Democrats & Liberals Archives

Pelosi, Hip Hip Hooray!

Nancy Pelosi, you did a terrific job helping Democrats get elected to the House. Hip hip hooray! You did such an outstanding job as House minority leader that Democrats elected you Speaker. Hip hip hooray! Some pundits think you pulled a booboo by recommending Jack Murtha for second in command and losing. These “wise” people are criticizing you. But I say “Skip skip hooray!”

Here are some statements by pundits:

Howard Fineman, of Newseeek:

She violated every conceivable rule of Boss-like behavior: she lost, she lost publicly, she lost after issuing useless and unenforceable threats to people she barely had met, knowing (or having reason to know) that they would tell the world about her unsuccessful arm-twisting. And she lost big: by 149 to 86 votes.

Michael Crowley of The New Republic:

The next two years promise to be incredibly awkward. Pelosi was already highly suspicious of Steny Hoyer, whom she sees as a long-term rival to her leadership of House Democrats. (That's one reason, Hill Democrats say, she went beyond standing by her friend Murtha and actively twisted arms for him.) Now, one imagines, they'll barely be on speaking terms.

Stuart Rothenberg:

..... Nancy Pelosi’s decision to pick a public fight with her second in command, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, is so incomprehensible, so politically stupid that it has raised eyebrows among political journalists and insiders of all type.

And these are supposedly friendly pundits. Tut, tut, Pelosi, how could you do such a stupid thing? Well, not everybody thinks it was stupid. Dave Sirota says it was a smart move because it showed that there was a price for not going along with the leadership.

I don't know enough about this inside politics to form a decision. It does not matter. Every person is entitled to a mistake, and so is Nancy Pelosi. She made a mistake. So what? The important thing is that she gets to work together with her team and her caucus to achieve results. And that I am sure she will do.

So I tell Pelosi to skip it. Skip all the hullaballooh the media will make out of this incident. Provoking conflict is what the media does well. After all, conflict sells. Skip the to and fro and concentrate on doing the job Democrats all over the country expect.

Nancy Pelosi, hip hip hip hip hooray!

Posted by Paul Siegel at November 16, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #195451


And while these pundits minimize, demonize and semonize over Pelosi’s supposed shortcomings as a leader, the same in-the-beltway pros are now insisting that the voters really didn’t want the troops out of Iraq—because, frankly, Bush really controls foreign policy, and, well, the troops stay until he says different.

Here’s what Senator Wayne Morse said to a similar argument over forty years ago.

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 16, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #195464

nancy is already showing signs of weakness, she will not be able to get anything acomplished…

Posted by: neil at November 16, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #195466

It’s good to see the right wing on the offensive, attacking the majority with everything they’ve got. I’ve been doing exactly the same thing for twelve years.

So, as the right wing that once spent all their time wringing their collective hands over oral sex in the White House, they may now point out the damning evidence of the new speaker elects’ first mistake.

Oh my Gosh!! It’s as if people were dying because Ms. Pelosi backed the wrong horse.

Heavens to Betsy!! Do you think Steny Hoyer will torture a few hundred “enemy combatants”?

My oh My!! The evil democrats will probably take away those no bid contracts and will audit Halliburton to see what happened to those billions of taxpayer dollars that simply disappeared down the moneyhole.

Worse than That!!!! They might even finally investigate the “intelligence” that began this folly in Iraq.

It only cost a few billion dollars and 2800+ American lives to convict one dictator. Who, by the way, had absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with 9-11.

By all means, nitpick on little tiny Nancy Pelosi mistakes while you ignore this big huge disaster of a presidency. It makes you look so darn smug and righteous. And ignorant.

Posted by: Tim at November 16, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #195469

I read Fineman’s article, and found he made a pretty convincing argument that Pelosi showed that she isn’t “The Boss”.

But who says the Democrats need a Boss? Democrats just aren’t as good at being hierarchical. But that’s OK. Look at what Republicans did to themselves by following their leaders off of a cliff. Dissent is good.

So yeah, she screwed up. She said she isn’t going to lead the House Democrats around by the nose. Good for them.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 16, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #195472


Sirota had it right!

We are the Democratic party. We will have internal debates, conflicts, and differences. And they won’t be just for the purpose of earning “press time” as the “Republican opposition” did with Bush’s torture resolution.

Sure, Murtha wasn’t happy, but Democrats accept the fact that the majority rules. Pelosi put her political $$$$$$$ on her preference. She didn’t get what she wanted and she’s not pouting.

After a gazillio-dozen years of listening to Gin’grinch’-ish BS we’ve just grown immune to the actual democratic process. Well folks, get used to it!

Not all Democrats agree with each other! When you elect a Democrat you can expect them to fight tooth and nail to represent their constituents. Just remember that a Kansas Democrat is different than a California Democrat! Each will represent their constituents to the best of their ability.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, no more marching in step with the supreme commander! We just may survive!

Posted by: KansasDem at November 16, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #195474

Good post Paul…but, Pelosi did not make a ‘mistake’, nor did she use bad judgement. She put forward Murtha, whom she considered the best man for the job and lost. How can it mean she can’t lead?

Bush leads. Do we want Pelosi to be like Bush?

Dems are an ornery bunch, and we never see eye to eye, but this used to be a democracy…perhaps as Speaker she can help turn us back into one.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #195478

Add-on to previous post…how many battles did Washington lose? How many times did Lincoln have to eat dirt? How long did Clinton have to suffer the stupidity of those who hated him? Pelosi will thrive, because this was merely a scrimmish.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #195480

“Bush leads. Do we want Pelosi to be like Bush?”


Hopefully you mean Bush “Rules”, or attempts to.

What we’re witnessing is a transition from being “ruled” to being represented.

Bush has never led. There’s a hell of difference between being a “ruler” and a “leader”.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 16, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #195485


My bust…I meant Cheney/Bush leads…er, Rules…er, Manages…er, Mucks everything up…er, Hell, I don’t know what I meant.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #195486

What were seeing is not a “transition” to being represented—since we were already represented by competing interests—but a transition to chaos as a liberal House leadership finds itself unable to bully and strong-arm its more moderate membership.
And all of this is BEFORE the Republicans are even factored into the picture.

Honestly, some of you make it sound as if the Republican Congress marched in lockstep for the past 6 years. Hardly. If that were the case, Bush would have passed immigration and social security reform, as well as seen all his judges confirmed. With majorities in both chambers, all of that could be done despite the Democrats but wasn’t because all of the Republicans didn’t agree.

The Washington Post article today reports how Pelosi sent out her surrogates to threaten and arm-twist, telling people they’d lose committee assignments if they didn’t toe the line. How anyone can see this sort of dictatorial behavior as a superior way of running the House is simply mystifying.

Pelosi may want to put it all behind her—now that she got creamed—but it remains to be seen if others, including her new number 2, are going to have such short memories.

What’s obvious is that the liberals aren’t going to have with their way with the country—not when they can’t even have their way with their own membership.

It’s not just that Pelosi made a giant mistake. It’s that her very first move was such a giant mistake, one which created a lot of bad blood—and with Democrats! A sign of things to come, it’s clear that Pelosi is in for a very long two years.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 16, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #195487

“this was merely a scrimmish.”

No! It was a media moment!

The so called liberal media thought this was more interesting than Trent Lott getting re-selected by the Republicant’s.

We Democrats have no problem. we’re going to get down to business and we’ll quite often disagree. We’ll compromise. We’ll reach out to the other side.

Democrats still put America ahead of politics, but we won’t be seen marching in “lock-step” with a supreme leader.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 16, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #195490

N-C P,

Actually, the liberals won. Hoyer is much more liberal than Jack Murtha.

“Chaos”? Does the phrase wishful thinking mean anything to you?

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 16, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #195491
The so called liberal media thought this was more interesting than Trent Lott getting re-selected by the Republicant’s.

Yeah, no kidding. Can you think of a more direct way for them to show they’ve learned nothing from defeat? I can’t.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 16, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #195492
Democrats still put America ahead of politics, but we won’t be seen marching in “lock-step” with a supreme leader.

Terrific. So Democrats are just going to march in every direction while their leader, who has already shown herself as a wannabe dictator, just twists in the wind for two years.

Why wasn’t the media more interested in Trent Lott? Welcome to the majority, where everything you do gets put under a microscope. It’s not gonna work anymore to just obsess and nitpick over the behavior of the Republicans. It might work to get elected, but it won’t wash when it comes to actually taking responsibility.

As for the country, I guess its better that Pelosi’s number two is someone slightly less corrupt than the totally corrupt pol she wanted by her side.

I think it’s about time, too, for the media to take a closer look at some of Pelosi’s own pay-for-play financial scandals, especially those involving paid junkets in return for here steering millions of dollars of public money to her benefactors.

Would it be too much to hope for—seeing Reid and Pelosi frog-marched out of Congress? At the rate they’re going, it might happen by Christmas.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 16, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #195494

“some of you make it sound as if the Republican Congress marched in lockstep for the past 6 years”

Absolutely! “Sieg heil”!

“If that were the case, Bush would have passed immigration”

Immigration reform is tough, undocumented immigrants are people, border security should come first. How many years do you need?

“and social security reform”

Bush & Co. wouldn’t consider anything that didn’t include privitization. Even the Republican Senators and Congressmen were overwhelmed by constituents saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

“as well as seen all his judges confirmed”

Bush has had more Judges confirmed than any previous President. So yes, for six years the Republican party has marched in “goose/oops/lock” step with Bush & Co.

The harshest opposition he faced was over the ability to ignore the Geneva Convention regarding torture and how damn long did it take for Bush to break McCain?

Just watch! Democrats go by the Constitution rather than going around it.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 16, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #195495


If it comes to pass that Pelosi and/or Reid are found culpable, they will lock-step at OUR behest. That is totally reverse of what we’ve seen during the last twelve years.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #195496

>>If it comes to pass that Pelosi and/or Reid are found culpable, they will lock-step at OUR behest.

‘Scuse me, I meant ‘frog march’, guess I’ll take my marbles and go home now…can’t seem to get my terms right for either side.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 16, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #195498

KansasDem, what you’re saying makes no sense, especially on Social Security and immigration.

You’re saying that these are hard problems to solve, so people didn’t go along with or agree with Bush’s solutions, and hence they were walking in lock-step with Bush? Huh?

Bush pushed for his policies on those things and couldn’t get them through. Oops, there goes your “Sieg Heil.”

By your logic, the Democratic House just walked in “lock-step” with Pelosi because she asked for something they didn’t want and they didn’t give it to her.

I wonder if you are going to find such absurd contortions of logic necessary from now on to continue defending an inept, incompetent and corrupt Democratic leadership. My sources say… Yes!

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 16, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #195499


I think KD said it was the constituency that stopped the lock-step. Not even the powerful Republican Congress can ignore the good sense of the public when they smell a rat. Congress was willing to go along with Cheney/Bush, just not brave enough to buck the voter.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 17, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #195501

Mary, so that’s why the Democrats are already refusing to give Nancy Pelosi what she wants? It’s because they smell a rat?

I love how you can so easily figure out, to your own satisfaction, that Congress was actually in lock-step with Bush even though they weren’t voting his way. That’s called magical thinking. Only a real partisan can shut out the facts so completely.

But hey, I’m perfectly willing for the Democrats to go in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi in exactly the same way. March in lock-step, but vote all over the place! That’s brillant stuff.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 17, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #195503

Time magazine had a lunch get together to discuss who should be the Time Man of the Year. One of the guests was Tom Delay. Here is what he had to say ” I’m going to shock you, I think the real Person of the Year ought to be Nancy Pelosi the new Speaker of the House. She worked for years putting a strategy together, building a huge coalition. She held the Democrats together in the House like I have never seen before. She is going to change America!”

Posted by: jlw at November 17, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #195504


What can’t you understand?

You said, ““If that were the case, Bush would have passed immigration””

I said, “Immigration reform is tough, undocumented immigrants are people, border security should come first. How many years do you need?”

INS detention and deportation actually decreased during the first five years of the Bush Presidency. Even after 9-11, duh!

Where’s the border security? DHS now say’s the partial “piddly-poo” fence will cost about five times what congress was told (and allocated).

You said, “and social security reform”

I said, “Bush & Co. wouldn’t consider anything that didn’t include privitization. Even the Republican Senators and Congressmen were overwhelmed by constituents saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

So, what part of this don’t you understand? You do know what a constituent is don’t you?

Posted by: KansasDem at November 17, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #195505

The media is just not used to Dems yet. We always have decension. It is both a weakness and a strength. Not to worry. They will get used to it. We do not need or want racist thugs like DeLay and Lott to enforce order.
Even those two could not get the Reps to commit political suicide with W’s SS rape. To bad in a way. If they had gone along we would have veto proof majorities in both houses next Janurary.
My guess is Nancy wanted Murtha ,a decorated war hero and “hawk”, as cover for the inevitable,perilous and painful withdrawel from Iraq. It is always good politics when chicken hawks attack real soldiers.In the meantime lets keep reminding Americans just who got us into that mess.

Posted by: BillS at November 17, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #195508

The Republicans in Congress and President Bush were at odd with each other on so many issues that Bush had to veto how many bills? One!

Posted by: jlw at November 17, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #195510

“Bush had to veto how many bills? One!”

Yeah, the snowflake controvery.

Brownback never lets a Kansan forget.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 17, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #195512

“guess I’ll take my marbles and go home now…can’t seem to get my terms right for either side.”


You’re doing fine. I just get fired up sometimes.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 17, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #195513

Here is one the liberal mainstream media is ignoring. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) said to fellow Republicans that one reason they lost control of Congress was because ” White Rednecks didn’t show up to vote for us.” He blamed this on former African American GOP congressman J.C. Watts of OK. His remarks were independently confirmed by three Republicans who were at the meeting.

Posted by: jlw at November 17, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #195514

Interesting that Bush has a better chance of passing imigration reform with a Dem majority than he did with a Rep one. Once the Reps in congress came to the conclusion their only hope to stay in the majority was to use race baiting they would never adopt a policy that made sense. Bushes corporate owners are quite aware just how important immigants are to their bottom line. Result,stalemate. Now we need to make sure that the guest worker program is fair to workers on both sides of the bordor. That means that these workers be given all the rights and benefits that native workers have in particular the right to quit a crappy job and find a better one without reprisal.Also to join or form unions,unemployment benefits,workers comp,harrassment and discrimination protections etc. Bushco will not like but if he wants it through the next congress that what he will have to do.What a pity for him. Just the thought of bringing in slave armies of immigrants to put US workers in their place must have really warmed his heart.
Another sad thing is now the election is over the whole problem maybe forgotten. The way it is now employers can hire illegals with impunity and they get upity have them deported. They are happy the way it is.

Posted by: BillS at November 17, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #195528


Life over here in the liberal column sure would be boring without your rants to keep things stirred up. I can understand your feelings of frustration and complete helplessness in the wake of reality. You obviously were or maybe still are quite passionate in your worship of the right supremacy.

It is well known that if you were a republican representative you were expected to stay in line with the party plan at all times or they would make life hard for you. I do not remember right now the name of the rep who served on the house ethics committee who legitimately voted not in favor of Tom Delay. He was immeadiately black balled by his superiors in the party. He has since retired. He made an honest and legitimate desicion finding him guilty. He was black balled for doing the right thing. You go ahead and praise them all you want. But the fact is they are an ethically challenged group. The recent election was an affirmation by the american people of that reality.

It may well be discovered that there are some ethically challenged within the democratic party also. I think to believe otherwise would be foolish. Time will tell. If it is so then those who are guilty should pay equally regardless of party affiliation. At least now we will get honest unhindered investigations to tell the tale.

As for Ms. Pelosi, give it a break allready. The republicants are still in charge for a few more weeks. Save your critisism until the action starts. As far as I am concerned, good for the party, they have showed that they are not going to adhere to strong arm tactics. Just think, a group of free thinking people able to express their opinions without fear of party reprisal. They may actually be able to get something done in the interest of the people they represent rather than for the good of the party.

Posted by: ILdem at November 17, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #195556

Bottom line, Pelosi’s first move was to step in it.

It was a mistake to have a message of “cleaning up” congress and then putting forth a name with ethical problems of his own and standing by him.

Clinton made huge mistakes his first two years, which in part lead to congress changing hands. He is looked on as a good president who you wouldn’t want your twenty something sister left alone with. Especially if Bill had supervisory authority over her!

It doesn’t do well to say it wasn’t a mistake. It also doesn’t do well to say the whole world fell it. She just stepped in it.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 18, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #195568

Yes, Nancy…

Just cover your eyes and ears and do what you want…doesn’t that work for Bush? Yes, hip hip hooray for supporting someone as majority leader whose ethics are in the toilet (see when you rose to power partly in thanks to GOP corruption. Just what you need, a second in command who can be the Democratic Tom Delay.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at November 18, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #195577

How quickly the Repugnantcans forget….and the conservatively-biased press, too (there is no liberally-biased press).

What happened with Murtha & Hoyer IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING that happened between Boehner and Blunt after the DeLay fiasco! Leadership wanted one, the rank-and-file in the party wanted the other one.

This isn’t some power-brokering slap in the face to Pelosi, it’s the overall change of the Dem party to a more moderate face that probably comes closer to representing the electorate.

If it is seen as anything, it should be considered a triumph of the democratic process…in which the representative body really attempts to mirror the wishes of “we the people”.

Posted by: Won't Get Fooled Again at November 18, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #195583

I’m a bit curious about something here. If memory serves, Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp” of GOP corruption. I guess she forgot about that in the enthusiasm of her victory. She puts up Murtha for Majority Leader, a man who was caught on tape refusing a bribe “until we work together some more.” Then she puts up one of six judges who was removed from office by the Senate in the history of the US, a man convicted of soliciting bribes, a man she herself voted to impeach, for head of the Intelligence committee. What’s next, the Honorable “Ignore the $90,000 cash in my freezer” Jackson as head of the Ethics committee? Pelosi is the head of the House Democrats and can favor whoever she wants for committee chairmanships etc. It just seems like the height of hypocrisy to run on the idea of being against corruption only to propose the most corrupt individuals she can find.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 18, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #195597

1 LT B:

I assume you’re talking about Alcee Hastings. I don’t think that’s some sort of statement regarding his job qualifications, but merely honoring seniority, but I may be wrong. Murtha has done far more than just what you mentioned, which is why I put up that link to the CREW website, which documents the 20 most corrupt politicians (how nice that many were thrown out!). I’m just astonished that Murtha received as much support as he did in the House vote.

As for Jefferson (I assume that’s what you meant, not Jackson), I am sickened that he received any votes at all, though it seems corruption and Louisiana politics are tightly wed. I remember when I lived there for a short time as a child listening to my mother discuss the wonderful choice of voting for Edwards, a corrupt felon, or Duke, a white supremist, for governor. I want to know what’s taking the FBI so long to get an indictment on this slimeball. Then again, maybe we shouldn’t jump to conclusions…maybe he just had that money saved up to give the next youngster selling Girl Scout cookies a big surprise! Yeah, right…

In previous years I had really been against term limits, but I see now very clearly that power corrupts. Most of these people who fancy themselves “statesmen” don’t deserve anything but a one-way ticket home and a referral to an unemployment office. Until lobbyists are kept far away from capitol hill, term limits are instituted, *real* campaign finance reform is enacted that limits candidates’ received donations and spending severely, and third party candidates get a fair shake in our not-so-democratic process, no matter who holds the gavel we’ll continue to see a corrupt, do-nothing body motivated only by money.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at November 18, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #195634

Jacob in SC,

Correct on both Hastings and Jefferson. I knew that guy had the same last name as a president and that it started with a “J”, I guess sometimes 50/50 isn’t the best odds. I think you’re spot on in arguing for term limits. Its become fairly obvious to me that the system in Washington is corrupting, if for no other reason than concern for the souls of our elected leaders, they should be out and forced to get a real job after no more than 12 years (2 terms for a Senator, I’d say about 8 to 12 for a House representative.)

Posted by: 1LT B at November 19, 2006 2:05 AM
Post a comment