Murtha Loses--And So Does Pelosi

posted by David Corn on 11/16/2006 @ 12:51pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (168)

Subscribe Now

The vote count is in: Steny Hoyer defeated Jack Murtha 149 to 86 for the majority leader post in the House.

There's no way to spin this: this was a big loss for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The vote wasn't close. Her ally was rejected. This reflects poorly on her. And it will be remembered by her political opponents--particularly those who want to undermine Pelosi's efforts to enact lobbying and campaign reform--that in this contest she endorsed a fellow who has long been accused of slippery ethics. (See the posting below.)

Moreover, Murtha, the candidate with the most ardent antiwar credentials, lost--and did so decisively. How will this be interpreted (or exploited) by pundits and politicos who oppose the Pelosi/Murtha call for the withdrawal of troops? Murtha champions did try to turn the majority leader race into a debate on the Iraq war. Can the vote be read as an indicator that many House Democrats don't support Pelosi all the way on her opposition to the war?

It certainly is true that these sort of leadership races are often decided (via a secret ballot) not by ideological issues but by personal and managerial factors. Think of it this way: how would you vote if you could vote for one of your bosses? You might not pick the person who agrees with you on policy matters. You might select the guy or gal with whom you have--or could have--the best personal relationship. Or whom you think would be more effective as a manager. Or whom you owe a favor.

Still, this vote will be depicted as a slam on Pelosi and on the start-withdrawing-now Democrats. (It perhaps did show that Pelosi has to improve her vote-counting skills.) Pelosi did not have to choose sides in this fight. But because she fiercely lobbied her fellow House Democrats for Murtha--after first saying she would remain neutral in this bitter battle--she begins her tenure as speaker with a loss that was self-inflicted. Now she moves on to what might be a harder task than getting her fellow Democrats to elect Murtha her No. 2: forging a Democratic alternative to George W. Bush's policy in Iraq.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (168)

Wow; this is not good at all for Spaeker-designate Pelosi. The only way for the Dems to spin this is that the party is sincere about doing something to curtail the role of lobbyists and to curb costly add-ons to bills of substance. These are things that Murtha was hardly a shinig knight.

Posted by The Goods at 11/16/2006 @ 12:58pm
"There's no way to spin this: this was a big loss for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

Actually...believe it or not....THERE IS.

check out Arianna's latest on Huffington Post. She (honest to God) tries to make the case that "Pelosi won, because she was willing to risk her political capital on endorsing Murtha" and how great that is.

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 1:00pm
Moreover, Murtha, the candidate with the most ardent antiwar credentials, lost--and did so decisively. How will this be interpreted (or exploited) by pundits and politicos who oppose the Pelosi/Murtha call for the withdrawal of troops?

How is it going to be interpreted by the decisive majority of Americans, without any help necessary from pundits and politicos, who voted against the war? As another stark reminder that the Democrats are the Republicans.

Expect the dead-end war to now be dragged out as long as the bipartisan War Party can possibly manage.

58% of House Democrats voted FOR this war. Opposition party? Some joke.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 1:03pm
Redbird, for once, is correct...

Posted by john maasch at 11/16/2006 @ 1:04pm
Wow; this is not good at all for Spaeker-designate Pelosi. The only way for the Dems to spin this is that the party is sincere about doing something to curtail the role of lobbyists and to curb costly add-ons to bills of substance. These are things that Murtha was hardly a shinig knight.

Posted by THE GOODS 11/16/2006 @ 12:58am

Hoyer is otherwise? He actually brags on his website about how much money he gets from the corporate gravytrain. The only bright spot here is that the American people are realizing more and more that the Democratic Party is corrupt to the marrow and that it is no alternative to the Republican Party.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 1:07pm
I'm guessing Dems weren't willing to sacrifice the moral high ground on ethical issues in order to put the staunchest supporter of pulling out of Iraq in as majority leader. I don't think this sends the signal that Bush is free-and-clear on Iraq, or that Dems won't fight for withdrawal of troops and deadline-setting, but it does make clear that Dems aren't willing to sacrifice all for the sake of repudiating the President.

In the long-term, I think that is wise.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 1:14pm
We also need to think back to WHY Pelosi was endorsing Murtha.

The "official story" was it was a reward to him (or the Blog Left) for his "courageous stance against the war".

The "un-official story" was, that Murtha was a Pelosi LOYALIST. That Hoyer had made moves in the past to usurp her power as Minority Leader.

Apparently there was no love-loss between the two BEFORE the election...with her endorsement of Murtha, even less...and now that Hoyer is Majority Leader, looks like he'll try any power plays that he can to thwart Pelosi...without of course de-railing the agenda or APPEARING like that's what he's doing.

Should be fun to watch....even if it's just the basic element of....the Speaker and the Majority Leader....don't LIKE each other!

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 1:16pm
This is government the way it's designed to be done, folks. The US Conress is not a top-down organization. The Republicans tried to do it that way for the last decade, and it turned out to look great on TV but not work out so well in the real world.

People who say P-Lo is damaged now are getting way ahead of themselves. The fine print is that Murtha asked for an endorsement and she give it to him out of loyalty, and then lobbied for him because that's what you're supposed to do when you stand up for somebody.

If Democrats start agreeing on everything, now that would scare me.

Posted by MyParadigm at 11/16/2006 @ 1:17pm
Here's one thing they agree on:

House Democrats Redouble Wooing of K Street By Erin P. Billings Roll Call Staff December 7, 2005

A House Democratic project designed to dip into deep K Street wallets entered its second phase of the 2006 cycle Tuesday, as a group of prominent moderate Members enlisted business donors to shell out thousands of dollars to help the party's top-tier candidates.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_59/news/11458-1.html?type=pf

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 1:25pm
Mypara -

"If Democrats start agreeing on everything, now that would scare me."

Right you are, sir. I think it's great that Pelosi and Murtha displayed their loyalty to one another, but I also think it's great that the new power-players immediately got slapped by a check (or is that a balance?) between members of their own party - keep the britches from getting too big right off of the bat. Voting the party line because it's the party line and for no other reasons is scary.

And Murtha's anti-war stance notwithstanding, he was a terrible choice for Majority Leader. What I'm most fascinated with is the far-left wingers that suddenly fell in love with a guy who has voted with the hawks on everything else hawkish since, well, forever - while at the same time, otherwise reliably-Democratic Joe Lieberman has been raked over the coals on this single issue.

Fascinating.

Posted by New Dawn at 11/16/2006 @ 1:28pm
Too much positive energy to go south yet. Me thinks some have lived in the negative zone too long to remember what healthy debate looks like. I also think Pelosi is a realist and will use lemons to make lemonade not squeeze into her eyes. Think Murtha is going to stop speaking out about Iraq? If anything this frees up his voice. Think Hoyer will be less effective moving Pelosi's dem agenda? If anything it makes him more effective and unless Pelosi doesn't use this as a positive-- will it play out as a stumble. Wait for the positive maneuver-- here it comes...

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2006 @ 1:38pm
Read this in Zachary Roth's article on Hoyer in "Washington Monthly"---apparently Steny no friend to the Blogosphere Left:

"Hoyer has also emerged, not surprisingly, as a bete noire of the liberal blogosphere. In response to the bankruptcy bill vote, Atrios asked readers to call Hoyer and tell him to resign. After Hoyer broke with Pelosi on Iraq, the Democratic activist David Sirota, writing on The Huffington Post, lambasted "Hoyer's Campaign to Undermine Dems and Topple Pelosi.""

"And in April, the comedian Steven Colbert won plaudits from liberal commentators and bloggers for his merciless skewering of President Bush at the White House Correspondents Dinner, but Hoyer called the performance "in bad taste"--a judgment that earned him this denunciation from Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos: "We need a Joe Lieberman of 2008, an entrenched do-nothing Dem desperately in need of a good primary challenger. Good to see Hoyer auditioning for the part.""

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 1:40pm
"I also think Pelosi is a realist and will use lemons to make lemonade not squeeze into her eyes."

Bumper sticker on the back of my car:

"When life hands you lemons, squirt the juice in your enemy's eyes."

hee hee hee

Posted by New Dawn at 11/16/2006 @ 1:47pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/us/politics/16congcnd.html? hp&ex=1163739600&en=ff1c971279854b88&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I see that repubs see 'debate' as 'destruction' per their lock goosestep tendencies. It's going to take some patience to reprogram everyone about the use of debate versus what's real destruction, i.e. torture, war, incompetence, greed, ....

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2006 @ 1:51pm
What I'm most fascinated with is the far-left wingers that suddenly fell in love with a guy who has voted with the hawks on everything else hawkish since, well, forever - while at the same time, otherwise reliably-Democratic Joe Lieberman has been raked over the coals on this single issue.

Fascinating.

Posted by NEW DAWN 11/16/2006 @ 1:28pm

I think it has something to do with war . . on which the election proved a great majority of the American people are "far-left wingers". Selecting Hoyer, who is still carrying water for the war, tells Americans how little the Democrats care about what they want. Good work, Democratic Party. True to form.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 2:01pm
complete overreaction, and not only that, but a poor characterization of what this really means: that pulling the troops out is not important to the majority of democrats.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 2:11pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 2:01pm

But, FRB...you WON!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 2:17pm
complete overreaction, and not only that, but a poor characterization of what this really means: that pulling the troops out is not important to the majority of democrats.

Posted by DARLADOON 11/16/2006 @ 2:11pm

Another Democrat For Staying in Iraq. The Democrats won so now it's time for redefinitions. The pre-election "referendum on the war" language is now out. Replacement language: "pulling the troops out is not important to the majority of democrats".

Jesus. Talk about Republican hypocrisy?

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 2:27pm
well, no great catastrophe here. murtha had issues, hoyer has issues...i'll let them work it out and bitch about the results.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2006 @ 2:30pm
FRB - the dems not voting in Murtha as house leader does not equate to giving up on Iraq before the next Congress even starts.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 2:34pm
And Murtha's anti-war stance notwithstanding, he was a terrible choice for Majority Leader. What I'm most fascinated with is the far-left wingers that suddenly fell in love with a guy who has voted with the hawks on everything else hawkish since, well, forever - while at the same time, otherwise reliably-Democratic Joe Lieberman has been raked over the coals on this single issue.

Fascinating.

Posted by NEW DAWN 11/16/2006 @ 1:28pm

How is that Hoyer is less hawkish than Murtha when they both voted for the Iraq war but it was Murtha who had enough American character to turn against unwaveringly toeing the Republican line while Hoyer has been doing exactly that. Hoyer has also been assiduously making every effort to undermine Murtha's half-step redeployment plan and Pelosi's half-hearted endorsement of it.

And Hoyer was a good choice for Majority Leader because he did such a good job as Minority Whip?

it has been Hoyer who has made a point of actively working against Pelosi on major congressional votes. You remember, it was Hoyer - the Democratic Whip - who refused to whip votes together to try to defeat the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. When Pelosi tried to build opposition to the disgusting bankruptcy bill, it was Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, who not only didn't whip against the bankruptcy bill, but actually voted for it, after pocketing massive campaign contributions from the banking industry. While Pelosi was taking a stand by voting against the Iraq War, Hoyer was voting for the Iraq War. And when Pelosi worked to keep her caucus together in opposing the GOP Energy Bill, it was Hoyer who voted for the nauseating legislation after pocketing more than $300,000 from energy/natural resource industry cash. That legislation that literally gave away billions of taxpayer dollars to the energy industry profiteers who proceeded to bilk Americans with higher and higher gas prices.

http://tinyurl.com/bns4j

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 2:45pm
I wonder if she'll take it out on the neo-Dems and the others who voted for Hoyer...

Posted by woodyee at 11/16/2006 @ 2:49pm
How many "liberals" here now want to say that the Democrats control of Congress is not due to the American voters desire to get us out of the Iraq debacle? I'd like to see the list. Anyone besides "DD", former unquestioning Pelosi-supporter, ready to volunteer?

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 2:51pm
Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 2:50pm

They are worthless.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 2:53pm
FRB -

I found your last posts interesting and informative (as I find most of your posts), but I never said anything about Hoyer at all, let alone about his being less hawkish than anyone else or whether he was a good or better choice or not - I was strictly making a point about Murtha/Liberman and war/anti-war loyalties. You know that, right?

I do have to say that Democrat double standards annoy me no less than Republican ones.

Posted by New Dawn at 11/16/2006 @ 2:55pm
Zero and FRB are throwing their daily fit...and only a little more than a week after victory!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 2:56pm
How many "liberals" here now want to say that the Democrats control of Congress is not due to the American voters desire to get us out of the Iraq debacle? I'd like to see the list. Anyone besides "DD", former unquestioning Pelosi-supporter, ready to volunteer?

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 2:51pm

I'm still torn, actually, between whether Iraq or Republican corruption (percieved or otherwise) was the primary reason - I think there's plenty of room for both. How would we know, anyway?

Polls?

wink-wink, nudge-nudge...

Posted by New Dawn at 11/16/2006 @ 2:57pm
Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 2:50pm

They are worthless.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 2:53pm

(Another scintillating ZERO/FROMRED conversation)--

ZERO: Are these the Nazis, FROM?

FROMRED: No, ZERO, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 2:59pm
ZERO: Are these the Nazis, FROM?

FROMRED: No, ZERO, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Posted by MASK 11/16/2006 @ 2:59pm

LOL! I love the Big Lebowski.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:00pm
"Jack Murtha handed the Democrats their Congressional majority this year"

---

How do you know this? Where's your empirical evidence?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:06pm
The public voting out many republicans doesn't mean the public wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq. What it does mean is that the public doesn't want to stay forever, like the current administration does.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:08pm
RB: and as far as that dimwit you still persist on talking to, just ask her about how apparently "strong" her "California woman" House Speaker really turned out to be. As you can tell from her posts, she doesn't actually give a damn about the war or any issue facing America; she just wants to see California women in positions of power.

can you say, HUGE hypocrite??? first, he supports pelosi's decision to back murtha, as murtha is easily the most vocal of anti-war congressional figures. then, when the party backs hoyer, he basically blames pelosi---and not the party. and says pelosi's "weak" even when pelosi did something CLEARLY strong: which was backing murtha.

does anyone else here see right through zero's hypocrisy?

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:10pm
even lefty robert sheer says we should all applaud pelosi for backing murtha!

christ, zero! you're insane! pelosi did precisely what you want, and then you trash her because her party didn't back her.....

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:11pm
for once, pelosi did what san francisco wants, what 64% of the country wants! bravo nancy pelosi!

she stood up to her party (which is what zero wants), and then gets shot down (which is what zero wants).....

and then zero says, "it's all about california women" distorting something i NEVER said....

moron!

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:13pm
War is money. Democrats are no less lean in the wallet than their counterparts across the isle in Congre$$.

Have we learned nothing from Bechtel, Halliburton, Rove and Cheney? Of course we won't bring the troops home yet. Pipelines and permanent bases are not yet complete. Please conside who Bush is talking about when he candidly thanks his appropriately termed base.

Posted by Roy Ansher at 11/16/2006 @ 3:20pm
FRB -

I found your last posts interesting and informative (as I find most of your posts), but I never said anything about Hoyer at all, let alone about his being less hawkish than anyone else or whether he was a good or better choice or not - I was strictly making a point about Murtha/Liberman and war/anti-war loyalties. You know that, right?

I do have to say that Democrat double standards annoy me no less than Republican ones.

Posted by NEW DAWN 11/16/2006 @ 2:55pm

Well, the first sentence of my response was related to your post. Maybe I should have spaced it when I turned back to discussing Hoyer, which is the subject of the day. The main issue is the war and I see no hypocrisy in showing greater approval of Murtha than Lieberman. Murtha turned against the war (to a limited extent) while Lieberman is a still staunch advocate. Murtha is at least expressing some loyalty to American soldiers rather than some other country's soldiers.

That doesn't mean I'm crazy about Murtha but I'm certainly not going to support someone who is worse on the Iraq debacle. Maybe someday there'll be a viable party that offers more than a choice between a domestic liberal who is a foreign policy war monger and a domestic "conservative" who shows some regard for reality and the wishes of the American people.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 3:24pm
Can everyone just chill out? Can you let the woman (Pelosi) take office before you all decide she's toast because of this vote? Geez!

As Frank says, the new congress doesn't take their seats until January, so any thoughts of getting out of Iraq by Christmas weren't realistic anyway.

Also, despite my being a Pennsylvanian, the thought of Jack Murtha being majority leader did nothing for me. Sending the "King of Pork" to the highest office in the Democratic leadership sends the wrong message, whether or not he's suddenly anti-war.

Did I agree with the War in Iraq? Hell no. I think that it was a bad move that just keeps geting worse. I think that the Bush impeachment hearings should begin immediately because I believe that if we can impeach a guy over lying about getting a blow job, we should be able to impeach a guy about lying us into a war with no problem.

But do I think that I'm going to get impeachment or a speedy Iraq withdrawl? Nope. That's because I'm a realist and I know that just as we didn't get into this mess in a flash, we won't get out of it in one either.

So will everyone stop getting their panties in a bunch, please? Let's enjoy the holidays, at least!

Posted by edwriter at 11/16/2006 @ 3:26pm
so, pelosi stands up on PRINCIPLE, stands up for ALL AMERICANS, and SHE is the loser?!

the REAL losers are: the democratic party AND the american public.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:26pm
Mask, Glad to see you read huffpost.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 3:00pm

Sure....it's HILARIOUS. Arianna's latest (where she takes the same "it wasn't a loss for Nancy, when her hand-picked Majority Leader LOST" spin that you did)...is comedy at its best.

What would Ms Huffington have said if Murtha had WON..."it was a loss for Nancy"?

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 3:31pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 3:00pm

"ZERO, you're out of your element!"

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 3:32pm
MYPARADIGM

I agree. People are so used to lock-step, petrified-brained Repubs goose-stepping behind the authoritarian of the day that when people come along who are willing to break ranks, the goose-steppers are sure the sky is falling, the Dems are doomed, the country's going to hell in a hand basket.

Welcome to a world where dissension, controversy, debate are welcomed, rather tham a rubber-stamp legislature that makes meaningless the spirit and courage of what was intended to be a body dedicated to keeping this democracy vibrant.

Posted by felicity at 11/16/2006 @ 3:36pm
Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 2:56pm

I think this puts to bed once and for all the excuse that the Democrats really are against the war but they are toning down their opposition to avoid alienating the "center". The "center" is now very obviously to the "left" of them and they just made it very clear that they couldn't care less about alienation of the "center". So much for, "Hillary will be better once she gets past the nasty electoral contest and in the White House".

Face it, fairy tale believers- The Democratic Party is the Republican Party.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 3:38pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 3:00pm

"ZERO, you're out of your element!"

Posted by MASK 11/16/2006 @ 3:32pm

LOL. "God damn you Walter! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about?"

Insert Zero or FRB for Walter and Iraq for Vietnam.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:38pm
War is money. Democrats are no less lean in the wallet than their counterparts across the isle in Congre$$.

Have we learned nothing from Bechtel, Halliburton, Rove and Cheney? Of course we won't bring the troops home yet. Pipelines and permanent bases are not yet complete. Please conside who Bush is talking about when he candidly thanks his appropriately termed base.

Posted by ROY ANSHER 11/16/2006 @ 3:20pm

That's the bottom line Roy. I posted on a different thread a story about a friend of mine who worked for Halliburton for 6 months in Iraq. They are cleaning house (literally and figuratively). They don't want the gravy train to stop.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:40pm
ZERO, Hang in there. I don't think it's all that bad. The dems are just getting the rust off. They'll find their direction by the time they assume power.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 3:02pm

Frank, six years is more than enough time for a tune-up. This jalopy needs a complete rebuild.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 3:41pm
Does anyone else find it ironic that Zero is very angry that the democratic process within the democratic party is allowed to take place? They get to vote! Horror of horrors!!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:41pm
FRB,

i am not for staying in iraq, and you already know this.

you (and zero) can't have it both ways:

1 angry at pelosi for not being anti-war enough

2. angry at pelosi for losing her support of murtha

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:43pm
Frankgrits the voice of reason among the angry liberals!

This is a day I didn't think I'd ever see.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:43pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 3:24pm

Fair enough!

Posted by New Dawn at 11/16/2006 @ 3:43pm
FRB and Zero should both be applauding pelosi for choosing a leader who wants out as soon as possible, seeing as that is your entire raison d'etre on this forum......

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:44pm
The Hoyer win over Murtha reminds me a little bit of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 2004: The party's heart was with an angry, antiwar, left-wing Howard Dean, but in the final hours it swung to its senses and used its head to choose John Kerry. Kerry did far better in the general election than Dean would have done, and was interpreted, certainly at the time, as a small-c conservative selection. The march of the neo-Dems continue!

Posted by woodyee at 11/16/2006 @ 3:44pm
What would Ms Huffington have said if Murtha had WON..."it was a loss for Nancy"?

Posted by MASK 11/16/2006 @ 3:31pm

It was a win-win I suppose. If people follow you - you're a strong leader. If people don't - well, the democratic process is at work and you were loyal to someone you felt you should be loyal to (or, way more importantly - someone the public thought you should be loyal to).

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:45pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 3:39pm

FRANK, people with principles...are "principled"

people who lose..."lost".

Or would you apply that same standard to the Republicans who just vacated the majority in Congress?

Ms Pelosi is the supposed leader of the Democrats in the House. She endorsed a candidate for Majority Leader, and by nearly a TWO to ONE majority they rejected their "leader's" choice.

Now, she can be "principled" all day...but when the next vote comes around on health care, education, taxes, THE WAR, etc.....if she has principles...but no votes....does it matter about her principles?

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 3:46pm
Welcome to a world where dissension, controversy, debate are welcomed, rather tham a rubber-stamp legislature that makes meaningless the spirit and courage of what was intended to be a body dedicated to keeping this democracy vibrant.

Posted by FELICITY 11/16/2006 @ 3:36pm

Felicity Nooooooooooooooooooooo! Why should democratically elected people get to speak for themselves and what they think their constituents want over doing what another democratically elected official tells them to do? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:47pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 3:38pm

Okay....so is DARLADOON "Maude" or "Bunny"?

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 3:47pm
christ, zero! you're insane! pelosi did precisely what you want, and then you trash her because her party didn't back her.....

Posted by DARLADOON 11/16/2006 @ 3:11pm

You're rewriting what he said. He was criticizing you for inflating her into something she wasn't and then endorsing her legs getting cut out from under her by the Democrats.

You said yesterday that you ignored both of us. I guess EVERYTHING'S different today, isn't it?

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 3:48pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 3:38pm

Okay....so is DARLADOON "Maude" or "Bunny"?

Posted by MASK 11/16/2006 @ 3:47pm

Without a question Maude. LOL

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 3:51pm
if she cannot bring create order in the party as house speaker now, in a way clearly intended by the public, then she cannot function as house speaker. she took a public position as house speaker for her party and was rejected by her own party. end of story. pelosi should resign as speaker-designate.

Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 3:20pm

The War Party will soon get rid of her. As timid as she was about the war it was just too much for the War Party. She's finished. They'll get rid of her sometime before the 2008 election season.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 3:53pm
FRB : for the record, this is what he said:

"FRB: and as far as that dimwit you still persist on talking to, just ask her about how apparently "strong" her "California woman" House Speaker really turned out to be."

and

"the apparent (and lamentable) figurehead "representation" of the anti-war majority in the public"

and

"the pathetically weak Nanci Pelosi (aka "Barbi the Politician") just got body-slammed 2 weeks after an election that was supposed to indicate a promotion for her"

i rest my case. there is nothing pelosi could have done right, not even vocally supporting the most anti-war candidate in congress. not even voting against the damn war in the first place.

pelosi did the right thing (for once), and it's still not enough for zero.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:54pm
this statement from zero, in and of itself, is proof that pelosi never was the problem (as he would have wanted us to believe), but the so-called 'war party'.......the "strong men" in charge....

well, we need a god damn woman in charge......not war-mongering emmanuel.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:56pm
sorry, here's his statement:

See that smiling man up front? That's Hoyer. See the unhappy guy behind him? That's Murtha. See the unhappy looking woman up front? That's Pelosi. See the happy, smiling man behind her? That's Rahm Emmanuel. Why are he and Hoyer smiling, whereas Pelosi and Murtha are unhappy? Because the pro-war majority in the Democratic Party officeholders just discovered that they really can shaft the public, and the mandate, and pursue rightist politics and the war agenda. They are happy because they just showed the House Speaker, as supposed "San Francisco liberal", who is actually in charge of the House, and it isn't her.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:57pm
i am obviously correct in asserting that zero is hypocritical by first suggesting that pelosi was 'pro-war'......and then trashing her AFTER she threw her support behind murtha, what many would see as an 'anti-war' position.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:58pm
FRB, you are much much to wedded to zero's position. you need to think for yourself. he's brainwashing you...

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 3:59pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 3:51pm

Guess that makes me "Smokey" and you.....

El Duderino!

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 4:01pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 3:57pm |

Sorry, FRANK...try it this way.

Bears vs Packers in the Super Bowl. Bears play a "principled" game, but lose to the Packers 52-7. Did the Bears "win" because they played clean, no low-blows, etc.?

Metaphysically perhaps, but Green Bay still has the trophy and the rings.

Same thing for Pelosi. She can "stay true to her principles and support Murtha"...but she still LOST her first major vote as leader of the Democrats. She's not a "winner"..."principled" (sure, if you like)...but when the leader of a political party in Congress wants something done, and doesn't get it...they lost...period.

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 4:04pm
Maybe so woodrow but Dean had the last laugh, didn't he?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 3:51pm | ignore this person

Sure did, Frankiepoo. Sure did...

Posted by woodyee at 11/16/2006 @ 4:04pm
Now, what about Alcee "Show Me the Money" Hastings? This from Wikipedia: In 1989, Hastings was impeached by the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He became only the sixth Judge in the history of United States to be removed from office by the United States Senate. (The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so.)

Posted by michaeld at 11/16/2006 @ 4:10pm
ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 3:53pm

I'd sooo much rather see this bunch of schoes than the likes of Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott. The parties are indistinguishable, my ass. Okay, I'm comparing bad to worse, but there is a difference.

So who's the scary looking guy on the left? Our pal Rahm?

Posted by MyParadigm at 11/16/2006 @ 4:11pm
Posted by MICHAELD 11/16/2006 @ 4:10pm

More reserach for you....was Nancy Pelosi a member of the House when that impeachment happened to Hastings, and if so, HOW DID SHE VOTE?

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 4:12pm
frank, i agree. many on the left are understandably hung up on the war, but are unaware of ms. pelosi's voting record on virtually every domestic policy issue. even foreign policy issues outside of the middle east. and let's not forget--pelosi voted against the iraq war resolution! zero likes to trash my love of california women politicians: but just look at their voting records! lee, woolsey, boxer, pelosi, and at least half a dozen more, have consistently stood up for women's rights, reproductive freedom (something zero doesn't have to worry about), gay rights, the environment, human rights, civil rights, shall i go on? their record is solid--and yes, it has something to do with their being women, first of all, and second of all their being californian: where diversity of opinion, freedom to be who you wanna be, are paramount. california leads the nation on progressive policy matters.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 4:16pm
Frankgrits response to me saying he's being the voice of reason among the angry liberal crowd for once: "That's because you're always too busy arguing with me to listen."

Posted by Frankgrits on an thread before the election --- "You [Edwriter] and everyone else is entitled to their opinion but in the political climate we face in this time, we can't take any prisoners. karl Rove and company laid down the gauntlet in 2000. Dems are just starting to catch up. The party of nice can no longer afford to use that approach any longer. Politics in 2006 is not for the weak-kneed. Otherwise we'll remain on the outside looking in while the republicans continue to sell our country to the highest bidder and our children give their lives. We.ve been enablers. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

So did this vote for Hoyer over Murtha show the dems to be "weak-kneed" on Iraq? Are the dems taking prisoners? Are the dems continuing to be "enablers"? And more importantly - can you really say this vote for Hoyer didn't mute your usual rhetoric?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:16pm
FRB,

i am not for staying in iraq, and you already know this.

You just spend a lot of time posting reasons why we just absolutely have to stay there just a little longer which sound like they originated on the Bill O'Reilly show. When I criticize you for that you then say you're for pulling out in six months and that I'm CRAZY for wanting to pull out IMMEDIATELY, a word I never used.

The only difference between pulling out in six months, pulling out in a year, or pulling out in three years will be six months or 2 1/2 years. Other, that is, than more dead Americans who you, happily, don't have to risk becoming one of.

you (and zero) can't have it both ways:

1 angry at pelosi for not being anti-war enough

2. angry at pelosi for losing her support of murtha

Posted by DARLADOON 11/16/2006 @ 3:43pm

ZERO's ignoring you but neither he nor I ever expressed any anger at Pelosi for losing in her support of Murtha. That's something you cooked up, your standard operating procedure. I'm really getting fed up with reading your silly shit.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:16pm
Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 3:53pm

So you're backing up your argument by pointing to Pelosi's smile as fake?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:19pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 3:51pm

Guess that makes me "Smokey" and you.....

El Duderino!

Posted by MASK 11/16/2006 @ 4:01pm

Or "The Dude" if you're into the whole brevity thing (switched it on ya') lol

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:21pm
The dems who supported Hoyer have to look inside themselves and at the same time watch their backs. They will be held to account both by Pelosi and the voters in just two short years from now.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 3:47pm

Frank, you're trying to put lipstick on the Democratic Party pig. Pelosi applied very strong pressure for Murtha and for good reason. He was the best choice to maintain the political momentum with the American people. The craven Democratic Party elite made it clear to Pelosi that they're the ones calling the shots and that she is the one who will have to watch her back.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:24pm
Gosh, I'm actually feeling a little nostalgic for the old days, when the left wingers here were simply united over their hatred of Bush... all this bickering over Pelosi and how the democrats suck ... tsk. How are the right wingers supposed to argue with that?! ;-)

Posted by FREIHEIT 11/16/2006 @ 4:19pm

LOL - FRB and Zero are ready to jump ship. They are proof positive why long-lasting third parties will never make a real dent in this country.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:26pm
They say a picture is worth 1000 words. This one sure is.

Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 3:53pm

She looks like she's getting kidnapped.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:26pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 4:26pm

You're assuming there are actually two right now. I beg to differ. It's more like one masquerading as two.

Posted by chimichenga at 11/16/2006 @ 4:28pm
Bye, bye DD. I'm ignoring you, and your war against ZERO, and your tiresome helter-skelter gibberish.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:28pm
We were thrilled that Murtha lost today!

Everyone made him into a hero for one issue, but he interfered with our recent local congressional election in Brooklyn in a "dirty" way.

After speaking on a WNYC show before the primaries, and admitting that he had never even MET Clarke, he was invited by Anthony Weiner to a local church (not even in Weiner's district, but in Major Owen's district!!!) to introduce her at a meeting to speak about the war.

Murtha kissed her on the forehead and had his arm around her, yet HE HAD NEVER MET HER before that moment. Chris Owens had been against the illegal and immoral war from the beginning, as was his father. Clarke is just socially conservative, good for Murtha's bid in the future. It had nothing to do with Clarke's position on the war. She is a lightweight and we will be watching her very carefully.

We cornered Weiner afterwards and told him we though something very underhanded was going on. He tried to wiggle out of it, but couldn't.

Now we know that Murtha was trying to garner support for his bid and we are DELIGHTED that he has lost so profoundly.

Murtha is not a nice man and we disagree with him on MOST issues. His brother benefited greatly from Murtha's ties to the defense industry. Murtha is NOT pro-choice and is much too conservative.

Pelosi made a HUGE mistake and miscalculation (literally) from which it may be very hard for her to recover.

Posted by peacenow17 at 11/16/2006 @ 4:28pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/16/2006 @ 4:21pm

Okay, seriously...how many "Big Lebowski" lines of dialogue can we substitute "FROMREDBIRD" with "Walter"?

"Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowling.

Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism; at least it's an ethos!

Donny, you're out of your element!

Shut the fuck up Donny!

Life does not start and stop at your convenience you miserable piece of shit.

Smokey, this is not Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.

Shomer Shabbos!

If you mark that frame an '8', you are entering a world of pain. (Pulls out a gun) A world... of pain.

(shouting, and holding a gun) Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one here who gives a shit about the rules?

Also Dude, let's not forget, let's not forget that keeping wildlife, um... an amphibious rodent, for... um, you know domestic... within the city... that ain't legal either.

Eight year olds, Dude. Eight year olds.

Whoo, allright! Way to go Donny!

That rug really tied the room together, did it not? (The Dude laments on the rug peers' action) That's right Dude, they peed on your fucking rug.

Calmer than you are..."

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 4:29pm
FRB, you are much much to wedded to zero's position. you need to think for yourself. he's brainwashing you...

Posted by DARLADOON 11/16/2006 @ 3:59pm

Thank God I didn't ignore you before seeing this.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:30pm
She looks like she's getting kidnapped.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 4:26pm

By Nihilists?

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 4:30pm
Gosh, I'm actually feeling a little nostalgic for the old days, when the left wingers here were simply united over their hatred of Bush... all this bickering over Pelosi and how the democrats suck ... tsk. How are the right wingers supposed to argue with that?! ;-)

Posted by FREIHEIT 11/16/2006 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person

just sit back and enjoy the show.

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2006 @ 4:31pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/16/2006 @ 4:28pm

True enough.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:31pm
Look at this. Last week we were all united in throwing the bums out and now all of a sudden because of one little vote, we are giving the wingnuts ammunition to try to define us again. The important vote today was that Nancy Pelosi was elected the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. That should be the story.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 4:04pm

Frank, the wingnuts had become irrelevant until the Democratic Party elite snatched their chestnuts out of the fire today.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:32pm
The Hoyer win over Murtha reminds me a little bit of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 2004: The party's heart was with an angry, antiwar, left-wing Howard Dean, but in the final hours it swung to its senses and used its head to choose John Kerry. Kerry did far better in the general election than Dean would have done, and was interpreted, certainly at the time, as a small-c conservative selection. The march of the neo-Dems continue!

Posted by WOODYEE 11/16/2006 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person

this will always remain conjecture. my money would have been on Dean, who was at least unequivocal about the war, and didn't have the albatross of the war vote hanging around his neck.

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2006 @ 4:33pm
Calmer than you are..."

Posted by MASK 11/16/2006 @ 4:29pm

They're all applicable and all fantastic.

But the one I copied-and-pasted is the perfect line not only for them but for basically ALL of us on these threads, but especially those of us who are here pretty much every day.

Every heated argument has the underlying "I'm calmer than you are" superiority to it. I love it!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:34pm
FRB, clearly can't address any of the points i make: here is zero trashing pelosi AFTER you stated that he didn't:

"FRB: and as far as that dimwit you still persist on talking to, just ask her about how apparently "strong" her "California woman" House Speaker really turned out to be."

and

"the apparent (and lamentable) figurehead "representation" of the anti-war majority in the public"

and

"the pathetically weak Nanci Pelosi (aka "Barbi the Politician") just got body-slammed 2 weeks after an election that was supposed to indicate a promotion for her"

and then later on, you say i duplicate hannity's talking points, yet provide no proof or comparison. it wouldn't be that difficult to find my opinion on the war, i have stated in 100 times over. i want a phased 12 month re-deployment.

also for the record: i opposed the afghanistan invasion as well.

zero, still hung up on my california women comment.....yet provides no reasoning as to why this wouldn't be a good idea, seeing as california women are far more in line than any other grouping of politicians in the country....

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 4:34pm
far more in line with zero, that is...

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 4:35pm
i think FRB and Zero are the same person. either that or they're blow buddies....

do you guys need some lube?

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 4:36pm
Mask - continutation of quotes...

The Royal "we"! You know, the editorial

I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

You know, Dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam of course.

Ow! Fucking fascist!

The bums will always lose!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:37pm
for all the trashing of political parties that zero engages in, you'd think he'd never want to join one.

so, why does it surprise him, nay make him irrepressibly angry, that political parties don't represent his interests? is it......no.....is it......because......political parties are......inherently....mad?

does he expect each democrat to have precisely the same position on every issue? am i the only one intelligent enough to question the very legitimacy of a coherent political party or opposition party?

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 4:39pm
does he expect each democrat to have precisely the same position on every issue? am i the only one intelligent enough to question the very legitimacy of a coherent political party or opposition party?

Posted by DARLADOON 11/16/2006 @ 4:39pm

The only one intelligent enough that you haven't placed on "ignore" --- but can't give you much credit for that, since you've ignored 90% of the regulars here.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:41pm
DD, you just got clicked into oblivion. Life is too short.

Now, ZERO, what should I say next?

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:41pm
Do you think that perhaps Speaker Pelosi knew that Hoyer would win and gave Murtha a nod to recognize his actions that helped the Democrats win this election in both the house and senate. It keeps him out in front even though he lost. I think Speaker Pelosi handled the whole matter very professionally and very smoothly. I am impressed.

Posted by bikerdude at 11/16/2006 @ 4:41pm
Do you think that perhaps Speaker Pelosi knew that Hoyer would win and gave Murtha a nod to recognize his actions that helped the Democrats win this election in both the house and senate. It keeps him out in front even though he lost. I think Speaker Pelosi handled the whole matter very professionally and very smoothly. I am impressed.

Posted by BIKERDUDE 11/16/2006 @ 4:41pm

That isn't what her face in that picture says.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 4:43pm
We all must be starved for controversy after the election to raise such a hue and cry over this Pelosi/Hoyer issue. Certainly, the media need something to hold people's attention; we can expect them to inflate the slightest incident into BIG NEWS, but should we?

Sure the Democrats have done, are doing, and will do stupid things: they're politicians for heaven's sake! But to throw up our hands in exasperation at this point is a bit premature. And to claim, as some have here, that there is, after all, no difference between the two parties is to overlook some of the very important issues facing this country - other than the disaster in Iraq (for which, probably, no one can find an acceptable solution).

The Dems have set an agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, supporting stem cell research, and implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, among other things. And, if this nation is going to do something about providing its citizens with affordable health care or contributing to the world effort to mitigate global warming, it is going to be done by Democrats, not Republicans.

There's a very real difference between these two parties and the expected jockeying for position before the 110th Congress sits in January is no indication that the Democrats won't realize significant accomplishment during the next two years, no matter who fills the official leadership positions. Furthermore, that Nancy Pelosi is no Tom DeLay, hammering her fellow Democrats into submission, is hardly a disappointment to me.

Posted by vrossano at 11/16/2006 @ 4:43pm
Posted by BIKERDUDE 11/16/2006 @ 4:41pm

Don't you dare let Zero or Fromredbird read that.

They are reactionaries extrordinaire. They'll insult you and keep you occupied the next few hours if you let them.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:44pm
Where in Samhain is NACL? Does he still post here? I'm looking to throw down the gauntlet with that tawdry imposter, as my hand itches to lick off some choice contumelies and drop them all over the rubbish he used to belch on this page. Should the mawkish moron stop in and pollute the parley with some of that uncultivated shibboleth, let him know I've just eaten some spinach and aim to deliver some blows to that inflated pumpkin of a head of his...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/16/2006 @ 4:44pm
zero's political utopia is premised on an outmoded binary logic that has its roots in 17th century philosophy.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 4:45pm
That isn't what her face in that picture says.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 4:43pm

So both Zero and FRB are backing up their opinions by interpreting a picture. Apparently they know Nancy Pelosi's genuine smile from fake smile.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:45pm
The Dems have set an agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, supporting stem cell research, and implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, among other things

but these goals simply aren't good enough for the sexist zero, for whom feminine identity dissolves into the 5 foot frame of a coco chanel power suit.

Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2006 @ 4:46pm
Posted by VROSSANO 11/16/2006 @ 4:43pm

Impressive post. I concur with it.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:46pm
RIO,

You really need to start doubling your doses of lithium. For Christ's sake you are about as bright as a lima bean and as amusing as a rock...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/16/2006 @ 4:50pm
The Darla - Zero/Fromredbird dichotomy is funny because they literally need each other to survive on these threads. They ignore virtually every one else and constantly threaten each other with the ignore list. And after they've announced their intention to place eachother on ignore (who knows if they really do it) they still debate each other without being able to read the other's posts)!

Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2006 @ 4:50pm
biker and Vr, a dose of sanity, thanks

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2006 @ 4:51pm
FRANKGRITS,

You are 100 percent correct. I don't know what all the bruhaha is about. Democrats have no choice but to come together, unless they want to go back a GOP dominated House in which point there would be no reason for them to even show up for work, given that the Majority of the Majority decided all legislative matters. People should put this one to bed. If I was Pelosi, I would have stayed neutral, but what is done is done and time to move on.

Posted by POSEIDON at 11/16/2006 @ 4:53pm
The Representative from Lockheed isn't going to get her Murtha Airwar Plan? Oh no! Oh horrors! Oh whatever shall her donors do for government contracts now?! Groundwars are soooooooo unprofitable! Why oh why can't they give the democrats the nice clean safe AIRWAR they so crave and desire? This is horrible, I tell ya! Horrible!

Posted by AlanSmithee at 11/16/2006 @ 4:54pm
edwriter: given that the pro-war minority just cut the legs out from underneath the supposed house speaker, the apparent (and lamentable) figurehead "representation" of the anti-war majority in the public - only 2 weeks after the election! - can you please argue for me as to how the party in the future would be expected to bring an end to the iraq war?

Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel are in charge of the House. The war agenda is in charge of the House. Just as the recent public election was a referendum on the Iraq war, the election Murtha lost was a House Democrat referendum on the Iraq war. And guess what, the House Democrats, as a body, just decided on the Iraq war in the exact opposite way as the public.

How is the House therefore going to represent the anti-war public that just elected it's majority party?

Doesn't the fact that any anti-war agenda she might have just got torched, and the reality that Pelosi's rise to Speaker was predicated on the anti-war decision the public just made, constitute Pelosi being "toast"?

She was promoted to Speaker to end the war. Her party just handed her her hat.

Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person

Wow! And I thought that I was a pessimist.

Again, I think that anyone who thought we were getting out of Iraq soon was deluding themselves. Are you forgetting who is still the occupant of the White House?

I don't think that all is lost, Zero. You might consider me a pollyanna or a lockstep Democrat by saying that (neither of which I am), but it's going to take more than keeping a congressman from my home state with ethics issues from becoming majority leader for me to believe that the American people have been blown off.

Or are you forgetting that these folks are about to be joined by some folks who were elected to get us the heck our of Iraq? I think they're going to have a word or two to say about the process.

If there's no movement after January, I'll concede to your position Zero. But until then, I'm going to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by edwriter at 11/16/2006 @ 5:02pm
David Corn,

A dirty little unspoken secret: In the Grand scheme of things, both Democrats and Republicans in government and the American people as a whole have the same worldview when it comes to foreign policy. Both parties and the nation at large believe that the United States is Lord, Master, and Ruler of the Earth and both political parties seek to impose the American will on the rest of the globe. The only difference between them is methods. Democrats (with noted exceptions) prefer global empire lite in using international institutions as cover for global hegemony. Republicans and neocon fanatics, on the other hand, feel that if the rest of the world does not kiss America's boots, then they will be made to do so by force; bombed until they do, often, in unilateral fashion. Reference Richard Armitage's conversation with Musharaff in Pakistan to illustrate this point. That is what the continued war in Iraq is all about. It's not about chaos will break out if we leave, (as if one hundred plus murders and two car bombs a day is not chaos) it is we will not be told by anyone when we shall leave. I feel sorry for people who voted for the Democrats on November 7 thinking that they would seriously force Bush to leave Iraq in short order. No such happenings there.

Posted by POSEIDON at 11/16/2006 @ 5:06pm
With all the expected bawling displayed here in such sentimental forms by the wingers, fascists and miscellaneous loonies here present, I ask you all what could the Democrates realistically do that would worsen the damage already done in the past six years? Your whining is quite baseless at this juncture. I suggest first owning up to sponsoring a flock of jackals and their ruinous policies, then coming to terms with where it has gotten you. Once you do this you should consider where the country currently stands and what its few remaining options are on all the major fronts, both domestic and foreign. The music to this ongoing bash was just changed a few days ago, so at least give it a chance to play a while before dismissing it completely. All the times you hurled the labels antiAmerican, terrorist sympathizer, traitor, pessimist, ect, and now you're acting in the very manner you criticized only a few weeks ago. I wish the libs and conservatives would just have it out on the battlefield so the world could for once not have to provide the location for your insane fighting and could sit back and enjoy the site of you taking out your anger on one another instead of some poor peasants who admired you before you blew their town up over lies and zany witch hunts...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/16/2006 @ 5:12pm
I didn't vote Democratic just because of the war. Murtha received a 58% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Hoyer received a 100% mark. Murtha is quite conservative on many other issues, Hoyer less so. Both are too tied into the lobbying machine, making it almost a wash when it comes to getting corporate hands to release their strangle hold on American politics.

As far as the war goes, the options the Democrats will have will be limited. Their main weapon will be the purse strings but doing anything that the Repubs can spin as being a lessening of support for the troops will hurt them badly. Their best tactic may be to just peck around the edges, with investigations of Halliburton and the manipulation of intelligence before the war. To think that there was any chance of a quick withdrawal, especially after Lieberman's performance yesterday, is pure daydreaming. If the situation continues to degrade in Iraq the dynamic might change. A full scale civil war, with Americans caught in the middle, would make a quick withdrawal politically feasible. But until then the Dems best option is to keep the pressure up on the Administration and be seen by the rest of the country as the Party that wants to change the tactics, even if they lack the power (which they do) to actually change things.

Posted by Soupy George at 11/16/2006 @ 5:12pm
I have to say I am with Edwriter and think some are overreacting here. Sure, Murtha took an early and public stand on THIS war, but let's be real, his resume shows him to be a pro-military hawk - not such a great loss in the long run if you consider yourself generally anti-war. So the pundits, talking heads and political junkies will analyze this to death, but why don't we let the Democrats get to at least February before we start criticizing their agenda.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/16/2006 @ 5:24pm
Murtha a war veteran, the first to speak out against the disasterous Iraq War .He said, what most Americans thought BUT the Dems fear of the Bush Adminstration painting them "as cut & run", not supporting the troops" kept silent , Instead of showing solidarity they have voted for Hoyer an air-brushed non veteran. I fear for the democratic party. Nancy Pelosi is a breath of fresh air

Posted by K.burke at 11/16/2006 @ 5:30pm
as gomer pyle used to say, "SUPRISE SUPRISE SUPRISE!"

jim clyburn! i'm fine with that. worked on his first campaign, way back in 92 when the white republicans first gerrymandered his district!

wow. strange days indeed....

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2006 @ 6:07pm
To all blaming this on "right wingers making a mountain out of a mole hill"....a question...

Is DAVID CORN a right winger?

BLOG | Posted 11/16/2006 @ 12:51am Murtha Loses--And So Does Pelosi

The vote count is in: Steny Hoyer defeated Jack Murtha 149 to 86 for the majority leader post in the House.

There's no way to spin this: this was a big loss for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The vote wasn't close. Her ally was rejected.

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 6:49pm
The simple truth is that Pelosi and Stenny dont get along and are enemies, which might be the most important reason she endorsed Murtha. I applaud her for doing the right thing (supporting withdrawal) for the wrong reasons. Pelosi can be an effective speaker, if she chooses her battles carefully. This was a bad start for her, and could have been easily avoided had she counted the votes before openly involving herself.

I will wait to judge Pelosi until her party has actually taken power..........she stated that during her first hundred hours whe would push for a repeal of the tax cuts for the uber-rich, and a national raise in the minimum wage. If she isn't true to her word, then it's just politics as usual.

Posted by jpolston at 11/16/2006 @ 7:03pm
I think this was a win-win for Pelosi. Look at it this way: I think she knew that Hoyer had the votes, but felt she could return the loyalty to Murtha and endorse him without risk. Now, she has an opportunity to show that the Dems can transcend this bogus "infighting" and move on with the business of the day. Plus, she can lobby for another post for Murtha.

Posted by ronmac at 11/16/2006 @ 7:17pm
Posted by RONMAC 11/16/2006 @ 7:17pm | ignore this person

It is interesting to think that it could have been a calculated loss. I've already heard that opinion........she knew that Stenny was going to win, so she endorses Murtha to show she isn't going to back down with regard to the war, and then pulls everyone back together after the loss to show she can be an effective leader, a professional, and the kind of person that doesn't mind compromise if it moves us forward.

I'd love to think that's the case. However, I dont think she would have taken the loss had she known it would turn out this way. I think she believed she had the votes........but she was way off. Either way, whether it was a shrewd political play, or a miscalculation, I dont think it really hurts her. She looked tough on the war, which is what the country wants.........and then showed she's willing to compromise and work professionally with whomever she must........even if it's someone with whom she has had differences of opinion. Again, I'm rooting for her to actually deliver on what she stated she would do once they convene with the majority. If she doesnt push the agenda she promoted, then she's full of shit, and just playing politics as usual. Again: I'm hoping she's for real.

Posted by jpolston at 11/16/2006 @ 7:27pm
Can't talk, too busy brainwashing FRB.

(scrub, scrub, rinse ... scrub, scrub, rinse ... FRB, you really MUST learn to not get your brain so filthy. it's just plain un-hygenic!)

Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person

I guess you do realize that this post serves no point other than to antagonize her and continue a fued from which nobody is gaining. It is quite hypocritical of you to turn this thread into an infight between DD, yourself, and FBR........when you are constantly asking others on this site to refrain from such actions. She is a loon, but if you follow her down the path are you really any better?

Posted by jpolston at 11/16/2006 @ 7:32pm
David, I think you are dead wrong on this. In Pelosi's letter of support to Murtha last week, she pledged her personal support. But pointedly, she did not invoke the prerogatives of the Speaker-presumptive to urge the Democratic caucus to vote for him. I think she counted the votes very well, and knew that Hoyer would win. She chose to reward personal loyalty from Murtha with personal loyalty to Murtha, without at the same time splitting the caucus in a futile attempt to push "her" candidate through. I think most Dems, including Murtha, understood full well that her personal support was not a command to follow her lead.

I think Pelosi emerges stronger from this. She showed class in not throwing her weight around, while remaining personally loyal to the guy whut brung her to the dance. If anything, the Dems will feel more motivated to support her on the tough issues ahead to correct any perceived weakness on her part as a result of this vote. In losing, Pelosi has clearly won.

Posted by slaskin at 11/16/2006 @ 9:10pm
Who is Steny Hoyer? This post is bought and paid for. Safe candidates still raise the most money and they use it to "give" to other candidates, who then "owe" them these leadership votes. And there is no way to understate how much money is at stake. Shake down money. This job is worth big money to this Steny Hoyer, whoever he is.

Posted by Curt Rhodes at 11/16/2006 @ 9:39pm
As far as the war goes, the options the Democrats will have will be limited. Their main weapon will be the purse strings but doing anything that the Repubs can spin as being a lessening of support for the troops will hurt them badly. Their best tactic may be to just peck around the edges, with investigations of Halliburton and the manipulation of intelligence before the war. To think that there was any chance of a quick withdrawal, especially after Lieberman's performance yesterday, is pure daydreaming. If the situation continues to degrade in Iraq the dynamic might change. A full scale civil war, with Americans caught in the middle, would make a quick withdrawal politically feasible. But until then the Dems best option is to keep the pressure up on the Administration and be seen by the rest of the country as the Party that wants to change the tactics, even if they lack the power (which they do) to actually change things.

Posted by SOUPY GEORGE 11/16/2006 @ 5:12pm

Translation: DON'T USE THE PURSE STRINGS! IF WE DO THE REPUBLICANS WILL SAY TERRIBLY DISPARAGING THINGS ABOUT US. LET'S JUST TALK A LOT- KEEP HINTING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ARE BETTER THAN THE REPUBLICANS. IF WE REPEAT IT ENOUGH THEY'LL BELIEVE US.

I have to admit, though, Peck Around the Edges Party sounds much more accurate than Democratic Party.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 10:03pm
I will wait to judge Pelosi until her party has actually taken power..........she stated that during her first hundred hours whe would push for a repeal of the tax cuts for the uber-rich, and a national raise in the minimum wage. If she isn't true to her word, then it's just politics as usual.

Posted by JPOLSTON 11/16/2006 @ 7:03pm

Plan on being highly elated for four days of talk, talk, talk and then spending the next several years realizing it was just talk, talk, talk.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 10:08pm
blah blah blah blah...

we will see. hell, they havent even assumed the office yet. i checked out stenny...steny...steiny...hoyer. seems like he has pretty standard moderate to liberal credentials. i am a bit worried about pelosi, however. can she handle this?

we will see...

as long as the party does not fracture, a little squabbling is to be expected.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2006 @ 10:10pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/16/2006 @ 5:12pm

good find. i think MASK is a bit wrong on his predictions of nothing coming to pass in terms of investigations...but then we shall see.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2006 @ 10:13pm
Hoyer was on Hardball today saying there will be investigations. He seems to feel that oversight (investigations) is actually a responsibility of the congress

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 10:34pm
Can't talk, too busy brainwashing FRB.

Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 5:50pm

I guess you do realize that this post serves no point other than to antagonize her and continue a fued from which nobody is gaining. It is quite hypocritical of you to turn this thread into an infight between DD, yourself, and FBR........when you are constantly asking others on this site to refrain from such actions. She is a loon, but if you follow her down the path are you really any better?

Posted by JPOLSTON 11/16/2006 @ 7:32pm

ZERO for House Majority Leader. He's right about everything. And a few other things, too.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 10:34pm
responsibility

what a concept

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 10:35pm
Plan on being highly elated for four days of talk, talk, talk and then spending the next several years realizing it was just talk, talk, talk.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 10:08pm | ignore this person

Quite frankly that is my expectation........but I'm still hoping for something different. It is possible that she will stand and deliver on her promises, and I for one hope it wasn't all just rhetoric. I'm tired of rhetoric, I want action.

Posted by jpolston at 11/16/2006 @ 10:35pm
Posted by JPOLSTON 11/16/2006 @ 10:35pm

I'm fed up with hoping today. I'm going to crack an Asahi Super Dry and have some dinner.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/16/2006 @ 10:37pm
as long as the party does not fracture, a little squabbling is to be expected.

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/16/2006 @ 10:10pm

the poeple have been indoctrinated for the last twelve years on how mindless tools rubber stamp their way through the responsibilities of governing.

now the country will get a chance to see how real Americans govern

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 10:37pm
ZERO for House Majority Leader. He's right about everything. And a few other things, too.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 10:34pm | ignore this person

LOL! I hated to pick on him as I know his panties are in a knot right now, but I'm pretty sure he has me on ignore anyway. I'm just a little tired of all the bickering, and the constant DD & Zero infighting has gotten old. I used to pick on Maasch, so it's not like I'm completely innocent when it comes to personal attacks, but these two need some supervision from adults IMHO.

Posted by jpolston at 11/16/2006 @ 10:40pm
Hoyer was on Hardball today saying there will be investigations. He seems to feel that oversight (investigations) is actually a responsibility of the congress

Posted by WILL C. 11/16/2006 @ 10:34pm | ignore this person

I liked what he had to say, and his voting record is fairly solid. Furthermore, even though I dont know that much about him, with a name like Stenny how can you lose. Seriously folks, if the Democrats would just run guys with names like Stenny they could start winning in the South.

Posted by jpolston at 11/16/2006 @ 10:43pm
Posted by JPOLSTON 11/16/2006 @ 10:43pm

I would have been happy if Jack got elected as majority leader. But I'm happy Stenny got elected majority leader.... why?

Majority leader

get it

:)

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 10:57pm
he he he he

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 10:57pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 10:37pm

Got this far, then eeww. Asahi? Well, taste is personal.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2006 @ 11:03pm
I posted this elsewhere a few minutes ago, but I;ll repeat it here as the only comment I can muster on this.

Well Mask, I hope you have me a serving of crow ready, since Hoyer won today (and not by a little either.) I was thus wrong, wrong, wrong, and have lost whatever metaphorical cash I laid down on the outcome. It seems that Pelosi was not able to overcome the old boy network enough to get this through. They all put a good face on it, but what this is going to do to the 100 Hour plan I don't know. Let's hope Hoyer has seen which way the political winds are blowing outside of Congress and doesn't resist a solid withdrawal scheme. Maybe Pelosi can still pull off what needs to be done. I certainly hope so. As far a lobby reform, which had been another hope (since with Murtha a loyal Pelosi backer, she wouldn't have him standing in the way) it's probably dead or will be rolled out on life support just bwfore the election cycle in 2008. Not good.

Posted by Stwriley at 11/16/2006 @ 11:15pm
Frei, Pretending they were different got the repubs on top. remember uniter not divider?

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2006 @ 11:16pm
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress; SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs; FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public; SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2006 @ 11:31pm
Who remembers that document?

Winner helps Tent Lott put in his new hot tub.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2006 @ 11:33pm
one of the great works of fiction

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 11:33pm
little know fact.. it was produced in a room full of chimps banging away on typewriters

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 11:34pm
osted by WILL C. 11/16/2006 @ 11:34pm

Guffaw!!

hamsters were too small to work the keys?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2006 @ 11:36pm
who do you think feeds the hamsters?

Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2006 @ 11:40pm
And Pelosi has to insert her foot into her cakehole and make stupid "100 hour" claims. Just setting herself up for a fall.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2006 @ 11:41pm
You slay me, Brutha.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2006 @ 11:41pm
THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT:

try pay as you go.

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2006 @ 11:55pm
On the first day of the 104th Congress,...

Posted by CRABWALK 11/16/2006 @ 11:31pm THAT was pure poetry.

Time (and not too much of it) will tell whether the Dems tread the same path. I'm not quite as cynical as Zero or FRB, but I am not very optimistic, especially after this little leadership fight.

To those on either side of the Murtha-Hoyer fight, I say forget it: THEY BOTH SUCK. And if this is the best the Dems can offer us... phew, something really reeks around here.

I have had no illusions about the Democratic Party for a long time now (registered Green). Nonetheless I worked hard these last six weeks to elect a Democrat (Jerry McNerney) to Congress (CA-11, defeating that corrupt eco-thug toad Richard Pombo) -- in part because I do think McNerney is a decent guy, and in large part because no matter what else happens, getting rid of Pombo is a service to California and the world. Despite my party affiliation, I don't really think third parties stand a chance in the US on the national level (Bernie Sanders notwithstanding). I think Thom Hartmann's suggestion may be right: that a far more radical move will be a campaign by progressives to re-take the Democratic Party, starting at the county level and working up. But that will be a long hard fight against very long odds.

Posted by siegeljd at 11/17/2006 @ 01:39am
Can't talk, too busy brainwashing FRB.

Posted by ZERO 11/16/2006 @ 5:50pm

ZERO for House Majority Leader. He's right about everything. And a few other things, too.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 10:34pm

LOL! I hated to pick on him as I know his panties are in a knot right now, but I'm pretty sure he has me on ignore anyway.

Posted by JPOLSTON 11/16/2006 @ 10:40pm

I wasn't making fun of ZERO.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 02:06am
I don't know. Do the newly-elected House Democrats vote on the caucus officers for the next Congress or do the incumbents vote on the officers for the next Congress even if some of them lost (I know none of the Dem incumbents lost).

Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 02:14am
Stop pushing your book already!

Posted by tleviness at 11/17/2006 @ 02:24am
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/16/2006 @ 10:37pm

Got this far, then eeww. Asahi? Well, taste is personal.

Posted by CRABWALK 11/16/2006 @ 11:03pm

It isn't that good but I like dry beer sometimes and I forget what it was like the last time. I had some Suntory dry beer once which I did think was good but you can't find it anywhere.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 02:28am
I wasn't making fun of ZERO.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/17/2006 @ 02:06am

One of those Kerry jokes.

Stop pushing your book already!

Posted by TLEVINESS 11/17/2006 @ 02:24am

My biography of ZERO? I barely hinted at it.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 02:31am
This from Ruth Marcus [tinyurl.com] at the Washington Post:

[After detailing Murtha's Abscam-related actions, caught on videotape] "On its own, Murtha's Abscam conduct is disqualifying.

"Even if it weren't, though, everything in Murtha's post-Abscam life is of a piece with the back-scratching, dealmaking style on display in the video. In a story last month, the New York Times described how Murtha has operated "a political trading post" in a back corner -- the Murtha corner, it's called -- of the House floor, where Democrats and Republicans alike come to get Murtha's blessing for earmarks or his help on close votes. As Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski told the Times, "nobody ever leaves completely disappointed."

Murtha is one of 12 Democrats who voted against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. He's one of four who killed a strong Democratic ethics package earlier this year. He is a one-man earmarking factory whose beneficiaries have included a lobbying firm that employed his brother and another founded by a former top aide."

And as I have said, Hoyer is really no better.

From Daniel Schulman on the Mother Jones blog [tinyurl.com] of 2006-11-09 (there's no way to blockquote on this blog, and there are lots of embedded quotes -- sorry):

"As Zach Roth points out in a recent profile of Hoyer in Washington Monthly, the Democrat, if successful in securing the job, will have something in common with one of his Republican predecessors -- Tom DeLay. Like DeLay, Hoyer has made it his business to cultivate close ties to K Street, which, Roth notes, may not make him the best choice for Majority Leader, [a masterpiece of understatement! - JS] particularly since the Democrats have taken pains to distance themselves from the lobbying scandals that ensnared top Republicans:

[embedded blockquote here represented in italics:

...There is no doubt he has worked hard to curry favor on K Street. Over the last year and a half, he has ramped up an effort--begun soon after taking over the whip's job--to raise money for Democrats from Washington business lobbyists.... "We find mutual interests, mutual ways to help each other," says [Bill] Cable, [Hoyer's] chief of staff....

After Hoyer's office posted on its website a news story describing the fundraising project, Republicans were quick to call Hoyer a hypocrite for attacking the GOP over Abramoff while at the same time touting his relationships with lobbyists. Hoyer's staff quickly took the story down.

...More problematic than the fundraising program has been Hoyer's stance on lobbying reform, in which he has consistently stood in the way of Democratic efforts to unite behind a far-reaching approach. Hoyer's opposition to reform appears to be of long standing, and well known on both sides of the aisle. Back in October 1994, Congress had been considering a lobbying reform bill that many lawmakers privately considered too restrictive. According to Roll Call, DeLay and Hoyer were walking down the Capitol steps shortly before leaving for the October recess in advance of the midterms that would bring the GOP to power, when the Texan "cupped his hands around his mouth and chuckled to Hoyer, �But lobbying reform is dead!'" DeLay, it seems, understood even then that he and Hoyer were of one mind on the issue."

Eeeeewwww.

Posted by siegeljd at 11/17/2006 @ 02:34am
What does Hoyer's style mean, long-term, for Democrats and their supposed agenda?

I think Washington Monthly editor Zachary Roth sums it up quite well [tinyurl.com]:

"Hoyer's energetic wooing of Washington's lobbying community is even more problematic. Democratic leaders from FDR to Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton have always had cozy relationships with corporate interests--including accepting their campaign cash--understanding that getting and keeping power, and governing wisely, require tradeoffs. Insisting that today's leaders renounce all K Street money, or never meet with lobbyists at all, may be an unrealistic standard that would handicap Democratic efforts to gain power in the first place. But the spate of recent lobbying scandals revealed a system in which corporate interests enjoy an unprecedented degree of control over the legislative process. Indeed, the influence of corporate money on legislation is the single biggest obstacle to achieving a broad array of progressive policy goals--from universal health care, to a fairer tax code, to curbing global warming.

"That's why Democrats need leaders who are willing to play aggressively by the current rules of the game--but who seek to change those rules once in power. The enthusiasm with which Hoyer has raised money from K Street, his resistance to serious lobbying reform, and his general comfort with the Washington establishment all imply a politician with little interest in systemic change. Indeed, Hoyer's contention that the problem lies not with lobbying practices as a whole, but rather with individual corrupt members of Congress, suggests he genuinely sees little need for such change.

"In this sense, Hoyer, who styles himself the ultimate political realist, is missing a larger political reality: Because of fundamental differences in ideology, it will always be easier for Republicans than Democrats to create the kind of money-for-access-based governing machine that DeLay et al. perfected over the last decade. Genuinely restricting the lobbyist-legislator relationship would inconvenience members of both parties, but it would utterly destroy the model that has become the basis of Republican governance. And since politics--at least in a two-party system--is a zero-sum game, that can only work to Democrats' advantage. A leader with the courage and independence to envision a fundamentally fairer and more honest Washington would be practicing not just good policy, but good politics, too."

And Hoyer isn't.

Emphasis in the quote is mine.

Posted by siegeljd at 11/17/2006 @ 02:46am
This might signify Hoyer is better liked than Murtha. I don't think Pelosi will be terribly damaged as long as she doesn't overreact to the press's attempts to spin the vote into a serious defeat.

Posted by gnosys at 11/17/2006 @ 08:40am
It doesn't look good for the "rejuvenated Democrats," and wouldn't even if Murtha had been elected, instead. Murtha has had ethics problems, but Hoyer isn't squeaky clean, either. What's worse is that he's a prime spokesman for business as usual, and for compromise with Bush, not just over the Iraq war. He's not even an economic Democrat, he's from the DLC school, cozy with big business. If there's three things this election was about it was Iraq, corruption and economic policies favoring the rich. Murtha would have been better on two out of three, but maybe Democrats need someone who's not tainted at all.

I have a question: is the session next year stuck with the leadership elected now, by members of the old Congress, and with no new members participating? Or is this something that can be revisited in January? If it is, perhaps the progressive netroots can lobby for new leaders--not Hoyer or Murtha--before the next session begins.

Posted by Douglas C. at 11/17/2006 @ 08:55am
Posted by STWRILEY 11/16/2006 @ 11:15pm

I have a lovely Pinot Beurot to go with your "Corneille de Fromage".....not really, hehe.

Hoyer isn't going to bite the hand that feeds him...or risk Dems losing in 2008 (a tighter Presidential year than most think) by cutting off the lobbyists.

There will be "peripheral" lobbying reform...no overt gifts, no trips, no meetings IN the Congress. But Hoyer isn't going to let "K Street" get shut down now that it can become "D Street" ("D" for Dem).

Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 09:00am
I don't know. Do the newly-elected House Democrats vote on the caucus officers for the next Congress or do the incumbents vote on the officers for the next Congress even if some of them lost (I know none of the Dem incumbents lost).

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/17/2006 @ 02:14am

Does anyone have a definitive answer for this? If they do vote for the leadership without including the new members then the process is designed to suppress the will of the electorate, especially at turning points like this. Next year the small number of new members won't have the clout and maybe not even the courage to demand another vote. If this is the case then pressure should be applied from outside to change the system. Pro-war Hoyer's support is too great to overcome anyway but it should still be changed on principle. The new members who gave them the majority don't get to vote on the leaders? If that's really how it works it has to be changed.

Getting back to Murtha/Hoyer, there's a lot of bombast from Hoyer's apologists about Murtha's corporate loyalties but Hoyer is certainly no better. The choice defaults to Murtha on his Iraq occupation position. The other aspects like his social conservatism are overblown. He wouldn't be capable of changing the direction of the country on things like abortion, etc., as Majority Leader. His own party would not allow him to go that far. In Hoyer's case the Democratic Party unfortunately does look like it will let Hoyer drag out the occupation as he wants to, putting aside all the verbal subterfuge, against the wishes of the great majority of Americans.

As I and others have mentioned, the inadequacy of the Democratic Party is illustrated very well by this: a choice between a social conservative who is for beginning a withdrawal process and a social liberal who is hand in glove with the Republicans on their illegal, unnecessary war. The currently constituted Democratic Party is no alternative for the future. It's one of the roadblocks keeping America from overcoming it's current abysmally unrepresentative character.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 10:50am
darla supports greenwald's take: the "common sense" beltway pundits, corn included, are just way, way off on this one......

Beltway attacks on Nancy Pelosi

The mindless group-think driving the media's caricatures of Nancy Pelosi is truly astounding to behold, even considering the source. She's not even Speaker yet, and they've already pronounced her to be a bitchy, vindictive shrew incapable of leading because she's consumed by petty personal bickering rather than serious and substantive considerations. And all of this is based on nothing.

Unsurprisingly, all of this has been concocted by the herd of all-knowing Beltway analysts who fancy themselves to be such high-minded warriors against conventional wisdom even though they are its most obedient vessels.

Over at New Republic's The Plank, we learn that the election of Steny Hoyer as Majority Leader "is a real embarassment (sic) for Nancy Pelosi" and that to have any chance to "move past" this towering defeat she must "resist her tendency to seek payback against apostates" (Michael Crowley); "Pelosi looks pretty bad right now" (Jason Zengerle); and, in short, "this was a disaster for Pelosi all the way around" (Christopher Orr). And oh - the great and powerful Tom "Hammer" Delay (who pioneered the art of punishing apostates) would never have allowed something like this to happen.

Their overseer, Marty Peretz, surveys his decades-deep familiarity with American politicians and decides that Pelosi reminds him of . . . . . of all people . . . . Bella Abzug. After he notes the many important and serious differences between the two -- "Pelosi is rather svelte, which Bella was not. Pelosi also doesn't wear a big-brimmed hat" -- he says that neither of these women can "discern between a political difference and a personal war. So if it was the former, it quickly also became the latter." Says Peretz of Pelosi: she "cannot separate personal from political differences. And where Pelosi's vanity goes, there, apparently, the House Democrats will follow."

At Slate, Timothy Noah has a column entitled "Dump Pelosi," in which he generously decrees: "Let Pelosi remain speaker for now. But let her know that, before the new Congress even begins, she has placed herself on probation." Noah warns her: "One more strike--even a minor misstep--and House Democrats will demonstrate that they, unlike Speaker-elect Pelosi and President Bush, know how to correct their mistakes."

This is everywhere, permeating all aspects of the media. Digby describes a particularly giggly version of it on MSNBC last night. These sweeping condemnations of Pelosi all arise out of two -- and only two -- incidents: (1) her support for Jack Murtha over Steny Hoyer as Majority Leader and (2) her opposition to Jane Harman becoming Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

It is painfully obvious that Pelosi supported Murtha for one very simple and extremely common reason -- because unlike Hoyer, with whom she has a tense and uncomfortable working relationship and with whom she has worked at cross-purposes in the past, Murtha is her ally and supporter. Murtha held a blogger conference call a couple of days ago and in response to every question, he repeatedly emphasized that his intention was to concentrate on Iraq and that in all other areas, he would "do what Nancy wants." He's a Pelosi loyalist and ally and so she supported him for that job over someone who isn't.

Is that supposed to be unusual? That's how all of Washington works. It's how the world works. Here is what Peggy Noonan said in her column today about how the Bush administration operates and why Mel Martinez was made RNC Chair rather than Michael Steele:

I am taken aback this week at the level of disenchantment with and dislike of the president and his men--not among Democrats, but among Republicans. On the Hill they no longer see the White House as talented and formidable. They see it as shuttered and second-rate. . . . .

There is increased criticism too of the habit of high White House staffers to muscle critics, silence dissent, force obedience.

It is assumed by everyone, and accepted as truth that hardly needs expression, that the brilliant and independent Michael Steele was not chosen as head of the RNC for the simple reason that he doesn't look like someone who'd simply take orders. Mel Martinez was chosen for the reason that he will. I heard talk of what is called "the list"--the lengthening White House list of those who are to be treated as enemies.

The Bush administration has spent six years completely obsessed with personal loyalty to the President and intolerant of the slightest independence. The entire Congress was kept strictly in line for the last five years. Every official who showed the slightest independence was replaced by obedient Bush loyalists. Yet Pelosi does nothing other than support an ally rather than an opponent for the position immediately underneath her, and that makes her some out-of-control egomaniac consumed by personal vanity and emotional impulses.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that the Hoyer-Murtha race is being depicted as some sort of sign of hateful Democratic in-fighting that shows Pelosi has lost control, even though Republicans are mauling each other for every single House leadership position, all of which are hotly contested. Trent Lott beat Lamar Alexander by a vote of 25-24 in the Senate for the position of Minority Whip. There's nothing wrong with various factions competing for leadership positions. That's called an "election," and only those to whom Eric Alterman refers as the "smart boys" at TNR and Slate would view a simple election for House Majority Leader as some apocalyptic sign that Democrats are lame, idiotic and hopelessly divided. I'm sure Mark Halperin agrees with all of their attacks.

And then there is Pelosi's opposition to Jane Harman. It's now an article of Beltway faith that Pelosi opposes Harman because of what is being referred to as a personal "cat fight" between them, arising out of purely personal issues (like they both wore the same dress to a Capitol Hill event and Pelosi has never forgiven Harman). At Slate, Noah claims that the reasons for "Pelosi's animus are cloudy and in all likelihood personal."

I'd like to see proof that Pelosi's opposition to Harman is purely or even principally personal. I keep hearing this from them, but what is it based on? Personally, I think Harman -- who was one of the most aggressive defenders of the President's warrantless eavesdropping program ("both legal and necessary," she repeatedly chimed) and is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC -- would make a horrendous Chair (although Alcee Hastings is one of the few House members who might be less desirable). She has been far too sympathetic to the administration's excesses and far too eager to serve as a Democratic shield publicly defending the President.

How do these all-knowing analysts know that Pelosi's opposition to Harman isn't based on these obvious and compelling substantive grounds, as opposed to the bitchy personal "cat fights" they allegedly have had? They don't know, but they keep repeating it anyway, because it seems to fit comfortably with a picture they are very eager to paint.

In fact, Noah himself references a column by what he calls "his friend Ruth Marcus, an op-ed columnist at the Washington Post,"which claims that Pelosi thinks that Harman has been "insufficiently partisan on the committee." That's the opposite of the claim being advanced everywhere that Pelosi opposes Harman for purely personal, substance-free reasons. They just make things up in order to bolster their group-driven collective imagination, and then present their group gossip as authoritative and established insider wisdom.

And, even if Pelosi's opposition to Harman were due more to personal animosity than it is to substantive disagreements, is there some suggestion that this is an unusual attribute among political leaders -- or human beings anywhere? Washington is full of all sorts of personal conflicts and animosity that drive personnel decisions of every type, yet somehow and for some reason, in Pelosi it's depicted as some unique and glaring flaw. It's worth wondering why that is.

Americans just elected new leadership quite deliberately. They are obviously fine with Nancy Pelosi. Republicans tried to make the election be about her -- constantly reminding everyone that a vote for Democrats would mean installing super-liberal Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco values in power -- and the Democrats won. So voters have no problem with Pelosi. They want Congressional Democrats to take the lead in policy and governance because the Republicans have failed so miserably. I have no idea whether Pelosi will be a good Speaker, but I'm going to withhold judgment until she actually at least starts, and Americans are obviously doing that as well.

Yet the Beltway media mavens know better, and so they are already out in force attacking Pelosi's character with petty and baseless chattering. This country has extremely serious issues facing it, and yet these self-styled "serious" journalists are already trying to cripple Pelosi's ability to do anything before she has even begun, all based on giggly chit-chat and gossipy garbage that has no legitimacy other than the fact that they all repeat it in unison on television and in print.

It's what these pundits and journalists do. They have pre-conceived, vapid notions about everything and everyone -- all driven by deep self-love for their own superior wisdom -- and they distort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters. Nancy Pelosi, and really everyone, would be well-advised not to listen to them and, above all, never adopt as a goal trying to please or satisfy them. They are frivolous and out of touch with everything that matters and should be treated as such.

Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2006 @ 11:31am
Amazing - I wanted to respond to this thread by pointing out the overwhelming majority (I thought I had heard unanimously) by which Nancy Pelosi had won the Speaker's chair, but I wanted to do a little research so as not to shoot myself in the foot with incorrect facts.

But when I googled the Speaker election results, all that will come up is the election of Hoyer over Murtha. I can't find the results of the Pelosi victory!

Regardless of the political ramifications, it was an historic vote, placing a woman in the third most powerful position in government - and just a few days later, I can't even find a story online!

Hopefully, it's just my lack of skill using "the internets" or "The Google," so could somebody else try? I can't believe that a vote for majority leader is more important than the Speaker vote.

Posted by Turk33 at 11/17/2006 @ 12:01pm
Posted by TURK33 11/17/2006 @ 12:01am

Turk,

Wikipedia has the election as unanimous for Pelosi, under her listing. Google "Nancy Pelosi" and the Wikipedia article will be the first thing that comes up. I can't find anything contradicting that result, so I'll take it as fact at this point.

Posted by Stwriley at 11/17/2006 @ 2:35pm
Unless Pelosi hews relatively closely to the New Democrat/Blue Dog line they'll get rid of her later. They don't want to sell out the antiwar vote and the women's vote simultaneously. They can be very calculating and effective when they're working against the American people. They aren't bumbling, ineffective boobs. They're craven collaborators.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 4:16pm
ANS: The newly elected freshmen particiapte in the vote for the leadership of the next Congressional caucus.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 4:41pm
As a Hamiltonian protectionist, I don't care for Hoyer, who I understand is a "free trader". However, since Bush has entirely screwed up, and will continue to screw up the Iraqi War, It will be bad politics for both sides of the aisle, if Iraq is hanging over their heads in 2008. Certainly Murtha has his uses, but we need to dump this useless expensive missile defense system, and he may be too close to dwfense contractors. Look how the Arrow useless the Arrow missile defense system is in Israel, when they are being attacked by low tech rockets.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/18/2006 @ 1:30pm
You know I really enjoyu reading most of the comments. I have put MASK on ignore because he is sooooo annoying. He's like the Christian chatter who comes into the Jewish Community Chats.

Posted by sophizgood at 11/21/2006 @ 01:12am

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Murtha Loses--And So Does Pelosi

posted by David Corn on 11/16/2006 @ 12:51pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Murtha Loses--And So Does Pelosi

posted by David Corn on 11/16/2006 @ 12:51pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation