Pelosi Calls the Shots
The Godmother of the Democratic party?
It seems that Nancy Pelosi calls the shots:
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will ensure that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) wins his race for majority leader, a key Murtha ally said Monday night.
“She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] win. This is hard-ball politics,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a longtime Murtha supporter. “We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it.”
[...]
Pelosi recently endorsed Murtha’s bid for majority leader against House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), but it was unclear whether she would use her clout as the first Democratic Speaker in 12 years to help Murtha win or whether her letter simply expressed a personal preference as a favor to Murtha.Pelosi’s move was deliberate, Moran said, and she was already leaning on her colleagues to affect the outcome.
“Yes, she’s making calls to people. She is contacting people and letting them know that it’s an unequivocal letter,” Moran said.
She is willing to fight the battle for power within the Democratic party, so it seems.
I wonder in how far Pelosi demands a united Democratic party: in how far dissent is allowed and / or even encouraged. When I look at her behavior I fear that she is not exactly in favor of it: she seems to believe in a very united, unanimous Democratic party under strong leadership.
A party should be united, but there should also be room for dissent and debate.
Again, I wonder in how far Pelosi agrees with that view.
25 Responses to “Pelosi Calls the Shots”
Amen to her. If this was the Republican party nobody would bat an eyelid. They all fall in line like robots. I want to see debate on substantive issues, getting all caught up in this procedural stuff is a waste of time.
For anyone who is a partisan Democrat, Pelosi’s strong leadership is a positive sign. However, IMO it’s also a sign that the party did not get the message that last week’s election was a call for bipartisanship. Anyone who wants to say that the GOP has had a hardline approach to party discipline is completely justified in saying that, but they should also think about whether or not they want their own party to do the same and whether or not this is the mandate that the Democrats have received from the voters.
Pelosi going all out for Murtha is more a matter of personal dynamics. She trusts him and feels more comfortable with him than with Hoyer because Murtha engineered Pelosi’s campaign for minority whip against Hoyer.
Besides, people are used to seeing the GOP walk in lock step. I don’t think that Pelosi will demand that level of party discipline the GOP has, but the Democrats can definitely use some more party discipline in Congress for sure.
The ethics issues are even more troubling to me than the issue of party discipline. I’m curious to know whether other people feel that way as well? I know that some will see my view as a partisan GOP one, but honestly I hope the Democrats really do promote reform and I am getting the sense that it isn’t going to happen. They may keep relatively clean for a while but I don’t see signs of a seriousness about changing the way things are done in DC.
CS – I’d agree on the ethics front. The first major test will be seeing who is promoted to party leadership roles, since there are some Democrats with some black marks against their ethics records. I’ll be very disappointed if Pelosi doesn’t try to send a message by holding back support for anyone with ethics issues, especially after her comments about making this the most honest and transparent Congress ever elected.
Murtha is an interesting pick because of ethics issues and because he is so conservative on social issues. I hope she handles the ethics stuff first and foremost. And I hope the House never even brings hot-button social issues up for a vote.
But it’s one of George W. Bush’s more troublesome personal dynamics. Putting personal friendships before everything else in filling key positions is what gets guys like Mike Brown in charge of FEMA. It’s a somewhat disturbing insight into Pelosi.
I disagree that the voters’ message was about “bipartisanship”, CS. I think maybe you missed the message, which was about “change”. Exit polls said the message was end the war in Iraq and stop the Corruption.
Greendreams,
Was it really to “end the war in Iraq” or to change course in Iraq? On that issue, I agree with the latter but not that the majority want to simply end it as quickly as possible. I’d say most people want to find out if there is any way to salvage it.
Still, I say that bipartisanship was part of the message, and on corruption I’ve already commented that it’s so far not so good.
Thus spake MvdG: A party should be united, but there should also be room for dissent and debate.
Thus spake CaliBlogger: ROFL
Which is to say, as someone who’s been watching, sometimes as an independent, sometimes as a Dem, the Democratic party for 30 years, the very idea that Dems are more than passably capable of limiting dissent and debate borders on the laughable.
Now I can understand, after watching decades of Republican rule, how you might thing strict authoritarianism is common for the majority party.
But truly ’twas never thus with Democrats.
I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.
- Will Rogers
US humorist &showman (1879 – 1935)
Well, when Steny Hoyer is named majority leader I’ll get back to you Michael and we can discuss the concept of critical thinking and how it is important to apply it to news stories, but especially to single sourced news stories. Especially when the single source has a huge dog in the hunt.
I have no problem with the Speaker of the House doing what she needs to do to get what she feels is right for her party. I just have to question her judgement on this one. Murtha is so beholding to defense contractors and such an ear-mark happy backroom deal maker that I fear another, albeit less-brazen Delay. I will be disappointed, but I’m used to choosing the lesser of evils…I voted for Sherrod Brown even after he voted for the detainee bill. Couple this with Alcee Hastings and we’ll get the ‘business as usual’ message loud and clear from this ‘groundbreaking’ Speaker. You don’t drain the swamp by adding water.
I think it’s a good thing for Pelosi to be a strong leader. She kept the caucus united on many vital issues, notable Social Security, and that was when she didn’t have a majority at her back. There are a lot of things that need to get done, and we need a strong leader to keep the Party at least semi-united.
I also don’t see how you equate “supporting Murtha for Majority Leader” with “being hostile to dissent.” Policy matters; who gets which leadership positions is important only insofar as it enables the Democrats to control debate, write bills, and get them out of Committee.
Corruption is an important issue, but I’m willing to see how Murtha and Hastings behave in that regard before I call them part of the problem. Their ethics difficulties are a generation in the past – and were small beer compared to what the GOP got up to: let’s see what they do now. Let’s see what laws they pass, how they deal with conflicts of interest, and how they run the Ethics apparatus.
It’s important to bear in mind why corruption became an important issue. The GOP did absolutely nothing in the public interest; everything they did was to benefit themselves and their sponsors. “Public interest” wasn’t even in their vocabulary, except to sneer at it.
I don’t expect a Congress to be like Caesar’s wife – there’s never ever been a totally honest, corruption-free Congress; I don’t think there ever will be; and I don’t think Americans realistically expect it – but we do expect the public interest to come first more often than not.
Great post Casey.
See here for more on how effectively the Dems contributed to Bush’s falling popularity, and perhaps some insight about why Murtha is Pelosi’s choice. I think this will e an effective team, and watch for the same GOPers flapping about Murtha and ethics to blast any new anti-corruption efforts as an affront to freedom of speech (that is, the ability of special interest groups and corporations to buy legislators and legislation).
I have to agree with Davebo on this. I’m amazed by the people taking this as unquestioned truth when there’s only one source on it and Pelosi’s office won’t confirm it.
I read that the Murtha thing is a test to see how strong she is and what the landscape is in the party.
I believe she wants more control for the Dems. To be somewhat united as she sees that this is the way things must be for awhile if they are to successfully work against the republicans in the future.
But, she did tell Ellison to vote what the people in Indiana would want him to vote for. Afterall they are the ones who put him there and are the ones to call him back. So, she does want her party to represent thier districts to the best they can but, also be united when it counts.
I agree with CS- the election was about bi-partisanship, ending corruption, changing course in Iraq, voting out Republican incumbents, and bringing back checks and balances to restore accountability.
I actually think both Murtha and Hoyer would do a good job, but Hoyer can appeal to centrists within the party and has earned the job by campaigning endlessly for party candidates. He was my congressman for 15 years and is a moderate, honest, hard-working guy. He is well-liked in the House, so I hope Pelosi does not manage to sway the members over to Murtha.
If she does, it will be because he had the courage to come out against the war when no one else would, and would be a strong voice against our current policy. As a vet, he has a great love and understanding of the military, so on this one issue, he would be more of an asset than Hoyer. Hoyer, however, is the stronger candidate overall, and has no political baggage.
From what I understand, he doesn’t get along that well with Pelosi, so that may be why she’s promoting Murtha who she has a 20-year friendship with and trusts implicitly.
I don’t like Murtha’s corruption but he’s an okay dude, not for any substantial spot especially if he caters to defense contractors. I never have like Pelosi. She’s TOO FAR TO THE LEFT for my tastes.
Well, you can’t come out and make corruption a cornerstone of your campaign, and then promote someone for a leadership position who is dogged by ethical issues. I admire Murtha for his courage in coming out against the war and for his dedicated service to his country, but if we condemn the Pubs for this, Dems have to show that we are serious about it ourselves. Not a smart move by Pelosi.
Kim,
I agree completely. Have you read the link in Michael Stickings post about Hoyer’s ethics issues though? I wasn’t aware of it (and don’t know how much credibility to give this one article), but the article linked to states that Hoyer is an advocate of playing the GOP game of govt for hire and K Street corporate interests. I’m curious to hear your take on that because I know you are a supporter of Hoyer and a harsh critic of the K Street project.
It’s a matter of which policy they pursue. On Iraq, Murtha represents the more extreme wing of the Dem party that wants immediate withdrawal. Hoyer was one who wanted a discussion of various strategic possibilities and he represents a more moderate view that is probably more in line with most voters. Murtha’s appointment would be a signal that the Democratic leadership is embracing the more extreme view even though they knew they couldn’t win the election by making immediate withdrawal their platform on Iraq.
CS- I went back and read the link- I think some support by lobbyists is necessary—unless the system is reformed and we publicly finance political campaigns, PACs will be a fact of political life.
It doesn’t seem to me to compare with the political machine that Delay built on K St, where lobbyists were allowed to actually write policy in return for their support rather than just gaining access to power, and their firms were strongarmed against hiring Democrats as lobbyists.
There are several congressional watchdog organizations, none of which has indicated that Hoyer has any ethical problems.
Actually, I am torn on this issue. I personally like both men, and can see the advantage of having like-minded individuals who work well together on the same team, but would find Murtha’s ethical issues a bit troubling. There will always be some wheeling and dealing going on, but those who have actually taken bribes or have been indicted for something have no business in Congress. Murtha was never indicted, but is on the edge, ethically.I don’t like the fact that he was one of only four Dems who voted against meaningful lobbying reform.
Well, I think you are splitting hairs about the PAC issue because now that the door is open to that kind of influence, it is going to happen unless the new Congressional leadership sends a clear signal that they are going to make significant reforms. And from what I’m reading, Hoyer does seem like a wheeler dealer who may draw the line a bit more ethically than Delay, but not going far enough to reform IMO.
Pelosi does have a plan to pass ethics reform, and is calling for more transparency. We’ll just see how that measures up to Boehner’s attempt at ethics legislation for appearances sake!
It is a matter of reality that politicians are forced to run for re-election from the moment they get back in office. Some are better at it than others. Hoyer has never been cited for numerous ethics violations like Delay has, so until he is, I don’t think they are comparable. I honestly believe that our system promotes special interest money over constituent interests, but unless we enact publicly funded campaigns, there will always be some abuse.
Kim,.
Yeah, but according to a commenter in Holly’s thread on Murtha above, Murtha told a group of Dems (the Blue Dogs) that he thinks Pelosi’s ethics reform plan is a bunch of crap! The quote was in a subscription required publication so I can’t verify, but if accurate, that doesn’t bode well!