Seriously, what the [bleep] are the Dems doing?

November 16, 2006

Guest Post by Michael J.W. Stickings

I’m borrowing the title of a post I wrote yesterday at The Reaction on the Murtha-Hoyer battle for Senate majority leader. Although I didn’t bleep anything out there. Parts of that post will be copied below.

**********

The headline of a story at The Hill says it all: “Dem division and dismay”. Forget that the other side has elected to retain the failed and corrupt status quo in the House and to reward extremism in the Senate. This is all about how our side is self-destructing:

House Democrats head to the ballot box today to elect their majority leader, with many of them fretting that the contentious race has split their caucus into two warring camps, one allied with Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the other with Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), regardless of today’s outcome.

The race has reinforced longstanding divisions between different factions in the caucus, members and observers said, and has diverted their attention from a positive message they hoped to project just days after winning control of the House.

I object to the media’s one-sidedness, but I cannot help but agree with Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas), who said that “we’ve started a new day with unnecessary controversy,” and with the anonymous House Democrat who said that “[i]t’s a terrible way to start. It’s a lose-lose situation.” And much of the blame for this unfortunate situation must rest with Nancy Pelosi herself.

Josh Marshall: “She’s very publicly making everyone takes sides. And in a very specific, unique way. She’s staked her authority and credibility on a Murtha victory. And since she represents the caucus, to a degree she’s putting the caucus’s authority and credibility on the line too, just after the Dems have taken power in the House for the first time in a dozen years. It’s a really bold power-play on a number of levels.”

Did the Dems need this sort of agressive “power-play” from their speaker-elect? Because it’s all gotten quite nasty, as you all know. Murtha has been accusing his opponents, those in the Hoyer camp, of swift-boating him on ethics. But what about those ethics? Is Murtha clean? And what about Hoyer? He has his own questionable ties to K Street. (For more on this, see Howie Klein.) In general, I agree with Barbara O’Brien: Although Murtha is more aggressive on Iraq, “Hoyer has a far better voting record than Murtha”. Murtha may be to the left of Hoyer on Iraq, but he is in every other regard on the right of the party, a conservative Democrat who isn’t always on the right side of the issues. Besides, I worry that Murtha’s aggression on Iraq could back the party into a corner with a formal policy of phased withdrawal. And it’s not like Hoyer is pro-Bush on Iraq. He, too, supports withdrawal, just not quite as vehemently as Murtha does.

Which is not to say that I like Hoyer any more than Murtha. (See Barbara’s post for more on Hoyer’s problems.) I really don’t like either candidate for the job. Despite Pelosi’s outspoken support for Murtha, would it not make sense for a third candidate, a popular compromise, to be elevated to majority leader? It’s too late for that now that Pelosi has put her weight, and “authority and credibility,” behind Murtha and now that the caucus has been divided into two warring camps, but what good will come of this? No matter who wins, and the vote should come soon, there will be bitterness and divisiveness both at the top and throughout the caucus.

So I ask: Why, why, why?

Everything looked so good just a week ago. And now this.

Was it so difficult to transition smoothly into the majority? Was it so difficult to keep the peace? Was there no other way?

Bah!

One day story folks. If the Democrats can’t come together behind their leadership than they don’t deserve the name democrats.

If Murtha is more conservative than Hoyer, then he should be the one with the leadership post to balance out the (preceived) San Francisco liberalism of the Speaker-select.

Stop freaking about it Michael. Did the fact that Boner was challenged for his leadership play like this in the MSM? Nope. This is all crap arrising from the fact that Pelosi is a woman and any strong woman attempting to get her way is immediately suspect by the MSM. Don’t buy into it.

Pelosi is just following one of Machiavelli’s primary rules. If you are going to make a change after taking power, do it right away. Don’t let people get comfortable and then try to change things, it’s always worse.

  • hmmmph. At least it’s nice to see real debates happening again in Congress…

    I just think people have gotten too used to the in sync goose-stepping done by the majority party for the past 12 years (party-line votes, etc. etc.).

    Congress is supposed to be about debate and compromise. I think this is MUCH better than, say, when the 109th tried to change rules just to keep their anointed emperors in power…

  • I predict that whatever the outcome of today’s vote on the majority leader that by January no one will remember the controversy.

  • I agree with Lance. No one will remember this in January. That said, I like that Pelosi went for her guy, and I like that he is such a symbol in the country of opposition to the fiasco in Iraq.

  • I pretty much agree with Lance. If you want a party of lock-step discipline and unanimity, then you ought not be a Democrat. Speaker-elect Pelosi is nothing if not a strong leader, and whether we’re crazy about it or not, she’s leading.

  • Lance, that is Boyer, not Boner, typo or Freudian slip ??

    It’s a non-story, but it is a preview of what’s to come ?? If history has anything to say about it, I suspect we are going to have factions like this for a long time to come.

    That is one thing I have always envied about the opposition, they work as a team. It’s not the most effective way, but it is what people want to see, I want my party acting like adults and comprising with each other and fighting the ‘bad’ guys, not wasting political clout on stuff of little importance, at least in the eyes of the general populace.

  • I think it’s positive. It shows the Democrats are a big tent party with various views and hopefully that we can debate amongst ourselves and once a leader is selected get behind them.

    I think a more telling and disruptive debate is going on between Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel (with a has-been southern cue-ball as his mouthpiece).

  • I didn’t see the point of going to the mat for Murtha, but it’s a non-story, longterm. The media loves this kind of stuff, but we shouldn’t be feeding it.

    Here’s our message: Disagreement is healthy. Discussion is good. We can argue today and go forward tomorrow. (Unlike some other party which doesn’t brook dissent and name-calls instead of arguing respectfully).

    The Democratic party is the party of respectful disagreement (though that would look lame on a bumper sticker).

    I agree that the Dean/Rahm/Carville thing was much more dangerous, but Emanuel has indicated in stories today that they’re going to put that one to bed.

    I would really like to hear a moratorium on the stories that Pelosi has already blown it. She hasn’t even started the job yet. Give her at least until Groundhog Day, for Pete’s sake!

  • Try to think of the Speaker and the Majority Leader as being the two parameters which define the Party. granted, Hoyer would be somewhat further to the Left on many issues, but in turn would also narrow the parameters within which the Party is defined. The broader the parameters, the broader the spectrum within which potential voters can sense a feeling of “belonging.” Murtha pushes the parameter out to the Right a good piece—but this offers a greater number of future voters the opportunity to participate in the in-Party process.

    What I find hilariously familiar is that so many of those who badmouth Murtha, and preach “The Beatitudes of Steny” are the same ones who badmouthed Dean’s “50-State Strategy.”
    Get with the program, people! Widening the parameters means widening the support potential—and gosh-golly-gee, the next election is only 103 weeks away.

    Or are you really that desperate to be the minority again?

  • Wow…nice comments

    Castor Troy beat me to the keyboard…yep, get used to it mainstream media: corporate-style bullsh*t governance is over…it’s called democracy and debate – not some pre-determined Fox News narrative…in the immortal words of the B-52’s: “Dance This Mess Around”…

  • Apparently it’s Hoyer.

    How is it that Britney Spears’s divorce filing got a “Breaking News!” lead on CNN.com, but Hoyer’s selection as Majority Leader takes backseat to pictures of the North Carolina tornado?

  • “Lance, that is Boyer, not Boner, typo or Freudian slip ??” – ScottW

    John Boehner is correctly misspelled as Boner.

    Didn’t you know that? Why would I care about some Russian Tsarist period noble?

    Nice to have so many agreeing with me. Helps to be first off the keyboard.

    See Michael, nothing to worry about. The Wise men (and women?) have spoken. 😉

  • To me the story is, why is the choice between two probably dirty Democrats? There’s a couple of hundred to choose from. New leadership is what we need. I’m so tired of waiting to see what rearrangement prosecutors are going to do.

    For one thing, there is no Democrat who will get widespread credibility with Republicans. So we need to take “credibility” out of the equation. How about smart ideas instead?

    Too much hierarchical thinking. Too much war metaphor.

  • Just for the record, that Russian Tsarist noble is a ‘boyar’ but I do agree with everybody else about the whole Murtha-Hoyer thing. Once the dust settles they’ll all get back to the business of dismantling the Reich Wing apparatus and all will be forgiven.

    I hope. 😉

  • I agree with several of the above that this is a one day story in regards to caucus division. The vote is now in, and Hoyer has won with a lopsided vote. But I don’t think that this will prevent Pelosi from accomplishing her first 100 hours and setting the tone for the next House session. I do think, though, that this should be treated as a snooze button of wake-up alarms regarding future caucus leadership. Seeing as how majority leaders tend to move up to the speakership, I was dissatisfied with the lack of a better choice, a third candidate.

  • I’m piling on with the majority here. Lock step, closed doors, top down government is GOP not Dem. The GOP has long repeated that disagreement = disorganization. The reality is that I bet if you put 200 people in a room and asked them about something they saw you would not get 100% agreement.

    People do not always get their way. The difference is that adults deal with it, move on and keep doing what they believe is right; children cry, whine and then take their bat and ball and go home.

    Dems are not even in charge and we already have more transparency in government that we have seen in over a decade.

    Tell the people that frame this as a negative to shove it up their a$$ abd explain that democracy requires debate, good government requires transparency, and the world is gray not black and white.

  • “To me the story is, why is the choice between two probably dirty Democrats?” – Dale

    Because you need years of senority in the House before you can run for one of these positions and any representative who’s been around that long is going to have some tarnish.

    McCain is one of the Keating Five for God’s sake. In fact he’s the only one still in office. But somehow his corruption is ignored and Murtha’s is an issue?

    Ah, living in a Fair America. Wouldn’t it be nice to do it again?

  • Whoa, whoa, whoa. Look, this was an annoying competition between two less-than-ideal candidates, and Pelosi certainly could have played it better. But, please, let’s put a lid on the “Democrats are Self-Destructing” talk for the time being, shall we? It’s just not that big a deal.

  • Hubris and corruption have dragged congress approval ratings dip to record lows. America wants reform of business as usual politics, and the first party to understand this will gain power for years to come.
    Spin is wearing thin. America actually wants to drain the swamp. If stubbing her toe on Murtha helps Nancy understand this, ethics reform will serve the Democrats well. A suitcase of money is the kiss of death.

  • Tell the people that frame this as a negative to shove it up their a$$ abd explain that democracy requires debate, good government requires transparency, and the world is gray not black and white.

    Damn, that comment put a huge smile on my face. Thanks.

  • This is the time to avoid another controversy. Pelosi may be considering
    Alcee Hastings to take the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee. To allow a formerly impeached judge (on charges of bribery yet!) to take the reins of this committee would lend credence to the ridiculous charge that Democrats are not mature enough to handle national security. Furthermore, the “liberal” media has painted this matter as Pelosi’s revenge against Rep. Jane Harmon, so the Speaker will be featured as a vengeful harpy sacrificing national security in order to destroy a rival.

    Please email Speaker Pelosi at http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html and ask her to avoid this potential troublespot.

  • Sorry – I’m going to swim against the tide here. In my experience of politics, you do your debating and arguing behind closed doors. You have all of it you want,and then you go out and win it for the team in public. That is not “GOP politics” that is “smart politics.”

    Perception is everything. If you are perceived strong, you are treated as such, and all is well. Look what is happening to us internationally, now that Bush went out and showed the world the limits to US power and ability. The same thing works from that level down to individuals.

    Pelosi has suffered a defeat that is going to harm her in Washington, and the bunch of you are whistling past the graveyard that you think otherwise. I’m not talking about the nitwits and twits of the media, I am talking about the people she has to deal with – her side and the other.

    What’s about to get worse is that Pelosi wants to replace Jane Harman – who wouldn’t be my candidate but is solid on defense and intelligence and ethics – with a cave-in to the black caucus to put Alcee Hastings, an impeached and convicted corrupt judge, in as head of Intelligence despite no record whatsoever of paying attention to what is really what in that committee. That to me is the worst kind of “liberal racism.” She might as well put “Dollar Bill” Jefferson in as Chairman of the Ethics Committee (which is probably next).

    This is not good news. It is not going away. It is a terrible way to start things after 12 years of being perceived as wimps and idiots. It is a huge hole for Pelosi and the party to dig themselves out of.

    I guess the difference here is you folks are looking on this as “fans” and I am looking at it from the perspective of a job.

    This is not good news. It hurts us and will continue to do so.

  • And here is why this is not good:

    Leadership candidates have highlighted their plans to hammer the incoming Democratic majority for ethical lapses, fiscal irresponsibility and legislative mismanagement, borrowing from a playbook those same Democrats used with great success to unseat the Republican majority.

    Rule 1 in politics: don’t give your enemies a club to beat you with unnecessarily.

    Yes, we’re going to get hammered. But getting hammered for stupidity is not the same as getting hammered for doing the right thing. There’s a difference, and it’s important.

  • The only authority Josh Marshall has on Pelosi really pushing her choice is a close friend of Murtha, who Marshall admits is prone to bombastic proclamations.

    The problem here isn’t Pelosi endorsing a choice. The problem is people like Josh Marshall rushing so quickly to criticize Pelosi without any real evidence that she has done anything worth criticizing.

    Isn’t that what we have Republicans for?

  • Hoyer is there to make sure the CIA analyst that move over to DIA at parity in salaries. He’s just like Fitz, a federal employee union type person.

  • I wish Tom was wrong, but I agree with him. Particularly with his observation that internal conflicts should be resolved behind closed doors, which is what has made me uncomfortable with the hubub.

    I don’t think this is a good example of squashing debate. I think it’s an example of an awkward first step that could have been avoided. The Democrats simply cannot afford to appear disorganized and contentious. While it may be unfair to hold Democrats to one standard while ignoring Republican behavior, that’s the reality of the MSM.

    I don’t think the Murtha/Hoyer battle is the end of the world, and I agree that the story will soon be forgotten. But The matter gives me an uneasy feeling, particularly about Pelosi. I sure hope it’s not a precedent.

    I think the biggest mistake the Democrats can make about the result of the mid-terms is that THEY actually did something right. They haven’t done anything right in years.

  • “This is not good news and it harms us.”

    But what if it’s the best news that could be made ?

    I/m going to be an idiot now:
    I don’t know Hoyer. I know Murtha. He’s against the administration’s incompetence, just like me.
    I like Murtha.
    OH, Look, Pelosi is speaker-elect! Wow. I hope she elects Murtha, that curmudgeonly old battle-axefart, as majority leader. I like him.
    Aw, Hoyer won instead. Oh well. I wonder who Hoyer is?

    I’ll never wonder why Murtha lost, by a lot. I will learn to love my memories of him.

    The Democrats sure are disorganized, golly. They’ll probably stumble and trip their way through the next two years. This will be something to see!

    The best made from what was at hand.

    • Comments are closed.