Should Pelosi follow Gingrich’s lead and step down?
Newt Gingrich is most often remembered as the architect of the 1994 takeover of the House by a new generation of far more conservative Republicans.
But the next big chapter in his political story came when the GOP suffered humiliating setbacks in the 1998 midterms, very nearly losing their hard-won majority.
Gingrich acknowledged his role in the debacle and agreed to step down, relinquishing his speakership and his seat in the House.
After four years of supremacy in American politics, Gingrich exited the state, saying cryptically, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals.”
Curious rhetoric aside, our current Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, should consider following Gingrich’s example.
Like Gingrich, she presided over a revolution in politics. In fact, she and her lieutenants built a much larger majority than her Republican counterpart ever managed.
In the process, Pelosi helped to rewire North Country politics, contributing to the takeover of NY-20, NY23 and NY-24 by Democrats after decades of Republican control.
Despite that legacy, and despite a long list of legislative accomplishments, Pelosi has never mastered the role of national leader.
Her poll numbers are among the most abysmal in American politics and even many members of her own party question whether she is the appropriate person to shape the Democrats’ message.
Most observers think Speaker Pelosi’s troops are about to suffer a major defeat, losing dozens of seats and possibly their majority.
As the mid-term elections approach, she might bolster her party’s flagging fortunes by announcing that it’s time for her to step back, opening a new debate over who should lead House Democrats.
This strategy worked for Republicans. After Gingrich stepped down, freeing his party of one of its most polarizing figures, the GOP continued to bleed small numbers of seats.
But Democrats weren’t able to seize a majority until 2006.
It’s arguable that Gingrich’s sacrifice extended his party’s dominance of American politics for the better part of decade. Now that’s leadership.
Tags: election10
No. Don’t really care but do think Silver should retire.
Simple answer is NO. Pelosi has been a tremendous and faithful servant of Pres. Obama and she should continue on as Speaker.
Only if she first divorces a cancer-stricken spouse for a new honey, and then divorces him, for a newer honey.
If the Dems should lose control of the House in November, Pelosi may well resign as leader…she certainly isnt going to between now and then.
Different situation entirely then Newt who had to resign over his personal hypocrisy at a time when his party was pontificating about Bill Clinton’s sins.
Brian,
Interesting question. I’d love to see her step down but don’t think it would be a wise political move. I think it would actually contribute to greater D losses, something she’s trying to avoid. It might be considered by some (you) as a principled move but others as a sign of weakness. The chattering class of pundits would describe the resignation as a sign of sure defeat. The effects would be a further demoralizing D voters and encouragement to Rs.
BTW – Brian’s correct about why Newt resigned it wasn’t about his personal failings, however horrible they might have been. It was about his poor leadership of the institution, his party, his over exposure in the media, and his congressional ethics problems.
I’d rather see Reid go. Pelosi has managed her job marvelously. The problem is in the other Chamber.
The WaPo article you use is misleading, Brian. Nowhere in the body of it is there an actual “member of her own party” “questioning whether she’s the appropriate person to shape the Democrats’ message” (whatever that phrase means–I thought her job was to preside over the House). Only once is there an actual “Democratic politician” quoted even criticizing Pelosi, and it’s the guy whose running to defend his seat in George Bush’s old Crawford, Texas, neighborhood, saying in an ad that he can “stand up to Pelosi.” And his critique is pretty banal stuff–“The mistake has been just going too far and too fast, and it’s been more than Americans can digest,” Edwards said in McGregor. “They’re good people from all persuasions, but I think some of the more liberal Democrats in Washington have a hard time understanding the everyday concerns of citizens in more moderate to conservative districts.”
The WaPo story doesn’t deliver what the headline promises, and thus I think your blog post overreaches. Gotta read the fine print of these Beltway Villager political analyses, Brian.
So, Nancy Pelosi is having an affair with her office assistant?
Pelosi and Gingrich are apples and oranges. Newt left because he was involved in a seedy affair, ineffective as House Speaker, and had lost his party following after the government shut-down stunt.
Pelosi is ‘unpopular’ because she has been one of the most EFFECTIVE House Speakers in history… and succesful at sheparding Obama’s initiatives through the House. If the Democrats keep their majority in the House (and I think they will, narrowly), she should continue to lead. Any effective House Speaker will be a target of the other political party – and the more effective, the nastier that attacks. Add a little misogyny and incoate hatred of ‘San Fransisco values’ and you get the low popularity.
Pelosi is a mouth breathing, plant life IQ, certifiable loon who had NOTHING to do with Owens win in NY 23. Doug Hoffman and Dede Scozafava and the Republican committees put Owens in office. She has violated, clearly, the separation of church/state, has made absolutely asinine statements (extended unemployment benefits drive the economy and create jobs!) and must have had some truly impressive dirt on her supporters to get elected. She’s an embarrassment and a fine example of the modern Democrat party.
She can’t be that stupid or crazy, Bret, or she’d never have passed those bills that get you so hopping mad.
Promise enough people enough of what they want, use the dirt you have on the others and you could get Jesse Jackson elected Grand Wizard of the KKK. That’s modern politics friend. You don’t have to be smart, you just have to be good at the game.