As Randy Kuhl begins his new role as member of the opposition, he can learn from the media coverage of his leadership and hopefully avoid a couple of mistakes:
First, it's easy for the opposition to sound like whiners. Consider Adam Putnam, the Florida Republican who's been given the unenviable job of chief complainer. Putnam's current gripe is that the Democrats are doing to the Republicans what the Republicans did to the Democrats: limiting amendments and debate. Here's a telling exchange from last night's News Hour interview:
MARGARET WARNER [reporter]: And you don't think there's a bit of a double-standard here in you all complaining about that now?
REP. ADAM PUTNAM: Well, you know, obviously people at home are saying, "Oh, you guys are just complaining about the same stuff the Democrats used to complain about."
When you acknowledge that "people at home" don't give a shit about what you're saying, perhaps it's time for a new media strategy. The Putnam lesson for Kuhl is that people don't care about process, as long as it yields results. The Republicans need only wait 100 hours to start complaining about results, and Kuhl would be wise to hold his tongue until then.
The second lesson is that demonization is a double-edged sword. The terrible reign of Speaker Pelosi that was forecast during the 2006 campaign has so far been non-apocalyptic. She looked pretty good yesterday. Pelosi limits her media presence and has ironclad message discipline. I don't see her becoming the she-devil forecast in campaign rhetoric unless the power that she so obviously enjoys goes to her head. That will probably happen soon enough. Until then, attacking her will probably be counterproductive.
Comments
"I don't see her becoming the she-devil forecast in campaign rhetoric unless the power that she so obviously enjoys goes to her head. That will probably happen soon enough."
So you are predicting the she-devil scenario. On what grounds? Is it because she obviously enjoys power? Name a politician who doesn't.
I agree that all politicians love power and its exercise. The question is whether Pelosi will continue to use her power with the same discipline she's exhibited so far.
I'm not a Pelosi fan (nor a Reid fan for that matter). I think she rose to power as part of a pretty dysfunctional minority in the House. She has a history of tit-for-tat vindictiveness that reflects her upbringing as a daughter of a machine mayor in Baltimore. Though I don't buy the haterade from the right, I do believe that she's got the ability to let her ego get in the way of her judgment. Remember how she stubbornly supported Murtha over Hoyer as majority leader, including bullying and threatening some members, even when it was clear that Murtha had no chance? If that streak surfaces again, she's in for trouble.
That said, she's been doing a good job so far. Her big challenge will come after the "no brainer" reforms have been passed. If she's able to craft compromises within her majority, and to bring along enough centrist Republicans to pass bills with veto-proof majorities, then she'll go down as a great speaker.
It seems to me that, as with the Republican takeover of '94, it's mostly about symbolism. Nancy is a "San Francisco liberal" and Newt was a bomb thrower. Both represent radical change. Let's hope that Nancy isn't as successful as Newt was. Actually, that's where the similarity ends. She's not the ideologue that he was. I don't think that she intends to bring radical liberalism to the house.
I see the Murtha-Hoyer fight as a plus for Pilosi, in that she showed herself to be both tough and loyal. It was Murtha, after all, who was instrumental in the election success, and besides, Hoyer was going to win anyway. I think that Pilosi is smart, and cold-blooded, and I'm hoping, principaled.
Meanwhile, people like Randy will be able to appear reasonable and bi-partisan up until the override vote on prescriptions, healthcare, taxes and spending, at which time he will have to fish or cut bait.