House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) must be gnashing his teeth that he lost his bid for the job he now has to Nancy Pelosi in October 2001. Had he been elected Whip that year, he would likely have succeeded Richard Gephardt as House Minority Leader in 2002 and would be the face of House Democrats today. With Hoyer at the helm, Democrats would be in a far better position to win a majority in the House this fall.
With a Gallup poll showing Republicans closing the gap (from an 11-point deficit to just 2 points) in the “generic Congressional ballot” and with the recent AP poll that Bruce cited earlier today, it’s far from clear that a Democratic takeover of Congress in the offing for this fall.
As Bruce noted, most Americans have yet to focus on the fall Elections. When they look at the Democrats, not only will they see their local candidates, but they will also see House Minority Leader Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Reid, both who have used their positions to obstruct the president’s agenda. They never seem to miss an opportunity to criticize the president.
In the fall, that opposition may not be enough to sway enough voters to their side. Most Americans prefer congressional leaders who do more than oppose the president, but actually put forward policies to help address the nation’s problems. While the Republicans have been far from perfect, they have at least put forward some legislation. Which the Democrats have obstructed.
Perhaps had the Democrats had leaders who were not so obsessed with the president, individuals willing to compromise with the GOP on a variety of initiatives, they might stand a better chance of winning control of Congress this fall. Such leadership would show that the Democrats are interested in governing. With Steny Hoyer at their helm, they would have a leader who, while critical of the president, has at least said publicly “He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some respect.”
Earlier this year when comedian Stephen Colbert made several tasteless jokes at the expense of the president at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, Hoyer said the comedian “crossed the line.” That Democrat at least recognized there is a limit to Bush-hatred.
Steny Hoyer comes across as a far more level-headed individual that the woman who defeated him in 2001. With him at the helm, undecided voters might have more confidence that, if the Democrats took control of the House, they would offer something constructive instead of opposition and obstruction.
But, the Democratic base seems consumed with animosity for the Administration. When I did a google search to confirm Hoyer’s remarks above, I came up with numerous examples of left-wing bloggers furious at Hoyer for taking on Colbert, with a particularly angry one wondering if he’ll be the “the Joe Lieberman of 2008,” saying it’s in “bad taste” for Hoyer to continue “call himself a Democrat.”
Well, if Maryland’s “Joe Lieberman” were head of the House Democratic caucus, House Democrats would surely have a broader appeal this fall, yet their base might be upset that he was insufficiently anti-Bush. This points to the real problem the Democrats face. The angry left, as this month’s Connecticut returns show, increasingly powerful in the party, balks at supporting those Democrats, even very liberal ones like Hoyer, capable of making their party’s case to swing voters.
So obsessed are they will bashing Bush that they neglect the fact that to win a majority, Democrats need appeal not only to rank-and-file Democrats, but also to those not beholden to either party. Given congressional Republicans’ failings in the 109th Congress, we rank-and-file Republicans should be grateful for the prominence of the angry left in the Democratic caucus for, as one of Instapundit‘s readers observed “I grow more and more convinced the Republican majority will end itself by 2006 if the Left will just shut up for five minutes.”
Steny Hoyer must surely be gnashing his teeth. For if he were the House Democratic leader, he would likely be talking about what kind of legislation the Democrats would put forward should they win a majority this fall. While a Democratic partisan, he would not use his every public statement to bash the Republican President of the United States — who still has two years left in his term even if his party loses Congress this fall.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Good for the democrats in bareing their teeth. Individuals willing to compromise? Compromise is a word that is particularly unknown to the majority party in both houses. Ever since January of 2001, we’ve been subjected to the biggest bunch of sore winners in our nation’s political history. They thumb their noses at the minority party, to the point of the vice-president say “fuck you” to another senator in public. the only time they want to compromise is when they put forth something so stupid, they can’t get their majority to vote for it and try to beg a few democrats to come over to their side.
I’m sure the electorate will show the same stupidity they showed 2 years ago; the republicans will wallow in their love for a public that really doesn’t give a crap and we’ll be subject another (at least) 2 more years of nonsensical warfare and more doses of fear of Osams Bin Laden (who we still seem unable to capture. hmmmmmmmmm.)
It seems, Kevin, you pay more attention to the left-wing blogs and pundits than to actual facts. From almost the moment the president took office, he has reached out of Democrats, dropping, for example, vouchers from his education plan to get “No Child Left Behind” passed with bi-partisan support. (One of the bills passed in his first year.)
And your citing the Vice President’s expletive takes that entire situation out of context. Senator Leahy was baiting that good man and given the Vermonter’s rudeness, we can understand the Vice President’s expression.
In short, your comment is just plain wrong, rooted in your hatred of the president and his party and not in the facts of his Administration.
Well written GPW. And good response to Kevin, the BushHater.
You are assuming that voters will think this is a bad thing. They indeed may not.
The past 4 elections the MSM panted over a probable Dem victory in November. Until it actually happens I believe in the adage “a blind squirrel finds a nutt eventually.” Conneticut Republicans have an interesting choice though. Do they help defeat a socialist isolationist or defeat a Liberal Democrat veteran Senator. On the national level, imagine if the Dems DON’T capture either house of Congress. The implosion will be massive. The nuttey leftist blogs will say they didn’t go far enough left huh.
Do they help defeat a socialist isolationist or defeat a Liberal Democrat veteran Senator.
That isn’t even a question. It’s akin to asking who you’d rather have as Secretary of State — Cindy Sheehan or Bill Clinton.
I’ll choose some sense over zero sense any day of the week.
2: No Child Left Behind reads more like “no corporation left behind”. it was a mandate that ignored the problems faced by individual schools and gave little resources that were directly related to improving the education of students. It was designed for large companies (ie technology companies) to sell a lot of expensive stuff to schools that had little to do directly with helping better education. “that good man”? probably one of the meanest, nastiest SOBs to be vice-president.
And by the way, at my father’s funeral, I maturely held my tongue while having to greet scores of small-town conservatives, some of whom were elected officials who make some very nasty public comments about gays, including passing state-wide anti-gay legislation. Seems that the VP of the US could hold his tongue in public and save his un-professional comments for Leahy for behind closed doors.
Interesting how Kevin is critical of Vice President Cheney for defending himself and lashing out against another adult pol like Leahy. I’m not sure the VP has ever been accused of being verbally or physically abusive of his subordinates like President Clinton was. I remember early on in his presidency when the long lense camera and mic caught Mr Clinton giving a young aide a tongue lashing, including swearing for not setting up the site properly for his remarks. In present time I wonder what Kevins opinion is of Rep Conyers conduct in his Congressional office. If the Dems win back the House in November Mr Conyers will be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Someone accused of multiple counts of abuse in his D.C. office, I wonder how that stacks up to the VP’s f –you comment.
Good for the democrats in bareing their teeth.
Isn’t that what apes do when they’re upset?
Gene, Gene, Gene. Conyers can be abusive –as well as Boxer and Kennedy and Leahy and Dean– because he’s a Democrat who “cares about the people”. That’s a get out of jail card in their world.
Just like the ACLU judge-shopping the NSA wiretap/datamining case of this week, the Left thinks its ok when they do it –wrong if a GOPer does it.
We call that a double-standard in the Midwest… or the fine print in a Democrat’s Oath of Office.
Colbert for President! I love the guy and even though he’s wacky and wierd, he’d be better than any of the other candidates.