Why keep Pelosi?
Here’s a piece in Politico that purports to explain why the Democrats are refusing to ditch Pelosi.
Before I read it, my own opinion was that the biggest motivator is that they’re scared of her. And that happens to be reason number three in the article, which refers to it as “the fear factor:”
There’s a hangover effect, described to POLITICO by one senior Democratic aide this way: “People woke up the day after the election as afraid of Nancy Pelosi as they were the Monday before. And they shouldn’t be.” Of course, that aide, fearing retribution from the speaker, asked to be quoted without attribution.
The fear may not only reflect the fact (as the article emphasizes) that Pelosi could dole out both rewards and punishments to those who toe the line and those who defy her. Because doesn’t that depend on her retaining power, whether as Speaker or as Minority Leader? If she’s voted out, what can she do to harm them?
To answer my own question: in order to defy her and not be frightened about it, a Representative must have the conviction that there are enough votes to actually defeat her (as Machievelli said, if you strike at a king, strike to kill). And, since the Democrats in Congress are now more dominated then before by ultra-liberals in Pelosi’s camp, those who are against Pelosi probably perceive themselves as too small a group to prevail. And if they can’t win, they’d better shut up if they know what’s good for them. So the majority of them are doing just that, at least in public.
Another source of Pelosi-fear could be that she’s got the goods on them in other ways. Pelosi probably knows where all the skeletons are buried, and her revenge could take a number of forms, some of them independent of whether she holds onto formal power or not.
It’s also true, as the article points out, that there’s really no one else up for the job. What that says about the depth of the Democratic bench is self-evident.
Pelosi’s other skills—such as, for example, her tried-and-true ability to raise big bucks—would be an advantage to the Democrats, all else being equal. But all else is not equal. Her negatives are sky-high. Her continuation as head of Democrats in the House would send a huge f-you message to the American people, one that probably will not go unnoticed and is unlikely to be appreciated.
[ADDENDUM: Pelosi won. No surprise there.]
It usually doesn’t end well for people like Pelosi, a queen of a shrinking kingdom. It doesn’t surprise me either that the Dems continued keeping her exactly where she is. It’s easy to blame the American people instead of your party if you’re a bigoted Democrat who sees all Americans as racist, gun-toting hicks. The real test would be if they choose to retain beyond 2012. It’s still two years away but if Obama and the Dems fail to convince the moderates and conservatives they are, at least, serious about fiscal reform then they have no hope of regaining the majority. They might regain a few seats through their usual GOTV fraud but not enough. Not enough. Heh.
Don’t underestimate the power the leader has over his or her caucus. In NY, when upstate Democrats failed to depose Shel Silver as speaker, the leader of the coup attempt, the majority leader Mike Bragman, was punished thusly as reported in the NY Times in 2000:
“Mr. Silver, a Democrat from Manhattan, beat back the coup attempt and stripped Mr. Bragman of all the trappings of power: his ceremonial office just off the floor of the Assembly; a spacious office across the street from the Capitol building; $34,500 in a leadership stipend; and, above all, the title of majority leader. The speaker continued to exact punishment this week, cutting Mr. Bragman’s $1.36 million staff budget and leaving him with only 2 of the 24 people he used to employ.”
Fear is a powerful motivator.
Regardless of why they may be keeping her, her continuing role as Speaker bodes well for the Right. She will keep Obama to the Left, which helps the Right. She is the face of everything wrong, at least according to the Right, and getting rid of her would eliminate a major lightening rod of negativity. Obama doesn’t have the chops to disagree with her; doing so publically, however, would give Obama the optics of moving to the center. Let her march around fantasyland for another 2 years, then we’ll really see what in-fighting is like. If I had a higher opinion of Obama I would say that he pulled levers to keep her as Speaker to serve as his foil.
Why do I get the feeling that it’s really Norma Desmond who is January’s minority leader?
Jeff: we’ll see if President Obama has what it takes to mount a public fight with Rep. Pelosi. (I loved typing that.) It would be a way to do something smart (tack to the center) using one of his favorite techniques (throwing an old friend under the bus).
Personally, I don’t think it’ll help him much, even if he does do it. We’ll see.
In other news, Rep. Eric Cantor is confirmed as Majority Whip, aka #2, on the Republican side of the House. I look forward to watching him.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
This is OT, but you could entitle it Why Keep Lindsay Graham.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/speaking-truth-mullah-power_516688.html
I missed it when it came online, but I’m glad I read it now. Graham, the RINO, might not be as bad as people think.
Why keep Pelosi
Cause the left likes to recycle garbage?
For my part, I’m very comfortable with Pelosi as the leader of the House Democrats. I think it’s a great idea, and I want to commend the Democrats for acting in the best interests of the country. I think she should continue to speak out on every issue before the Congress. I want to hear her opinions, and so should the American people, and the Republicans in Congress, so that all involved will understand the choices – right up until the next election.
Don’t you remember that gavel? There are some companion pieces.
Her win reveals that there are no Dems (in Congress, at least) with an idea how to save the party.
That and there are no real statesmen among them or someone would risk all the trappings of power to become a force to advance the best interests of the country.
Folks…
It’s her money raising that got her the Speakership.
And…
It’s her money raising power that keeps her there.
She’s got a money tap VERY much larger than her ‘peers.’
—–
As for the surviving ‘progs’ …
There is NO ideological difference between Nancy D’ Alesandro Pelosi and the rest of the CBC/ dark Marxists.
Then add the MA, NY and CA delegations…
There you have it: Democrat and cinctured.
“Graham, the RINO, might not be as bad as people think.”
Yes, he is – Frankly nothing there addresses being a RINO and one that has betrayed us a GREAT deal in the past. People convinced themselves that McCain was somehow not as bad as made out and selecting a center-right person would Heal All Wounds. And what did we get for it? Well – what does it take to learn?
There is more to being a RINO that simply policy and Graham is one of those that embraces what we decry in the left. Does he have good qualities? Certainly – heck even Obama has done a few things I like and even has a few things to admire in both his political and personal life. Still doesn’t negate the fact that he is a a narcissist that is in so far over his head that he is moving us towards ruin as fast as he can.
“Big Tent” conservatism means we define our core principles, hold to them, and accept anyone that also holds those principles. Graham is *really* bad on most of those principles most of us call “core” and pointing out how he did well on non-core ones (and trying to mitigate damage where he dropped core ones because he stood “strong” on others) doesn’t get it.
Hold honesty/integrity, minimal spending (even if we can’t agree where to draw the line, keeping the line as low as we each think we can will go a LONG way), and a strong national defense as your core and you will win many elections. Because you hold two out of three of those (or even just one of them) strongly but “make up” for it in other places means *only* the ones who believe like you will follow, everyone else ducks out.
Reagan personified it, the Republicans didn’t do that until the Contract with America and then they betrayed it as fast as the could. The Democrats never did more than pay it lip service. You take Kennedy, Reagan, the 1994 Republican sweep and you will see it there – it doesn’t need a conservative (Kennedy certainly wasn’t one) but it takes letting you accept others that disagree with you on everything else whilst denying those that agree on all the minor things but only barely do on the major. The major ideas are more important, but it is hard to let those tertiary things go.
strcpy,
Look, I don’t like Graham either, but he did a very good job on stating policy toward Iran. We can hate a lot of his positions, but we can still learn from his tactics here. Pelosi is where she is because of money and political tactics. We are still not rid of her or her supporters, so our people need to learn to play the game, to know the opposite side, and to figure out how to beat them.
I am really glad to see Reps, Tea Partiers, and conservative groups working to train promising newcomers. Pelosi will be aiming at our newcomers so we need to make sure they understand the nuts and bolts of issues (like Paul Ryan on money) and how to plan chess moves in advance. There will always be issues that are in the public’s eye and sway voters, but we need our people to be aware of the one paragraph in an otherwise innocuous bill that can do damage. We need people who can understand foreign policy and know the players. We do have some very promising freshmen with good backgrounds. I just hope that when Graham goes, one of the freshmen will be able to fill his shoes on Iran.
GO, Dems ! GO, Nancy ! GO, suicide !
Keep that loathsome girl out front as your ‘point rider’ and(cough) ‘Face’. I LUV it.
If Pelosi and her wing hang on to power, it may be harder to elect so-called moderate Democrats. Every extremist action (trumpeted as somehow conciliatory or brave by the MSM) will increase the “ick” for the moderate or independent voter.
And that could result in the implosion of the Democrat party … which wouldn’t come a decade too soon. In an ideal world, what would result is a GOP split between pragmatist and strict constitutionalist … which might actually lead to getting various adjustments made to the Constitution the need for which history hath shewn.