Forums | MacLife

No, they're both Democrats.

I'm not quite sure what the significance of this is suppose to be.

matt wrote:

No, they're both Democrats.

Right, they've elected a democrat to lead them in the House. He may not be Pelosi's choice, but a strong leadership is not necessarily based on loyalty.

We've just had an election, and the voters booted out a congressional faction that seemed to think good leadership was about voting in lockstep for 1500 page bills which have never been read. Loyal? Yes. Stupid? Indeed.

jeremiah256 wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

I'm not quite sure what the significance of this is suppose to be.

The democrats had an election to determine various party positions.  Pelosi backed someone who didn't win.

That's it.  That's the story.  Its a made up story, completely meaningless.

Except Pelosi backed Murtha when she knows that he has some skeletons in his past: Abscam video.

The other Dems were right to hand her her head for this stupid and ignorant move, especially after this particular election.  It brings to mind whether she has the peoples best interest first vice her own.

They both had issues.  I can't say there was a good reason to particularly like either.

Well Abscam was a pretty smurfed-up scandal, FBI agents pushing hard to bribe Congressmen. Though it does look bad, of course.

Anyway I don't think this is a huge deal. I am puzzled as to why Pelosi pushed so hard for Murtha when there was so much opposition, and when Murtha offended so many House members by openly saying he was aiming for the job even before the election, but hey.

This is very far fom a big deal. Like I said in another thread, it's not like we're talking about cabinet positions.

Farmerkev wrote:

Since we finally have a thread on this...

Yes, it is a big deal Virginia.
The majority/whip spots are who run the party line on legislation, make the deals, twist the arms and get the votes. These positions have as much or more power than a cabinet post. (depends on which one)
There is a difference between Murtha and Hoyer's positions on Iraq which can be an indication of what direction the Dems wish to go there for example. It also brings into question Pelosi's authority.

This was important.

Oh, it might be important.  However, the headline is about the democrats shooting themselves in their feet, and that having the election showed massive disunity.  Hardly the same as having a new power faction in the party.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Since we finally have a thread on this...

Yes, it is a big deal Virginia.
The majority/whip spots are who run the party line on legislation, make the deals, twist the arms and get the votes. These positions have as much or more power than a cabinet post. (depends on which one)
There is a difference between Murtha and Hoyer's positions on Iraq which can be an indication of what direction the Dems wish to go there for example. It also brings into question Pelosi's authority.

This was important.

I think you're grossly overstating the guy's influence and responsibility. I really do.

Time will tell what it means for the direction they take and what unity they go into it with.
As far as how important these positions are, well you're underestimating them, the power they wield and what they do.

Why Murtha Lost.

Ultimately, opposition to the war and support from Pelosi were not enough to put Murtha over the top. In a race full of shockers, the outcome was predictable: Hoyer prevailed, 149 votes to 86. Many Democrats who backed Hoyer said a primary reason for supporting him was to retain the duo that had won them the majority.

Maybe the question boils down to that old poll question. What's more important to you: ending the war in Iraq or ending corruption in Congress?

StaticAge wrote:

Hoyer was favored and expected to win. Murtha had helped run Pelosi's campaign in the past, she supported him out of loyalty, not because she was trying to like shift her party's opinion. No one really expected Murtha to win, but it was a nice gesture by Pelosi anyway, and it was cool because everybody basically knew Steny Hoyer was going to get the position.

Big deal.

The big deal (at least for me) is perceptions.  After the elections we expect the Dems to put forth their best foot.  For Pelosi to back Murtha means she places loyalty before the people, even if she knew Murtha was going to lose.  Or possibly worse, it shows she can't stand up to the powerful interests in her party for the good of her party and the people.  Murtha wants to leave Iraq.  Great. But he also is a serious player when it comes to lobbyist and was tainted by Abscam - regardless of the FBI's tactics. 

Whether she likes it or not, she is the first female Speaker.  She's going to be watched and second-guessed for her entire time in that role.  Is it fair? No, not in the least.  Is it going to happen? Yes, like when any female or minority takes a new positions such as this, she's going to have to be better than average.  I'm hoping Pelosi realizes this and wish her good luck.

StaticAge wrote:

the implication being offered by this line of reasoning seems to be that the only way to show strength is if there is total solidarity.

Bunk.  Everyone expects some dissent.  Major dissent, though, implies problems.  The vote wasn't even close.

If the talking heads were thundering about because Pelosi's pick only won by 95% of the vote, then that would be stupid.  But, that's not what happened here.  Not only was a it a loss, but a loss by a major proportion.

And a major loss of face.  This is, I suspect, indicative of the 'Rats inability to get their act together.  They are used to bumbling about in the opposition and having no real ideas to differentiate themselves from the Republican wing of their party.  The trouble with that is that, when they finally grasp power, they have no idea what to do with it because they have no ideas to unify them as a common front.

Making their majority leader look like a twit is a symptom of a lack of unity, which is in itself a symptom of having no unifying ideas and no idea where they want to go.

Face it, they're complete knuckheads who will likely squander the best opportunity that they've had in years.  All Hail President McCain in '08.  Just you watch.

kb5zhh wrote:

Sounds like some people have a story frame they are willing to shoehorn anything into.

Yes, there sure are.

Hank Rearden wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Sounds like some people have a story frame they are willing to shoehorn anything into.

We'll see.  It seems that some people are willing to let just about anything pass that would have had them crowing like roosters in heat if it had happened to the GOP.

But this did just happen to the GOP.  A significantly more contentious race for minority leader just happened.  When Newt took over in 94, his chosen lost the exact same race.  Was that a disaster for Newt?