Thursday, November 16, 2006

Ouch, that will sting for a while. . .



Nancy Pelosi has suffered her first political setback since the election. Democrats Have voted Hoyer over Murtha by a 149-86 margin.

In other news, the rest of the Democratic Caucus seems to have retained a bit of their sanity.

The only real surprise is the margin was so lopsided, I expected Pelosi to fare better than that, especially on an anonymous vote.

It will be interesting to see if this result changes the Jane Harman/Alcee Hastings debate. I suspect that Pelosi will want her "pound of flesh" and will take it out against Harman. I also expect a lot more speaking out against this based on the vote tally.

Should be fun. . .

11 comments:

sirocco said...

I'd be interested to know how much political capital Pelosi invested in pushing Murtha.

I know she wrote the letter, and publicly supported him, but that was expected, and she probably "owed" it to him.

I know Murtha was making it sound like Pelosi was actively campaigning for him behind the scenes, and Hoyer kind of brushed her letter off as a "loyalty" requirement.

My uneducated guess, based purely on the vote totals, is that Hoyer was correct. Pelosi backed Murtha because she had an "obligation" to, but didn't push for him hard.

I do hope we see Harmon and not Alcee. Anyhow, now that the one slot has been filled, the others should fall into place pretty quickly.

sirocco said...

Hmmmm ... follow-up to the above, after reading the NY Times, it looks like Pelosi worked pretty hard for Murtha, so yeah, that's gotta sticg. :P

Still, Hoyer is the better choice, I think.

206isCancer.com said...

I wonder how many members from the new Democratic class voted for Hoyer. It would be interesting to know and find out why each voted one way or the other. My guess is that the incoming freshman class voted overwhelmingly for Hoyer. They don't want to start off with scandals already underneath them. Murtha is far too big of a risk. I'd see the same thing for the Hastings/Harmon race. Although, I'm giving everybody a lot of credit here being that they are Democrats, so by nature they should not be able to think rationally.

Framer said...

Hastings/Harman is not voted on, I don't believe. It is decided on by the Speaker. Although she can (and should) take input.

Luke said...

Jeez, Framer, and this is x4mr.

I know I post photos of people about to be hung, link to footage of beheadings, and other provocative images, but this post take disturbing imagery to a new level.

Gads, I might have nightmares.

Framer said...

I apologize, I finally had the opportunity to view the picture on a 20 inch monitor, and I was way over the line. I have dutifully shrunk the picture.

Interestingly I suspect that any image of Peosi without the suprised look is photoshopped.

bookmobile said...

Steny Hoyer won because of the favors he had done for many Democrats during the campaign. Murtha, on the other hand, had done very few favors for his Congressional colleagues. Pelosi backed Murtha because she admired his stance on Iraq. It is not a case of Pelosi unwisely spending her political capital, or evidence of the Democratic majority imploding. Those ideas are simply snarky, bitter GOP talking points.

bookmobile said...

If there were any mistrust of Murtha, he would not be slated to chair Defense Appropriations.

Kralmajales said...

I wonder if this whole thing was all a "ruse" for the press and spin. I mean, this is quite good for demos that Murtha lost and Hoyer wins. To those in the public that are watching, it makes the party look less "far to the left" as Pelosi suggests. The "defeat" of her pick, Murtha, makes it look like Demos are reasonable, thinking about ethics, and ready to make policy...and not be ideologues.

Framer said...

That Murtha was defeated is good for Democrats may be true, but Pelosi wanted Murtha and twisted arms to get him in.

According to the New York Times. Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post anyway.

If it was a ploy, Pelosi and Murtha were not in on it.

Liza said...

Framer,
I find your choice of a picture for Nancy Pelosi very interesting. I've noticed that the same thing has been done repeatedly to Hillary Clinton by her detractors. Its very easy to find an image of either Ms. Pelosi or Ms. Clinton that is flattering or at least neutral, but people who do not like them go out of their way to find images that are extremely unflattering. I do not notice the same thing being done to men, or at least not nearly so much. There are so many ugly white men in politics that it should be no problem at all finding repulsive images of them, so why don't people use them? Just wondering......