This morning, while perusing the diaries, I came across this
fantastic post by Eloy, that cites a Boston Globe article about how well Howard Dean and Harry Reid are working together. I was a little nervous about how the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate were going to work with Dean, and I was heartened to see Dean and Reid developing a good working relationship. As I noted in a comment to that post, when reading that post, I reflexively asked myself, while reading about the leaders of our party, "where is Nancy Pelosi?" And then I thought about it. The answer was pretty similar, "where IS Nancy Pelosi?"
I've been excited by what I've seen so far from the new blood in our party. Dean has exceeded almost everyone's expectations at the DNC. He's gone into the heart of Red America and made it clear that we will fight in every county of every state. Reid has shown a toughness that few anticipated. He took on Alan Greenspan, who has scared just about every elected official since the mid-1990's. And when the Senate Republicans have tried to play tough on judicial nominations, he didn't back down - he stood up. And in the House, the only real new leader in the caucus - Rahm Emanual - fired everyone at the DCCC and told everyone that they'd have to reapply for their jobs. And he developed a plan in Illinois to use our Democratic majority to redistrict (maybe Dennis Hastert's seat?) the state so that it better represents its Democratic potential. And he's made it clear that he's going to make Tom DeLay a political issue in every tough seat held by Republicans, to put the heat on people like Chris Shays who should have abandoned DeLay a long time ago.
But where has Nancy Pelosi been? She has been as silent as a freshman, and as passive as someone who just doesn't care.
I have friends who work for Democrats in the Congress. Understandbly, the caucus was in shock after the 2004 elections. At one point in 2004, Democrats were [11 seats away www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A6987-2004Jun1.html] from taking back the majority. Today, after the 2004 elections, Republicans hold a 29 seat advantage. But the "Leader" (as Pelosi like to be called) was not exactly leading. She worked hared to cover her own ass in the caucus so she wouldn't face a challenge, but she failed to even admit that she failed. In the beginning of this year, the DCCC was $10 million in debt. The Republicans held a larger majority than they did in 2004, and Pelosi was working to shore up her internal politics rather than look ahead at what we need to do in 2005 and 2006.
In fact, when you look at all of the success we've had in bringing Bush's numbers down, Pelosi hasn't had a thing to do with it. Social Security he brought that on himself, and while Pelosi's done a good job of not doing anything, she can hardly take credit for the problems Bush is facing on Social Security. Schiavo? She wasn't even in Washington when Congress voted. From what I understand, neither she nor her office encouraged anyone to vote against the bill, and she was out of town on the day (and night) of the vote.
There are some things that she can be doing, but regrettably, she isn't. Tom DeLay is the shining example. Sure, she introduced a resolution that expressed disagreement with changes to ethics rules, but why isn't she going after DeLay like the Republicans did against Jim Wright? Or like the Republicans did against Clinton? What the hell is she waiting for? Why didn't she back up Rahm when he tried to convince the legislature in Illinois to redistrict the state to put pressure on Hastert and allow us to pick up seats in a solid Dem state? And why hasn't she made a peace offering to Dean (like Reid) so that we can start working together?
What I see in Pelosi is exactly what I see in people like Bob Shrum - an old school of thought that puts their self interest ahead of the party, and is focused like a laser on justifying decisions made in the past, rather than moving our party forward. She was one of our party's top strategists in 2004, and we failed. When new blood tried to take over the DNC, she responded with Tim Roemer (Note - so did Reid, but he has shown a willingness to work with Dean). When our party desperately needed leadership, she worked to cover her own ass. When new leaders like Rahm tried to shake things up, she stood in the corner, silent. And when we've needed someone to take on DeLay and provide leadership on Schiavo, she's been missing in action. She is embodies exactly what is wrong with the party, and she has been a huge disappointment.
And, interestingly, this has nothing to do with ideology. On the issues, Pelosi is more progressive than Reid, and arguably more progressive than Dean. Interestingly, she has no fear of retribution in her district (unlike Reid), yet she still has shown a lack of willingness to stand up and fight. Dean is out in the field, taking the fight to the streets. Reid is out there taking on Frist, Alan Greenspan, and working hand-in-hand with Reid.
And Pelosi, she's been as visible - and effective - as Bob Shrum.