Cottle on Pelosi

I'm an unabashed Nancy Pelosi admirer. She's the most influential real liberal in Washington, DC and depending on how things turn out in the Obama administration will either retain that title or else will have been the one who blazed the trail he walks down. Her elevation to become top House Democrat was thought by centrists likely to doom the party to the "McGovernite wilderness" for a generation, but instead she led them to victory only to be met with a weird boomlet of enthusiasm for dumping her in favor of Rahm Emmannuel. But she's done a good job as Speaker, and the excitement around Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has often made me wonder why there hasn't been more excitement around her rise to power -- a rise which actually fits the model of a smart, tough woman making it in a male-dominated world without compromising her principles much better.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I really enjoyed Michelle Cottle's appreciation of Pelosi in the new TNR and encourage others to check it out.

Comments

1) Congress hasn't done much since she took power
2) She represents San Francisco
3) She started out as part of the Burton machine

Posted by top three | May 30, 2008 2:11 PM

lot of good things in that article.
this woman (not hillary) deserves some respect...

Posted by rommel | May 30, 2008 2:13 PM

Who the hell wants to dump her for Rahm Emanuel? Source your cocktail-party gossip, please.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 30, 2008 2:15 PM

Well, obviously the Presidency is a much better-known position than Speaker of the House (a sad commentary on the state of our civic knowledge, but true nonetheless).

That said, I'm not entirely sure the premise is correct ... Clinton is currently playing up the level of excitement women might feel about her candidacy, but I am not sure that women (at least those who are reasonably conversant with politics) are truly less excited about Pelosi.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 2:16 PM

I'll never forget how she and Harry destroyed Social Security Privatization. That was when I realized that things had turned around for the Democratic Party.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 30, 2008 2:18 PM

centrists likely to doom the party to the "McGovernite wilderness" for a generation,

I always thought that quote was interesting. I mean you could make the case McGovern was a disaster, but he certainly didn't doom the Democrats in a long term sense.

If you wanted to make the case that any Dem did anything like this it would be Jimmy Carter. Maybe I missed it but I don’t remember too many of this liberal hawks bashing Carter’s foreign policy, at least not with anywhere near vile that McGovern gets.

I figure the root cause that if there is a non trivial chance that you’ll run into the people from the Carter administration in foreign policy circles.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 30, 2008 2:27 PM

top three

"1) Congress hasn't done much since she took power"

Uggh, she has done pretty damn well considering the dems have a liebermanized Senate majority and "obstructionist" president who thinks vetos are strictly for political purposes.

She has done a good job, and much better I think than Harry Reid.

Posted by jvoe | May 30, 2008 2:32 PM

She's the most influential real liberal in Washington, DC...

Teddy is not dead yet, thank you very much, and has much more hardcore liberal street cred. Respek.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | May 30, 2008 2:33 PM

". . . has often made me wonder why there hasn't been more excitement around her rise to power"

Isn't the answer kind of obvious? There can be only one high-level female leader. Why would we care about Hillary Clinton if Pelosi was allowed to be given respect for climbing to the top of the House ladder?

Posted by Helter | May 30, 2008 2:34 PM

Pelosi has definitely done better than Reid, though some of that is probably because of House vs. Senate rules. But really, if everything the House has passed the last couple years had managed to become law, I think most of us would be pretty happy. Can't blame it on Pelosi once it leaves the House.

Posted by Chris O. | May 30, 2008 2:35 PM

Pelosi is more interesting in obtaining power than in obtaining the aura of power, so she doesn't spend a lot of time burnishing her image.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | May 30, 2008 2:37 PM

I'll never forget how she and Harry destroyed Social Security Privatization. That was when I realized that things had turned around for the Democratic Party.

I agree that was a turning point, but it more the point where Bush just decided to wager his fortunes one stupid idea too many. Bush’s plan was so horrifically bad and unpopular a segment of the population that votes and is otherwise influential that if the Democrats hadn’t been able to kill it, they would have ceased to exist as party.

It’s hard to realize this because the major newspaper seem to buy into ‘fixing’ the social security crisis, but once people understand it SS privatization is just a shade or less popular then slavery reparations.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 30, 2008 2:43 PM

a rise which actually fits the model of a smart, tough woman making it in a male-dominated world without compromising her principles much better

An even better example is right there in CA as well, Barbara Boxer.

Posted by dwightkschrute | May 30, 2008 2:46 PM

Pelosi has become the Katherine Harris of this campaign or Madame DeFarge.

Posted by nobama | May 30, 2008 2:49 PM

Both Reid and Pelosi have done an excellent job so far.

If we are to compare Pelosi and Clinton as the "the model of a smart, tough woman making it in a male-dominated world without compromising her principles," though, we need to ask ourselves: "What principles, exactly?"

Posted by dj moonbat | May 30, 2008 2:52 PM

Of course I love her. http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7448/onnoticepd1.jpg

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 30, 2008 2:56 PM

Re dj moonbat's comment "If we are to compare Pelosi and Clinton as the "the model of a smart, tough woman making it in a male-dominated world without compromising her principles," though, we need to ask ourselves: "What principles, exactly?"
----------
How about the principle that if Jane Harman,Ranking Democrat on the House Intel Committee, enables Bush's deceit in pre-war Iraq Intel, then Jane Harman should not become Chairwoman of the House Intel Committee?

How about the principle that if Israeli billionaire and major donor Haim Saban calls up and says Jane Harman should be Chairperson , Haim Saban is told to go fuck himself? Along with the AIPAC donkey he rode in on.

See
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/17/15445/570

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 3:06 PM

Re Jane Harmon, see also http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html

Note the last two paragraphs on page 3 of the above article.

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 3:20 PM

"I'm an unabashed Nancy Pelosi admirer. She's the most influential real liberal in Washington, DC and depending on how things turn out in the Obama administration will either retain that title or else will have been the one who blazed the trail he walks down."

Since there is not the slightest chance of an Obama administration, as the country is not ready for a black president, this comment is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

Posted by SLC | May 30, 2008 3:28 PM

Mr. Williams, my "what principles?" question was directed toward a different end, but your example is worth noting in support of Speaker Pelosi.

Posted by dj moonbat | May 30, 2008 3:44 PM

The country also is clearly not ready for a female President, nor a crazy old coot President. I guess this is Bob Barr's lucky year!

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 3:46 PM

"...a rise which actually fits the model of a smart, tough woman making it in a male-dominated world without compromising her principles much better."

Does Matt have a box full of 3 x 5 cards with boilerplate like this written on them? Amazing how much "commentary" these day is nothing but mindless gibberish endlessly repeated.

Posted by kafka | May 30, 2008 3:50 PM

I'd like to echo JW Hamner, and also point to Howard Dean as a DC operative who's both more effective and more capital-L Liberal than Pelosi.

Pelosi is the very embodiment of a Limousine Liberal. Yes, she's been fairly effective as Speaker, and I actually got kinda misty at the historical significance of her assumption of the gavel -- but as top three mentioned, she's an old-school Burton Machine pork purveyor (subway to nowhere, anyone?) and a really tired old-school identity-politics Dem.

Posted by The Confidence Man | May 30, 2008 3:59 PM

Matt - I agree wholeheartedly.

HRC dreams she had Pelosi's political skill.

Posted by Trinity | May 30, 2008 4:32 PM

"You've come a long way baby," pats on the head don't show how far we've come. People shrugging their shoulders at each hurdle a woman jumps for the first time do.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 30, 2008 5:09 PM

You know, I'm quite familiar with Michelle Cottle, and yet when I saw the headline I though "What does Battlestar Galactica's Doc Cottle have to do with Nancy Pelosi?"

Posted by DonBoy | May 30, 2008 5:29 PM

She's my representative. I've voted for her in the past, and I was very proud of her becoming the first female Speaker of the House. I'll never vote for her again because she took impeachment off the table.

President Bush's wiretapping broke laws that were put in place to prevent actions that were specifically listed as impeachable offenses in the impeachment articles against Nixon. According to Scott McLellan's recent comments, which have not been contradicted by anyone, President Bush leaked the name of a CIA agent and took us to war on false pretenses.

If we aren't going to impeach President Bush, we may as well white out that part of the Constitution.

Posted by croatoan | May 30, 2008 5:35 PM

Pelosi panders to the Israelis on Iran.

That tells you all you need to know about Pelosi.

Pelosi: More must be done to stop Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668665810&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Money Quotes:

Pelosi said that to stop Iran's nuclear march, short of a military strike - something she did not rule out as a last resort - "you have to go all the way. And people have to know you are deadly serious that if you want to be our friend, if you want the benefit of our friendship, a central pillar of our foreign policy is to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

This can't just be a "conversation," she said, "it has to be seriously enforced and sanctioned, because the alternative is one that has a tremendous downside - and that would be to use military force."

While saying that a military option should not be taken off the table, and adding that an attack by Teheran on Israel certainly "cannot go unanswered," Pelosi said that a preemptive strike on Iran would have consequences that needed to be considered. Among the consequences she listed were the effect such an attack would have in rallying Iranians around their current leadership, what it would do to the price of oil, and the response of the rest of the Muslim world.

US House speaker: Nothing should be ruled out in order to stop Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668668378&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Money Quotes:

"Iran must be stopped. They are a threat to the neighborhood and a source of funding for Hamas and Hizbullah," Pelosi told Channel 1.

While hoping there would be no need for a military strike, the House speaker stressed, "I do think we must not take anything off the table."

Pelosi's Betrayal
"Antiwar" Democrats cave on Iran
by Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10674

Read it and weep:

"Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over Iraq. Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran. Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy."

This settles at least three matters once and for all: To begin with, the president has been given the green light to attack Iran. Withdrawing this provision from the spending bill is an act not just of complicity, but of open collaboration with the Bush administration's war plans. When the bombs begin to fall, and the Democrats rise up in a yowl of righteous indignation, the president will be quite justified in doing this.

Secondly, the Democrats are either being dishonest or they lack fundamental knowledge of geography, because Pelosi is attacking the president for his Iraq "surge" even as she gives him the go-ahead for a super-surge right across the border in Iran.

The Republicans, no matter what their particular views on the war, seem to understand that this is a regional struggle and requires a comprehensive, overarching solution. They just don't agree on what that solution ought to be. Someone along the lines of, say, Rudy Giuliani, wants to extend the war to include the entire region, while Chuck Hagel, on the other hand, envisions a regional diplomatic and political architecture to serve as the framework for a comprehensive Middle East peace initiative.

Addressing the recent AIPAC conference, Scooter Libby's boss, AKA the Father of Lies, spoke the unvarnished truth:

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened."

What an easy target the "antiwar" Democrats make!

Third, one has to wonder how those who claim that recognizing the Israel Lobby's decisive impact on U.S. foreign policy is a hate crime are going to explain away this one. Those above-mentioned "conservative Democrats" are natural warmongers (although it wasn't always so), but exactly who, one wonders, are these other "lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel"? I'll bet Pelosi is one of them and Tom Lantos is another; no doubt the entire Democratic leadership belongs in that group.

No one is any longer pretending that Israel isn't the 51st state. To hear Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) tell it,

"There is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state. 'It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision."

Berkley is prepared to send the sons and daughters of her Nevada constituents into battle because, you see, there is "fear in Israel." What about fear in Nevada of the looming prospect of another war in the Middle East, this time involving a country with three times the population of Iraq and quite a bit more territory? I'll bet if you grab someone off the streets of Las Vegas and ask them if we ought to gamble on giving Bush the power to launch another war, only the very drunk would say, "Yeah, sure, dude, why the hell not!" On the other hand, if you went up to someone in say, Tel Aviv, you'd get a very different answer. In this context, it is fair to ask: whom, exactly, does Rep. Berkley represent?

...To add to the intellectual dishonesty generated by this debate, we aren't allowed to point out the racist claptrap uttered by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a Democrat representing the north shore of Long Island, who said:

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way."

Yeah, those wild-eyed Muslims can't be trusted with gunpowder, let alone nuclear power, so nothing is "off the table." That's why it's okay for Israel to have nukes, which pose an "existential" threat to Iran: the Israelis, after all, are normal and "civilized," just like us. No need to ask whom or what Ackerman represents: that ought to be clear enough.

The Pelosi-crats and the War
Caught like a deer in the headlights
by Justin Raimondo

The times, they sure are a changin.' Why, it seems like only yesterday – although it was December 16, 1998 – that Nancy Pelosi opined:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Today, however, she's singing a different tune: "There was never anything in the intelligence that said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, never."

The House version, co-authored by Nancy Pelosi and Tom Delay (what a tag-team!), passed 392-11, with 22 abstentions. It went much further than the Senate version in supporting Bush, not only claiming that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions, but also going so far as to offer "unequivocal support" for Bush's "firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq," which it described as "part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism." Eleven Democrats voted against the resolution, averring that they could support the troops without supporting this tripe. As American bombs were falling on Iraq, killing thousands, Pelosi declared,

"Saddam Hussein is a menace to his own people, and a threat to the peace and stability of the entire region. As our soldiers risk their own lives to secure the lives and liberty of others, we pledge to repay their courage by guaranteeing that we will spare no resource and no effort to make sure nothing stands between them and victory."

At the beginning of this conflict, Pelosi promised: "I don't have any intention of second-guessing the strategy of the commander in chief and those who are waging this war." This from someone who now wants to micromanage the U.S. military campaign in Iraq – down to the number of troops, and how they're to be deployed.

The idea that the Democrats are any kind of "peace party" is belied by the latest action of the Speaker in regard to this bill, who excised a provision that would have required the President to come to Congress for permission to attack Iran. And, gee, what a coincidence, but that this was done right after the recent conference of the American-Israel Political Affairs Committee, where Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared:

"I know that… all of you who are concerned about the security and the future of the State of Israel understand the importance of strong American leadership addressing the Iranian threat, and I am sure you will not hamper or restrain that strong leadership unnecessarily."

He forgot to add: or else. Not that he had to: Nancy skeedaddled back to her office so fast that she must have broken the sound barrier – and the offending passage was cut from the bill.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 6:48 PM