Meet The New Boss. Same As The Old Boss.

On November 2, Democrats lost a net of 61+ seats in the House (a handful of races are still too close to call), costing them the majority in that chamber, and Senate Democrats lost six seats. Pundits called it a Category 5 storm, a seismic change. The President labeled it a “shellacking.” Embarrassed, Democrats returned to Washington to lick their wounds and to start planning a strategy to reclaim the majority.

They clearly didn’t get the message. Yesterday, Senate Dems reelected the same leaders and today the House is expected to follow suit. In fact, as I type this post the Democratic caucus is meeting to vote Nancy Pelosi in as minority leader. Nothing says change like electing the same people you just threw out. The Republican National Committee was so excited they changed the “Fire Pelosi” banner at their headquarters to “Hire Pelosi.” The more things change…

Can Democrats really ignore the loss of one in five of their seats? Certainly, Pelosi isn’t having an easy week. Yes, the shrunken Democratic caucus, now mostly her progressive base, will reelect her. But not over the objections of the remaining – and ousted – Blue Dogs and moderates. North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler is challenging her for leader, not to win – he says he doesn’t have the votes – but to make the point that she shouldn’t be reelected unopposed. The Blue Dogs are also trying to rein in Pelosi’s office. Pelosi consolidated an unprecedented amount of power into the Speaker’s office, helping her to ram through bills that her rank and file didn’t exactly love, like health care reform and global warming.

Those changes aren’t likely to pass and Pelosi will resume the office she held from 2002 to 2006. She is betting that the country is entering a politically unstable period like the one between 1940-1961 when Democrat Sam Rayburn and Republican Joe Martin traded the office of speaker five times. It is true that Rayburn was 65 in 1947 when he first lost the House to Martin (Pelosi is 70) and nearly 80 when he lost it for the last time just a few months before his death from pancreatic cancer. But those were different times. For one thing they were much more congenial.

Pelosi won the House in 2006 by essentially forming a united block against much of George W. Bush’s second term agenda. She presided over one of the most unified minorities in a generation. House Minority Leader John Boehner, whom after this afternoon shall most likely be referred to as speaker-elect, took a page out of Pelosi’s playbook: he united his conference in opposition to President Obama.

But, moving forward, do Americans really want the minority party united in opposition? For all that they elected bomb throwers, voters want bipartisanship – something Boehner was keen to do with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who is expected to reprise his role as whip in the minority. Hoyer is more moderate and he and Boehner work well together.

It will be interesting to see if Pelosi returns to her strategy of no. It has been proven twice in the last five years to work well. But, as Rayburn famously said, “A jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.”

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: bipartisanship, leadership elections, 2012 Election, Barack Obama, Congress, Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • tyrantking

    If anything this should be a lesson to the remaining Blue Dogs. It was their hardheadedness and refusal to tow the party-line that cost the democrats a federal option in the healthcare debate as well as many other trade-offs that weakened the Dem’s other landmark legislation. The Blue Dogs reward was to get their arses kicked in the last election. Serves them right.

  • hippooath

    “But, moving forward, do Americans really want the minority party united in opposition? For all that they elected bomb throwers, voters want bipartisanship – something Boehner was keen to do with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who is expected to reprise his role as whip in the minority. Hoyer is more moderate and he and Boehner work well together.
    .
    It will be interesting to see if Pelosi returns to her strategy of no. It has been proven twice in the last five years to work well. But, as Rayburn famously said, “A jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.”"

    At what point will media play their role of educating the populous in the difference between saying no for the sake of no and destroying a president and no to bad policy that will further kick us into the hole? Is there a democratic no that I don’t know about that completely sought to paralyze the functionality of government like the one GOP used? And how does this square with the facts that the blue dogs got their @ss handed to them in far larger numbers and democrats who ran on the legislative achievements by large survived?

    Lastly – people don’t want bipartisanship if it leads to corporate largess and legislative impasse. They want something done, especially when their house is on fire.

  • allthingsinaname

    If the Democrats can not get it together and grow a spine and give us something besides capitulation, compromise, and the Republican way, they will loose again.
    .
    There is nothing like failure to create more of the same.
    .
    Just looking for someone to stand up and fight.
    .
    The progressives thought the loses the blue dog’s suffered would wake the party up. It doesn’t look that way to me. More capitulation and self protection going on then progress.
    .
    I disagree with you, what is needed are more Polosies not less.

  • ogliberal

    “voters want bipartisanship”
    ***
    Voters care about bipartisanship as much as they care about the deficit – which is, not much at all. Here’s what voters want:
    ***
    a) results
    b) goodies that help them and/or those they care about (which usually flow from results)
    c) the piece of mind that undeserving people aren’t getting goodies…or least not getting the more goodies than they are
    ***
    If you do these three things in a 100% partisan matter while exploding the deficit in the process, voters will be happy….very happy. Voters say they want bipartisanship because it sounds nice. They say they are worried about the deficit because it sounds responsible. But rising deficits and partisan rancor is not what drove voters away from the Democrats this past election. A crappy economy, the belief that Obama is giving away the store to poor people, and a healthcare bill that doesn’t deliver most of its goodies until 2014 is what motivated independents to switch sides – not because they think the GOP is any better but because they figure, “well, they’re not doing anything – let’s give the others guys a chance and if they don’t do anything either, we’ll vote them out in a couple of years”.
    ***
    Since Obama became president the GOP has been on partisan overdrive. The Dems, not so much. I would argue that partisanship on the part of the GOP was what kept their base motivated and drove them to the polls in large numbers. A lack of partisanship by the Democrats de-motivated their base and led many of them to stay home. Base turnout, as much as anything, and probably even more than indies swinging the other way, was the key to this past election. The GOP went heavy with the partisanship and their base rewarded them for it.

  • deconstructiva

    Jay, thanks for this post, though I agree with allthingsinaname about Pelosi. BTW, were you on vacation last week? If yes, welcome back. You probably didn’t miss much (or miss us commentariat at all, but I digress).
    .
    Actually, your New / Old Boss post title (and your tweet) can also apply with equal passion to the incoming R’s. Yes we’re getting Rand Paul but also Dan Coats and Rob Portman. This is change we can believe in? Feh. Oh well. Jay, I hope you (or Katy, etc.) will do a followup post on this (new R’s are old R’s, SOB). Thanks.

  • charlieromeobravo

    I’m split on her return to leadership.
    .
    On the one hand she managed to get most of Obama’s agenda through congress. A lot of it was watered down but I fault Obama for that, for not getting more involved to shape the legislation and being too hands off in selling it and helping it pass.
    .
    On the other hand, a change of leadership after a bad election is at least symbolically significant. She presided over a very productive congress that passed some major legislation and she nothing to be ashamed of in that. She could have done worse than to take one for the team.

  • ogliberal

    “piece of mind” s/b “peace of mind”. I just put the Iron Maiden album of the same name on my iPod and that must have still been in my head. (seriously)

  • deconstructiva

    I think the D’s need less of a change of leadership and more of a show of leadership. Especially in the Senate. Pelosi got stuff done in her house, but Reid, ugh… …give Schumer or someone else with a spine a chance there.

  • http://www.twitter.com/jnsmall Jay Newton-Small

    Hey decon,
    I was on vacation — I unplugged for a week in the Shenandoahs. I will probably get around to the GOP leadership next week when they go meet with the President. And I did do the Boehner cover… I liked The Who title in particular because it’s exactly what Rahm Emanuel said when Boehner became Majority Leader in 2006.
    JNS

  • ogliberal

    I agree. Pelosi was an effective minority/opposition leader and an effective Speaker. The base likes her. The base didn’t come out in 2010 – do you think they’ll come out in greater numbers if Steny or – heaven forbid – Worst Draft Pick Ever Shuler is minority leader? Plus, you need somebody tough as opposition leader. Steny is kind of blah. And you can say the Steny works well with Boehner but ain’t no way Boehner’s party or, more specifically, base is going to let him work with Hoyer.
    **
    As much as David Broder would like them to return, the days of Mr. Sam working across the aisle with his buddies in the GOP are over and they are not coming back. And that’s mostly because of the party realignment – mostly along geographic lines – that occurred in the wake of the civil rights era. Rayburn could work across the aisle to help LBJ pass civil rights legislation (of course, LBJ pretty much ordered his surrogate dad to do it – it’s not likey a Rep from Texas in the 60s would take this route on his own initiative) because there were plenty of Northern and Western Republicans willing to join with Northern and Western Democrats to pass that legislation. If the parties were aligned in the 60s the way they are today, just about every Democrat would vote for the landmark civil rights legislation passed under Johnson and just about every Republican would vote against.
    **
    In other words, the GOP’s Southern Strategy worked better than they probably ever imagined it would.

  • jc46202

    Jay, desconstructiva hits the nail on its head where you assert election results inferences that are murky at best.

    A host of reasons can be offered to explain the Democrats poor showing in the mid-terms, many of which have nothing to do with House leadership.

    I for one am thankful that Pelosi helped Obama grow a bit of a spine on healthcare. The woman gets things done DESPITE the indecisiveness from the White House and the cluelessness from some of her colleagues.

    Go pick on someone who deserves it. Pelosi really is not the problem.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, Jay. I’ll await that meeting but am not looking for concrete results from it. However, I will look forward to your coverage of it. I hope it’s public but if not, hopefully your secret sources can leak stuff to you OR you can sneak into the room a la the Salahi’s as a caterer, courier, congressional assistant, etc.

  • http://jimticket.wordpress.com jimticket

    The fact that blue dogs got handed their arses vs. the more liberal dems who ran on their achievements makes perfect sense: the blue dogs voted for something their constituents didn’t want.

    Oh, they made a good show of it at first by protesting some key measures but eventually they did support the health care reform. The fact that Pelosi let many of them have a pass by allowing a simple majority vote on the health care legislation shows that the voters aren’t as stupid as they think we are.

    They also supported TARP and many other packages that their constituents didn’t want because they are more conserative.

    You would expect the more liberal dems to get a pass because they have more liberal constituents, though, many are angry that health care reform didn’t go far enough. Just wait until they actually read what it’s in it, now that it’s passed.

  • gwbc

    do you actually think that it is the Dems who have caused the gridlock and lack of bipartisanship ? or maybe the better question is do you actually think at all? where have you been the last 2 years and where were you yesterday when the GOP irresponsibly stopped the Start treaty? , Read Joe Klein’s blog. I guess you are too upset that Sarah’s candidate in Alaska is getting his ass kicked in by her arch-enemy , Lisa Murklowski. Boo hoo for Sarah and her puppet Jay

  • http://jimticket.wordpress.com jimticket

    The fact that blue dogs got handed their arses vs. the more liberal dems who ran on their achievements makes perfect sense: the blue dogs voted for something their constituents didn’t want.

    Oh, they made a good show of it at first by protesting some key measures but eventually they did support the health care reform. The fact that Pelosi let many of them have a pass by allowing a simple majority vote on the health care legislation shows that the voters aren’t as stupid as they think we are.

    They also supported TARP and many other packages that their constituents didn’t want because they are more conservative.

    You would expect the more liberal dems to get a pass because they have more liberal constituents, though, many are angry that health care reform didn’t go far enough. Just wait until they actually read what it’s in it, now that it’s passed.

  • grape_crush

    What a load of regurgitated GOP talking point crap…Well, at least Jay didn’t write about Palin this time.

    Nothing says change like electing the same people you just threw out.

    Nonsensical statement, given the context. By-and-large, it wasn’t the progressive members of the House Dems that were tossed. Making someone like Heath Shuler Minority Leader would make that a valid statement, Jay.

    Not to mention the fact that Shuler-as-Minority-Leader would be about as successful as Schuler-as-pro-football-quarterback. (4th biggest draft bust of all time? really?)

    …the shrunken Democratic caucus, now mostly her progressive base, will reelect her. But not over the objections of the remaining – and ousted – Blue Dogs and moderates.

    And how is this sort of behavior from the moderates and Blue Dogs any different than usual?

    Pelosi consolidated an unprecedented amount of power into the Speaker’s office, helping her to ram through bills that her rank and file didn’t exactly love, like health care reform and global warming.

    So? You seem to think that the Speaker’s job is to get members of her party elected, not to get legislation passed, Jay.

    Pelosi won the House in 2006 by essentially forming a united block against much of George W. Bush’s second term agenda.

    That’s backwards. Dubya’s agenda had been so bad for this country that Dems were put into office in order to restrict his excesses and mitigate his failures.

    And, given that the GOP’s agenda is pretty much the same now as it was then, how exactly is this a negative?

    She presided over one of the most unified minorities in a generation.

    Odd statement, considering that you’ve been covering Congress since the DeLay years…not to mention the Repub House under Boehner.

    Care to rethink that one?

    But, moving forward, do Americans really want the minority party united in opposition?

    That’s an assumption based on the flawed statement identified above. Bad form, Jay.

    For all that they elected bomb throwers, voters want bipartisanship…

    Okay, Jay: Put on your thinking cap.

    Good.

    Now, tell us in what ways were Dems not working with Republicans in making legislation.

    (but we are talking about Dems working against Bush, in 2006)

    Okay, now tell us about the legislation signed into law in the 110th Congress. How many vetoes were there?

    Voters want polticians to stop playing games.

    It will be interesting to see if Pelosi returns to her strategy of no.

    Are you frakkin’ serious? It’s like some GOP operative hacked your user account, or you were born yesterday.

    Better journalists, please.

  • square1

    What in God’s name is in the D.C. water that causes such pitiful political analysis from every quarter?

    Newsflash to JNS: The “Democrats” who took the “shellacking” were the Blue Dogs who ran away from Pelosi and the Democratic agenda.

    Pelosi was an effective minority leader before. I expect that she can be one again. She should kick the self-loathing Blue Dogs to the curb and ignore them.

    Steny Hoyer is a corporate slut.

    That is all.

  • freeinpa

    Team Donkey keeps complaining the problem was they communicated poorly to the voters. Seems communications in the full sense of the word means listening as well as talking.

    We know liberals can talk (O Lord do we know), maybe someone can explain they need to listen. But then you need to dissuade them of the arrogant notion that everybody but them is not stupid.

  • shepherdwong

    We know liberals can talk (O Lord do we know), maybe someone can explain they need to listen.
    .
    Listen to what? Braying brainwashed jackasses, liars and racists who believe that their taxes went up under Obama, that Bob Dole’s health care reform is a socialist plot, that global warming is a hoax and that tax cuts don’t add to the deficit? We’ve heard quite enough or your traitorous nonsense, thanks just the same.

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Uh, Jay? The Democrats in Congress didn’t exactly “throw her out” so why is it weird that they’d use their former majority leader while in the minority? I guess you could argue that voters went to the polls to “fire Pelosi” but I’d need to see more evidence of that. Aren’t House races pretty fiercely local affairs? I know that I have never once cast a vote in a House race with a mind toward who will be the majority leader except in the broadest sense of wanting my party of choice to be in the majority.

  • sy2d

    Good luck with selling the Pelosi strategy of no nonsense.
    *
    BTW, Columbia called …

  • apr2563

    The Village shallow discourse continues. Thank goodness Pelosi stands between Hoyer and Boehner, mutual corporate shills.

  • nflfoghorn

    Amen.

  • herby002

    IF the Repubs meet with the president next week. If the White House proposes a more specific time than ’10-ish’, they might “refuse to kowtow to the executive branch”, then go into conference to decide on a conservate response: 10:10.

    Then the meeting is likely to go like this:

    [Greetings]

    President: …..
    Repubs: No
    President: ……
    Repubs: No
    President: … veto…
    Repubs: NO
    Repubs (aside): Get out a news release that obama is threatening the Nuclear Option in the face of GOP moderate proposals for rescuing the republic from destruction caused by his socialistic policies!)
    President: … knuckle under…
    Repubs: That would be helpful, but, uh, no.
    President: ………….!
    Repubs: No need to get testy, sir. We’re all friends here, right (titter)?
    Repubs: By the way, if we may… we’d like to bring up an important fiscal question: How much do these Slurpees cost the American taxpayers?
    President: … donated…
    Repubs: Thank you for your [wasted] time, Mr. President. We hope we can make this an irregular occurrance. Goodbye.
    Repubs (aside): Send this a tweet: “Republicans refuse to drink expensive libations thrust upon them by wasteful Obama White House.” Don’t mention that the Slurpees were donated, and that we drank them. After all, we would have refused expensive drinks, right? Shut up. Our official position is that we would have, and supposed intent counts! And get hold of 7-Eleven. Tell them we demand free Slurpees at our next caucus meeting, or we’re going to cut them out of the next round of corporate tax breaks!

  • liberalmeltdown

    Funny how the leftists here have sooo much time on their hands.
    .
    No wonder you support the food stamp princess Nancy.
    .
    Pelosi is a great fund raiser for the Republican Party.

blog comments powered by Disqus