Rick Perry vs World

20 November 2006

Hoyer victory not a sign of moderation

Todd Gillman has a column in yesterday's Dallas Morning News that I disagree with in regards to congressional leadership elections.

The Hastert doctrine is out. The Republican speaker famously catered to the "majority of the majority." In the Pelosi House, centrists – in both parties – may end up calling the shots.

Democrats faced down the new speaker and picked Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland as majority leader even after Nancy Pelosi backed his rival – to the relief of many Texas Democrats and to Blue Dogs, the fiscally conservative, pro-gun Democrats whose ranks swelled in the midterm elections.

The Blue Dogs and a similarly minded centrist group that calls itself the New Democrats have been exchanging feelers with what's left of the moderate Republicans, who lost many members in tough New England races.

Gillman's thesis is thus: Hoyer beat Murtha, therefore centrism will occur under Nancy Pelosi's reign as Speaker.

Three major problems with that thesis:

1. Congressional leadership elections aren't about ideology. While ideology may underpin members' decisions on who to vote for, it is much less important than Gillman portrays. Congressional leadership elections are about politics, particularly internal politics. A book could be probably be written on this subject (and should be!), but congressional leadership elections are more about personal alliances, communicating for the party, raising money, listening to the backbenchers, etc. Surely Gillman knows this, yet the way he framed the article makes it sound like he thinks congressional leadership elections are mostly about ideology.

2. Hoyer is the more liberal candidate. Hoyer's voting record is not that different from Pelosi's. In fact, in the 2002 minority whip election [at the time, Dick Gephardt was Minority Leader, and former whip David Bonior had launched a quixotic bid to be governor of Michigan, so the Minority Whip spot was open], Hoyer went to great pains to point out how similar their voting records were. While Hoyer is perceived [fairly, in my opinion] as less liberal than Pelosi, he's got a fairly standard-issue liberal voting record.

By contrast, Murtha has been pro-life and pro-gun. A quick check of lifetime voting records on the ADA's website ranks Hoyer as 83 and Murtha as 56. [I think the numbers might be out of date, but that's not my fault, and both have been in Congress so long that their scores should be stabilized.] That makes Hoyer quite a bit more liberal.

3. Speaker Pelosi sets the agenda. Even if Hoyer were more moderate (he's not; see point 2), his influence over the initial agenda will probably be relatively little. Pelosi will drive the agenda for now, unless she's a weaker leader than she is perceived. This is, after all, the time when her power is the strongest.

Gillman's columns are frequently insightful, but this one is not. The best argument for his position is that Hoyer will owe the Blue Dogs. There are a number of problems with that argument, however, including point 3 above, as well as the fact that Hoyer's margin of victory was relatively large. [It occurs to me also that Gillman thinks that Pelosi will have to moderate because so many of the new members are to the right of the Democratic Caucus. I think that argument is also overblown, and Gillman didn't make it in this article anyway.]

Perhaps Gillman will ultimately be right, and centrism will reign in the House under Nancy Pelosi. I doubt it, though I am hopeful. Either way, the results of the House Majority Leader election do not provide much indication.

Posted by Evan @ 11/20/06 01:49 PM | Comments (1)

17 November 2006

CD23 runoff: Henry Bonilla v Ciro Rodriguez

I haven't really written much about the runoff in CD23 between Bonilla and Rodriguez.

I guess it's mainly because I'm doubtful that the race will even be that close between Bonilla and Rodriguez. Democrats may be able to raise the money for the race nationally, but do they really think they can squeak out a victory in this race, no matter how much money they spend?

My guess is that the DCCC will decide to take a pass, and Bonilla eases through. But maybe they'll decide to play. It is a good cycle for them with a relatively good district. Even so, I doubt they'll play: if they do, they'll make Bonilla sweat a little, but are unlikely to beat him. Check out what Paul Burka writes:

The problem in District 23, unfortunately for the Ds, is the candidate. This guy previously served in Congress for four terms, and he's running in a district that stretches all the way to El Paso, and he's still going door to door in San Antonio as if he were running for school board. How about raising money? Oh, no, that's not fit work for a man of the people. How about bringing in campaign professionals? Oh, no, that would mean that Ciro's wife, Carolina, could no longer wield what the San Antonio Express-News called "tremendous authority." In a conference call early this week, Texas Democratic members of Congress tried to persuade Rodrigues to turn his campaign over to professionals, who know how to raise money, use direct mail, and do TV spots. A fundraiser from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee showed up, only to have Rodriguez tell the Express-News, "The last thing I want to see is a phone line."

Posted by Evan @ 11/17/06 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

John Sharp running for Senate in 08?

Nate reports that John Sharp is thinking about challenging John Cornyn for his Senate seat in 2008.

Cornyn is a solid campaigner. He doesn't make mistakes, he has money in the bank, and he'll be running in a presidential election year in a GOP state. He's not going to be easy to beat.

Posted by Evan @ 11/17/06 03:48 PM | Comments (0)

Pelosi follow up

The biggest problem with all of Nancy Pelosi's post-election decisions is that she has no strategy. Or if she has one, it's flawed.

Her message right now should have been: Democrats are different. It's not business as usual. So far, her actions belie her campaign promises. Oops.

To wit, today's New York Times' op-ed:

Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

But Ms. Pelosi's damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago.

Few mistakes are fatal, but Pelosi has mostly succeeded so far only in setting the bar low.

Posted by Evan @ 11/17/06 03:41 PM | Comments (0)

16 November 2006

Hutchison, Cornyn rise in GOP Senate leadership

Kay Bailey Hutchison is now the #4 Republican in the Senate, and John Cornyn took her old place at #5 in the leadership.

A non-insignificant amount of the establishment is less than enthused with Cornyn, but it'll be interesting to see if they want to replace his 6 years of experience and leadership post.

Posted by Evan @ 11/16/06 02:03 PM | Comments (1)

Nancy Pelosi: Baffling

What is Nancy Pelosi thinking? Compare 1994 to 2006, and Newt Gingrich comes off looking superb and disciplined by comparison. [It was much later when Gingrich self-destructed.]

1. Divide the caucus, make Pelosi look weak. In 1994, Gingrich's old friend Bob Walker ran against Tom DeLay. DeLay and Gingrich weren't exactly best friends. Gingrich was at the height of his powers, but was wise enough to not intervene in the race, though he knew the caucus would pick DeLay. Gingrich didn't want to divide the caucus, and he didn't want to diminish the perception of his power. Pelosi would've been wise to follow his example.

The ramifications of Pelosi's dividing the Dem caucus won't be immediately apparent. Winning conceals lots of fissures. But this has sent a message to the congress: it's all about Nancy Pelosi's personal power. Perhaps it will make some of them loathe to cross her...but then, if Pelosi wanted to send that message, she should've picked a fight she could win.

2. Ethics. Pelosi's decision to fight for Murtha sends a bad signal. Murtha may not have been indicted on ABSCAM, but he is on videotape sounding awfully ambivalent about declining an obvious bribe, and leaving open the possibility of later accepting the bribe.

Maybe there's some nuance there as Democrats claim, but it sure looks like Pelosi's promise to "clean House" was just a campaign promise.

Compare this to Gingrich, who acted on the ethics reforms that he promised. Though it has been forgotten, the 1994 House GOP Caucus did institute reforms then-widely seen as important, such as term limits on committee chairman, term limits on the Speaker, and ending length of tenure as the sole determinant of who got to yield the chairman's gavel. [It should be noted that Democrats haven't really done any of these things.]

3. DeLay-style Hammer-esque hardball. Pelosi's decision to back Murtha is baffling. Murtha never had a chance to win. Initially Pelosi simply sent a requested letter. Even that was surprising. Then Speaker-elect Pelosi started playing hardball, calling New York freshman Kristen Gillibrand (spelling might be wrong; I'm not double checking...maybe later) to her office to remonstrate with Gillibrand over her support for Hoyer. In the same meeting, she asks about Gillibrand's committee preferences. Why play hardball in support of a sure loser? Pelosi looks downright DeLay Hammer-esque. To follow that up, Pelosi starts making calls to support Murtha. This is no inconsequential thing for an incoming speaker.

If Pelosi's goal was to come in as some idealistic "Ms. Smith Goes to Washington," then she has hurt herself indeed. [Remember, she's the daughter of an old-school Baltimore political boss.]

4. Hoyer will do a better job. Hoyer and Pelosi may have some tension between them, but he's clearly a better political communicator than Murtha. It's unlikely Murtha would've been a good Majority Leader.

5. Trample her own news cycle. The story coming out of this cycle should have been "First Female Speaker In US History." Instead, because of Pelosi's lack of foresight, the story is "Pelosi weakened politically; her followers elect her rival."

There was also that little thing where Pelosi denied Jane Harman the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee (apparently out of personal pique), though most agree that Harman is the best choice.

On the other hand, I guess Pelosi is setting expectations low.

Posted by Evan @ 11/16/06 01:47 PM | Comments (1)

Republicans should think long and hard about this

Republicans lose control of Congress, and the markets react by...reacting enthusiastically.

The 'phants in Congress should do some serious thinking about that one.

Posted by Evan @ 11/16/06 01:39 AM | Comments (2)

15 November 2006

Chris Bell for President '08

Let's recap Chris Bell's history:

Lose a race for state rep in Amarillo...run for City Council in the nation's 4th largest city.
Lose a race for mayor in a landslide...cut a deal and run for Congress.
Lose your re-election campaign in a primary by 2 to 1...run for governor of the second largest state.
Lose by double digits (more or less) in running for governor... What next?

Clearly Chris Bell should run for president!

Okay, I couldn't resist the humor. But seriously, sometimes hubris is rewarded. But, sometimes it isn't.

Posted by Evan @ 11/15/06 01:25 AM | Comments (1)

10 November 2006

Blogging will occur soon

It's possible that if the congressional recounts go a certain way, I will have exactly picked the correct election results in both the US House and US Senate.

That's good news, in that I'm right. Bad news, in that I've missed a Senate race in the last three cycles, and if I missed one this year, the GOP would've kept control of the Senate.

Posted by Evan @ 11/10/06 06:17 PM | Comments (0)