Liberal Lioness? Pelosi Playing Kennedyesque Role
One interesting thing about the passage of the health care bill that’s gotten overlooked: A key reason Nancy Pelosi was able to get it done was that she played a role on health care that is striking in its similarities to that once played by Ted Kennedy.
Bear with me on this one. Kennedy, of course, was legendary for his ability to bridge liberals and moderates. His liberal credentials enabled him to persuade fellow liberals to swallow difficult votes, because they instinctually believed he’d fought as hard as possible for the most liberal outcome, and would continue to do so.
A similar dynamic has been at play with Pelosi. A key reason the health care bill passed was that she was able to persuade liberals in her caucus to swallow compromises that didn’t sit well with them. She was able to do this for a similar reason Kennedy was able to bridge moderates and liberals in the Senate.
Liberals reluctantly supported the less robust version of the public option precisely because they instinctually believed she’d fought as hard as possible for the robust version — and that she was convinced including the unrobust one was the only way to pass the bill. Similarly, they reluctantly backed the bill even though it contains the Stupak anti-abortion amendment, because they believe in their guts that she’ll fight hard to strip it later.
The point is that the faith liberals have in Pelosi’s commitment to their core principles is what enabled them to swallow compromises with moderates that they’d otherwise have found unacceptable — the same role Kennedy played for Senate liberals. For a bunch of reasons, of course, the historical comparison is far from perfect. But the dynamic is worth noting as another sign of how under-estimated Pelosi has been throughout this process.
******************************************
Update: To be clear, I’m not defending the Stupak amendment or the unrobust public option. I’m just pointing out why Pelosi was able to get liberals to swallow them.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
What can I say? I loves it and I’m so glad she’s getting props instead of spit in the face for a change.
She has worked really hard on this bill and achieved a great thing. She’ll leave a hell of a legacy and history will have a big golden place for Madam Speaker Pelosi.
I totally agree Greg. She has done a great job and said from the very beginning they would pass a bill with a PO.
I also believe that a compromise will come into play somewhere re: Stupak, the Senate isn’t buying and they’ll need 60 votes to add it as an ammendment. This from Boxer.
“It’s bad enough on the first count, but on the second count it seems to me very unfair and very discriminatory,” she said. “I don’t see them picking out anything that a man relies on, any kind of procedure that a man relies on. This is very discriminatory towards women.”
She noted that it was predominantly men who were making these policy decisions.
“In all my years in politics, this is what it’s been like,” Boxer said. “This is the way it is. It always amazes me. The leading voices always, since I’ve been in Congress, have always been males. And that is one of the reasons why I think it is so important to have more women. Not that every woman is pro-choice. It is not true. But most of the women are.”
“And so when I see man after man come down there I just feel, in my heart our of hearts: Why don’t you trust women to make this decision? We are deserving of your trust,” the senator added.”
My question is who do we have in the Senate to take the role of Kennedy, not Dodd, maybe Schumer?
Imsinca =- I know how mad just watching the vid made me. I can just imagine how damn mad the women in the House are, by and large. That was, as Boxer said, so disrespectful. It’s the equivalent of Joe Wilson’s “You lie” because it contains the same kind of contempt for certain class of Americans. Wilson’s contempt is racial. Sessions and the rest showed nothing but the most god-awful comtempt for women.
Grrrrrrrr…
who do we have in the Senate to take the role of Kennedy
No one, at present. I won’t be surprised if the “Kennedy role” switches back & forth among members depending on the subject of any given bill.
Death to all drop downs and rollovers!!!!!! (and death to Ticketmaster, just because they’re evil.)
oddjob, actually we’ve already kind of seen a jockeying of sorts. first rockefeller emerged as public option hero, than Schumer…
Nancy Pelosi had Patrick Kennedy front and center with her in the press op photo.
I like the caption on this at TPM:
House Health Care Bill
Ingraham: Pelosi Did Everything But ‘Sell Her Own Body’ To Pass Health Reform
“My question is who do we have in the Senate to take the role of Kennedy, not Dodd, maybe Schumer?”
My question is why not a woman. McCaskil, Boxer, Feinstein, Murray or Mikulski. There are a lot of great women in the Senate.
“My question is why not a woman. McCaskil, Boxer, Feinstein, Murray or Mikulski. There are a lot of great women in the Senate.”
Thank you for that.
My question is: where is Kennedy’s replacement? Did I miss something while I was shutting down Casa de Nube and coming back here?
where is Kennedy’s replacement?
You mean literally, as in the Massachusetts senator elected to permanently fill that seat, or in spirit?
oddjob – I thought the governor was going to appoint someone in the interim = they changed the law, I thought.
actually we’ve already kind of seen a jockeying of sorts. first rockefeller emerged as public option hero, than Schumer…
Right – on this particular issue, but on education, the repeal of DOMA & DADT, etc., I think others will step forwards.
Pelosi is very effective as leader. That’s why Republicans hate her so much and don’t single out Harry Reid for criticism. Boxer has already said the Sustak amendment will not fly in the Senate and if that holds, the amendment is dead.
oddjob – I thought the governor was going to appoint someone in the interim = they changed the law, I thought.
Correct, and that’s been done. His name is Paul Kirk.
In January he’ll be replaced by whomever wins the special election. At the present time Atty. General Martha Coakley is the front runner in that race as far as I’m aware.
Tena,
AP — The governor of Massachusetts has named former Democratic Party chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. to temporarily fill the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat.
Gov. Deval (deh-VAHL’) Patrick’s announcement Thursday means Kirk will serve in the post until voters pick a replacement in a Jan. 19 special election.
If she wins Martha will not be anything like what Kennedy was. She will hold most or all of the same stances, but she’s nowhere near as flamboyant. She comes across much more as a careful, sedate thinker.
“Correct, and that’s been done. His name is Paul Kirk.”
Ah – thank you! I had missed that and didn’t have clue 1 what was going on there.
Andy – thank you, too.
I just missed all of that, apparently.
Easily done. Once the bill passed through the legislature the selection of Kirk and his swearing in happened very quickly thereafter, and since then he’s been very quiet.
I can dig it, I like this take on things. It also just goes to show you that taking ownership of your role and leading on issues is more likely to win you acclaim than being a back bencher (as Reid seems to insist on doing), for sure it is more risky but when you are given a leadership role your follow election is inevitably a referendum on what the Congress as a whole did under your watch. If Reid can’t pull off the number one issue of 2008 then he can wave goodbye to his seat.
As a woman, Speaker Pelosi has to work twice as hard. She’s also demonized twice as much.
Kennedy never would have allowed a vote on the Stupak anti-abortion amendment.
Kennedy never would have allowed a vote on the Stupak anti-abortion amendment.
Senator Kennedy would have had little control over what the Speaker of the House decided to do. He might have called her, but he couldn’t have forced her hand.
Oh, Kennedy wasn’t Speaker? D’uh!
Kennedy would have exerted considerable influence to – for all practical purposes – insure that the amendment would never have been given a vote. You disagree?
I think that Kennedy and Pelosi in this regard are very dissimilar and I find it almost unbelievable that she allowed this thing to come to the floor for a vote. This was monumental mishandling of the legislative process – Greg is so wrong to be praising her for getting it this far. The bill could have passed without the amendment.
I don’t think Greg was making the point that what Pelosi did was what Kennedy would have done in the same position, I think the point he was making is that there is a similarity in style between them.
We won’t ever see it happen, but if it were possible it might be interesting to observe how a Senator Pelosi in a senior position would function. That would be a truer test.
“I think the point he was making is that there is a similarity in style between them.”
Yes, I think he was trying to make that point – and I think he couldn’t be more wrong. Pelosi’s style, in this case, was to schedule a vote before she had rounded up enough votes, and to thusly be forced to cave to a group to save face while betraying everything she had formerly stood for. I don’t believe that was Kennedy’s style.
Then again we have no way of knowing because Kennedy lost to Byrd when he tried to become Majority Leader.
And that in & of itself indicates someone in the Senate was better at counting votes than Kennedy.
“And that in & of itself indicates someone in the Senate was better at counting votes than Kennedy.”
Oh no – nice try at sleight of hand but a bill and a leadership position are two entirely different things.
We might not agree, but I find very few similarities between the two “styles.”
@ Jesus Maria Alvarez: “As a woman, Speaker Pelosi has to work twice as hard. She’s also demonized twice as much.”
Word and backwards in high heels.
Thank you for that.
“and I find it almost unbelievable that she allowed this thing to come to the floor for a vote. ”
Anyone here who believes that for one second has not been paying attention.
You did not find it unbelievable – don’t even try to sell that. You didn’t unless you are one of the people who has demonized Pelosi as an extreme leftist.
“You did not find it unbelievable – don’t even try to sell that. You didn’t unless you are one of the people who has demonized Pelosi as an extreme leftist.”
I’m not demonizing her – Pelosi has been a champion of reproductive and privacy rights and I did not expect her to allow this amendment to be voted on. I think it was a mistake on her part and unexpected based on previous performance.