Pelosi’s Arrogance of Power
Confronted with her epically low poll numbers, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared herself unconcerned. As Politico’s analysis makes clear, Pelosi has no need to be concerned, as she is insulated from any meaningful political accountability:
Being speaker is, as she says, an inside job. Pelosi is insulated from the negative effects of low national poll numbers because she answers only to two micro-constituencies — her mostly affluent, overwhelmingly liberal Bay Area district and a 262-member Democratic caucus that respects, fears, follows and largely likes the 69-year-old workaholic.
Keep in mind that the same people who applaud Pelosi now are the ones who hollered from the highest peaks about President Bush’s low poll numbers. The “will of the people” is not a principle with them, but merely an occasional rhetorical convenience, eh?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Is it really the same. Most of Bush’s constituency was unhappy with his performance and most of Pelosi’s constituency is happy with hers. If the same arguments had been leveled against Hastert or Frist, then there would be a reasonable parallel.
As Speaker, Jeb, her constituency is no longer just the voters in her SF district.
Jay Cost does a good job here showing how she’s contributed to the implosion of the healthcare bill by virtue of choosing committee leaders who are far to the left not only of the country as a whole, but to the median point of her own party.
It’s true that her constituents in SF may still view her favorably, but she may well lose her leadership role if the rest of the country decides it’s time for divided govt again since the Dems rode into the majority by electing moderate (even conservative) reps but their leadership chose to largely ignore them.
@CStanley
“but she may well lose her leadership role if the rest of the country decides it’s time for divided govt again since the Dems rode into the majority by electing moderate (even conservative) reps but their leadership chose to largely ignore them.”
She should lose her leadership, she is exceptionally partisan, and no mater what party you are from, that is usually not a good thing. Liberal policy ideas like her’s and Obama’s naturally fare less well in this bad ecomic environment (regardless of weather you think the Bush’s or Barney Frank’s economic policies “created this mess in the first place”) as these liberal policy ideas are almost (if not definately) over-reaching, and in general place less value on financial cost-benefit and more value on social cost-benefit (The money has to come from somewhere… tangible sources, not “possible sources”, and not likely voters, that are already taxed to the hilt, and almost 1% are out of a job. Add onto that as CStanley said, these folks are “choosing committee leaders who are far to the left not only of the country as a whole, but to the median point of her own party”, and that is a recipie for failure.
sorry, typo…and almost 10%… not 1%, I wish
As I read the article I thought maybe I have found the equivalent of Sarah Palin on the left. By that I mean, someone who by the very mention of her name engenders strong feelings. Now where the analogy fails is I’m not aware of any who “love” Nancy Pelosi. Having said that it is intriguing to see the intense emotion and I do have to wonder if misogeny is a part of that (for both Pelosi and Palin). I mean, isn’t the Speaker supposed to be partisan. Gingrich was an intense partisan, Hastert, quietly so.
And I have to admit she has high “negatives” with me.
Kinda reminds you of Tom “The Hammer” DeLay, doesn’t it? No one cried much when DeLay went down. Not even on his own side. If Pelosi were to be run over by a bus, many Dems would breathe a quiet sigh of relief, and go looking for a Denny Hastert.
The seniority structural problem is very real. The GOP instituted term limits on committees back in ‘95, but the Dems did not. So you end up with the alpha dogs from the safest (most left-liberal) districts having permanent control of their committees as long as their party is in the majority, guaranteeing that the committee chairs will be the most liberal from among the herd.
The more Pelosi and Reid force the Blue Dogs into line with the left-liberal leadership, they more they make it easier for the GOP to take those districts back next year. We saw this exact same process diminish the GOP in Congress to minorities in both houses over the last several cycles. With no controls (term limits) over the committee chairs, it will work a bit faster going the other way. The only thing that naturally slows the process is the active resistance of those Blue Dogs, who know they have to run to the middle to hold their seats.
Of course, to take advantage of this the GOP has to run center-leaning cnadidates in those districts. Which they seeem to be unable to coordinate, due to the more extreme right factions of the party holding control of many state & county parties. But one can always hope.
“The more Pelosi and Reid force the Blue Dogs into line with the left-liberal leadership, they more they make it easier for the GOP to take those districts back next year.”
Good point, “Pelosi and Reid force the Blue Dogs into line” is kind of like a chinese handcuffs on Democratic alpha-dog power. The more they try to “pull them into line”, the more they look rediculous to the majority of voters, the more the Pelosi and Reid hurt themseves in the process. (which makes the Blue Dogs, Republicans and Libertarians look like pretty good alternatives)
‘Of course, to take advantage of this the GOP has to run center-leaning cnadidates in those districts. Which they seeem to be unable to coordinate, due to the more extreme right factions of the party holding control of many state & county parties. But one can always hope.”
I’d say at this point, just campaigning on fiscal responsiblity “and the debt that (Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank and Bush) got us into in the first place”. Would do the job.
I can guarantee you that in the GOP primaries next year there will be at least some moderate Republicans doing just that. The religious right may have control of too many local/state parties, but they don’t have control of the voters. Biggest swing potential is Blue Dog seats in states with open primaries, where moderate Republicans can beat up frothing so-cons by drawing cross-aisle and indie support. ESPECIALLY against any Blue Dogs who let themselves get whipped too far left by Pelosi and crew.