Whack-a-Dem 2006: Nancy Pelosi.
When insider pundits decide they don't like a certain politician, it can get very rough. This year's victim of the press swarm seems increasingly to be Nancy Pelosi. First, there was this broadside from John Dickerson in Slate last week, his argument being that Pelosi is such a wild-eyed Bush hater (well, more accurately a pathetic panderer to wild-eyed Bush hatred) that she can't be trusted to speak in public for her own party's interests. Dickerson went so far as to assert, ludicrously, that one interview she gave to the Washington Post was so bad that "the GOP congressional majorities may now be secure." Huh?
Now -- once everyone has had time to suck in their breaths and raise their eyebrows -- we can see the conventional wisdom solifying nicely in the new Adam Nagourney piece that everyone is bitching about today. Pelosi, the crazy bitch, is all about payback:
Another worry [about Dems regaining power in Congress] is whether some Democrats would use their power in what could be perceived as payback against Republicans. Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, have talked of investigations into allegations of malfeasance across all parts of the Bush administration.
But on Thursday --Thursday -- the Washington Post reported on Pelosi laying down the law to her own caucus, telling her excitable colleagues straight-up that "impeachment is off the table" -- the idea being that investigations will mark renewed oversight, and explicitly not "payback". Despite the fact that this is exactly what official Washington claims to want from Pelosi, there's no mention of it at all in Nagourney's uber-insidery piece. Though he does make space to snidely suggest that the main reason Dems might not want to take back the House is because then Pelosi would be even more in evidence:
The new Democratic leaders will also find themselves under new scrutiny. On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Ms. Pelosi, who would become speaker if Democrats take back the House, came across as tentative and halting when questioned about her party's plans. Even though Ms. Pelosi enjoys notable support in her party, her performance was panned even by fellow Democrats...
...like Mickey Kaus' brother. Judging by the transcript, Pelosi wasn't all that great on Meet the Press. On the other hand, except for questions about raising taxes that he knew Pelosi couldn't painlessly answer, Russert didn't really ask her about the Democrats' "plans" so much as throw a lot of inside baseball and semantics claptrap at her of the sort with which pundits always batter pols whom they don't feel they need to show respect.
So why has press contempt for Pelosi finally overflowed its banks? Mainly, I think, because she's a pretty relentless partisan, and distaste for partisanship is the first law of the insider pundit. She's definitely not "authentic" in the Joe Klein sense (that is, she's not smooth, not even a little bit.) Also because official Washington is already bored with the concept of the Dems just rolling on toward victory in November. That story has been done and it's time to stir the pot. That would also help explain why the media caricature of Pelosi fits so well with the GOP narrative on the subject. Ross Baker, writing a sensible (outsider) op-ed in the L.A. Times, has a pretty good take on why that might be:
For starters, Pelosi is a woman — a fit representative of what conservatives delight in calling the "Mommy Party." The toxic molecules that attach to this term include a craven shrinking from the use of force in international politics and excessive solicitude for society's unfortunates.
Strike two is Pelosi's 8th Congressional District, which takes in roughly 80% of the city of San Francisco. This conjures up in conservative minds carnality, sensuality and immoral excess, and it casts Pelosi as the front-woman for the dreaded "homosexual agenda." Finally, there is the aura of white-glove political dilettantism that hovers over Pelosi, which leaves her open to the charge of being a well-turned-out political commissar oblivious to the daily concerns of ordinary Americans — such as stem cell research and civil unions.
Lovely, lovely political media. Personally, I wouldn't be so sympathetic to pols if it weren't for the pundits who cover them. Pelosi is worth 20 of Nagourney any day.
Now -- once everyone has had time to suck in their breaths and raise their eyebrows -- we can see the conventional wisdom solifying nicely in the new Adam Nagourney piece that everyone is bitching about today. Pelosi, the crazy bitch, is all about payback:
Another worry [about Dems regaining power in Congress] is whether some Democrats would use their power in what could be perceived as payback against Republicans. Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, have talked of investigations into allegations of malfeasance across all parts of the Bush administration.
But on Thursday --Thursday -- the Washington Post reported on Pelosi laying down the law to her own caucus, telling her excitable colleagues straight-up that "impeachment is off the table" -- the idea being that investigations will mark renewed oversight, and explicitly not "payback". Despite the fact that this is exactly what official Washington claims to want from Pelosi, there's no mention of it at all in Nagourney's uber-insidery piece. Though he does make space to snidely suggest that the main reason Dems might not want to take back the House is because then Pelosi would be even more in evidence:
The new Democratic leaders will also find themselves under new scrutiny. On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Ms. Pelosi, who would become speaker if Democrats take back the House, came across as tentative and halting when questioned about her party's plans. Even though Ms. Pelosi enjoys notable support in her party, her performance was panned even by fellow Democrats...
...like Mickey Kaus' brother. Judging by the transcript, Pelosi wasn't all that great on Meet the Press. On the other hand, except for questions about raising taxes that he knew Pelosi couldn't painlessly answer, Russert didn't really ask her about the Democrats' "plans" so much as throw a lot of inside baseball and semantics claptrap at her of the sort with which pundits always batter pols whom they don't feel they need to show respect.
So why has press contempt for Pelosi finally overflowed its banks? Mainly, I think, because she's a pretty relentless partisan, and distaste for partisanship is the first law of the insider pundit. She's definitely not "authentic" in the Joe Klein sense (that is, she's not smooth, not even a little bit.) Also because official Washington is already bored with the concept of the Dems just rolling on toward victory in November. That story has been done and it's time to stir the pot. That would also help explain why the media caricature of Pelosi fits so well with the GOP narrative on the subject. Ross Baker, writing a sensible (outsider) op-ed in the L.A. Times, has a pretty good take on why that might be:
For starters, Pelosi is a woman — a fit representative of what conservatives delight in calling the "Mommy Party." The toxic molecules that attach to this term include a craven shrinking from the use of force in international politics and excessive solicitude for society's unfortunates.
Strike two is Pelosi's 8th Congressional District, which takes in roughly 80% of the city of San Francisco. This conjures up in conservative minds carnality, sensuality and immoral excess, and it casts Pelosi as the front-woman for the dreaded "homosexual agenda." Finally, there is the aura of white-glove political dilettantism that hovers over Pelosi, which leaves her open to the charge of being a well-turned-out political commissar oblivious to the daily concerns of ordinary Americans — such as stem cell research and civil unions.
Lovely, lovely political media. Personally, I wouldn't be so sympathetic to pols if it weren't for the pundits who cover them. Pelosi is worth 20 of Nagourney any day.
3 Comments:
great post. though i will say that i've never been that impressed with pelosi when i've heard/seen her speak. that's not to say that she's a bad house leader, which would seem to depend almost entirely on what she does off camera. but i do think the dems probably can find others who will do a better job on meet the press, etc.
in fact, in this regard my impression of pelosi might be similar to my impression of harry reid: not the most compelling orator, but still a very effective (i know less about what pelosi has done than reid).
of course, none of this should be taken as agreement with the press narratives you described.
I agree with everything you've said. It also bugs me a lot that Kos has been whipping up anti-Pelosi sentiment, saying she's not partisan enough. No friends on the left or the right. I'm pretty happy with how she's done in the House -- she's clearly better than Steny Hoyer or Dick Gephardt.
anonymous, it's funny. I've always thought Pelosi was a much better peformer on camera than Reid. Otherwise, I agree with both of your additional points.
Post a Comment
<< Home