Richard,

Thanks for your comments and compliments! My responses to your points are below.

I do not think Pelosi is being elected Minority Leader due to the dominance of leftists among Democrats in Congress. From what I hear, her tireless fundraising and campaigning for Democratic House members has earned her enough political chips that she will win a vote for the leadership. (Incidentally, this is how Tom DeLay worked his way into Republican leadership—but that is another story.)

Both parties in the House are represented by a higher proportion of officials who are further from the center than is the case in the Senate. (This is because Senators represent much larger constituencies than Representatives, and therefore, a greater variation of opinions amongst the electorate. For Senators to be elected, they must convince significant numbers of voters within an entire state; for Representatives to be elected, they only need to convince enough voters in a few neighborhoods.)

So, while it is true that House Democratic delegation is further to the left than the average Democratic voter, I agree that Pelosi’s ascension to Minority Leader isn’t due to the left controlling the Democratic delegation in the House. The practical matters you cite, such as fundraising, and the arm-twisting skills Pelosi demonstrated as House Democratic Whip probably had more to do with her ascension than ideology.

The argument I was making in the piece had more to do with the fact that Pelosi becoming the Democratic spokeswoman in the House would leave the impression on the public—at least the portion of it that pays some attention to politics or current events—that the Democrats have moved to the left. The fact is, it doesn’t matter whether the Democratic delegation is far to the left, or the public merely perceives the Democrats to be far to the left; either way, the damage will be done in the voting booth.

The idea to “Bork” Pelosi and make her the symbol of an out-of-touch party, ill-suited to lead in these times is interesting as well. However, this seems unlikely to me because Pelosi is going to be the Minority Leader in a House where 50.1% makes all the difference. In other words, the House, even with Pelosi as Minority Leader, is going to enact the Bush agenda.

If my argument about perception is valid, then I can see any one of three scenarios playing out:

• If Pelosi becomes the spokeswoman and she puts forth her agenda—or if the House Democrats embrace a leftist agenda—too many swing voters will be turned off and Congressional Democrats will suffer massively in the next election with very little effort on the part of Republicans.
• If Pelosi becomes the spokeswoman and publicly presents the Democrats’ agenda (assuming their agenda is sufficiently centrist) but she continues to vote her conscience (which happens to be leftist), then Congressional Democrats will also suffer massively if Republicans are as successful at exploiting the image of Pelosi as Clinton was at exploiting the image of Gingrich.
• The only way the Democrats can win is if adopt centrist positions, if they periodically embrace Republican proposals (the way Clinton did with Republican proposals like Welfare Reform and NAFTA), and if Pelosi “plays defense” by taking much more moderate stances; if all this occurs, Pelosi and the Democrats would be unassailable from the “too liberal” charge. This would keep the Democrats in the game but would not necessarily ensure victory; for that, they’d need a combination of luck and brilliant strategy, both of which they’ve been sorely lacking since President Bush took office.

Someone rooting for Republicans can take solace in the fact that (a) House Democrats are highly unlikely to adopt a centrist agenda that steals from the Republicans, and (b) Pelosi, unlike Clinton, actually believes in things, and therefore isn’t likely to become a moderate overnight just to achieve success. (And for that, she earns my respect.) So, the third scenario—which is the only way Democrats can even hope to succeed in the short-term—also happens to be the least probable.

On the other hand, Daschle could be “Borked” or “Newted”, and it will be interesting to see if the Republicans use the Presidential pulpit to destroy leaders in the opposing party. (Clinton was a master of this, even as he enacted Republican ideas).

I hope President Bush doesn’t resort to trying to “destroy” political opponents the way Clinton did. (Remember that it was the Clinton White House that illegally possessed over 900 FBI files on political opponents—two of whom just happened to resign suddenly and in rapid succession from the position of House Speaker right around the time of impeachment—leaving me to wonder just what kind of dirt the Clinton White House was threatening to use.) Given his performance in the midterm elections, I’m certain that President Bush will campaign for the opponents of people like Daschle...but if he is involved in destroying personal reputations, I will be severely disappointed.

Evan