In today’s Globe, some criticism of the House leadership from a quarter I did not expect:
“If the Red Sox came in and lost every game of the year and they kept the manager at the end of the year, that’s a problem,” US Representative Michael Capuano said in an interview. “That’s what we seem to be on the verge of doing.”
…“The thing that amazes me is the hubris, that no one has stepped aside voluntarily,” Capuano said. He said he supported Pelosi, but because she had been demonized during the election she would have difficulty recruiting candidates in places where Democrats lost last week.
So reading these tea leaves: Cap is ready to leave the House and take on Scott Brown in 2012.
(P.S. I’m for both of them–Pelosi & Capuano.)
Please share widely!
Yeah, that comment seems to be setting the stage. Unless he’s found his way into some anti-Pelosi faction of the caucus we’re not hearing much about yet. (I wouldn’t expect Capuano to align himself with conserva-dems.)
<
p>Besides, since (pending the final resolution of those two not-called-yet California races – everything I read suggests Democrats will hold onto both seats when all is said and done) the California delegation is the same size as it was before, their share of the Democratic caucus has shot up dramatically.
<
p>I think he’d get an advantage declaring sooner rather than later; it’d help scare any other House folk (except maybe Lynch, who’d be going for a very different segment of the electorate anyway) away from the race.
That is surprising to me.
She’s a target because she’s effective, and is the only person in the caucus with experience as Minority Leader being able to return the party to majority status. Besides, this isn’t as unprecedented as people are making it sound. Sam Rayburn and Joe Martin swapped at least a couple of times between Speaker and Minority Leader.
because she is Democratic leadership. The GOP has made about 2.5 decades on demonizing Democratic leaders personally. If not Pelosi, they’ll go after her replacement.
… the “X is the most liberal member in the House” baton to be passed two whoever GOP leadership appoints. Mind you, it’s possible for many people to be X during an election year since media markets are universes unto themselves and demand no GOP consistency.
Normally you and I are agreed, but here I have to deviate. The leader should fall on his/her sword after a thrashing that bad. Rayburn lost in 46 because it was a referendum on Truman and he knew it, and he knew how to come back. Pelosi is trying to the same tired policies of the last Congress and does not realize that there has been a populist rejection of the Democratic house and what it stood for and its style of leadership. Two more years of Pelosi means running against Bush instead of modern Republicans and in favor of good Democratic ideas. She did a bad job attacking Republicans and a worse job defending the accomplishments we did have. She did not defer to the President and felt that she was the true leader of the party. We need leaders that will fall back and take orders from the White House while doing their best to beat the caucus into shape. Reid and Pelosi are not those characters. We need a Mansfield and a McCormack. Frankly Mike would be a better Speaker.
<
p>Anthony Weiner, Henry Waxman, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Jim McDermont, and Jason Altmire (if he wasn’t from a swing district). All solid progressives, all fresh faces (either age or race wise) and all would be behind the President instead of trying to get in front of him, yet all have the skill and discipline to keep the House in line.
<
p>As for the Senate Durbin, Schumer, or Wyden would be excellent choices for different reasons. Durbin fits the McCormack model of home-state partnership and obviously can keep the Democrats in line while also deferring to the President. Would certainly help IL out too. Schumer fits the Mansfield model as an opposite of the President he serves but one who can credibly get things done without damaging his boss. And Wyden is a brilliant crafter of progressive legislation and consistently can bring Republicans on board. He would be a liberal Howard Baker, the ultimate dealmaker.
<
p>But yeah anybody but Reid of Pelosi, we don’t want them running with us another time.
She had a lot more guts than he did very often.
and she will win easily
<
p>and I for one an glad of it.
<
p>I really didn’t like Pelosi when she first took up the gavel. Her TV presence grated like nails on a chalkboard. She seemed like the perfect foil for wingnut distortions and caricature.
<
p>Especially after the past two years, I am won over. Had the Senate voted on the legislation that the House passed under Pelosi’s leadership, she’d be reupping for Speaker.
<
p>The Leadbetter Act is a loss? Health care reform is a loss? Cap and trade is a loss?
<
p>Is Capuano blaming Pelosi for Reid’s ineffectiveness and Obama’s aloofness? Pelosi was a supreme legislative leader. I too like Capuano, and I like Pelosi, but putting re-election above governing, putting media fare above building an effective minority doesn’t impress me.
… the house passed a lot more than the senate. Granted, she doesn’t have the handicap of a filibuster, so this should be expected. Still, you don’t fire your offensive coordinator when the defense allows 32 points a game and 300 yards rushing. And you if your defense is only allowed to put 7 people on the field (as close an analogy I can come up with for senate rules), 300 yards rushing is an accomplishment.
would be a team (say, the Florida Marlins circa 2003) who have a lot of good players who will be free agents the next year that you can’t retain. What’s the thing to do? Go all out and win this year — load up on some talent that will help you win this year and go all out before the team gets blown up the next year. Would you criticize a team that did this and ended up winning the World Series?
<
p>As you say, sabutai, that’s essentially what Pelosi did — she used her unsustainable advantage to pass a great deal of progressive legislation before inevitably the tide turned. Capuano is just looking at political wins and losses here, rather than policy. The important thing about a majority is not getting it but doing something with it. He can’t deny that Pelosi did that to great success.
The point of having the majority is to use it to make the country better — in other words, pass legislation — not to perpetuate majority status.
<
p>Use it or lose it. Use it or don’t lose it. But, use it.
<
p>Capuano sunk several notches with this one.
You need the majority in order to pass legislation…and now we don’t have it
<
p>Whether or not we as dems think we “made the country better” with healthcare, the majority of the nation didn’t…and we got embarrassed nationally. Now we won’t be able to set the legislative agenda that is important to us for a long time because of it.
<
p>So you need to “perpetuate majority status” in order to improve the nation as we see fit.
<
p>I may be remembering the healthcare debate incorrectly, but I’m pretty sure we wielded the power of the majority in order to pass it. So we did use it, and we did lose it.
<
p>How you draw your conclusion that somehow the congressmen sunk several notches, by saying he wants what he thinks (he may know better than us) is the best course of action to regain that Dem majority in order to pass legislation important to all of us..and is now somehow in the wrong because of it…makes no sense.
over not passing good legislation in the first place.
<
p>The health care bill is good legislation. Not perfect — but America is better for this bill being passed, and there ain’t no way it’ll get repealed. The longer we go on, the more provisions kick in, and the easier it is to point out the nastiness of repealing it — dropping young 20-somethings from their parents insurance, rates for women going up to be higher than men, folks getting dropped (or not able to get coverage) for pre-existing or other conditions.
<
p>Americans may not like the bill, but let’s be honest — few Americans could name three components of the bill. When the GOP tries to eliminate it, they will get lambasted for doing so. They’ll use it as a bogeyman, but they won’t repeal it.
<
p>
<
p>In the mean time, the Democrats made the country better. I personally wish that they would have pushed a climate change bill through (if necessary, instead of health care), but that’s another story altogether.
If it was coming from another source with direct evidence and context – I’d be troubled since they are two of my favorites and since Pelosi and Frank did a lot to raise Mike’s profile.
<
p>I have suspected McGrory is in some way on the take for the Romney machine.
<
p>Gentle diary: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
The Globe article was about the Hoyer-Clyburn fight for the number 2 leadership post. The Globe wrote:
<
p>I would like to see the text of the entire conversation between Capuano and the Globe reporter, but I think he is correct. A leadership fight between the current majority leader and majority whip is either hubris or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
You don’t disrespect the entire leadership team with which you have been so buddy-buddy without good reason.
<
p>I think he’s deliberately putting a daylight between himself and insider Washington because he’s going after the “people’s seat” in the Senate.
<
p>Which is a smart move in that case, and may his poll numbers increase.
Has there been a poll done in MA to gauge public opinion of Nancy Pelosi? I would say the fact that the entire Democratic delegation, all but possibly Lynch voting with Pelosi most of the time, which I doubt is a secret, is evidence that it is not necessary to run against her in this state.
There was a perception in some circles that Capuano was being pushed by the leadership on Capitol Hill for the Senate seat, and the Boston-based pols consequently pushed for Coakley. Sort of the same way that the portions of the Bay State political culture that were plugged into DC were for Obama, but it was Hillary who had the bulk of the locally-based apparatus.
<
p>One way to try to fix that problem for a guy seen at this point as a creature of DC is to distance himself a little from the Congressional leadership. It’s not like he’s staked out a dramatically different space on the political spectrum.
<
p>I don’t know if he actually needs to make this move, since after somewhat unexpectedly electing Patrick in 2006 and the Coakley debacle it seems clear that the electorate in Massachusetts has had it with anyone it perceives as a Beacon Hill hack.
I never thought of it as a Washington vs. Boston dynamic. I was with Hillary for President and Capuano for Senate so where does that leave me?
Not to revisit either of these primaries with 20/20 hindsight unnecessarily, but it’s no coincidence that the guy whose famous mantra is “all politics is local” was from Massachusetts.
<
p>There are groups of people who have a lot of say in Democratic primaries because they’re reliable voters. And there are a lot of unenrolled voters who change the dynamics a lot in higher-level general elections. (At the lower level, it’s normally hard for Republican candidates to be much of a factor in most of the state.)
<
p>Assuming that there’s a robust multi-candidate field in the Senate primary in 2012, and Capuano is in it, someone might be tempted to brand Capuano as Nancy Pelosi’s stalking horse.
While this wouldn’t work as well as it would in flyover country, being tagged a “creature of Washington” can hurt a candidate, particularly one looking to move up the ladder. The Pelosi thing is just part of that.
The one thing we have come to know about Capuano, love it or hate it, he answers questions directly and truthfully whether you agree or disagree with him.
<
p>What’s wrong with saying the person running the team should step down or not seek re-election? Dems just got demolished across the country and now will be subjected to republican rule for years to come. It’s is obvious that he has earned Pelosi’s trust and respect, and by saying she should not run for leader again is not being disloyal at all (plus he said he would vote for her anyway, because no one will run against her). It’s being smart. Even with her un-matched accomplishments that we can all agree on, she has become a lightning bolt for the republicans. How many commercials across the country did you see that had her and Obama in them, calling them every negative name under the sun?
<
p>As unfortunate a the midterm elections were, there are prices to elections. It’s a symbolic issue not a loyalty issue. We lost, either we move o, and hope/work for a new mood across the country, or stay the course and face even more good Dems losing their seats in two years, because we didn’t listen to the will of the country…
… merely ask her to step aside, it implies blame on her part. In this case, many would object to Capuano’s assignation in this case.
I think there is plenty of blame to go around..don’t you? Someone needs to be held accountable. The President will have to state his case in 2 years, and unfortunately when you’re the face of the party like the Speaker, you don’t have that luxury. Let’s not forget what Cap said..he said all leadership should step aside, not just Pelosi. It’s symbolic of failed politics and a misjudgment of the national mood. People cared/care about jobs and the economy more than healthcare…it sucks, but it’s the way it is right now. All Dem leadership decided to go one way and not focus enough on job creation…even if it wouldn’t have passed the Senate anyway.
<
p>If it weren’t for Speaker Pelosi, Healthcare and much of the other historic accomplishments over the Dem’s majority wouldn’t have passed, and Capuano was quoted numerous times saying just that, giving her the credit. But we as a party didn’t do enough to create jobs and/or convince the American people the stimulus and bailouts accomplished as much as they have. So we as a party need to suck it up, realize we lost, and try something new in order to gain back the majority.
and you can be sure that it is based on a smart and savvy analysis of the political scene.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know if he is laying the groundwork for a campaign for Senate in 2012, or a longer term campaign for leadership in the House.
<
p>It really doesn’t matter, because he speaks the truth as he sees it always and I have learned to completely trust his judgment based on his personal and political commitment to social economic and racial justice.
<
p>And frankly I have no idea how to best manage the House of Representatives.
speaking the truth — but whether The colmnist McGrory is speaking the truth.
<
p>I have gotten the sense over the past 8 yrs or so that he tells a lot of half-truths to stir up the pot
<
p>Doyathink?
<
p>I take comfort in the fact that conservative media mavens think so too. Check this out.
<
p>
<
p>He is really cute, as the Irish would say.
Looks like we won’t be getting my vote come September 2012!
remarks before rushing to judgement. McGrory is a shameless spin master. I wouldnt trust him to tell the truth on any controversial issue.
easily — he wants to stir up anti-Capuano sentiment for some reason.
<
p>Cant take this hack seriously when it comes to political advocacy over recent years
did not write this.
<
p>That story, and this diary, were published the day before McGrory’s column.
McGrory’s column. in te Viser Column he seems to be asking for some accountability. Parroted in the McGrory column it sounds like a seledtive attack against Nancy Pelosi
But it is confusing when everyone but you is discussing the remarks Cap made to the Globe as reported by Viser on November 9 and you come along and admonish people–repeatedly–for heeding McGrory ca. November 10.
made it an over the top attack column on Capuano- I chose to focus on him because I believe he exploits these conversations to do the Romney machines bidding–has a habit of it. This is what I read this morning and chose to veer off the focus of the diary a bit to take a shot at McGrory’s sideway’s hackery.