|
the media is playing Hoyer's win as a loss for Pelosi, i,e, she can't get the Dem house on the same page...
Taking a long view - is it really a loss, or a win in disguise?
In 1994 - Gingrich and his co-horts took over the House. In 2001 - the GOPers took over the White House, the Senate and retained control of the House. (yes, I know there was few months where the Dems controlled the Senate under Daschel)
The consolidation of power under GOPers is due to massive quantities of kool-aid, rubberstamps glued to their hands, and marching in lock-step. GOPers who dare to offer a different view were quickly squashed.
the House vote for Hoyer over Murtha may be a win in disguise. Not because Murtha is bad, or not a good choice - but rather is shows independent thought.
If the same situation arose amongst the GOPers, and the GOP speaker wanted Representative ABC as leader as opposed to Representative XYZ - how much arm twisting and head bashing would be going on in the background, and who do you think would "win".
Clinton gave a speech at an event for Harold Ford. In the speech Clinton said (paraphrased) that he didn't agree with some of Ford's views, and this was not a bad thing, because if two people agree with everything 100% of the time, then it means one of them aren't thinking.
Hoyer's win doesn't mean the House Dems are in disarray, nor does it imply Pelosi has "lost control". It means we have a House of Representatives who think for themselves - and this is good thing.
|