November 7, 2002
NANCY PELOSI VS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
Gephardt to Pass House Leader Post
(DAVID ESPO, 11/06/02, AP)
Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt intends to announce Thursday that he will not seek a new term as House Democratic leader, senior aides said.
The expected announcement would clear the way for a succession struggle among Democrats, who have been in the minority for eight years and lost seats to Republicans in midterm elections on Tuesday.
Gephardt has long signaled his interest in running for president in 2004, but it was not clear whether he would address that race when he announces his plans Thursday.
Two senior Democrats, Reps. Nancy Pelosi of California and Martin Frost of Texas, have already indicated they would run for party leader if Gephardt chose not to, and jockeying broke out even before word spread of the Missouri lawmaker's plans.
"The country moved to the right yesterday and House Democrats won't win a majority by moving further to the left," said Tom Eisenhauer, spokesman for Frost, attempting to depict Pelosi as too liberal to lead the party back into power.
Spokesman Brendan Daly responded for Pelosi. "It's not a matter of ideology. It's a matter of drawing a clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican Party on issues that the Democrats are united about and that the American people strongly support," he said. He cited education funding and Social Security as examples.
Rank-and-file Democrats are expected to meet next Thursday to pick the party's leaders for the Congress that convenes in January.
Somebody better get Brother Murtaugh
the smelling salts, because here's the next leader of the Democrat Party, its new national face:
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 7, 2002 12:16 AM
Of course, I am praying that Pelosi gets it. Beating Frost, plus an overdue redistricting in TX, should lead to a meaningful loss of Southern seats in the House. This should continue to marginalize Dems among an increasingly larger group of Americans.
The question can it happen? Who is handicaping this? And how do the real power brokers in the Dem Party(the Clintons) turn back one of their own? (Mind you, they have done this before, as Cuomo and Reno can attest...But a what cost?
You tell me how the Democrats pass over a woman who's next in line right now for a white male Southerner who was in charge of Tuesday's election.
The first cycle of the death spiral...
I've fallen and I can't get up...
Reminds me of that scene where a gunman, taking himself hostage, points his gun at himself and threatens the cops, "If you come one step closer I'll shoot."
I realize this is a small thing to pick out here, but isn't a flag burning law something that belongs only in places like China, old USSR, Iraq, or Cuba?
Kersteins: The Flag Burning Amendment reference was part of an entire picture. Anyone of us can agree or disagree with particular items like that. But fairly few Americans would agree with Pelosi on all of them. Which I believe was Judd's point, not whether Flag Burning or Kyoto was wise or unwise.
So yes, you were picking a small point indeed, and one which you barely made in any significant detail.
Let's back off a bit here, eh? Spell my name correctly as well, if you don't mind. I threw a caveat in there for a reason. Plus, I'm working today. A manifesto was not practical.
But since, I'm now on lunch -
Orrin gave a list of mostly Liberal positions. And I get his point, so your generous explanation is not necessary. I just don't find opposition to the flag burning amendment to be a Liberal cause by definition. It just happens to be one because many of them hate America. But the amendment and notion behind it is most un-Liberal in my mind.
And I think my point was clear enough, given the countries I mentioned. If you would like, I can give you a more generous explanation.
"But the amendment and notion behind it is most un-Liberal in my mind."
Make that (small L) un-liberal, as in classical liberalism. Banning things is quite Liberal.
But money is speech?
What would we say about someone burning the Cuban flag on Castro's doorstep?
Not to sound flip, but what about tearing the flag up or stepping on it?
This seems like idolatry to me. Objects are not worthy of legal protection unless they belong to someone else. If you purchase a flag, it's yours to burn or not. If it's not a speech issue, then it's property issue. I'd say it's both.
If bald eagles were plentiful enough it would be legal to hunt them. And rightfully so.
Such an amendment is wrong on numerous levels. There is no basis for it other than feelings. I detest the notion of flag-burning, but an amendment to ban it's defacement is not a road I wish to go down.
Obviously money isn't speech, since CFR regulates the hell out of it.
Sorry about the litany there, it's an important issue to me. Really I think the whole flag-burning thing is a non-issue to start with, and why anyone would waste time on legislating it is beyond me.
The only good thing about an Amendment to ban flag-burning is that it recognizes that it requires an Amendment to ban it. The same was true of Prohibition.
If only other (to my mind) unConstitutional proposals also were forced to recognize their status and use Amendments.
For two hundred years flag-burning bans were recognized as constitutional, then the Court, in its infinite wisdom reversed two centuries of law. Hence the amendment, not because it is truly required.
As you seem opaque to what Judd's collective point was concerning Pelosi, and seem intent on discussing only Flag Burning, which is indeed a rather diminutive subject, I can't see what objectively you are arguing about. You seem to wish to be able to burn flags. Well, do so as long as it is legal. When it becomes illegal, I'd advise you to stop. On that subject there is not more to be said about the matter asides from a personal commitment to suport flag burning rights or a commitment to constrain flag burning rights.
You seem to think this is a big issue. I simply can't see it to be one given that virtually no American burns flags anymore, and the rest of us generally think of the flag burners as lunatic fringe elements. The whole issue reminds me of discussions about whether it is immoral to sell beer on Sunday. Either way, its simply not going to change how any of us live that dramatically, although some people will surely look foolish advocating one position or another.
Tom and Chris:
Enough. Here's one I think we can all agree on. Congress should simply declare it to be their sense that flag burning is "fighting words". Then when someone burns one, the crowd has free reign to beat them bloody.
Isn't it like a Leftist to try and change the subject when they have no response? The Democrats are about to insure their irrelevancy, and we have someone who wants to talk about flag burning.
Back to the topic at hand-- now Harold Ford Jr. wants to challenge Pelosi. It will be interesting to see members from two different privleged groups go after the same job. I'd still bet on Pelosi, because she's the more Leftist of the two, and based on past cases, ideology trumps minority status.
What effect will this have on a party which will be even more dependent of its black "scare out the vote" tactics if those same voters finally wise up? I wouldn't be surprised to see black turnout significantly lower in '004.
What is it with the flag burning amendment? I can think of nothing that would more desecrate the flag that our soldiers fought for that banning its burning. Why is this a conservative issue to be included in a list like this? While I would never burn an American flag (unless disposing it according to proper custom of course.....) passing laws resembling those of Hirohito or H-tler does no respect to the stars and stripes.
can't we just move on.....