November 13, 2006
The Politics Of The Personal
********************AN EXCERPT *************************
Nancy Pelosi surprised political analysts by injecting herself into an intraparty fight over the House leadership position. Despite Steny Hoyer's efforts to win the midterms as Minority Leader, Pelosi endorsed John Murtha to replace him in the majority. Her first effort as Speaker-elect gives a preview of Pelosi's leadership style and the importance of personal relationships over political pragmatism:
**********************************
*******************************
That personal relationship springs from Pelosi's own bid for party leadership, but isn't limited to it. Murtha ran her campaign for Minority Leader, lending her his prestige and his legendary power gained through years of work in the Appropriations committee. That power also gave Pelosi a more substantial remuneration, as Roll Call noted last year (via The Astute Blogger):
Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother's lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee...According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well. KSA directly lobbied Murtha's office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.
In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.
In other words, Pelosi owes Murtha for the boost to family fortunes. She's merely repaying the debt. This should raise eyebrows on both sides of the aisle, especially since Pelosi successfully ran an election by decrying the "culture of corruption" in Republican ranks. The power of earmarks to distort American politics raises its ugly head once more, and voters who somehow thought they elected a cleaner government will understand that they put porkers in charge of the trough once again.
And the shift makes no sense at all, following as it does a successful midterm election. Hoyer provided the leadership for that victory, at least in part, and Murtha probably presented more of a drag than a sail. Pelosi's openness to change in this instance undermines the argument for electing her as Speaker. If pre-election leadership doesn't carry any significance for post-election leadership positions, then why make Pelosi speaker? Why not select someone who represents the centrists that gave Democrats the majority rather than the Bay area liberals that Pelosi represents?
Pelosi should have stayed out of the fray. It may turn into a Pandoa's box that she would have been better advised to leave closed. If she loses, she's damaged goods right from the start.
I believe that SF Mayor Newsome may have some levels of involvement in these cases.
Piglosi at this time is protected by the MSM. Which is why very little of this got out before the election plus the fact that she and her husband have a vineyard/winery which is non union and other non union work sites in other elite places owned by her husband and her.