This points to a collective action dilemma for the Democratic caucus. Pelosi has been an aggressive and unyielding advocate for the left during her four years as speaker of the House. Even if we suppose that the Democratic party in general would be better off by getting rid of her, we still must ask whether these remaining Democrats are individually better off. An alternative like Steny Hoyer or Heath Shuler would probably be more willing to compromise with the Republicans, which might be good for the whole party. However, does that serve the political or policy interests of a majority of individual Democrats who remain in the caucus? Maybe not.Cost goes on to criticizes Democrats for blaming their losses on messaging. He cites the following statement from Pelosi:
"In addition, we must build the capacity for effectively communicating our message of job creation and opportunity for all, while supporting our signature achievements of health care, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare," she wrote. "In the 2006 election with our ‘New Direction’ and ‘6 for 06’ message, we spoke with great clarity and unity — and we won. Now, we must further modernize not only that message but the way in which we communicate with constituents."Cost and I agree that Pelosi is simply wrong about this. If messaging was all that was required, why didn't embattled Democrats tun on their "signature achievement of health care"? I like the idea of Pelosi as the Minority leader. She's so disliked that she's red meat for Republicans. The fact that she so often says things that are obviously insane, just makes it that much easier to poke fun at her.
Oh, and she's really an alien lizard from another planet sent to Earth to harvest humans for food. Here's the video proof: