The Politico, the new Capitol Hill newspaper-cum-website-cum-multimedia-new s-organization, may only be about a month old, but it's already getting into the business of running half-rate hits on the Democratic leadership. Currently, one of the lead news items on the site (and I'd imagine one of the front page stories in the paper edition out in the morning) penned by Daniel W. Reilly and Jim VandeHei proclaims from its headline, "Pelosi Falls Short On Election Promises". Among other things, the article snipes at the new Democratic Speaker for the following:
Taking the second smear first, it is one that I smacked down not even three weeks ago on this site. Republicans have indeed complained that they have not been able to offer up their own alternatives to Democratic legislation and resolutions, a complaint that, on its surface, seems quite fair. But a deeper look at the issue, as I attempted earlier this month, shows that the Democrats one open rule less than a month into the current Congress matched the total number of open rules on non-appropriations legislation allowed by the Republican leadership over the entire course of the previous Congress. What's more, The Hill's Jim Snyder reports in Tuesday's edition that "a measure to update the rules governing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) [...] is expected to come to the floor under an open rule" after having been passed by House Republicans using a closed rule last year. So not only are House Democrats allowing open rules on the same issues upon which Republicans used closed rules just one year ago, they are also on track to double the number of open rules on non-appropriations legislation that the GOP House allowed -- with well over 20 months remaining in the Congress.
The other two attacks mentioned by Reilly and VandeHei in slamming Pelosi -- that the Congress has only had one five-day work week and that she seated Rep. Jefferson on a committee -- are likewise off base. To my knowledge, the Democratic House has already put in more five-day work weeks than the previous Republican House, which tended to put in about a one and a half day work week. And on the issue of "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, Reilly and VandeHei fail to mention that Pelosi stripped the Louisianian of his far more powerful and important position on the House Appropriations Committee during the last Congress, a fact that should certainly bear mentioning in any discussion about decisions about his committee placement (and he indeed needed to be placed on at least some committees, certainly in the absence of an indictment for his alleged improprieties).
And not only are these attacks largely off-base, they also are not resonating with the American public. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll released today shows Speaker Pelosi's approval rating at 50 percent, with 31 percent disapproving. This is a slight decline for Pelosi from last month, when her approval spread was 54-25, but her current numbers are nonetheless significantly better than those currently held by President Bush (36 percent approve, 62 percent disapprove) and even the highest marks ever held by the last well-known Speaker, Newt Gingrich, whose top rating of 41 percent approval with 44 percent disapproval was achieved twice in 1998.
Yet for how important and meaningful these numbers are -- and they indeed are significant, both historically and currently -- measures of Pelosi's wide popularity within the American public are somewhat off topic. The fact is that this highly opinionated piece belongs not in the news section of a paper but rather in the Op-Ed section and, moreover, it might be warranted coming from a Republican member of Congress or a GOP activist but certainly not two reporters who profess to be non-partisan and unbiased.
Update [2007-2-27 1:10:17 by Jonathan Singer]: Of course I might also mention that Pelosi did follow through with her most notable campaign promises: passing the broad "Six for '06" agenda within the first 100 hours of the Congress.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.