Pelosi's damaging competence

Eugene robinson
Friday, November 5, 2010

Losing elections is an occupational hazard for politicians, so there's no need to get all weepy about the Democratic officeholders who suddenly find themselves with more time to spend with their families. It would be more appropriate to shed a tear or two for the future of the country, what with the Tea Party brigade coming to town. Then again, I was pretty gloomy after the 1994 midterms, and yet it turned out that the world did not end.

President Obama still has the ability to set the nation's agenda - and also the power of the veto, in case of emergency. Harry Reid is still Senate majority leader - and after the way he punched and scrapped his way to victory, who wants to mess with him? As for John Boehner, he'll soon learn that his new job requires a more extensive vocabulary than "no."

But amid the wreckage of Tuesday's GOP rampage, there's one person for whom I feel awful: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She's losing her job not because she does it poorly but because she does it so well.

<snip> Pelosi did what was right for the country, and what's right isn't always what's popular. Democrats may decide they need a less polarizing figure as minority leader; if they do, well, that's politics. But I'd love to see her stay in the Democratic leadership - and I'm betting that eventually she'd find a way to take back the gavel that she pounds with such righteous authority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110407411.html?nav=emailpage

I know this is a couple days old, but I had missed it and others may have too. I think I read where Nancy Pelosi will run unopposed for the minority leader position. Give em hell Madam Speaker!!

Will U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler take on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a showdown for the role of top Democrat next year?

Shuler, of Waynesville, said in a debate in October - when he was defending his seat in a Republican district - that he would not support Pelosi's re-election to her leadership post. He said he would run himself before supporting her.

He echoed those remarks to The Associated Press, saying he thought that there were other contenders but that he would run if there were no "viable alternative."


Pelosi announced that despite losing control of the House, she'll run as Democratic minority leader for next term. No one else has announced a candidacy.

Shuler repeated his pledge Thursday to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. National outlets are predicting a candidacy.


http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/07/786496/shuler-has-an-opening-to-challenge.html

Less bluedogs won't help him.

because she's only a "polarizing figure" because republicans decided to malign her image relentlessly, without regard to any basis in fact.

because that's what republicans do, and if democrats opt for a different person as minority leader, republicans will do exactly the same thing to whoever it is.

well, not EXACTLY the same, they'll change the smears to fit the victim, of course.


seriously, what the hell did pelosi do in the last two years that republicans have the slightest legitimate objection to other than push through obama's agenda (which is 95% of the job description of any speaker when the president's of the same party)? she left her "san francisco liberal" agenda back in san francisco when she stepped up to the speaker role and forged compromises far to the right of her own values and those of her constituents in her district.

she did. I hope she stays in their faces all the way.

"polarizing" refers to a difference in popularity among democrats vs. republicans.

shrub, for instance, was a highly "polarizing" president, because he was hugely popular among republicans and hugely unpopular among democrats, at least once the 9/11 thing wore off. the exact numbers varied through his tenure in the white house, but his polarizing numbers held even when his approval and disapproval numbers were equal, or when overall he was still more popular than not.

more accurately, to be "polarizing" the difference in approval/disapproval between democrats vs. republicans has to be greater than the approval/disapproval attributable to mere party identification itself. the mere "d" or "r" after a politician's name is polarizing. the question is, is the politician more polarizing than that one letter.


all this, of course, is merely speaking from a statistical perspective. my main point from the earlier post was that whatever polarizing is attributable to pelosi's numbers beyond the "d" is actually due to her image, courtesy of the republicans, and that sort of image will be imposed on any democratic party leader, no matter how liberal, conservative; strident, conciliatory; upright, or scandalous they may be.

She can be leader again, and not a very long wait too.