Time: Pelosi May Retire if Democrat Majority is Lost

As if the direction of the country was not enough of a reason for concerned Americans to get out and VOTE, here’s something even better.  Time has an article suggesting that Nancy Pelosi may retire if the Democrats lose big.    As many as seven Democrats may oppose her leadership for the next session.

Under Pelosi’s watch, the country went into recession.  (Someone noted in a blog comment to me on another site that the country entered the recession in December, 2007….11 months after Pelosi had control over the US House, where spending bills originate.)  She muscled through TARP, the failed “stimulus,” Cap and Trade, ObamaCare, and various other big government boondoggles.  She has spent taxpayer dollars at nearly the same rate as she has dumped pollutants into the environment and wasted fuel when she rides her personal taxpayer funded Gulfstream.

Pelosi has become the symbol of an out of touch arrogant political class.    She rams through multi-thousand page bills, giving House members nowhere near enough time to read and digest the complete text.  As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.”  But Pelosi cracks the whip and her rubber stamps fall in line.  There is only room for disagreement when she has secured enough to ram the bill through, even if it means Democrats risking their chance for reelection.  She is “safe” in her district, so why would she care if others are left dangling in the wind (I mean Democrat Congresspersons….not the American people — she has no problem letting the American people dangle in the wind).  No wonder Democrats want to challenge her leadership.  It’s utterly embarrassing to have that kind of a leader.

Pelosi has been speaker for four years.  If her leadership was so great and the bills she rammed through so good for the country, every Democrat should be 20 points ahead of their nearest opponent.  They should not even need to campaign; they should all be facing the same situation as Pelosi is with her own House seat in San Francisco.  She’s ignoring that race entirely because she knows she is in a “safe” seat.

I like the idea of a challenge for leadership and hope this happens whether the Democrats lose the House or not.  Four years is enough.  Longer just means more of the same uninspiring leadership.  The Democrats need rotation in their leadership.  New ideas will keep things fresh.  And if we want to see an example of what happens with the same leader for more than four years, look no farther than the utterly useless former Speaker Dennis Hastert.  He did absolutely nothing, other than greatly contribute to the Republicans losing the House in 2006.

(And just to be clear on the new ideas side, I’m not interested in seeing John Boehner as Speaker.  Should the Republicans win, I hope there is a strong challenge.  He has been Minority Leader for four years, and has been unimpressive.  Someone else is needed as Speaker.)

The Time article also indicates a number of retirements among long term Democrats may result if they lose the majority.  Excellent.  Time for these out of touch statists who have been feeding at the public trough for decades to pack it up.  Rotation in office is needed, as the Founders envisioned.  Bring in some new Democrats.  In 2006, Democrats cleaned out some long time Republicans.  It will be great to see the long time Democrats cleaned out during, or due to the results of, this election.

While I obviously am conservative, it is necessary to have a contest between at least two parties in order to provide the very necessary “pushback.”  A party representing statism, hopeless bureaucracy, burdensome regulations, red tape, conditions that stifle small businesses and only help big corporations (despite rhetoric claiming the party is against such organizations), and government dependence is needed as an example of what we don’t like.  Thus, the Democrat party under new leadership is absolutely needed.  Likewise, an opposing party that is actually not the “lite” version of the previously described party is also needed.  We need one that stands for the entrepreneurial spirit, reasonable regulations within the framework of the Constitution that actually work and aren’t just designed to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit, a party that supports self-sufficiency rather than government dependency, and a party that is for strict adherence to the Constitution.  But that kind of party can only stay disciplined if it has the pushback from a strong big government party.  Things can’t be too cushy for the party that stands for small business over statism.  It needs a challenge to keep it sharp.  And likewise, concerned Americans need the pushback in order to stay strong watching politicians from both parties.

To a Democrat party with new leadership in the House and hopefully the Senate (can we say “Hello Chucky Schumer, Senate Democrat Leader”?)….   And to a Republican party with new leadership in the House and Senate (seriously, please replace Mitch McConnell as Republican Leader in the Senate)…