Some Perspective on the Hoyer/Murtha Battle

November 16, 2006

Guest Post by Anonymous Liberal

Someone has probably already made this point today, but the battle between John Murtha and Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader, though interesting, is not likely to be that big a deal in the long run. It will soon be forgotten.

In 1994, in the wake of the Republicans’ landslide midterm victory, Tom Delay ran for the position of majority whip against Newt Gingrich’s hand-picked Lieutenant, Robert Walker of Pennsylvania. Gingrich, like Pelosi, did his best to convince his colleagues to vote for Walker. He ultimately failed and Delay won. It was all quickly forgotten and Gingrich’s authority was not compromised in any significant way.

The same will happen here.

Hmmm. Do you mean to say the media went into a feed frenzy over a non-issue? Will the wonders never start?

Did anyone see any articles that discussed how refreshing it will be to have a majority party that conducts business in public and doesn’t blindly agree with whatever the leader says?

I doubt it.

  • While I still think the choice between Murtha and Hoyer was of the “pox on both your houses” variety, I think it’ll be a storm in a teacup. Especially if Pelosi doesn’t follow it up with another battle (Harmon and Alcee whatsis for the Intelligence chairmanship). And if she’s able to forget the dent to her self-esteeem on this issue and start *real* leadership in January.

    Anyone who thinks that the vote shows that Dems are split… Should look to the Lott/Alexander one 🙂

    Sio… WTF? How could Pelosi “allow” (or “disallow”) a vote that’s done with a secret ballot? Sure, she twisted some arms or tried to, but that’s all she could do. As, I’m sure, the Lizard did too.

    Are you trolling? I thought Repubs cut all the troll funding after Nov 7, seeing how effective it had been…

  • Well, I hope you and David Sirota are correct. For those who don’t know, here’s what Sirota said:

    …all of this was, in fact, a win-win situation for Pelosi, no matter what the outcome. If Murtha had won, she would have had a close ally as her number 2. With Hoyer winning under these circumstances, she has also won because she has let him know that his disloyalty to the Democratic Caucus in the past on major issues has created a strong block of opponents to him – and that the only way for him to mollify those opponents is to stay in line in the future, rather than continue publicly undermining the Democratic Caucus as he has many times before. Not
    surprisingly, Hoyer’s victory statement was filled with declarations that he now appreciates Murtha’s leadership on the Iraq War (this comes after he attacked Murtha’s position on Iraq).

    But the win-win nature of Pelosi’s intervention in the leadership race isn’t just limited to sending a message to Steny Hoyer. She has also won today because she has sent a message to the entire Democratic Caucus by letting every Member know that there will be unpleasant consequences to Hoyer-esque Democratic disloyalty. Though Hoyer won the election, you can bet he didn’t enjoy having a spirited opponent. Every single member of the Democratic Caucus now knows that when they behave the way Hoyer behaved in the past, they may face similar pain.

  • Sorry, but given that DeLay equalled K Street, and Hoyer equals K Street, I can only establish a mathematical conclusion to the premise: Hoyer = DeLay. The argument that one is a ReThug and the other is a Dem is the kind of doublespeak that the GOP has been hoodwinking this country with since Nixon ran against Kennedy in ’60.

    If Dems are going to start imitating ReThugs—seven weeks before they even get the gavels in their fuzzy little koala-bear paws—then they’d better party for the next two years as though it was their last chance to “rule the roost.”

    America will come back at them with a vengeance….

  • Sirota’s observations that this leadership battle was a win-win for Pelosi is very right-on. I would add one other win-win to his list. Pelosi was able to broadcast her position (and hopefully the caucus’s) on Iraq by citing it as the major reason for supporting Murtha’s bid. If Murtha had won, she would have had our main man on the issue on her leadership team. But now, if the caucus or Hoyer fail to deliver on the Iraq issue, all she has to do is point out that she supported a stronger leader on the issue for her leadership team and then leave Hoyer holding the bag.

    • Comments are closed.