Bob Dole had one too. Who cares?

I just hope people will look at what they actually say and do instead of being so knee jerk to brand Pelosi a California liberal just because it's what everyone is saying. Lemmings everywhere you look. On both sides for that matter. But good grief let her do something first before you start pulling her hair and squealing about her.

I think the Democrats gave some of the most demagogic Republicans a chance to at least show themselves first, ala Newt Gingrich. Pelosi may be a screaming liar, but if she at least has some principles and isn't just a big liar, she's gonna score one up from most of them. Bring it on Nancy.

Woops, I meant Pelosi may be a screaming liberal, not a screaming liar. I'm just hoping she doesn't turn out to be a screaming liar. Those positions are already filled.

Regardless of who did what to who in Georgia, the bottom line is Republicans won and that's all that matters. HA-ha.

[quote]Originally posted by mattkorey:
Actually the media did comment on Tom DeLay saying he had his teeth capped and started to blow dry his hair to "present a fresh image" in his new position. Whatever. I say if he wants to do that fine. If Pelosi wants to have a facelift fine. Bob Dole had one too. Who cares?

---

When I said the media had been "strangely silent," I wasn't talking about DeLay's appearance, but about his extremist politics. Obviously concentrating on peoples' appearances is shallow, and hardly gets at their politics.

DeLay is FAR to the right of Dennis Hastert, the Republican Speaker, and while he may represent the mainstream of the Republican House, he also is to the right of the country, or at least large portions of it. So far I have seen quite a few breathless reports on TV about the "liberal" Pelosi, but little on DeLay, which may simply be because the media assume that he's a known quantity. But how well do many Americans know what this guy is for?

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
...Republicans won and that's all that matters. HA-ha.

---

Nothing like winning a "sweeping" 21% of the nation's adult population to bring out the Eddie Haskell in you guys?

Final thoughts on Pelosi: She says she'll "support the president " in the event of war (good Christ)... She does have the scary Mary Tyler Moore face, and who cares... She got the position in no small part because she has a record of raising shitloads of money... In 2004, most people voting for president still won't know who she is.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Chambliss, who skipped out on the war with his "sore knee," did misportray Cleland's votes and even compared him visually to Osama bin Laden. This was vicious, cowardly and utterly inappropriate. No, Cleland did not lap up after W. like Miller did and does. He DID however support the original Homeland Security proposal as well as the one that was prepared in committee. His main problem was that he was too honorable, to the point of being weak, in responding to Chambliss.

---

Then he's an utter fool who deserved to lose just on that basis.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:


Nothing like winning a "sweeping" 21% of the nation's adult population to bring out the Eddie Haskell in you guys?

---

I was talking about the Georgia race specifically. I think Saxby won a bit more than 21% of the vote.

I wasn' t talking about "the vote." And I wasn't talking about the Georgia race specifically.

Most adults know, on some level, the two parties are frauds and have no enthusiasm for either.

\"Pelosi won’t be good for the Democrats. She’s part of the... same leadership [that] disdained any effort to organize around issues.\" (Alexander Cockburn)

Is there ANYONE one the left side of the Democratic Party that Alexander Cockburn doesn't slam? I remember a few months ago a column he wrote attacking Paul Wellstone & extolling the candidate that the Green Party was running against him. As far as concerns his view of the American left, I would definitely place him in the "destroy it in order to save it" school of thinking. To me he represents the worst self-defeating tendencies of the left.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
I wasn' t talking about "the vote." And I wasn't talking about the Georgia race specifically.

---

Well, I was. What are you talking about. I'm serious, what is this 21%? Is that taking the percentage of people who actually voted, and then taking the percentage of that percentage who voted Republican, and then figuring that as a percentage of the nation? (I just confused myself.)

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Well, I was. What are you talking about. I'm serious, what is this 21%? Is that taking the percentage of people who actually voted, and then taking the percentage of that percentage who voted Republican, and then figuring that as a percentage of the nation? (I just confused myself.)

---

Yes, I think that's what Bill W meant. More simply put, it's the percentage of votes for Republicans over the voting population total. If that figure is correct, then the Democrats probably got around 20%. So the coalition of Independent, Too Lazy, Too Busy, Disgusted, and Don't Give a Sh*t parties were the majority of the voting population this election.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

The new centrist Pelosi pod person (Arianna H, Salon)