While I agree with much of the above, I think there's a good reason why much of the Democratic leadership you've cited probably should stay in place.

One factor left out is the fact that Democrats are part of the reality-based community, and they actually care about governance.  Folks like Waxman, Conyers, Rangel and Miller really know their stuff.  And despite the popular image of Beltway Insider-itis, these old-timers are often (not always) the most immune to it, having seen through it years ago.

I had a brief, but telling experience of this with Miller one time.  It's a while back, but nothing in his recent actions makes me think he's changed.  After the '88 elections, I was, for a time, part of a faction in the California Rainbow Coalition that actually tried to make it a viable, ongoing political organization.  During the primary campaign, I'd participated in putting on a major environmental event for Jackson, with Barry Commoner.

After the election cycle, I got involved as a Rainbow Coalition representative in yet another off-shore oil fight.  Also involved was a representative of the Greens, before they had become a political party here in California.  We were part of a coalition that had a broad composition of local, state and national environmental groups, including folks like the Natural Resources Defense Council.  We had celebrity support from the likes of Ted Danson--Cheers was going like gangbusters then.  We even had the support of Mayor Tom Bradley.

At one press conference, Danson surprised me by addressing two of the points that I was going to make.  This was my first indication that the "establishment" folks were both well-briefed, and not afraid to take some radical (i.e. getting at the roots) approaches.

My second indication came when we had a meeting with George Miller and his staff.  It was primarily a local/state issue, that was going up for an initiative vote, so Miller was not intimately involved, but obviously any new offshore drilling would set a precdent for the rest of the coast, so he was very concerned to help us prevent that movement from gaining any foothold.

Because of the nature of the people in the room, the sorts of backgrounds they had, experience working together, etc., as well as the purpose of the meeting, both I and the Greens representative kept our mouths shut for most of the meeting, waiting to see what might be left out before jumping in to say something.  But, about halfway through, Miller turned to both of us and asked us if we didn't have something (I forget the exact words) a little more imaginative, or challenging to add.

I guess he realized that we weren't there to grandstand, saw we were listening carefully, and figured we must have something to say, so he felt it was up to him to find out, and he wanted to hear what sort of ideas we might have from outside the box of mainstream activism--activism which Danson had already demonstrated was more radical than I had anticipated when I first got involved.

If anything, I think that Miller is probably even more like that today than he was back then.  And Conyers, Rangel and Waxman are much the same.

Now, I agree we need fresh blood, too.  But a party that's devoted to actually solving real-world problems has reason to structure its leadership differently.  If we regain the House, these guys aren't just going to be pushing their own agendas, they are going to be working with younger members to bring their agendas to fruition as well.  And having an old hand look after the nuts and bolks, and keep an eye out for flak out of left field leaves the up-and-comers free to focus much more intensively on the actual content of their legislation.  This is a very different logic from the situation the GOP has, where their primary mission is to pass legislation written for them by industry reps and lobbyists.

Thus, I don't think that our approach should mimic the GOPs.  It should continue to reflect a very different value system.  How we do that, and still empower younger members is something we need to think about more fully.  But trying to emulate the GOP is not what we should be about.

Appearances matter, of course. But, despite appearances, reality matters more.

Pelosi has held the caucus unanimously together on social security and the medicare/medicaid budget cuts.  This provides an unassailable basis for the Dem program alternative. She has very good relations with the Blue Dogs apparently, which takes away a lot of wedge issue threats by the GOP.  An ethics war would be a total distraction and create deep cynicism among voters. I think she is doing great, better than Reid.  

I agree it's an article worth some thought.

Initial reactions, though:

It's fair to say that Congressional leadership is not necessarily (rarely is) a matter of Young Turks up to all sorts of hi-jinks and boasting about it on the shout shows. If many of the ranking House committee members are not very médiatique, I don't think many of their predecessors were either - not in a good way, at least!

Leadership in the party as a whole is a different matter from leadership of Dems in Congress; no party without a sitting president has a single designated leader. The closest it gets is an heir apparent to its next presidential candidate. Clearly, of those leaders in the party with official status, neither Pelosi nor Reid pretends to that role, nor can be blamed for not filling it. Nor Dean, unless he renounces his present role.

Comparing the Congressional Dems of today with the Congressional GOP of 1994, there are two striking differences.

First, the short time that today's Dems have been in the minority. The last general election before 1996's in which the GOP retained control of both houses was in 1928! They'd managed ephemeral control of both twice (80th in 1946, 83rd in 1952), and six years of Senate-only control under Reagan (97th-99th); but that's it.

By 1964, it had seemed that they would never string two victories together in Congress. And, apart from the Ike fluke (he could have gone with the Dems, just conceivably), they'd had no joy in the White House either.

So the conservatives make their move, and the South starts to desolidify.

And it took thirty damned years for Dem incumbents to die off, and the VRA gerrymanders in the 90s, for the House GOP to move ahead in the Confederacy.

Morale: the GOP had to show a mountain more patience than certain Dems seem prepared to show before they got back in the driving seat.

(And, in 1994, the GOP work in the South still wasn't done. They'd only moved from 48-77 to 64-61. They needed more Dem Dixie incumbents to drop out to counter GOP attrition in the North. And the TX gerrymander to give them a margin.

And still they've only got an overall House margin of thirty-odd.)

The other thing: in 1992, the Dem's overall House margin was 82. Which, in today's terms, even allowing for the greater featherbedding of incumbents, is still a hell of a lot more daunting than 30.

The 'Gang of Seven' simply had so much less to lose, they knew their task was collosal, they expected that only radical action would reverse their deficit.

Today's House Dems are completely different. They think that one more heave will see them home. And they read this blog, and find the expert analysis confirms their view.

Unlike Gingrich and Co, they're heavily risk-averse. No one wants to be the one whose adventurous gambit results in the Dems falling short.

(This is discounting Charlie Cook's idea that the Dems would do better not to regain control, to avoid being stuck with any of the blame for Bush's policy toilet.)

My guess: now is too early for Congressional Dems to be happy to be radical. Give it another decade of minority status, and then the risks may seem worth the candle.

Unlike the 1994 House GOP, this places those Congressional Dems in strategic conflict with their active supporters, who face a risk-reward ratio vastly different from that of their elected representatives.

The timidity of Pelosi on the ethics issue is just one sign of this.

Of course, if the GOP implodes, 1974-style, the Dems may be able to have it all without risking anything.

But then, wouldn't that most likely give them a 1946 kind of one-off win, with a (supposedly) house-cleaned GOP springing back in 08?

(On the discipline question, we definitely need some measure of salience.

The key test is whether a GOP bill would have passed without Dem support. The GOP margin is Pelosi's cushion. You need 15 GOP to vote against before Dem help is needed. Mostly, that doesn't happens.

But, on some horror bills, it does.

On the Medicare bill conference report, for instance. Or the energy bill conference report.

(And I can't say I was impressed with discipline on the 'death tax' bill, either, though that would have passed even without the 42 House Dems who supported it.)

I do not think she's capable of beng Speaker, and, even if she is, she presents a very non-charismatic and unlikeable face of the House Democrats.  And I am NOT being anti-woman or anything like that, as I am proudly supporting Hillary in 08.

I have noticed that almost none of the ranking members have changed since the Dems lost power in 1995.  This is frightening and bad for all the reasons you listed above.  We need new and young blood mixed with the experience of the older members if we are going to move the party forward.  We are doing a very bad job in the House of developing a younger crop of leaders.  This speaks very poorly about our leadership in the House.