Democratic Rep Seth Moulton Faces Criticism For Pelosi Opposition

Cristiano

I AM BABY GROOT
Admin
Sep 19, 2018
1,046
SL Rez
2002
Joined SLU
Nov 2003
SLU Posts
35836
#1
He is being accused of being sexist and ageist because he thinks someone else should be speaker:

Rep. Seth Moulton faces town-hall pushback for opposing Pelosi

Given some of the major missteps by Democrats (including rolling over and playing dead way too often), I don't think new leadership is a terrible idea. I like Nancy Pelosi (far more than Chuck Schumer, who is useless), but I think it may be time to let someone else take the reins.
 
  • Agree Agree 2
  • Useful Useful 1
  • Thanks Thanks 1
  • Disagree Disagree 1
  • Show all
Oct 29, 2018
49
#2
I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi on everything, and most notably, recently, for not ferociously backing up Maxine Waters.

Regardless, I don't think there's anything worse Democrats can do now than question themselves at all instead of running with her political strength and ability. She will be retiring soon enough and I don't believe anyone is more qualified. I expect others to be learning and getting ready.

Most of what House leadership uses to guide their positions is what they see possible from their own members in the party. I am optimistically confident that a fired up Democratic caucus in the House will drive the Speaker as much as the other way around.

She's also seen as more progressive than those challenging her, and the anti-Pelosi sentiment seems to me too much like cowering to the ridicule from the right.

I also love Wonkette.
HOT TAKE: Seth Moulton And His White Friends Should STFU And Hand Nancy Pelosi Her Gavel
 
  • Thanks Thanks 2
  • Useful Useful 1
  • Like Like 1
  • Agree Agree 1
  • Show all

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 19, 2018
513
Gulf Coast, USA
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791
#3
Ocasio-Cortez backs Pelosi

Ocasio-Cortez said the letter passed around by anti-Pelosi Democrats doesn't do anything other than call for change for the sake of calling for change.

"When I was reading this letter that was kind of released today, my main concern was that there is no vision, there is no common value, there is no goal that is really articulated in this letter aside from we need to change," she said Monday night.

Ocasio-Cortez warned without Pelosi in charge then Democratic leadership could "get more conservative."

"I mean if anything, I think that what it does that it creates a window where we could potentially get more conservative leadership and when you actually look at the signatories, it is not necessarily reflective of the diversity of the party," the Congresswoman-elect said.

"There’s very few ideological diversity, it’s not like there are progressives that are signing on," she said. "It’s not like you have a broad based coalition. I’m not totally bought into the concept."
I think it's important to notice that while the letter invokes "the results of the election" (implying, I guess, progressivism and diversity) as meaning the people "want change", none of the signatories seem to represent that change. I do not know, but I have seen it written, that every signatory of that letter is very much to the right of Pelosi. The people do want change, but they don't want change in THAT direction.

AOC is much more representative of the "Blue Wave" and she supports Pelosi.
 
Sep 20, 2018
23
#4
Republicans hate Pelosi because they are terrified of her. That is almost a good enough reason alone to back her, but mostly because she is progressive and effective. I don't think you can hold Pelosi accountable because Democrats are traditionally fence sitters. It is infuriating, but Pelosi is not milquetoast. This tactic of vilifying a strong, qualified woman worked with Hillary and we got Trump. Just, no.
 

Veritable Quandry

Specializing in derails and train wrecks.
Sep 19, 2018
301
Columbus, OH
SL Rez
2010
Joined SLU
20something
SLU Posts
42
#5
Republicans hate Pelosi because she is a visible Democrat. Republicans hate Hilary because she is a visible Democrat. Republicans hate Schumer because he is a visible Democrat. We have to stop worrying that Democratic leaders are "divisive" because the Republicans will demonize whoever fills their positions. Don't think changing Pelosi for someone else will change anything in that dynamic.

At the moment, there is talk about challenging Pelosi but no one has stepped up to do it. And she has delivered for the Democratic caucus. Right now it's all talk and I can't think of anyone who would be more effective to step in.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree Agree 4
  • Rainbow 🌈 Rainbow 🌈 1
  • Like Like 1
  • Show all
Sep 23, 2018
138
WA, USA
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
Sept 18 2007
SLU Posts
3367
#6
Right now we need Democrats to band together and do shit in lockstep so as to oppose the slow slide into Republican Fascism. We only have the House so we can't actually pass anything, it just needs to be hammered over and over how terrible the GOP is.

That's what Pelosi is good at.

Sure once we get back the government and can actually fix things get some new blood up there maybe, but right now we need the taskmaster to keep us focused on the primary objective.
 
Sep 19, 2018
308
NJ suburb of Philly
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
#8
Nancy Pelosi progressive? I don't hear her supporting Elizabeth Warren or wanting to do anything particularly progressive economically or stopping the American war machine.
 
Oct 29, 2018
49
#9
Nancy Pelosi progressive? I don't hear her supporting Elizabeth Warren or wanting to do anything particularly progressive economically or stopping the American war machine.
That's because you follow popular talking points and cliches without any real meaning in lame attempts to fit in with whoever looks like the cool kids instead of taking time understand exactly what words mean, the complications involved with most issues, and details/reasoning of policy.

Progressive, in a political definition, began with its definition outside of politics, then applied.
You just posted after a video clip of Nancy Pelosi speaking during a time of heightened worldwide persecution of LGBT communities. The Reagan era was brutal, and most politicians were too cowed to speak out if they wanted to.

She has always advocated heavily taxing the richest. You only get as much of your platforms passed as you can against opposition, which takes more than a random 2 year period once per decade. Without holding a single house of congress or the presidency, we still haven't let Republicans do all the damage they tried to do since 2016. They've blocked Democrats just as effectively.
Progressive economics isn't defined by any one single issue or catch phrase you want to hear.

Since the end of Vietnam war, Democratic politicians have almost always looked for alternatives to, or new initiatives toward preventing armed combat. Can we go farther? Yes. Does that mean someone is not progressive unless they are 100% pacifist? No.

Wholehearted support of Elizabeth Warren is not a deciding factor or definition of progressive politics either.
 
Sep 19, 2018
308
NJ suburb of Philly
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
#10
Oh what nonsense.

That's because you follow popular talking points and cliches without any real meaning in lame attempts to fit in with whoever looks like the cool kids instead of taking time understand exactly what words mean, the complications involved with most issues, and details/reasoning of policy.

Progressive, in a political definition, began with its definition outside of politics, then applied.
You just posted after a video clip of Nancy Pelosi speaking during a time of heightened worldwide persecution of LGBT communities. The Reagan era was brutal, and most politicians were too cowed to speak out if they wanted to.
I'm glad she supports the lgbt communities. Unfortunately they and everyone else is going to die without a major restructuring of corporations, something being radically done about climate change, or countries releasing all of their nukes.

She has always advocated heavily taxing the richest. You only get as much of your platforms passed as you can against opposition, which takes more than a random 2 year period once per decade. Without holding a single house of congress or the presidency, we still haven't let Republicans do all the damage they tried to do since 2016. They've blocked Democrats just as effectively.
Progressive economics isn't defined by any one single issue or catch phrase you want to hear.
She is very rich herself and made a special effort to protect Del Monte which is in her district.

Since the end of Vietnam war, Democratic politicians have almost always looked for alternatives to, or new initiatives toward preventing armed combat. Can we go farther? Yes. Does that mean someone is not progressive unless they are 100% pacifist? No.
Obama didn't do shit to prevent armed combat. Well actually he did very late in his career with the Iran nuclear deal but until then it was just shoot the foreigners as usual.

Wholehearted support of Elizabeth Warren is not a deciding factor or definition of progressive politics either.
It certainly is a plus. She is one of the few people in the US congress who is actually progressive on some issues.
 
Last edited:

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Sep 24, 2018
21
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
#11
If someone else would step up, I think it would be a different discussion. But since none of the most viable potential candidates (Barbara Lee) won't do it, calling for change for the sake of change is not a wise move.
 

Free

The Pie Whisperer
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 22, 2018
1,539
Neuken, America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
May 2009
SLU Posts
55565
#12
A political birdie whispered in my ear that Moulton has his eyes set on the Oval Office. :bunny:
 

Cristiano

I AM BABY GROOT
Admin
Sep 19, 2018
1,046
SL Rez
2002
Joined SLU
Nov 2003
SLU Posts
35836
#13
Oct 29, 2018
49
#14
Oh what nonsense.



I'm glad she supports the lgbt communities. Unfortunately they and everyone else is going to die without a major restructuring of corporations, something being radically done about climate change, or countries releasing all of their nukes.
The only nonsense is what I responded to. What you saw on video, although short and only one subject, was an example of progressive politics when most others wouldn't touch it.
A major restructuring of corporations is nothing but a bland, meaningless talking point unless you have some specifics to offer. Do I really have to point out which party in this country has been the (ONLY) leader of tackling climate change? Talk to Republicans about dropping out of Paris Agreement and backtracking on fossil fuels. And of course Pelosi is to blame because countries haven't released all their nukes. Good luck with that.

You're reaching blindly. I'm sure you have a new set of goal posts to bring up no matter what.


She is very rich herself and made a special effort to protect Del Monte which is in her district.
So you've decided she's too rich to be progressive, and you never use Snopes or factcheck.org whenever conservatives bring up a new Pelosi attack. Got it.


Obama didn't do shit to prevent armed combat. Well actually he did very late in his career with the Iran nuclear deal but until then it was just shoot the foreigners as usual.
Again, you know of some armed conflict when Obama was President, so that means he did never did anything to prevent armed combat and Pelosi must not be a progressive. :rolleyes:



It certainly is a plus. She is one of the few people in the US congress who is actually progressive on some issues.
She has been vocal about banking issues, isn't alone on that, and otherwise repeats the same general statements about corporations bad that make people feel good. I'm glad she's there, glad she's on the left, but she is far more a follower (specifically of Bernie) than a leader. When she can rally support of other Senators behind her I'll see her in a better light.
Until then, I'll wonder what anyone in the other House of Congress is supposed be supporting her for. Did she sponsor a bill that Pelosi led support against? I'm not aware of it.
 
Sep 19, 2018
308
NJ suburb of Philly
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
#15
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this. However -
The only nonsense is what I responded to. What you saw on video, although short and only one subject, was an example of progressive politics when most others wouldn't touch it.
It's a nice gesture but won't save civilization's destruction.
A major restructuring of corporations is nothing but a bland, meaningless talking point unless you have some specifics to offer.
I haven't researched it but would be surprised if she wasn't among the group around 2008 who said these corrupt bank institutions were too big to fail as almost all congress critters said. What a bunch of horseshit.

Do I really have to point out which party in this country has been the (ONLY) leader of tackling climate change? Talk to Republicans about dropping out of Paris Agreement and backtracking on fossil fuels.
More horseshit. We are done for. Miami and large parts of the coast will sink into the sea because nobody wants to do anything really serious about it. By most accounts it is already too late.
And of course Pelosi is to blame because countries haven't released all their nukes. Good luck with that.
She is to blame for not trying to seriously combat or speak up about the problem along with basically every one else in Congress.

you know of some armed conflict when Obama was President
Oh I suppose you mean minor things like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I give up for now on the rest of your comments.
 

Grandma Bates

Only mostly banned....
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 20, 2018
19
Airport
Joined SLU
Yes
SLU Posts
-1000
#16
With respect to the Iraq war Rep. Pelosi voted against it in 2002 and was consistent in saying the war was wrong when it was an unpopular stance. She also voted against the authorization for war in 1991 and criticized Pres. Clinton's policies toward Iraq. She did not take strong consistent stands, though, when crimes such as torture and brutal killings by private contractors became public. With respect to the banking crisis, her record is mixed. She voted against the early TARP proposals but voted for the later ones that were approved. She has mostly voted against the subsequent, slow weakening of banking regulations since that time.

As a member of the House of Representatives she had few options when not in power. The opposition party has little power in the House, and she had few options other than using the bully pulpit to state a strong alternative vision.

This is my primary concern about Rep. Pelosi. She is an incredibly talented technocrat who will accomplish the tasks associated with governance. She is not so good when it comes to projecting a unifying vision for the country that will inspire and rally critical political support as well as push a broad agenda. Unfortunately, that is more important for the Speaker, and she would make a better Whip than a Speaker. In terms of who would be a better Speaker, though, it is not clear there is anyone with the experience and ability to take that role.

With respect to Senator Schumer, he is a shallow narcissist whose only qualification to lead his Senate caucus is his seniority and nice suits. These are the only good things that I can say about him so will leave it at that.
 

Beebo Brink

Resident Grouch
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 20, 2018
182
#17
It's a nice gesture but won't save civilization's destruction.
So who exactly do you feel is qualified to save civilization? If not Pelosi, who would you consider to be a better House Speaker?

It's all well and good to speak of lofty goals that completely deconstruct our current economic and political system, but what's your concrete plan for getting from here to there?

I may agree with your high-level concept for the need for change, but I'm a bit more pragmatic. Change agents of that magnitude don't get a toehold in the system. Drastic change is usually brought about through destruction and chaos. These violent spasms aren't very pleasant for anyone and a better system doesn't emerge until a lot of the dust has settled (if then). Sometimes you end up in worse shape, not better, for having torn down the previous system of inequity.

Nothing you've said appears to have any practical relevance to current politics. It's all pie-in-sky dreams and spleen-venting that we don't live in a better world.
 
  • Thanks Thanks 5
  • Agree Agree 4
  • Like Like 3
  • Winner Winner 2
  • Show all
Sep 19, 2018
308
NJ suburb of Philly
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
#18
Nothing you've said appears to have any practical relevance to current politics. It's all pie-in-sky dreams and spleen-venting that we don't live in a better world.
It seems that way. Maybe something will change like college students of the modern world getting a clue and protesting in large numbers. As you point out otherwise things seem hopeless.
 

Beebo Brink

Resident Grouch
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 20, 2018
182
#19
It seems that way. Maybe something will change like college students of the modern world getting a clue and protesting in large numbers. As you point out otherwise things seem hopeless.
People force change when the status quo becomes unbearable. We're not there yet.