Today the SF Chronicle ran the
first of a three-piece series on Nancy Pelosi. I know opinion here on DKos is greatly divided on Pelosi, but I think this is worth a serious read. Some interesting bits below the fold:
Upon becoming leader, she immediately placed a premium on loyalty and unity.
Those close to Pelosi said she understood that if Republicans received no support from Democrats, even those from the most conservative districts, it would force them to pressure their own centrists to make politically uncomfortable votes or abandon parts of their conservative agenda.
In essence, it would force Republicans to become more brazen to move their agenda, and by doing so make them more vulnerable in congressional elections.
This is something I don't feel Pelosi has gotten near enough credit for. The article goes on to discuss the ways in which she enforces party discipline - the doling out or withholding of perks, private meetings with wayward members, and so forth. The results have been:
Congressional Quarterly examined 669 roll call votes in 2005 in which a majority of Republicans voted against a majority of Democrats. On those votes, Democratic members voted unanimously against the GOP 82 times, and with their own party 88 percent of the time, the highest total since the magazine began measuring in 1956.
Party discipline is important to me because I feel there is little meaning to having a majority in a house of Congress if the Democrats can't vote in a block. Nor do I think that voting as a block will magically occur once the party attains majority status, which is why I've been far happier with Pelosi than Reid. I lost my confidence in Reid after Alito. If we do get the Senate back in the fall, I seriously wonder whether we'll be able to do anything much with it. I have fewer of these concerns with the House because Pelosi already has them whipped into shape. If we were to take both houses of Congress, and begin impeachment proceedings, it would not surprise me at all if it passed the House but failed in the Senate.
For those who think Hoyer might be better - which usually seems to be fueled by dissatisfaction that Pelosi isn't being liberal enough:
She opposed the war in Iraq; he voted in favor. She opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement and a bankruptcy reform bill; he supported both.
I recommend reading the whole article - there's a lot of good stuff in there and I can't quote it all. Highlights include her frank assessment of Bush and the GOP Congress and an explanation of her strategy in regards to Social Security and the Murtha resolution. Oh yes, and she also happens to be the number one moneyraiser for the party.
For myself, I can only say that I'm one San Franciscan who isn't unhappy with Pelosi. Do I agree with everything she says and does? No. There isn't any politician I can say that about, and I don't expect to ever say that about any politician. But I'm very happy that she's the top House Democrat, and I look forward to her being Speaker. She'll be able to do something with that majority control. Now if I could just feel the same about the Senate...