Redstate

We Haven't Run Out Of Popcorn, Have We?

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Writing in The New Republic (subscription required), Michael Crowley takes note of the political trouble Nancy Pelosi chose to get herself in (read on):

Start with her leadership skills. Pelosi's intervention at the eleventh hour with an endorsement of her old friend, Murtha, turned the majority leader's race into a de facto loyalty test. Many Hoyer supporters fretfully assumed that an incoming speaker would not allow herself to be denied on such a vote. But Pelosi couldn't pull it off. Now she'll be assuming the speakership under the cloud of what almost looks like a no-confidence vote--and questions about her powers of persuasion.

A better communicator might have managed to avert this disaster. But, this time, staying off the airwaves--Pelosi backed Murtha in writing and with private arm-twisting--may have been a mistake. As Murtha got hammered for his history of shoddy ethics, Pelosi was nowhere to be seen in his defense. Her embrace of Murtha also showed a certain tone-deafness for how the press works. Having led a campaign to end the "culture of corruption" and "clean up the House," Pelosi should have recognized that the press--which loves nothing more than the whiff of hypocrisy--would fixate on Murtha's Abscam past and lobbyist ties.

The debacle also reveals Pelosi's obsession with personal rivalries. One defining feature of her leadership that critics never liked was her insistence on marginalizing anyone she dislikes personally or considers not on her "side." (See her decision to block Jane Harman from taking over the House Intelligence Committee.) Pelosi likely allowed herself to get sucked into Murtha's ill-advised campaign because of personal politics--a fight between one her closest allies, Murtha, and her great rival, Hoyer (whom she defeated in a bitterly-fought 2001 race for Democratic Whip), was too much to resist. Sure, that's human nature. But now, Pelosi has empowered Hoyer, elevating his profile and handing him a one-sided vote total that can now serve as the equivalent of the old sports taunt, "Scoreboard!"

Finally, Pelosi's self-destructive support of Murtha suggests a disproportionate emphasis on Iraq. Pelosi's endorsement of Murtha prominently featured his war opposition as an argument for including him in the leadership. But, while Iraq is obviously an utmost priority, it's not the best basis for choosing the number-two Democrat. House Democrats will have a limited ability to shape U.S. policy in Iraq--and, to the extent they can, it will largely be through public communication. (Murtha needn't be majority leader to appear on "Meet the Press" a dozen times next year.) What Democrats really need is a savvy and respected steward to push through their modest agenda (including lobbying reform, which Murtha doesn't even consider necessary) and to fend off Republican attempts to cherry-pick their moderates on certain issues. Hoyer has sided with Republicans in the past--on last year's bankruptcy reform bill, for instance--but Murtha's record in that regard is probably worse. Plus, Hoyer's own position has become more critical of the Bush administration than it was even six months ago, making Iraq that much less relevant as a leadership litmus test.

Crowley fails to note, however, the degree to which Pelosi is caught between a Scylla and Charybdis of her own making. Quite clearly, the Speaker-to-be has ambitions of placing a personal stamp on the House equal to that placed by the likes of Sam Rayburn. But if that is the case, Pelosi must consider the possibility that elements of her personal style will meld with the institution she proposes to lead. To the extent that happens, and to the extent that other Members are "driven by petty rivalries" as Pelosi is, the Speaker-to-be will constantly have to sleep with one eye open. After all, if Pelosi maintains an "obsession with personal rivalries," other Members might feel that they too ought to pay attention to the nature of personal rivalries, especially if that kind of kill-or-be-killed ethic is necessary to stave off various and sundry attempts at revenge and retaliation the likes of which Pelosi (fruitlessly) launched at Steny Hoyer and appears ready to launch at Jane Harman. What Member, in the paranoid world of House politics, does not look at what might have happened to Hoyer and what will likely happen to Harman and wonder whether the Speaker-to-be might capriciously and arbitrarily target them for some act of political reprisal? What Member, in the paranoid world of House politics, might not think that it would be better to do the targeting instead and to do it first before the Speaker-to-be has the chance to pull the trigger for whatever real or imagined little insult occupies her thoughts?

Of course, it is possible that neither the capacity to seek revenge--and do remember, there is no revenge like petty revenge--nor any other facet of Nancy Pelosi's personality will find itself woven into the fabric of the House.

In which case, her colleagues will simply conclude that she is weak.